Ireland to build world's biggest 500mw wind farm
Jim Blair
>>Isaacs opposition to Skye wind farm fails
>>By Nicola Woolcock
>>(Filed: 30/11/2002)
>>
>>
>>She said: "These turbines are so much bigger than many people realise.
>>A survey by VistScotland found that 28 per cent of visitors said they
>>would not return to an area where there was a wind farm. To lose 28
>>per cent of people who come to Skye would be very serious for the
>>fragile economy of this island."
>>
>>The turbines, each about 100 metres high, will be built by Amec and
>>produce enough electricity to supply 30,000 homes.
>>On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:05:01 +0000, Habshi <hab...@anony.com> wrote:
>>
>>World's biggest offshore wind farm is given the go-ahead
>>telegraph.co.uk
>>
>>
>>APPROVAL was given yesterday for the world's biggest off-shore
>>wind-generated power project.
>>
>>Two hundred turbines will be sited on a sandbank five miles off the
>>coast of Ireland's Co Wicklow, 40 miles south of Dublin.
>In article <aso1a7$bm2$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>
>Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> writes:
>>... How does $1.2 million per megawatt as a capital investment compare
>>to other power sources?
Chris Torek <nos...@elf.eng.bsdi.com> wrote:
>
>This is (presumably US) $1.20/watt. Compare with:
>
> natgas (combined-cycle): $.60/watt
> nuclear: around $5/watt for last few built in US (not counting
> those that never got started), ~1980 dollars
> coal (fluidized-bed): $1.20/watt
> coal with gasification/combined cycle: $1.40/watt
> solar PV: $5--6/watt (large scale)
>
>(all numbers approximate and no more than 2 significant figures;
>all but nuclear in today's dollars).
>
>>Like nuclear for example?
>
>Outside the US, nuclear could be a lot cheaper as there may not be
>quite so much political pressure, etc. The 1980 dollar costs above
>may not be affected much by inflation now though as plants built 20
>years ago were afflicted by both delays *and* high interest rates
>(today's interest rates are lower).
Hi,
I think the construction costs in France or Japan today would be a closer
estimate to current conditions than US construction costs in 1980.
>
>Capital costs do not tell the whole story, as there are operational
>and maintenance costs and things like utilization, but the above
>numbers help show why new combined-cycle natgas plants are so
>common.
Also fuel costs, where natural gas is high and likely to become much
higher.
Utilization for nuclear and coal are near 90%, but for wind depends on
location. Windmills in Wisconsin operate at under 25%, and less during
the summer when demand is highest.
>
>>And how close to budget will it be?
>
>Only time will tell.
>--
>In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering)
>Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W)
>Domain: to...@bsdi.com http://67.40.109.61/torek/ (for the moment)
>(you probably cannot email me -- spam has effectively killed email)
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Jim Blair
> The tall windmills occupy a tiny amount of land and cows can
>graze contendedly in the fields
Hi,
As long as the cows don't mind a 50-70 db background noise. Here in
Wisconsin a wind farm takes up a lot more space because the wind can
blow from any direction and the turbines must be spaced apart in every
direction to keep each out of the wind shadow of the others.
And they are shut down when ice could form on the blades (and so be
pitched off and kill people or cows).
But I am glad the English and Irish are building these. They can check
out the hazards of salt water spray and storms on wind turbines. If they
work for you, look for someone to suggest building some in the ocean off
Cape Cod (and listen to the reaction of the environmentalists).
And if the salt destroys the generators, or a storm knocks them down,
well better you guys pay the bill than us ;-)
Fred B. McGalliard
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:asr7kr$9gi$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> hab...@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
> > The tall windmills occupy a tiny amount of land and cows can
> >graze contendedly in the fields
>
> Hi,
>
> As long as the cows don't mind a 50-70 db background noise.
Dear Jim. As near as I can tell, the wind itself makes more noise than the
turbines. I did park under (well within about 50 feet, there was a fence) of
one of the big turbines outside of palm springs CA, when it was runing full
tilt. It was cool. But perhaps there are noisy turbines?
Don Libby
>
> hab...@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
> > The tall windmills occupy a tiny amount of land and cows can
> >graze contendedly in the fields
>
> Hi,
>
> As long as the cows don't mind a 50-70 db background noise.
Flickering shadows also seem to disturb cows, according to some.
And what about that mysterious "stray voltage" thingy?
-dl
Lantern
>...a 50-70 db background noise.>
Is this from the thump thump of the huge propellers or the electric generators
(or both)? How much is 50-70 db (comparable to what) ?
Jim Blair
>
>> hab...@anony.com (habshi) wrote:
>> > The tall windmills occupy a tiny amount of land and cows can
>> >graze contendedly in the fields
>"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As long as the cows don't mind a 50-70 db background noise.
>
>Dear Jim. As near as I can tell, the wind itself makes more noise than the
>turbines. I did park under (well within about 50 feet, there was a fence) of
>one of the big turbines outside of palm springs CA, when it was runing full
>tilt. It was cool. But perhaps there are noisy turbines?
>
>
Hi,
The ones in Wisconsin make 50-70 db
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/wind.txt
I have never heard the noise, because I have never seen one in operation.
And when I drove to Palm Springs CA, only about 10% of them were turning,
and with the car going 70 mph I did not hear the windmills.
So what fraction of those turbines were turning when you were parking
there? And any idea why so few were operating when I was there?
Fred B. McGalliard
really blowing and it does make a lot of noise in my ears. I wonder how loud
the field the cow would be eating, (have to be irrigated in the desert out
of palm springs), would be under the kind of wind needed to run these mills?
I would guess over 50dB. Certainly too loud for a casual conversation over
any distance more than 5 feet or so.
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:at2coi$jga$2...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Jim Blair
>I have been through when most of them were turning, but then the wind is
>really blowing and it does make a lot of noise in my ears.
Hi,
Aside from the noise and the million of birds they kill, there is the
question of cost. To be cost efficient, they would need to have *all* of
them operate when the wind is suitable, to offset the times when the wind
is not suitable. Others have commented on the small number that do
operate on windy days. So is your "most" = 55% or 95%?
I wonder if wind blown dust harms the windings? And if salt spray would
do the same for ones near the ocean.
Matthew Emmett
> "Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> >I have been through when most of them were turning, but then the wind is
> >really blowing and it does make a lot of noise in my ears.
>
> Hi,
>
> Aside from the noise and the million of birds they kill,
Do you have a reference for your claim that wind power turbines kill
millions of birds?
Thanks,
Matt
M. Ranjit Mathews
> "Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> >I have been through when most of them were turning, but then the wind is
> >really blowing and it does make a lot of noise in my ears.
>
> Hi,
>
> Aside from the noise and the million of birds they kill, there is the
> question of cost. To be cost efficient, they would need to have *all* of
> them operate when the wind is suitable, to offset the times when the wind
> is not suitable. Others have commented on the small number that do
> operate on windy days. So is your "most" = 55% or 95%?
>
> I wonder if wind blown dust harms the windings? And if salt spray would
> do the same for ones near the ocean.
How well do wind turbines hold up in a gale?
Habshi
On 9 Dec 2002 16:03:25 -0800, ranjit_...@yahoo.com (M. Ranjit
Steve Spence
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
ssp...@green-trust.org
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:at2pjt$rb7$6...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Jim Blair
Matthew Emmett <ma...@emmett.ca> wrote:
>
>Do you have a reference for your claim that wind power turbines kill
>millions of birds?
>
>Thanks,
>Matt
Hi,
Since the US does not yet have very many wind turbines, this
was based on a recent newspaper report on the petition to
the FCC for a moratorium on the construction of any more
communication towers within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast
from Texas to Tampa Bay.
The petition was filed by the American Bird Conservancy,
Friends of the Earth, and the Forest Conservation Council,
and based on a federal study that estimates bird deaths
now at from 5 to 50 million a year as the result of collisions
with the existing communication towers there.
I assume that large towers with rotating blades would be as
much as a hazard to birds as stationary towers.
These numbers of deaths are not a threat to the birds survival
and are fewer than domestic cats kill, but this is still a
factor to consider.
I found this from:
http://www.towerkill.com/towertalk/messages/550.html
QUOTE:
Radar can also track flight activity and shut down turbines if birds
get too close. Dr. Tom Cade, chairman of the task force says,
"I'm convinced we're moving in the right direction for the
environment, for wildlife, and for for wind energy. I'd like
to think that this research will result in a situation ation in
which everybody emerges as a winner."
UNQUOTE.
Think the wind turbines will be shut down when the radar screen
sees birds in the area? That would not only disrupt power supplies,
but even when not turning, the turbines are as much as a harzard
to birds as communication towers.
Fred B. McGalliard
"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:at2pjt$rb7$6...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Fred B. McGalliard
rotated entirely out of the wind. I thought they were rated for a 100 year
worst case of like 120 or so, but I have forgotten.
"M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1d4c67e3.02120...@posting.google.com...
ingen
<frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote in
<H6x27...@news.boeing.com>:
>Most turbines can be feathered back (the blades turned to an idle angle), or
>rotated entirely out of the wind. I thought they were rated for a 100 year
>worst case of like 120 or so, but I have forgotten.
This summer 16 turbines of this type:
<URL:http://www.nordex-online.com/_e/produkte_und_service/onshore/n80/N80-info-engl.html>
was installed close to Nordkapp, the top of mainland Norway.
One of them fell down after 2 weeks of operation.
Its power supply for "turning" the blades failed during a manual
operation. Its rotor then soon rotated 44 o/ min, and reached speed at
blade end 663 km/h. Max allowed is 19 o/min / 289 km/h.
I guess one of the blades with weight 9200 kg then fell of. With the
two remaining blades rotating at 44 o/ min we can all understand why
the whole top with weight 90 000 kg soon fell 80 m to the ground.
Quite expensive electricity I would guess.
More expensive wind-power can be seen here:
<URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1777000/1777268.stm>
<URL:http://www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk/gallery.htm>
--
ingen
"I was glad to have a chance to express in public my strong support
for nuclear energy. I expect that some time in the next century,
when the adverse effects of climate change begin to bite, people
will look back in anger at those who now so foolishly continue to
pollute by burning fossil fuel instead of accepting the beneficence
of nuclear power. I often think of the Green Movement as some global
overanxious mother figure who is so concerned about small risks that
she ignores the real dangers that loom. As in the biblical fable,
we strain at the gnats of Chernobyl, and swallow the camel of
massive pollution by our carbon-burning civilization."
James Lovelock, "HOMAGE to GAIA", p. 373.
Hatunen
<jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> writes:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Aside from the noise and the million of birds they kill, ...
>
>Matthew Emmett <ma...@emmett.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Do you have a reference for your claim that wind power turbines kill
>>millions of birds?
>
>Since the US does not yet have very many wind turbines,
What do you call "many"? Anyone who has driven in California in the
Altamont, Tehachapi and Palm Springs areas can tell you there are an
awful lot of wind turbines in America. While the proportion of energy
generated by wind is pretty low, the actual number of turbines is
pretty high.
>this
>was based on a recent newspaper report on the petition to
>the FCC for a moratorium on the construction of any more
>communication towers within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast
>from Texas to Tampa Bay.
>
>The petition was filed by the American Bird Conservancy,
>Friends of the Earth, and the Forest Conservation Council,
>and based on a federal study that estimates bird deaths
>now at from 5 to 50 million a year as the result of collisions
>with the existing communication towers there.
>
>I assume that large towers with rotating blades would be as
>much as a hazard to birds as stationary towers.
You may assume it, but is it so?
************ DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) ***********
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Lantern
>Anyone who has driven in California in the
>Altamont, Tehachapi and Palm Springs areas can tell you there are an
>awful lot of wind turbines>
Yes, I drove around the Palm Springs wind farm. Man, those things are plentiful
and big , huge, like what.? 50' propellers? I was amazed at how much wind it
takes - like what, 30 mph to get 'em going?
John F. Opie
<jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>
>I assume that large towers with rotating blades would be as
>much as a hazard to birds as stationary towers.
>
>
Hi Jim -
Does it really get so hot that people need to turn on these huge fans?
I keep on seeing these things and wondering if it wouldn't be a better
idea to install air conditioning instead.
:-)
John
Jim Blair
>Chris Torek <nos...@elf.eng.bsdi.com> wrote in message news:<asq60m$r7v$1...@elf.eng.bsdi.com>...
>> (I deleted the soc.culture.* groups.)
>>
>> In article <aso1a7$bm2$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>
>> Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> writes:
>> >... How does $1.2 million per megawatt as a capital investment compare
>> >to other power sources?
>>
>>
>> natgas (combined-cycle): $.60/watt
>> nuclear: around $5/watt for last few built in US (not counting
>> those that never got started), ~1980 dollars
>> coal (fluidized-bed): $1.20/watt
>> coal with gasification/combined cycle: $1.40/watt
>> solar PV: $5--6/watt (large scale)
>>
>> (all numbers approximate and no more than 2 significant figures;
>> all but nuclear in today's dollars).
>>
>> >Like nuclear for example?
>>
>> Outside the US, nuclear could be a lot cheaper as there may not be
>> quite so much political pressure, etc.
bol...@gmx.at (Boludo) wrote:
>
>Hi,
>I'am living outside the US and next to (150 miles) an pretty old
>atomic power plant, which isn't running correctly.
Hi,
Not clear what "correctly" means here. A lot of down time? Questions
about safety? Reduced power output?
>...My country possess
>one or two power plants too, but they are turned off. Some Federal
>state goverments are exerting a lot of pressure to the czech goverment
>not to turn on again the power plant. In the last six months the
>responsible persons had to shut down serveral times the "warming up
>procedure" because of some "minor" problems. If U would be in my
>situation U would not only think of costs!!!!
If cost (money) is not an issue for you, and if a reliable supply
electricity IS important, then I suggest that you buy yourself a
generator. Gasoline or diesel ones are available, probably on e-Bay.
Jim Blair
>Somebody must have been collecting the dead birds then. I didn't see a one.
Hi,
Do you see a lot of birds flying around in the desert near Palm Springs?
We do have a lot here, and especially in the spring and fall when geese,
ducks and cranes migrate.
Note that my estimate was based on Gulf Coast bird kills. They fly into
communication towers, especially at night.
Jim Blair
>
>How well do wind turbines hold up in a gale?
Hi,
The ones in Kewanee Wisconsin are supposed to stand up to a 200 mph
wind. That should be anything short of a tornado hit.
But they are anchored into a dolomite base, and I wonder if having waves
as well as wind would make turbines in the ocean more subject to
storms.
Jim Blair
>On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:33:01 GMT, "Fred B. McGalliard"
><frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote in
><H6x27...@news.boeing.com>:
>
>>Most turbines can be feathered back (the blades turned to an idle angle), or
>>rotated entirely out of the wind. I thought they were rated for a 100 year
>>worst case of like 120 or so, but I have forgotten.
>
>This summer 16 turbines of this type:
><URL:http://www.nordex-online.com/_e/produkte_und_service/onshore/n80/N80-info-engl.html>
>was installed close to Nordkapp, the top of mainland Norway.
>One of them fell down after 2 weeks of operation.
>Its power supply for "turning" the blades failed during a manual
>operation. Its rotor then soon rotated 44 o/ min, and reached speed at
>blade end 663 km/h. Max allowed is 19 o/min / 289 km/h.
>I guess one of the blades with weight 9200 kg then fell of. With the
>two remaining blades rotating at 44 o/ min we can all understand why
>the whole top with weight 90 000 kg soon fell 80 m to the ground.
>Quite expensive electricity I would guess.
Hi,
I'm sure glad I wasn't near when that happened. Hate to become another
victim of a wind generator accident :-(
Habshi
then put windmills there ?
Fred B. McGalliard
> "Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>
> >Somebody must have been collecting the dead birds then. I didn't see a
one.
>
> Hi,
>
> Do you see a lot of birds flying around in the desert near Palm Springs?
Yes. A very large number of the smaller starlings and the like. Quite a few
of the larger seagulls. An assortment of black birds, etc. A few hawks and
some more specialized birds like the road runners and the like. I am not a
bird watcher, so that's all I really noticed.
>
> We do have a lot here, and especially in the spring and fall when geese,
> ducks and cranes migrate.
>
> Note that my estimate was based on Gulf Coast bird kills. They fly into
> communication towers, especially at night.
Your realize that this exact argument might speak equally strongly to every
large building in the city.
Steve Spence
yesterday.....
technology happens.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
ssp...@green-trust.org
"ingen" <in...@bergenpolitikammer.com> wrote in message
news:at5h2f$107qt6$1...@ID-26288.news.dfncis.de...
Hatunen
<frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>
>"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>news:at5pql$gp7$2...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>> Do you see a lot of birds flying around in the desert near Palm Springs?
>
>Yes. A very large number of the smaller starlings and the like. Quite a few
>of the larger seagulls. An assortment of black birds, etc. A few hawks and
>some more specialized birds like the road runners and the like. I am not a
>bird watcher, so that's all I really noticed.
Calling what roadrunners do "flying" is being pretty charitable.
Chris Torek
Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> writes:
>... even when not turning, the turbines are as much as a harzard
>to birds as communication towers.
Actually -- and perhaps surprisingly -- they are not, in practice.
Imagine what would happen if you put a megawatt-scale wind turbine
on top of a typical communications tower. Compare, e.g., the
relative wind loading numbers for power turbines and comm-towers.
Note that the comm-tower's wind profile is kept as low as possible,
which means using the thinnest possible structural elements that
will support the antennae involved (and any ice loads that may be
a factor). Often communications towers are made of remarkably slim
strips of steel, guyed to provide vertical stability. Wind towers,
by contrast, are usually heavy concrete affairs (perhaps with steel
jackets) designed for heavy compressive loads. They could be guyed,
but rarely are (I hesitate to say "never" although I have never
seen one); the central column already provides sufficient stability.
Why are communications towers designed for so much less stress?
Answer: because they can be, and it makes them cheaper.
As it happens, it seems that birds can "see" the typical larger
structures of wind-generator towers at a greater distance (even in
fog and other bad weather) than the thinner structures of comm-towers.
What they cannot see are the fast-moving blades of the 22-year-old
turbine designs used in places like the Altamont Pass. These have
a 20-year design lifetime and are slowly being replaced. Time will
tell whether the newer, slower-rotating blades on the new megawatt
turbines really do kill significantly fewer raptors than the old,
fast-spinning 65-kW turbines, although the >10:1 power ratio
(new:old) certainly means fewer birds per MWh. :-)
(Although not exactly active, I am an Audubon member, so I hear
about these things now and then.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering)
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W)
Domain: to...@bsdi.com http://67.40.109.61/torek/ (for the moment)
(you probably cannot email me -- spam has effectively killed email)
ingen
<ssp...@green-trust.org> wrote in
<o1wJ9.46330$CU3....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>:
>not as expensive as the French satellite that "landed" prematurely
>yesterday.....
>
>technology happens.
>
>--
>Steve Spence
>Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
>& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
>http://www.green-trust.org
>ssp...@green-trust.org
Wind power is poor technology oversold by environuts.
If you want to discuss French technology I can find a lot of good
examples how to produce cheap electricity. France has 95 nuclear
powerplants that are operating very well. France do not have to go to
war because of lack of cheap energy. They export cheap nuclar energy
to neigbours like Italy. Italy also have some very good nuclear power
plants, but they are not producing any electricity.
The worst example of expencive energy production that I can think of
happended in US long time ago. Do a Google search for
"Shoreham.nuclear energy".
Its cost was about 85 times bigger than planned. It newer produced any
electricity and was sold to New York for 1 $ and teared down.
--
ingen
"Some people will do anything to save the Earth,
except taking a science course" P.J. O'Rourke
Jim Blair
>On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:44:37 +0000 (UTC), Jim Blair
><jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>>Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Aside from the noise and the million of birds they kill, ...
>>
>>Matthew Emmett <ma...@emmett.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>Do you have a reference for your claim that wind power turbines kill
>>>millions of birds?
>
>>
hatu...@cox.net (Hatunen) wrote:
>
>What do you call "many"? Anyone who has driven in California in the
>Altamont, Tehachapi and Palm Springs areas can tell you there are an
>awful lot of wind turbines in America. While the proportion of energy
>generated by wind is pretty low, the actual number of turbines is
>pretty high.
>
>
Hi,
IF we are concerned about the thousands of deaths per year in the US
caused by coal power plants, then replacing coal with an alternative
soon is a must. And if CO2/GHG is a problem, then natural gas and oil are
are not options.
So I meant low when compared to the number of wind turbines that would be
necessary to replace the current coal power plants. The windmills
operating in the USA today is an insignificant fraction of that.
(and as an aside to my first paragraph, why do the thousands of deaths
caused by coal in the US become discussed only when Bush suspends some
clean air rules that might change that number by a few percent, but no one
knows for sure which way?)
....
>>
>>I assume that large towers with rotating blades would be as
>>much as a hazard to birds as stationary towers.
>
>You may assume it, but is it so?
>
The existing wind turbines kill birds. The question become just how many
millions of bird kills a year are considered acceptable. Hey, dead birds
don't upset me as much as dead people do. But I say go nuclear and we
won't have either.
Jim Blair
>Why not build walls , funneling the window into a gap between them and
>then put windmills there ?
Hi,
??? I don't understand what you mean. If the wind direction changes (like
here where it can blow from any direction), which way would would you
build the walls?
And why? To concentrate wind? Surely it would be cheaper to add more
turbines than to build walls to make fewer turbines each more efficient.
And if the issue is strong winds and/or waves knocking turbines down, your
walls would focus that wind/wave energy and make the problem worse.
Jim Blair
Good reply. But even if each communication tower kills fewer birds and a
windmill, if wind is to become more than a token power source, many more
windmills will be needed and the total bird kill from them will be in the
millions per year.
I don't oppose killing a few million birds a year, but this is a factor to
be considered in the "alternate energy" debate.
Jim Blair
>>
>> Note that my estimate was based on Gulf Coast bird kills. They fly into
>> communication towers, especially at night.
"Fred B. McGalliard" <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>
>
>Your realize that this exact argument might speak equally strongly to every
>large building in the city.
>
>
Hi,
And some birds are killed by flying into buildings. But such building are
necessary if we are to have the high population density cities that
minimize the environmental impact of human population (avoid sprawl etc).
But there are alternatives to windmills.
Also these city building provide habitat for many birds.
habshi
has to go through it and its very fierce
David Lloyd-Jones
wouldn't you use the megawattage as the measure of a wind farm's size?
Or is this one bigger than others because it's out at sea?
-dlj.
Lantern
>The worst example of expencive energy production that I can think of
>happended in US long time ago. Do a Google search for
>"Shoreham.nuclear energy".
Yes true, but it is worse than that. There are dozens of "Shorehams". Good luck
with your nukes and recyling in France. What does the next generation nuclear
plant in France look like? Breeder?
Jim Blair
>ingen wrote in part:
>
>>The worst example of expencive energy production that I can think of
>>happended in US long time ago. Do a Google search for
>>"Shoreham.nuclear energy".
gchan...@aol.com (Lantern) wrote:
>
>Yes true, but it is worse than that. There are dozens of "Shorehams". Good luck
>with your nukes and recyling in France. What does the next generation nuclear
>plant in France look like? Breeder?
>
Hi,
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1992/j92/j92.wilson.html
Shoreham is a good example of how obsession with nuclear dangers leads to
global warming and thousands of deaths from emphysema, asthma, lung cancer
and mining accidents. Each YEAR these kill more people than even
Chernobyl killed in one accident. And compared to the one time TMI death
total of 0.3.
Because while Shoreham was being blocked, humdreds of coal power plants
continue to operate.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> A bit like the gap between skycrapers in New York . The wind
> has to go through it and its very fierce
Indeed, a German architect has designed a dual skyscraper with three
wind turbines between them. As far as I can remember the design:
The buildings were elliptical in their horizontal cross section (or
their horizontal cross-sections were ellipse-like polygons) with the
long axes of the ellipses being parallel to each other. The design
connected the buildings together (with a walkway/ corridor) at four
points - at the top, the bottom, and inbetween the middle turbine and
each of the other two turbines.
ingen
<dlloy...@rogers.com> wrote in <3DF774BD...@rogers.com>:
>Or is this one bigger than others because it's out at sea?
>
It all depends on the wind.
We have:
500mw X time = energy
wind X time = energy
Now, if we put:
wind = zero
we get:
zero X time = zero
Ensio K
> Why not build walls , funneling the window into a gap between them and
> then put windmills there ?
Hi!
Wind must flow freely to get the best of it. So the solution is a new type
of windmill. Hard to explane look: www.windside.com , is this it ?
Dave Gower
> Wind must flow freely to get the best of it. So the solution is a new type
> of windmill. Hard to explane look: www.windside.com , is this it ?
This seems to be a variation on the Darrius turbine, which has been around
for decades. Like all vertical-axis turbines, it probably has lower
efficiency than a horizontal-axis propeller. But their simplicity and
reliability has always been attractive, so they can be found in some utility
applications, like remote transmitters.