412

The World’s Largest Wind Turbine Has Been Switched On (www.iflscience.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

75 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The World’s Largest Wind Turbine Has Been Switched On::It’s turbo time.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 118 points 1 year ago

According to the corporation, just one of these turbines should be able to produce enough electricity to power 36,000 households of three people each for one year.

These types of statements always trip me up. Why one year? If it's producing that amount of energy in that same year, shouldn't it just be "...power 36,000 households of three people."?

[-] Dagnet@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago

As an engineer feels like the turbine will only work for a year

[-] LeadSoldier@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Watching global climate change, we may only need this for a year before we all pass.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] anteaters@feddit.de 52 points 1 year ago

Because it does not run at the same capacity 24/7. Sometimes it produces energy for 0 households and sometimes for 50,000. Total production in one year corresponds to the yearly consumption of 36,000 households.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 year ago

So they could just as accurately say "...power 36,000 households" And then fill in anything afterwards. "for 1 year", "for 5 years", "for the life of the turbine". Or just leave it at 36,000 households. The "1 year" is so meaninglessly superfluous it annoys me. I mean, everyone knows they don't produce power 24/365. That fact is always one of the disingenuous anti-renewable energy talking points.

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 year ago

In engineering, it pretty common to calculate things over a 1 year period in order to relate cost calculations to company finances. Most companies calculate their finances annually, so calculating for yearly average energy production makes any comparison easier than other arbitrary periods of time.

[-] anteaters@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago

But it's not superflouos? The number is apparently based on yearly average. Not on 5 year or over the total lifetime. And it does not produce only for 36,000 households but likely for many more. I don't see why thin seems so meaningless to you or annoys you so much.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago

Why would the 5 year average be different than a 1 year average?

[-] anteaters@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

How should I know? Maybe it contains downtime for maintenance or sth? Point is these numbers are based on yearly average so why write about 5 years?

[-] Morphit@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago

How should I know?

Exactly. Why add a time unit if it doesn't communicate anything? It produces a year's worth of energy per year, by definition. They could just quote the average power and be done but they tacked on "per year" for no reason.

[-] Enekk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because most things like this are measured in average power per year and it is useful for comparison. Different technologies produce energy at different rates. Solar, only when the sun is up. How would you compare it to wind which has different rules?

Taken to an extreme, consider some hypothetical new technology that produced 50 Gigawatts of energy, but did it in a second and then took a year to recharge before doing it again. Would it be more useful to say it had a 50 Gigawatt capacity or that it provided 50 Gigawatts of power per year when trying to compare it to other technologies?

Edit: I hope nobody would use my hypothetical technology... Boom!

[-] Morphit@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

50 GW for 1s is 50GJ. If that's the energy delivered in a year then the average power is 1.584 kW. As long as your power plant lasts a few years or more (and you can actually put that energy onto the grid), the average power is a useful quantity to compare against any other power generation. Saying the average is over a period of a year doesn't express anything about the variability of the power; just like saying your power plant could power a single electric heater running continuously, for a year, a decade or whatever period you like.

Power per unit time is kind of nonsense. It expresses an increase or decrease in power. Energy per unit time is power and is how we typically rate things that make or consume energy.

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

They're leaving out an important part of the claim.

I can set up some piezoelectric things in my office chair such that when I sit my fat ass down it generates a small electrical charge. I can say that my ass can generate enough electricity to power a million homes for 10 years, assuming I don't tell you how long it takes to generate that power, which would be on the order of decades, if not centuries, if not longer.

I'd wager someone saw the average energy output for the expected service lifetime of the turbine, then was like, "How much energy does one 3-person household use?" and started playing with Excel until they got a good mix of time and # of households for the press release.

[-] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago

Generally people compare the energy produced within the same period of time. There's no need to add additional context since it's pretty standard to expect that.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

Does make me wonder if they mean an average. Like if the lifespan of the turbine is 50 years or whatever, so instead of saying 720 homes for 50 years they say 36,000 for one year to make it sound more impressive?

[-] Decr@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Going by their estimate of 36.000 households and the Dutch average yearly household usage of 3.500KWh that would be 126.000 MWh per year. One turbine is rated for a continuous output of 16MW which assuming it runs continuously, would give you 16x24x365= 140.160 MWh in a year.

I would assume they actually mean 36.000 households yearly assuming average weather conditions.

[-] hj01bg@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Because using a yearly average is useful to account for fluctuations in power generation due to the change of the seasons. It might produce 50% of its power in 3 months if the fall usually is particularly windy in that part of the world.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] backslashhh@feddit.de 27 points 1 year ago

just one of these turbines should be able to produce enough electricity to power 36,000 households of three people each for one year.

per year? per lifetime? per second?

[-] bingbong@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 year ago

One year per year. And no, they obviously don't understand basic math.

[-] kemsat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I took it to mean that in 1 year it will produce the equivalent amount that 36k 3-person homes would use during that same year.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] LaFinlandia@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 year ago

50,000 square meters (nearly 540,000 square feet)

That's approximately 4 square Walmarts

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Finally, someone posts the American units.

[-] 6xpipe_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

You know, we Americans take a lot of shit for our measurements (anything but metric), but this really does put the numbers into a perspective that the article’s image just can’t convey.

[-] cicadagen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

or 1.2355 square furlongs

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Article is inaccurate:

The behemoth is 152 meters (500 feet) tall, and each single blade is 123 meters (403 feet)

This is impossible, the total height cannot be lower than twice the length of the blades.

I found a better article: https://electrek.co/2023/07/19/16-mw-offshore-wind-turbine/

has a rotor of 260 meters (853 feet)

So it must be more than 260 meters high. Maybe 152 meters is the height of the tower? Generally the height of a turbine is measured as the high point of the wing tips. Which is what for instance air traffic must observe.

[-] r914@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

It is the tower that is 499 feet tall. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-largest-and-most-powerful-wind-turbine-ever-built-is-now-operational

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes I figured as much, and added it to my comment.

It's an impressive turbine, but whether it succeeds commercially remains to be seen.

It beats the Vestas 15 MW turbine, which has been tested for 3 years, and goes into production next year.

PS. The Vestas turbine is 280 meters high.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Imgonnatrythis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Won't somebody please think of the Albatross?!

[-] sundrei@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

Albatross? What flavor is it?

[-] charles@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It's turbo time

You're not part of the turbo team!

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 5 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/tIZujUfBrDM

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023

412 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59623 readers

1687 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS