It wont be reducing shit before 33 years of operation. You do understand what break even means, right? I mean, I know its youtube, but you cant be that stupid, right?
Why are people still using this coal energy you despise? Because they hate nature? No. It's because it costs less than more environmentally friendly options. When wind turbines are built to larger and larger scales it is to improve efficiency in terms of $/Watt. The fact that the final $/Watt figure for this machine is not mentioned is a red flag. Was it a failure? It would be like Toyota designing the Prius and never mentioning the gas mileage. If the $/Watt is not better than existing wind turbines nobody will buy it, and it won't save anything. But yes, please go on about how the cost to build and power output do not matter.
Ah yes, the ad hominem attack, the debate technique of the truly desperate. Since you seem to know so much about this topic, why don't you contact Mid-American Energy and tell them what a waste of time it is putting these turbines up?
Interesting Question. I don't know the answer. However here is an interesting "side" answer: Assuming 25% efficiency for a wind turbine (produces electricity 6 hours a day and is idle 18 hours a day), it produces 4600 MWh (million watt hours) of energy. The average household in the United states consumes 10.9 MWh per year (www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3). So, one wind turbine can provide the electricity for 420 households for a year. Not bad, considering that it does not burn anything to operate.
Those are some nice stats. It does seem to take a significant amount of fossil fuels to build though. That is why I am curious as to when there is a net gain in energy. Just to be clear, I'm not a wind energy hater. I'm actually a fan of wind energy. (stupid pun intended)
No doubt. It does take quite a bit of energy to create a wind turbine structure. HOWEVER, we must remember that all energy generators (such as coal plants, gas energy plants, etc.) also require the construction of very large facilities and equipment, which of course are also very energy demanding to construct. The difference in the latter case, is that they continue to burn fossil fuels in their entire life. Nevertheless, your question is an interesting one to consider.
The maximum height of the tower is limited by the diameter of the base. The maximum diameter of the base is limited to what will fit under interstate bridges. Cast in place concrete allows for a greater diameter base which equals a higher tower. Higher = more wind.
The Vestas V164 is totalling 220 meters with a radii of 82 meters. and has the capacity of 8MW. wouldnt it be needless to race against steel that has these properties. Instead of finding alternative logistic or productional methods?
The Vestas V164 is an offshore wind turbine, so for now, you won't see it deployed in onshore sites. Doug mentioned bridge heights... usually there are ways around low bridges, but... it is a transport issue. As wind turbine towers get taller, bases get larger. Transport costs (transport, guide services, permitting, etc...) go up with over-sized loads. So to "manufacture" a tower at site could result in lower costs, especially on taller towers.
Concrete is much cheaper than steel for the amount of strength it provides and works well in compression, whereas with steel design you need to be careful with compression members, as they are thin and easier to buckle. The tower mostly has compression forces and the tendons are adequate to provide for the tension forces that will be on it, so for these two reasons concrete is a good idea. And, as others have said, if you build it on site you can have a larger base than a prefab steel tower.
how are they securing the concrete sections together?? they don't seem to be using bolts like they would be if they were using the steel sections, bolted down sections seem much safer to me especially since iowa just like Illinois and nebraska is in tornado alley. we get a lot of wind here in the Midwest
Why are there so many vertical base restraint cracks in the site precast concrete tower segments? Also, with 554 CY of pumped concrete in the base, why was there no thermal control?
I'm guessing the base is as large as it is to provide ballast/resisting moment to the tower, so it doesn't need to be terribly strong. It could be that they monitored the temperature even if they didn't control it, as well. Not sure about your other question though.
Thanks for the video! Fascinating stuff. How much did the tower cost once completed? What's the expected service life? How's the tower holding up 5 years later?
I don't see how the concrete segments are joined together. How does this make concrete towers stronger than steel? The idea is definitely right though, getting the nacelle as high as possible really helps increase the capacity factor of the turbine. that makes the extra expense of a taller tower well worth the money in the long run. If the concrete towers last longer, that will help with the fact, that concrete isn't nearly as recyclable as steel. That means a "repower" means replacement of the nacelle and blades.
What is the payback of a concrete tower wind turbine? How much extra height is achieved this way? Extra MW? Seems like a lot of extra hours spent in construction. I wish the video had provided additional information
Tally all the concrete, look up tables on tons of CO2 per ton concrete. Just that alone would be paying a carbon tax and the committee set up will figure how to spend it.
This is really cool. I'm looking forward to seeing what the life cycle analysis finds for the carbon impact per kWh of energy produced compared to the steel turbines and natural gas turbines.
i'm sure a VAWT would require less concrete and less structural engineering to keep it stable. VAWTs turn even in low wind and can be designed to have a maximum speed because the blades become self braking over a certain airspeed.
Could be, but "self-braking" and "most efficient" don't go together. It would be interesting to do a life cycle analysis of similarly powered VAWT and HAWTs with concrete towers though.
VAWTs have design limitations that engineering can't overcome... yet. Also, go online an look at the huge footprint the 3.9MW VAWT north of Quebec makes.
For sure - they're supposed to be building these things to prevent CO2 emissions, and then build something that emits a tremendous amount of CO2. (Oh yeah, I forgot. CO2 emissions from "green" energy aren't counted - don't ask me where they think they go.)
John Benton Lifetime of a wind turbine isn't anywhere near as long as a coal-fired power plant. Somewhere around 20 years. I doubt they could re-use the tower for another turbine if something happened to this one.
Nor quite as costly. Have you considered the total costs? Power stations, no matter how they are fired, must be decommissioned at the end of their life. Decommissioning is a very messy, drawn-out, expensive procedure.
John Benton For the lifetime and output, it's no doubt more economical than dealing with hundreds of thousands of wind turbines. Cases in point: Tehachapi Gorge and Kamaoa. When it comes time to take out these eyesores, what do you want to bet it ain't gonna happen?
You're not really making a case for green energy with THAT much concrete. If anything you're hurting the cause by how much pollution it would have taken to construct that monstrosity. And forget about recycling...
@@fudhater8592 I didn't say that. Just that you can't scream green when you're creating a hell of a lot of pollution to get there, rather than using much cleaner resources to do the exact same thing.
@@fudhater8592 With all that concrete, not a million. Far and away better though, yes. I just wish they were a little more green in their construction methods so it doesn't take so long to offset the emissions just to build them.
Hey Mid American, if you are so concerned about renewable energy why don't you stop pushing your Sunshine Tax bill in the Iowa legislature? It punishes small scale solar operations by making them pay extra fees simply for helping offset energy needs at peak times.
But from large wind turbines over 1mw has no one here, except the rich. The electricity price has been increased by 300% in wind power and wind energy in Germany, so some people can not afford an electric current anymore
Der Daniel I'm sure that's not true, knowing Germany, you guys will make a policy that will actually work and lower bills. In the US, we leave it to the private sector to fix and we get fucked
That's not quite true. The reason you see turbines in those markets, is to help curtail the run-away cost of electricity. In those markets, the return on investment is very quick on wind turbines, making that an attractive market. Electricity isn't expensive because the turbines are there, but rather, the turbines are there, because electricity is expensive! Investing in renewable energy makes sense, to take advantage of free energy, being delivered for free. The only questions are a matter of the cost of the land leased for wind farms, since they require many more acres per megawatt of installed capacity, than conventional power plants. You have to compare land lease costs, with the cost of fossil fuel to fire a much smaller plant, but with the continuous cost of fuel.
THERE MUST BE TREES BETWEEN THEM... if we don't plant trees on the uninhabitable soils we will wither with the planet,then the rich will eat their money paper and concrete.!!
So many details... except the ones that matter like cost to build and power output.
Power output is listed, 2.415 Megawatts
Um, no, that's not the entire point. This type of energy reduces coal sludge, mine cave-ins, pollution in the air, would you like me to go on?
It wont be reducing shit before 33 years of operation. You do understand what break even means, right? I mean, I know its youtube, but you cant be that stupid, right?
Why are people still using this coal energy you despise? Because they hate nature? No. It's because it costs less than more environmentally friendly options. When wind turbines are built to larger and larger scales it is to improve efficiency in terms of $/Watt. The fact that the final $/Watt figure for this machine is not mentioned is a red flag. Was it a failure? It would be like Toyota designing the Prius and never mentioning the gas mileage.
If the $/Watt is not better than existing wind turbines nobody will buy it, and it won't save anything. But yes, please go on about how the cost to build and power output do not matter.
Ah yes, the ad hominem attack, the debate technique of the truly desperate. Since you seem to know so much about this topic, why don't you contact Mid-American Energy and tell them what a waste of time it is putting these turbines up?
How long does it take for the turbine to make enough energy to account for the energy used to make it?
+RickMakes About the same as Ethanol..........
Interesting Question. I don't know the answer. However here is an interesting "side" answer: Assuming 25% efficiency for a wind turbine (produces electricity 6 hours a day and is idle 18 hours a day), it produces 4600 MWh (million watt hours) of energy. The average household in the United states consumes 10.9 MWh per year (www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3). So, one wind turbine can provide the electricity for 420 households for a year. Not bad, considering that it does not burn anything to operate.
Those are some nice stats. It does seem to take a significant amount of fossil fuels to build though. That is why I am curious as to when there is a net gain in energy. Just to be clear, I'm not a wind energy hater. I'm actually a fan of wind energy. (stupid pun intended)
No doubt. It does take quite a bit of energy to create a wind turbine structure. HOWEVER, we must remember that all energy generators (such as coal plants, gas energy plants, etc.) also require the construction of very large facilities and equipment, which of course are also very energy demanding to construct. The difference in the latter case, is that they continue to burn fossil fuels in their entire life. Nevertheless, your question is an interesting one to consider.
Might as well as the same question about a coal plant...
Im so pround of participate on this project as a rodbuster
im wonder how they can make strong connection between concrete segment?
What would be the advantage of making a concrete tower to making it in steel?
The maximum height of the tower is limited by the diameter of the base. The maximum diameter of the base is limited to what will fit under interstate bridges. Cast in place concrete allows for a greater diameter base which equals a higher tower. Higher = more wind.
The Vestas V164 is totalling 220 meters with a radii of 82 meters. and has the capacity of 8MW. wouldnt it be needless to race against steel that has these properties. Instead of finding alternative logistic or productional methods?
The Vestas V164 is an offshore wind turbine, so for now, you won't see it deployed in onshore sites. Doug mentioned bridge heights... usually there are ways around low bridges, but... it is a transport issue. As wind turbine towers get taller, bases get larger. Transport costs (transport, guide services, permitting, etc...) go up with over-sized loads. So to "manufacture" a tower at site could result in lower costs, especially on taller towers.
Concrete is much cheaper than steel for the amount of strength it provides and works well in compression, whereas with steel design you need to be careful with compression members, as they are thin and easier to buckle. The tower mostly has compression forces and the tendons are adequate to provide for the tension forces that will be on it, so for these two reasons concrete is a good idea. And, as others have said, if you build it on site you can have a larger base than a prefab steel tower.
none that is the reason why everything is build out of steel which also a lot easier to recycle
This is super cool! I'm Happy that this is taking place in Iowa!
+
@@kimberlydrennon4982❤❤❤❤❤
What’s the embodied carbon energy comaparison to steel towers? What’s the life of such a tower? Cool video.
how are they securing the concrete sections together?? they don't seem to be using bolts like they would be if they were using the steel sections, bolted down sections seem much safer to me especially since iowa just like Illinois and nebraska is in tornado alley. we get a lot of wind here in the Midwest
That's what the tension tendons were for. They provide a constant clamping action internally that still allows flexural sway in winds.
Why are there so many vertical base restraint cracks in the site precast concrete tower segments? Also, with 554 CY of pumped concrete in the base, why was there no thermal control?
I'm guessing the base is as large as it is to provide ballast/resisting moment to the tower, so it doesn't need to be terribly strong. It could be that they monitored the temperature even if they didn't control it, as well. Not sure about your other question though.
what power of this one ?
Why were not slip or climbing forms used, rather than cast in place?
This is precast and post-tensionned, not cast in place
Match-Cast Precast.....
Great Job ✌
Thanks for the video! Fascinating stuff. How much did the tower cost once completed? What's the expected service life? How's the tower holding up 5 years later?
I don't see how the concrete segments are joined together. How does this make concrete towers stronger than steel? The idea is definitely right though, getting the nacelle as high as possible really helps increase the capacity factor of the turbine. that makes the extra expense of a taller tower well worth the money in the long run. If the concrete towers last longer, that will help with the fact, that concrete isn't nearly as recyclable as steel. That means a "repower" means replacement of the nacelle and blades.
Not the engineer, but it looks to me that the concrete segments are held together with post-tensioned cables.
What is the payback of a concrete tower wind turbine? How much extra height is achieved this way? Extra MW? Seems like a lot of extra hours spent in construction. I wish the video had provided additional information
Tally all the concrete, look up tables on tons of CO2 per ton concrete. Just that alone would be paying a carbon tax and the committee set up will figure how to spend it.
That's an awesome vid, thanks for sharing! :D
Pushing this comment up.
Hello. Can I get the address of the company that manufactures air fans with clean energy. Thanks.
How much m3 per tower and concrete classes?
This is really cool. I'm looking forward to seeing what the life cycle analysis finds for the carbon impact per kWh of energy produced compared to the steel turbines and natural gas turbines.
i'm sure a VAWT would require less concrete and less structural engineering to keep it stable. VAWTs turn even in low wind and can be designed to have a maximum speed because the blades become self braking over a certain airspeed.
Could be, but "self-braking" and "most efficient" don't go together. It would be interesting to do a life cycle analysis of similarly powered VAWT and HAWTs with concrete towers though.
VAWTs have design limitations that engineering can't overcome... yet. Also, go online an look at the huge footprint the 3.9MW VAWT north of Quebec makes.
Soundtrack source please :)
in germany have we towers with 524feet :-)
What are the towers MADE from? Steel? Fiberglass? Or, concrete?
Do you think you're cool for that?
The modern german steel plate towers are much higher and energy efficient.
Gede banget itu pembangkit listrik tenaga angin nya
These are the type of jobs America needs more of. Coal will not and is not coming back.
+
How is the Land acquired to put a turbine on? Imminent domain?
Very good job ❤️
Concrete is not exactly the most environment-friendly of products.
For sure - they're supposed to be building these things to prevent CO2 emissions, and then build something that emits a tremendous amount of CO2. (Oh yeah, I forgot. CO2 emissions from "green" energy aren't counted - don't ask me where they think they go.)
It's all a matter of how long they're there.
John Benton
Lifetime of a wind turbine isn't anywhere near as long as a coal-fired power plant. Somewhere around 20 years. I doubt they could re-use the tower for another turbine if something happened to this one.
Nor quite as costly. Have you considered the total costs? Power stations, no matter how they are fired, must be decommissioned at the end of their life. Decommissioning is a very messy, drawn-out, expensive procedure.
John Benton
For the lifetime and output, it's no doubt more economical than dealing with hundreds of thousands of wind turbines. Cases in point: Tehachapi Gorge and Kamaoa. When it comes time to take out these eyesores, what do you want to bet it ain't gonna happen?
Обалденно/Awesome просто круто, рад за ребят.
Check out Palm Springs windmill tours
You're not really making a case for green energy with THAT much concrete. If anything you're hurting the cause by how much pollution it would have taken to construct that monstrosity. And forget about recycling...
And there's zero pollution created when building coal-fired plants?
@@fudhater8592 I didn't say that. Just that you can't scream green when you're creating a hell of a lot of pollution to get there, rather than using much cleaner resources to do the exact same thing.
@@hellcat1988Who's "screaming green"? You would agree this is a million times preferable to a coal-fired plant, yes?
@@fudhater8592 With all that concrete, not a million. Far and away better though, yes. I just wish they were a little more green in their construction methods so it doesn't take so long to offset the emissions just to build them.
@@hellcat1988 steel is also a lot easier to recycle
10 tahun berputar turbin angin, boleh baleh modal.
Hey Mid American, if you are so concerned about renewable energy why don't you stop pushing your Sunshine Tax bill in the Iowa legislature? It punishes small scale solar operations by making them pay extra fees simply for helping offset energy needs at peak times.
But from large wind turbines over 1mw has no one here, except the rich. The
electricity price has been increased by 300% in wind power and wind
energy in Germany, so some people can not afford an electric current
anymore
Der Daniel I'm sure that's not true, knowing Germany, you guys will make a policy that will actually work and lower bills. In the US, we leave it to the private sector to fix and we get fucked
@@thatamerican550 he is talking bullshit.
That's not quite true. The reason you see turbines in those markets, is to help curtail the run-away cost of electricity. In those markets, the return on investment is very quick on wind turbines, making that an attractive market. Electricity isn't expensive because the turbines are there, but rather, the turbines are there, because electricity is expensive! Investing in renewable energy makes sense, to take advantage of free energy, being delivered for free. The only questions are a matter of the cost of the land leased for wind farms, since they require many more acres per megawatt of installed capacity, than conventional power plants. You have to compare land lease costs, with the cost of fossil fuel to fire a much smaller plant, but with the continuous cost of fuel.
THERE MUST BE TREES BETWEEN THEM...
if we don't plant trees on the uninhabitable soils we will wither with the planet,then the rich will eat their money paper and concrete.!!
I know more about diy from Avasva handbooks!
JUMP!
You can find best solutions on Avasva website.
uggyfggyg
M
Pg233567
What no name 🤦