LogFAQs > #950809663

Entity13 posted...

Considering how many of Denmark's wind turbines are out in the ocean, and they have far less in the way of issues? I'm sure the math exists, and countries that are not the US have access to said math.

The difference is maintenance I'm positive. The thing is, the ocean is actually just the fucking worst when dealing with in terms of design. The mixture of water, which is way more devastating than you imagine, and salt, which corrodes stupid fast, plus any lifeforms that want to poke around. Ocean windmills are kinda the worst of both worlds, it's hard to get to, and you need to apply maintenance more during it.

According to this random website, they expect them to only last 20 years, and you're looking at between 1.5% and 2% of maintenance of the initial cost, per year. The only reason why it's a good investment is because of the economy of scale that they put into it, you can dabble in solar power pretty easily (that's why we have consumer grade solar panels you can install for your house), and ground wind turbines just require space and someone to drive out to it.
http://xn--drmstrre-64ad.dk/wp-content/wind/miller/windpower%20web/en/tour/econ/oandm.htm

Entity13 posted...

That said, I do recall, but fail to have a resource on hand, that properly made and lubricated turbines can stand temps between -4 and -100 degrees (depending on pressure from air and wind in addition to frequency of maintenance).

Yeah, and I'm sure some chemical engineer found a temporary additive to add to the lube to make it handle things better. I assume that's what they did, because, we don't hear about the gears gumming up at all. Chemical additives can do some wild things.

Entity13 posted...

A year-round system? Sure. But precautionary packets in readily accessible storage--think boxes of Christmas lights and decorations in a garage, but orderly due to regulations--to set up whenever the signs are pointing to time to put up such measures? Come on. That is always something to prepare for, even if you don't think you need it 97% of the time.

The precaution is to shut it down temporarily. That's what they did. They need to be safely de-iced, and you can't safely run them while they have ice on them.

The logic I'm struggling with is "well just by the more expensive ones 4head", when that isn't always the best solution. I can't find a price difference in them, but, I imagine it's pretty significant. To heat it up, you need to have wiring along the outer edge of the wings, and then pump a bunch of energy in it. Wind turbines are much larger than people expect, so the entire surface area being wired up isn't something to scoff at. If you expect to do that every month, or so, in the winter, that's a totally reasonable precaution to buy. If you expect to use it once every 20 years? Well, that's not immediately clear, and I think it's reasonable to say that that additional element isn't needed.

Entity13 posted...

Back to this, well, Texas is only so warm or hot most of the time, and yet it does have its bursts of cold, its occasional snow. Proper equipment and measures exist, with all of the math and procedures tied to them after so many years of colder regions testing them, so the answer should have been to invest in those packets and maintain them, because chances are that such cost would have been lower than what Texas now faces in trying to help its own people.

There are a billion better ways of going about this, yeah.