Would you want to live near a wind farm?

[XemaSab]

If there's an iconic image of the new push for domestic green energy, it's the wind turbine photographed against a luminous horizon. Its sleek aerodynamic blades turn silently and steadily, providing happy Americans with clean, dependable energy.

But there's another image that's becoming increasingly associated with wind power, and that's its angry next-door neighbors. In fact, wind energy is fast becoming "the mother of all NIMBY wars," says Bob Kahn, head of Strategic Communications, a Seattle-based firm that helps wind farms gain permits.

These days, public meetings about wind farms draw crowds of concerned homeowners. A growing Internet movement against wind farms unites grass-roots groups that want to block or at the least mitigate the impacts of local installations. Anti-wind-power Web sites share articles challenging the cost-benefit ratio and reliability of wind farms, along with complaints about deteriorating views and falling property values. Opponents proclaim that wind-power arrays are anything but quiet, while some people say that their health has suffered since a wind farm moved in nearby.

Two years ago, a National Academy of Sciences report found that wind energy had become "surprisingly controversial." Its benefits tend to be regional and even global, but its impacts are felt at a local level. Among the objections are shadow flicker, vibration, noise, blighted view, lighted towers at night, and the remote chance that a turbine will break or fling off a chunk of ice. There may be health impacts, too, according to Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician who is publishing an anecdotal study of 10 families who say they have suffered dizziness, nausea, insomnia and other ailments because they live near wind turbines.

http://www.redding.com/news/2009/mar/23/opinion-columnists/

[liberal N proud]

1. Better than living down wind from a nuclear power plant

Or down stream from any nuclear or traditional power plant.

[Common Sense Party]

7. Neither one would bother me much. n/t

[idlisambar]

50. I would probably take the Nuclear plant

certainly not coal though.

[Fresh_Start]

2. we'd like to put a small turbine in our backyard

we live in a windy valley so it feels like it would work but of course its not allowed by town ordinance or HOA rules

[Critters2]

3. I did live near a wind farm in Iowa. I found them really pretty off in the distance.

And there's no noise at all. People who complain about the noise are, well, idiots. There's not a single downside to living near a wind farm.

[barbtries]

47. thank you

we passed several going across country and i was baffled that there could be associated health risks and never heard a sound from them

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. I used to live near Palm Beach Florida. Rush Limbaugh lived there...

so does this count? I got nauseated once in awhile when I put the NIB thingy on the air.

[liberal N proud]

5. That is a wind bag

But you have to worry about the stink from that one.

[barbtries]

48. that's not a wind farm

that's a gas bag.

[Laelth]

6. Quick and easy answer: NO!

Wind Power BLOWS.

See the following:
http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html
http://www.nortexwind.org/index.htm
http://www.stopillwind.org/index.php
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/
http://www.savewesternny.org/
http://www.epaw.org/

Or just watch this series of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_utFV2ukOtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOd5tSZF3A4&feature=related

There's more, but you get the idea. :)

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[w4rma]

10. It looks like the only problem that folks are having with them is the sound they make. (nt)

[Laelth]

11. And that's a very serious problem.

That, and the strobe effect when the sun is behind them.

But the main thing is ... they don't work. They produce intermittent electricity. People want and need electricity that's on all the time. Do you want to rely on an intermittent power source to run your computer? your refrigerator?

The engineers who run our power grids don't even want wind energy. It creates ridiculous spikes in power for which they have to compensate with gas powered plants in spinning reserve (i.e. still running and not lowering net carbon emissions one bit). The power companies only buy the wind energy because the government forces them to. It's useless.

Please read further into the links. Thanks for the response.

:dem:

-Laelth

[w4rma]

14. A smart power grid can handle the intermittent problem. The U.S. will get that within a few years.nt

[XemaSab]

16. It's literally, physically hard on the lines

to have the intermittent power.

[Laelth]

18. Maybe. One day.

But what's the point if they don't provide reliable electricity (and they never will). A gas-fired power plant must be running in spinning reserve at all times to compensate for the lack of wind energy in the event that the wind stops blowing. In other words, we're still burning fossil fuels, whether the wind blows or not. Wind turbines do not help one bit to stop greenhouse gas emissions. They are a waste of money.

:dem:

-Laelth

[w4rma]

21. Of course they help. It's ridiculous to say they won't and don't. (nt)

[Laelth]

26. No, they don't help. And it's not ridiculous to say they don't.

Germany and Denmark built thousands of wind turbines. Neither country has been able to shut down one, not one, conventional power plant as a result.

Vestas, the Danish company that manufactures the turbines has made a ton of money, but greenhouse gas emissions have not been effected or curtailed at all.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kristopher]

29. You are full of more shit than a Xmas turkey...

[Laelth]

39. And you're a rude, pompous ass, but what's your point? n/t

:)

-Laelth

[kristopher]

45. Absolutely true.

Unfortunately, it is the only thing you've posted that fits in that category.

[Canuckistanian]

43. Since when is the ultimate goal to "shut down conventional power plants"?

Energy is energy. It doesn't matter if it comes from a natural gas turbine or a coal generating plant or a wind turbine. The more you use green energy, the better. I don't think anyone is advocating for total elimination of fueled plants in the near future.

Wind power is just as valid as the others. And yes, there is a problem with intermittent supply, but that problem is solvable.

Flywheel energy storage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage is one such technology proposed. There are also schemes which propose air compression in abandoned mines or pumped water storage schemes.

Or, simplest of all, convert the AC to DC and store the energy in capacitors or batteries. Telephone companies, nuclear subs and UPS power supplies for your computer all use this principle.

These are all just engineering problems - the only impediment to implementation is funding for research and pilot projects.

[Nederland]

57. Fair enough

Would you be willing to postpone all new wind installations until such a grid is in place? I figure that is reasonable because these types of upgrades frequently take much longer than their advocates say they will...

[Peregrine Took]

15. Plus the birds and bats they kill. I think they are hideously unsightly and

destroy rural landscapes for miles around.

[w4rma]

20. They don't kill birds, but they do kill bats. (nt)

[Berry Cool]

22. The killing-animals thing is WAY oversold

Usually by people who think the turbines spin at the speed of a box fan. They don't.

[izquierdista]

34. And in hell they want ice water

I'm not going to get into a war of words with you. Suffice it to say, someday you may wish to eat your words and get some clean, renewable power.

[Laelth]

40. I truly want clean, renewable energy.

But I don't want to spend a ton of money on power generators that our electrical grid engineers think are a useless menace, and that people who live near desperately despise.

If they worked, it would be one thing. But they don't. Not a single, conventional power plant has ever been shut down as a result of a mass conversion to wind power. Wind generators simply do not reduce carbon emissions. They only enrich the likes of Vestas and T. Boone Pickens.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Viking12]

61. nice strawman....

They have PREVENTED the need for new construction. Thus, reducing potential emissions. As more wind is put on line fewer new conventional plants will be constructed AND older ones will be taken offline.

[Viking12]

62. Flicker problems are easily eliminated with geometry and zoning

Intermittency is solved via redundancy. Running fossil fuel powered reserves in "back-up" mode uses less fossil fuel and does reduce emissions.

Who are these engineers you speak of?

[AnOhioan]

8. I would have no problem with it, despite the naysayers

[biscotti]

9. When you come upon a wind field

to me, looks like an in motion modern art image. They seem tranquil and at peace with nature. There are large fields in western Iowa
co-existing with crops and livestock.

[Grinchie]

12. Absolutely not

I couldn't take the noise and the constant motion. I like to see the true wind machines, the birds in the wind and thats about it.

Wind farms are the ugliest things on earth, they make a lot of noise, and I think we can do better using water as fuel.

[quidam56]

13. End Mountaintop Removal !

I would gladly welcome a wind farm instead of what we have now in the heart of Appalachia. http://www.wisecountyissues.com

[Laelth]

17. Coal is bad, no doubt about it.

But they remove mountaintops (or at least all the trees off the mountaintops) when they build wind farms. That's one of the key things that the groups cited in the links I supplied above are complaining about.

:dem:

-Laelth

[truebrit71]

23. So your suggested replacement would be what?

I'm curious, I went to your links in another thread and found them to be interesting if not a little one-sided. What would you propose as an alternative that is ready to go right now, like wind power?

[Laelth]

27. Not taking the bait, thanks.

Wind power doesn't work. I don't know what the answer is, but wind power is a waste of money.

:dem:

-Laelth

[truebrit71]

28. What bait? I asked a simple question.

So you have no plan yourself, but you KNOW that this plan is bad....that sounds remarkably like the gop at the moment...

[emmadoggy]

19. In fact, my Grandma and Uncle have them going up on their land as we speak.

Time will tell if they find any negative aspects to it. There are TONS of windmills going up around the area where I grew up (I'm about an hour away now) and I find them to be serene and beautiful. They generally spin surprisingly slowly and unless you are very up close to one, I don't think there is any noise.

And with regard to the birds and bats, from what I have read the numbers killed by windmills is a tiny fraction of the number that are killed by vehicles, windows, power lines etc.

[truebrit71]

24. I have to say that honestly I am on two minds about this.

From a distance they look quite serene and attractive...living right next door to one would be a completely different kettle of fish...

I always envisioned wind turbines being situated in out of the way places, as opposed to near built-up areas...and I can see the home-owners point of view if a bunch of towers starting sprouting up in already established neighbourhood...

[madokie]

25. No problem for me

My neighbor had a 5 kw unit running day and night up too a year or so ago. It made noise but I never really paided any attention to it or thought I didn't until the day it quit, now I miss it. It was on an eighty foot tower and sometimes when the wind wouldn't be stirring a leaf down here that thing would be up there churning away.

[stuntcat]

30. long as it's not killing my bats

sure, bring it :headbang:

[JohnWxy]

31. Just how "noisie" IS a wind farm. Try as noisie as a quiet room (40 Db)

http://web1.msue.msu.edu/cdnr/windenergynoise.pdf


Today, an operating wind farm at a distance of 750 to 1,000 feet is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room.


Actually a quiet room comes in at 40 Db. A wind farm at 350 meters is 35-45 Db.

Source/Activity Indicative noise level dB (A)

Threshold of hearing 0

Rural night-time background 20-40
Quiet bedroom 35
Wind farm at 350m 35-45
Car at 40mph at 100m 55
Busy general office 60
Truck at 30mph at 100m 65
Pneumatic drill at 7m 95
Jet aircraft at 250m 105
Threshold of pain 140


Source: The Scottish Office, Environment Department, Planning Advice Note, PAN 45, Annex A: Wind Power, A.27. Renewable Energy Technologies, August 1994. Cited in "Noise from Wind Turbines," British Wind Energy Association, http://www.britishwindenergy.co.uk/ref/noise.html .


The best test is to simply experience the noise from a turbine for yourself. You will find that you can stand directly beneath a turbine and have a normal conversation without raising your voice.


more (quiet room: 40 Db):
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/noise_basic.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. Currently, I live within a (relatively) short distance of a number of (TV/Radio) broadcasting towers

The vista is marred by their presence. I would feel much better if they were wind turbines instead.

[tama]

33. Sure, as long...

Yup, those are wind turbines. Not the stupid propells that function only in very limited spectre of wind velocities, but smarter, more durable, more efficient and much more beautifull. (http://www.windside.com/)

[kristopher]

35. They certainly look different...

But the question is "Do they perform on a par with "the stupid propells?"

A wind turbine harnesses the inertial energy of the mass of air that passes through the collection system. The American Wind Energy Association describes the significance this way: "The taller the turbine tower and the larger the area swept by the blades, the more powerful and productive the turbine. The swept area of a turbine rotor (a circle) is a function of the square of the blade length (the circle’s radius). Therefore, a fivefold increase in rotor diameter (from 10 meters on a 25-kW turbine like those built in the 1980s to 50 meters on a 750-kW turbine common today) yields a 55-fold increase in yearly electricity output, partly because the swept area is 25 times larger and partly because the tower height has increased substantially, and wind speeds increase with distance from the ground.

Advances in electronic monitoring and controls, blade design, and other features have also contributed to a drop in cost. The following table shows how a modern 1.65-MW turbine generates 120 times the electricity at one-sixth the cost of an older 25-kW turbine..." (The Economics of Wind Energy available for download at http://www.awea.org )

There are a large number of other factors affecting the final price of the electricity generated and the AWEA summary is a great intro to almost the full range. Above they address two very important points that bear directly on the comparison of the two systems. First is that a large part of the cost of capturing wind power is embodied in the tower. That is due to the second point, there is a dramatic increase in wind speed (the AWEA paper details how vital even small increases in wind speed can be) the further you get from the ground. No matter how flat the landscape or seascape, as the wind flows across it a significant drag is exerted. Th hub height of the current generation of bladed turbines has a hub height of about 250 feet with blade tip height around 410 ft. So to compete with the blades you need to place that cute collector of wind power on a tower about that high. The formula for wind is power =1/2 pAV3 "Where p is the air density (just like any other density -- how much a given volume of wind weighs), A is the swept area of the blades (how much surface area of the turbine actually catchs wind) and V is the velocity of wind usually measured in mph. Notice that the velocity of wind is raised to the power of 3. The source for this quote is also a good read on wind economics: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=280257


The swept area of a GE 3.6MW turbine (current generation technology) is larger than the square footage of a football field, including the end zones.

To do a comparison we must ask if the device by Windside can be scaled to that size and height. It is a vertical axis turbine, which is a somewhat simpler design in some respects, but I don't think it can come close to competing with the bladed turbines now being deployed.

I don't mean to be brusque, but I'm not much of a fan of small scale wind; it is a very, very expensive way to produce electricity. The electricity produced by ANY small scale system is probably going to end up costing 5 to 20 times more than that produced by large scale bladed turbines.

But I do agree, Windside's design is elegant.

EDITED to correct composition blunder.

[tama]

38. Reply

AFAIK laws of physics allow these beauties to be scaled to any size that propell models can be scaled to and beyond. For efficiency (plus 0 desibel!!!) company states:

"Efficiency

In real environment testing in the Archipelago of Finland the Windside Wind Turbine produced up to 50% more electricity in a year than a traditional propeller type turbine of the same swept area.

With the Worlds average prevailing wind speed being only 3 m/s (10.8 km/h 6.75 mph) the lower the wind speed at which the turbine starts to generate power the better. The Windside Wind Turbine range with its unique vane construction utilises wind speed as low as 1-3 m/s (3.6 km/h 2.25 mph) other turbines are still standing still at these wind speeds. At the other end of the scale the Windside Wind Turbine will continue to produce at wind speeds up to 60 m/s (216 km/h 135 mph). Both these facts are world records.

Wind speed is not the only factor to consider. Turbulence and changes in wind direction effect a turbines ability to produce power at the rate stated in ideal test conditions. Conventional propeller type turbines are slow to react to these factors. The Windside Spiral Vanes always reach the wind at the right angle

Harmony

The Windside Wind Turbines work in harmony with nature and the human environment. Due to the Windside unique spiral vane shape and the fact that the rotation does not exceed wind speed they are totally soundless. (No low resolution hum) Even when rotating they appear as solid objects so birds do not fly into them. There are no flying ice blocks, oil leakage, cutting blades exhaust emissions. The device is safe to people, animals and nature.

For many people the Windside Wind Turbine with its beautiful design and smoothly rotating structure resembles a work of art. This fact has been embraced by artists, landscape and building architects and the results of this can be seen in functional works of art incorporated into ecological building and landscape structures."

***

As for the dogma "bigger is beautifull" there is also an all-important political aspect to consider: self-sufficiency. A family house or small community producing it's own energy and even some surpluss to share in and for larger network means that the social unit in question is not at the mercy of a big corporation (state or "private" top of a pyramid structure), but that power remains at the bottom, on the grass roots level, where real people live.

[skids]

58. I think the upsized VAWT designs will eventually...

...look something like tmawind's design (except, on a pole.) Reason being it still takes wind at just about every angle, but does better at certain angles, and in almost all cases, a survey can establish the dominant wind angles. Plus with the fixed portion (the shroud) amplifying the rotating portion and simultaneously providing lateral load bearing on the top of the shaft, there's less materials stress to engineer around for the same amount of output power.

http://tmawind.com

The helix style designs do look a lot better, aesthetically. They probably always will look better, but I bet the shrouded designs could be made to look relatively sleek.

It's really a pity large scale VAWT designs have lagged to date.

At least for the most part people seem to be getting over the erroneous early 1900's "fact" that savonius style VAWTs are limited to drag-only physics.

[kristopher]

59. As noted above VAWT have 2 fatal weaknesses

And they have nothing to do with decision-makers being out of date in understanding the issue.

1) the swept area of a GE 3.6MW wind turbine is 8495 meters^2. That's 91,439 ft^2 (for comparison, an acre is 43,560 ft^2). The turbines in test phase right now 5MW, 7MW and 10MW. All increases in output are directly related to increase in rotor size so the 3.6 is a conservative place to start.

2) These are actual measurements of wind speed at 5 meters and an extrapolation of the same winds at 80 meters:
Wind speed 5m (m/s) 80m (m/s)
January 8.6 11.2
February 7.9 10.1
March 5.7 7.3
April 7.4 9.6
May 7.6 9.8
June 4.4 5.6
July 5.1 6.6
August 4.9 6.3
September 6.2 8
October 6.9 8.9
November 6.5 8.4
December 9.2 11.8

Note that the literature on the TMA Wind website doesn't address either the height of the turbine or the swept area of the collection area, but it does give a performance chart on the 'turbine information' page. Go to that page and look a the difference in percentage of output between the wind speed of 10m/s and 15m/s. Remarkable isn't it? Now factor in the wind collection or 'swept' area and by plugging a couple of examples into the formula below, you should see why VAWT are not where wide scale deployment is going to take us. The VAWT haves some positive characteristics, but on balance, they deliver much less power - and that is the name of the game.

power=1/2 pAV3
Where p is the air density (just like any other density -- how much a given volume of wind weighs), A is the swept area of the blades (how much surface area of the turbine actually catchs wind) and V is the velocity of wind usually measured in mph. Notice that the velocity of wind is raised to the power of 3.

[skids]

60. No, no they don't really.

To your first point, it looks to me like you are cherry picking by taking two 2nd and 3rd generation, in-production, HAWT units which have received huge amounts of engineering and product redelevelopment over the years, to the few mostly experimental units tmawind has put together. Not a fair comparison. Especially when you omit the fact that the VAWT turbine outperforms several other in-production HAWTs by reputable and competitive vendors in virtually all wind speed ranges.

In addition, you fail to realize that it isn't all about theoretical efficiency in a dominant wind, but also the capacity factor needs to factored in for a net figure of merit. I could call the low capacity factor due to the inability to quickly adapt to fluctuating wind conditions a "fatal flaw" of HAWTs but it is obvious that the flaw is not "fatal" and your points will not prove "fatal" to a VAWT design, either. There is no "fatal" flaw here in either technology.

As to the height window, I did say "but on a pole" did I not? Obviously tmawind is currently focused on surface level scavanging. I was not offering any opinion as to tmawind's viability or strategy, just pointing out that the fixed shroud design would be the way forward for pushing VAWTs into the large scale. If you look at any HAWT, it has a massive mast. The blade's swept area is half at a lower altitude than the shaft, and half at a higher altitude.

A VAWT elevated on a pole would be entirely above the shaft. While, in the case of a savonius type, a larger surface area of material would be required to equal the "swept" area (which, with a shroud, needs to include the amplifying effect of the shround even though it is not "swept") the material does not need to endure quite the same variety of stresses that a HAWT blade does, and as such can be signifigantly cheaper per cubic foot.

In the case of darreius VAWTs, the material needs scale at about the same rate, but the stresses are also more in line with what a HAWT must endure.

You can continue to have faith that it is impossible for the wind industry to have failed to pursue a viable avenue, if you like. I do not have so much faith that this is the case. Many times and in many industries, one technology fork has monopolized development attention and become dominant to the detriment of others, despite having its own disadvantages. I see no reason why the wind industry would be immune to this.

[kristopher]

63. You are delusional.

I gave you the numbers, and they don't lie. The advantage in efficiency you point to is marginal at best. The formula shows clearly that the significance of collection and the wind speed are vastly more important than the benefits you are touting.

The comparison is appropriate; if there is a difference in "engineering" it is because the problems associated with the two issues I pointed out are not able to be overcome economically. The idea that the engineers working in the extremely competitive environment of wind power development have "overlooked" the superiority of VAWT because of ignorance or bias is rubbish of the first order.

[skids]

64. You didn't give me numbers...

...you just rattled a bunch of stuff off that I already knew, and have for years (in an condescending tone, I might add, so don't complain when you get the same back.)

Your entire argument seemed to be that the HAWTS are up higher (which is entirely a factor of how big a pole you put them on, so is entirely beside the point) and the idea that a VAWT sweeps more area, which, again, both designs must add the same proportional volume of materials to increase by the same factor -- those blades have to get pretty hefty to stay together and still rotate fast enough to actually "sweep" the area and not just let wind blow by unharnessed. The eddies only last a very short while.

As far as "highly competitive" industries yielding the best solutions, that is utter poppycock and has been shown to be false time and time again, over and over again. In heavily competitive industries, competitors engage in copycat tactics and one-upsmanship, which tends to result in a focus on whatever technology made it to market first.

[kristopher]

65. Sure i did.

You need wind speed (given), area (given) and the formula. I left it up to you to estimate the collection area of the TMA and the altitude it would be possible to operate it at. Your claim that we could just "put it on a big pole" is simply idiotic. The "pole" constitutes nearly as much of the cost of a wind turbine as the nacelle and generator. Your assertion that this configuration can be raised as easily as with a conventional turbine is absurd on its face.



Please explain how you are going to raise *this* 400 feet in the air and extend it to cover *2 acres*? Do you have some sort of magic materials that no one else possesses? What kind of foundation do you expect to need to support such a massive structure? How much will it cost? I'm just spitballing here, but I'd bet that you are 6X to 8X the cost of a horizontal axis turbine for WHAT? Do you even understand the performance chart? Is there ANYTHING you can point to that supports the advantage you are claiming? Their website certainly provides no such information.



You wrote: "In heavily competitive industries, competitors engage in copycat tactics and one-upsmanship, which tends to result in a focus on whatever technology made it to market first.
The degree of ignorance embodied in that statement is staggering. It is right there with the troglodyte claim that scientific researchers are only interested in climate change because they want funding. Both "theories" have a view of reality that, well.. isn't.

[skids]

66. Again, if you were paying attention...

You would notice that I recognize that that particular company, tmawind, is focused on ground mount. Ergo, that is why they are not focusing on using composites. Though they do claim they are looking into it.

20 years ago, I could have exclaimed "just how are we going to make these windmills that big and that high up?" and fretted about materials stress or whatnot. But they did, and that's a good thing.

Again, you have presented zero evidence that scaling HAWTS is intrinsically easier than scaling VAWTS.

For a given survivable wind speed, the mass of a turbine is approximately proportional to the cube of its blade-length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design

...in case you were wondering.

Since you compared the obvious fact that technology can suffer in overcompetitive market environments to the GOP anti-science agenga, it would be fair, then, for me to compare your piffah of VAWT technology to the GOP piffah of renewable energy technology in general. Touche.

[kristopher]

67. You are correct.

Actually we both are. I placed too much emphasis on the concrete monster at your TMA link and didn't do my homework. Guilty.

Don't let it go to your head, though; since your given example is not at all representative of a large scale VAWT. Google H-rotor.

I found a 2005 article in the journal R(enewable) E(nergy) Focus that deals with the topic. It's drawback is that it was written by the president of a company pushing the technology, but he makes his case well. Unfortunately so does the contrary opinion:
..."Denmark, a leading wind power nation, has also experimented with VAWT concepts and, some years ago, produced its own variant of the H-rotor which it termed the Gyromill. An engineer who was involved in designing an early Danish gyromill, Flemming Rasmussen - now head of the aeroelasticity department at the Riso Research Laboratory - is less sanguine than Eurowind about the prospects for large-wind VAWTs today. He believes that it would require a greater hike in capability than anything currently in evidence to enable the present HAWT dominance to be challenged successfully.

“It would take a real breakthrough to make it work,” Rasmussen told Refocus. “The efficiency of the largest HAWTs is now getting close to optimum (the so-called Betz limit of about 60%, beyond which the wind tends to part and flow round the turbine disc rather than through it - Ed) and it will be hard for any other technology to challenge that. The last two metres of the largest ‘propeller’ blades cover an enormous area during each rotational sweep, for relatively little weight addition, and VAWTs cannot match the incremental power developed.”

Rasmussen agrees, however, that the possibility cannot be ruled out, conceding that, “Creative solutions can always change things.”

Also, in the US, Sandia National Laboratories have carried out research and trials on a number of VAWTs, though there is little reported activity on this front at present. It may also be recalled that early machines constructed during the 1970s by Vestas, now a leading HAWT supplier, were Darrieus-type VAWTs. Toshiba in Japan has been testing an urban VAWT.

Thirty years ago, Dr P. J. Musgrove of Reading University, UK, decided to address the shortcomings of the Darrieus machine and devised the ‘H’ blade configuration. Essentially, Musgrove's idea was to retain the side portions only of the Darrieus double C or ‘egg whisk’ foil, and straighten them out, so avoiding the flexing-induced fatigue problem and achieving a rotor that could be produced more economically.

Early machines featured blades that altered their angle of attack to the wind during each rotor revolution and could, in strong winds, be feathered. However, when subsequently it was discovered that, due to the drag/stall characteristic on the retreating blade mentioned previously, H-rotors would not overspeed and become unstable in high winds, the feathering precaution was deemed unnecessary. Moreover, efficiency was not much affected by adopting blades of fixed alignment, so the opportunity was taken to simplify the design accordingly. This more than paid off in terms of manufacturing economy.

The British programme saw machines of up to 500kW erected in Carmarthen Bay, Wales, but designers had made insufficient allowance for the high torque exerted by the H rotors and this resulted in expensive failures of the bearing and power take-off arrangements. Funding, including from the UK government, dried up and the programme was discontinued.

Although small wind vertical axis machines are still produced by a handful of companies, there was some hiatus in work on large machines - until Eurowind took up the baton. Convinced that the H-rotor concept still had great potential, the company sought to build on the work of P. J. Musgrove and his Reading University team, while also addressing the shortcomings of the Carmarthen Bay machines.

Steven Peace and his colleagues believe that, whereas a combination of technical, logistic and economic factors will make it increasingly difficult to scale up present HAWT technology to 10MW and beyond, Vertical axis wind turbines will not be so constrained. Time will tell whether they can deliver their vision of future mega-turbines that are vertical-axis based and, indeed, if they will be successful in ‘tilting at windmills’."

From Tilting at windmills: Utility-scale VAWTs: towards 10MW and beyond?

by George Marsh and Steven Peace E-mail The Corresponding Author, Director
27 September 2005.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73D8-4H6GGSX-R&_user=260508&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000015498&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=260508&md5=7b1a0d606154afa642a83d15bbed70d0

[TreasonousBastard]

41. This is a variation on the Savonius rotor, which...

I had plans to build about 30 years ago, and I may yet get around to building one this summer if I can work out one to power an alternator to charge a bank of batteries. It has its own inherent inefficiencies, though, since it's closer to a sail than a wing.

It serves a market where high output isn't necessary-- battery charging, water pumping... but can't efficiently be ramped up to the megawatt outputs of the propellors.

[Dogmudgeon]

36. Well-designed and built, yes.

The problem is in the design and building. Well-designed and built wind farms should be fairly quiet, not cause ground vibrations, minimize flicker, etc. But there are a lot of wind farms that are poorly-built show pieces.

The fact that the high-tech windmills are being "sold" as symbols of comfort and an easy, risk-free "Green" solution to all our energy problems, is going to run headlong into the brick wall of reality. It is possible that someday soon, wind power will be seen as a completely bad solution, a derogatory symbol. Neither point of view gets us anywhere.

A full and accurate accounting in the media of their risks, costs, and benefits should be mandatory. Unfortunately, symbolism usually triumphs over reality.

--d!

[kristopher]

37. You seem to have a bizarre value system.

AND you are totally distorting the 'selling' points related to wind. In fact the main benefits touted are 1. It has the fewest emissions of any other major form of energy; 2. It has an overall lower environmental footprint than any other major form of energy; 3. It is less expensive than any other major form of energy except unregulated, Clean Air Act grandfathered coal plants; 4. It is labor intensive and provides more jobs per megawatt than any fossil fuel form of generation. Those jobs are mostly local to the site; 5. Since the cost of wind energy is a product of capital costs and operations & maintenance it is stable over long periods of time and serves as a hedge against the price volatility of fossil fuels.

In the real world there has been a "full and accurate accounting" of the "risks, costs, and benefits" of wind energy. The Cape Wind Environmental Impact Statement has been the most comprehensive in history. In addition, the topic has been extensively studied in the academic realm. Those studies were not for businesses, nor were they for grants since until very recently the money going to academics for renewable was almost zilch.

The absolute consistent conclusion?

Wind is the most benign and beneficial way currently available to meet our energy needs.

If I've misread your meaning, let me know.

[Dogmudgeon]

53. Yes, indeed, you have misread my meaning

You didn't pay attention to what I wrote.

You haven't paid attention to what I've written here in the past, either. You appear to have read what you wanted to read. So you have no place publicly discussing my value system.

I don't hide my opinions when they are relevant. I support wind energy. If you had actually been paying attention, you would have learned that within a day or two of your first post in this forum.

I'll recap what I wrote, in as concise a manner as I can: wind energy is in danger of getting a bad rep based on poor design and sloppy construction. There is always an up-side and a down-side, and both need to be considered.

If you find THAT to be objectionable, I don't know what I can say. It has always seemed to be a reasonable approach to ensuring the success of an enterprise. Perhaps that is what you find bizarre; I hope not.

--d!

[kristopher]

54. Really? I don't read it any differently the second time.

You wrote:"The problem is in the design and building. Well-designed and built wind farms should be fairly quiet, not cause ground vibrations, minimize flicker, etc. But there are a lot of wind farms that are poorly-built show pieces.

The fact that the high-tech windmills are being "sold" as symbols of comfort and an easy, risk-free "Green" solution to all our energy problems, is going to run headlong into the brick wall of reality. It is possible that someday soon, wind power will be seen as a completely bad solution, a derogatory symbol. Neither point of view gets us anywhere.

A full and accurate accounting in the media of their risks, costs, and benefits should be mandatory. Unfortunately, symbolism usually triumphs over reality"

I'm extremely familiar with the product being produced by the wind industry and simply cannot see a basis for your claim that the blame for a small portion of the public getting a case of the ass about wind farms is based on problems related to design and construction. Each turbine is a multimillion dollar unit (+-$5M); a price that doesn't include the very considerable expense of dealing with public reactions.

Actually, significant evidence points to the fact that those reactions are a direct product of a concentrated campaign by fossil fuel interests, working through astroturf organizations created out of whole cloth on the internet by professional public relations staff. The quality issue is nowhere to be found in legitimate research except as it is recognized as obviously false information (which I contend is a result of the propaganda pieces provided by this economically motived cabal).

I addressed your comments on how windfarms are being "sold" but there was enough ambiguity in that paragraph to cause me to add the caveat at the end. You state there are two points of view presented - I didn't see it so I asked.

Your last comment about a full and accurate accounting is, as I mentioned, simply not true. I've closely followed public dialog on specific siting issues all over the world for the past 5 years and the 5 points I presented are the arguments consistently used in the media by developers seeking to inform the public of their ambitions. In general wind power enjoys a 90+% favorability rating. Specific projects generally find about 65-80% of the local people initially approve of proposed projects and during the discussion, approval drops about 10-20 points as public debate takes place and during construction. Surveys taken in the post construction period show a return to the original levels of support for the projects as the public gets to see for themselves the project's impact on their lives.

This U shaped trend line is usually interpreted as an indication of a period of uncertainty in a small portion of the people who have a set reaction to change. This caution makes them susceptible to the machinations of a coal industry economically motivated to continue the fight they began by establishing the climate denial industry.

Regarding your last post: there are a lot of people who post on this forum and I'm familiar with only a small percentage of them. I'm sorry if your ego feels I should be tracking your opinions closely, but frankly, I don't ever recall readiing one of your posts before this. I'll be more alert in the future.

I'm highly motivated by climate change and I'm more than disgusted by the manipulation of the public by the slime pushing continued use of fossil fuels. I didn't mean an attack on you personally, but IMO the information you were putting forth deserved to be addressed.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. I lived over a subway, next to...

an elevated line, less than a mile from a major airport, and a few other places with major noise and light problems. Nobody got sick, but I did hear about some people 40 miles away from the airport who complained the noise was giving them headaches and nightmares.

So, no, I probably wouldn't mind living fairly close to a wind farm.

(There are those among us who can talk themselves into an amazing number of symptoms.)

[greenbird]

44. I do

I can see the turbines from my front porch window. These are not like the older turbines that have short blades and spin fast (I'm thinking here of Altamont Wind Farm). They have long blades and spin very slowly. From what I understand, the reason that bats are killed is because their lung tissue is more rigid and when they come up against the sudden change in air pressure, their lungs explode. Some proposed solutions to this are sound repellants and shutting down the turbines during the evening hours when bats are most active. I'm still looking into the issue before I decide where I stand, but to me they are very beautiful to look at. I don't know about the noise factor for those living right near them, but I do know that when I drive through the wind farm area, I can't hear a thing.

[phantom power]

46. Rock on, I'm putting this on the GP.

Cause everybody deserves a seat at the food fight!

[jtrockville]

49. If I had to choose between ...

a toxic nuke plant
a filthy coal plant
or an elegant wind farm

I'd pick the wind farm hands down.

[donheld]

51. Not if Rush Limbaugh's on the other side

pew!

[ArbustoBuster]

52. People who complain about the noise of a wind farm...

...have never lived on a major highway. I have, for all but 8 years of my life. You get used to it. If I can sleep through trucks rumbling by all night, then people can sleep through windmills whirring quietly to themselves. It sounds (pun intended!) like the windmills are a hell of a lot quieter than the highway.

[Brazenly Liberal]

55. I do live near two wind farms and a third is being built even closer

I like them. I think they're visually appealing and they make me feel more hopeful that we won't completely trash the planet before dinner. As for the noise, what noise? I don't know what kind of antiquated, rustbucket, WD-40-needing wind farms those "opponents" who undoubtedly have some financial interest in other energy sources are living near, but these are virtually silent - the birds drown them out. (And there aren't any piles of dead birds at the bases of the turbines, either, nor is there any reason there could be/should be. That claim is even more ridiculous than the noise nonsense.)

BTW none of the families around here, including those who live closest to the turbines, are complaining about any sort of ailments related to the turbines.

[depakid]

56. Personally, I wouldn't want to live where it's that windy all of the time

Though I suppose if I did. I'd want a reasonable setback requirement for siting new trubines.