Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:30 am
Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:28 pm
Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:15 pm
Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:17 pm
Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:30 pm
BigredG wrote:Do you like the look really?
Lots of people down here are doing their nut about proposals to erect a load of 'em - even the off shore ones!!
Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:09 am
ColinB wrote: Not as photogenic as the old-time windmills !
But certainly no worse to see than the electricity pylons that proliferate the landscape.
And greener, too !
Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:37 pm
Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:53 am
Francesc wrote:I think I read somewhere months ago that it was really expensive, I wonder how many you'll need to be really productive.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:13 am
Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:00 am
ColinB wrote:Francesc wrote:I think I read somewhere months ago that it was really expensive, I wonder how many you'll need to be really productive.
Once they are built & erected, there are minimal costs.
And they will produce virtually free [& green] electricity for years & years......................
Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:29 pm
Pete Dube wrote:What happens if there's no wind? Is there some type of electrical storeage system or are you just sh*t out of luck until the wind kicks up?
Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:39 pm
Francesc wrote:ColinB wrote:Francesc wrote:I think I read somewhere months ago that it was really expensive, I wonder how many you'll need to be really productive.
Once they are built & erected, there are minimal costs.
And they will produce virtually free [& green] electricity for years & years......................
* The tall towers and blades up to 90 meters long are difficult to transport. Transportation can now cost 20% of equipment costs.
So ? We are talking about a long-term solution here.
* Tall HAWTs are difficult to install, needing very tall and expensive cranes and skilled operators.
So ? See above.
* Massive tower construction is required to support the heavy blades, gearbox, and generator.
Ditto.
* Reflections from tall HAWTs may affect side lobes of radar installations creating signal clutter, although filtering can suppress it.
Ditto.
* Their height makes them obtrusively visible across large areas, disrupting the appearance of the landscape and sometimes creating local opposition.
But think how the landscape will look if global warming continues for long enough...
* Downwind variants suffer from fatigue and structural failure caused by turbulence when a blade passes through the tower's wind shadow (for this reason, the majority of HAWTs use an upwind design, with the rotor facing the wind in front of the tower).
Face them upwind, then !
* HAWTs require an additional yaw control mechanism to turn the blades toward the wind.
So ?
* Kill thousands of birds a year, some of which are rare or endangered.
Not proven,,,,,,,,,,, but even if true, perhaps a small price to pay to save the planet..........
Source: Wikipedia
Nuff said..............
Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:33 pm
Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:05 pm
Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:06 pm
ColinB wrote: So ? We are talking about a long-term solution here.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:46 pm
Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:36 pm
BigredG wrote:I first saw them as I drove from Yosemite to San Francisco in 1999 - I thought they were way cool up on those hills!!
I see one on the M4 near Reading which supposedly powers a whole Business Park.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:55 pm
Francesc wrote:Yes there are many there. Isnt Yosemite fantastic? They should put them there.
Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:55 am
BigredG wrote:Francesc wrote:Yes there are many there. Isnt Yosemite fantastic? They should put them there.
Yes Yosemite was very pretty. I like Yellowstone better though - man I could happily spend a month there!!!
I think a few wind turbines atop El Capitan is just what Yosemite needs
Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:49 am
Francesc wrote:Lol yeah ! Yosemite is two hours from my home. Too bad is always really full of people. one day I'll go to Yellowstone. TI is going to take more than 2 hours ...
Hosted by ElviCities