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

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.”?

    • anteaters@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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.

            • anteaters@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Then how about “every year”, or “produces an annual average equivalent to”

    • Chris Ely@fosstodon.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      One eVinci micro reactor is enough for 5,000 homes a year and doesn’t depend on weather.

      So, instead of manufacturing each of these giant blades that might last 20 years, we should instead be manufacturing three microreactors that are much smaller and easier to transport.

      @sin_free_for_00_days
      @L4s