• Subscribe to
    Lloyd’s Blog via RSS.
Tumblr
  • Check out TheShelterBlog.com
  • Tools for the
    Half-Acre Homestead
 

Wind Turbines On Road Yesterday

Pretty spectacular eh? Electricity without oil, gas, or coal burning. This is on Hwy 12, around Rio Vista, "…the Montezuma Hills of eastern Solano County" Details: http://bit.ly/windgens

13 comments:

El Gaucho said...

They manufacture those out here in my neck of the woods in North Dakota (LM WindPower I believe), so we frequently see them on semi trailers, loaded up and ready to be delivered. You rarely get to see one up close, so you don't realize how gigantic the blades are. They're HUGE. Maybe one of these days I'll grow a brain and have my camera on me so I can show ya' a picture.

Shawn Dehner said...

Those large-scale wind turbines are fantastic. Earlier this year we visited Denmark and the rural landscape is filled with turbines. It was unexpectedly serene to stand atop a hill and overlook small farm fields with turbines and traditional clay tiled - sometimes thatch roofed - houses with solar arrays. It's nice to see it here as well!

David Grant said...

Don't be fooled. These industrial wind turbines will never replace oil, gas or coal. The have to be backed up, wind is intermittent. As soon as the wind stops these plants are turned up from their idle speed to bring the base load back up. Even when these are spinning other fuels are being burned. Every other year each one of these monsters get a 250 gallon oil change. The gear housings are about 8 feet in diameter and last about 5 years. And don't forget about the 2 tons (4000 lbs) of rare earth magnets in each of the turbines. When neodymium is processed to make the magnets radio-active waste is produced, just like nuclear we have barrels and barrels of untouchable waste from building these "green' machines. Roof top solar and conservation is the answer, not 400 foot tall industrial wind turbines. More info on turbines here...https://www.facebook.com/groups/355462331136490/

Anonymous said...

that is flat out UGLY.

Anonymous said...

Ugly...
Also.. how DO they affect birds and other wildlife? Not just the birds that die flying in to them.. Also.. the noise, and high frequency pitches they end up emitting... How are the pitches effecting all forms of life? ....

David Grant said...

Exactly Anonymous, I believe it's the low frequency that is dangerous to living beings. Bird deaths are unknown, wind farms don't want people to know how many birds, bats and raptors are really being killed. When bird counts are done they sometimes only count once a week or even once a month. Have you heard of the Wind Turbine Syndrome? http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2009/come-to-my-house/

KM said...

Actually, wind turbines require the reliable electricity from gas and coal to run. They are only an add-on and also cause those other plants to operate less efficiently in response to the fluctuating production from wind. They are a sham, giant symbols only whose purpose is to provide tax avoidance for their investors and political cover ("never underestimate the gullibility of the public!") for politicians. These giant machines and their sprawling facilities (heavy-duty roads, transmission lines, substations) are an obviously massive desecration of the environment. It is disturbing indeed that otherwise sensible people still believe in this industrial fantasy, seeing only what the developers tell them to see.

Anonymous said...

David,
went to the site you posted...
Interesting.

Also, forgot about the Vibrations... it sites that a nearby seismic station blocked the Wind Turbines due to Vibrations...Well, that probably is not a good effect either.

Kim, good point about the adjunct electricity and gas and coal.. (guess for when the wind dies down)..

Another thing i wonder, what are these turbines made from / what toxic chemicals are used in their production... Shipping costs both environmental and monetary ... Where are they produced.. (sweat shop or...)...

Long and short, even if the noise/vibrations/ high - low frequency concerns aside, are wind turbines a net loss or gain re total toxicty and cost and sweat shops compared to one cord of wood / coal / oil?

Maine Wind Concerns said...

Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. That eye can have its vision colored by perceptions and other information. Most people believe that grid scale Wind power is much more and does much more than it truly is or can. So as a result those people are more apt to accept -- or even LIKE them! What truly makes them ugly is the balance sheet and the economics. Everything has impacts, including electricity generation. But those impacts must always be weighed fairly against true benefits. In the case of grid scale wind power it is no contest: massive impact and tiny benefit.

Lloyd Kahn said...

Wow!
I've said before that by posting, I don't mean that I necessarily endorse, or understand, or love the subject matter. I post what I find interesting, or what I run across in my peregrinations. Do you guys mean it's a net loss? That factoring into the equation the bad stuff described above, the energy generated without burning fossil fuels, that's it's going in the minus direction? Better to burn coal or frack?
I used to say to the electric car guys, what about the cost to the environment of the batteries (production and disposal)? What about the coal burned to produce the electricity to charge the batteries?
We talking net loss with wind-generated electricity? Same in Holland or wherever they have great big units? Are all the wind generator guys bullshit artists?
I'm asking because I'd like to know, not because I've studied the subject. I want to learn.

Maine Wind Concerns said...

Good that you're curious. It's not uncommon to encounter a real edge... A chip on the shoulder of those people who have discovered the folly of grid scale wind. Your net loss question deserves long discourse if we are talking electrons. But the impacts vs. benefits point is more easily enumerated.
Don't fall into the trap of asking if it would be better to burn coal or natural gas. Those are apples if wind is the orange. Wind does not replace or displace coal, which is a base load source running 24/7. It is not nimble enough to ramp up and down every time the wind changes. Natural gas is more nimble, but even when it is used as a load following generation source, attempting to skitter up and down to keep step with wind, it loses efficiency and economy. We are talking belt on suspenders. But the Wind Lobby has expertly carved out its Most Favored Generation status, so it gets priority in terms of grid access, price, and even siting. Sad truth is, it's essentially useless in grid scale applications. An utter waste of taxpayer, ratepayer dollars

David Grant said...

Let us put this into a California perspective. We receive about 2.3% of our energy from wind. To reach the 20% goal by 2020 we would have to cover 4.2 million acres with turbines. Industrial turbines are good for one thing and that is creating jobs and making money. They are not green and they are not the answer to our energy crisis. They do not replace coal, gas or nuclear. If you want to make a difference conserve and install roof top solar panels. We could easily reach the 20% renewable goal if every one contributed to the grid. People might even realize how simple it is to make your own power and become self sufficient, then the big dogs that we give so much of our money too would shrink and this world just might be better off. This is another web site worth checking out.
http://www.wind-watch.org/

Anonymous said...

No.

The grid is THE problem.

On-site generation, by non centralized means. is the obvious approach.

Typical transmission losses are quoted @ 10% +

Then add losses in local distribution w/ step down transformers.

On-site, the user is inherently, intimatley aware of usage and cost.

Up to the early 60's many manufacturing plants - midwest at least - generated power on site.

Something changed...

Follow the $

Post a Comment