Windmills = jobs lost

[BrianWC]

The ones disguised as giant flagpoles with American flags on them are great. Anyone seen one of those?

Re windmills, I've been scared of them ever since that movie where the KGB guy flies into one...and his pal crashes to the ground in a Cadillac Allante...I liked those cars....

 

[Samilcar]

exploding windmill

Just make sure the speed controls are in good operating order before you stand underneath one.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
MYTH # 6: These windfarms won’t take up THAT MUCH space.
Fact: Ecogen’s first 50 towers will have a capacity of 150 megawatts (MW), generating on average 50 MW, only one-third of capacity. A 50MW gas-fired power plant can be sited on a city block. Ecogen’s proposed “Project Area” covers 35 SQUARE MILES. This is the size of the city of Rochester. And this is JUST ONE of the wind companies.

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/windmill-myths/

Plus, they can throw dangerous shards of ice (according to their manufactures) and are designed to shut down when ice is present...wind or no.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/ice-tossing-turbines-myth-or-hazard/

Of course shadow flicker will be of no concern at all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XCA0_W9Qxs

And the noise will not be a bother either:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TGAJwKYL4Q

 

[Samilcar]

I agree that these windmills should never be built within a mile of a residence. If you've never seen one in person or driven through a wind farm, you can't truly appreciate how monstrously big these things are.

I'd never even thought about shadow strobing before. That video is something else.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Samilcar
exploding windmill


Oh SNAP!

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
exploding windmill


Oh SNAP!


You should see what happens when a steam turbine throws a 33.5" long 40lb blade at the speed of sound.

 

[tdi-rick]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
exploding windmill


Oh SNAP!


You should see what happens when a steam turbine throws a 33.5" long 40lb blade at the speed of sound.


and see what the open cut coal mines that feed it look like....

 

[Shannow]

And see the water consumption of 1.5 to 1.8 million litres per GWHr that comes with them.

A 1,000MW unit will use 40-50 million litres of water per day, that could otherwise be used for agriculture and drinking.

 

[Gary Allan]

Tempest- WHAT'S IN IT FOR YOU???

I would think ..except for the aerial visibility aspect, wind power would be the survival camp's power source of choice. Anything else will have a distinctive IR signature that will make it easy for the evil government black helicopters to spot and target you via satellite.

Go invest in wind turbine outfits NOW ..wait until the sheep mossy on into the corral to wet their ..hmmm..not beaks ..drink the koolaid ..bail. It's the American way.

 

[JTK]

I've been near some in my area and they definitely don't sound like the one grinding away on the youtube clip. That sucker had serioud issues. I know the ones located on farm land not far from me pay ~$450-750 each per month to the land owners. Obviously some welcomed them with open arms, others not so much. I liked one of the local old timer's take on it.. something like: "Way back in the day we thought the telephone poles being strung for miles were an eyesore. Now you don't even notice they're there! Same will go with wind turbines."

Joel

 

[bcossa2001]

What is the payback period for a windmill? I have read that a windmill can't generate enough energy to make a windmill....

 

[Shannow]

It's best not to use "facts" that you've "heard"...

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm

Quote:
Two to Three Months Required
Modern wind turbines rapidly recover all the energy spent in manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and finally scrapping them. Under normal wind conditions it takes between two and three months for a turbine to recover all of the energy involved.
.
.
.
Analysis of 1980 Vintage Turbines
1980 wind turbines do surprisingly well in the studies of the energy balance. The analysis shows that while small Danish 1980 turbines of 10-30 kW took almost a year to recover the energy spent in manufacturing, installing and decommissioning them, turbines of 55 kW took some 6 months to recover all of the energy.


Even if as an industry body they are being overly optimistic, that's a heck of a long way from "never"

 

[Shannow]

And when does a coal plant EVER recoup the energy, when it's grinding through 5,000 tonnes of coal a day ?

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
And when does a coal plant EVER recoup the energy, when it's grinding through 5,000 tonnes of coal a day ?


That's the hardest thing to see. No one can grasp the "free" part of fossil fuels. They're 100% ZERO return consumption machines. If you could sensibly integrate all existing heat intensive needs to the tail end of them, then you just get a better ROI on the operation, but still don't "produce" any energy.

You can't put hydro everywhere. Imagine what the cost would be of the Hoover-dam today? The environmental impact study would be a decade and cost more than the adjusted construction costs of the original. Let alone that I don't think that we would have enough equipment to dedicate to the job without making it first. Wind turbines can be centrally produced and put just about anywhere.

Funny, windmills were a aesthetic feature in some Norman Rockwell-sen vision of Holland ...but now that there's a more contemporary use for them, they're an eyesore.

 

[bcossa2001]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
It's best not to use "facts" that you've "heard"...

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm

Quote:
Two to Three Months Required
Modern wind turbines rapidly recover all the energy spent in manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and finally scrapping them. Under normal wind conditions it takes between two and three months for a turbine to recover all of the energy involved.
.
.
.
Analysis of 1980 Vintage Turbines
1980 wind turbines do surprisingly well in the studies of the energy balance. The analysis shows that while small Danish 1980 turbines of 10-30 kW took almost a year to recover the energy spent in manufacturing, installing and decommissioning them, turbines of 55 kW took some 6 months to recover all of the energy.


Even if as an industry body they are being overly optimistic, that's a heck of a long way from "never"



Agreed. That is an impressive payback period. What is the design life??

 

[Shannow]

15 or 25 years is a typical design life.

Better maintenance practices and materials have generally meant that pretty much any power plant can be run for 2-3 times design.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
The wind industry, green lobbyists and the EU have done a brilliant job of leading the Government down a path that not only makes absolutely no economic sense but is the height of irresponsibility.

If one uses the Government's estimates for the electricity that would be generated by the 7,000 turbines, the new wind turbine subsidy structure and the current market price of the ROC's, the annual level of subsidy that will be paid by the consumer is an incredible £6bn per year.

The wind industry will lock into these subsidies for 20 years, the expected useful life of the turbines. One can anticipate that further subsidies will have to be made available when turbines have to be replaced.

The total output of these 7,000 turbines (as estimated by the Government) could alternatively be generated by 7 nuclear power stations, such as the one currently being built by EDF at Flamanville.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthco...y-strategy.html

 

[Shannow]

I fully agree that Oz needs nuclea power stations, and they need to start building them now.


Doesn't mean that appropriate re-use of renewables isn't necessary also.

(Haven't seen uranium/thorium growing on trees, so must presume that like fossil fuels, we've got what we've got.)

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
As wind provides neither baseload nor peaking plant it has no impact on reserve capacity. . . t increases redundancy in peaking plants and reduces the profits of baseload generation; potentially good for consumers but bad for investment in non-intermittent sources of power, and presenting the risk of a decline in reserve capacity. . . . [P]eaking plants would be used much less and baseload plant would see sustained period of potential below cost prices – a particular nightmare for the nuclear industry.

Quote:
So without contributing any reliable capacity, wind will nonetheless make nuclear, by far our most practical and reliable form of zero carbon energy, less profitable. Existing plants will be caught in a trap and new construction will be discouraged entirely. Already the British Nuclear Group is complaining that it can’t build any new reactors if they have to compete against subsidized wind farms. Anti-nuclear activists are turning handsprings, claiming joyously that wind is finally replacing nuclear. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, nothing will be replacing existing capacity–namely, the coal burning plants that are one of the largest sources of carbon emissions–as demand increases in years ahead. That means carbon emissions won’t be meaningfully reduced, since coal plants will have to stay on line to provide backup.

http://davebudge.com/index.php/2009/04/25/the-economics-of-wind-power/

 

[Kruse]

This starts out slow and a little boring, but read it entirely and decide for yourself if we can cut the carbon.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/now-thats-a-commencement-speech/