Wind farms

Must work,its the fastest growing electrical energy source,% wise,In the USA right now.

Mr James doesnt know what he's talking about,COUNTRIES around the world are betting HEAVILY in wind.Its becoming a very large power generating source.
No ,it isnt a 100% answer.


BooBoo

With a name like Windy in Kansas you have to know that I am all for them.

Here is a link to the wind farm I visited. It is the largest wind farm in Kansas and cranks out enough MGW from 170 generators to supply energy for about 33,000 homes. http://kansastravel.org/graycountywindfarm.htm

While standing at the base of a unit a person is surprised at the quietness of them. Loud? THEY ARE NOT! The sound is kind of a gear whine/hum. I suspect the 22 revolution per minute turbine blades use gears to speed up the generator drive. Did you catch that? The blades turn slowly at 22 rpms.

I don't know what they have in mind for your area, but scattered about is only loosely correct. They can't be placed real close together as they would disrupt the air stream of each other. Besides this way allows more land owners to prosper from the placement.

The last wind farm to be built in Kansas was erected and placed on line in only a few short months, maybe 6-8. The residents of the nearby town seem thrilled with it. I certainly would as such a farm is a tourist draw.

The ONLY negative thing in my opinion is the massive amount of electricity put into the grid, meaning greater electromagnetic fields. If one lived nearby I would worry about the affects even if they have never been conclusively proved detrimental.

I live in Nolan county,lots of wind turbines out here.My husband works for GE on the turbines.I have driven underneath plenty of them and the only noisy ones are the ones with brake problems.The wind never stops blowing out here,gotta love west Tx.The new towers are amazing on power production.Jobs are being created without losses in another sector. Honestly the rent checks the land owners get are a godsend,with the drought.No problems with turbines here.I always say the horizon has improved greatly lol.All I see is money being made when the wind blows now.It could be that I have homemade wide turbines at the farm lol.

The wind is blowing somewhere, all the time....

Since our electric grid is about national, the power is being transported from where it is produced, to where it is being used.

Yes we need standby generation, and that will be coal, natural gas, or oil.

But with wind production, we will need _less_ of those, so wind does work.

Can't imagine Lovelock's motivation to be so off.

Just like ethanol - it is not _the_ answer to our liquid fuel needs. But it helps keep gasoline less-poluting, while it adds 3-8% more net energy source to our use. That helps on several levels.

This thread reminds me of Ted Kennedy. All liberal & warm-fuzzy & gotta go green you know, hate those conservative oil people. Then he also helps pass a law outlawing wind turbines on the coast of Mass. Gotta protect his vaccation spot form all those ugly things.......

Two-faced.

My local county is as well. Local town wants to build a power plant. Oh my, all the horrors of this, the county people are all opposed!!!! Letters to the editor, should burn corn or build windmills for power, not coal/ng. Yet the fall before, the same county passed a law preventing windmills from being built on the top of the river valleys - it would so ruin the scenic views dontchaknow.

Two-faced.

-->Paul

Does not surprise me. From Wikipedia:

__________________
Mess with me? I may let karma take care of it. Mess with my family? I become Karma.

Hey, I was born in Sweetwater! Good to see another person from the Big Country on here, there is one other that I know of besides us.


Actually, that is pretty fast. If your windmills are like the ones down here, then each blade is about 100 feet long (The ones here are 112 feet).
112ft X 2 = 224ft (diameter of the circle the tip of the blade travels)
224ft X 3.14 (Pi)= 703.36ft (circumference of same circle)
703ft X 22rpm= 15473 feet per minute.
15473 ft per minute X 60minutes= 928,380 ft per hour.
928,380 ft per hour / 5280ft = 175 miles per hour.

So, yeah, the tips of those blades are moving pretty fast.

I've got some ridgetop acreage in sw VA and would
love to play host ( for a fee ) to a few wind turbines ..
Where do I sign up ???

Triff ..

We have mountain ridges on our land that receive strong funneled winds. We were approached by a wind farm development company about putting 30 megawatts of wind power on our western ridges and maybe later more on the other peaks. I am a strong believer in renewable energy, sounded good. They offered us what looked at first glance like a wonderful deal, a percent of the money from the power generated and sold. They were very eager for us to sign up and quite pushy.

But when I studied it closely I discovered:

1) We were unlikely to ever get much of anything because they were excluding profits from energy credits and it turns out that may be where they would make almost all the money. They might generate very little actual power, maybe even none. It is a grants and pollution trading credit game that they use to make their money.

2) Their windmill blades would throw ice up to 1,000' down wind of the towers destroying our forests which we depend on - we do sustainable forestry. This would do tens of thousands of dollars of damage a year to our woods and make us unable to log during the key winter season which is when it is best to log for the trees and soils as they are protected by the freezing of the ground and the snow.

3) In 30 years when the contract ended the windmills will likely be useless and outdated junk that they would then abandon on our property. The town would then tax _us_ on those eyesores as if they were still worth millions of dollars. I would not have the money to remove them so then our mountain tops would be littered with rusting junk that would eventually fall down.

In the end I said no. That company soon thereafter vanished into bankruptcy. Good riddance.

As a side note I do not like the lights on the towers. They are unnecessary. If airplanes are going to fly at night they should use radio beacons, not visible lights that can be seen from the ground. This is unnecessary visual pollution. That was not my reason for saying no but it was a minor annoyance that is a non-issue once I discovered how the wind farm developer was going to cheat us.

I would like to see renewable sources of electricity but it should also be done honest. All this government granting, energy trading and pollution credits is dubious as I learned from this experience.

__________________
SugarMtnFarm.com -- Pastured Pigs, Poultry, Sheep, Dogs and Kids

Unfortunately Booboo, most of the electrical load today is commercial, with a high consumption factor. I remember we had to install a dedciated 26,000 volt subtransmission circuit to one single customer to power his 4000 hp compressor motor, or around 3 megawatts. One factor that cannot be controlled is demand. The wind is usually calm in the early AM, when the greatest demand is called for due to the startup surge. Utilities do install peaking units for sudden demands, but the cost is very high. An efficient base load steam unit has a heat rate of around 4000 Btu's per kilowatthour, while a peaking unit such as an aero derivitave simple cycle unit would have a heat rate of around 16,000 btu's per kilowatt hour, three times as much which reflects a triple cost, but it can be loaded in three minutes. Factor in such things a VA reactive, and capacitance, which are easily controlled by base load units, I would think relying soley on wind units would result in system unstability.

__________________
United states of America

Born July 4, 1776

Died November 4, 2008

Suicide

I second that one Jim. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

__________________
If some one has done something before,
You can also do it, if you find out how they did it

We have power tools, ancestors didn't

keep kicking the ball
it won't stop rolling

Dennis

Wont be 100%,unless the built capacity exceeded 100% to acct for downtimes at certain fields.

But its a GRID,not local,but regional.With that,regionally they fly.And the grid operator would need to have at his disposal enough overcapacity to
meet the loss from plants down.
At wind sites,they know when it blows,its pretty well known.They dont just stop and start randomly,once the breeze comes up,its consistent.Over capacity,just turn some out of the wind.

I like them better than any fossil fuel or nuke,much safer and cleaner.

And as I say,I live among them(in our area),they are very good neighbors.

I can drive by fossil plants and see smoke being emitted with God knows what in it,windplants,clean clean clean.

No,not a 100% answer,I really agree with that.

BooBoo

I can tell you have never flown an airplane. Those high mountain ridges are the most dangerous places to be at night. You are depending on an altimeter to tell you what hieght you are at and if the pressure has changed sense you left your airport and set it, it may very well be telling you you are a few hundred feet higher than you truely are.
It is hard to see the distance to the ground at night and I promiss you there has been more than one close call that was avoided because of those lights coming into site just in time.
I was in one of them, with six other people an board and I for one, simply will never fly again at night. Period. End of story, for me. I don't have that need, but others have to fly around the clock.

__________________
If some one has done something before,
You can also do it, if you find out how they did it

We have power tools, ancestors didn't

keep kicking the ball
it won't stop rolling

Dennis

Visual pollution,what is a city at night?

There is no free lunch with power.We have now,out of sight,out of mind pollution.
Just like cars,they send out massive clouds of pollution,you just dont see it so you let it go.

No free lunch,until you are willing to do without power.I'd rather flashing lights than 24/7 air pollution.Or 1000 year toxic wastes.

BooBoo

It is a grid as you say, and it is a very fragile one at best because of the multitude of NIMBYS who fear perceived electromagnetic radiation while living in an electromagnetic cage called their house. System operators move power throughout the grid fluidly limited only by the allowable carrying capacity of the transmission circuits themselves. There is a huge amount of hydro up north, but it is not available to most of the US because of transmission restrictions. It does no good to make it cleanly if you cannot get it to customers. Obviously you haven't been involved in controlling such things as rolling blackouts, load shedding, voltage reductions.etc which occur because the load demand in an area cannot be met because there is no way to get it to those customers. Yes they do wind studies, but they cannot guarantee capacity or spinning reserve, which customers are entitled to. You don't need a 100% capacity availability, you need only enough to cover the loss of three major generators at any given time, but you need it on line and available at a rate of at least 3 mw per minute per reserve unit to prevent imminent collapse.

__________________
United states of America

Born July 4, 1776

Died November 4, 2008

Suicide

Your right,never ran a grid.

Im right,they do produce power,and a lot of it.

Again,if it didnt work,govs. wouldnt be scrambling all over the world to put them in.Or utilities wouldnt build them either.

Yep,the grid has problems,like a lot of infrastructure does.

Palm Springs and Altamont put out a lot of extremely reliable power,last I heard they beat fossil plants for online percent reliability.As a side note,our solar plants are also more reliable on up time too,within their operating window.

Another plus for wind,its Homemade power and rates cant be artificially manipulated,the costs are known and built in,unlike fossil fuels and market manipulation of those power sources.
Reliable costs,no internal or ecternal risks to our ability to produce it.

But weve both made our points,lets let the others chime in without our biases.

Can I by any chance bet you are tied into conventional power generation?
Just a question,I respect what youve had to say,you are obviously informed.

BooBoo

No,but Ive been a victim to fossil fuel power fraud,as were all Californians t the tune of 20 billion dollars,they were able to steal our entire surpls,but add a hefty deficit through manipulation and fraud.

They werent able to shut down our windplants or solar plants,they DID shut down our conventional plants and create a shortage where none existed beforehand.

Anything that limits their ability to so I support fully.

BooBoo

I do agree with the 20-30 yr life span.There is no plan on what to do with them after they are condemed.I asked my husband about it and he even admitted that there is no plan for their disposal.I worry about that,the money is flowing,but in 20 yrs?Who gets stuck with it,no plan from what I am hearing.I have asked that question to people from several major companies.On the bird thing,the sites have EPA people that come out and collect the bird carcesses.After a yr or two that the towers are put up,the wildlife just florishes.I can't count the number of deer ,turkeys,hawks and snakes that have almost totalled the car on the site.They even have to collect the runover rattlesnakes on the site.That one blows my mind.I tell my husband we need to put in a wind park when we retire.Graze the milk goats between them lol.

What a great discussion! Thanks for all the input. Looks like there is no right or wrong...just lots of different opinions.

I got my source of information from googling "Dangers of Wind Farms", and the main pages were a guy from Ireland who was very much against wind farms. This is some of what he had to say:
Remember that it seems to be a historical aberration for windpower supporters to misuse and misapply scientific and technical facts.
1. Turbines are reliable. FALSE. For proof, read the statistics for component failures. See also the photographs of broken turbines and blades, if optical assurance is required. Visit the Altamont area of California, where turbines stand stationery, sometimes bladeless, by the sides of the road. Note also the increased risk of lightning hits.
2. Turbines are efficient. FALSE. Manufacturers continually underrate the efficiency of turbines, which is on average 25-30%. There is linked to the intermittency problem; no wind = no electricity. As an example of turbine efficiency, 9369 produce only 1.7% of Germany's power, and this itself may be an exaggerated figure.
3. Windfarms do not use much space. FALSE. The power plant utilizes significantly more space than any other form of power plant. Per k when produced, this space required is totally disproportionate. Apart from the turbine siting, space is also wasted with construction of access roads, 'improvements' of existing roads, and the erection of substations, interpretative centers, etc.
4. Windfarms reduce pollution. FALSE. The miniscule amount of electricity produced is swallowed by industrial growth. Pollution is produced by traffic and construction in the construction and dismantling phases of windfarm development; also to a large degree in manufacturing industries which produce wind turbine components.
5. Electricity from wind energy avoids emissions from coal and other fossil-fuelled electric generating plants. FALSE. Because of industrial growth, the electrical output is swallowed and in fact more fossil fuels are burned. Because wind turbines produce only intermittently, other generating plants have to be immediately available - either running at less than full capacity or in 'spinning reserve' - to supply electricity when the wind drops or disappears. The backup plants still produce emissions while in this backstopping mode.
6. The electricity produced by windfarms is significant. FALSE. A glance at the table summarizing power outputs internationally shows how pathetically small this contribution is. This amount will gradually grind to a halt in the face of growing adverse public opinion, and the dwindling of available sites (it is already difficult to get permits in Germany). The small amounts of electricity produced is illustrated by the fact that it would take 1904 new 750kW wind turbines operating at 28% capacity factor to produce as much electricity as one 500MW gas-fired combined cycle base-load generating plant with an 80% capacity factor.
7. The generating capacity of a turbine (eg kW or MW) is important. MISLEADING. Such ratings merely show how much electricity could be produced at an instant in time IF the wind is blowing at the right speed - which seldom occurs. A wind turbine produces nothing if windspeed isn't within the right speed range. On average, newer wind turbines produce electricity annually in the range of 25-30% of their 'rated' kW or MW capacity.
8. Turbines are 'green' and make a significant impact on reducing global warming. FALSE. Turbines have several negative environmental impacts. Because production is so tiny, it is swallowed by industrial growth, so greenhouse gases in fact increase even in well developed nations. Construction, dismantling, and the component manufacturing industry increase greenhouse gases. Windfarms cause industrialization of rural uplands.
9. The oft-cited 'number of houses served' by a windfarm is a meaningful number. FALSE. 'Homes' aren't really being served because the small amounts of electricity produced by windfarms is available only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Furthermore, 'homes' account for 35% of the electricity used in America. What about the other 65%?*
10. Turbines are silent. FALSE. On average, noise at source is the equivalent of a motor cycle. Noise is exaggerated by the silence in rural areas. In Tralee, a resident described the noise as 'brutal'. One turbine manufacturer states that dwellings should be 2km away.
11. Turbines are not visually polluting. FALSE. Most refusals at planning are for visual impact. Finland has refused windpower for the same reason. Wind'farms' are industrial plants high in scenic areas, and may be seen for many km. Uplands and turbines are an inappropriate juxtaposition.
12. Turbines are safe. FALSE. Several have collapsed, there are dangers of ice and blade throws, increased risk of lightning strikes and forest fires.
13. Developers care about the environment and are not interested in subsidies. FALSE. Developers do not come from 'green' backgrounds, they are mostly businessmen. As for subsidies - (a) the Californian windrush (1981-5) ended when subsidies were dropped. Let us hear of wind developers donating these unwanted subsidies to, say, charities.
14. Windfarms create jobs. FALSE. Windfarms require few people for day-to-day maintenance. The manufacturing industry, however, needs workers, but in many countries this is subsidized by the governments in R&D etc.
15. Windfarms stimulate tourism. FALSE. Continuous assessment suggests tourism figures fall after novelty interest has dimmed, leaving school trips for 'educational purposes'. Some tourist boards have actively opposed windfarms. Anecdotal evidence suggests figures for standing tourism may fall. Planning departments wish windfarms to be sited away from areas of scenic beauty.
16. House prices will not fall. FALSE. Evidence is accumulating from the UK, US and Denmark to suggest a substantial fall in house values (up to 1/3). Public opinion in the proximity of wind turbines will also work against sales.
17. Wind turbines do not affect TV or microcommunications. FALSE. Residents of Rheidol Valley, when the 'farm' opened, will vouch to the contrary. Turbines have been turned down in Sweden and Kielder, UK for risk of microcommunication interference. Cellular telephones will also be affected.
18. Avian populations are not affected by windfarms. FALSE. Great numbers of raptors have been killed by windfarms stupidly placed in migration paths. Power line kills are a known serious avian hazard. Habitat disruption is also a problem.
19.Public opinion is massively in favor of wind technology. MISLEADING. Pointed questions are often used to get required results. Visit sites and talk to locals to get a balanced opinion.

Wow! You found a real gem of a fellow there, didn't you?

I hope no one bothers to try to refute that stuff point by point. I only see about 4 valid points that he makes, and then he uses those points in wrong ways to support his bias and incorrect conclusions.

Never ever read anything quite like that on wind or solar power. Thanks for posting it.

Wind, solar, bio-fuel - none of those are perfect, and all have issues & over-enthusiastic supporters......

But, wow, rabid hatred of windmills - never saw such a bad case of it!

--->Paul

i don't see how his point about the production being "swallowed" has merit.

__________________
this message has probably been edited to correct typos, spelling errors and to improve grammar...

"All that is gold does not glitter..."