Plant wind turbines in my yard!
I think that this discussion title would be great and show that not everyone doesn't like to see these in their neighborhood. Also, it is a great way to make a list or network and find wind turbine sites especially as this goes forward and wind power needs to be distributed around the US to keep the power grid going because of wind variations.
Tags: nonnimby
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tracy Juengst on -
Plant a wind turbine in my yard in Madison, CT.
-
Permalink Reply by georgeanna torres on -
I absolutely agree and live in a small community where farming is the basis of life here and some freinds who would be more than happy and have investigated the wind turbines but find them to be very costly is there any way around the expense ? ready to jump in ........
george
-
Permalink Reply by Tracy Juengst on
-
George, say what town and state. I think the way to do it is to show there is a network of places and get an investor. The investor gets money, the land owner gets money and power, and people within the neighborhood get wind power.
-
Permalink Reply by Scot Raimer on -
Dude, I hear you on the sight of them, but we need there power right now. As far as wind variations, you need to find out how a wind turbine runs.
-
Permalink Reply by Tracy Juengst on
-
I know exactly how the turbine runs. This is about having turbines in different places so the grid always has power.
-
Permalink Reply by John Feeley on -
I don't know what a wind turbine would cost to construct, how much land is needed for one, what the annual maintenance cost is, liability insurance cost, etc. is. I don't know how many would be needed to supply power a town of 450 - 500 people. I am new to this and have not done much research, but the idea excites me. I live about a mile outside of Runnells, Iowa. I think there would be plenty of farmers in this area that would support the idea of having a wind turbine on their property.
-
Permalink Reply by Tracy Juengst on
-
One 500kW wind turbine, is enough for that many people when the wind speed is 9 m/s.
I would say each house is about 1 kW. If you are regularly using an arcwelder then 3 kW. The present GE wind turbines that Pickens is probably buying are 3.5 MW each. Because of wind variability, you might want to have more kW in a wind turbine if the average wind speed is lower than the 9 m/s. (9 m/s is for a particular Vestas model). But the power transmission system must have heavier lines to handle the extra electricity. In the 90's, a 500kW wind turbine was approximately $500,000 for the turbine and the installation. I am sure it is probably double now since even milk is double. The real cost was less, obviously they had to make up for times of poor sales to keep running while wind turbine sales were low. Check out the Beaufort scale to see what the wind speed is in your area: http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/beaufort.html . Then check the rated wind speed of the wind turbine you are interested. You want the wind turbine blades above the treeline for the entire rotation. You want the wind turbines 8 or 9 blade diameters from each other. These are some simple peices of information. Clearly, one can go in more detail.
-
Permalink Reply by dean brock on -
Does this make any sense?
Cover the earth with wind turbins
A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Brock
-
Permalink Reply by Tracy Juengst on
-
I suggest you offer your yard for the nuclear power plant. I won't. Plus, the fuel for the nuke plant is not free. If you put some solar panels on each house the line losses on the electric line would lower. Solar panels don't always work at peak power levels, that is just incorrect. When we don't have peak power, good luck turning down the power on the nuke. Then if you don't dump the power into something the electrical equipment goes on fire and blows up. To really discuss money, power, equipment, reliability and square footage there are at least 200 items to discuss for each of the power sources you listed to determine the correct answer. To discuss less is to waste everyones time and to come to the wrong conclusion. This line of discussion is to make a list of people who want turbines in their yard. If you don't then pass this by. No one will contact you to put a turbine in your yard and you won't make a percentage of money off the power production. I don't really care what you think.
-
Permalink Reply by dean brock on
-
...............Interesting...........
-
Permalink Reply by Dale Nelson on -
One other thing to consider is that wind is here and now. Pickens is talking about having windmills up and running this year. Nuclear takes at least a decade.
The deserts of California have enormous space for concentrated solar power. And are about 100 miles from the coast. Some places, like the Antalope Valley, are in Los Angeles County.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Blackman on -
Dean
Nuclear is not the answer. Cost of clean up is out of site. Average time to build one is about 15 years. By the time you build one the technology you designed is out of date. And usually you do not build one you build 3 units.
The answer is plasma converters. Uses free renewable energy with zero emmissions. Countries like Japan are embracing the technology because they are running out of space to dump their trash. The plasma converters will take any garbage or toxic waste and molecularly dissociate everything that is put into the process at incredible temperatures and the results is heat for a boiler, hydrogen, a process gas, a metal slag and a stone like material that Japan is using in their roads.and no emmissions. So forget the nuclear
Featured Action
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
