From the “bigger they are, the harder they fall” department comes this monster from General Electric:
GE Renewable Energy GE will invest more than USD 400 million over the next three to five years to develop and deploy the largest, most powerful offshore wind turbine – the Haliade-X 12 MW.
Featuring a 12MW direct drive generator and a capacity factor of 63 percent, the Haliade-X will produce 45 percent more energy than any other offshore turbine available today, the company said.
GE Renewable Energy aims to supply its first nacelle for demonstration in 2019 and ship the first Haliade-X units in 2021.
Towering 260 meters (853 feet) over the sea, more than five times the size of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, France, the Haliade-X 12 MW carries a 220-meter rotor.
Designed and manufactured by LM Wind Power, the 107-meter-long blades will be the longest offshore blades to date and will be longer than the size of a soccer field.
Jérôme Pécresse, President and CEO of GE Renewable Energy said:
“The renewables industry took more than 20 years to install the first 17 GW of offshore wind. Today, the industry forecasts that it will install more than 90 GW over the next 12 years. This is being driven by lower cost of electricity from scale and technology. The Haliade-X shows GE’s commitment to the offshore wind segment and will set a new benchmark for cost of electricity, thus driving more offshore growth.”
AN INDUSTRY FIRST
Introducing the Haliade-X 12 MW, the most powerful offshore wind turbine in the world to date, featuring a 12 MW capacity (the world’s first), 220-meter rotor, a 107-meter blade designed by LM Wind Power, and digital capabilities. In addition to being the biggest offshore wind turbine, the Haliade-X will also be the most efficient of wind turbines in the ocean. Best of all, it’s capable of transforming more wind into power than any other offshore wind turbine today.
The Haliade-X 12 MW also features a 63% capacity factor*—five to seven points above industry standard. Each incremental point in capacity factor represents around $7 million in revenue for our customers over the life of a windfarm.
The offshore wind turbine design of the Haliade-X is what makes it unique. The combination of a bigger rotor, longer blades and higher capacity factor makes Haliade-X less sensitive to wind speed variations, increasing predictability and the ability to generate more power at low wind speeds. The Haliade-X can capture more Annual Energy Production (AEP) than any other offshore wind turbine even at low wind conditions.
This 12 MW ocean wind turbine can also generate 67 GWh annually, which is 45% more AEP than the most powerful machines on the market today, and twice as much as the Haliade 150-6MW. One Haliade-X 12 MW can generate enough clean power to supply 16,000 European households according to wind conditions on a typical German North Sea site. Based on a 750 MW windfarm and an estimated AEP, the Haliade-X 12 MW could produce enough power for up to 1 million households.
Source: https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/turbines/haliade-x-offshore-turbine
h/t to Roger Sowell
No word yet on what the “carbon footprint” of producing and installing this beast is, and whether it will actually going to offset its own footprint during its useful operational lifetime.
Given what happened at the wind farm in Punta Lima, Playa Hucares, Puerto Rico when Category 4 Hurricane Maria made landfall on September 24th, one wonders if the materials in this monster turbine are up to the task of scaling up the size. The wind loading would be massive and untested, and could only be modeled.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gonna be a bother to deice.
Yet another green prayer wheel.
That’s quality humor.
Ya, Max, this is Murray, sell…sell everything I got in GE, its gonna tank – best to get out now
So long, sea birds! Been nice to see you.
They won’t know what hit them.
So what. Cats kill birds.
(Do I have a future as an eco- justice warrior, or what?)
It ain’t seagulls you need to worry about.
Neither will airline pilots.
” … We can not allow a windmill gap! …”
Alan Robertson: Yes, cats kill birds. So do tailings ponds (rarely). but in that case all the greens get up in arms. Hypocrisy anyone?
I’d advise John Kerry not to wind-surf too close, and suggest avoidance of the area by airliners up to A380 size!
This is another reason why GE stock is in the toilet.
Blade hits birds. Birds fall into sea. More fish come to eat diced birds, more birds preying on fish eating diced birds, more birds diced. Copy and paste
A pinkish colored paste.
It appears the larger they are the more efficient they are. Also, blades run slower for less potential bird damage. In addition, this gets them up off the sea surface and all that salt corrosion up at the top power plant.
Yes more efficient.But the bigger they are rthe faster the blades are at the end(it only looks slower).
But will it generate
dead sea batssea-bird extinctionselectricitypower?Will it
causecreate piscine refugees?I ran the power equation backward and got an optimal wind speed of 25 miles per hour for this puppy.
Not true – the tip speed is still limited by an optimum Mach number, same as a smaller windmill
Ask an expert.How can it be limited if it is faster only at the end?In the middle its always 0.Also if it its 2 time bigger the energy of destruction is 4 time bigger.So it must be build much heavier,but heavier means again mire destruction energy on the whole isntallation.
RPM of the rotor is lower but blade tip speeds will remain about the same, its a matter of the most efficient aerodnamic blade aerofoils, so bird strikes particularly with the larger area of the rotor and with the rotor reaching much higher into the probable bird travelled pathways is likely to be more severe on ocean bird life than the smaller turbines.
But that won’t trouble the ethically and morally challenged promoters of this highly destructive to bird life and ultimately in the overall scheme of energy generation, fairly useless albeit horrendously expensive bit of technology as being way out in the ocean bird injuries can’t be recorded and bird deaths counted as they fall into the Ocean below.
There is already evidence that the very low frequency infra sound pulses of the rotating blades that in the case of onshore turbines create severe health problems for about 20% of the population that are forced to live within a few kilometres of a turbine farm, in the case of the off shore turnbines the constant repetitive low frequency infra sound is being transmitted into the ocean waters and is having a quite serious effect on the various ocean species that use sound as a communications and warning alarm system.
An ocean species version of having to listen to the never ceasing constant drone of an aircraft’s multi piston engined driven propellers operating out of sychronisation.
You’re right. Not only that but the noise involved in installing the wind mills is considerable. link It’s a bad deal for the whales, from start to finish.
Yeah, but you know what they always say – it’s just the tip, baby.
what do you think the speed is at the tip of the blades…don’t think slower….
I did a quick calculation and came up with 150 MPH (nominal) rotor tip speed with a 6 rpm shaft speed.,,,but this is my first speed/distance calculation since college…40 years ago,..anyone else?
154 MPH tip speed is what I came up with on 110 meter radius blade at 6 RPM.
I timed the rotor in the video below, and came up with 21 seconds per revolution, which is around 73 mph, so a lot slower than smaller turbines.
While they blades may be doing fewer RPM, the tips are moving just as fast, if not faster.
thanks Joel, that’s is exactly what I got, just rounded to post….too fast…stop this worth less than nothing spinning junk…hopefully the scale of this monster will belatedly show the greens where this “technology” is headed and they will end their support. They did it with ethanol so there is hope and precedence.
GE needs to install this thing at their Corporate headquarters. Outside their labs where they’re working on the GESLA storage battery. Drop a line through the window. See if works . . . no words for this government financed giganticus raticus fornicus . . . wretched . . . wretched . . . waste . . . fraud
they run the usual blather about a carbon footprint, which is meaningless. they should be concerned about filling the ocean with scrap metal, because that is what it will eventually be.
View it as a future artificial reef.
Coral and fish love human structures and scrap, they live in it and live on it in profusion, divers and fisher men also love it (unless you’re trawling and snag nets, but that’s what GPS and a coupled marine autopilot is for).
Dismissive diversion and utterly bogus.
These turbines are taller and much larger.
When it comes to wind turbines maiming and killing birds, it is the blade’s tip speed.
That a blade turns slightly slower is meaningless when the blade is longer and the blade’s tip tracks a much larger circumference.
Nor does it remove, eliminate or even minimize salt water corrosive effects.
“Donald Kasper May 10, 2018 at 5:13 pm
This gets them up off the sea surface and all that salt corrosion up at the top power plant.”
“ATheoK May 11, 2018 at 5:28 am
Nor does it remove, eliminate or even minimize salt water corrosive effects.”
ATheoK, can you elaborate a bit on your no-it-doesn’t response?
It is my understanding (from decades of making equipment for the US Navy) that raising _anything_ above various height thresholds dramatically (though not linearly) reduces the effects of salt water corrosion.
Obviously, height does not change the corrosive effects of salt water, but height does reduce the amount of salt water that ends up in the electronics.
Your statement is valid for salt corrosion caused by immersion or frequent immersion into salt water.
Anything above the water gets salt spray and if corrodible, corrodes.
Plus, the Navy has a few hundred years of direct salt water experience and protective procedures against salt corrosion.
Nor does the Navy expect exposed electric motors and generators to last very long, unless they get frequent maintenance.
However, I don’t think GE will field teams to constantly inspect, clean, repair salt contaminated equipment.
Your ending summation agrees with my statement. Salt contamination is what happens, claims for reduced salt contamination is a smokescreen.
Dip a piece of corrodible metal into salt water, remove it and let it dry. It will start corroding almost immediately.
Unless specific direct action is taken to stop and prevent corrosion, it will continue.
Having lived and worked in NE USA and along the Gulf Coast, one learns that salt spray spreads and corrodes.
During a period working near the USA Gulf Coast, USPS deployed aluminum bodied vehicles that were fastened together with corrosion susceptible steel bolts.
The result was vehicles that literally had van bodies fall onto the frames within a few years. Vehicles that never came within miles of the Gulf’s salt water suffered extensive damage.
The Gulf Coast never salts roads against snow or ice, so road salt isn’t to blame.
The cause? Primarily salt spray; yes, they had to commission an investigation to determine that cause.
Shortly after that another USPS team got a great deal lowest bid for installing mailboxes throughout the Florida Panhandle.
Installing mailboxes requires concrete embedded mounting bolts to bolt the mailboxes down.
-a) To prevent storms from using mailboxes as flying object.
-b) To prevent vandals’thieves from stealing mailboxes.
-c) To prevent mailboxes from falling over on people.
-d) Mailbox installation requirements are regulated; but the team assumed the Contractor read all of the specifications and they never checked installations. Otherwise, the first concrete emplacements would have identified improper materials because the anchor bolts were rusting within days.
1) Those anchor bolts rusted away, leaving USPS with several lawsuits for mailboxes that injured people.
2) The main cause was poor bolt choice that were easily and surprisingly quickly destroyed through salt spray.
3) Most of these boxes were installed miles from Gulf salt water.
4) USPS ended up sending out mailbox inspection teams from maintenance to correct installations; chiseling out incorrect anchor bolts and re-cementing new ones into place.
The key action involved is salt spray!
Any/all salt contamination is destructive, unless the entire installation is guaranteed corrosion proof.
– 1) An amazing accomplishment for turbines requiring large amounts of copper, solder, special alloy bearings, circuits, etc.
Which brings us back to:
This statement is pure semantics. Semantics that alleges generators, bearings, wiring and circuit boards raised a few meters higher, than existing turbines, stop corroding.
not more efficient, but more powerful, as power comes as square of blade length.
This thing is so big when the wind doesn’t blow it will provide an even bigger hole to fill by alternate (conventional) means. Plus if it is put in a flyway the tips just might take out entire flocks of geese.
I assume the tips will be lit for aircraft to see. Just lighting the tower will leave a substantial structure above it unlit as the blades pass over it.
Probably see a documentary on the Discovery Channel on installing this thing, which will be an engineering marvel all by itself.
Maybe color changing LED lighting on the blade edges? OK, I hate this thing and where it comes from, but something like that would be interesting to watch for a few minutes.
That’s what I was thinking. White may not be the right color for them. Some disturbing visual pattern might be seen better by birds.
No, it will have to conform to aviation regs, as per all towers and tall buildings do—red strobes.
Give it a good breeze and you could use the LEDs to produce spectacular video effects.
Giant bill board, even motion video. Visible from the beach.
koo koo kachoo!
If those blades were spinning fast enough for that to work, the centripetal forces at the tips would be enough to create small black holes.
So long as there is no tax payer money involved, I say GE go for it.
Cheers
Roger
http;//www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
PS Did the advent of the motor car attract any government money? Well its worth counting which marvelous inventions that actually improved our lives. if you can think of one, please let me know.
Roger
I don’t have a problem with government giving private enterprise a leg up, as long as it doesn’t agree to carry it at the expense of taxpayers.
Lots of companies get tax breaks etc. to develop new products, R&D in the UK attracts lots of it, or it did when I was involved.
Tax breaks for R&D to develop new products are OK. Wind has been on the government teat for 25 years. Way past time to wean the industry.
barryjo
Tax Breaks for R&D is basically giving tax payers money to someone in particular. The only good tax brake is one that is given to every earner.
As has been said of other very heavily subsidised industries in the past, the wind and renewable energy industries have the “Socialising of Costs” and the “Capitalising of Profits” sorted out down to a very fine degree.
The latest lurk of the wind industry apparently from New Zealand where a proposal from the wind industry is for “support” aka “subsidies” to be paid on the “plated” maximum output of the turbine, not on its actual real measured generated output which is around a 30% capacity factor or generally only a third or less than the “plated” claimed maximum output.
[ German on shore turbines , all 27, 000 [ Twenty seven thousand ] of them operate at an 18% capacity factor, less than one fifth of their plated maximum output ],
GE has a room full of people making sure green energy (or at least the local government) pays all the bills. The tax man cometh.
HotScot,
Are you sure that a “leg Up” by a government does not involve tax payers money? Could the leg up be financed by the Queen then or maybe a whip around MP’s to help with their own money? 🙂
rogerthesurf
Now there’s a nice idea. 🙂
If everybody is taxed so that everybody can get a subsidy, the only people who win are those giving out the subsidies.
It’s been shown time and again, that if you want to help industry, the best thing government can do is keep taxes low and regulations light.
Taxing everybody so that a chosen few can receive a tax break never works economically.
MarkW
Agreed, in a perfect world that would be great. But the world is imperfect and some enterprising individuals come up with great ideas banks wont help with because they are too risky or not within their lending criteria, or even, the product just isn’t sexy enough. I am one of those guys. I spent £100K developing a novel manufacturing process for an existing product with numerous benefits over the single dominant European manufacturer, in a £100M market, with no cost implication. Not sexy at all, in fact really boring when lined up against iPhone apps etc. But the banks and the government paid lip service to lending/funding for manufacturing, instead, focussing on iPhone apps. All I needed was a loan for £250K to end up with, modestly, a company turning over £10M – £20M with healthy profits. Seven years after starting, I had to shelve the whole thing. Just the employment alone would have justified a government loan (I wasn’t looking for a handout) never mind the tax brought onshore.
So is a government ‘leg up’ justified? Yes, in some cases I believe they are. But no one want’s manufacturing any more, not even advanced composites.
A tax break is just someone keeping the money they have earned, it is not a transfer and does not require someone else to pay more in taxes. This is how enviromentalists have been able to get away for so long with saying that the oil industy is subsidized to the amount of $X billion a year. A tax not levied is not a gift.
StandupPhilosopher
Good point. I would also add that there is a return expected for tax breaks, be it, for example, employment, or increased revenue to the government from the business granted the tax break.
StandupPhilosopher..
“does not require someone else to pay more in taxes”
Really?
Cheers
Roger
I think GE should mitigate the investment by hanging a fan and generator on existing edifices. Like the statue of Liberty, or Mt Rushmore or the Empire State building.
A tax break is just someone keeping the money they have earned, it is not a transfer and does not require someone else to pay more in taxes. This is how enviromentalists have been able to get away for so long with saying that the oil industy is subsidized to the amount of $X billion a year. A tax not levied is not a gift.
that is so hopelessly incorrect I can’t even stand it. The rest of the money stolen from the the rest of the pool has to make up that “gift”. On what planet could you possibly think it works any different?
HotScott, what makes you believe that politicians are better able to spot a winning invention than bankers are?
At least the bankers are risking their own money.
Having politicians try to pick winners and losers is a fools game. You may win once in a while, but in the long wrong, you lose your shirt.
MarkW
Bankers never use their own money, they use savers deposits.
Support from a government is no less dependent on a credible business plan than it is for a bank.
Government investment disasters have invariably been politically motivated rather than financially expedient.
The current idiotic drive for renewables is a case in point. Neither scientifically nor financially expedient, simply driven by political dogma and a groundswell of public support, based on imagined future catastrophes that appear nowhere other than in Hollywood movies.
They are responsible for it, and if the bank loses money, they will be held responsible.
All political decisions are politically motivated.
There is no evidence that politicians are better at picking winners and losers than are bankers and much that they are worse.
MarkW
We are still paying for the banks irresponsibility in the UK!
“picking winners and losers” is a nonsensical term. No one sticks a pin in a board to pick either, they are chosen on merit, or in the case of climate change, political influence. There is a distinct difference.
One is judged on sound business foundations. The other on political influence which, by it’s nature, excludes free market enterprise and business planning, because it must, otherwise it wouldn’t be classed as a political decision but a business one, and the left despise business, so no votes there.
However, couch business initiatives in political shrewdness and the case is passed, except that it’s corrupted by politics and is therefore useless as a business concept.
Will the customers receive CHEAPER power? If not, then shove off with this high maintenance boondoggle. Methinks that “bigger” only provides an advantage in marketing … as to actual efficiency … well … “your results may vary”.
Aeroplanes, implants and beer!
The worry is that considering extreme weather is supposed to be more frequent/extreme/widespread (however you care to put it) then either the people involved in this turbine don’t believe the hysterics, or they don’t care.
I suspect it’s the former as that’s a lot of money to risk.
How much more money to get 45% more?….they could just build two of the other ones..and get 100% more
Footprint matters, you want to capture as much energy as possible in a limited physical space.
Chris: “Footprint matters”
Exactly, and since both wind and solar energy production are each a function of earth’s surface area, they are each unscalable.
How far apart these things have to be from each other in order to maintain peak efficiency is based on rotor length.
I’d buy one, just as long as the taxpayers pay for it and it includes the mini-bar and live entertainment.
Wouldn’t even have to twist my arm.
No-way they get a 63 % a true capacity factor. CFs are fake with most renewables. Nobody is referring to the CF as the average number of 20 years or the whatever the useful life of the contraption will be, not just the best month or best year. All renewables consume electricity, same also natural gas, during the “wrong” wind, maintenance, repairs, etc. Greenees do not subtracts that power (or energy) from the amount delivered to the grid power. Furthermore, the CF is usually heralded as the one at the best month, or year, etc. Only the life-long CF matters. Lets hear about this one in 20 years. My guess – 25 % net.
Remember, the CF is simply a ratio of the generator capacity to its actually producing power. Not efficiency. Small generator = higher CF. More powerful generator = smaller CF. Both outputs (watts) the same, but not their CFs.
I wondered about the 63% capacity factor also. If GE really believes this number, it should be written into the contract to purchase this Wind Generator.
CF 45% is BS, 1/2 of that in the real world is more likely, but the bigger issue is it’s non-dispatchable. That majority of the time that the turbine isn’t available includes those cold calm nights with no wind (or solar).
Capacity Factor is just another obfuscation term used by the renewable industry to hoodwink the public. Measuring energy output in “Number of Homes” is another. Neither has meaning unless defined. A capacity factor of 65%? … 65% of what?. I assume that it refers to the useful wind velocity window somehow; but how is that defined? It certainly does NOT refer to the actual output to plated output, which tends to be around 25%.
This is the nub of the matter as at around this 25% some 75% of Homes will be without electricity most of the time unless good old fossils rides to the rescue.
But even that statement can be challenged as all the definitions and assumptions have been mucked up by the green blob, leading to a great deal of wasted neural energy and computer generated CO2.
12 MW for $400 million!! That is outrageous. In industrial or utility terms 12MW is not very big (in fact it is very small). And to spend that kind of money is unforgiveable even if it is for a “righteous” cause.
I believe that $400M is their development cost to first unit delivered. Once amortized, it would be quite a bit less per unit.
Of course, that is assuming it is amortizable. That only works when you do actually sell production units. The market for these white elephants is dying – even in the most “green” European socialist oligarchies.
GE is a very bad bet for “hold” investment, much worse for “buy.” Their political cronies are losing office left and right, and apparently they are not investing in new politicians very well.
Well stated Writing. The same could be said about IBM. Maybe these 2 titans can create a blockchain powered windmill 🙂
GE’s share price is catastrophic – back where it was 9 years ago.
$400M to develop it? That’s chesp!
$400M to develop it? That’s chesp!
12 MW at 67% efficency factor for $400 million equates to a build price of $80 billion for a 1600Mw coal fired power station.
How much wind will it take to actually turn the thing?
The amount of inertia that needs to be overcome to get it started moving would be quite large. They might have to put a starter motor on it to get it up to a speed where the wind can take over.
Imagine just how powerful the brakes would need to be to stop it in the event of a gale.
Gonna have huge stresses …..wind speed diff top to bottom may be huge …
IF they build it ….gonna be fun to watch ….kinda like SA …
“The Haliade-X 12 MW also features a 63% capacity factor*—five to seven points above industry standard.”
The bigger the wind mill, the more the wind blows. I didn’t know that before.
…Based on a 750 MW windfarm and an estimated AEP, the Haliade-X 12 MW could produce enough power for up to 1 million households.”
=================
First things first… power my toaster with no more than a 2% price increase and you’re golden.
Try for any more than that, and there WILL be an uprising.
It is called the VOTE.
Hmmm. Bird kills. Lots of them. But not wind mills.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/164188/nature_image.jpg
Yes. Cats kill raptors, migratory birds and bats. Whatever.
The cull the weak and inattentive, improving the species.
You may be correct, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the bird deaths are 1/10 or even 1/100 of those numbers.
Who’s gonna argue with a birder ?, there is no upside.
As an amateur birder, I know for a fact that birds do not just lose control and fly into stuff (generally), in fact they have the spatial awareness to put a branch between themselves and the viewer when they alight.
Some birds you can’t get within 100 feet of, others are really curious and will come close if you’re calm and unthreatening.
Where was I going with this ??
Now I remember, birds might outlive the cockroaches.
Actually large birds do fly into wind turbines fairly frequently. No, they don’t lose control, but they don’t have an instinct to watch out for large objects coming in fast sideways, because there is no such thing in nature.
Yes, tty, it’s like the squirrel zig-zagging down the road in front of my car, but not smart enough to simply go at a right angle.
Just two days ago, I saw a mockingbird in the road trying to pick up something such as a worm. A car came up, and the mockingbird tried to fly away, but flew right into the lower bumper and tire, and was killed. Very sad.
“Highly Uncertain” I.e. a wild guess.
Richard
“Highly Uncertain” I.e. a wild guess.
If I may: –
“Highly Uncertain” I.e. a wild guess, after a lo-o-o-ng night on the beer.
[Other beverages are available, including cheap French wine . . . . . . . ]
Auto
How can a stationary object like a communication tower kill birds? Do they fly into them at night? If so one would think they would fly into trees too. And how can they be electrocuted on power lines without being grounded? Touching other birds perhaps? More importantly, all of these except windmills (and possibly some feral cats) serve a clear purpose that has been freely chosen int he free market, not imposed based on a scam.
Once again…it’s called Exposure Level.
Power line electrocution…vs how many millions of miles of power lines?
Automobiles…vs how many (billion) automobiles worldwide? (806M in 2007 and 1.28B in 2015)
Cats…vs how many hundreds of millions of cats? (600M)
Building glass strikes…vs how many hundreds of billions of building windows? (The Burj Khalifa alone has 24,000 Windows with a combined area of 120,000 m2, one building, New York City is estimated to have between 10 and 12 million Windows in that city…One city)
Wind turbines…At the end of 2011 there were around 200,000 operating wind turbines worldwide. So your figure equates to 1-2 birds per turbine per year and minimum 2+ bats per turbine per year.
Power Lines…I work for the local electric co. reporting outages, with 170,000 miles of wire and just over 400 confirmed bird kill outages per year.
Cars…Not every car is guaranteed to have a bird strike per year. I’ve had 12 cars and 2 trucks for deliveries driving more than 850,000 miles combined since 1979 and have yet to hit a bird.
Cats…I’ve had 7 cats since I was born with numerous confirmed kills of mice and rats but no birds.
Altamont pass wind farm 4700 wind turbines and more than 4600 annual confirmed bird kills including Raptors and Eagles.
E X P O S U R E
Every Wind Turbine is a guaranteed bird killer each and every year.
A good number for wind turbine kills is about 4 birds per day per wind turbine. You gotta include the little sparrows per day along with the couple of eagles per year. Any lower number is easily proven wishful thinking merely by sitting in a lawn chair near one for a day, or visiting the drifts of dead birds in the hills above Palm Springs. So 200,000 operating turbines times 4 times 365 days equals about 300 million bird deaths per year.
Exposure dude, your estimate of wind turbine related bird kills is equal to the estimate of wind turbines worldwide…Wind turbine/bird kill ratio = 1/1 and possibly 2/1 per year
1500 ducks die in a one-time incident in an oil sands pond and it’s an international outrage. But a couple million birds every year killed by wind turbines is just fine to environmentalists.
Pure duplicity, reallynotskeptical!
Cite a prejudiced CAGW dependent site.
Post an nonsense graphic that compiles weak surveys with massive extrapolations often performed by students and amateurs.
Imply the graphic proves wind turbines do not kill birds.
All lies and specious claims.
reallyClueless demonstrates once again how to lie with numbers.
First off, compare the number of buildings or cars, to the number of windmills. If there were as many windmills as there were cars, how many birds would they kill.
Secondly, where is he getting these numbers from? I know of no survey that has attempted to count the number of birds killed by automobiles. From my own extensive driving experience, hundreds of thousands of miles over 40 years, and only one bird hit during that time, I call BS on his numbers.
If “reallyskeptical” was honest he/she/it would have given the source of that graphic.
http://www.carbonbrief.org – why is a climate propaganda and smear website. So, don’t trust the numbers.
But, he/she/it isn’t. Why is why the fake name, with an email designed to hid identity. Typical.
Offshore location and height (size) are both good for capacity factor, but are they enough for 63%? And how well will it hold up in a passing hurricane?
Pleeeease build it.. what could possibly go wrong?! 😛
At least it’s offshore….
Does nothing to change the fact that wind cannot be relied on for energy. If you have to rely on fossil fuels, hydro, or nuclear to provide base load you are just pissing in the wind. You can make them as big as Mt. Everest and they won’t supply lthe energy as needed.
Before long it’ll just be an empty statue
$400m marketing expense is about right for a GE type. Any subsidy backstory?
Increasingly competitive environment…
Hmm, is that a swipe at their loss of subsidies, exposing these projects to market forces?
Makes me wonder; they model wind loading forces. Do they model market forces?
GE likely won’t make a profit from selling this beast; however, GE love maintenance contracts which give them the opportunity to rip clients mercilessly on decade(s) long contracts.
And well I never the X will lower the cost of renewable energy . . .
https://youtu.be/ybh7NwZv7c8
Not likely!
You can increase the size all you want, but wind remains an uncontrollable power generator.The technology belongs back with Don Quixote. The real issue isn’t whether this windmill is a bit more efficient than others., but whether that increased efficiency is justified by the increased cost.
As we have learned, for windmills to just produce power to keep up with increased yearly power consumption, it would require an additional 350,000 windmills every year, requiring land the size of the British isles. Windmills have an enormous environmental footprint are is really a stupi an costly way of producing power. The larger the percentage of wind power, the larger the amount of duplicative reliable generating capacity is required. The costs are enormous.
There is already evidence that wind speed is slowing worldwide – one wonders what will be the effect on rain and weather in general nearby and for the planet.