You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
It's a balance between engineering economy and performance. You might be able to design and ship a product which never breaks and meets performance, but the production cost may be astronomical and any return on the product will be non-existent. Either way, when the cost exceeds the benefits of the product, it isn't viable.
In reality though all mechanical parts will wear down over time simply because that's how mechanical interaction works. Maintenance, preventative or reactive, will still be needed for any machine.
Breakdown from 2010 on turbines says there is an average of 6 incidents for every ten machine-years of use. That results in about 30-40% of the operating cost of the turbine (6 to 10 USD or so per megawatt-hour).
So if they break down a bit more then once every two years, preventative maintenance is what every 6 months? I understand it is nice to have the work be easy to do, but if downtime is 1% and uptime is 99% it seems logical to make the uptime a bit more efficient (2 blades) rather then shortening the downtime (time to stop with the brakes) by a small amount. Especially if the main advantage of the single blade design is in wear on the brakes as that accounted for 0.6 days worth of downtime per year according to your site, where as efficiency in the blades would add to the power output offsetting that cost.
Optimistically maybe 6 months, but companies are going to run inspection and maintenance schedules at whatever they decide them to be (leading off of construction time being the most logical), and you can never perfectly account for the randomness of component failure (electrical or mechanical).
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Grospoliner ago
Too bad.
It's a balance between engineering economy and performance. You might be able to design and ship a product which never breaks and meets performance, but the production cost may be astronomical and any return on the product will be non-existent. Either way, when the cost exceeds the benefits of the product, it isn't viable.
In reality though all mechanical parts will wear down over time simply because that's how mechanical interaction works. Maintenance, preventative or reactive, will still be needed for any machine.
Breakdown from 2010 on turbines says there is an average of 6 incidents for every ten machine-years of use. That results in about 30-40% of the operating cost of the turbine (6 to 10 USD or so per megawatt-hour).
[–] thrus ago
So if they break down a bit more then once every two years, preventative maintenance is what every 6 months? I understand it is nice to have the work be easy to do, but if downtime is 1% and uptime is 99% it seems logical to make the uptime a bit more efficient (2 blades) rather then shortening the downtime (time to stop with the brakes) by a small amount. Especially if the main advantage of the single blade design is in wear on the brakes as that accounted for 0.6 days worth of downtime per year according to your site, where as efficiency in the blades would add to the power output offsetting that cost.
[–] Grospoliner 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Optimistically maybe 6 months, but companies are going to run inspection and maintenance schedules at whatever they decide them to be (leading off of construction time being the most logical), and you can never perfectly account for the randomness of component failure (electrical or mechanical).