Subscription Center
A Danish wind-power provider develops its own technology to maintain towering turbines in gusts roaring at up to 15 meters per second
December 22, 2009 | 52
The Tower Crane, which measures 10 meters long, 2.9 meters high and 3.3 meters wide, ascends through a multistep process.
[Link to this slide]
After the crane reaches the top of the tower it clamps its four claws around the post like a giant robotic hand to provide stability, allowing the crane to operate 100 or more meters above the ground in winds as strong as 15 meters per second....[More]
Vestas is developing its climbing crane (still in prototype) to help avoid maintenance delays caused by a shortage of heavy cranes.
[Link to this slide]
The current version of the crane features a single crane arm that can install and remove gearboxes and generators. Future versions are expected to be able to do replacement or repair work to the rotor blades themselves....[More]
ITI Energy's "Orangutan" wind turbine access system is made up of two friction clamps, connected by a hydraulic structure that allows caterpillar-like motion up and down the turbine tower....[More]
ITI Energy tested Orangutan on a tower built at one-fifth scale (compared with a normal turbine tower) and is now looking for partners to turn the prototype into a climbing machine that can be commercialized....[More]
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Developers Hope to Speed U.S. Offshore Wind Development
Peat and Repeat: Can Major Carbon Sinks Be Restored by Rewetting the World's Drained Bogs?
World Changing Ideas 2010
World Changing Ideas: 20 Ways to Build a Cleaner, Healthier, Smarter World
Clean Cities and Dirty Coal Power--China's Energy Paradox
Misleading Math about the Earth
Before Tectonics--Before Missiles--Before Film
Three-Star Performance
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
52 Comments
Add CommentHow much energy is used in the manufacture, erection and maintenance of a wind turbine, as opposed to the return in energy produced throughout its life? Does it give more energy out than it is used to produce, erect & maintain over its life span, assuming a reasonable wind source?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much energy is used to manufacture, erect & maintain a Wind turbine? Will the return in energy used be more than was expended in its manufacture, erection & continual maintenance throughout its normal life span, given a reasonable wind source?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a great idea,reduced maintenance cost will save a lot of money.A large crane is no longer needed except for construction,and blade replacement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe energy expenditure for the manufacture, 20-year-lifespan maintenance, and demolishing of the average 1.5 MW wind turbine is recovered after the first 3 months of operation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ehow.com/facts_5769883_environmental-effects-wind-turbines.html
GERONIMO asks:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Will the return in energy used be more than was expended in its manufacture....."
---------------
"The "energy payback time" is a term used to measure the net energy value of a wind turbine or other power plant--i.e., how long does the plant have to operate to generate the amount of electricity that was required for its manufacture and construction? Several studies have looked at this question over the years and have concluded that wind energy has one of the shortest energy payback times of any energy technology. A wind turbine typically takes only a few months (3-8, depending on the average wind speed at its site) to "pay back" the energy needed for its fabrication, installation, operation, and retirement."
www.awea.org/pubs/documents/FAQ2002%20-%20web.PDF
Compared to the environmental effects of traditional energy sources, the environmental effects of wind power are relatively minor. Energy derived from wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, unlike fossil fuel power sources. The energy consumed to manufacture and transport the materials used to build a wind power plant is equal to the new energy produced by the plant within a few months of operation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe impact made on the environment is very little when compared to what is gained. While a wind farm may cover a large area of land, many land uses such as agriculture are compatible, with only small areas of turbine foundations and infrastructure made unavailable for use.
So, Geronimo, did you come back to get the answer to your question? Or, did you leave, thinking you had single-handedly debunked and derailed the entire "green energy conspiracy"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpoonman:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, Geronimo, did you come back to get the answer to your question? Or, did you leave, thinking you had single-handedly debunked and derailed the entire "green energy conspiracy"?
---------------
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the need to constantly attack clean and green RENEWABLE ENERGY, when we must move forward as fast as possible from finite fossil fuels.
This "geronimo" like others obviously have an agenda and has no use for the facts, especially when it can be pointed out that wind generators' energy payback time can be as little as 3 months, and that they always have a free source of clean fuel and absolutely no emissions.
Why do they have such a need to put RENEWABLE ENERGY under the microscope, but give dirty fossil fuels such a free pass on net energy and ROI, especially knowing that the lower 48 reached PEAK OIL in 1970, and that we still only have 3% of the world's OIL reserves, yet use 25% of the world daily production of OIL?
Three mega-watts. I never knew that they put that much out for each turbine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith a combination of wind and solar we could completely shut down fossil fuel plants save for backup energy.
If we do it right when we build this new green energy system, no company will have control over the resource. This will mean not only green but economically more stable.
If you want to consider the total cost of an energy supply you need to factor in the 37% depletion allowance the oil companies get plus the Trillion plus dollars we have spent (recently) to secure oil fields in Iraq. A trillion dollars would have installed a lot of windmills, with less loss of life. As long as people use oil, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGord Davison:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If we do it right when we build this new green energy system, no company will have control over the resource. This will mean not only green but economically more stable."
---------------
This is exactly why the fossil fuel industry has been fighting this through their global warming mis-information and dis-information campaigns so rigorously. It would definitely be much more economically stable to get our energy from the wind and the sun than fighting WARS for OIL so far away -- not to mention so much cleaner! The U.S. military is the world's largest user of energy, so it's no wonder we currently have a $700 Billion per year "defense" budget.
Really cool idea. It is about time that people think outside the box and come up with methods that fit the technology. Each wind farm could have a crane like this available at all times to shorten down time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks
I find it interesting that the typical argument against Alternative Energy is purely bottom line oriented. How much does it cost to produce a kilowatt by wind versus cost per kilowatt from fossil fuels? Don't you get it? Wind and solar are simply the better technologies for the long term. We can live with them for as long as our civilization exists. If they break, we fix or replace them. We benefit by employing a vast number of Americans (with good paying jobs) in the design, fabrication, transportation, installation, maintenance, and ultimate replacement of millions of units (Gee, you mean like we do with cars?). The cycle can go on indefinitely, and satisfy the needs of an energy-hungry society like ours. Is it starting to sink in? Oil has no future, period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoepaycheck01:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Don't you get it? Wind and solar are simply the better technologies for the long term.
Oil has no future, period."
--------------------
Unfortunately, many have bought into the dis-information campaign by BIG OIL and the fossil fuel industry, and continue to fight the RENEWABLE ENERGY ECONOMY tooth and nail. These people seem to just want to play highly-partisan politics while carrying water for BIG OIL, and instead of being part of the solution, remain as part of the problem in America!
I live near multiple windfarms east of Tehachapi and the noise pollution from them has caused me to cry unvoluntarily or feel like I'm going to have a heart attack/seizure...it's overwhelming like being in a vacuum cleaner while it's running. Depending on atmospheric conditions, the mechanical sounds from the turbines and blades are clear, recently for 2 weeks straight. Keep in mind that wildlife must feel similar disruptions. Turbines are NOT clean energy. The fact is that nothing can live near windmills. Some are 488 feet tall and each blade is 186 long. Then there are transmission lines, substations and power plants. All these things are fenced in an inacessible to wildlife. Some maintenance roads are 100 feet wide. The just about approved 9400 acre windfarm Mojave Alta...will disrupt the habitat of the Golden eagle, California Condors, turkey vultures, very old oaks, pine forests, none that will ever recover. Kern County approved a new general plan in 2007 that allows for rezoning of this part of the mojave desert for residential development, commercial, industrial and recreation. What should be freaking everyone out is all of the farmland being rezoned for stucco and concrete. Just as important is the Mojave Desert is contiguous with 3 other deserts that is the home to the diminishing biodiversity that supports our own existence. Desert floors seem like nothing in the summer but when it rains, the soil is self turning and rich. All kinds of life exists. Let's not wait until the Mojave desert is so fragmented that it causes even more extinctions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest we all take off our rose colored glasses and start redefining our place on the planet. Personally, I'm not keeping quiet until there are food wars or hunger is at my doorstep because of water shortages from overpopulation or continue to have my local food sources like farms that provide milk, produce, meat, eggs and more converted to housing. Windarms are fine as long as there is a zero impact on the ecosystem. Nothing less is acceptable.
lakoda2012. Wind energy isn't fossil fuel free at all. They are fuel free only when they are turning and it is very cyclic and intermitent. If they aren't turning fossil fue produces electricity "somewhere" so there aren't any transmission spikes. I think I may still have the url if anyone wants the source of the information. By the way has anyone been close up to a turbine?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWindturbines are feel good energy and that is about all they are. They are not reliable as a base load station, and when one factors in that cost, the cost per kw is around 27cents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason the cost is so high is the duplication of power lines, base load stations that are underutlized etc.
It is a very very expensive source of energy. When the environment costs are included, it becomes even more expensive.
There have been several papers published in 2009 that show that co2 is not in any way a clmate driver. To think we would spent obsense amounts of money on "green energy" while there are people starving in this world without an energy infrastruture is a crime of the highest order.
Yes, at the base of one during a tour of a wind farm. It was raining and windy, all I recall hearing was the rain and wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecent ARPA-E grants have been awarded for projects involving storage of energy produced by wind/solar and other green methods.
sandcanyongal - who are you and who do you work for? please be honest and complete
Hi LaKota2012 - I'm having a bit of difficulty believing the short energy payback times quoted. Per kilowatt of rated capacity even the best sited large machines do not produce more than 3000 kilowatt hours per year on average. So 8 months would be about 2000 kilowatt hours and net of subsidies worth no more than about 20% of the installed cost of the turbine. Are you and others saying that all the energy that was used in the production of the structural materials, including about 0.5 tonnes of concrete per kilowatt capacity, and the machining and fabricating , ground preparation and erection comes to only 20% of the total cost? I would need to see a breakdown of the figures to be so certain
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy derived from wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution, unlike fossil fuel power sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--------------------
sandcanyongal: "Wind energy isn't fossil fuel free at all."
---------------------------
Actually, you're very wrong, and despite your total negativity towards wind power, it's still a great source of RENEWABLE ENERGY, consuming no fuel and being emission free!
The net energy payback time is a mere 3-8 months, and personally, I love my 2 wind machines in my back yard. I used to hate the wind with a passion, but now that I make lots of power through clean and green wind energy, my position has changed 180 degrees. My wind turbines are quite a conversation piece, and never stop amazing friends and others stopping by the ranch.
Your NIMBY attitude obviously is fueled not only by complete hatred of the industry for all the wrong reasons, but you also seem quite melodramatic about psychosomatic conditions. I'm actually quite surprised that you are still living so close to something you hate so intensely, since the Tehachapi wind farms have been in existence for almost 30 years. Your statement, "the fact is that nothing can live near windmills," is quite false as well, since many of the wind turbines on the plains are located on private farms, with domesticated stock living and prospering underneath.
I suggest you move soon since the Tehachapi wind farms will only grow larger with Kern County's blessings. I was through there just a few years ago, and the 5,000 wind turbines were a sight to behold. We need to reduce our foreign energy dependence, and wind energy will continue its huge growth!
Several studies have looked at this question over the years and have concluded that wind energy has one of the shortest energy payback times of any energy technology. A wind turbine typically takes only a few months (3-8, depending on the average wind speed at its site) to "pay back" the energy needed for its fabrication, installation, operation, and retirement."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.awea.org/pubs/documents/FAQ2002%20-%20web.PDF
------------------------
scots engineer:
"I'm having a bit of difficulty believing the short energy payback times quoted."
---------------------
I provided a link to substantiate the 3-8 month payback, so I'll gladly look at differing data that you would supply, instead of just a knee-jerk OPINION as this case. Just because you have "difficulty believing," doesn't make it so!
scots engineer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"even the best sited large machines do not produce more than 3000 kilowatt hours per year on average."
---------------------
Just whom are you trying to kid with that ludicrous garbage?
Although I don't have data on the largest Vestas machines of 3MW power rating mentioned in the above article, I do indeed have data on their smaller V-15 and V-17 turbines.
The V-17 Vestas has a 56 foot rotor diameter, making the swept area 2,462 sq. ft., turning at 45-50 rpm. The annual energy output with a mere 8 mph average wind speed is 37,820 kWh; an 11 mph average wind speed almost triples that to 97,850 kWh per year; and for those sites with a 14 mph average wind speed, the annual energy output is a whopping 174,371 kWh.
Actually, the Southwest Windpower Whisper 200 with a 9 foot diameter rotor produces a 3,005 kWh annual energy output with a 14 mph average wind speed!
Come back when you can substantiate your OPINION.
CBinNJ:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"sandcanyongal - who are you and who do you work for? please be honest and complete"
--------------------
Yep, it certainly seems as if she has quite an agenda against clean and green wind power, and it really puzles me that she would be living so close to the 2nd largest wind farm in the U.S., with over 5,000 wind turbines, and one that has been in existence since the early 1980's.
CBinNJ -My profession is Oracle Applications staffing and business software consulting services. That aside, turbines are quiet up close. In a nutshell, in my humble opinion, I adamant that no one has the right to continue putting a single shovel in the soil if it destroys the ecosystem. It's not OK anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt gets down to self preservation. When I was a kid there were seasonal flocks of birds passing through annually. The only birds I've seen for the last 5 years at our rural ranch near Tehachapi are ravens, sparrows, a few orioles, some furry critters, coyotes, few bees ....but not a single deer, game bird, 1 bobcat. Even the quail and bunnies are gone. Something is very wrong when a pristine cove is void of wildlife. Getting to the point specific to the Mojave/Alta Project, I was invited recently to enter the private community that was being solicited to sell or lease land long term leases with the windfarm (Terra-Gen comes to mind). The area was an enchanted forest with old pines, oaks and wild life. The residents have no electricity and all use alternative energy. Best, there were flocks of turkey vultures. Installing over 300 turbines around that area will clobber that entire habitat, plain and simple. The bigger picture is the planned human growth in this part of the county (eastern Kern). Very coincidental with developing infrastructure so developers can come in. We the taxpayers are paying for this. The earth belongs to me as much as anyone else. What ever happened to companies earning the right to do business. Instead, they need incentives and exemptions from pollution and habitat loss to do business. So does the military. Ft. Irwin has moved endangered Mojave Desert Tortoises twice and they got eaten by birds and coyotes. They've requested to move more this year. I don't know.. is it OK to keep doing these things?
"Something is very wrong when a pristine cove is void of wildlife. Getting to the point specific to the Mojave/Alta Project, I was invited recently to enter the private community..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---------------------
For crissakes, maybe the 38 million people currently living in California sucking the entire countryside dry of any water, has more to do with your wildlife "changes," than any number of clean and green wind generators! Try thinking outside the box for once, since we must move forward in the 21st century, and away from finite fossil fuels.
To Gord Davison: we do not need fossil fuel plants even for backup we have plenty of efficient long term ways to store the electrical wind power, i.e. seperate water into oxygen and hydrogen. And, release the clean oxygen into the air. The hydrogen can replace most any natural gas use, even simple development on jet engine that use hydrogen. The burning of hydrogen produces water in the form of steam, and in fuel cells it produces water, too. NASA used hydrogen in fuels for electricity to the moon and still do today on the shuttle. Also, cars that are converted to use propane can be easily adapted to use hydrogen instead of propane, etc., etc. Only, large oil companies will attempt to use false excuses for using fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Your Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi lakota2012- I'm sorry my concerns upset you so much. If you had read my post more carefully you would have noted that the figure of 3000 units was PER KiLOWATT RATED CAPACITY. In the examples you quoted in your reply , the Vesta 17 would have a rated capacity of about 65kilowatts, so on a good site might well produce 195,000units of electricity per annum. The British Wind Energy Association calls any site with an average wind speed at , or above 7 metres per second ( 15.75 mph )good. They also quote typical results from such sites as between 2500 and 3000 megawatt hours per megawatt rated capacity per year. Not opinion, fact. Another fact is that a deisel generating set of the same rated capacity costs only a tenth of the installed price of an on shore wind turbine. Also a FACT is that the eight month income from a wind turbine without subsidy is no more than 20% of the cost of the turbine.It may well be that the human costs in the production of wind turbines are five times that of the energy that goes into the process, and if so would seem to offer a lot of room for improvement I am unfamiliar with the Southwest Wind power Whisper 200, but if it is as efficient as the Vestas82-1.65mw, ( which is unlikely due to it's much smaller scale ) ,it would have a rated capacity of about 1.825Kw ( not opinion, straightforward calculation). And as the site you quoted has an average wind speed of 14mph, though good at 3005kwh, to compare with the best it would have to have produced over 5000kwh per annum. The wind power industry, in UK at least, is notorious for making exaggerated claims about their installations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscots engineer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"even the best sited large machines do not produce more than 3000 kilowatt hours per year on average. So 8 months would be about 2000 kilowatt hours"
"I'm sorry my concerns upset you so much. "
------------------------------------
Come now...."upset me?".....heavens no, I'm just trying to correct your obviously biased agenda, and show you exactly what you posted! Besides, after trying to recant what you previously posted, you then tried to compare apples to oranges by trying to compare the cost of a diesel generator with that of a wind turbine. Sorry, but that's a non-sequitur. Also, by calling something a "fact" like you continuously do, just shows you have a penchant for posting only OPINION.
First off, since wind turbine ratings are the most misunderstood specification, using rated power as a performance measure is deceptive at best. My suggestion is to ignore the kW rating for wind turbines, and instead, look for documentation of the annual or monthly energy output.
Trying to label the Vestas 17 as "a rated capacity of about 65kilowatts," when I gave you the annual energy output for different average wind speeds, only makes you look like you're sweeping your "facts" underneath the carpet, while singing the praises of fossil fuels like diesel.
Then you have the audacity to try to tell us all about the British Wind Energy Association's definition of a "good site" which has an average wind speed of almost 16 mph. I dare say that would be an excellent site, not just good, and my annual energy output specifications of the V-17 were only from 8 mph to 14 mph -- hardly an average of 16 mph, where the power available in the wind increases with the cube of the wind speed.
Try all you want, to diss wind energy and clean and green wind turbines using free fuel, the best sited turbines produce much more annual energy output than your OPINIONATED posts, since the Vestas V-17 produces over 200,000 kWhr's annually with only a 16 mph average wind speed, and only a 56' rotor diameter -- much smaller than the ones in the article!
scots engineer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The wind power industry, in UK at least, is notorious for making exaggerated claims about their installations."
"I am unfamiliar with the Southwest Wind power Whisper 200, but......it would have a rated capacity of about 1.825Kw ( not opinion, straightforward calculation)."
------------------------
This is exactly why YOU and everyone else should ignore the kW rating for wind turbines, and look for documentation of annual or monthly energy output, since your "calculations" are useless in the real world.
The Southwest Windpower Whisper 200, with a 9' rotor diameter, has an annual energy output of 3,005 kWh, and the Whisper 500, with a 15' rotor diameter, is more than double at 6,445 kWh annually -- both with an average 14 mph wind.
Next time you want to show me your fancy OPINIONATED calculations, just provide the annual energy output in kWh with an average wind speed below 16 mph for the real world!
Seeing as my heritage is half Scotish, I'm glad to see that there is quite a high level of community acceptance for wind power in Scotland, and they have the world's largest turbine!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWind power in Scotland is an area of considerable activity, with 1550 MW of installed capacity as at October 2008. Wind power is the fastest growing of the renewable energy technologies in Scotland and the world's largest wind turbine generator (5 MW) is currently undergoing testing in the North Sea, 15 miles off the east coast. There are numerous large wind farms as well as a number, both planned and operating, which are in community ownership. The siting of turbines is sometimes an issue, but surveys have shown high levels of community acceptance for wind power in Scotland. There is further potential for expansion, especially offshore, given the high average wind speeds.
The Scottish government has a target of generating 31% of Scotland's electricity from renewable energy by 2011 and 50% by 2020. The majority of this is likely to come from wind power.
sandcanyongal:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the noise pollution from them has caused me to cry unvoluntarily or feel like I'm going to have a heart attack/seizure...it's overwhelming like being in a vacuum cleaner while it's running."
-------------------
Methinks you're being quite melodramatic here!
Expert Panel Concludes Wind Turbine
Sounds Not Harmful To Human Health
A multidisciplinary panel has concluded that the sounds generated by wind turbines are not harmful to human health, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) announced today.
Comprised of medical doctors, audiologists, and acoustical professionals from the United States, Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, the panel undertook extensive review, analysis, and discussion of the large body of peer-reviewed literature, specifically with regard to sound produced by wind turbines. The expert panel was established by AWEA and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) to review all current literature available on the issue of perceived health effects of wind turbines.
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/12-15-09-sound_panel_release.html
sandcanyongal:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The just about approved 9400 acre windfarm Mojave Alta...will disrupt the habitat of the Golden eagle, California Condors, turkey vultures..."
-------------------
A study from the National Research Council last year tallied bird kills from total anthropogenic bird deaths, and found collisions with wind turbines comprised a minute fraction of human interaction bird deaths. Only 3 out of 100,000 anthropogenic bird deaths were from turbines. Cats and buildings had a far higher kill rate.
Nevertheless The Heartland Institute, a well known climate change denier group puts out regular bulletins keeping the idea alive that wind farms are bird killing machines. Their claim that Altamont Pass kills 4,700 birds a year is wildly at odds with both the original NREL counts (pg 22) and the Defenders of Wildlife count of 96 tallied at the now obsolete small turbines built in the 70’s, the worlds oldest and deadliest wind farm.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wind-turbines-dont-kill-birds-coal-2009-10
I don't doubt that the Wind whisper 500 produces more than twice the annual output at the same site as the smaller machine as their output is a function of the square of the blade diameter. Had they been simililar in all other aspects one might have expected even more output from the larger machine. I am not trying to diss wind power, but think we should not be blinded by half truths. As an agricultural engineer we take reliability and fail safe operation very seriously. I take no pleasure in noting that the large horizontal axis machines are NOT fail safe because they require active systems to protect them in stormy weather, and reliable power back ups to operate these systems. In the real world this is only acceptable with a reliable maintenance and repair regime which is the bachground to the article. Their may be other ways of doing the job. Afterall the first mass produced automobile was the Ford ModelT, but it differs greatly in the drivers controls and transmission layout from the most commonly bought cars today. You take me to task about rated output, yet that and the average wind speed on the considered site are just what the purchaser needs when comparing price and performance. Even averages can be misleading where more variable weather patterns are the norm (as in Scotland.) Finally the Nacelle of a Vestas 17 will be at least 12 metres above the ground and require a crane of more than that height to effect major repairs , so probably comes within the scope of the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreen energy at it's best is to be able to buy a solar/wind unit from Home Depot for about $600, plug it into the house jack, charge it and voila, electricity. That's where it's at.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, it's time to get serious about use of coal energy, oil, hormones in cattle,pesticides, water contamination ...and ALSO preserve habitats. Most of us are, or were ignorant and completely detached from our connectiveness and reliance on a healthier planet. Bees for example are responsible for pollination of the flowers that produce our fruits and vegetables, not just the source of honey.
Honey bees have hives. Many others live and nest under leaves or in the ground. No bees, no us. Everything plays a role directly or indirectly.
link: uctv.tv
Watch lectures and presentations by scientists, climatologists, Scripps ocean scientists and conservationists about their experience and perspectives. The Charles Revelle Series is outstanding.
http://uctv.tv/search-moreresults.aspx?keyword=arctic&subject=sci&subjectname=Science
2. Eyewitness to Global Warming sums it all up. Will Seger is an Arctic explorer, climatologist, lecturer and conservationist.
Look, no one is trying to stop anyone from working or to stop alternative energy strategies. It's time, however, to do it right. Big business will do all sort of mischief unless the impacts are studied first. It's not thinking inside or outside a box, it's adding the component called stewardship. It's not a dirty word. This component desparately needs to be integrated into our daily lives like brushing our teeth. Unfortunately, animals, bugs, dirt, birds and anything else that we don't understand doesn't fit neatly into our society's box. They've been depicted as dirty, diseased, buzzing pests and feared, in cartoons and movies. These fantasy items skew our attitudes towards them. And the further we get from nature the more we disassociate from it. There is a lecture called Environmental Memory on uctv.tv .
This interview was a reality check about people, money and power in this case Japan.
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Golden%20Lily%22
or
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/ go down to October 22, 2009 12:01 am
Something's Happening with Roy of Hollywood Part A
Dave Emory, “For the Record #689 – Interview with Sterling and Peggy Seagraves” Book – “Gold Warriors” // Chris Hedges, “Empire of Illusion” // Eben Rey, “Radio Alchymy” with Don Estes speaker at International Alchemy Conference
"I am not trying to diss wind power, but think we should not be blinded by half truths."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---------------------
The world needs ever-greater supplies of clean, sustainable energy -- modern energy that promotes sustainable development and greater prosperity for all our planet's inhabitants. Wind energy is providing that today, with even more efficient turbines weighing less and producing more power, with even greater reliability than just a few years ago.
I'm not quite sure which "half-truths" you are referring to, but you certainly have dissed wind power in each and every one of your posts, from net energy return to my suggestion of ignoring rated output in exchange for annual energy output.
Of course, "averages can be misleading where more variable weather patterns" are being experienced, but average wind speed over a longer period of time certainly is closer than a high or a low for any given year. A predicted annual energy output from the average wind speed of any given area, sure will be closer than any maximum rated output you can parrot or calculate. That would be the case for your favorite diesel generator too, since fuel costs will continue to fluctuate in the coming years as fossil fuels continue to dwindle, whereas wind turbine fuel is always free.
sandcanyongal:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Green energy at it's best is to be able to buy a solar/wind unit from Home Depot for about $600, plug it into the house jack, charge it and voila, electricity. That's where it's at."
---------------------
I imagine you will be able to find a hybrid energy system for that price at HD that powers your entire home, at the same time you will be able to purchase a hybrid vehicle that gets 200 mpg and goes across the country non-stop for that same $600. But then again, pigs might fly sooner too!
lakota2012
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously you are biased in favor of wind energy. I believe "sandcanyongal" and "scotsengineer" have some very valid points. Exactly what industry are you aligned with?
Also, there is a real difference between the 2 to 3 MW units that sandcanyongal lives near, and the smaller machines you are talking about. Moreover, the wind industry is not forthcoming on their maintenance costs, or their percent availability on an annual basis. The manufacturers also dismiss any acoustical/noise emission problems, or attempt to sweep them under the table as minimal problems.
The data that I've seen shows that Denmark, with 4 GW of installed windpower occasionally powers the entire country from wind, but most of the time has to utilize gas/coal fired plants, or Norwegian/Swedish hydro plants to supply their grid. The reason is that the utilization of wind turbines for the year 2006 was only 16.8%. In other words, the wind blew strongly enough to drive all the turbines approx. one day per week.
Windpower is a renewable source of energy that should be utilized where possible; however, it is not the "saviour" of the energy world, and should be viewed in context with hydro, solar, nuclear, and other sources. Windpower generators have a low efficiency, are intermittent sources of power that require a substantial investment in the transmission grid and back-up sources of energy when utilized on a large scale.
Wildlife corridors could be the answer if integrated into the mix. It doesn't happen now, though. Condors eat dead things like deer, grazing animals (sheep,cattle) that die on the range. Kern Planning mitigated the issue of California Condors that have been sighted within the 9400 acres by phasing out sheep grazing when the turbines are installed. The same thing happened at the Tejon Ranch where they plan to put in a new city between Los Angeles and Bakersfield. The birds are on the endangered species list. The team that brought these birds back from only 11 birds are outraged. On the news, an interview with a representative from the development project gave his opinion, something to the effect, that obviously, these scientists don't have the facts straight. They did a secret partnership with Audubon which is good but the original scientists should have been consulted with before thinking about developing. Now, it's the same with the windfarms. Lakota, you make good points and so does scots engineer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLakota2012 - I think we are edging towards agreement. Certainly the best measure of what a wind turbine will produce is what is measured in practice over as long a period as is practicable. That's the dilemma for those considering investing in a wind power installation. They would like as good an indication of that output before making a serious and often irreversible commitment. To expand a bit on the disingenuous behaviour of some in the wind power industry, the rated power output, not the probable production is usually the main plank of the sales campaign. Second, much is made in sales literature and press reports of "homes powered" and carbon emissions saved, when these are at best dubious measures, and at worst cynically misleading. My wife and I attended a recent alternative energy exhibition and conference in Aberdeen with the serious intent of seeing what we could financially justify on our farm.In all cases for small to medium powered wind, the time it would take ( even with the subsidies ) to pay for the equipment was longer than the warranty period, and none( Warranty period ) exceeded five years, though most claimed a design life of at least twenty. When we inquired about maintenance contracts those who might have been able to help were all mysteriously unavailable- and insurance risks and costs were similarly opaque. If climate change and fossil fuel supplies were not an issue I would be in favour of diesel electric, until wind was cheaper in it's own right - but they are issues so wind power should be pursued and done sensibly. People sometimes get hung up on particular things, and efficiency is one of them. Sure HAWTs are more aerodynamically efficient than VAWTs ,but so what? HAWTs have their limitations which get worse as you try to increase their size. VAWTs can increase in two dimensions, rather than just the one. It is possible to construct them so that all the generators and gearboxes are at ground level and accessible and replaceable whilst the turbine still operates. The parts that catch the wind could be made of galvanised sheet steel which is much cheaper to supply and fabricate than composite laminates. It is also much easier to recycle at the end of it's working life. Most mass produced cars are made with sheet steel, if composites were cheaper, that's what they would use.Scotland's energy policies have been written and pursued by politicians who are largely technically illiterate and have repeatedly ignored good advice from highly qualified and experienced engineers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid M. Clemen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Windpower is a renewable source of energy that should be utilized where possible; however, it is not the "saviour" of the energy world, and should be viewed in context with hydro, solar, nuclear, and other sources."
------------------
I certainly agree that many sources of energy will be needed in the future to replace dirty and finite fossil fuels, and the more renewable energy like solar and wind we use, the better.
Again....The world needs ever-greater supplies of clean, sustainable energy -- modern energy that promotes sustainable development and greater prosperity for all our planet's inhabitants. Wind energy is providing that today, with even more efficient turbines weighing less and producing more power, with even greater reliability than just a few years ago.
BTW, a Vestas V-17 of which I have the pertinent specifications of annual energy output at several different average wind speeds, is not a small wind turbine, with a 56' rotor diameter, a 2,462 sq. ft. swept area and weighing over 7 tons -- producing enough energy for 10-30 homes!
sandcanyongal:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Wildlife corridors could be the answer if integrated into the mix."
---------------
Maybe....we have animal walkways underneath some of the busiest highways, where deer and elk have had massive casualties in the past.
I understand your concerns, and that is one of the reasons I left the populous CA over 20 years ago, and now own quite a few acres right next to the national forest in a very unpopulated county in the Rockies!
scots engineer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the rated power output, not the probable production is usually the main plank of the sales campaign"
----------------------
Yes, and that's exactly why I have posted to ignore the kW rating and replace it with documentation of the annual or monthly energy output with different average wind speeds. The AWEA has numerous workshops on topics such as Wind Project Profitability and Reliability, Wind Power Project Siting, and a Wind and Transmission Workshop in the near future. The AWEA is also striving for more standardization between different manufacturers, like power output at the same wind speed.
http://www.awea.org/
"Sure HAWTs are more aerodynamically efficient than VAWTs ,but so what? VAWTs can increase in two dimensions, rather than just the one."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-----------------
Yes, it's very interesting that HAWT's have become so much more popular despite R&D on both for decades. Obviously, even small HAWT's require towers for height, and anything with moving parts will require sufficient quantities of loc-tite and preventative maintenance. Maybe the next VAWT design for just the simple reason of easier maintenance will come from your farm! Good luck!
BTW, my hybrid PV/wind system works great in my area for the simple reason it's a very sunny region, and when the sun is not shining, the wind is almost sure to be blowing. I'm curious to what your energy exhibition taught you as far as what size wind turbine was the right match for your energy needs on the farm. You could always install a smaller HAWT on a tilt-up tower for much easier maintenance to reduce your current utility needs, while designing the new VAWT.
Obviously, the V-17 would supply much more power than you could use, so the $220K pricetag which includes a 132' tower and installation would be an issue, but a smaller Bergey Excel-S at $30K could still give you 1,000+ kWh's per month in just a 12 mph average wind.
Don Quixote Green Energy creates markets for Solar energy as the solar cells come with a 25 year warranty. A Meg a Watt is a Meg-a-Watt if it be Wind or Solar. The 25 year bottom line cost and repair is the main thing we consider.. We also do Major Wind project's and hold the World record for fastest installion. 60 Mitsubishi Wind Turbines installed at the Mojave Wind Farm in only 30 day to include producing power into the grid. donquixotegreenenergy.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can forget all you know about the old 3 blade horzontial axis wind turbine. The new Verticle Axis Mag turbine that is developed on a Mag Lev techonology with only two moving parts floating on a cushing of air will work at wind speeds up to 175mph and can be built up to 1giga watt of power. The prototype is 5Mega Watt. My friend Ed Mazur in Arizona with whom I visted with at his research and development center at the Casa Grande Airport has invented and developed this state of the Art Mag Turbine that operates for 1 cent per KWhr out performing any other system's
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWild Bill
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like to see some historical basis for your claim of 1 cents/KWhr. Do you have any signed contracts with any utilities that can verify this? How many units are presently producing power, and where? What are the maintenance costs (historical, not speculation) for this machine? And what wind velocity is it designed for, that is, at what wind velocity does it have peak efficiency?
Hi wild Bill - I take it that by installation you mean erection of the towers and turbines on prepared foundations. Concrete needs time to gain strength, and subjecting it to loads whilst it is still "green" can form minute cracks which remain and weaken the structure.Are you sure you meant 5megawatts for the maglev turbine - this would imply a swept area of over 25,000 square meters. I have seen pictures of a much smaller machine on the internet but would be interested in any sites that show and describe such a large VAWT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Wild Bill - further to my reply the mag lev turbine i saw on the internet didn't float on an air cushion, but the magnetic repulsion forces of the permanent magnets embedded in the base of the turbine acting against the induced magnetic fields in the coils round the fixed base. This meant that there was only one moving part and the scale it could acheive was limited by the magnetic field strength of the permanent magnets. Of course these permanent magnets could be replaced by electromagnets fed current by an inductive arrangement and though more complex could still be only one moving part and no sliding electrical connections.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Larry,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur Company ABS Corporation LLC (Moscow, Russian Federation) offers to your attention an elevating crane system Automatic Rescue Climber (ARC) , designed for use in construction and for service on generators masts of wind electric stations.
The elevating crane system ARC is fixed and moves on an external surface of a structure, with the help of its lifting device which engages with the rail fixed on the structure; the lifting device is equipped with special elements ensuring systems fixture to the structure to increase lifting capacity of a derrick crane to 30-50 tons during its work on the structure. Besides, ARC-systems units may be transported on automobile or ship shuttles which are equipped with a mechanism for montage/demontage of the crane on the structure rail; by that, the crane may work on the structure as well as on transport means, or on a construction site (separately from the structure or transport means).
Our Company is doing marketing and promotion of the ARC-system. This design is an invention and has been patented in a few countries. Our Company is a Licensor of these patents in EU, Brazil, South Korea, Australia, South Africa and Israel.
If your technical specialists become interested in a more detailed review of our designs, well be happy to supply you with all necessary information, as well as to discuss an opportunity of our companies cooperation on patenting and serial production of ARC-systems for service on generators masts of wind electric stations.
Dear Larry,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur Company ABS Corporation LLC (Moscow, Russian Federation) offers to your attention an elevating crane system “Automatic Rescue Climber (ARC)”, designed for use in construction and for service on generators’ masts of wind electric stations.
The elevating crane system ARC is fixed and moves on an external surface of a structure, with the help of its lifting device which engages with the rail fixed on the structure; the lifting device is equipped with special elements ensuring system’s fixture to the structure – to increase lifting capacity of a derrick crane to 30-50 tons during its work on the structure. Besides, ARC-system’s units may be transported on automobile or ship shuttles which are equipped with a mechanism for montage/demontage of the crane on the structure rail; by that, the crane may work on the structure as well as on transport means, or on a construction site (separately from the structure or transport means).
Our Company is doing marketing and promotion of the ARC-system. This design is an invention and has been patented in a few countries. Our Company is a Licensor of these patents in EU, Brazil, South Korea, Australia, South Africa and Israel.
If your technical specialists become interested in a more detailed review of our designs, we’ll be happy to supply you with all necessary information, as well as to discuss an opportunity of our companies’ cooperation – on patenting and serial production of ARC-systems – for service on generators’ masts of wind electric stations.
More effective Russian crane for construction of wind generators here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.vertikalnet.ru/en/news/detail.php?ID=13915