Comments on: The Queen Buys The World’s Largest Wind Turbine: 7.5 Megawatts

By: W

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:00:49 +0000

Aren’t jet engines the same airflow direction rotation as propeller airplanes? What a comparison was that?

The fact is Wind Energy grows out to be more competitive with oil-based electricity generation. These costs include the transportation costs of all the materials, which are also embedded in the current electricity generation cost. It’s not like those costs were paid by no one or flew with the wind.

Yes, there are many downsides to Wind Energy and those ugly turbines, but so have each and every one of our energy transformation systems (even solar power, or nuclear power). Problems are there to be solved. I guess we should find a happy middle.

Reducing the personal consumption is also a short term goal. Hard to implement in a third world country with much more immediate needs.

By: shawn richardson

shawn richardson — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:26:53 +0000

hey if you ever need some one to put them up and comission them for you get ahold of me , Iam currently a T/A Comissioner for mitsubishi power systems and have plenty of experience in the wind industry. between me and my brother who is the regional manager for integrated power resources im sure you would be more then satisfied with the quality of work and the experience that we could provide you with best regards shawn richardson

By: Andy Burgess

Andy Burgess — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:50:47 +0000

Mid Wales has 600 wind turbines planned for the area. When you investigate the materials used, (steel for the 400 feet high towers, copper for the generator and base transformer, copper and aluminium to connect them all together, also timber for the pylons and cables needed to connect to the national grid and hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete to make the foundations. You soon begin to realise that this apparently green initiative is perhaps a folly.

A ‘distributed’ system has a much greater impact on resources, the landscape and natural reserves that would unquestionably be best used for other things to protect as well as promote humanity rather than to generate the power to run our televisions and charge the batteries in our Ipods. We could as just one example plant forests to absorb CO2 and provide timber for building and burning for energy.

If something is only 30% efficient at producing power as is a wind turbine, then it is only acceptable to use as an energy source if it has negligable impact on the planet as quite obviously we are going to need rather a lot of them to be of any use. We need at least 1170 of them to equate to one nuclear power station, the construction vehicles to erect them all will travel millions of miles in the process, hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, tens of thousands of tons of copper must be mined from millions of tons of earth. It must all be transported, processed and transported again to site. All of this uses immense amounts of energy..

And of course, we also need some kind of supporting power generator for days when the wind does not blow.

Let us spend our time, money and human effort on reducing our energy consumption so that we may buy our selves the time to find a solution that our children would be proud to inherit and not embarressed to look at whenever they travel through what will be left of our countrside.

Andy Burgess.
Dolfor.

By: G

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:55:51 +0000

@ Isaac Kepler – Turbines may be more efficient, but they’re also noisier. Likely they are also more expensive to maintain and build.

By: M. S. Nunn

M. S. Nunn — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:08:59 +0000

If they are out to sea at least they are not damaging our landscapes. Prince Charles has written passionately about the built environment and how it impacts the psyche. Wind turbines are like the creatures from War of the Worlds. They are like putting up huge skyscapers in rural areas … totally inappropriate. And all this is being done for what reason? To maintain current electricity consumption patterns.

Well, my friends, the feasibility of these turbines reducing the need for conventional power sources is an illusion. This is just another crazy scheme that will have its bust cycle, and not too far off either. Lower-consuming lifestyles might sound unsexy, but that is what we will all be dealing with in the future. Polluting our environments with expensive, destructive wind turbines will not forestall an inevitable economic transformation.

By: Ben Goble

Ben Goble — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:57:16 +0000

in Response to the comments left by Advanced Designs, Inc/ Isaac Kepler, whilst it may be true that vertical axis turbines could potentially produce more energy, the current reality is that they are less efficient than their propellor counterparts. Once the design of these surpasses propellors I’m sure they shall become the main focus of wind power.

By: cb

cb — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:09:11 +0000

Observation: Why are the so called “moral majority” types so quick to accuse anyone in favor of alternative energy a “lib” or a a “green”? So if you want to stop sending $’s overseas to buy oil or enrich some Coal fatcat who wants to level half your county to get the coal out you are automatically a “lib”? Boneheads!

By: Advanced Designs, Inc/ Isaac Kepler

Advanced Designs, Inc/ Isaac Kepler — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:05:24 +0000

‘Propeller Towers’ are not new or perfectable means of deriving power from wind. Yes they work, and the “Spruce Goose” did fly, but it was proven after decades of denials, that ‘Propeller ‘ designs were not the optimum means of Aviation propulsion except for helicopters. After all air is a fluid according to Bernoulli’s theory, and in wind, air flows parallel to the Earth, so its’ optimal force , capture and utility require a vertical axis ‘True Turbine.’ The very trend of pawning off ‘Propeller Towers’ as ‘Wind Turbines’ is itself a perversion or the definition of ‘Turbine.’ Propellers with airfoil design and lift coefficients were indeed ‘New ‘ over a hundred years ago enabling powered air flight, but its designers then conceded there were limits. So, in a few years when the financing sinks in and the problems leak out, will developing real Wind “TURBINES” become a sudden fad surpassing Propeller Towers’ like “JET” aircraft for commercial aviation finally caught on in the ’60’s and even into the ’70’s after about 30 years of ‘telling them so!’ Optimum wind force capture utilizing vertical axis, multiple contoured, proportionally large sail fins, with an open center integral generator hub, conforms to directional flows with ever the same rotational compatibility and gyroscopic stability. This increases cost efficiency many ways. We are not the only ones aware of these advantages, but the “Propeller Tower’ promotors are chasing the wind for their own profits, and cheap and reliable power generation does not generate huge profits and get big attention like the Fad and Trend of ‘Big Wind,’ like mindless crowds waving at a Rock Show!
‘Big Bucks,’ ‘Big Risk’ global capital ventures that end up producing “Big and Bigger Excuses,” like, “where did all that money go?” they can simply say…
“oh, it must have all just blown away!” It is like snobs in the auto market. The more ‘expensive,’ the more ‘prestigeous,’ and the costly ‘exotic,’ always needing more repairs and “Refinements.’ These models are the ones most desireed and are of course the most expensive. Odd how evolved Icons like “Cadillac, Lamborgini, Rolls Royce”are ‘not for everyone, but they are basicly ‘Cars.” Now the Queen of England must have, of course, the biggest new model Wind tower. You’d think it was a competition for new “S U V’s! I guess they do look like “Mercedes” emblems though, maybe that’s it!

By: Bahar Bakhtiari

Bahar Bakhtiari — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:13:07 +0000

Thank you for your good articls .

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:38:33 +0000

The facts on this article are a little off. The Enercon E-126 has a 126 meter rotor diameter (413 feet). Also the revolution per min of these blades is 12 rpm. 1297.48 feet circumferance so at 12*1297.48 * 60 min/hr =934183.99 feet per hour. 934183.99ft / 5280 ft/mile = 176.92 miles per hour way less than the 654.6 mph (speed of sound).