Wind turbines and neighborhoods just don’t mix It seems. Would you want one of these to do this when a wind storm comes your way? Wind power has it’s pluses and minuses, just like any energy solution. But like a coal or nuclear power plant. They really shouldn’t be sited next to/within population areas. – Anthony
Wind turbine’s deadly ice shower
From the Peterborough UK Evening Telegraph
Resident Peter Randall, whose son’s house lies a stone’s throw away from the turbine, said: “Somebody is going to get killed. There was huge lumps of ice shooting off and landing everywhere.
“No one wants to leave the house because they are frightened and worried about the ice falling.
Maria Clark, who owns King’s Dyke Karpets, based yards from the turbine, said: “It has been really frightening, the turbine has been stopping and starting all morning. The ice makes such a loud noise when it shatters we thought a bomb had gone off in the yard.
“It scared a customer away. They were in the shop when it landed and said they did not want to risk their car and ran out.”
Last month The Evening Telegraph revealed how residents had lodged complaints with the environmental health department at Fenland District Council due to alleged noise pollution and had demanded the turbine’s removal.
The huge machine, which measures 80 metres at its hub and 125 metres when one of its three blades is vertical, was put up in August.
A spokesperson for Cornwall Light & Power said: “We received a report of an ice shedding incident near our Whittlesey turbine on Saturday morning and immediately made arrangements for it to be switched off.
“The turbine will remain stopped until we have a clear understanding of what happened and any safety concerns have been fully addressed.
“Cornwall Light & Power is a reputable operator with a proven track record of generating clean electricity safely and we will act quickly to resolve this issue.
“In the meantime, any local residents who have concerns can call us directly on 01872 226930.”
MP for Cambridgeshire North East Malcolm Moss said the turbine should remain closed until a new risk assessment could be made, as the problem could also have national implications.
He said: “I had no idea this turbine was going up, it came out of the blue really and I am surprised they put one so close to homes and businesses.
“I assume that a risk assessment was put with the planning application, but if it was not then a full inquiry should be undertaken.”
Whittlesey councillor Ronald Speechley today said he would by lobbying the council to find out what can be done.
He said: “I have received a lot of complaints and the fact that ice has fallen off should be brought to light. This should have been thought of before they put the turbine so close to houses and the road.”
We’ve passed peak oil,
————-
Your 5 to 10 decades to early on this prognostication.
Forgot about Tide Energy, but that’s sort of Solar also, just gravity solar.
—————
Lunar tides are much bigger than solar tides.
But, we get enough power from the Sun every day to provide for all of our energy needs.
——
This is true, but collecting it is another matter. Several studies have indicated that it takes as much or more energy to create the solar cells and their mounting panels than the cells can collect in a reasonable life span.
——
Change is required at some point since we’re using fossil fuels faster than they are produced by nature.
———
At current burn rates, we have well over 1000 years of fossil fuel (oil, coal, tar sands, etc.). Call me in 900 years. We can start worrying then.
It would seem that the only way wind power could possibly be effective would be for each home to have it’s own small windmill to recharge a bank of batteries for it’s own use. It would simply be a supplement to their regular electricity. But you could do that with solar panels (at least in Florida) and skip the maintenance costs. Either way, since each home would have to stay connected to the grid, in order for the power companies to maintain the grid the unit cost of electricity would have to go up due to less usage and therefore less payment by the homeowner.
B Kerr,
Sorry I missed it. I am wary of watching too much news as it all tends to be bad news & rather depressing with it. A long dull list of what we cannot say or do imho! It missed the BBC’s 6pm news conveniently but obviously they thought they would put in the late-night news when most of us probably miss it!
I possess a woodburning stove & love it. A great reason to grow more trees I expect! We need to remove some 7 million tons (tonnes if you prefer it’s only a few kilos) from our (UK) woodlands & forests each year just to keep them healthy, that’s before one does anything shameful, terrible, evil, wicked, sinful, human, (delete as applicable) like use (exploit) them as a resource!
Do what they did in the Charleton Heston classic, Soylent Green. Everyone gets a bicycle hooked up to a battery and 1 bare bulb hanging from the ceiling along with a TV. You only get as much power as you can generate via bicycle.
Just dont eat the Soylent Green! The Soylent Red and Yellow are fine though.
I’ m eager to see the GISS temps for November….
The majority of land mass particularly in the NH has been warmer than normal. Temperatures in Canada, Western US, Russia and the former soviet states have all been well above average – and South America has got over it’s chill from last year.
Satellite temperatures are also climbing though it might be December before the recovery from the La Nina really shows itself. The newly developing La Nina could hold temps back but I still fancy 2009 will be warmer than 2008.
Only weather, I know, but it is interesting to see how how the different metrics track ENSO fluctuations.
Well there’s no stopping the wind farm bandwagon in the UK. This is today”s news:
“One of the largest offshore wind farms in the world has been approved to be built off the coast of north Wales.
The 250 turbines of Gwynt y Môr offshore wind farm will be built eight miles off the coast, 10 miles away from Llandudno, Conwy.
Gwynt y Môr, combined with three other nearby wind farms, will provide enough green electricity to power the equivalent of 680,000 homes.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7762242.stm
I came across a site that claims Tesla had some idea of digging a long tunnel parallel to earth’s spin at 10K ft elevation that would produce a constant wind as a source for energy. I have been unable to find anything other than this sites’ opinion. Has anyone else heard of this? Sounds potentially useful. Here is the site:
http://www.geocities.com/scifuntubes/index.html
pkatt (15:06:07) : just a thought… Airplanes moved passed prop engines, so why are three blade windmills considered state of the art?
A common misconception. Nowadays, the propeller is encased in a housing; is many-bladed; and is called a fan, which is driven by a turbojet engine. That’s why many airliners are called fan jets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan
helix shaped windmills were being used on a new energy efficient building. It would turn in very low winds, wouldnt build up ice, and could withstand very high winds without blasting apart, further it did not pose a threat to birds and lacked the vibration of its three bladed counterparts.
The physics of the wind turbine is driven largely by the area exposed to the wind. The helix is effectively an infinitely bladed propeller. Other than that, here is nothing special about it so claims like vibration-free and non-icing are likely untrue. As far as a hazard to birds, they are perhaps a lesser hazard but certainly still pose a threat — ask any bird sucked into a jet engine.
Instead of destroying open lands with ugly wind and solar farms why not look into using the sheer square footage that major cities already provide?
1) The fluttering of a flag at the top of a fifteen story building can be heard from the ground. Imagine the noise from multiple turbines.
2) Wind and solar suffer from the same problem: feast and famine. Until there is a viable way to store produced excess power to even out production, relying on these two alternatives is effectively dreaming. They are at best, supplemental.
There is so much attention on solar and wind power. Have we forgotten that geothermal is an option?
There’s a reason why all of the U.S. power isn’t generated entriely by hydroelectric: you have to be near a sufficient water flow. Geothermal also has geographic requirements.
The only truly viable alternative is nuclear.
Stephan
Setting aside the many assumptions in your huge post that I find unlikely or false; a question we perhaps should ask is what reason do any of us have to believe that warmer would be worse?
The idea of a large positive feedback and run away warming is clearly unsupported by the data the physics and the paleo record so what you’re left with is a small possible warming of which much has already occured.
To me it seems we are proposing to waste trillions, on fixing something about which we don’t really understand how it works. Even if we accidently get it right and the “fix” we works would be making the environment worse. While leaving it alone would have a net benefit for the economy and the environment. Saddly what is actually best for the environment still doesn’t enter into the thoughts of many who claim to be concerned.
First off, thank you to those who replied politely. I realise I am verbose. I am merely trying to expand my understanding through discussion; and in expressing my points, I like to be thorough. I also attempt to never let my attachment to my own particular notions (which I naturally cherish) distract me from trying to make progress in my understanding of both the issue and possible actions.
I also reserve the right to be completely, and utterly wrong. As I said, all reasonable people should be able to admit to the possibility that they might have a mistake in their understanding of reality.
Mark Smith – My risk analysis grid in section (2) is not based on Pascal’s Wager. The two grids used are very different. I am an Agnostic for starters (i.e. I don’t use the Wager):
-There are the assumptions of the premise of Pascal’s Wager that make it a false choice (e.g. that the Supreme Entity in question is God and therefore the benefit is positive – heaven; but what if it weren’t a benevolent SE? Having the pick of a vengeful SE and God, you’d pick the former because the latter would forgive you?). I present the only two options, whether H-IGCD is true or false.
-There is the Anti-Pascal Wager (you’ll live a more fulfilling life if you don’t believe in the possibility of an afterlife). It circumnavigates the debate (as I, in a sense, do with section (3)).
-And the proposed inherent risk of the Wager (God exists, not believing) is hell which I actually think can be used as an argument against the existence of the Christian concept of the Supreme Being (i.e. God). i.e. Why would a metaphysical realm exist in which you can never learn anything nor repent (as it is “eternal punishment”) unless the SE in question is sadistic? In other words, PW is self-defeating with the risk rebutting the premise.
I try to avoid the pitfalls of the grid by evaluating it with probability. “To make the logic of the grid more applicable to reasonability, we take into consideration the factor of probability,” which makes the risk more tangible. For example, the actual probability of giant mutant space hamsters is so low that we take the effective probability of 0 which eliminates the risk involved.
Flow on: Robert Austin – whilst I dislike the tone of your post, you do note the “argument to authority” I use to increase the risk of row (T). But there is a flaw in this law when applied to this particular circumstance, in that this isn’t a monolithic authority. The major academies of science come from many countries, run by many different people. Yet they all come to the same conclusion; despite presumably different (and perhaps conflicting) agendas. One could relate it to the controversy over Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection.
Mark Smith – “Most human actions are undermined to some extent by the law of unintended consequences, and the larger the action (and with CO2 reduction, we have actions proposed that are, well, unprecedented in scale), the more powerfully the law applies.”
If the H-IGCD is true, then it is a problem of unprecedented scale. So both the issue itself and its proposed remedies are subject to the amplification of the law.
The law of unintended consequences runs both ways. Our perspective influences our view, I think. Skeptics note the unintended consequences of action, whereas activists note the unintended consequences of inaction (deliberate or by default); and both (likely) downplay the possible unintended consequences of the side from which they’re advocating – both potentially powerful.
You have cited one example (biofuels) of the unintended consequences of action. Biofuels from food crops is something I don’t agree with. Keeping in mind I am a self-acknowledged non-expert, I support the use of non-food crops for biofuels.
Flow on: Mike Dubrasich – I am also not fond of wind turbines. However, as I said in section (3), many of the reasonable actions against H-IGCD are able to have their costs mitigated; and are beneficial regardless of H-IGCD.
Flow on: Ron de Haan – “doesn’t it seem a bit odd that the world leaders are willing to sacrifice the global economy to reduce CO2 emissions (to) throttle industry, not temperature.”
Yes, I totally agree with you, except for the extreme view that industry and economy need to be sacrificed to deal with the climate issue. Rather “there’s lots of reasons to be believe that we can fix this problem, and palliate the risk, without even reducing our standing of living,” by transitioning from a carbon-based economy to a clean one.
Further consideration of green energy sources certainly shows imperfections (not that carbon-based sources are problem-free); but at this point, if H-IGCD is real, we have no silver bullet. Although I note we seem to be looking at the more negative examples. Instead ponder solar panels and mini-wind turbines (using urban heat island updrafts) on sky scrapers to provide power from areas that would otherwise generate nothing, improved building, car, and appliance standards, energy efficiency, conservation of energy sources, geothermal power (Iceland is a great model), tidal energy, non-food crop biomass converted into fuel, solar power satellites, etc.
Ignoring H-IGCD and emissions, you tackle pollution, and other issues surrounding coal and oil (such as national security in terms of petrol dollars, national image for global influence, habitat destruction and ecosystem disruption in order to obtain carbon-based resources, human health, reducing the economic impact of oil shocks due to dependency, green jobs, energy efficiency saving money, diminishing coal and oil supplies, the costly investment in offshore drilling and on land mining to access resources – both in dollar terms and opportunity cost, and the extended period of time for return on such an investment). So the proposed solution to H-IGCD seems pretty attractive even if H-IGCD is false, as lots of the benefits are independent of H-IGCD.
Matt – “It would seem that recent events look a lot like future #1”
Not at all, envisioned Future #1 is caused by the unnecessary action over the non-occurrence of H-IGCD. The recent global recession (which exhibits the same symptoms of, but not the same cause as envisioned Future #1-lite) was caused by the facilitation of the receiving of bad mortgage loans, combined with lax regulatory oversight. From this epicenter the disaster reverberated outward.
Matt (and Ron de Haan) – “If you look close you will see that it hasn’t warmed for a few years. Maybe its time to take another look at your position.” As I said, “The H-IGCD is the effect of the intensified Greenhouse Effect superimposed upon the normal climate cycle,” “so it’s not the degrees of temperature that matters per se, but a wrench in the climate system;” and there are still indications that the climate cycle has been adversely affected.
jarhead – ” “Just pause for a second and think, if you had a horse race and every major betting agency was saying, put your money on that horse, would you do it (just keep it simplistic)?” I hope you know more about climate science than you do about horse racing. Google Big Brown and 2008 Belmont Stakes. Favorites win about 30% of the time at the race track, put another way they lose 70% of the time. Not exactly the best way to prove your point. So that is not a good analogy for you to use.” Lol, I am not a better, so that’s new to me. Fortunately however I think that people still understand the gist of the analogy (that, and I’m having a block as to what a better analogy would be). =)
REPLY: The topic was windmills. – Anthony
Ross wrote:
Regarding massive wind farm installations, has any reader heard of serious investigation into the alteration of weather patterns?
The law of unintended consequences would seem to imply that, with suitably large wind farms removing energy [ultimately solar] from the atmosphere, the leeward weather patterns may be significantly impacted – and not necessarily for the better.
Present wind farm installations are probably not sufficient to cause anything significant, but is there any literature on this?
I’d posted this link in a different thread. But since you now asked that question here, here’s the link again.
Mega Wind Farms Could Steer Storms
Wow…that’s pretty wild! I pray those family stay safe.
Stephen (07:39:25) :
Blah blah blah
REPLY: The topic was windmills. – Anthony
Anthony, I’m always impressed with your direct approach! 😀
Katherine (07:41:03) :
Ross wrote:
Regarding massive wind farm installations, has any reader heard of serious investigation into the alteration of weather patterns?
I’d posted this link in a different thread. But since you now asked that question here, here’s the link again.
Mega Wind Farms Could Steer Storms
I don’t see how this “is a good thing” Surely moving these storms by hundreds of miles via wind turbine would bring havock to the local eco-systems that rely on the nutrients and water brought in by said storms, not to mention the destination local eco systems that are not set up to cope with storms of this nature.
Alan the Brit
There are 65,000,000 of us on our way to help you keep your wood land clear!!
Shouldn’t take too long.
Perhaps BBC could do a new reality show.
“Clear the Forest!!” with Dale Winton.
Back to wind turbines.
I am fortunate to have 52 wind turbines on my door step.
However last weekend and the weekend before the temperatures fell to zero and I noticed that the turbines were not turning.
I said to my wife “It is too cold for the wind turbines to be working. Ha ha ha!” Until now I thought that I was joking.
What I would like to know is how much electricity is actually generated each year by these wind farms. OK we are told how many homes can be supplied but not how much is generated.
Horizontal Windmills would be far better, but so far, only a few people seem to be making them. They work in much reduced wind speeds and con tolerate high wind speeds better. Don’t kill birds, don’t make as much noise. Probably don’t fling ice either.
The other thing with windmills, is that the powers that be, seem to think we need to convert wind energy to electrical energy which is highly inefficient. As about 60% of a home’s energy consumption is for heating and cooling, why not use windmills to pump water and make them efficient heat pumps.
A simple horizontal windmill attached to a Archimedes screw would make a great efficient long lasting heat pump.
Tell me engineers. Why shouldn’t we be doing this?
The increase in the use of fossil fuel through the 20th Century was constant and large. If the hypothesis that increased C02 produced by humans was true, there should have been a constant increase in temperature throughout the 20th Century. There wasn’t. 1934 was apparently the warmest year, and then it became cooler, getting downright cold about the mid-1970s.
The AGW concept is nothing but hogwash. Those who have abandoned scientific method see a bit of what can only be called trivia (for which they never looked before), and then suppose that this bit of trivia is a monumental sort of “discovery”, have become common. I would guess that governments pouring out research money for those with degrees who are willing to wave their arms and run about is most of the reason for the abandonment of scientific method. Panicking the common folk with absurdities pays a whole lot better than the use of scientific method would, and scientific method yields but very slow results, if any results at all.
As I have said many times before, if any of you think there is anything to “trends”, go to Las Vegas and get rich quick, following “trends”. The casino owners will welcome you with open arms.
The absurd concept of AGW is great for governments (so governments think, but the governments of the world have been wrong far more often than they have been right before) as they can increase taxes hugely if enough of the people are ignorant enough to be panicked by this nonsense.
A good definition of solar power or wind power is simply power that is so expensive that common people can’t and won’t be able to afford to use it.
Well, expensive white elephant wind turbines might not produce much electricity, but they make great ice-makers!
Stephen (07:39:25) :
Indeed, as Anthony politely stated, the subject was wind mills.
In regard to your response I have concluded that you are turning in circles, more or less like a wind mill which in my optic means “YOU DO NOT LEARN”.
1. The planet is cooling and it is cooling fast.
2. CO2 is an innocent trace gas with a minute influence on global temperatures.
CO2 lags temperatures by approx. 800 years therefore CO2 CAN NOT BE A DRIVER OF TEMPERATURE, THE OCEANS ARE. Therefore the IPCC doctrine is a hoax.
3. We can afford to continue to burn coal, oil and natural gas as much as we like without any risk of reaching a “critical tipping point” or creating “dangerous global warming” causing rising sea levels, drowning polar bears and super hurricanes.
4. You can find all debunked IPCC BS on this blog and on http://www.icecap.us
Please start reading, learn why the IPCC predictions are BS and than return to this blog with comments. Global Warming stopped 10 years ago.
5. In regard to alternative energy sources:
A combination of solar, wind and bio-fuels is NOT a viable alternative to fossil fuels at this moment in time: Too expensive, unreliable, low energy output, no storage capacity.
I personally love the idea of “clean energy” but only if it works.
Unfortunately this invention still has to be made. Until the invention is there we continue to use fossil fuels without destroying our economies.
Can we do that?
Yes we can!
davidgmills (09:25:41) : simple horizontal windmill attached to a Archimedes screw would make a great efficient long lasting heat pump. Tell me engineers. Why shouldn’t we be doing this?
Mostly because it wouldn’t work. There’s more to cooling and heating than just moving water. A mechanism for removing heat (for cooling) or adding heat (for warming) is also required. That’s where most of the energy needed to run the system goes. Moving the fluid is the easy part.
Horizontal Windmills would be far better, but so far, only a few people seem to be making them. They work in much reduced wind speeds and con tolerate high wind speeds better. Don’t kill birds, don’t make as much noise. Probably don’t fling ice either
Power is power. If it turns with less wind force, it generates less power. That old F=ma thing and all. Doesn’t kill birds? How? If it’s making less noise then its likely stopping less wind.
Nothing is really changed by placing the windmill on its side. In fact, it should lower the efficiency. A completely submersed propeller is far more efficient than a paddle wheel. Ever seen a speed boat use a paddle wheel? Why would you want to use only the diameter of the wheel instead of the entire frontal area? More exposed area = more captured energy. Turning the propeller on its side is effectively making a paddle wheel.
Katherine, thanks for the link.
…
…
After reading the article, I think I agree with Paul Shanahan’s assessment.
When someone plants a windmill seed, that sprouts into a windmill seedling, and eventually grows into a full-fledged windmill, is when windmill farming will be economically viable.
Until then, it is just tilting at windmills.
Windmills are good for remote locations, that lack access to grid electricity. In that situation they can supplement the use of a generator, which will still be used for peak demand periods. They are the equivelent of horse transportation, in a world that already has superior methods of transportation. Horses are useful, and much better than nothing, but a large step backward, in terms of productivity and efficency. And waste, in energy production, makes us all poorer.
One of these days, someone will create a green utopia state, where all the windmill farmers can prosper, without competing against coal, NG, nuclear. I wonder whether the fence will keep people in or out.
Large windmills already have the ability to vary the pitch of the blades. Would it be possible to vary the pitch of the blades as they rotate in order to counteract the differential in thrust caused by slower wind speeds close to the ground?
Helicopters already do this to counter act the affect of moving forward on their blades.