I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales with the square ro ot of the power? That means 100 MW turbines would need to be over four tim es taller than a 5.6 MW turbine. I found info on a 3.4 MW unit that is 809 feet tall (246 m). So we would be looking at a tower that would be someth ing approaching a mile in height to collect 100 MW? I suppose the swept ar ea could be less by finding more wind which I expect added height would do. So maybe half a mile tall? I have no concept of what that would imply in terms of visual impact or other problems.
I know some windmills produce low frequency vibrations people find objectio nable. I'm pretty sure even at half a mile tall such a windmill would need to appear on maps for airplanes. It wouldn't just be a tower since the bl ades would be sweeping nearly a half a mile wide at the quarter mile height .
Wow!
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
This seems to be a fluff piece. There is only one paragraph in the whole a rticle that has any real information content about the problem.
"The high-tech blades used in wind turbines contain exotic compounds that a re laborious to recycle. These rotor blades use carbon fibers and glass, an d give off toxic gases and dust ? which means burning them is not a n option. Additionally, the concrete bases used to uphold wind turbines can go as far as 30 meters deep into the ground, making them very difficult to fully remove."
So they are worried about something giving off gasses??? They don't explai n that very well. Certainly the glass fibers don't outgas and I don't thin k carbon does either. Generally when refuse is burned it is done at a high temperature so toxic residue is not produced.
Then they seem to be worried about massive amounts of concrete being left i n the ground. I wonder if they are ever going to remove the concrete flak towers around Berlin, Vienna...? Maybe they can put windmills on top of th em?
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
Lol! No one is going to do either if it still worked. They will run them until they aren't working well enough and then they will be scrapped becaus e no one will want them. Just like we do with the millions of worn out car s each year. Why doesn't anyone get upset about that?
I remember seeing a photo of some hundreds or more likely thousands of cell phones laid out for the photo to make the point that we toss out some hund reds of millions of cell phones each year. Not really anything wrong with them. They just aren't new anymore.
So a few thousands of these windmills vs. a billion cell phones. Which is the worse ecological disaster?
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
m until they aren't working well enough and then they will be scrapped beca use no one will want them. Just like we do with the millions of worn out c ars each year. Why doesn't anyone get upset about that?
ll phones laid out for the photo to make the point that we toss out some hu ndreds of millions of cell phones each year. Not really anything wrong wit h them. They just aren't new anymore.
s the worse ecological disaster?
Neither is any kind of ecological disaster. If some cheapskate tried to dum p them where the nastier stuff inside could get out, you could create anoth er Love Canal, which wouldn't a good thing to do, but falls well sort of an ecological disaster.
Everybody seems to feel a need to get emotional about the environment, and bleat about catastrophes and disasters. Crying wolf isn't a great strategy.
John Larkin complains that he isn't seeing the disasters he's been lead to expect - the problem with being a gullible twit is that you give equal cred it to the fatuous over-sell from both sides.
Sadly, they have a unique selling feature that gas turbines can't match - they don't dump any extra CO2 into the atmosphere.
You may not believe in anthropogenic global warming, but you probably do believe in bush-fires, and burning more fossil carbon to dump even more CO2 into the atmosphere is a royal road to larger and earlier bush-fires.
Martin Riddle wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
kee
hit
I disagree. Cranes are cheap, and new production is not. Scrapping is also not cheap.
So even though profit would be hit by the logistics of disassembly, it would still be better than scrapping, which also requires (piece by piece) disassembly.
Phil Allison wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Let's see. Wind is free, coal is not, and wind does not pollute and coal does. So 100 100MW turbines would have a better impact on the planet than hunreds of tons of polutants in the air.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.