Those graceful blades rotating in the wind are a triumph in the energy industry. Wind farms and individual turbines produce steady streams of electricity that are entirely sustainable. Burning fossil fuels isnt as critical to civilized life anymore. At Kurz, our goals include clean energy for nearly everyone across the globe. A simple question comes to mind as wind energy becomes a reality in many regions. How much land is actually needed for wind turbines? Discover the facts and challenges to wind energy right now.
What is a wind turbine? These structures are merely made up of rotating blades, internal shafts and a generator. As the wind strikes the blades and moves them, kinetic energy becomes electrical power. The trick is to capture as much wind as possible.
Each turbine must be adequately spaced out from the others in the region to reduce drag and turbulence. If you stood in front of a desktop fan, for example, youd block the air moving behind you. This same concept impacts turbines on a farm. Each one needs asteady stream of air.
According toNBC News, a wind farm located in the middle of the ocean with double the acreage of the state of Alaska could power the entire Earth. Because this theory isnt practical at this point in time, the perfect wind farm must be spaced out on land.
For standard rotor diameters of around 262 feet, the spacing between separate structures should be about seven rotor diameters away. These dimensions may seem large, but theyve been proven effective with steady air flow across hundreds of rotors in the nation for years.
Its actually made of a huge base to support those blades. A concrete base must be poured in order to give the structure a steady state throughout its lifetime. There are also power stations and roads that must meander between the turbines at the ground level.
Researchers are still looking over the industry spacing standard of seven rotor diameters. The latest findings actually indicate that larger spaces between turbines are more efficient, reportsScience Daily.
They suggest 15 rotor diameters between structures. This statement is based on the idea that horizontal winds arent the only ones playing a part in efficiency. Winds pulled down from higher altitudes are in their equations, which leads to a more complex scenario than realized before.
The seven rotor-diameter spacing rule doesnt necessarily span across the globe. Every country, county, city and small town has their own perspective on wind energy. Some turbines have spacing arrangements that are even tighter than seven rotor diameters.
Creating a cohesive rule across the globe has proven difficult, but future wind farms may play into the latest findings. Regional directors of wind farms must take the scientific data into consideration so that their spacing is just as efficient as a facility hundreds of miles away.
VisitKurztoday for all of your wind-energy questions. Our team works alongside the best in the industry to keep both industrial and residential wind turbines in service. Sustainable energy is the future for Earth. Be part of this growing trend that will change life for the better.
Offshore wind farms choose larger wind turbines in part because of the high cost of installing them and transporting the electricity, as well as the increased efficiency they gain with consistent, faster wind speeds.
Because the wind dies down, changes direction, etc., overall averages will be much lower, usually in the 30-40% range for onshore wind turbines and up to 65% (occasionally higher in rare circumstances) for offshore turbines.
Turbines of this size are typically used offshore, where wind speeds are consistently much higher and delivering power is more complicated. Fewer, bigger turbines = easier power transport, fewer long-distance cables and a simpler overall system.
In the chart below, youll find some numbers based on the typical sale price (2019 data) of electrical power created by wind turbines. This power is sold back to the electrical grid of utility companies, and the price has been falling as turbine technology has improved.
Our StrikeTape wind turbine segmented lightning diverters are the most durable, highest-performing product in the world. Wind turbine maintenance costs skyrocket when constantly damaged by lightning strikes, so protect your turbines with the best.
The towers on most commercial wind turbines are in the range of 200-260 feet tall. The blades, often well over 100 feet long, when counted in total height push the number well into the 300s. The Gamesa G87 model wind turbines blades reach a height of 399ft.
Wind turbine blade tip speeds regularly range from 120-180 miles per hour, though they vary due to wind conditions. Because of their enormous size (with blades well over 100ft), they look like theyre spinning slowly, when in reality blade tip speeds are very, very fast.
$1,300,000 USD per megawatt. The typical wind turbine is 2-3 MW in power, so most turbines cost in the $2-4 million dollar range. Operation and maintenance runs an additional $42,000-$48,000 per year according to research on wind turbine operational cost.
They do, and these smaller turbines can now cost less than $1000. Energy production will vary greatly to the size, specs and wind conditions of a persons home, and some homes may not be suited well for a turbine at all. Theres a reason that wind farms are carefully placed in very wind, often harsh conditionshigh winds occur in places people often dont want to live. If your home doesnt get consistent, strong wind, it may not make financial sense to install any type of wind turbine.
Unfortunately, they sometimes do, but its not the largest threat to the bird population. This article sheds light on the issue: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/15/wind-turbines-kill-fewer-birds-than-cell-towers-cats/15683843/ and its important to note that cats and cell phone towers pose a much higher mortality rate to birds.
Though this number can vary greatly due to factors such as size, wind conditions, repairs, and blade length, a typical wind turbine can power 1000-2000 homes in one year. One megawatt of energy production capacity will power about 1000 homes, and many onshore wind turbines have a 2-3 MW capacity.
The capacity factoror load factoris the actual power generation over time, rather than the theoretical maximum a turbine could produce. Because wind turbines cant possibly maintain peak production at all times (not even close) due to changing wind conditions, downtime for service, etc. its important to consider capacity factor into how much expected power a turbine will produce over a year or more.
In many parts of the country, wind turbines have been or will be installed on farm land to produce renewable electric energy for the local utility companies. Farmers who allow wind turbines to be built on their land are compensated by the utility company for the use of the land.
A farmer who signs a contract for the installation of a wind turbine on his farm land will typically receive two types of payments. The initial payments are a lease of the development right for the land. The leasing company locks up the right for a period of three to five years to start building wind turbines on the land. A 2009 report from North Dakota State University reports this option lease pays two to ten dollars per acre to the farmer. Once the company starts building a wind turbine, the lease changes to payments based on the electricity produced by the turbine.
The payment to a farmer for a completed wind turbine can be based on one criteria or a combination of several. One option is an annual payment based on the rated capacity of the turbine. Another is a flat annual payment per turbine. Some contracts include a payment based on a percentage of the value of electricity produced by the wind turbine. The typical length of a wind turbine contract with a farmer is 20 to 25 years. The contract should include an annual rate increase factor to insure the payments keep up with inflation.
The payments for a wind turbine will vary based on the location and the utility company. Here are some published payment amounts from different states. A wind turbine contract from 2009 in Indiana paid $1.10 per megawatt hour but not less than $3,500 per megawatt rated capacity per year. The North Dakota State University report listed payments of $4,000 to $6,000 per megawatt of rated power or royalties of three to five percent of gross electricity sales. A Penn State news release concerning farms in western New York quoted farmers being quoted $3,500 per two megawatt turbine per year plus royalties of four to five percent of the electricity produced.
Large commercial wind turbines have rated production capacities of one to two and a half megawatts. A farmer would earn $10,000 from a two-megawatt turbine with a $5,000 per megawatt per year payment. Wind turbine contracts are very long term and farmers should protect themselves against turbines not producing the projected amounts of electricity and the cost of eventual removal of a turbine. Turbine payments should have an indexing mechanism to allow payment amounts to increase in future years, protecting the buying power of the payments to the farmer.
Tim Plaehn has been writing financial, investment and trading articles and blogs since 2007. His work has appeared online at Seeking Alpha, Marketwatch.com and various other websites. Plaehn has a bachelor's degree in mathematics from the U.S. Air Force Academy.
It did not work properly and the issues caused by this element might be easily subject of several articles, about the problems caused by the ring and on the solutions developed to fix those problems (i.e. retrofitting and repairs works necessary to ensure the necessary lifetime of the turbine foundations).
When decompression occurs the stiffness in the compressed side and in the tensioned side stops having the same value, as the concrete stops providing its stiffness (this is the magic of pre-stressing, before de-compression the concrete is somehow taking some tension, a thing that concrete rarely does).
This is just to show how stiffness affects the force distribution, in a real anchor cage the loss of stiffness when decompression occurs might be over 80% as the concrete area contribution it is much bigger than the bolts area (total stiffness would be Es*As+Ec*Ac, being Es and As the area and elastic modulus of steel, and Ec, Ac the ones from concrete).
To perform this analysis we can implement a model with a homogenized concrete-steel section, and with variable parameters depending of the location of the neutral axis. Using this type model, we would be able to obtain the maximum stress on concrete and the tensile force on the pre-stressing element.
The IEC is an international organization that prepares and publishes international standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies, including energy production and distribution devices.
The IEC 61400 is a set of design requirements developed specifically for wind turbines to be sure that they are appropriately engineered against damage from different type of hazards within the planned lifetime (currently, 20 to 30 years). If you are familiar with the wind business you will probably know that this is one of the key international standards.
If you are a wind turbine foundation designer, you are already aware that there is not really and internationally accepted design reference for wind turbines: there are some national references (such as the French CFMS Recommendation, or the Chinese FD 003-2007), some guidelines from certification bodies (such as the DNV guidelines), and recommendations from associations (AWEA for example has a recommendation for foundation design, but not a specific code for wind turbine foundation).
If we assume a similar applicability of this code as the one from the IEC61400:1 my opinion is that this is going to be one the more relevant technical reference (if not the most important) in the market for the next few years.
There are several interesting sections in this code, and many about towers and concrete towers that I have not yet analysed deeply but it seems that we might see some changes in the way we design at the moment.
It looks somehow unusual that this code has been issues by an Electrotechnical Commission given the subject, it looks more like a code that should have been created by an institution of civil/structural engineers.
Nabrawind is a Spanish company working at several interesting breakthrough concepts including a modular blade that I will try to describe in another article in the future, a self erecting tower and the innovative Transition Foundation.
Miguelasked me if I was interested in receiving material about the Transition Foundation solution they have developed. I was obviously very happy to accept his offer and share with you what I have learned.
The transition element is connected to the ground through three feet that allow different technical alternatives for the foundation: the standard solution (shallow or gravitational) plus two cheaper options piled foundations (for standard soils) and rock anchors (when bedrock is very near to the surface).
In addition to the savings in the quantities the other main benefit of the solution is the speed. You will need only one or two days to drill the hole for the pile, and the installation of the reinforcement bars and concrete pouring is very quick as well (both operation should last between 2 and 4 hours in total).
The anchor cage variant promise to be even faster, needing only three concrete blocks (one for each foot) to level the surface and distribute the loads and 6 post-tensioned rock anchors with a length in the 15 meters range.
They are on top of a cast in situ circular concrete slab that transmit the loads to the ground. This slab has a circular edge beam below, whose function is to absorb bending moments and contribute to the overall stiffness.
Although every now and then project specific tower are designed and built this is not the standard and it has several implication in terms of time, cost, etc. Therefore it could be better to go for an off the shelf solution that gives you those additional few meters that your project need.
According to Esteyco this solution is also quicker to execute, at least in big wind farms. I do not have real world feedback to comment on this, although my impression is that the number of precast or partially precast foundation solutions used in the market is increasing.
It also use less material due to its geometry. I do not have actual figures to comment on the final cost, however my impression is that the real benefit will come from the additional production and that the saving in materials will be offset by the increased manufacturing complexity.
This solution has already a certain track record. I see that it has been used in Italy, Mexico, India, China and Saudi Arabia (in Dumat Al Jandal, a wind farm that I tendered 8 or 9 years ago this gives you an idea of how long it may takes for a project to materialise).
It has been built in 2012, but after that the idea seemed to have stalled without progress: one of the companies involved in the construction, TimberTower GmbH, disappeared from the radar shutting down their website and I suspect they went out of business.
They could be more successful in moving from the prototyping phase to the industrialization for at least two reasons: they are coming from Sweden, a country with an extensive know how and network of companies active in wood construction, and they successfully went through a round of Venture Capitalists, Business Angels and European Union founding.
They target is to be ready to market in 2022 cross laminated timber towers in the 100 150 meters range. This means that they want to enter in the 4 to 5 MW segment, the current standard for utility scale WTGs. The prototype that they have just installed is 30 meters high.
Such tower could have several benefits solve the current transportation problems (steel towers with diameters over 4 meters have huge transportation challenges due to bridges, cables, etc.), lowering the carbon footprint and possibly even be cost competitive against the current technologies (steel, concrete and hybrid).
I have no idea of the behavior of this solution from the resonance point of view although I suspect that the increased diameter at the base improve the situation. I also ignore how this tower would behave in case of fire: I have personally seen a fire very near to the wind turbines some years ago in Portugal.
Unfortunately their website does not share many technical details. I understand that it is a modular solution, with the total number of modules obviously depending on the tower height being a standard solution in the 30 - 40 modules range.
Among the materials used for the tower I see glued laminated timber andlaminated veneer lumber - basically a mix of wood and adhesives, with superior technical properties and more uniform characteristics as it is produced in a controlled environment.
Among the different technologies available for concrete I have just discovered this exiting evolution: a Danish company specialized in 3D concrete printing, COBOD, partnered with GE Renewable and LafargeHolcim to develop a large printable tower.
There is some evidence that we are reaching the limit blades of more than 50m length pose significant logistic challenges, while steel tower more than 100 meters tall can be subject to strong vibrations and dangerous oscillations under certain circumstances.
They are dangerous because they can damage the turbine due to fatigue loading (the weakening of materials due to cyclical loads). Some type of foundation can also partially lose stiffness for instance monopile foundations.
Additionally, these vibrations can also trigger resonance phenomenons in the tower you can follow this link to see of how soft soft and stiff tower are designed based on the blade passing frequency.
Among the most interesting concept that I have seen I would mention tuned mass dampers basically an auxiliary mass connected to the structure with spring and dashpots (viscous friction dampers), friction plates or similar energy dissipating elements.
These dumpers are called tuned because they have been designed keeping in mind the natural oscillation frequencies of the structure they have to protect. The two main parameters are the spring constant and the damping ratio: by varying them it is possible to damp harmonic vibrations.
I do not know if tuned mass dampers that can work with the first fundamental frequency of industrial size wind turbines (below 1 Hz) are currently available however I have found quite a lot of studies on the topic.
A similar technological solution is the tuned liquid column damper. In this case a liquid inside an U shaped tank. By varying the geometry of the tank and the depth of the liquid different damping frequencies can be achieved.
The main benefits of this solution are the geometrical flexibility (you have to put the dumper somewhere inside the tower or the nacelle I can assure you that the space there is very reduces) and low cost.
Mass Damper (a) and Pendulum Damper (b) Copyright O. Altay, C. Butenweg, S. Klinkel, F. Taddei Vibration Mitigation of Wind Turbine Towers by Tuned Liquid Column Dampers Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014
Mass Damper (a) and Pendulum Damper (b) Copyright O. Altay, C. Butenweg, S. Klinkel, F. Taddei Vibration Mitigation of Wind Turbine Towers by Tuned Liquid Column Dampers Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2014
In previous post some years ago I have described two alternative solution for the wind turbine tower that should help solving the problem of the huge cranes that are currently needed for the erection of the wind turbines components.
Some days ago, I have discovered another technical solution that share some similarities with these two concept but with an interesting twist: a group of Italian engineers has developed a retractable tower, basically a telescopic mechanism that can be folded bringing the blades down to the ground without using cranes or other equipment.
I can also think at other uses minimization of bird impact (folding the tower during the migration period) or increased safety during extreme wind (for instance during the monsoon season in south east Asia).
The authors mention a dimensioning bending moment of around 300 kNm. Such value is two orders of magnitude lower of the values that are common in industrial size turbines, so it is not immediately evident that the idea can be scaled without major modification.
An additional problem would be the length of the foundation pit. Reaching depths of 50 meters and below, although not impossible, introduce new issues for instance the need of very specialized drilling equipment.
The destiny of a foundation will depends on local regulations, on the environmental requirements that are normally given with building permits and on the wish of the owner of the wind farm and of the land.
As a general rule, foundations are at least partially dismantled. The first centimetres (20, 50 or even one meter) are removed and the rest of the foundation is left in place and buried below a layer of organic soil.
In case a repowering is planned there is also a fourth and more interesting possibility: giving a second lifeto the old foundation integrating it in the bigger, new foundation. There is a group of company that is studying this possibility under the name FEDRE (Fondations dEoliennes Durables et Repowering French for Long lasting wind turbine foundations).
The concept that is being developed is how to reuse part of the existing footing for the new foundation - adaptation the existing one on the short term and working with reusable foundations designed ad hoc on thelongterm.
They are very dense in steel (on average a foundation can easily have more than 100 Kg of steel for each cubic meter of concrete). Due to the concentration of rebars in some areas of the foundation (above all, in the centre) it can be more difficult and time consuming to separate the steel from the concrete.
Usually steel is separated from concrete and melted again. In some countries the reinforcement bar are even used as they are without being melted and reformed (i.e. they are straightened and used again in another structure).
The presence of steel makes more complicate grinding the foundation in smaller elements to use it again as a construction material, for instance to build roads (in the nucleus of the embankment) or for earthworks as a filling material.
2018 and 2019 saw only a few hundreds of MW decommissioned (unsurprisingly mostly in Germany, where the installed capacity is huge). However the numbers should increase steeply in the next years when more and more wind farms will end their 20 years of supported tariff.
Unless they are able to close some king of PPA (power purchase agreement with a counterpart willing to buy the electricity at a certain price) it could prove to be not economically viable to sell the power at spot prices.
The ONLY justification for wind power the massive subsidies upon which it entirely depends (see our post here); spiralling power prices (see our post here); and the suffering caused to neighbours by incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound (see our post here) is the claim that it reduces CO2 emissions in the electricity sector.
Because wind power fails to deliver at all hundreds of times each year, 100% of its capacity has to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources which run constantly in the background to balance the grid and prevent blackouts when wind power output collapses as it does on a routine, but unpredictable, basis (see our posts here and here and here andhere and here and here and here and here). And for more recent woeful efforts:
The mountains of dismal hard data tends to cut against the wilder claims emanating from the wind-worship-cult compounds that wind power displaces and will eventually replace conventional generation sources, but the threat to BIG COAL, BIG GAS & BIG OIL is more imagined than real:
Even before the blades start spinning the average wind farm clocks up thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions: embedded in thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete. So, every wind farm starts with its CO2 abatement ledger in the negative.
To create a 1,000 Kg of pig iron, you start with 1,800 Kg of iron ore, 900 Kg of coking coal 450 Kg of limestone. The blast furnace consumes 4,500 Kg of air. The temperature at the core of the blast furnace reaches nearly 1,600 degrees C (about 3,000 degrees F).
To create a 1,000 Kg of Portland cement, calcium carbonate (60%), silicon (20%), aluminium (10%), iron (10%) and very small amounts of other ingredients are heated in a large kiln to over 1,500 degrees C to convert the raw materials into clinker. The clinker is then interground with other ingredients to produce the final cement product. When cement is mixed with water, sand and gravel forms the rock-like mass know as concrete.
An average of 927 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Portland cement. On average, concrete has 10% cement, with the balance being gravel (41%), sand (25%), water (18%) and air (6%). One cubic metre of concrete weighs approx. 2,400 Kg so approx. 240 Kg of CO2 is emitted for every cubic metre.
Now I have not included the emissions of the mining of the raw materials or the transportation of the fabricated materials to the turbine site so the emission calculation above would be on the low end at best.
The average towering wind turbine being installed around beautiful Australia right now is over 80 metres in height (nearly the same height as the pylons on the Sydney Harbour Bridge). The rotor assembly for one turbine thats the blades and hub weighs over 22,000 Kg and the nacelle, which contains the generator components, weighs over 52,000 Kg.
All this stands on a concrete base constructed from 45,000 Kg of reinforcing rebar which also contains over 481 cubic metres of concrete (thats over 481,000 litres of concrete about 20% of the volume of an Olympic swimming pool).
The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty and toxic involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product that only one country does it China. (See our postshereand here).
And I havent even considered the manufacture of the thousands of pylons and tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission wire needed to get the power to the grid. And what about the land space needed to house thousands of these bird chomping death machines?
Whats the basis for the comparison? Coal and gas deliver power 24 365, irrespective of the weather or time of day. And, for every MW of wind or solar there has to be a MW of coal or gas capacity ready to match the load in an instant when the wind drops or the sunsets. Moreover, its only wind and solar generators who make bogus claims about their true co2 emissions. Coal and gas generators dont claim to not emit co2.
If batteries are used, what of the land destroyed in mining the lithium and loss of natural carbon sequestration. And land so alienated by roadways and use limitation, that food and fibre supplies are reduced. Who measures all this
Never heard of SF6 green house gas until last month!!. The drive to use mixed sources of power, including wind, solar and gas, rather than coal as fuel has resulted in a rise in the number of electrical devices that use SF6, the BBC said. AT https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/13/worlds-powerful-greenhouse-gas-rise-due-green-energy-boom/
When you subtract parasitic loads and spinning reserve energy costs, wind produces almost zero power, so it is utterly hopeless! Germany has upped its CO2 footprint despite a shrinking economy! Yet under Mr Trump the USA reduced theirs and grew the economy.
Proof is in the pudding. Germany has added 30,000 wind turbines and millions of solar panels to a coal fired grid and its carbon dioxide gas emissions continue to rise and are magnitudes higher than its nuclear powered neighbour.
The suffering of neighbors is very real. A couple I know used a big part of their retirement to buy some acreage in the country. After doing a complete remodel on the old farm house the wealthy neighbor with thousands of acres sold out to the wind farm corporation. Now all night they have flashing red light in the front rooms and early every morning there is a terrible strobe effect from the blades cutting through the sunlight. They are sick and helpless now and the rich neighbor says tough break.
Just read about new lignite power plants in Germany. Lignite powerplant with only 28% efficiency is the worst power plant possible. Just look for publications like this; https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/13/germany-is-a-coal-burning-gas-guzzling-climate-change-hypocrite/ And please dont forget about German diesel fraud.
So they produce more co2 than they will ever save. I understand, but ever??? There must be a breakeven time. How long on average? 30 years? 40? Would not either of those times fit into the time frame of global warming reduction? Steve in Atlanta and I get 50% of my electric from some wind farm in Ohio. [email protected]
The lifespan of the average turbine is 20 to 25 years. While new wind farms are going up, Americas first generation of wind farms are reaching retirement age, like the Xcel Energys Ponnequin Wind Farm on the border of Colorado and Wyoming. The farm of 44 turbines recently retired at the average age of 18 years old. In October of 2016, Xcel Energy plans to dynamite the turbines and cart off the waste to a landfill. Dont forget the coolant in the turbine is oil and cannot got into landfill.
Steve, Look at it this way. Since the equipment lasts only 20 years on average, why has our government not published a report with information that clearly provides the fossil fuels required to make, install and maintain these wind turbines and the total CO2 Emissions before they produce 1 watt of energy. If it were pretty it would be on the NEWS EVERY NIGHT for us to see! Also I have never seen a government that tries to put an essential enterprise out of business by regulations and subsidies to windmills solar cells and data adjustments.
Actually its even worse! bear with me here! the spinning back up uses energy when the turbines are in wind anyway as there is no option, so that 1 megawatt turbine, when generating has a megawatt of conventional generation just spinning. to get an honest annual output of that turbine we must subtract what that wasted back up energy could have produced, anything over that is the power benifit to the grid, the answer is dismally small.
The climate changers are telling us that there will be more and more freak weather events in future. Well if this is the case, why on earth would you build a weather dependant energy generation system? It makes no sense. If anything the focus should be on non weather dependant energy systems for grid stability.
Personally, I have not made up my mind about man made climate change. The local weather forecaster has stated to me that the weather has not changed in the last 20 to 30 years at Cape Bridgewater. However when I used to live in Brisbane, I did notice how clouds of smog would hang over the city during the morning rush hour. This cannot be healthy, and is an example of the sort of areas we should be tackling instead of destroying our once affordable and reliable electricity system.
As for climate change, I was impressed by the recent program in which Sir David Attenborough walked and talked with Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, about the importance of trees. In fact it is the first program I have watched with Sir David Attenborough in it ever since he first came out as a climate changer. Here is a practical thing we can do by adopting a precautionary approach against climate change. And it doesnt have to destroy our energy grid.
Making fiberglass requires a continuous heat source to melt the sand into glass and then to force the glass through the platinum spinnerets. A small plant will have a 10 inch natural gas line firing 24/7 continuously.
One teensy objection: the neodymium extraction is far far more obnoxious than the radioactivity of the thorium associated with it. Just as, whether we believe Al Gore (or better, James Hansen) or not, the fact that the fly ash from coal burning carries more radioactivity that a comparable nuke plant is permitted to emit, is a mere trifle compared with the poisonous gas emissions from sulfur, nitrogen, and even the neurotoxic mercury. In a world properly educated about nuclear energy, thorium will be considered extremely valuable. It can be converted by thermal neutrons in a molten salt breeder reactor, to 233_U, uranium 233 which is slightly better than the rare natural 235_U for fission purposes, because even when it captures a neutron without splitting, the 234_ with another neutron capture gives us the 235 isotope.
Wow thats a bit deep for me, but thank you for mentioning fly ash in your statement. Since the demise of coal burning for power generation in the UK we now have a massive shortage of fly ash for building materials, house building, road building etc. The UK is now IMPORTING fly ash from Europe to fill this void. Shipping, transport and mining producing huge amounts of Co2 that should be included in the Wind turbine calculation! Tree farms, not Wind farms makes more sense to me.
Be good if you had included a total expected lifetime electrical output calc in the same detail as the other calcs to highlight your main point here. You just glossed over it, and it weakens the credibility of the other good stats.
There is no comparison and only intellectual lightweights assert that there is: eg the rubbish about wind power being cheaper than coal. When the wind stops blowing or exceeds 25m/s wind power cant be bought at any price:
How much electricity will the farm produce and how much carbon would a fossil fuel plant emit for the same amount vs its carbon footprint. I Am curious about the cost to build, wind, solar and natural gas plants, their output and carbon emissions. There are very few honest, total comparisons, thanks for this article.
Dave, thanks for your comment. You refer to carbon, but we assume you mean CO2 gas. Wind power cant be compared with conventional generators because they operate on demand whereas wind power is only available at the whim of the weather. Coal fired plants and CCGT burn fuel around the clock, when the wind blows they are knocked out of the market by subsidies to wind power but continue to burn fuel. That has to occur because wind power output varies so wildly dispatchable power must be always available to prevent total grid collapses as happened in South Australia last September. Have a look at our post from yesterday.
Hey, I am completely on your side on this subject but I think you are being a teensy bit defensive about the request for more detail. I think they wanted more detail calcs to support your assertion that the fabrication and construction of these behemoths generate more CO2 than they could ever save over their operating lifetime. I suspect you are right (I have heard this statement before). Some calves about how much CO2 is saved (compared to fossil fuel Say coal) generation over a 15 year life would be helpful. Respectfully yours.
Let me help you here. Thanks, @stopthesethings for having a wonderful presentation on how much carbon wind turbine is going to produce. Lets say you are right (i believe you are) that a wind turbine manufacturing produces 241.85 ton of CO2. Now consider this.
Im trying very hard to support you. So let us ignore CO2 emitted in erecting a coal burned plant. Let us say that we have super-efficient plants that release only 0.47kgCO2eq/kWh of electricity. but still, running wind turbine for more than a day will surpass your argument.
How wrong you are, you assume a wind turbine produces power as a perfect substitute for coal fired power, which is nonsense. For the unpredictable 25 to 35% of the time a wind turbine is dispatching power to the grid, coal fired and gas fired plants are running, burning fuel and ready to dispatch the instant the wind drops. This is called spinning reserve. Plants are ramped up and down, running inefficiently as a result and CO2 emissions increase across the power generation sector as a result. Wind power cannot replace conventional generation and does not reduce CO2 emissions, the only system that does so is nuclear.
There is a blooper in the calculation. 257287 KILOwatt-hours is 257 and a bit MEGAwatt-hours. A 1 megawatt wind turbine obviously must take at least 257 hours to generate this with ideal wind conditions. The wind turbine will not repay its carbon footprint in 10.7 hours; it will take several weeks.
I love it. I knew some of the basic information, but I never bothered to put all together. I am disappointed that this kind of readily available evidence is not presented to the politicians, from all spectrums, and shoved in front of their faces. Wake-up people!
I dont like windmills either. I also dont believe the hyped narrative that CO2 is causing climate change. I dont believe it is harming anything. The evidence is just not there. Its based on a mob mentality driven by agenda pushing activists scientists and politicians. Its fear mongering preying on the intellectually lazy.
Band wagons are easy to jump on. Doing your own research/math and getting it right this hard. we must not forget the human labor and travel required to install and maintain one of these as well. This carbon footprint is all too often overlooked.
Great article. I have one idea that might help assess the carbon footprint of these things when there are all the peripheral things to include like niobium mining and wind vane fabrication etc. I suggest you just get the final cost in dollars and convert it to its equivalent fossil fuel amount. Perhaps weighted between coal and oil in some proportion. The fact is that energy is the only thing consumed in any operation and that is what determined the price. So if you wonder for example how much energy goes into mining and producing niobium magnets or fibreglass panels just get the cost. When wind mills can run without a dollar subsidy I will believe they can run without an energy subsidy, until then they are a blight.
The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty and toxic involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product that only one country does it China. (See our posts here and here).
Calling Thorium a radioactive waste product is very far from the truth. In the first place, Thorium is hardly radioactive at all. It is not fissile, but is fertile, meaning that it cannot sustain a chain reaction, but under sufficient neutron bombardment in a reactor, can be converted into a fissile fuel.
Therefore, Thorium is not a waste product, but is fuel for a very safe type of reactor, and should be treated as a valuable co-product, not waste. The MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) was built and tested for 20,000 hours at Oak Ridge in the 1960s (see MSRE Molten Salt Reactor Experiment).
The MSR/LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) is a totally fail-safe reactor that cannot melt down (the fuel is already a molten salt), needs no giant containment structure since it has no water in the reactor, and is about half as expensive to construct as a conventional PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor). The MSR/LFTR can also use present stockpiles of Nuclear Waste as fuel, solving the storage problem and giving us power for hundreds of years. Your additional articles referenced in the above quote are eloquent about irresponsible mining pollution, but add nothing accurate about Thorium.
And I havent even considered the manufacture of the thousands of pylons and tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission wire needed to get the power to the grid. And what about the land space needed to house thousands of these bird chomping death machines?
It is not a good idea to give the Wind/Solar industries a pass on any significant source of pollution. The CO2 footprint and the cost of transmission lines are very significant, and should be estimated and included in your conclusions in all of your articles.
You will find some very detailed and important support for your position in the following critique of the plan proposed by Professor Richardson of Stanford to power the entire US with nothing but Wind/Solar plus other renewables:
Excellent information of thoriumsadly countries and news medias are run by Luddites, not those strong in the pure sciences.. and now we have entire University science faculties that are bogus.. just not real science..yet!
Who is resisting the development of Molten Salt Reactors? They as you point out are walk away safe. There is a plug at the bottom of the reactor that will melt if something goes wrong and dump the contents into a holding pit.The radioactive isotopes produced are needed for nuclear medicine. Unfortunately it doesnt fit the image of Green that some dreamers have.
8james38, Beware that Monazite, the main source for Neodymium (Bastnsite its also an important source), does not have only Thorium in the Cristal structure. Thorium exists in its structure in the same isotopic equilibrium as its stated in the periodic table. So its marginally radioactive but its indeed radioactive, producing discernible alpha emissions, not for being fissile but for natural decay. The problem is that a considerable amount of Uranium is also produced in the neodymium concentration process, and this one as a complex decay series with some intermediate isotopes being highly radioactive. However, even if we ignore the radioactive waste produced in the process, we can always account for the acid waste. More or less 75 cubic meters of acidic waste is produced for each ton of concentrated neodymium.
Stopthesethings: GREAT article. I was in NZ some time ago, and had a look at the wind farm at Raglan. It cost twice as much and produced one quarter of the electrical power as the A1B nuclear reactor used in the latest US Aircraft Carrier.
The wind farm is all about saving the environment but how is killing birds and especially bats, heating the earth and air behind the turbine and all the roads and transmission lines across a continent saving the environment? Not to mention the net gain in CO2.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented: With a lifespan of only fifteen years, running at max 30% output, an industrial windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.
I have been posting about the break down of these monstrosities for several years and as nicely as Andy did and his break down it left out a Bunch of stuff To your point there has Never been a single windmill that has made it to its claimed life time and if your start from the first ones until the ones installed today the Average life span is about 7 years Now I will give them the the newer designs will have a bit of a longer life they will do so with replacement of main bearing sets about every 5 years , those bearing sets are several tons of high strength high carbon steel requiring massive cranes and maintenance crews to disassemble the main nacelle .. All of which have their own CO2 output from raw material through job completion Also each tower has a monthly maintenance program , semi annual maintenance and more in-depth Annual maintenance program That requires trucks, power equipment and generalized replacement parts again with its own CO2 load out
Hardik, commercial some food growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase crop yields. What this tells us is that the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere is limiting the growth rate of plants so, in effect, its a trace gas. It is NOT the problem that is portrayed by the doomsayers. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will therefore speed up plant growth.
Climate change has always happened, and will continue to happen, with and without human habitation on Earth. In fact, if it were NOT for climate change, mammals including humans would not have proliferated on earth. It took the extinction of the dinosaurs to create conditions which allowed mammals to flourish and evolve on earth.
The biggest problem we are facing is deforestation and raping of our natural resources. If you believe the garbage about human induced CO2 emissions, about 20% of CO2 emissions are attributed change of land use due to deforestation.
According the the lying doomsayers, the earth will turn into a lifeless desert if CO2 emissions rise. In reality, CO2 is the main building block of life on earth if you REMOVE CO2 from the atmosphere, the earth WILL turn into a virtually lifeless desert. Only very few life forms, not dependent on solar energy (either directly or indirectly), will be able to survive in a CO2 free atmosphere.
At the start of the Carboniferous Era, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were much higher than they are now. What happened??? Life flourished, and vast quantities of CO2 were removed from the atmosphere in the form of coal deposits in huge swampy areas, and by the formation of vast limestone reefs in warm shallow seas. Fossil fuels are, essentially, stored solar energy.
In Britain, before the start of the industrial revolution, the forests were becoming depleted through over-exploitation. Burning coal and other fossil fuels has basically protected Britains forests from total destruction 2-3 centuries ago.
Like all projections from wind companies, it is grossly over estimated for output of power; and underestimated on costs some of the pads at Macarthur took upto 1100cm3 of concrete as it kept disappearing in the softer country. I am a neighbor of turbines 1.5km away at the Macarthur wind factory.
You have failed to quantify how much CO2 a turbine offsets and so your analysis is incomplete. Im all in if wind power turns out to be more carbon intensive than fossil fuels but you dont have me any where near convinced yet. Too many holes in your data and a myriad of other things you have not considered. As for the downtime issues with wind, yes, and there are times when wind provides too much power. So what is the solution to that? Simple hydrogen through electrolysis. Produce Hydrogen, build decentralized hydrogen power plants and use them in place of coal and natural gas/nukes to bolster the grid when wind isnt supplying enough.
Dan, you havent bothered to properly consider the article, and you certainly havent clicked on the links included or embedded. Otherwise, you would not be raising your first contention; viz, the assertion that wind power offsets CO2 emissions in the electricity sector. There is no such evidence anywhere in the world, where wind power is attempted to be integrated into a coal/gas fired grid, to support any such assertion.
The article above is not meant to convince anyone. But we have over 1,100 others that might many of them dealing with the fictions that: wind power is a meaningful power source; reduces CO2 emissions; and is cheaper than conventional generation sources.
However, that is THE fundamental flaw in a source that is being forced into economies under ideological mandate, backed by colossal subsidies, coupled with ludicrous claims that it will completely replace conventional sources, including nuclear (witness Germany).
Those posts demonstrate that wind power can never amount to a meaningful power source, and defeat the claims that by spreading turbines over a large area output can be smoothed and become meaningful (ie satisfy demand on a consistent and predictable basis).
We dont propose to dip into your suggestions about turning electricity into hydrogen, simply because you will never find a market for power that would need to retail at 10-20 times the price of conventional power (at a guess with wind power already costing 4 times the cost of coal-fired power only available 25% of the time, of course and heavens knows the costs of converting electrical power to hydrogen gas and then back).
STT is a specialist site, devoted to debunking the fiction that wind power offers a solution to anything other than ideological vanity. We dont mean to advance the cause of any particular power generation source, but to be meaningful it must be available on-demand and affordable to all. Everything else involves intellectual dishonesty, as well as a selfishness that we will never condone or tolerate. Ask yourself this question: are you prepared to leave any single one of your fellow citizens (someones elderly grandmother, say?) sitting freezing in the dark all for an ideological whim? If youre prepared to do that, then youre probably happy to see the poorest billion on the planet continue to keep cooking on dung and twigs in an unlit hovel. Were not content to see either.
1. Do you believe that humans are exacerbating climate change, and how? 2. Do you believe that Climate Change will cause huge economic and social problems, and why? 3. What action do you recommend to address climate change?
1. impossible to tell. 2. nothing compared to the $trillions being squandered on meaningless symbolism like wind and solar power and the economic and social costs thereof. 3. stop wasting resources on energy sources which are proven failures, direct those resources to long-term adaptation.
So , in comparison , how much CO2 gets emitted when building a skyscraper , say like the CN tower in Toronto ? A useless building that cost many millions to build . All the high rise buildings around the world ? Not trying to say windmills are a good thing or bad thing , but your CO2 argument falls short .
Gerry, you clearly havent read the post. And certainly not the material linked within it. Skyscrapers and their owners dont claim to reduce/abate CO2 emissions in the electricity sector, or at all. No-one does. We do not understand your point. The wind industry claims as the justification for the $billions in endless subsidies and the excuse for the fact that it is meaningless as a power source simply because it cannot be delivered on demand that wind power makes very substantial reductions in CO2 emissions, when, in fact it does no such thing. This little post simply points to some of the CO2 emitted to build a single turbine. We welcome sensible comments on this site, but not those from people who havent bothered to read the posts on which they propound their world views.
I dont know of major cities that have consistent enough wind, at least enough to justify wind turbines on more than an intermittent basis. Chicago comes to mind in America due to its nickname, but its all relative. Offshore near some coastal cities seems viable. I dont think theres a major conspiracy to keep them out of view from cities, since a number of them are easily seen from urban commutes, but they definitely favor cheaper rural lands to directly invade.
The intellectual pygmy will retort that COAL IS DEATH or some such and claim that wind power is replacing coal fired power and will, in time, completely replace it. The lightweight will claim that the road to a healthy future is paved with an endless sea of turbines and that this terrifies fossil fuel interests. When, of course, nothing could be further from the truth:
The wind power worshipping cult then goes on to claim that anyone who points out even the most basic (and unassailable) facts (like those in the post above) are obviously in the employ of BIG COAL. Thinking it a bit like the BOKKO moment in one of Batmans battles with his sworn enemies.
But that merely exhibits the kind of intellectual rigour that attaches to people who routinely use terms such as believer and denier in the manner of a petulant child, who knows theyve lost the argument with an adult in respect of anyone who has the temerity to point to the nakedness of their Emperor.
Facts have always troubled them, hence their characteristic resort to name calling and the fallacy that because you point to the facts (that challenge their limited and ignorant world view) you must have an agenda. When in truth, their case is simply a nonsense. And they havent got the maturity or grace to admit it.
While there are no global warming emissions associated with operating wind turbines, there are emissions associated with other stages of a wind turbines life-cycle, including materials production, materials transportation, on-site construction and assembly, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning and dismantlement.
Estimates of total global warming emissions depend on a number of factors, including wind speed, percent of time the wind is blowing, and the material composition of the wind turbine. Most estimates of wind turbine life-cycle global warming emissions are between 0.02 and 0.04 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour. To put this into context, estimates of life-cycle global warming emissions for natural gas generated electricity are between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour and estimates for coal-generated electricity are 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour*
*IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlmer, C. von Stechow (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1075 pp. (Chapter 7 & 9).
Andy, and thats just the towers. As you point out you have not in detail calculated other emission costs, and the cost to the environment of such things as value adding the raw rare earth materials for the magnets. The cost in emissions to produce each and every operating industrial wind energy turbine so obviously outweighs any savings. It beggars belief anyone could consider theyre good for the environment but there we go those who should know better are falling for that old furphy If the experts says its good it must be. Maybe they dont know the saying If it sounds too good to be true it probably is.
Jackie Rovensky asks in the post 15th August 2014 How is it that people still spruik for this industry.? As this post and numerous others by STT points out over and over again there is no reason at all to support wind farms and numerous reasons to have them stopped and shut down. Last week Tim Flannery was a guest at the Mudgee writers festival. He was asked by an ABC reporter what should be done about the RET ! He replied let the voters decide and ask them do they want renewable energy? The answer, of course, is that everyone would say yes. Therein lies the answer to Jackies question! The problem is that people in high places, such as Flannery, want the fantasy to drive the issue and refuse to allow the reality to get in the way. Secondly, these spruikers are gleefully supported by the rent seekers. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the voters are either too busy and too far away from wind farms to bother delving for facts. Also, the voters are because of our modern world totally disconnected from physical reality and how things actually work. Another problem is, in Australia at least, the 2001 legislation that introduced the RET simply listed 19 so called forms of renewable energy as being eligible to receive RECs, wind being one of them. No definition of renewable energy or baseload renewable energy was attempted or required.Wind has become the only large scale type of so called renewable energy that has been pursued. The solution is that the massive education of the voters and their civic leaders as pursued by STT and others who actually know (and who are now getting to be a critical mass) about the massive wind power scam must continue. For the rest of us I suggest just keep asking the spruikers how do you store wind power for when theres no wind? Very few know that you cant and then the penny starts to drop!! Congratulations to STT.
I am sure you realize this but you do not mention the co2 produced in long distance shipping, in the large/enormous machine erection process, in New Englands case the cutting of acres of carbon sequestering forest and releasing that co2. Then there is the replacement of major parts (blades, nacels etc every ten years) far more frequently that the industry dares make public. Then there is (as you allude) the C02 required for the redundant polluting back up machines.
I beleive and would like to show your statement to be true You see, renewables like wind turbines will incur far more carbon dioxide emissions in their manufacture and installation than what their operational life will ever save.
You are so close to aggregating the life cycle co2 cost that it is worth a shot to complete the work. The only possible defense of industrial wind is co2 reduction and with that option gone conclusively it deserves not to exist.
Stack Exchange network consists of 177 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
I've seen that you should bury 1/3 to 1/2 of the above ground post height; so this would make our hole 1.5-2' deep with gravel below. I've also seen that the diameter of the hole for a 4x4 post should be 12".. which would make the radius 6". After going through the math for the hole ( pi x r^2 x h ) it comes out that the hole will have a volume of 1.57 cu ft, but the post itself will take up 0.17 cu ft, so the volume to be filled with concrete will become 1.4 cu ft per post. Right?
The question I have now is that a 50lb bag of fast-setting Quickrete apparently fills 0.375 cu ft after setting. This would mean that we'd need almost 4 bags per post (3.75) - this is also the number that comes up from Quickrete's online calculator. I'm not against this exactly, except that I've seen people saying they've used half a bag per post or a bag a post. How accurate is this and how much should we need? At that rate, we're almost looking at 100+ bags. The 80lb bags fill about 0.6 cu ft and are about a dollar cheaper, is there anything against going with it?
Wow! I normally use post hole diggers (6" diameter?) 3 feet deep and a bag of redi-mix per post. I did a free standing section of 6 foot privacy fencing this last summer and we just had a storm of >50mph winds and it is still standing and solid.
Just to "sort of" sidestep the question. You don't need any concrete or gravel whatsoever & all of that nonsense is a complete lie & does nothing. Just dig 6" holes, drop in the posts, double plumb them & backfill & tamp with the dirt you dug or drilled out. I have 3 fences of 6' high that I did 15-years ago & none are failing, falling nor rotting & are unchanged from the day they went in.
Now, concrete used for the purpose of having replaceable posts is different & in that case you do want a 12" hole & likely 2 bags. This I have no problem with, but most no-one does it. Monkey-see-monkey-do says to "just pop-out that 200-pounds" & do the whole absurdity all over again from scratch.
I am an oklahoma farmer, have built miles of durable barb wire fence. The rule of thumb out here is a fence post hole should bottom out below the frost line, or else the posts will heave out. At my latitude of 36 deg, that is 2 to 3 feet deep. The hole should be wide enough that a tamper-bar will fit between the post and the edge of the hole. That is a long heavy rod of steel with a 2 inch disk on the end. You tamp the hole as you fill it, because the barb wire puts so much tension on the post. Corners and gate entries are fortified with H-braces, an extremely rigid structure made of 9 gauge wire, two posts 8 feet apart, and an 8 foot pipe (the center of the H). Concrete would probably help act as a "dead-man"
here in ontario, the code requirement for any fence adjoining a property line in any incorporated municipality is an 8" dia hole with either a 2" steel or 4" pressure treated spruce post set to a minimum depth of 48" below grade. the post must be set into either compacted sand or mpa20 or higher concrete, and the post must be embedded full depth minus the diameter of the excavated hole. this is for any fence up to a maximum of 6', which in most towns is the maximum allowed by municipal bylaws. anything over that height requires an engineer. if its solely on your land (more than 6" within the surveyed lot line) then there are absolutely no requirements or stipulations.
Concrete specs from manufacturers ALWAYS use amounts and measurements that produce a structural footer for supporting decks, pole barns, observation posts, flood zone pole houses, and structures. I promise you they are NOT going to say "none" if you ask how much concrete for stretched wire / mesh fencing posts but in most cases "none" is correct - just keep the hole's diameter as small as possible to fit the post and a packer able to fit around the tight sides. When DOES a fence post need concrete footing? Framed up wooden privacy fences 5ft or higher should use posts footed in concrete. Stretched wire and mesh fencing over 100ft long might benefit from concrete set end posts and when the fence turns more than 5 degs the post it turns on should be set in concrete. Use an H brace on both sides of this turn pole if the fence is so long it needs more tension to maintain form - good thing, as this is what makes the fence strong and effective. Slack fence droops, bends, and is easily compromised. Tesioned fence is rigid, maintains form when push and rubbed on, and you can use t stake poles every 10-12 ft between wooden poles set in dirt once every 60 - 100 ft. as the tension holds itself mostly up already.
Blue Creek Wind Farm, the first large-scale wind facility in Ohio and one of the biggest east of the Mississippi River, relied on Lafarge cement for turbines concrete foundations and soil stabilization.
Lafarge provided Type I portland cement from its Paulding plant to Irving Concrete of Ohio, which built a portable ready-mix batch plant to produce about 122,500 cubic yards of concrete for the project.
Cement supplied by Lafarge North America played a key role in the construction earlier this year of the Blue Creek Wind Farm in Ohio, which is owned and operated by Iberdrola Renewables. One of the largest wind power plants in the world with 152 Gamesa G90 turbines, the facility has a generating capacity of 304 MW.
Lafarge provided Type I portland cement from its Paulding plant to Irving Concrete of Ohio, which built a portable ready-mix batch plant to produce about 122,500 yd3 of concrete for the project. The construction of 15 to 20-foot-deep concrete foundations to support all of the 328-foot-high towers with 2-MW turbines required 30,000 tons of cement. On average, each of these below-ground support systems used 60 truckloads of concrete (750 yd3), which was poured in two steps. A 2-ft. thick mud matte was poured first to create a solid base and then an upper pedestal where the tower connects was poured in step two. The huge bolts that fasten to the tower were embedded into the upper section of the concrete. Quality testing was conducted at 7, 14, 21 and 28 days to ensure a solid cure.
Lafarge also supplied 20,000 tons of Type I cement for soil stabilization of about 44 miles of roads, which allowed access to the site under difficult soil conditions and provided a base for permanent roadways. Because the rural roads were not designed to handle the heavy construction traffic loads, they were ground down, mixed with 5% cement at a 12-inch treatment depth, and then allowed to harden before being surfaced with asphalt. This made for a stable base that was engineered to handle the heavy truckloads of concrete and other construction equipment needed to build the wind turbines. The rebuilt roadways will require a lot less maintenance in the future due to their stronger and more durable base underneath, said Tom Rapp, Major Market Manager at Lafarge. In what is largely corn and soybean country, the improved long-lasting roadways are in much better shape now for trucks carrying these agricultural products.
Relative to the rest of Ohios power generation fleet, the Blue Creek Wind Farm offsets carbon dioxide emissions by about 1.6 billion lb/year, which is equivalent to planting an estimated 138,000 acres of trees.
Very interesting topics, have been following the wind energy for quite some time. Our little big company is interested in working with the wind energy people. We are a small independent company located in Wisconsin, our expertise is in green technology we market resins that have bee proven and certified Polyesters Vinyl Ester epoxies etc. that have less than one percent vocs and haps. These materials can be used in manufacturing the wind blades in certain composites. I know we could be of great assistance to the wind energy companys and would like to work with a company that would be interested in replacing concrete. SCP is a product that is not only green but has a life expectancy of well over three hundred years, YES! I said 300 year and has been tested and proven. Just think what it would do to complete the story of green technology used to replace concrete which is not green technology as we all know. Our product is highly chemical resistant and will not absorb water. We often hear about green technology that really isnt green, but is a hell of a story that sometimes pulls the wool over the publics eyes and ears, its not right but we all know it is being done daily. Oh! forgot the most important part, testing shows that we are 2.5 to 3 times stronger inch per inch compared to our competitors so what more could you ask for, if you or a friend has an interest in what this product is please feel free to contact me and I will be kind enough to send you specs and photos and a power point. IF we are going to brag about something lets all do it the right way, as best as possible including the truth.
I think that wind power is the future. It needs to be taken advantage of. We need to clean up the environment as much as possible. This is a great way to help with that. Solar panels are another great option. There is a lot of talk about wind mills and solar in Posey County In. Where I live right now. I think that it is a good thing, lots of people dont and some people doesnt think that it works. It does work. Change is hard for some people. We need to move forward. It is the future.
Browse the most current issue of Windpower Engineering & Development and back issues in an easy to use high quality format. Clip, share and download with the leading wind power engineering magazine today.