14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA

Kinda like spent nuclear fuel eh?
Sounds like an opportunity for a recycling project.
Take the working parts, and scrap the non working parts to be reworked.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Agree with you regarding large wind farms. I've had a small wind genny for more than two years. Bird kills = 0. Small sample in the great measure of things, but if one person can do it............ ?

I have made the alternative energy stuff such that I can take it down prior to a hurricane. This also has to be taken into account. Our country was dead set on putting up a couple of wind farms. My main objection to the large ones is that they are hell on real estate -- they just take up a LOT of room for possibly a not worthy gain.

Take an apartment building, say it has a dozen units with 10,000 square feet of roof. Can they mount enough PV panels to take care of all their power needs, momentarily discounting whether they can afford it? Probably not. That's the sad thing about alternative energies -- if they were unilaterally cost-effective, then it would be a no-brainer and everyone would do it. So, currently, to make it work, people have to spend a bit of time tweaking things, and maintaining things. Hopefully, as with most inventions, these will also improve. Perhaps the wave of the future is bladeless wind turbines that have a bird-proof cage around them.

While I do not agree with the previous posts that say the only viable solution is conservation, I do believe most people are not very well informed on the pros and cons of different types of energy production. As someone who works with power supplies and distribution on a regular basis, here's the real scoop:

• Wind Power
  Wind turbines transform pressure gradients in the atmosphere into electricity using mechanical means. Those same pressure gradients are also the driving force behind wind generation and contribute dramatically to atmospheric chaotic systems (weather). Any energy removed from this atmospheric system reduces the amount of energy left in the system.
  
  Now, does that mean windmills are bad? No. It means we are dealing with a relatively new technology in terms of wide-scale production. We are not dealing with the windmills of yore, the wooden structures of Holland. In order to power a power-hungry society, today's windmills are huge marvels of technology, efficiently moving energy from the atmospheric pressure gradients to the electrical grid. There is a limit as to how much energy we can remove; that is not to say, however, that we have reached this limit. We simply do not know and therefore need to be asking the question.
  
  We should also continue to investigate other potential problems: bird hazards, noise hazards, etc. Some of these may be correctable, but if ignored could create widespread animosity toward windmills.
  
  
• Solar Energy
  While solar energy is great for niche applications where a small amount of DC electricity is needed, it is totally inappropriate for large-scale energy production. Not only is there a very limited amount of potential energy to be harvested per unit area, but present efficiency is low and the resulting electricity is in the form of low-voltage DC current.
  
  The problem is this: all electrical conductors have resistance to electric flow. This resistance causes a voltage to appear across the conductor whenever a current flows through it, proportional to both the resistance and the current. In order to obtain voltage at the receiving end of the transmission lines, enough voltage must be present at the beginning of the transmission to also overcome this developed voltage. In addition, the developed voltage causes the conductor to heat up (the source of household electrical fires). That heat is wasted energy which makes the transmission less efficient.
  
  High voltage is used because less current is required to transmit the same amount of power (watts, defined as voltage times current) with less heat loss. AC is used because it is easy to convert from one voltage to another at the end user using the most efficient device known: a simple transformer (which can operate at efficiencies in excess of 95%). Solar electricity is the antithesis of these efficiency measures.
  
  
• Geothermal Energy
  Geothermal is based on heat within the earth generated by both radioactive ad compressive heating. It is produced at a finite rate, and does not represent an infinite energy source. Like wind energy, there is a limit to how much energy can be pulled from the earth before environmental changes occur (lowering of the frost line and resulting temperature drops of the surface for instance).
  
  Geothermal also needs a large area in order to produce large amounts of energy, so it is not viable for congested areas. Geothermal water has been used in some cases to appear to offset this, but the simple fact is that the water represents a flowing area instead of a reduced area.
  
  
• Wave Energy
  Waves are basically wasted energy from the oceanic chaotic system, especially when they get close to land. I personally believe this is one of the best ideas to come down the pike in a long time. That does not mean it does not bear research into unknown side effects on ocean ecology, however.
  
  As I understand the progress being made in this area, the major stumbling block is the development of materials which can withstand the chemical properties of seawater. The necessity of such materials may mean massive pollution in their manufacture, as is the case with batteries for electric cars.
  
  
• Hydro Power
  Hydro is probably the cleanest and most reliable energy source we have. Contrary to some opinions, it is not detrimental to the environment; I can drive minutes to multiple areas around me where the dam system has improved the ecology by slowing the rush of water to the ocean and allowing wildlife to flourish. Unfortunately, there are only so many rivers.

The bottom line is this: never get too emotionally tied to a particular energy source. All have advantages and disadvantages; none are panaceas for every situation.

As we are coming to see with wind turbines.

TheRedneck

reply to post by daryllyn


Probably because the winds are too much for the GE built junk.

reply to post by TheRedneck


See. That's just what I was gonna say.



Thanks Redneck!!! That is very informative, and I know you work with this stuff daily.

I disagree some on the wave action, but you brought up a point (frostline) on the geothermal I hadn't even thought of.

The main thing to me is that all of these things are finite. We will be tempted to take them to their limits and beyond as our consumption grows. We absolutely must control the consumption, and expand the efficiency of all these technologies simultaneously.

I was driving home from Missouri back to Florida a few weeks ago, and I was marveling at the miles and miles of high-powered street lights Alabama had near some of their cities. It was beautiful, impressive, and effective, but the problem was I was the only car on the road at 3:30 a.m. on a Tuesday, and I had headlights!! I know cities think streetlights prevent crime, but I wonder at what point of the night it becomes counter-productive?

The State Buildings where I work will only run climate control from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. In the summertime, when I show up at work at 6:30 or 7:00 it is muggy and hot in my office. Still, it is a good place to start.

I am not a fan whatsoever of cap and trade, but I believe there is room somewhere in community planning to limit consumption of power and provide rewards for other businesses and homebuilders doing the same thing.

reply to post by getreadyalready

I actually have a design for a geothermal secondary heater for my shop to keep it above freezing during the winter months... as soon as I can afford it, I will be implementing that plan. Of course, that decision is based on the fact I own an appreciable amount of land and will not appreciably lower the frostline. Efficiency demands one use what resources are most plentiful to them.

I have often wondered why street lights do not use some sort of traffic or motion sensor to control operation at night. That is a conservation effort I can get behind, as it would not decrease the amount of useful energy, only conserve wasted energy. I can only assume the equipment is too expensive in the short term for cities to put into place.

Where I have a concern with the idea of conservation is that some tend to take it too far. Take light bulbs for instance. In my shop, I work with extremely static-sensitive components. The CFL light bulbs may use less electricity, but they also give off static electric fields that could easily blow chips before I could get them soldered into place. I need incandescent light, at least until LED bulbs are more available. If things go as they appear to be going, I may wind up having to build my own LED bulbs soon. Now exactly why should I get behind any movement that blindly forces me to do such a thing? That's a lot of time wasted for me just because someone in a cushy office decided to set a date and pass a law without considering all the consequences. That time could be spent trying to implement my geothermal system, working on a new energy source, or finding new ways to do more with less power. I would be much better off spending $20 for a bulb produced much more efficiently in a factory, but those may not be available economically before the changeover occurs.

There is already a penalty/reward system for wasting or conserving energy: cost of the energy itself. As energy prices continue to rise, no doubt we will see more efficient uses of energy... maybe even sensors of those Alabama street lights or mass-produced LED light bulbs.

TheRedneck

reply to post by jibeho


What viable form of energy are you for? Just wondering?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I was driving home from Missouri back to Florida a few weeks ago, and I was marveling at the miles and miles of high-powered street lights Alabama had near some of their cities.

And as a side issue to this, as any astronomer will tell you, the lights arent even very efficient in that a large percentage of those generated photons are sent UPWARD in a direction that doesnt illuminate anything at all except the sky.

reply to post by jibeho


Wind turbines can be geared and speed limited to reduce flicker effect, noise and bird-strike.

The technology in use is, at present, highly variable and most investors are paying for the configurations that produce the highest output per turbine.

Yet windmills have existed for hundreds of years in Holland where the blade speed is intentionally low.

Perhaps we could learn something from history.

reply to post by jibeho


They barely put out any power in the first place and they are expensive to build and maintain so what's the point of even having them is what you should be asking.

reply to post by TheRedneck


A guy at work was showimg me some LED tape lights. Many colors, almost know consumption, and they look really cool when recessed or hidden. He is converting every fixture in his house. Just a nice glow with no visible light fixtures. Might look into it for your shop.

reply to post by getreadyalready

A while back I came across a surplus deal from one of my suppliers and bought 500 white high-brightness LEDs, each one putting out about 2000mcd. I had intended to make some solar lights for the yard, but I may have to use them for a homemade light bulb. My shop uses 16 60-watt bulbs at full illumination, so that's going to be pushing things.

I think I should have bought more....

TheRedneck

Heres my vote for a renewable source of energy it requires 2 plants. The first plant produces Oil from co2 in the atmosphere the second burns the oil to produce energy. The advantage is what is added to the atmosphere is removed. It decreases our dependency on oil. We dont have to redesign cars and most plants can easily be built or converted to use hydocarbons if they dont all ready. Only problem i see is you want the plant in an area with little or no plant life since CO2 around the plant would be lower than norm. I figure thats easy to resolve by using deserts or even moving it off shore.


wattsupwiththat.com... htmare-a-co2-to-oil-process/

I can see some misconceptions being put forth on wind. solar. and geothermal power.

I have worked as a construction electrician building large power plants of all these types.
The biggest problem for all these is the not in my back yard problem.

Some parts of the US have great resources of all these the problem is not that many people live in the areas where these resources are
The desert southwest has a lot of solar but they have little in the northeastern US
If you are thinking all we need is to string a few wires your wrong.
Interstate power lines have a lot of loses you can not power new york with power from the Calif desert..

And solar is not just low voltage .
Solar panel systems put out low voltage and were never a good idea for large projects. they are not even good for medium size power plants.
They are great for homes or off grid use in areas of high solar.

Or large projects solar trough like i worked on at SEGS plants located at Kramer Junction California are one of the good types.
en.wikipedia.org...
or solar towers like the one i worked on east of Barstow, CA
Solar One/Two
en.wikipedia.org...
By the way these type plants could in middle east countries be used to distill sea water to fresh water turning large areas of desert into farm land. all you have to do is replace the steam turbines with steam distilation units
They might even work in parts of the Cailf desert for making fresh water from brackish water.

Geothermo power is the same you have small systems that can heat or cool homes.
And you have large plants that supply megawatts of power for cities.
the coso geothermo plants they produce about 270 MW but field like these are rare and there in none it the northeast.
The navy powers all there installation in the south est from these plants and sells a lot of power to the grid.
sounds good but there is a drawback.
earthquakes up to 5.2 mag.
en.wikipedia.org...

Every geothermal field in Calif has this problem.
www.popsci.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.blueroadrunner.com...

Wind fields have there own problems as many areas just don't have the wind hours.
and those that do have problems with bird or other critters that get killed like bats.

None of these can power the US with clean 24/7/365 power they are only good for a less then 30% of the power needed.

We will have to go with another source to add to these like thorium power to get what we need or we will become a third world county.

I've been living off the grid for over three years now using six solar panels and two wind generators. The system does everything I need with the exception of heat and air conditioning so over all I'm not complaining.

I've been running:
Lights (12v) flourecent & led
Refridgerator (Norcold only draws 3.2 amps dc)
Microwave
Double burner electric stove top
Laptops (12v power adapters)
Phone chargers
Ryobi 18v rechargable tools (12v recharger) and regular old AC skil saws etc when needed
DVD player
Surround Stereo system
Tv's (52" and 19" plus TV usb cards in the laptops)
Coffee maker
Fans
3000 watt inverter
(We have a gas gen in case we need it, but haven't used it in along time.)

Originally posted by CaptainKostr
I've been living off the grid for over three years now using six solar panels and two wind generators. The system does everything I need with the exception of heat and air conditioning so over all I'm not complaining.

I've been running:
Lights (12v) flourecent & led
Refridgerator (Norcold only draws 3.2 amps dc)
Microwave
Double burner electric stove top
Laptops (12v power adapters)
Phone chargers
Ryobi 18v rechargable tools (12v recharger) and regular old AC skil saws etc when needed
DVD player
Surround Stereo system
Tv's (52" and 19" plus TV usb cards in the laptops)
Coffee maker
Fans
3000 watt inverter
(We have a gas gen in case we need it, but haven't used it in along time.)

edit on 22-11-2011 by CaptainKostr because: (no reason given)

Yes I am the same way only with 4by 85 watt panels, but with my own designed and built electric solar tracker system that add 27% more power over static mount, but I for seven years, have been working on another principal of power generation not before postulated, it to is powered by the sun via solid ground crystals, on the Atomic level, at the spit Photonic frequency, it being on the cold or split fusion level, where the sunlight is gathered then due to Atomic hammer and squash factor, the light is concentrated,and then fired at the ionosphere parabolicley that is its own anode and cathode being natural uses a concentrated light force to generate supper magnetic s my theory has it that I may even get some form of Zero sum Gravity, if I can contain it that is, Keeps me of the streets you could say

I've read that wind turbines near people's homes can cause headaches from the noise of the blades.

www.capenews.net...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
I've read that wind turbines near people's homes can cause headaches from the noise of the blades.

www.capenews.net...

Yes well, wait until you get a fracced gas well drilled beside you and see what headaches you get

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by jibeho

 

There is no such thing as "green" energy. Nothing is renewable, and nothing comes without a price. I hate the whole debate! The only solution is energy conservation.

Wind Turbines rob energy from the atmosphere that would have served some other purpose. If we get anywhere near a significant amount of energy from it, then we have surely affected the natural cycles in the atmosphere.

Solar energy typically strikes the earth or is reflected back to the atmosphere. If we harness it, we change the dynamic.

Wave action can be captured, but at what effect on the ocean? Tidal action can be captured, but at what effect on the planet? Geothermal can be exploited, but in order to get anywhere near the power we consume, what will it do to the inner processes of the Earth?

100% of our energy comes from the sun. Be it solar, atmospheric, geothermal, or fossil fuels. There is a finite amount of existing energy reserve, and there is a finite amount of new energy striking the earth. We will reach a point where our consumption has depleted all reserves and outpaces daily renewal. We will eventually kill our planet.

You are a moderator? How about you moderate your overly pessimistic opinion Just trying to lighten the harshness of your statement....I hope you really do not see it so, I assure you there are alternatives to our problems...its going to be ok

Wind turbines are the scam of this decade. They do virtually nothing to reduce CO2 as their unreliability and inability to mesh with the operations of the grid cancel out any perceived benefits. That's not being pessimistic, that's just being realistic.

The viability of wind power is forever just over the horizon. To blindly keep throwing billions of taxpayer money at this mirage is extremely foolish.

Link