Leland Teschler's Editorial: How Much Power Does It Take to Run a Wind Turbine?
Appears in Print As: Leland Teschler's Editorial: How Much Power Does It Take to Run a Wind Turbine?
Jerry Graf is a concerned citizen who happens to have a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering. He recently read an item in his local paper about a school district that contemplated investing over a quarter million dollars in roof-top wind turbines. “There was a quote from someone in charge of school facilities that indicated they had no idea how much electricity the turbines would actually generate. As I got further into the details myself, I realized the turbines would actually produce next to nothing,” he says.
The incident got Graf interested in analyzing other wind installations. He uses the turbine maker’s published power curve to figure out what the electrical output is likely to be. The power curve is just the turbine’s electrical output plotted against wind speed. But these curves are just estimates. They don’t account for one factor that can be important, particularly for megawatt-scale turbines: the amount of electrical power the turbine itself consumes.
Big turbines often incorporate rechargeable batteries or ultracapacitors to power their own electrical systems. When those get depleted, the power must come from the grid. This power goes into running equipment such as yaw mechanisms that keep the blades turned into the wind; blade-pitch controls that meter the spinning rotor; aircraft lights and data-collection electronics; oil heaters, pumps, and coolers for the multi-ton gearbox; and hydraulic brakes for locking blades down in high winds.
Turbines in northern climes also need blade heaters to prevent icing. Reports I’ve seen say these heaters can consume up to 20% of a turbine’s rated power output. Many big turbines also need dehumidifiers and heaters in their nacelles. And until recently, large turbines employed doubly-fed induction generators that bleed power from the grid to create their magnetic fields. (It should be said, though, that designs now on the drawing boards use permanent magnets instead.)
Instances of low or no wind pose another problem. Large turbines may need to use their generators as motors to help get the blades turning. And some wind skeptics have posed a question about the direct-drive turbines now emerging from the labs: Large ships frequently must expend energy to slowly turn their heavy driveshafts when at port to prevent them from sagging. Could the same be said of these superlarge wind turbines?
Wind-farm operators don’t say much about turbine-power demands. Typically, turbine-power consumption is one of the factors that gets lumped into a wind-farm’s operation and maintenance costs. I’ve never found either a wind-farm operator or a wind-turbine maker willing to discuss these costs. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say the wind industry treats such information as a state secret.
That’s unfortunate. Wind boosters open themselves up to skepticism about their industry’s viability when they don’t disclose real figures about the power their turbines generate and consume. Cynics might be tempted to claim we could reach a point where we’ve commissioned so many wind turbines that we’ll need to build new coal-fired po
wer plants to run them. Without hard data, who’s to say they aren’t right?
— Leland Teschler, Editor
Engineers have answered more than 500,000 questions in eight categories of the WORLD’S SMARTEST DESIGN ENGINEER CHALLENGE. Our energy section gets a lot of action and although there are a few questions that have you stumped, energy is HOT. How are you doing?? www.smartestdesignengineer.com!
© 2012 Penton Media Inc.

Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Comments
wind turbine power consumption
It is fair enough to take into account the power needs of wind turbines, normally that is included in the output tables and must be considered as the turbine suppliers have to guarantee the power production of their turbines at specific wind speeds, - this is a legal actionable item if not correct. It is also a part of the energy consumed by the manufacturing, transport, installation and dismantling, energy budget/repay time calculated for the turbine, - app. 3 months I believe, (notice dismantling is not part of the Nuclear power station discussion, - I wonder why) I note that the originator of this discussion, L Teschler, is not aware that permanent magnet wind turbines have been around for decades and even in the large machines several makes are now flying, - it is just that the old conservative companies have the lions share of the market that makes it seem as though that technology is still on the drawing boards, - yes it is still on someone's drawing board, others have implemented it. However, it needs to be taken into account that that main draw, powering the field of the turbine generator, is only when the wind is strong, so is easily met by the turbine itself, and at the end of the day, it is the net output of the turbine that is measured, and paid for, not the gross, as all consumption by the wind turbine is measured at the grid connection point, as is all output. Power companies only pay for what they get, net, they are in business and not stupid, it is in my opinion picayune and a beat-up driven by another agenda (it wouldn't be global warming denial would it? no, never...) to carp about these figures for large turbines, Roof top turbines are a different story, full of hype and rarely successful due to the low windspeeds usually available. Shining the light of information on wind turbines is good, but particularly roof top ones because they are really the only suss ones. Cheers, Geoff Thomas, Advanced Wind Technologies, Australia.
CO2 comparisons
960 grams of carbon dioxide from coal and 66 grams from nuclear? Hey, nuclear power isn't such a bad deal!
Chris P says that offshore wind turbines produce 32 grams, and solar cells just 10 grams CO2 per kilowatt hour. My concern is, if we build enough windmills to provide anywhere near enough electric power to meet our needs, mother nature will have a trick up her sleeve to frustrate us.
Re solar power: I like the idea of solar cells, but here again one must ask how much will we have to invest in solar cells to begin with, and then how much will we have to spend annually to replace defective or worn-out solar cells, and what will be the maintenance costs due to ice and snow, if we try to use solar power to produce anywhere near the number of kilowatt-hours we're getting from coal.
CO2 comparisons
Apparently the CO2 generation from nuclear power is actually higher than wind or solar because of all the energy used to create the fuel source and provide the infrastructure.
So nuclear is not such a good answer for CO2 reduction.
From the August issue of New Scientist.
Coal 960g
Nuclear 66g
Solar 32g
Onshore wind 10g
Grams of CO2 per kwh
How can that be?
If the production of nuclear fuel produces all this CO2, how can it be cost effective to operate a nuclear power plant? You're statement just doesn't make any sense.
wind data
Correction - he owns two entire wind farms,
not just two turbines. Sounds like they are in the
maritime provinces of Canada.
Here is data on the first farm:
http://www.biofuels.coop/windblog/?p=181#more-181
http://www.biofuels.coop/windblog/
wind turbine data
There's a fellow that operates a few commercial turbines in
Canada that has a blog about them. It appears that
he is willing to publish all the data involved in
wind generation - good or bad - in an effort to
help the public understand.
For starters, see his entry on efficiency
http://www.biofuels.coop/windblog/?p=273
wind turbine power consumption surely a myth
...at least that's the likely line we'll hear from AWEA
on the subject. Whenever anyone tries to pin down the numbers relating to wind energy, a large smoke screen of double talk emerges from the American Wind Energy Association. Just look at Goggins' defensive paper on reliability and his rebuttal of the fine book "Power Hungry" by Robert Bryce. Goggins refutes capacity value numbers for wind well published by German grid operator EON.Netz as early as 2005, and numerous studies done in Denmark, Australia and even a few in the US since then.
This trade group is betting on lawmakers and the general public just being too busy to check out the facts. And with 2/3 or more of equivalent gross revenues to wind companies coming from sources other than selling electricity to the grids at market rates, its a gamble they need to win.
Leave a comment