Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Is there a handy source comparing the masses of these behemoths, or do you have some of this data? (Nacelle with or without rotor mounted or both.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jun 24th, 2013 at 03:15:31 PM EST
I'm pretty sure the info is public, but may be buried deep on various websites.

The Repower nacelle is just over 300 tons, with the blades weighing (from memory, 90 tons each)

Found this to show the size of these things (for the new Siemens turbines with 75m blades)



Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 04:59:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I just found this database, which has some mass numbers (by far not all). For the REpower 6M, all of them (nacelle 325 t, rotor 135 t single blade 23 t). For the current 5 MW or greater turbines, where data was available, I calculated power/head mass ratios of 11-17 kW/t.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 07:00:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Was going to post this, glad you found it. Most of the WTs are actually onshore turbines, and will never see the sea. But the offshore WTs are fully represented, AFAIK.

Notice how many turbines from Chinese OEMs grace the list.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 10:07:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, and not just Chinese: I see lots of venture capital there... I predict bankruptcy for most of them.

Speaking of on-shore: can you find me the mass data for the Enercon E-126? (It's not on the page on the turbine on the company homepage.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 10:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Enercon E-112 has at THM of over 500 t, don't know if the 126 uses the same generator.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 11:25:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I tried to look but found contradictory numbers: one source says the total is 650 t, but another claims that the nacelle is 365 t (140 t house + 102 t stator + 123 t rotor), and yet another (an in-house one to boot) that the rotor (as lifted in a single lift) is a sheer unbelievable 340 t (bringing the sum to 705 t). Either way, the impression that it is the top-heaviest holds. At a rated power of 7.58 MW, the lower THM above means 11.7 kW/t.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 02:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the figure used in the most basic calculations regarding power/cost is the top head mass (THM), comprising everything above the last tower section, usually nacelle and rotor star.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 10:09:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that I've shared this database before.  It's pretty thorough, although the coverage of proposed and in construction wind farms seems a little sparse.  For example, EON has been planning two major wind farms in the part of Indiana that I live in (I've been taking care of my parents) and they are missing from this.  It looks as though the one closest to me is DOA because of a mysteriously well organized anti-wind group in the area. The final straw was when one of the county commissioners, who has a home in the area of the proposed wind farm bought into the rhetoric that wind farms cause property devaluation, and maybe even disease.

Maybe this is a little OT, but has there been any effort to organize wind education groups that step in to educate the public when wind farms are proposed.  
It certainly seems that the opposition is well organized. (And, I suspect funded covertly by fossil fuel interests) At least in North America, the political obstacles seem to be an issue with expanding the penetration of wind power into the energy mix. I've been thinking that this might actually be something that someone could form a non-profit or consultancy around.....

 

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Wed Jun 26th, 2013 at 07:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that I've shared this database before.

They hid the turbine database behind a paywall...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 04:45:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Max take-off weight for an A380 is 560 tonnes. Standard offshore machines are heavier, but direct drive and hybrid can be lighter.

The Areva M5000-135 (rotor dia. 135m) THM is only 375t.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 10:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
as the picture implies, can the A380 fly through the swept zone without getting hit by a blade? At what airspeed, at what windspeed? Gentlemen, start your slide rules.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 10:49:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A new 007 (or Snowden?) movie, "Wind farms forever"!
by das monde on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:18:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Gone with the Wind"?
by mustakissa on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 02:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"To Kill A (Mocking) Bird"

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 04:17:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Turbine max speed is 11rpm, that's a speed of 48.4 m/s at a radius of 42 m (where the A380's center of gravity should pass). At the same radius, the free space between two blades should be about 85-86 m. Subtracting the A380's fuselage height of 8.41 m, I get a possible passage time of 1.6 seconds. With the A380's length of 73.73 m, you'd need a speed of at least 165 km/h to pass. Even minimum takeoff speed (about 250 km/h) is above, so the A380 wins :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, as long as the Rolex used to time the entry point is working properly.  ;-)


"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:53:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Timing is everything.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:57:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Reminds me of the question I asked of an ex-Air Force, United Airlines training pilot: "Can you barrel roll a 707?"

Answer: "Uh, I would rather not say."

by asdf on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 12:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I once wrote a short story in which a passenger took the commands of a Boeing 777, after hijackers killed both pilots. He had extensive experience with MS Flight Simulator, you see, so he knew exactly how hard you could push it without tearing the wings off. He flew it down into the Grand Canyon, then under the Golden Gate bridge, then headed for a disused airstrip in Kamchatka.

But he had never bothered learning to land the thing.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 12:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A barrel roll is supposedly  a stress free manouevre, so it should be okay.

Concorde could barrel roll.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Jun 26th, 2013 at 04:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly. But the only way to find out is to try it.

My experiences with perhaps a dozen ex-military pilots who went into the commercial airline business makes me think that passenger jets were routinely rolled. Back in the days before every single thing that you do is recorded. Probably not any more.

http://clickamericana.com/eras/1950s/passenger-jet-does-a-double-barrel-roll-1955

by asdf on Thu Jun 27th, 2013 at 11:56:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently the Siemens direct-drives are even lighter: the page for the SWT-6.0-120 says THM is "under 350 tonnes". (With that, it presumably beats the Vestas V164-8.0 MW in power/THM.) Do you have a similar number for the SWT-6.0-154?

Also, looking at the rotor diameters, any chance the Alstom Haliade 150-6MW and the Siemens SWT-6.0-154 will be up-rated?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't have the info on hand (incl. E-126); we'll see what and when i can pick anything up.

Uprating exercises have been done, but unlikely anything beyond the preliminaries would occur until more operational data is collected and analyzed.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Tue Jun 25th, 2013 at 11:44:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series