Wind Power

[RUdiapers]

I don't understand the need for those massive wind powered generators. They are ugly, they cannot change orientation to face directly into the wind for maximum energy harvest, and they don't work if the wind is not blowing above a threshold speed.

Wouldn't we get more electricity from a plethora of smaller wind generators? A farmer that lives not too far from me has a small wind generator and it is almost always spinning at high speeds. Although a smaller generator may not harvest as much energy, a lot of generators could compensate (would you rather get paid $10 five times, or $7 eight times?)

Any thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

[Sophie ♥]

Put the windmills on turn-tables.

-Sophie

[~Skitty~]

i think they're pretty :[

also i had a few concepts for alternative power along time ago so i forget the science.

the first was something about a moon base and sending energy back to earth. think the movie "Moon"

the second was kinda like a giant space vacuum, that would be connected to the earth, and would rotate as the planet rotated, and everytime it passed by the sun, it would gather energy from the reactions. and suck it down to earth.

they were much cooler in drawing form x3

[Honu]

It's much more of a mechanical than electrical issue. You have to set up enough of a static electric field that when you rotate an inductor past it a current is produced. The torque necessary to do this depends on the generator and the generator should be designed to both harvest wind energy and not be damaged by it.

Be glad you don't live next to a nuclear site! As for me, I'll stay in areas where photovoltaic (PV) arrays are being considered to harvest solar energy!

[Repaid1]

I'm not sure which generators you have seen, but the ones I know about, such as the Windmill farm out in the desert near Palm Springs are highly computerized and are constantly adjusting the blades to the wind to a degree or so. The size of the turbines are directly sized for the environment they are put in place. Site surveys are taken and analysis is finalized for maximum efficiency for the normal wind for the area. Therefor if you see a turbine not spinning it could be that it has automatically shut itself out of operation do to a malfunction of some sort. The have monitors built in such as over speed and such. If any of the safety measures are on the fritz. The unit applies brakes.

Functionally if units are put into a area that only has limited wind, the units are down sized to the wind speed of a area. There are few area's in the united states that have a steady wind flow and as such it possible to see units not spinning. But then again who cares? It's not using any energy, and when it does spin it creates free power (less the cost of upkeep) after the initial investment is recouped of course.

For home use they are quite expensive for a AC unit. Upwards of $100,000 installed. However you can easily make your own in a DC unit for a few hundred. These can be used to power lights and small appliances throughout the night. Generally these are used in my area and the surrounding country side. With a bank of car batteries they can store the power for when it is needed had there not be any available wind at the time.

Additionally there are many styles of wind vanes. The vertical pictured below doesn't require a back fin or computer to adjust angle it spins from wind at any angle.

A few of my friends out in the country side have streams and creeks, perhaps a river. They built or bought the water mills and harness that "Free" power as well.

Kinda like a mini Las Vegas, You do know where they get their free power from right? Google the subject it's really interesting. If more people would jump on the bandwagon the price of the units would plummet. I would so love to have enough free electricity to have AEP have to buy it back from me!!!

On a side note: when I was a kid they had Wind vanes above your water well that ran the pump and gave you running water to your house. you only see them now in movies of old farms and stuff, but still used quite a bit around here in the "Sticks". Trust me a lot easier than hand pumping into a bucket and filling the sink or toilet!

[Bettypooh]

I don't understand the need for those massive wind powered generators. They are ugly, they cannot change orientation to face directly into the wind for maximum energy harvest, and they don't work if the wind is not blowing above a threshold speed.

Wouldn't we get more electricity from a plethora of smaller wind generators? A farmer that lives not too far from me has a small wind generator and it is almost always spinning at high speeds. Although a smaller generator may not harvest as much energy, a lot of generators could compensate (would you rather get paid $10 five times, or $7 eight times?)

Any thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

Wind turbines are sized for the job and available wind. The reason large ones are used where possible is that the surface area of the blades increases the available torque (power) exponentially over smaller blades. Plus it offers a larger target for wind which may be unequal across the swept area. The large ones are usually 'fixed' in one direction because the gain of rotatability isn't worth the added cost and complexity. The blades are designed to be efficient even when at an angle to the wind force And you can only use so much wind- anything over that had to be dissipated to avoid overspeed Most of the places where large turbines are sited have prevailing winds that rarely shift direction much. And non-directional vertical wind turbines are catching on Small turbines are easily constructed, such as from a converted ceiling fan But the more efficient ones require a lot more work and money Home-builts are better for small units as commercial units are too expensive for this market where the possible profits are equally small. Big units are cheaper commercially built.

Whether wind, solar, or micro-hydro is used to generate power you need to do something with the power- store it in expensive batteries that require maintenance and eventual replacement or sell it back to the local utility company In some places the utilities aren't buying, or if they are they pay only their cost rate- not the rate which they charge you for retail use And the power must be converted to AC and controlled. Add in the cost of special heavy-gauge wiring etc and you'll see why it's still not quite economical to power the average home off-grid However in certain situations (especially where you lower your consumption) it can be more cost-effective or even the only possible solution (very remote locations).

Properly sized and designed home-power systems all have a few advantages:

They're "green" and harm the environment less than the grid system. They are in your control so outages are less common. They don't add the continuing cost of lining someone else's pockets with profits. They all also come with disadvantages: When they fail you have to bear the entire cost of repairs all by yourself. They all require some form of maintenance and you have to allow time for that. And poorly designed or maintained systems can be deadly dangerous.

There is no "free lunch" through using any alternative energy, just a wider choice of flavors. As manufacturing costs come down, efficiency goes up, and the technology develops that statement won't hold true for a lot longer. In time all non-urban homes will be self-powered or tied into a small community power system. The change factor, as always, will be cost. I guess by now you can tell that this is one of my favorite subjects

Bettypooh

[babykeiff]

Wind farms (large areas of windmills) have a few problems which, in my mind, have not been addressed properly.

1 - The aesthetic problem. Most people don't want a large area of land taken over by huge windmills.

2- The butterfly effect. If one tries to take the energy out of the wind, one is changing the air flow over the planet at that location. This has consequences too numerous to calculate, which will change our climate far more than carbon based fuels.

What I suggest, is a PV cell (solar electric cells) mounted on house roofs. The location does not affect the climate, and the output per house is normally twice to three the times of enery required for the house.

[Repaid1]

Wind farms (large areas of windmills) have a few problems which, in my mind, have not been addressed properly.

1 - The aesthetic problem. Most people don't want a large area of land taken over by huge windmills.

2- The butterfly effect. If one tries to take the energy out of the wind, one is changing the air flow over the planet at that location. This has consequences too numerous to calculate, which will change our climate far more than carbon based fuels.

What I suggest, is a PV cell (solar electric cells) mounted on house roofs. The location does not affect the climate, and the output per house is normally twice to three the times of enery required for the house.

I get the aesthetic thing...But their isn't a huge demand to live in the desert or mountain tops! That's where I have seen them placed.

The butterfly effect, eeehh not so much, if they were stopping the air flow would be one thing but as the blade spins up to speed the air flow is resumed to almost a normal flow. If not the one's down wind wouldn't spin. I would think a larger town with sky scrapers tends to destroy the currents of air at ground level to a higher extent than a farm of wind turbines ever could. Moreover the higher air currents (such as jet streams) are more of a determining factor from what I can tell that govern climate on this earth.

I haven't seen the studies, but the heat generated off a solar panel is intense ( I burnt the heck outta my hand touching one). I can imagine that if the general populous of a city or cities would switch over to them the global impact would have to be effected over time more global warming type of thing.

But i guess that's for the powers to be to figure out. But if the 2012 thing turns out to be true it's all a mute point then huh.

[RUdiapers]

Wind farms (large areas of windmills) have a few problems which, in my mind, have not been addressed properly.

1 - The aesthetic problem. Most people don't want a large area of land taken over by huge windmills.

2- The butterfly effect. If one tries to take the energy out of the wind, one is changing the air flow over the planet at that location. This has consequences too numerous to calculate, which will change our climate far more than carbon based fuels.

What I suggest, is a PV cell (solar electric cells) mounted on house roofs. The location does not affect the climate, and the output per house is normally twice to three the times of enery required for the house.

Aesthetics won't be a problem when people can't power up their iPhones and TV's. I'm sure people will get over it just as fast as an addict will get over a poor cut and he/she is in a pinch.

As for the butterfly effect, I don't know but I doubt seriously that all the wind generators on earth could harvest a fraction of the total energy expended by moving air.

[babykeiff]

Aesthetics won't be a problem when people can't power up their iPhones and TV's. I'm sure people will get over it just as fast as an addict will get over a poor cut and he/she is in a pinch.

...

I agree to an extent, but I see your point.

...

As for the butterfly effect, I don't know but I doubt seriously that all the wind generators on earth could harvest a fraction of the total energy expended by moving air.

That is the problem. Currently, there is no way of knowing the complete impact of wind generators. Without knowing the full impact, implementing wind farms is close to as insane as using a carbon based non renewable fuel. I think that firstly, to save this planet in the long term, attitudes need to change. Our history and current situation tells us of how ignorant we were to use and build the world based on a carbon fuel system, and how devastating it is to the world. If you disagree, consider this - each carbon based fuel we oxidize is an 1 -interruption to some life cycle and 2- release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There is debates on what effects #2 has to weather etc, but scientists worldwide agree that the carbon dioxide levels worldwide IS increasing. What is not known is the effects #1 has.

Wind farms, wave machines OR any device that can possibly impact on the natural air currents and oceanic drifts, can be estimated to have a unknown effect on the earth, and whilst the effect is not known, or currently listed as nominal, NO ONE knows what longterm effects they can have.

Nuclear power, has its own problems, one of the largest is the danger to bio-life from exposure.

Over the next ten plus years, alternate, non-invasive (to the earth) forms of energy will be found - for two reasons. 1- the increasing cost of carbon fuels. 2- The depletion of world stocks.

I think that this world is pathetic - it is not until we deplete the worlds reserves of a fuel, do we focus our minds on possible alternatives. Some call this capitalism. I call it selfishness and greed, and it is that that will eventually destroy human civilization. Whether we will destroy the earths ability to protect us, or we kill ourselves first, human civilization will become extinct.

If you doubt me, consider this. It has taken two generations (40 years) for humans to depend on electronic devices and loose our ability to calculate with our minds. If I asked you to work out 27.5% of 4262, how many here would need to use a calculator?

[Yvhuce]

f you doubt me, consider this. It has taken two generations (40 years) for humans to depend on electronic devices and loose our ability to calculate with our minds. If I asked you to work out 27.5% of 4262, how many here would need to use a calculator?

There is no point to knowing useless information. As I stated in reference to someone having drudged up an old test from way back when: Times change and our general reliance upon certain types of knowledge become moot. Will I ever need to know what 27.5% of 4262 is? Or who the 17th president was? Or how to build a stone hinge or pyramid? Probly not. Will I have to know how to operate a computer? Absolutely. As technology improves, we'll need to know less old stuff, and more new stuff. The basics will always be there, as they're simple enough that we've perty much always needed them and probly always will. As was mentioned in a show dealing with high-tech stuff: "We still dig holes with shovels". But new types of knowledge will take the place of the old, when it comes t stuff beyond the basics. Our technology would be a real mind screw to many people if we were to take it back in time to before it was conceived or practical, just as much as some of the terminology, techniques, and measurements they used are out of use now and could be just as much of a mind screw for us to figure out. Unless you plan on being a professional gameshow contestant, trivia won't do you much good. So most people won't really learn it, unless it happens to be about a subject that interests them.

As to the wind turbines: They keep shipping their parts through our towns, so we generally find them annoying, what with them having to close off the intersections and re-route traffic so's the bigass trailers can get through town...

[Bettypooh]

There is no point to knowing useless information. As I stated in reference to someone having drudged up an old test from way back when: Times change and our general reliance upon certain types of knowledge become moot. Will I ever need to know what 27.5% of 4262 is? Or who the 17th president was? Or how to build a stone hinge or pyramid? Probly not. Will I have to know how to operate a computer? Absolutely. As technology improves, we'll need to know less old stuff, and more new stuff. The basics will always be there, as they're simple enough that we've perty much always needed them and probly always will. As was mentioned in a show dealing with high-tech stuff: "We still dig holes with shovels". But new types of knowledge will take the place of the old, when it comes t stuff beyond the basics. Our technology would be a real mind screw to many people if we were to take it back in time to before it was conceived or practical, just as much as some of the terminology, techniques, and measurements they used are out of use now and could be just as much of a mind screw for us to figure out. Unless you plan on being a professional gameshow contestant, trivia won't do you much good. So most people won't really learn it, unless it happens to be about a subject that interests them.

As to the wind turbines: They keep shipping their parts through our towns, so we generally find them annoying, what with them having to close off the intersections and re-route traffic so's the bigass trailers can get through town...

Knowing the complex always starts with knowing the basics- even if you forget the basics later on Some of the basics are still worth knowing. Somewhere on here is my true story of a just-graduated-from-high school cashier who couldn't subtract on paper to give me my change once she inadvertently cleared the cash register. A case of epic failure to know what matters and why you need to know it

The trailers you complain of are nothing We recently had one pass within a mile of where I live that had 110 wheels on it. They had to close roads, move utilities, etc and one could have walked the path it took (including sleeping as needed) faster than they moved it.

Back to the OP's idea, as to the "Butterfly Effect" we need to realize that we don't know everything and we have unintended impacts. Gasoline-powered cars became popular because they didn't pollute- no horse poop all over and no dead horses left in the streets. Atomic energy was safe and totally clean. Dumping sewage into Lake Erie couldn't possibly make any difference as small as the percentage was We now know better. Perhaps we could have known it from the beginning had we thought it through deeply enough- and perhaps not. Bashing wind turbines because of the "Butterfly effect" overlooks the fact that our mere presence in this world changes things Yes, wind turbines will cause changes- but which ones? How much? And to what effect? I'm not saying go ahead blindly because we don't have those answers, I'm saying that what we do know now points toward the benefits outweighing the drawbacks. Should we find that we're erring then we should change accordingly Solar has as much impact as wind power as far as we know at this time. The natural state of this planet is to have the Sun touch it's surface everywhere. Solar collectors re-radiate heat after the Sun passes and reflect the Sun's rays back toward the atmosphere which changes weather patterns. Like I said, there is no "free lunch".

Everything we do has an impact. If we're wise we will minimize our impact since we know that the planet seems to do pretty good at working without our 'improvements' And taken as a whole, wind power has but a tiny impact compared to the life cycle of say. a computer- which we know pollutes from start to eternity. Yet I haven't heard a hue and cry to eliminate computers yet- more than a "Butterfly Effect" computers are more like having all the birds in the world flap their wings in unison in one place until everything gets blown away there

The thing we need to most know is that we don't know most things and we never will. The best we can ever do is to do everything we can to be sure that we are doing the least possible harm to ourselves and the planet we need for our survival At this time wind and solar power seems to be the best way to accomplish the generation of the electricity we so love to have. Maybe that will change someday, maybe not. Right now we don't know, but we do know that it is far better for us and our planet than coal burning and nuclear powered electricity generation- so following this path seems to be the better thing to do. I'm all for that until we learn of a better way.

Bettypooh

[babykeiff]

Bettypooh,

you, in your unique way, has made my point. We don't know everything, and care and attention is required before we blindly rush in.

Yvhuce,

27.5% of 4262 is easy to work out. 25% = 1/4, which is 4262/4. The remaining is 2.5% OR one tenth of a quarter. (2.5 * 10 = 25)

4262 / 4 = 1065.5. 1065.5 is 25%, so 1065.5 / 10 is 2.5% OR 106.55. The rest is simple addition.

25% + 2.5% (1065.5 + 106.55 ) = 27.5% (1172.05)

It is this addressing of numbers, and the capability to break them down to the simple forms that is being lost due to the use of calculators etc.

[:dlb]

If I had 10k the first thing I'd buy is a solar kit. As for the wind turbines they dont bother me at all. I think they look cool. We gotta do more to reduce our carbon footprint and these are 2 great ways to do it. I see more and more articles in newspapers, tv, etc of folks living off grid or partially offgrid. Things have gotta change, we cant continue the way we are.

[BabyDavey]

If you doubt me, consider this. It has taken two generations (40 years) for humans to depend on electronic devices and loose our ability to calculate with our minds. If I asked you to work out 27.5% of 4262, how many here would need to use a calculator?

There is no point to knowing useless information. As I stated in reference to someone having drudged up an old test from way back when: Times change and our general reliance upon certain types of knowledge become moot. Will I ever need to know what 27.5% of 4262 is?...

I've been working with calculators, computers and video games ever since I was a wee lad, but I can still understand (and see the logic behind) fundamental math. One of my first jobs was at a small movie theatre. The concession stand didn't have cash registers - so everything was manual math (though I admit, some used calculators). Though I'm not exactly quick, I can still run numbers in my head. It's a skill I still use every day in my job in project engineering.

Yvhuce, I don't know how they built stone henge or the pyramids - some theorists believe that they used leverage. Just the other day I wanted to move large concrete block on my property. Not owning a tractor to lift it, or a jack hammer to break it into smaller pieces, I opted to move it with leverage. Using a pivot point (cinder block) and a lever (long post and a bar), I managed to lift the block. Gradually, using bricks and blocks to prop it up as I lifted it, I was able to flip it onto some boards so that I could slide it to where I wanted to move it to. I barely broke a sweat moving a 600lb piece of poured-in-place concrete. I'm rambling, but the point is - you might think some information is useless, but there is are still many practical applications for 'historical knowledge'. What would happen if there was a solar flair and a resultant EM wave blew out a large amount of electronic gear - including the power utilities (long stretch scenario, I know). Would you be able to make a living without your expertise in computers? Lastly to bring up a semi-relevant cliche: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

With all that said, regarding the OP, across the valley from where I live (my view looking down the road) there is a large wind farm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hills_Wind_Farm). On a clear day, I can see them in the distance. I don't feel that they detract from the aesthetic value of my view - in fact, I feel that they add to it. We've regularly made the trek to see them up close as they are, in my opinion, a marvel of modern engineering. As far as I am aware, they adjust their pitch and rotation depending on wind speed and direction, though I believe the prevalent wind is generally in the same direction in that wind shear point. They're essentially designed to operate in their most efficient state at all times.

babykeiff, as it has been said previously, I think every form of power generation has some effect on the environment. The question is which has the least effect? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Basic Physics? What does geothermal energy do to the groundwater systems (aquifers)? Taking the manufacturing, transportation and installation factors, how long does it take for a wind farm to have a net positive carbon effect? Where does maintenance and repair fit into this equation? Hell, what does my EPA wood stove do to the environment? Trees are renewable, right? Wood fire is natural. Is it bad? Probably. Worse than coal fired power plants? IMHO, no.

I'm rambling again, so I'll go now. I like this stuff - it's right up my alley.

[belinda_sue_fox]

So much to say in this thread but mainly it's just

27.5% of 4262 is easy to work out. 25% = 1/4, which is 4262/4. The remaining is 2.5% OR one tenth of a quarter. (2.5 * 10 = 25)

4262 / 4 = 1065.5. 1065.5 is 25%, so 1065.5 / 10 is 2.5% OR 106.55. The rest is simple addition.

25% + 2.5% (1065.5 + 106.55 ) = 27.5% (1172.05)

Yea thats like how i do mathematics in my head.

There is no point to knowing useless information.

What basic mathematics is now useless information??

[PArms]

Bettypooh,

you, in your unique way, has made my point. We don't know everything, and care and attention is required before we blindly rush in.

Yvhuce,

27.5% of 4262 is easy to work out. 25% = 1/4, which is 4262/4. The remaining is 2.5% OR one tenth of a quarter. (2.5 * 10 = 25)

4262 / 4 = 1065.5. 1065.5 is 25%, so 1065.5 / 10 is 2.5% OR 106.55. The rest is simple addition.

25% + 2.5% (1065.5 + 106.55 ) = 27.5% (1172.05)

It is this addressing of numbers, and the capability to break them down to the simple forms that is being lost due to the use of calculators etc.

So right! And people actually have tip calculators on their PDA's. How hard can 20% be? Move the damn decimal and double it!

[Yvhuce]

Bettypooh,

you, in your unique way, has made my point. We don't know everything, and care and attention is required before we blindly rush in.

Yvhuce,

27.5% of 4262 is easy to work out. 25% = 1/4, which is 4262/4. The remaining is 2.5% OR one tenth of a quarter. (2.5 * 10 = 25)

4262 / 4 = 1065.5. 1065.5 is 25%, so 1065.5 / 10 is 2.5% OR 106.55. The rest is simple addition.

25% + 2.5% (1065.5 + 106.55 ) = 27.5% (1172.05)

It is this addressing of numbers, and the capability to break them down to the simple forms that is being lost due to the use of calculators etc.

Or you could just do 4262/100 = 42.62 and then 42.62 x 27.5 = 1172.05. There's no need to overly complicate things.

[redneck diaper boy]

Windmills are a political statement. The energy derived is inconsistent. Solar is more consistent but it is very inefficient (16 watts per square foot)

Solar and wind power has to be stored as well. A lot of lead and sulfuric acid to deal with is something that most people don't think about

It appears that many people are wising up. This climate change stuff is pure bullshit. They caught the UN scientist fabricating data for a desired outcome.

I don't understand the need for those massive wind powered generators. They are ugly, they cannot change orientation to face directly into the wind for maximum energy harvest, and they don't work if the wind is not blowing above a threshold speed.

Wouldn't we get more electricity from a plethora of smaller wind generators? A farmer that lives not too far from me has a small wind generator and it is almost always spinning at high speeds. Although a smaller generator may not harvest as much energy, a lot of generators could compensate (would you rather get paid $10 five times, or $7 eight times?)

Any thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated.