West Coast fires and Wind Turbines - HOW WILL THIS POSSIBLY WORK ? 2

[MJCronin]

We have had severe and extensive fires every year in California and the West Coast.... Every year ,,,,

The fires are amplified and spread by dry conditions and high winds in the area.

This is the same Wind Energy that is supposed to be harvested by many, many wind turbines and used to replace our existing steady and dispatchable power plants.

How can this possibly be reconciled ? ..... Fireproof Wind turbines and Fireproof transmission systems ? .... Is that possible ?

Must we promote even more forest/brush removal around wind farms ? ..... Won't the deforestation require massive areas around these massive wind farms ?

What possible real source of renewable power is even possible for California ???

I would like to hear about detailed studies on this issue.... not a bunch of feelings and opinions

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[JoshPlumSE]

How can this possibly be reconciled ? ..... Fireproof Wind turbines and Fireproof transmission systems ? .... Is that possible ?

Must we promote even more forest/brush removal around wind farms ? ..... Won't the deforestation require massive areas around these massive wind farms ?

I don't believe the image you showed was a result of a brush fire. I think it was a mechanical issue or a lightning strike or something. All the wind farms I've seen are in relatively cleared fields. Plus, I believe the base of the turbines (concrete and steel) is much less susceptible to damage than the mechanical parts above.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

What possible real source of renewable power is even possible for California ???

Actually, California is mostly "renewable / green" now. We've paid a lot to make it that way.... Lots of rooftop solar panels, wind farms, hydro power. The breakdown (from 2018) is:

Hydro 11.3%
Nuclear 9.3%
Solar 14%
Wind 7.2%
Geotherm 5.9%
Biomass 3.0%
Small Hydro 2.2%​

Those numbers are from 2018. My guess is that the numbers are better today.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-repo...ta/2020-total-system-electric-generation/2018

That's pretty impressive (IMO), and makes me proud of all the work that's been done to get their. I believe, even the non-green power is actually pretty efficient (natural gas vs coal) in terms of CO2 emissions compared to most fossil fuel energy production.

That's not to say that all states can follow the California model.
a) California has a lot of open desert area that gets a lot of sun. Ideal for the Ivanpah type solar plants.
b) California has a relatively wealthy and "activist" population that can afford to pay extra to put solar panels on their roofs. That combined with plentiful sunlight for most of the year.
c) I actually think California has made some mistakes which put them in a worse position today (in terms of CO2 emissions) than they would have been. In particular, they really worked towards shutting down the San Onofre nuclear power plant for some minor issues. I know it was SCEdison's choice. But, a lot of that was predicated on the increased regulatory burdens put on that plant before the decision.

 

[1503-44]

Trees and wind turbines do not mix. Trees can disturb windstreams for a distance of 40 times their height.

That picture was not caused by wildfire.

 

Wind turbine failure is an entire category on youtube. Quite entertaining!

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

 

[FoxRox]

It's been several years since I worked in the power industry, and I was just maintaining generators at a power plant - not involved in the complex world of electricity buying and such - so take this with a grain of salt. I was told that much of the wind energy we produce here on the great plains is purchased by California. Of course, none of the electrons we pump here actually end up there, but they buy it nonetheless. Is this true, and is this (at least partially) how California claims to have such a green energy mix? I ask sincerely. Not trying to make a point.

 

[1503-44]

Let's say you live in a rented apartment that has no room for you to put solar panels on the roof. So, how can you ever be able to use solar electricity? Go over to your father's house and put solar panels on his roof. He is now able to disconnect from the grid and use solar energy. He no longer needs to buy electricity from a coal burning power plant. You have enabled that to happen and less coal combustion products are going to the atmosphere. Congratulations to your family for that. Your dad will now pay you back making monthly payments and thanks you very much for saving him from the super high electric bills he was paying before you arrived. You have done several good deeds. Does it really matter if the solar panels are on your personal roof, or your father's roof? Even though you still pay your electric bill as usual, you have effectively invested in solar and are receiving monthly benefits from that investment, and so does the atmosphere.

Say you have a diesel engine truck that puts out 5 tons a year of CO2. If you plant 100 trees that take out 10 tons of carbon per year, your CO2 footprint account is then green by 5 tons, even if you drive your truck.

Think like an accountant and you'll get it. If you have two bank accounts, one with a balance of -$100 and the other account has +$1000, how much money do you have?

Oil companies are installing solar power panels at their oil fields so they can use renewable energy to produce nonrenewable energy. If they install a lot of solar panels, they will turn net green.

 

[LionelHutz]

Only the reduction of carbon actions are feasible as examples. If we doubled our energy generation (and consumption) using only green sources you could try to call the planet net green, but it's not.

 

If we doubled our energy generation (and consumption) using only green sources ... the planet will still be a brownfield.

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

 

[LionelHutz]

Brownfield? Seems like the wrong description. I personally believe that'll keep happening with the way we are being pushed to solely focus on spending billionstrillions on CO2 reductions without addressing all the other pollution happening.

 

Exactly what I keep hammering on about LH.
To me it is an open question as to which byproduct of the industrial age will win the race to finish us off.
CO2 is not a poison per se, and humans can do a lot to adapt to warmer temperatures, but it is hard to mitigate the effects of, say, plastics in our bodies, or diesel particulates in our lungs.

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

 

[1503-44]

Wind turbines should help on all those points.

 

[IRstuff]

humans can do a lot to adapt to warmer temperatures

And that will likely cost trillions as well. Our food stocks are heavily dependent on the weather, and shifting the farm belt northward would be a major disruption to the world's economies; imagine having to grow our food stuff in northern Canada, while the farm belt turns to desert.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[1503-44]

I hear that Greenland is not for sale.

 

[LionelHutz]

EVERYTHING is for sale....