-
1
- #81
Sparweb
Aerospace
- May 21, 2003
- 5,129
I'd like to inject a few of my own comments into this discussion, (being a lukewarm supporter of wind energy, and owning a turbine of my own).
Starting at the top, I looked at the article and links from the OP's message. I've seen the article before, and I didn't like the conjecture instead of facts in some of the arguments. I might make the same conjectures myself (eg. about forced coolant/lubrication flows wasting power, etc.) but that's beside the point. The argument should be made from manufacturer's data. Check your facts.
Looking at the forest and land clearance that was done in Holland, the waste is deplorable. Compared to the extent of deforestation done if that was for an oil well or a natural gas well... Uh exactly the same. Roads, foundations, churned-up streams, all the same will happen regardless of the resource to be gained. Pipelines requires deforestation just like transmission lines. In the Dutch case they are "choosing" the reason for industrial activity in the countryside. If I recall correctly, peat is regularly scooped up to be burned in decorative fireplaces throughout Europe. Before making a judgement, consider the alternative.
Balancing loads on the grid is probably more complex than any of us "laymen" appreciate. Having listened to talks given by various representatives of electrical distribution regulators, and seeing their "balancing pool" output on-line in real-time, the system requires a lot of computers collecting a lot of data and directing plants to start up and shut down. Even in a limited market like a single province of Canada, here. For one of us "laymen" to look up at a turbine and infer what stage of operationg its in assumes we know a lot about the rest of the grid than we actually do.
Ground observations of the wind are not reliable indications of wind at high elevation. That laminar flow gradient that we former fluid-dynamics students remember is a statistical average shape. If I get anywhere near the lee of a building or a tree my perception of the wind speed and direction is strongly affected. So standing near a wind turbine and guessing why it's spinning while you feel naught but a breeze is no indication of much at all.
Politics, sadly, uses people's sentimentality to get what it wants. The current fad is to "go green" and wind turbines really are the poster child of the movement. So if you see a new wind farm in Alabama, it likely is politicians trying to score points by backing a project doomed to fail. If it's North Dakota, there's a real prospect of honest profit. Every state wants its "fair share" of the renewable business, but the resource is not spread out as fairly. Even MORE SAD, is that the average voter (any country - there is no america-bashing implied) doesn't know enough to judge the project's success or failure. So the politician can claim success no matter the outcome, next election. It's public ignorance that allows bad WT's to keep selling, and taxpayers to keep footing the bill for pork-barrel projects (wind or otherwise).
Well, there's my brain-dump. Personally I don't get judgemental about all wind energy just because of a few poorly-done installations. I live close to some successes and some failures. The successful WT's are suited to their task and site they are on. The failures are the mis-matches.
Steven Fahey, CET
Starting at the top, I looked at the article and links from the OP's message. I've seen the article before, and I didn't like the conjecture instead of facts in some of the arguments. I might make the same conjectures myself (eg. about forced coolant/lubrication flows wasting power, etc.) but that's beside the point. The argument should be made from manufacturer's data. Check your facts.
Looking at the forest and land clearance that was done in Holland, the waste is deplorable. Compared to the extent of deforestation done if that was for an oil well or a natural gas well... Uh exactly the same. Roads, foundations, churned-up streams, all the same will happen regardless of the resource to be gained. Pipelines requires deforestation just like transmission lines. In the Dutch case they are "choosing" the reason for industrial activity in the countryside. If I recall correctly, peat is regularly scooped up to be burned in decorative fireplaces throughout Europe. Before making a judgement, consider the alternative.
Balancing loads on the grid is probably more complex than any of us "laymen" appreciate. Having listened to talks given by various representatives of electrical distribution regulators, and seeing their "balancing pool" output on-line in real-time, the system requires a lot of computers collecting a lot of data and directing plants to start up and shut down. Even in a limited market like a single province of Canada, here. For one of us "laymen" to look up at a turbine and infer what stage of operationg its in assumes we know a lot about the rest of the grid than we actually do.
Ground observations of the wind are not reliable indications of wind at high elevation. That laminar flow gradient that we former fluid-dynamics students remember is a statistical average shape. If I get anywhere near the lee of a building or a tree my perception of the wind speed and direction is strongly affected. So standing near a wind turbine and guessing why it's spinning while you feel naught but a breeze is no indication of much at all.
Politics, sadly, uses people's sentimentality to get what it wants. The current fad is to "go green" and wind turbines really are the poster child of the movement. So if you see a new wind farm in Alabama, it likely is politicians trying to score points by backing a project doomed to fail. If it's North Dakota, there's a real prospect of honest profit. Every state wants its "fair share" of the renewable business, but the resource is not spread out as fairly. Even MORE SAD, is that the average voter (any country - there is no america-bashing implied) doesn't know enough to judge the project's success or failure. So the politician can claim success no matter the outcome, next election. It's public ignorance that allows bad WT's to keep selling, and taxpayers to keep footing the bill for pork-barrel projects (wind or otherwise).
Well, there's my brain-dump. Personally I don't get judgemental about all wind energy just because of a few poorly-done installations. I live close to some successes and some failures. The successful WT's are suited to their task and site they are on. The failures are the mis-matches.
Steven Fahey, CET
