This picture from another thread got me to thinking.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: This is but 1 of six consecutive frames I took in 180 degrees, and each image was the same--just as it would be if I were to continue on 360 deg. I don't know how many are there, but wiki says it is the largest wind farm in the world. Stretches accross Nolan and Taylor counties.

So I did a little research.

quote Originally posted by Science & Technology: Windy Payback Time: Wind Turbines and their Life Cycle Impacts by Jenna Watson, Barcelona on 01.18.08 Somebody asked me the other day what the life cycle impacts of a wind turbine are and how long it would take to pay back the energy used to manufacture one of those tall majestic beasts. Considerable amounts of raw materials and energy are required to make these big windy wonders. I was stumped of course as that information is not something one can just come up with. I found this report on Renewable Energy Access from 2005, which looks like an answer to that question for two models by Danish manufacturer, Vesta. The life cycle assessment of a 3.0 MW wind turbine indicates that it would have to generate electricity for only 6.8 months , of their assumed 20 year useful life, before it produces as much energy as is used during the manufacturing phase. “This, they say, means the turbine model earns its own worth more than 35 times during its energy production lifetime.” Read the article here. Image credit: Sandia National Laboratories. http://www.treehugger.com/f...wind_turbine_lca.php

Although I will admit, they don't do much for the landscape, the payback seems to be a pretty good investment.
Then again, I'd rather have that many oil wells on my property producing sweet crude. I intentionally went to a site that I thought would be the most critical. Treehugger seemed to fit that bill.
BTW, thanks go out to MaryJane for the pic.

------------------
Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-08-2011).]

Sky Windpower flying electrical generator (artist's conception).


The future of windpower may be at 30,000 feet.

Sky WindPower's Flying Electric Generators on Popular Mechanics' March 2011 cover!

Airborne Wind Energy Conference May 24 - 25, 2011
K. U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

quote Hear what CEOs, scientists and engineers who have concluded that high altitude wind energy can play a substantial role in addressing the world's energy and global warming problems have to say about this vast, powerful and persistent wind source and how its energy will be captured.

http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-08-2011).]

That 6.8 month figure is a little misleading. Here is the source if anyone wants to look into it:

http://www.vestas.com/en/ab...ssessment-(lca).aspx

Yes, it makes as much energy as it took to produce it in 6.8 months, but that is like saying the only cost to make a car is the electricity it cost to run the automaker's plant and the cost of the transportation fuel of the parts. If that were the case, then a new car would only cost about $5000.

What is lacking is what is the economic break even point?

Wind farms subsidies are very controversial here and likely are in other places too:

quote The subsidies to wind farms are part of a program called the Business Energy Tax Credit. Anyone who builds a project that creates renewable energy qualifies for a tax credit worth half of the construction cost to a maximum of $20 million for some projects. Over the past two years, the tax give-backs cost the state about $60 million. Over the next two years, the cost to the state is expected to rise to at least $144 million, according to the most recent estimates. An investigation by The Oregonian this year showed that millions of dollars in tax credits were being handed to some risky startup companies, to projects with questionable environmental benefits and to projects that would have been built even without the state subsidy. Critics singled out wind energy farms as undeserving of such large tax breaks.

So some wind farms would have been built without the subsidy but many more are being built because of it.

http://www.oregonlive.com/p...als_intent_to_v.html

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 03-08-2011).]

I think this is a bit more realistic. 24.05 years

quote WindPower is not the best financial decision a power company could make. This explains the exuberant amounts of federal grants and stimulus money being pumped into the renewables market.

About Taylor Johnson
Windpower Engineering RES Advocate, Taylor Johnson, has a background in energy financial and policy issues and focuses on explaining policy and Renewable Energy Standard issues.

http://www.windpowerenginee...-point-calculations/

I can't say I'd ever trust a site with a name like 'treehugger' to be a critical thinking site

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 03-08-2011).]

There was a program that John Deere was running a few years back that put the windmills on your farmland, and after 15 years they gave the windmill to you. Until then, any overage that was sold back to the electric company, that check went to John Deere. You still benefited from the offset, so lower electric bills, just for the 1st 15 years, you could not profit any more than that. My property was only slightly too close to another to put one up, because of zoning, or I would have taken advantage.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: There was a program that John Deere was running a few years back that put the windmills on your farmland, and after 15 years they gave the windmill to you. Until then, any overage that was sold back to the electric company, that check went to John Deere. You still benefited from the offset, so lower electric bills, just for the 1st 15 years, you could not profit any more than that. My property was only slightly too close to another to put one up, because of zoning, or I would have taken advantage.

There is a guy around where i live that set up a small hydro electric dam that works pretty much the same way. He gets his own power from the dam and still makes enough power to sell back to the electric company to make a pretty decent profit from. Theres only 2 places in my general area that i know that use wind mills. Up towards the Pocanos (you can see them from the PA turn pike) and in Atlantic city. My area is using nuclear power which i think right now is the closest to an unlimited energy source that we have that dosent stop producing power as forces in nature change. For instance solar power is only good while the sin is shining. at night there not doing anything for you and on cloudy days they arent doing anything. Same with windmills no wind no power. The other almost unlimited power source out there is hydro electric.

In a word....No. If it can't replace a traditional power plant, it isn't viable. And solar and wind cannot replace a power plant. At night and when the wind isn't blowing, you still need a power plant capable of supplying 100% of the grid needs.

If it weren't for the subsidies, solar and wind would be nearly dead.

Nuke is the most green and practical long-term reliable power source we have, and the idiots won't let us build them....at least without so many regulatory hoops that it will take 10 years to get a plan approved.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: The future of windpower may be at 30,000 feet. Sky WindPower's Flying Electric Generators on Popular Mechanics' March 2011 cover! Airborne Wind Energy Conference May 24 - 25, 2011 K. U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

Thanks for sharing. That's really neat. My favorite excerpt:

quote In summary, our figures show that energy costs derived from high altitude winds, competing head-to-head without subsidy, should be less than those based on fossil fuels.

I tried a google search, but couldn't find the negatives, downsides, or why these aren't being used? (The stie didn't list much for negatives, imagine that!) Anyone have any input on why they won't work?

being that there are only miniscule downsides to windmills - why is it even worth worrying about?
damn near free energy - wtf - how can anyone bithc, except those who have vested interests in consumables.

it quitely clearly is worth the effort. yes - it most certainly is no way windmills can be a single source. at least with todays energy storage abilities - which - basicly - there are none. at least here in the states.

I have seen one energy storage solution which is in use, which is pretty slick. it is hydroelectic. the elevated water is the stored energy. windmills are used to pump the water up. classic tech from farms of old. tho - it is not a very efficeint solution - mush loss - it is stored energy for when the wind is not blowing. and, solar pumps can be made as well. basicly - ANY energy can be stored this way. and - it is scalable, with the only limitation being the size of your pond/lake.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 03-08-2011).]

Wind-power isn't a single-bullet solution to power generation, it's really only one part of a multi-faceted generation strategy that also includes solar (photovoltaic as well as thermal), geothermal, hydrodynamic, etc. The big disadvantage is that wind doesn't blow all the time at one spot, but the wind always blows somewhere, and long-term weather studies have located many regions in this country where wind blows most of the time at velocities that make it practical to install wind generators.

What are the advantages of wind? For starters, it's here, within our borders, so it allows us to not use imported energy sources from countries that are or may eventually be hostile to us. The less we depend on regions of political/social instability the better off our chances of surviving as a nation. Secondly, it's a net pollution-reducer. The pollution associated with manufacturing a wind-mill is far less than the pollution it doesn't emit compared to carbon-based power generation, and if you use wind power as a primary source of manufacturing energy the pollution reduction effect amplifies rapidly, like compound interest.

The first benefit is what I find most appealing. The greatest problem facing this nation long term IMHO is energy security. As long as we are beholden to third world countries run by tin-pot dictators for our energy our choices are limited to what it takes to keep them happy. The alternative is $500 oil and a complete economic collapse. Sure, that would take them down too, but they have far less to fall than we do and therefor less to lose. Plus, if they don't sell to us they can use their oil internally to increase their strengths and capabilities.

Ultimately, importing energy is bad for us, whether it's oil from the middle east or nuclear fuel from the Russians. Speaking of that, the Russians have a history of using their carbon-based fuel exports as leverage for power, witness them shutting off fuel to parts of Europe the last two winters. Does anyone think they won't do the same to us with nuclear fuel?

In-border energy sources, particularly those that will never, ever run out or be depleted such as sun, wind, and geothermal, seem to be the wisest thing to invest in long-term because they have the best long-term payout.

In my honest opinion.

quote Originally posted by 1988holleyformula: re: Flying Electric Generators I tried a google search, but couldn't find the negatives, downsides, or why these aren't being used? (The stie didn't list much for negatives, imagine that!) Anyone have any input on why they won't work?

The best place to look for more info about the negatives and unresolved problems would appear to be the March (2011) edition of Popular Mechanics.

I don't have a subscription, although curiosity may drive me to pick up this single issue.

I have been fascinated with Sky Windpower ever since I first read about them. I don't remember what led me to their website, exactly. I was probably just doing general Google searches on wind energy.

Grunch: I didn't read the whole thread (tl;dr) but I work in this field so I'll give you my (decidedly biased) opinion.

Wind power on its own is not a solution, and in fact causes more problems. In Ontario you'll notice that many wind turbines are shut down when they could be producing electricity because the grid operators just can't handle the intermittent loads and the stress on the grid. It's much better to have a constant supply from a SC/CC Natural Gas power plant.

That will, however, change with the addition of storage plants to the grid. Once we have a way to balance the grid that doesn't require selling power to Quebec, New York or Michigan then Ontario will be able to take full advantage of wind power. Energy storage facilities on a grid scale are not yet operational. Batteries are being developed, but currently their storage duration is on the order of 24 to 48 hours, the power stored in them starts to decay exponentially after that. My research centers around energy conversion storage methods, where we are changing the energy from electrical to mechanical and then back to electrical when we need it. That's the only way to store electricity...change it to another form of energy. In a battery you're turning it into chemical energy. In other storage facilities, you're making it into compressed air or high pressure water or other fluids. It's not as simple as hooking up a bank of batteries to the grid and hoping for the best.

Once storage methods are in place, wind farms will be able to supply more power to the grid and allow us to shut down inefficient simple cycle gas turbine and coal plants. (Combined cycle gas turbines are still pretty efficient.) We will never completely replace peaker plants (nat gas and coal) with wind and solar, but we can reduce the overall system fuel consumption.

I was watching Nova Science Now where they were looking at a number of these green energies. One idea that I though was great was to use the green energies to create hydrogen. The hydrogen would then be used for fuel cells to power cars, homes or anything else that needs energy.

They even showed a new solar cell that is designed to be immersed in water. The solar cell is much cheaper to build than a standard solar cell and is actually more efficient. It did not have any wire connects to power anything. Instead, it split the hydrogen and oxygen in the water. As soon as it was placed in light, you could see a large number of bubbles coming off of the cell. It was very impressive.

Using these less reliable forms of energy to make hydrogen is a great solution IMO since the hydrogen is portable and can be used on demand.

...well I am personally more partial to the 'waste to energy' programs that they are trying out over seas. This is where they take garbage (another issue that we need to deal with) and run it through an incinerator. The genrated heat is then used to generate power - the only thing they have to deal with is scrubbing the flue gases before being released back into the atmosphere. IIRC they are building a new one someplace in England that is suppose to have near 0 output from the stack.

Solves the garbage problem and creates electricity (something good) from it.

A couple of things I noticed while in that West Texas wind field.

The towers come right up to the road, and right up to the little cemetery I was at. I expected to hear the blades making a "whoosh-whoosh-whoosh" noise as each blade came around to the 6 o'clock position, Not so. Instead, it is a constant, ever present "whoooooooosssshhh" noise which sounds exactly like a large passenger or military jet fly high overhead, and in fact, while taking the pics, I at first looked around for a contrail before I realized where the noise was coming from. It's not terribly loud, but certainly noticable and ever present.

Of all the hundreds and hundreds of turbines I saw (1000s?) I noticed only one shut down and in feathered blade position. I saw no major power lines leading from the field (which I expected to see), no personell, or trucks running around. There was a visitors center, but being Sunday, it was closed.

We have several wind-farms around our area, mounted on top of the hills. They are, apparently, acceptably efficient, and result in us paying considerably lower electricity tariffs than the rest of Spain and Europe. I should imagine there are around 200 spread over 100 square miles, and being situated on top of those hills, they are very rarely not turning. Holland, too, has a lot of them, and more coming every week. They are HUGE!! A truck delivering ONE new blade passed along the main road near here, and I should imagine it was close on 100 ft long
We also have hydro and nuclear plants locally too, so the mix is pretty wide.
Nick

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...well I am personally more partial to the 'waste to energy' programs that they are trying out over seas. This is where they take garbage (another issue that we need to deal with) and run it through an incinerator. The genrated heat is then used to generate power - the only thing they have to deal with is scrubbing the flue gases before being released back into the atmosphere. IIRC they are building a new one someplace in England that is suppose to have near 0 output from the stack. Solves the garbage problem and creates electricity (something good) from it.

A lot of military bases have those. When I was stationed in Alaska, we had an incinerator that took care of our garbage, power and provided heat via steam pipes to the whole base. I am not sure if it was powered entirely by garbage. I don't think we had that we made that much garbage.

Some munincipalities cover the landfill with a vapor/gas proof shield and capture the methane? from the decomposing garbage.
Meanwhile, about 50 years after the fact, I'm still waiting on the much publicized, often proclaimed, "It will be Too Cheap to even Meter!" electricity.

(and my flying car--they promised us all flying cars. I want my flying car dammit! )

i think every little bit helps. Not one is the answer, but a piece to the puzzle.

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...well I am personally more partial to the 'waste to energy' programs that they are trying out over seas. This is where they take garbage (another issue that we need to deal with) and run it through an incinerator. The genrated heat is then used to generate power - the only thing they have to deal with is scrubbing the flue gases before being released back into the atmosphere. IIRC they are building a new one someplace in England that is suppose to have near 0 output from the stack. Solves the garbage problem and creates electricity (something good) from it.

This technology exists in the US also. Not long ago, I was involved with a company that developed a system that used landfill material (garbage, construction materials, anything that would provide stored energy with the exception of tires and yard wastes) to produce electricity. They could produce enough energy to provide power to 6000 average homes with average usage after they took what they needed for their own operation. Though, they did not incinerate, they gassified. There is a difference. regardless, it is very high tech system and several different communities are investigating the concept to have similar facilities built. Nothing was removed from what everyone throws in the trash with the exception of the previously mentioned items and batteries. Their emissions were surprisingly low, in fact, we had to run additional testing because the data was so good, not everyone believed it. But, a second and third observed tests proved the process. I wrote and submitted the Major Air Source Permit, wrote their Storm Water Plan and their Safety Plan. Needless to say, I became very familiar with their system and equipment. Tried to buy stock in their company but, it's all privately held and not for sale.

------------------
Ron

Attention all tree huggers, windmills kill birds.

Just one wind farm in Ontario killed more birds in its first 8 months of operation that the number of ducks killed by landing on settling ponds in the oilsands. Odd how you never hear much from eco-terrorists about this - except when oil is involved.

Wind Turbines Kill Bats Without Impact

Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey

quote massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors. After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds.

And of course, it ruins the scenic views, so even the greenies get a raging case of NIMBY.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: Nuke is the most green and practical long-term reliable power source we have, and the idiots won't let us build them....at least without so many regulatory hoops that it will take 10 years to get a plan approved.

And this from a guy who lives in the state that barely survived Three Mile Island?

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Then again, I'd rather have that many oil wells on my property producing sweet crude.

Not me! Land owners make bank off of those wind turbines. I forget specific numbers but say you had 10-20 towers on your land, I believe you would end up getting around $100,000/year from the owners for rent. My dad doesn't even have one on his land, it's just close enough to his acreage and he gets $1000 plus $8 per acre of land he owns a year.

I didn't read all of the posts but I remember reading something about how when the wind isn't blowing, they're not making electricity. This is true but those things can run with barely a breeze turning them (seriously like 5-8mph). That and the wind is always blowing somewhere.

I personally don't like looking at the things (can count about 20 right now looking outside) but I would much rather have them around than a coal plant. I used to work for a company that puts them up all over the U.S. so I usually do side with wind energy in an argument

Another positive is the jobs they create not only in the construction but also in the maintenance of these machines. Starting wage for an inexperienced wind tech around here is around $50,000 which is darned good for small town Iowa.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: And this from a guy who lives in the state that barely survived Three Mile Island?

Absolutely! 'Barely survived' is quite a bit of a stretch. It certainly wasn't Chernobyl! Modern reactors are considerably smaller, more efficient, and generate less waste.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Meanwhile, about 50 years after the fact, I'm still waiting on the much publicized, often proclaimed, "It will be Too Cheap to even Meter!" electricity.

Lobby for nuclear energy research and construction. Then it will be too cheap to meter. We haven't built new nuclear power plants in decades. There are a couple under construction now but...good luck.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Instead, it is a constant, ever present "whoooooooosssshhh" noise which sounds exactly like a large passenger or military jet fly high overhead, and in fact, while taking the pics, I at first looked around for a contrail before I realized where the noise was coming from. It's not terribly loud, but certainly noticable and ever present.

The NIMBY lobbies here in Illinois are claiming the noise results in health problems for those that live near the wind farms. Is it true? I don't know. You're right though, they do sound weird.

quote Originally posted by css9450: The NIMBY lobbies here in Illinois are claiming the noise results in health problems for those that live near the wind farms. Is it true? I don't know. You're right though, they do sound weird.

I don't know about the health related issues, as there are very few residents in the area where these are located. Nolan (the community) has but a handful of residents (47 in 2000 census) , Nolan County, not many either. It's a harsh land, rocky, cactus and mesquite covered, dry as a bone in the summer, windy, and cold and windy in the winter. It's a perfect place to do this, because of the geography. Not because it's all open, but because the land gradually, goes up in elevation, with Nolan itself being situated right on the southern tail of the Continental Divide or as we call it out there, the Llano-- as it is known in Spanish as Llano Estacado (staked plain or plateau).

Here's a lengthy article about the pros and cons back in 2009 when they first began trying to build this windfarm. (it is no where near finished, and is already called the largest in the world--it is expanding west and north). I believe, it currently employs about 1300 people from Nolan County.

http://www.washingtontimes....e-divide-texas-town/

This same area, back in the 60s was suddenly dotted with other odd looking structures enclosed in 2 acre 10' cyclone fences. Just a trapazoid shaped cement block sticking up, maybe a single building and a concrete and steel pads about 40' square or round--right out in the middle of nowhere. Nine Atlas "F" nuclear ICBM silos.


This btw, if you didn't read the reason I was back out west, (to show ya how desolate, and wide open the area is), was my first and only 40 mile long, police escort, 80 mph funeral procession.

quote Originally posted by fastblack: ... those things can run with barely a breeze turning them (seriously like 5-8mph).

Not quite correct. True, they will windmill (run free) in low wind speeds, but the "cut in" speed ... the speed at which they begin generating usable power ... of most commercial wind turbines is around 10 to 12 mph.

Previously posted on PFF:

Most commercial wind turbines have a "cut in" wind speed of around 12 mph, below which they generate no power whatsoever. Above the "cut in" speed, power output is roughly proportional to the cube of wind speed. A commercial wind turbine's maximum rated wind speed is somewhere in the range of 29 to 35 mph, at which point they begin feathering the blades and eventually have to be taken off line to prevent mechanical damage due to excessive aerodynamic loads and/or excessive mechanical (e.g. centrifugal) loads due to high rpm.

From GE, a plot of output vs. wind speed for their commercial 2.5 MW wind turbine:



Note that the cut-in speed is about 5 m/sec (11 mph).

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-09-2011).]

There seems to be competition between Texas and Oregon to be able to claim having the worlds largest wind farm:

Oregon to have world's largest wind farm

quote Officials say the Columbia River Gorge wind farm will be capable of generating 909 megawatts at its peak — enough to power some 225,000 homes. The project is being developed by Caithness Shepherds Flat, LLC of Sacramento, Calif., and proposes 303 turbines. It was not immediately clear when it would be operational. Caithness says Shepherds Flat will be the largest single wind farm in the world. The project is planned for privately owned land about five miles southeast of the Columbia River town Arlington. The largest wind farm in the United States is Horse Hollow in Texas at 736 megawatts.

But Texas may reclaim the title in a few years:

quote But investor T. Boone Pickens has said he plans to build a wind farm with a peak of 4,000 megawatts in Texas by 2014.

edit: Here's a later article:

BPA wind turbines hit new milestone

quote Wind turbines in the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission grid generated more than 3,000 megawatts for the first time this week, producing enough electricity to serve a city three times the size of Seattle. The growth of Northwest wind power continues to exceed expectations of just a few short years ago, said a Bonneville Power Administration news release. More than 1,500 megawatts have been added in the last two years. Even though most of the Northwest's wind power is owned by private developers, they rely on BPA's extensive transmission grid to move that power. The Portland-based BPA owns and operates three-quarters of the Northwest's high-voltage transmission. The number of wind generation sites contributing to this record now total 35. The wind farms include more than 2,100 turbines found mostly east of the Columbia River Gorge. BPA is a not-for-profit federal electric utility that operates a high-voltage transmission grid and markets more than a third of the electricity consumed in the Northwest. BPA power is produced at 31 federal dams and the nuclear plant near Richland. And it buys power from seven wind projects and has more than 3,300 megawatts of wind interconnected to its transmission system.

Not mentioned is that nearly all of this power goes to California.

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 03-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Not quite correct. True, they will windmill (run free) in low wind speeds, but the "cut in" speed ... the speed at which they begin generating usable power ... of most commercial wind turbines is around 10 to 12 mph. Previously posted on PFF: Most commercial wind turbines have a "cut in" wind speed of around 12 mph, below which they generate no power whatsoever. Above the "cut in" speed, power output is roughly proportional to the cube of wind speed. A commercial wind turbine's maximum rated wind speed is somewhere in the range of 29 to 35 mph, at which point they begin feathering the blades and eventually have to be taken off line to prevent mechanical damage due to excessive aerodynamic loads and/or excessive mechanical (e.g. centrifugal) loads due to high rpm. From GE, a plot of output vs. wind speed for their commercial 2.5 MW wind turbine: Note that the cut-in speed is about 5 m/sec (11 mph).

I stand corrected, thank you for the info.

On a slight side note, the owners of most of the wind farms in my area are actually based out of Texas. AND, Vestas of America which is a manufacturer of wind turbine generators is based out of Portland, Oregon.

And yes, the power generated from the towers around here also goes to California.

[This message has been edited by fastblack (edited 03-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fastblack: I stand corrected, thank you for the info.

It's a conversation that I constantly have with my "green" friends: If you believe in wind power as one partial solution to our national energy requirements, as I do, then you have to be realistic and scrupulously honest about it. (After all, the easiest person in the world to fool is yourself.) Wind turbines require a lot of wind to be cost effective. It's a hard fact that if you live in a place where the annual mean wind speed is only 12 mph, then most wind turbines will produce usable power only half the time. The single most important variable for a wind power site is the annual "root mean cube" of the wind speed.

For background on the economics and some of the technicalities of commercial wind power generation, I highly recommend the book Power from the Wind, by P.C. Putnam. It was written in 1948, but remains relevant today. (The wind hasn't changed, even though we have.) I consider Power from the Wind one of the most important and significant books in my private collection

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by TiredGXP: Attention all tree huggers, windmills kill birds. Just one wind farm in Ontario killed more birds in its first 8 months of operation that the number of ducks killed by landing on settling ponds in the oilsands. Odd how you never hear much from eco-terrorists about this - except when oil is involved.

Waiting for eco terrorists to show up at my house. We have a electrical pole/transfomer that fries a couple a week. Even worse in the summer.. its like a no fly zone. Even got a carrier pigeon once.. had to call the guy's number on the tag and tell him his bird was dead. He was crying on the phone. Very strange.

Isn't the chart wind speed shown in meters / second? If so, 1 meter / second = 2.23693629 mph.

The average wind speed at the Oregon site is 26 mph for 6 months of the year, about 11.62 m / s

quote Originally posted by spark1: Isn't the chart wind speed shown in meters / second? If so, 1 meter / second = 2.23693629 mph.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Note that the cut-in speed is about 5 m/sec (11 mph).

I would love to see this in person
http://www.youtube.com/watc...0q-o&feature=related

[This message has been edited by 87antuzzi (edited 03-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: For background on the economics and some of the technicalities of commercial wind power generation, I highly recommend the book Power from the Wind, by P.C. Putnam. It was written in 1948, but remains relevant today. (The wind hasn't changed, even though we have.) I consider Power from the Wind one of the most important and significant books in my private collection

I found a 1948 printing on Amazon for $20, and several newer versions including one co-authored by Gerald W. Koeppl in 1972. I also found books titled "Putnam's Power from the Wind, Second edition" by Koeppl in 1982. Which version would you suggest? I don't really want the 1948 version only because I'm not a collector and that version may be more meaningful to someone who does collect older books.