Wind power: for or against the wind?

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Remundo » 23/12/17, 12:49

I would see a cross structure, with IPN for example, and masses placed as far as possible from the foot.

the mass is not useful to the foot. In short, their schema is clearly incomplete. The concept is probably not bad anyway: the telescopic mast, for example, is very good, we can assemble the blades lower, then deploy them very high.
0 x
Image
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by moinsdewatt » 23/12/17, 13:23

Remundo wrote:I'm a bit skeptical about sitting on the bottom of the water ... it can not hold that not gravity, it takes anchoring ... unless they pour concrete around?


The concrete "tank" is little weighted 1000 or 2000 tons of pebbles at the bottom?

Image

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/06/22 ... ompletion/
1 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by moinsdewatt » 29/12/17, 19:34

moinsdewatt wrote:
moinsdewatt wrote:
moinsdewatt wrote:
I had not seen the day of 27 February!

New wind record at 9.132 GW on Sunday 27 February 2017 at 13h30

and as a bonus 2.541 GW solar PV


New wind record at 9.416 GW on Thursday 23 November 2017 at 04h30



moinsdewatt wrote:New wind record at 9.507 GW on Thursday 14 December 2017 at 0h45


New wind record at 9.613 GW on Friday 29 December 2017 at 17h45

http://www.rte-france.com/fr/eco2mix/ec ... nergetique

Image
1 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by moinsdewatt » 30/12/17, 14:34

moinsdewatt wrote:
moinsdewatt wrote:
moinsdewatt wrote:
I had not seen the day of 27 February!

New wind record at 9.132 GW on Sunday 27 February 2017 at 13h30

and as a bonus 2.541 GW solar PV


New wind record at 9.416 GW on Thursday 23 November 2017 at 04h30



moinsdewatt wrote:
New wind record at 9.507 GW on Thursday 14 December 2017 at 0h45

moinsdewatt wrote:
New wind record at 9.613 GW on Friday 29 December 2017 at 17h45


New Wind Record Sprayed at 10.313 GW on Saturday 30 December 2017 at 12h45

http://www.rte-france.com/fr/eco2mix/ec ... nergetique

Image
1 x
User avatar
Adrien (ex-nico239)
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9845
Registration: 31/05/17, 15:43
Location: 04
x 2150

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Adrien (ex-nico239) » 30/12/17, 14:47

Well ... I'm not a specialist at all, but it's starting to count ...
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by sicetaitsimple » 30/12/17, 15:13

moinsdewatt wrote:
New Wind Record Sprayed at 10.313 GW on Saturday 30 December 2017 at 12h45



Yes, and for Lilian07, nuclear follows: It was at 52358MW at 0h00, and it is at 47619 at 14h45.

Moreover, Blayais 4, redidivist, who was at 876MW at 11hh00, is around 300MW since 13h00 ......
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Remundo » 31/12/17, 23:10

Nuclear power is a production mostly in baseit does not move more than 10% on the day. Typically, nuclear drives its 50 GW continuously. The "load monitoring", even if it is partially possible with nuclear power (we see in particular a strengthening of the nuclear part between 9h and 12h), is preferably done with hydraulics (the overall power bump copies the bump of the hydraulics) and the thermal flame which is in the thickness of the line to complete the balance of the network.

If some are not convinced, just watch the RTE production chart any day, it happens again ...
http://www.rte-france.com/fr/eco2mix/ec ... nergetique

Excessive power variations in nuclear reactors pose Xenon poisoning problems and the thermal power is not easy to vary without undesirable consequences. All the opposite of thermal flame or large hydraulics.
0 x
Image
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Bardal » 01/01/18, 04:33

Remundo wrote:Nuclear power is a production mostly in baseit does not move more than 10% on the day. Typically, nuclear drives its 50 GW continuously. The "load monitoring", even if it is partially possible with nuclear power (we see in particular a strengthening of the nuclear part between 9h and 12h), is preferably done with hydraulics (the overall power bump copies the bump of the hydraulics) and the thermal flame which is in the thickness of the line to complete the balance of the network.

If some are not convinced, just watch the RTE production chart any day, it happens again ...
http://www.rte-france.com/fr/eco2mix/ec ... nergetique

Excessive power variations in nuclear reactors pose Xenon poisoning problems and the thermal power is not easy to vary without undesirable consequences. All the opposite of thermal flame or large hydraulics.


It is impressive this ability to deny the obvious ... sicetaitsimple brings several examples, very precise and drawn from the public data of RTE, flexibility of the nuclear power stations, and you explain to us that it is false !!! But where does this certainty, this belief come from? What are your sources?

I refer you to this link OECD, synthetic enough and going around the question: https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/ ... e-29-2.pdf . But I'm not sure that will be enough (there is nothing worse than an irrational belief).

What is obvious, however, is that economically, a nuclear power plant has every interest in operating at its maximum, the cost of fuel weighing very little in the cost of operation. This is why we use nuclear generation preferentially to cover most of the needs.
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by Remundo » 01/01/18, 11:30

how are the 2 nucleuses of service? Do you know how to read a graph or not? TEN data, calculate me the rate of change of the nuke on a day!

Otherwise you can pull 400 ch from an 1L engine and make nice engineering documents stamped by a multinational ... but you will have short term problems on your little toy.
0 x
Image
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Wind: for or against the wind?




by sicetaitsimple » 01/01/18, 12:33

Remundo wrote:Do you know how to read a graph or not? TEN data, calculate me the rate of change of the nuke on a day!



Happy New Year everyone!

So a calculation? Well, I'm taking today:

to 0h00 41051MW, to 5h00 33742MW.

41051 / 33742, that's 1,22, right? 22%. And 18% if you take the ratio in the opposite direction.

Well, down is more fastoche. We'll see what happens next morning with the resumption of activity, it can be instructive.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Google Adsense [Bot] and 279 guests