"Decommissioning" of a Wind Farm 3

[SnTMan]

Interesting video, if you haven't seen it. I haven't found any real info about it. End of life (functional of just economic?) I guess. Anyone seen anything on it?

(Sorry for any ads)

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[GregLocock]

In Germany when windmills stop receiving subsidies at 20 years they are talking about taking them down. I suspect the rules will change.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...s-a-gigawatt-scale-loss-of-onshore-wind-power

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[SnTMan]

More boons to be doggled

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[hokie66]

Wonder how old they were. The demolishers picked a good day to bring them down. None of the windmills were moving.

 

[SnTMan]

i thought I'd seen they were 15 yrs, but can't find it again, if it existed. You'd think you google up something other than the video, but I have not.[pre][/pre]

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[rb1957]

I had a pilot wind turbine project (almost) in my backyard. Came down when the project finished.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[SuperSalad]

I find it so difficult to believe that there is so little worth salvaging from those other than scrap.

The gearboxes and generators alone should be worth a good amount assuming they aren't totally destroyed from use, no?

Andrew H.

http://www.MotoTribology.com

 

[rb1957]

just because they're being taken down, doesn't mean they're being put into a hole in the ground. Everything worth salvaging probably is.

The blades are probably "cactus" ... although it would be really good information to inspect them (maybe a university or something).

I guess the point of the thread is that these things only make sense when they're subsidized. Makes you think ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[MJCronin]

Like any other modern gear-driven electrical machinery, wind turbines require regular maintenance and have a limited lifetime.

... and of course a significant factor is that work must be done hundreds of feet in the air

Complex controls, gearboxes, inverters, cooling and electrical systems do not last forever and become more expensive to maintain as the years go on. I would assume a common lifetime for a machine like this would be 15 to 20 years.

Turbine vendors come out with improved designs. Science and industry marches on..... Bankers and developers sharpen their spreadsheets and the new Biden Government will come up with a new type of wind turbine financial incentive.

All of these factors affect what will be the useful and economically attractive lifetime.

I am aware of at least two huge windfarms where older turbines, only a few years old, were replaced by newer, higher capacity units just a couple of MWe larger. There was massive foundation rework and strengthening.... Why ? ...... Not because the units were at the end of their useful life, but because the spreadsheets and the bankers said that it was an attractive thing to do...

Jut my two cents ....

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[SuperSalad]

just because they're being taken down, doesn't mean they're being put into a hole in the ground. Everything worth salvaging probably is.

Based on how those gearboxes are smashing into the ground, I don't think they are salvaging much more than scrap metal from them. I was trying to say that I was surprised the nacelles weren't worth taking down for salvaging (intact) before demolishing the towers. I would have assumed there'd be valuable parts worth more before being free-felled a couple hundred feet.

The blades makes sense because they've got 15 years of exposure and are likely degraded beyond any use other than possible recycling material. 20 years was the standard promise of lifetime by the mfgs. of the gearboxes, but that was supposed to be before gearboxes needed rebuilding/replacing, not destruction of the entire apparatus. I can't find anything official about the reasoning for the decommission though. 20 years of service for 1 MW units though is pretty much the expectation, right? If they were going to continue operating with new units, I'm guessing they wouldn't bale to use those same foundations for something like a 10 MW unit.

Andrew H.

http://www.MotoTribology.com

 

[1503-44]

The newer direct drive wind turbines dont have huge mechanical gear train transmissions. They make AC at turbine rpm. That is rectified into DC which is then again transformed back into AC at mains frequency. Kind of a VFD in reverse. The advantage is a lighter power train that requires a much smaller nacelle for the wind turbine, less weight and drag. A low-maintenance synchronous generator can be used, which dispenses with the need for power electronics for frequency adjustment, thereby increasing the overall facility efficiency. 3-5MW is common mow with some offshore units apparently pushing 7-8.

 

[dauwerda]

I guess the point of the thread is that these things only make sense when they're subsidized. Makes you think ...

I guess this depends on what your definition of what makes sense is. If you are approaching it from a purely money perspective, cost to generate electricity with wind vs other means (coal, gas, nuclear, etc). Then they make absolutely no sense. I don't think that has ever been questioned.
If your definition focuses on more than money, i.e. cost/impact on the environment, then they do begin to make sense - this of course is highly debated as the full impact on the environment is not clearly defined or known (as far as I know anyway).

 

[1503-44]

It may require thinking outside the box.

 

[SnTMan]

Waaay outside

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[1503-44]

I suppose its relative to the size of the box and its contents.

 

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[1503-44]

Thanks! I pasted it over my cat box.

 

Good luck, it's a cat!

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[dauwerda]

The description of the video states that the owner did salvage "some" of the blades and drive-train elements (before demolition).

The real surprising part (to me) is the statement, "No effort was made to preserve foundations". I am very curious as to why this would be. Was it found to be a poor performing location so it doesn't make sense to reuse the foundations for new towers? Is it because no government incentives would be available if same location/foundations were to be used for new towers?
In other words, is there a good scientific reason not to reuse the foundations (and save huge costs for future installations). Or is it all political due to the way incentives are written that ultimately make these things cost even more than they should?

 

[SuperSalad]

My guess was that the existing foundations would've been too small for modern, much larger, turbines if that was the plan. So new foundations would been needed anyway. That is just a guess though; I have no idea and couldn't find any good answers to that question.

Andrew H.

http://www.MotoTribology.com