You must log in or register to comment.

Tigen13 t1_isut8d6 wrote

As of January 2022, the most powerful wind turbine that has received customer orders that is at least at the prototype stage is the 14 MW GE Haliade-X.

This thing is an absolute unit! 14 Megawatts from one wind turbine. That's amazing. Natural gas power plants put out about 650 Megawatts on average. 46 of these bad boys to replace a Natural gas plant. Maybe 100 just to be sure and store power for down periods.

Looking forward to going green. Wish we were producing these bad boys quicker. Also need more energy storage solutions.


TrollGoo t1_isx3nod wrote

Oh yeah, the world is saved.


Tribunus_Plebis t1_iszdosh wrote

It's gonna be incremental. I also wish the increments where larger and more frequent but if you think solving the climate crisis will be like a Hollywood movie thing you will be disappointed.


FindTheRemnant t1_isuyjiy wrote

Capacity factors for wind power are very low. Ie less than 30%. That turbine won't be making 14MW day in, day out like a gas plant would. And building more wouldn't help since when the wind doesn't blow, it's just does blow. Also grid scale energy storage has not even been successfully demonstrated anywhere in the world.


AnonymousWritings t1_isw7p4d wrote

This is just straight up lies.

Capacity factor average for wind in the US (primarily on shore with smaller turbines) is recently (last 5 years) about 35%. Recent large off shore wind farms, such as the Hornsea 1 project in the UK (largest off shore farm until this year) easily crack 40% (47% lifetime capacity factor for Hornsea 1), and larger turbines are expected to increase this.

Gas plants ALSO don't "make 14MW day in and day out". Actual gas capacity factors can be found here for the US. 55% for combined cycle gas turbines typically used for 'baseload' type operation, and more like 15% for gas turbines that are used as peakers plants. The weighted average capacity factor of gas plants in the US is actually about 36% for 2021, and similar for other recent years.

So yes, on an average basis, 14MW of wind capacity will approximately replace equivalent generation of 14MW of gas capacity.


Warpzit t1_iswbef1 wrote

Thanks for bringing you knowledge to the discussion.


Tribunus_Plebis t1_isyhzr7 wrote

Thanks for the explanation. Now I'm all for wind instead of gas but I have a question here.

Isn't a big downside of wind power that it cannot be planned? I.e. you might not get the power you need when you need it. Is that an issue and if so, how would that be mitigated so we can rely more on wind power?


AnonymousWritings t1_isyjpl8 wrote

You're right, this is often talked about as a power source being 'dispatchable' or not. Gas generator, particularly peaker plants, are dispatchable because you can easily turn them on and off as needed, and quickly ramp up and down.

Wind turbines, on their own, aren't really dispatchable because they depend on wind conditions.

Ways to make wind power into a pseudo-dispatchable source include:

  1. Overbuilding wind turbines. If you overbuild them enough such that you always (or almost always) generate at least the required amount of power, you can just activate / de-activate some of your wind turbines to modulate your power output as needed depending on wind conditions . Conceptually this really isn't that different from having a whole load of gas peaker plants in existence, which only operate on average 15% of the time. On average a lot of 'idle' capacity sitting around with both situations.
  2. Building long distance transmission lines to link up grids with wind turbines that experience different weather conditions. This will work well in conjunction with 1) because it means that a smaller fraction of your wind turbines are expected to be seeing calm weather (and hence low generation) at the same time, meaning that your required over-building factor becomes lower.
  3. Pair wind turbines with energy storage. Batteries, compressed air storage, pumped hydro, possibly hydrogen storage, etc. Wind provides the (uncontrolled variable) power input, storage systems let you modulate when you release it to the grid.
  4. Pair wind power up with other renewable generation (e.g. solar) which typically has favorable weather conditions when wind is low. This reduces the over-build factor required to maintain the needed energy output.


Wind turbines do need to get a bit cheaper for 1) to be realistically viable in large scale, but they are certainly tending in that direction. Locally it kind of already happens in some areas; wind power is routinely curtailed in Scotland because at peak wind times there is more installed capacity than the grid can use, which means a higher fraction of the time where wind can cover the demand (This situation will change if and when more north-south transmission lines are installed to let southern England use more of the Scottish wind power, but still).

All of these increase the cost of renewable electricity over the base cost of wind power itself, but with wind and solar power dropping south of $40 / MWh, and gas power rising north of $100 / MWh, the economics are still quite attractive


Tribunus_Plebis t1_isyp068 wrote

Thanks a lot for that. I suppose it's in the end gonna be a combination of all those factors you mentioned. I don't know why I never considered just over-deploying. Seem like an obvious answer now that you point it out.

By the way, what is your source for the cost figures? I'd like to learn more about what those numbers include.


AnonymousWritings t1_isyv6z3 wrote

Lazard levelized cost of energy analysis a nice place to look at summaries overall of the cost of different energy sources.

For off-shore wind, you can also take a look at recent UK off-shore wind contracts, which are coming in at <40/MWh GBP (37.5GBP which is $42 USD). That's the guaranteed price the wind producers are contracted to sell their electricity at, so the actual pre-profit cost is absolutely lower than that.

Can also see back here discussion of on-shore wind purchase agreements in the US for $20 / MWh in 2019, which was noted as being more expensive than just the natural gas fuel itself per MWh (before this whole Russian gas crisis skyrocketed the prices), without considering actually amortizing the cost of building the gas power plants.

I'll admit though, my 'north of $100 / MWh' number for gas is a bit fluffy. It's true if you look at peaker plants in general (which are expensive because of such low capacity factor meaning ammortized capital costs / MWh generated are high), or if you look at current natural gas prices for gas generation in general, but for pre-crisis CCGT baseload, costs were definitely still well under $100 / MWh.


Global-Date t1_iszgqrs wrote

>>wind power is routinely curtailed in Scotland because at peak wind times there is more installed capacity than the grid can use,

This isn't completely true. If you look at where 'constraint payments' are paid in the UK a lot more go to Scottish farms, and hardly any to the modern offshore farms

Some of this is because the wind farms in Scotland are connected to the grid really badly. Grid infrastructure was not upgraded and so they need to be turned off more regularly. There is rumblings that this was done on purpose as the old old subsidy schemes paid a very high price to wind turbines if they needed to be shut off.

That incentive is gone in the more modern turbines so it pays for companies to ensure solid grid connectivity.


Frubanoid OP t1_isv175k wrote

Grid storage has helped in both Australia with the Tesla battery system and also in California (not sure what company) during recent heatwaves.


Global-Date t1_iszg2x8 wrote

>>And building more wouldn't help since when the wind doesn't blow,

In addition to what others have said, you spread them out. So yes building more does help. So the UK is putting them all round the UK and connecting to European ones. So the wind is always blowing somewhere.


Atom_Blue t1_iswg0r6 wrote

Careful or you’ll banned for misinformation. Mention energy reality and throwing cold water will get you censored.


Global-Date t1_iszgtjn wrote

Except everything he said was pretty much bullshit as anyone who works in the sector can tell you


ThoriatedFlash t1_isv0qv0 wrote

If you want to save the world, first you need to find a way to make it profitable


Frency2 t1_isuwtnn wrote

It's always reassuring that, despite all the human evilness, there will always be good and far sighted people with a functioning common sense.


mrchuckles5 t1_isvw52j wrote

For now, at least until the republicans get control of the house and senate. Then it’s 1950’s energy policy again.


CoCleric t1_isx7nkf wrote

Good, speed it the fuck up more and start buying batteries as well!


rustlemyjimmy t1_isx82bg wrote

Would these be the same companies that run oil and gas or new companies? I see a few oil and gas companies investing in green, but I really don't trust them enough to not some how screws everyone over


yourm2 t1_it12de5 wrote

monopoly. thats how the 1% stays rich.


AutoModerator t1_isul61y wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


xFblthpx t1_isxkp6j wrote

Is that worker taking flight?


riisikas t1_isxs8pc wrote

You need to keep in mind though, that all the mining equipment, logistics, manufacturing and construction of wind and solar power stations runs on said oil and gas and we can think that we just pull the plug on the whole carbon industry and be done with it, but sadly the whole world is fully dependent on it, for a while more at least.


Wscottwhite1721 t1_isvlo3l wrote

Don’t be fooled into thinking solar is so much better I’m watching it destroy the environment here in Texas


far_257 t1_isvmfcn wrote

Because of panel manufacturing or what?


Wscottwhite1721 t1_isvn0ic wrote

No they’re going in and buying up thousands upon thousands of acres of land and covering them in solar panels them fencing them off. Pushing out all the wildlife that was once there. I’ve also heard from people that live by them that it also is raising the temperature close by because they get hot but idk if that is so or not


far_257 t1_isvnk49 wrote

While it is sad that solar panels push out wildlife (just like agriculture and basically anything that uses land).. man something has to be done. I was in Austin two weekends ago and the air was notably nasty.


Wscottwhite1721 t1_isvoaua wrote

There’s other ways to do it. Agriculture does push out some animals but a lot of animals can still live in pasture land such as deer birds rabbits coyotes foxes ect but nothing can live on this land now. Instead giving discounts to big companies to go buy up land and build solar fields for profit it would be better everyone got their own. If the cities used their own buildings to put panels on and we used houses that would do way better. But Austin’s nasty air is from all the cars not power plants. Nuclear power plants is the way to go in my opinion


far_257 t1_isvofk9 wrote

I support nuclear but don't think we can sleep on solar just because of land use.


Wscottwhite1721 t1_isvp1fq wrote

Solar on buildings and houses are good. But solar fields destroying the land defeats the purpose. They don’t create enough electricity to balance out the problem. The reason the money is going towards solar farms and not to the people to put on their house is because no money can be made then.


Frubanoid OP t1_isvt2dq wrote

There are solar farms that are dual use. For example, in Japan, they grow some mushrooms in the shade for food. I've read about other projects that allow farm animals to get shade from the panels too and graze underneath.


Wscottwhite1721 t1_isvtweh wrote

That would be a little better but what I’m seeing done right now here is horrible


TrollGoo t1_isx5ge1 wrote

It’s all bullshit. It’s a new gold rush. 20 years ago the Clinton’s were in the Congo greasing palms and insider trading while deals were being made for cobalt, lithium, etc. not just the Clinton’s.. all of the players.. the modern day Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Ford, and Andrew Carnegie…. This is the real push for solar and wind.
American autos and gas plants are cleaner than they have ever been. The current tech needs to be pushed to foreign countries. The wealthier the people and country the more they care.


TrollGoo t1_isx4qot wrote

It is.. other countries have programs to paint roofs White because of stored heat from dark roofs. This whole green swing is another case of “None of us is a dumb as all of us”. Too many people with zero experience excited about magic.


Wscottwhite1721 t1_isx5iky wrote

I’m curious why I got so many downvotes for simply speaking out about something I see doing damage


TrollGoo t1_isx7b04 wrote

Everyone loves The Emperor's New Clothes" The moral is that it is best to trust oneself and be honest; Speak up for the truth and what is right. Without honesty, people often end up looking very foolish. The world has gone mad and they believe in magic beans. Anyone tries to tell them and they just get mad.


ExampleOpening8033 t1_isyfpwt wrote

You're foolishness is apparently everyone else's honesty, and vice versa reading your comments. Keep in mind that watching your favorite talking head that makes you happy isn't indicative of honesty.


[deleted] t1_iszan5w wrote



ExampleOpening8033 t1_iszbmw2 wrote

Your name is literally Trollgoo bud, not really expecting you to have insight on things that matter lol. Jumping in an uplifting climate change debate with crappy hot takes only confirms that.

I also love reading by firelight and do it frequently, maybe you should try it sometime.


Extra-Process-9394 t1_isx7zdj wrote

Better than the alternative. You are blind to the damage caused by fossil fuels but it has killed millions and millions and driven species extinct by the wagonload. So sorry that your corner of Texas now has a solar farm on it but the alternative is climate catastrophe