Turbine Site for Sore Eyes

Apparently they kill a lot of birds on land also. I wonder how many Sea Birds they will kill. Is this a significant environmental impact. Do you need an EIR if you go far enough out to sea?

I can think of many engineering, maintenance, transmission and cost issues that would seriously outweigh any aesthetic issues. Bird issues are going to exist where ever you have any structure. You'd be surprised how many birds I found dead or seriously injured at our cottage during my childhood years. Birds have been running into buildings and windows since we started to put them up.

Giant Bird-Eating Turbines are an Eco-Myth. It does happen, but not in significant numbers. Click here to see what TreeHugger has to say about it. Even the Eco-Nazis realize this is a false claim, but as with all zealots, sometimes no amount of contrary evidence can satisfy those that believe it. The problem is, the zealot minority seems to have the ear of the Political Morons Who Make Money Passing Stupid Laws.

Here are the problems I can see with mounting Wind Turbines at sea:

1. Structural Supports. The structural supports would have to be much more massive. Not only would they have to be much taller to overcome water depth, they also have to be much stronger structurally to battle currents, tidal effects and storms. There are also inherent problems securing any permanent structure to the sea bed. Even if you just cable anchored a floating platform, there are still costs and maintenance. and with a cabled platform, you have orientation issues to overcome. All are able to be overcome, but at what costs?
2. Maintenance Issues. Salt water is extremely corrosive. Barnacles are tenacious. Storms are powerful. Getting crews out to work on and maintain the equipment would be much more expensive, time consuming and hazardous.
3. Transmission of Power. Underwater cable is much more expensive to both produce and to install as it has to deal with the hazards of the deep as well. And it's repair costs would be similarly high.

I don't think the slightly higher average wind would overcome these inherent liabilities. I don't particularly like the look of semi's barreling down highways, or power-lines lining streets and transfer corridors. But I'd rather have the goods and power. We need to quit pandering to a few whining zealots. If we had let the aesthetics of a few sway progress, we'd still be hunting our food with sticks.

Now, as long as these people think they can make money at it, they should surely try. That's capitalism and innovation. But if it's being done with public money, it's a fraud. Something like Bio-fuels. The energy and pollution to make ethanol is, at present, about 50-200% higher (depends on who you listen to) than those associated with the discovery, production and use of fossil fuels. Yet hundreds of Billions of dollars of tax-payer money has been given to a currently flawed idea.

That takes all that money out of the economy for real innovators to make things that work.

Having experienced many NEPA and CEQA IS/MNDs and EIR processes. It has become clear that the biological, cultural resources, and aesthetic components required by law are more about public perception and agencies vying for project control, than real viable attempts to mitigate truly significant environmental impacts. The bird kills of raptors on Altamont made the LA and SF newpapers and TV news. Government bureaucrats tend to take a very strong position in favor of whatever direction the public awareness is heading. Plus a certain number of the government specialists in these field would be unemployable if it was not for the strictest enforcement of "no significant impact" without agency accepted mitigations.

Well, new and hot of the presses. Someone is trying it.

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/forbes/2008/0225/062.html

I have a feeling there's government money involved, but not certain, not knowing much about Norway's electrical infrastructure. But there seem to be several companies willing to attempt it.

Oh I believe the European will attempt it and work out the kinks. Given the permitting process in the Western US, it is unlikely to occur anytime in the future until someones in US F&Ws concerns about the impact on a minnows breeding habits, or a sea bird, etc.. are alleviated.

The bottom line is, do you want to worry about a few birds, or do you want electricity?

Just depends on your recipes (duck). The fowl kill rate on even the worst turbines in the least favorable conditions is still minuscule. Even the worst puerile eco-maniacal rags have admitted this. The larger the diameter of the blade span = less speed and less energy capture (I.E. less of the wind column in contact with the blade). Pathetic at best.

Problem is, I can show you one that eliminates the whole bird problem and can utilize between 40 and 70% of the air column. And I didn't invent it. It's just not rotational, it's a pump action and works on the principles of a wing. Would you rather have 3 blades with 4% wind column contact try to capture, or 1 wing with 25% wind column capture? Add multiple wings and you could get up to 60% column capture.

It's not rocket science, its physics. Hmm, 3 blade system, been around since the invention of the airplane engine. Blade surface area is less than 3% of the 360 degree arc.

Now, think of a wing configuration. Think the Fokker Tri-plane. Just as an example. But the object is not to cut the airflow but to accept it and channel it. A propeller is designed to pull air utilizing an outside power source. A wing is designed to use the existing air flow. Which one does better on a power/surface ratio?

This is not new physics, it's just myopically channeled physicists, This is not 'think outside the box' stuff...this is remember what the box is...stuff.

I've seen the big installes...60' blades that have a max (center) width of 5' tapering off either side to 2'. I don't have the math to give you an actual surface area on those but if you had a 20'x4' wing, you'd approx triple the surface area at an estimate and therefore triple your power return. I can design it with my limited knowledge. Therefore it isn't rocket science.

And given the greater surface area and slower movement...bird training is less of an issue. Hence the difference between government subsidized application and viable application.

Sorry, but get government involved and you get the worst of both worlds.

Hi,

It is very interesting what you say. Theoretically only a lower part of air energy can be harvested.

But I am curious and since you think to have a better solution I would highly appreciate to have a more detailed description.

A couple of years ago I was for a limited time connected to a project which also went into the direction of high harvest based on a special rotor design. I made some suggestions but the inventor was too convinced he was right and he went directly to the wall and crushed the project.

I would like to see if your thoughts go in same direction as mines.

The offshore aspects are nothing new. We have been doing offshore oil production for many many years. Currently there are a number of off shore wind farms either in service or on the books. The latest is the London array offshore England.