Gargantuan offshore wind turbine crushes record for most energy produced in 24 hours "There’s a massive offshore wind turbine in Østerild, Denmark breaking energy generation records left and right. MHI Vestas Offshore Wind — a joint venture between Vestas Wind Systems and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries — showed off its 9 MW turbine prototype in December 2016, an upgrade to its V164-8.0 MW version. The Goliath of wind turbines generated nearly 216,000 kWh over 24 hours during its December test, breaking the previous record for energy generation record for a commercially available offshore wind turbine. To put the numbers in perspective, that’s enough energy to power the average American household for roughly 20 years." http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/denmark-wind-turbine-breaks-records/
I tried wind generators here Frank putting up two but had to take one down because not enough wind. Ha Ha
I see quite a few of them when I drive to my daughter's house, around the Pacheco Pass area. It does get windy there for some reason. Before you're about to get on the pass there is always a gusty wind warning and it's usually not too windy anywhere else. I can barely keep my car on the road it's so bad sometimes. That's the only time I ever grip the steering wheel so tightly and with both hands.
Here's a couple pics of them. Weren't taken by me because I'm always driving and I'd go off the road if I took it.
@Chrissy Cross Thank you! Seems to be rather haphazard the way they situate these things, not in a gridwork or orderly fashion. Must be a reason, I suppose. Presence of a set of blades must break up and divert the natural movement of air, or something. Certainly much has been devoted to figuring these things out. There are vast installations in Texas and New Mexico, along I-40. Some say they create "pollution" in the form of noise. That's one thing I would like to learn more about. IOW, is it true, or instead a means to discredit windpower by the forces which empower fossil fuels. Frank
Off shore when possible or in non settled regions are the best choices. Too close to homes seems unwarranted and cause complaints.
I am having some difficulty determining which I am more prone to like between nuclear and wind turbines. On one hand, turbines seem to do the job but when I see them plastered all over few thousand acres it almost makes my eyes hurt. What was a beautiful tract of land is now filled with the likes of don Quixote's nemesis. On the other hand, nuclear definitely does a great job, but with the risk factor thrown in which could turn a few thousand beautiful acres into a waste land that time has forgotten, I dunno..........! But alas, no matter which I like I will have to take the defeatist stance and say it's pretty much out of my hands. The small gods that lead politicians and stuff an immeasurable amount of cash into their pockets are they who will win out at the end of the day. Now, I do plan on building a generator using neodymium magnets when I have some spare time. The only thing that seems to be "non perpetual" about them is that parts will wear out. Otherwise, the design I am working on in my brain should afford us a continual source of power should our local electric company fail.
They've ruined several nice mountains in Maine with those wind turbines, and I can promise you that no one's electricity costs have been reduced. We have dams all over Maine but we've allowed Canadian power companies to buy them up, so we have a power dam just outside of our town limits, yet we're paying extra to have our power transferred from Bangor.
@Bobby Cole Agreed and understood! Nuclear seems to have done well for France, in particular, with very few, if any, "excursions" of any type. It might be interesting to learn whether fool-proof nuclear reactor design ups the cost of the resulting product by some orders of magnitude. If one is able to produce electric power, say, at home, at essentially no cost beyond initial capital investment and ongoing maintenance, it is easily possible to "feed" power back to the local supplying utility, resulting in the means to pay for those two cost factors mentioned. Electric meters can run in either direction! I'm leaning toward superconductivity, myself. Just read today where UK is touting a Tokamak they have built as being nearly ready to produce viable power via nuclear fusion. Methinks they are blowing smoke as usual, under pressure from their funding sources. Frank
@Ken Anderson Glad you qualified the post with "If this is true"..... I have no doubt some of the claims stated are true, such as the loss of birds, and possibly the failure of wind persistence. At the same time, stating that a wind generator produces less power over it's lifetime than was required to build it is absurd. No reason exists physically why a generator cannot essentially produce power nearly forever, given adequate maintenance. The structure itself ought to be as lasting as the Pyramids, IMO. Granted beautiful mountainous areas ARE uglified by such modification. However, even though the Southwest Deserts are considered to have "beauty", untold millions of acres lie parched by unrelenting winds. Why not erect the damned towers there? If they must be erected at all. Distance to "market" is no longer a valid argument. Line "losses" have now been reduced substantially by new means of utilizing Direct Current at ultra-high voltages, resulting only in conductor resistance losses, no Alternating Current losses at all. That's the argument "for". "Against"? Yes, I am. Conversion of Solar Energy, instead of "wind power", directly to electric power is undeniable better, environmentally as well as ecologically; such installations have nearly no effect upon wildlife. Yes, enormous expanses of land must be covered by solar cells, but they are mounted in groups on slender stands, around which the Denizens of the desert can crawl about to their heart's content. Frank