sawtooth fire, v47 turbine, vestas

[asilaydying1984]

Enercon sucks

[ziemniaczek963]

Yes Enercon is sucks.

[erik374]

@asilaydying1984 NOOOO !!!!

[xerqn]

Don't buy vestas, buy enercon

[nicholasryanstreenz]

yea, i live in the middle of illinois i work on them and i have 240 surrounding my house, they are a bit annoying to look at. But they are creating thousands of jobs and produce an astounding amount of energy. If they are too loud for you then the flies in your house will make you go deaf. I mean if you are annoyed then we can go back to burning coal and you can then complain about the air.

[X8T8X]

BASavage81 argues for the most effective way to produce electricity without using fossil fuels (FF), but omits the reasons why: a)the dwindling supply of FF b)the adverse environmental impact of burning FF.

Windpower has a much smaller environmental footprint than oil, coal or nuclear as electricity sources. The alledged byproduct of 'noise' is most tolerable compared to spent uranium and the visual pollution arguement is subjective at best. And yes I did the physics course - and the Degree!

[BASavage81]

The main argument is what is the most effective way to produce electrical power with out using fossil fuels. No matter what we do there will always be a waste product. Wind mill farms, despite advances in technolgy, are still extremely inefficient. They produce noise and visual pollution as well. We should do as France and Japan does, Nuclear which is still the most effient form of power there is. Before you knock nuclear take a physics course and find out for your self.

[asilaydying1984]

how are they inefficient? Also The new wind turbines make hardly any noise,a whole lot less than a car does.

[BASavage81]

While the amount of electricity they can produce per unit is far better than even ten years ago they still are inefficient. Wind speed is not consistant. The amount of electrical energy is still very small per unit when compared to need. It would take tens of thousands of the large effient wind turbines to produce enough power on an anual average to provide enough power to run a metropolis such as greater Los Angeles. I'm not saying its all bad. I'm just saying its not what we think it is.

[dix1e1]

They are inefficient because they only work 30/ of the time. Developers love to throw them up because they get massive subsidies from our electricity bills. Some countries ( Denmark, Holland) have removed subsidies as they realise they are too costly for little effect. They also cause serious illness to those living nearby.(See medical reports by Dr. Amanda Harry) Go to S.O.U.L. Save our landscape website..very interesting.

[evillirish]

LOL do more reasearch, the people who own them are the electric companies and PUDs. and the subsidies you're talking about, I can only hope you mean Tax incentives, are less than one percent of those give to coal, oil, and gas generators used to produce electricity.

[asilaydying1984]

I work for a company called vestas, and I dont know how this compares to other forms of energy but the turbines we are mainly putting up right now are called v90s and they produce 3 megowatts per hour compared to turbines in the 80s producing 65 kw an hour

[ildanny80]

Hi. Can you tell me the average price for one Vestas v90 (3.0 MW) turbine?

[magnusea]

I've no idea what a Vestas v90 is, but seen the price 5 million dollars for one windmill mentioned by a wind power lobbyist. It may be a lot more...

Wind power is pure stupidity, economically and environmentally.

[ildanny80]

You work for a company called Vestas, and here you say that "wind power is pure stupidity, economically and enviromentally" ??? Ok just stop fooling people and talking BS ok? Just tell us the truth

[asilaydying1984]

that was a different guy who said that not me, pay attention.

[philkarn]

Well, if you don't like wind power we can build more nukes. Seriously, if you exclude wind they're the only major energy source available in the near future that doesn't burn fossil fuels or produce CO2.

If you don't want more power plants, then stop voting for them with your light switches.

[ccoraxfan]

@philkarn Wind is also unreliable. The wind doesn't blow constantly. So long as the wind remains variable, the output of wind turbines will remain variable, and conventional power plants will have to remain in operation to pick up the slack. Windfarms cannot replace conventional power plants.

[ApolloWasReal]

@ccoraxfan Yes, wind will remain variable but the problem can be solved without fossil power plants. 1, as you hook lots of generators to the grid the total power tends to become more predictable; this is the "law of large numbers". 2, diversify into solar, hydro, geothermal and nuclear. Solar and wind are surprisingly complementary. 3, introduce energy storage, traditionally pumped hydro but the Japanese are having success with Na/S batteries. 4, dynamic pricing to control demand.

[ccoraxfan]

@ApolloWasReal 1. No matter how many you hook up, you still can't control power from wind turbines. If you try to wrangle wind power from an entire continent, transmission line resistance eats up your power.

2. Solar is expensive and limited to desert areas. Hydro is already maxed out. Geothermal isn't widely available. Ignorant people fear nuclear and politicians stop its development.

3. Pumped storage is inefficient. Batteries are expensive.

4. Control = no liberty.

[ApolloWasReal]

@ccoraxfan Yes, hydro is maxed out. But it's still important.

Long distance high voltage transmission is surprisingly efficient; e.g., 95% is typical within California.

Batteries are steadily improving.

One of the best places for solar is on the users' rooftops. Prices are falling rapidly, and you have control.

Many more loads could be switched on and off to adapt to changes in supply.

We have no choice. Fossil fuels are going away.

[ccoraxfan]

@ApolloWasReal Yes, efficient within normal distances. But not across a continent. There are other problems too, involving grid stability, not just wire resistance.

As for choice, we do have more choices than what are being offered. Nuclear power is a good choice at this time. And solar would be an excellent choice... if we collected it from space and beamed it down to earth. But this is something which will take a while to develop.

I still won't trade my freedom for electricity.

[ApolloWasReal]

@ccoraxfan I don't see much need to transmit power all the way across a continent. HVDC could relieve a lot of the stability problems of AC. Nuclear is definitely important, but I don't see the need to go to space for solar. A combination of rooftop PV solar, thermal solar in the deserts and wind in the mountain passes would be a better way to go, especially if Na/S batteries can be ramped up to utility scale buffers as the Japanese have been doing with some success.

[ccoraxfan]

@ApolloWasReal When the wind is blowing on the east coast and not on the west...

HVDC power lines still cannot store electricity, and wind turbines are always a variable supply which cannot be matched to the instantaneous demand, so the instability remains.

If you put solar panels on your roof, the sun will not shine on them all the time. They are a variable supply just like wind. In space though, they are perfectly predictable. Put them in orbit around the earth and you'll get constant power.

[ApolloWasReal]

@ccoraxfan I never said wind only or solar only. It's a remarkably common fallacy: "unless some alternative energy source can provide all our needs, it's no good". We've never required that of any fossil fuel, why start now? Wind and solar supplies are remarkably complementary, and the more diverse and connected they are the better. Dispatchable loads and maybe Na/S batteries will take up the slack.

BTW, geostationary orbits have 70+ minute eclipses at the equinoxes.

[ApolloWasReal]

Even without dispatchable loads the demand curves are remarkably predictable. The diurnal variation is only about 2:1 in California. With nuclear for base load, hydro, wind, rooftop PV and desert solar all complementing each other, the development of industrial scale Na/S battery plants, and considerably more load dispatchability, I don't see the loss of large amounts of fossil generation as an insoluble problem.

[ccoraxfan]

@ApolloWasReal I'm not yet banking on battery technology for grid-wide storage. Perhaps, eventually batteries will be feasible. As for load dispatch... what sort of major operations can be shut down at a moment's notice, enough to make this effective? And even if they can be, would it be too costly for a business to implement such a scheme?

Many orbits have eclipses at various times. However, by arranging satellites in various locations and different orbits, power production can be continuous.

[ApolloWasReal]

@ccoraxfan Na/S batteries for load leveling have a lot of potential. The raw materials -- Na, S and Al2O3 -- are plentiful and cheap. Historically, generation is tuned to demand but that's not inherent. Dynamic pricing will incentivize load leveling and dispatchable loads. Many industrial HVAC systems already are. EV charging is easily dispatched. So are many industrial processes, like Al smelting. Even computer tasks can be suspended.

[ApolloWasReal]

@ccoraxfan You won't find a bigger fan of space exploration, but space power generation is simply out of the question. Launch to LEO is about $10K/kg, and GEO is > $20K/kg. (Gold is about $44K/kg). Most single-family homes get enough sunlight for a healthy annual surplus with present PV technology; the US geographical variation is only about 2:1, AK/AZ. Rule of thumb: rooftop PV duty factor is about 20% on an annual basis -- including summer/winter, day/night, cloudy weather, etc.

[philkarn]

@ccoraxfan As a space nut I'd love to see solar power from space but it just ain't gonna happen. The costs of launching it up there would vastly exceed what the ~5x increase in production from continuous illumination (ignoring equinox eclipses) would be worth. Panels are rapidly falling in price, and the place for them is on existing rooftops.

[alanhowitzer]

Man it's amazing that so many people think they are ugly. I visited Germany and Denmark this summer and I think they only added to the landscape.

Ugly or not, they are going to become a necessity.

[M4V3R1K83]

You are so right!

[jfirebug]

whatever the reason for them. they are just plain UGLY AND RUIN THE SCENERY worse than a fresh logged hillside.

My suggestion is to paint them in purple and pink polka dots, stripes and plaids. At least they would add some humor, if we have to look at them. They pollute my eyes.

[asilaydying1984]

yea I suppose an oil refinery would look a whole lot better( I cant stand ignorant people)

[jfirebug]

an oil refinery is only in one spot, not sprouting up all over like weeds. besides, the only ignorant person is the person calling names. I also can't stand self righteous people who only see one point of view. Like the guy said. "windmills provide only nominal energy." Find another way. I don't think they are fueling your car yet either. And I stand by my personal opinion that they are plain ugly!

[asilaydying1984]

they have gotten way better in the last 2o years and 1 turine today can produce more then 50 times an turbine in the 80s.

[jfirebug]

who cares?? twenty years ago I too thought they might be a good idea...until I saw what they do to our beautiful scenery. (they are still ugly)

So do you think we should all have ten of them in our back yards? Do you realize the people complaining about the cell phone towers now?

[asilaydying1984]

i would love to have ten of them in my back yard do you realize how much money the people who have them in their yards get paid from the owners of te turbines, the people complain about the cell phone towers and everything else but still they drive around in their cars talking on them everyday.

[kinder16]

very good point. I like large wind farms, the are a bit like moving art. I think the term is kinetic art.

[dix1e1]

They want to put 6 300 yards from a large housing estate. We will get nothing, we have no choice. They cause serious health problems, go to Location, Location, Location, Turbines. It's not just a case of not in my backyard, they shouldn't be in anyone's backyard! Their poor efficiency does not warrant sticking them up everywhere. But developers get big subsidies.

[philkarn]

More importantly, you prefer oil refineries as long as they're not in YOUR back yard.

C'mon, be honest.

[philkarn]

@jfirebug Do you realize that the Parisians hated the Eiffel Tower when it first went up? They thought it was a monstrous eyesore.

[missy8632]

I bet if you ask the 1000's of families who have lost a loved one in the war, they would not share your opinion that they were ugly.

[Nichen]

WindIsNotGreen get out of youtube please. I´ve seen you multiple times and it´s quite clear that you represent fossil fuel companies you climateterrorist. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[iLLNiSS]

go google the companies who manufacture wind turbines please.

the only ties wind turbines manufacturers have with oil companies is the fact that oil companies in some places actually buy turbines to put on sites

[asilaydying1984]

agreed

[TGSC]

Windpower is among the cheapest of new energy plants (gas, oil), especially if you include a carbon tax. Wind needs no subsidy as long as you penalize pollution properly. Guess what the price of wind, coal, oil and gas will be in 10 years? Well, wind will still be free.

Roxbury just spreads FUD. Even Texas oil barons know better.

[RoxburyStamfordSells]

All the false and misleading claims the wind industry makes for itself work to disguise the fact that it is only a nominal producer of electricity in the eastern US. Its primary purpose is to provide extraordinary tax and income sheltering opportunities for a few wealthy investors at the expense of average taxpayers and rate payers. On a per kilowatt hour basis, wind is the most heavily subsidized source of industrialized power in the nation.

[asilaydying1984]

you know nothing, wind power to produce electricity is still very new when compared to other forms of power, but has still come a very long way and is continually growing each year.

[ylnonamuh]

hey buddy do you have exxon shares or what? i read your copy paste comment like 10 times and it's BS...

[WindIsNotGreen]

All the false and misleading claims the wind industry makes for itself work to disguise the fact that it is only a nominal producer of electricity in the eastern US. Its primary purpose is to provide extraordinary tax and income sheltering opportunities for a few wealthy investors at the expense of average taxpayers and rate payers. On a per kilowatt hour basis, wind is the most heavily subsidized source of industrialized power in the nation.

[STORM6490MT]

You are just pissed off that you don't own one. Go burn some coal fruit cake!