hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Ya but when things go wrong it can:
Danish turbine failure
And the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_gk-0xBs8Q&feature=player_embedded
From the first link:
Wind Turbine Voltages?
- Thread starter tedge
- Start date
- Status
Ya but when things go wrong it can:
Danish turbine failure
And the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_gk-0xBs8Q&feature=player_embedded
From the first link:
This what you posted:
"It is important to note that the debris from the first turbine failure which occurred on February 22 spread as far as 700 meters (2200 feet) away."
There is no period after "away" although added one.
The entire sentence is this:
"Large pieces of the blades land 200–300 meters (600–900 ft) away, while small pieces appear to have flown 500 meters (1600 ft). Smaller, lighter pieces are found near a farmhouse, about 700 meters (2200 ft) away, though these may have landed and then been blown further by the wind, as the wind was very strong."
Which puts a slightly different slant on it.
brian john
Senior Member
- Location
- Leesburg, VA
Not if you get hit by one of those win blown pieces. I could care less how it got stuck in my cranium, just who was responsible so they can pick up the tab for the funeral.
And in this failure pieces were not flung off the tip of the blades but thrown in a random manor that I would think is totally different than how ice could/would behave.
Last edited:
zog
Senior Member
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
OK, actually did some research on a real site (Previous data was from an anti-wind turbine groups claims so likely biased), looks like 200M is the max for ice. Still a fair distance and a danger to be aware of if they are building one at a ski resort. http://www.easthavenwindfarm.com/filing/feb/ehwf-ml-reb4.pdf
My point was about distance. Hurk introduced the catastrophic failure in response to my comments about the distance ice would travel. I'm not comparing the two.
Nor am I in any way condoning or excusing the failure of any wind turbine.
And I'm not selling them. Nor an advocate of them.
I earlier posted some comments about the limitations of renewable energy resources.
You think?
:grin:
It's an interesting paper.
The 200m is about an eighth of a mile. Perhaps you now understand my skepticism of the "nearly a mile" claim?
The probabilities of being hit are pretty low. For a 1m^2 area at 200m it is about one in a million. I don't know about elsewhere, but in UK there is a general exclusion zone for buildings at 300m from a wind turbine. At that, the probability drops to about one in 50 million.
I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Cow
Senior Member
- Location
- Eastern Oregon
- Occupation
- Electrician
We watch over a couple substation for some windfarms, I can't tell you what the actual turbine produces, but after the transformer it's 34.5kV.
Split Bolt
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern Virginia
Interesting report and video, but we NEED to perfect alternative sources of electricity!
NOTHING bad ever happens at coal mines and nuclear power plants!:grin:
NOTHING bad ever happens at coal mines and nuclear power plants!:grin:
- Occupation
- Licensed Electrician
tedge
Senior Member
- Location
- Camden, ME
Our esteemed governer in his infinite wisdom has set a State Mandate for 2700 MW of land based wind power in the next decade. It took the State a long, long time to clean up what the logging, shoe, and paper industries left behind, only to be set back again by this disaster.
If the power they produced amounted to something and really made a difference, then we'd have an argument on our hands. But I just can't see 2700 +/- wind turbines spread across hundreds of miles of unspoiled ridgeline all over the State.
What worries me the most about this particular project, is that the State has set a minimum setback of 500' from either property lines or residences (I can't seem to figure out for sure which). Depending on the placement, I could very well be close to that. Call me a NIMBY, but that's a little too close for comfort.
If the power they produced amounted to something and really made a difference, then we'd have an argument on our hands. But I just can't see 2700 +/- wind turbines spread across hundreds of miles of unspoiled ridgeline all over the State.
What worries me the most about this particular project, is that the State has set a minimum setback of 500' from either property lines or residences (I can't seem to figure out for sure which). Depending on the placement, I could very well be close to that. Call me a NIMBY, but that's a little too close for comfort.
Split Bolt
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern Virginia
Why? Because coal is a finite material and it is very damaging to the ecosystem to mine it and to burn it. And with nuclear, you have the problem with storage of radioactive waste for 25,000 years! (Catastrophe waiting to happen!)
When both coal and nuclear were in their developmental stages, were there no taxpayer subsidies involved? I don't know the answer, but I'm assuming there was.
dbuckley
Senior Member
- Location
- Canterbury, New Zealand
So, given the choice between spoiling the view, or burning coal or fissioning nukes, you would choose to not spoil the view?
I understand that position, and accept that it is widely held, but I'm in the other camp, and am willing to sacrifice some of the views for burning less coal.
I actually find wind turbines to be beautiful things, and would quite like to have them not too far away...
Not wishing to start a row here, or go all political (or environmental), but just sayin' there are other perspectives. And I fully acknowledge that many of the pro-wind-ists don't have a windfarm about to be built on their doorstep.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Leave the politics.
Time to get back on an electrical discussion.
Time to get back on an electrical discussion.
tedge
Senior Member
- Location
- Camden, ME
I will fully admit that I was not against wind power (notice the careful wording there) until this came up. Since that time I've done a fair amount of research, and everything I've found points to the fact that they don't replace fossil fuel powered generation, period. The power they produce is intermittant at best, and grid managers cannot depend on them to produce when power is needed. For that reason, fossil fuel plants must still be readily available to make up the slack. Readliy available means they are burning some fuel to keep the plants ready to produce on a moments notice. This operation is hugely inefficient, and burns nearly as much as when they are running at peak efficiency. In fact it seems that if they do replace anything it is usually hydro power, because that can be turned on and off almost instantly.
I'd really like to talk to one of these grid managers if anyone knows one willing to talk to me. You could PM the contact info.
While I agree that the choice of ruining the view or burning a significantly smaller amount of oil is hard to argue, I actually really value the view (as a metaphor for nature in general), and it doesn't seem to be worth the devastation to me.
And I really don't want them 500' from my new house
I'd really like to talk to one of these grid managers if anyone knows one willing to talk to me. You could PM the contact info.
While I agree that the choice of ruining the view or burning a significantly smaller amount of oil is hard to argue, I actually really value the view (as a metaphor for nature in general), and it doesn't seem to be worth the devastation to me.
And I really don't want them 500' from my new house
It is an electrical discussion.
The future of electrical power generation.
That's about as fundamental as it can get in an electrical forum.
mkgrady
Senior Member
- Location
- Massachusetts
I don't get the problem with wind not being a good substitute for fossil fuel power plants.
I understand the generators can't run at idle because it is not effecient but lets say the plant has 10 generators and it normally runs all ten. Why couldn't they run eight of them when the wind is blowing and let the wind gens provide the balance. When the wind stops blowing they can fire up the other generators.
Why isn't it that simple?
I understand the generators can't run at idle because it is not effecient but lets say the plant has 10 generators and it normally runs all ten. Why couldn't they run eight of them when the wind is blowing and let the wind gens provide the balance. When the wind stops blowing they can fire up the other generators.
Why isn't it that simple?
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
A good tennis serve can be over 90 mph. I would think that at the heights of the towers and if the blades were going 90 mph, a mile would be possible. As for cricket, we play baseball here and we know that can hit 100 mph.:grin:
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
mkgrady
Senior Member
- Location
- Massachusetts
I don't think that makes sense.
In my example, run eight generators at 90% capacity while the wind generators are contributing. When the wind starts to drop these gens can go to 100% while additional generators that were not running get started up, get up to speed, warmed up and producing power.
Why isn't it that simple?
- Location
- Massachusetts
Because we are not taking about a 5000 watt pull start genny.
It is not like there can be a lag between the wind stopping and the other generators picking up the slack, it must happen instantly.
So in a steam turbine plant you would probably need the turbine standing by at speed and whatever makes the steam has to start really pouring on the coals (or atoms) to keep up with a sudden demand for more more steam.
- Status