Wind turbine in my backyard

That noise is music to my ears in the winter and the heat of summer. The power from the wind mills is heating or cooling my home. The heat saves me money and keep us from getting sick from chills. The cooling allows me a resite from the outdoor heat, we had our hottest summer on record last year. The cooling also keeps the whole family from dehydration and illness. So a little noise from a wind mill does not bother me at all. I am buying 2 used wind mills now for $500.00 to rebuild and install to lower my utlilty bills even further.

Only wish there was more win in the summer. I have never seen the summer in the mountains when it was hot and very little wind like last year. Only wind readable at times was 100+ above ground and getting even a small wind mill that high is a real pain!

A horizontal wind screw would be a cool energy tool.

Agreed! Don't look too bad either.

There have been many variable opinions and perspectives on this forum and through other conversations over this topic. Of course everyone agrees that we need a better source of energy. And it appears on the surface that wind turbines could help in the production of clean energy.

The "not in my backyard" issue is the tough question. If there is any slightest possible affect of a wind turbine upon my family I owe it to them to become educated and protect them from any harm that may come to them. I don't care if it's saving the planet or the environment. My first responsibility is to my family. Yes, saving the planet is a responsibility to my family, but direct ill effects are priority.

These wind farms seem to have an optimistic reputation except to those who have to live near them. And thoughts of the Love Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal) and other environmental episodes of nearsightedness come to mind.

What will happen when one of these turbines catch fire? Our rural volunteer firefighters are not equipped to deal with this. And flaming debris falling 300 feet to the ground could end up anywhere. Especially considering it most probably will happen in high winds.

How will the skyline look after these companies go broke and the once shiny white towers are grey and motionless.

How do I sell my home and retire when these towers create a sound "One resident described the effect as like being near "an endless train."" It has been reported that it affects people, livestock and wildlife.

It is not like Niagara Falls where the source is limited to one area. In Canada there are many areas with wind that are not populated. Being close to the grid is cheaper for transmission. But why do rural families have to make the sacrifice for these energy companies to justify their project costs?

I would rather see legislation banning phantom power in appliances or efforts to develop highly efficient "everything". It just makes more sense in the long run.

But why do rural families have to make the sacrifice for these energy companies to justify their project costs?

Because if they're put on private property they can build as many as they damn well want to. The carrot on the end of that stick (in Canada) is a promise of $5g's/yr/windgen income on land that is virtually useless. But like I said before the onus on liability in case anything goes wrong is with the landowner....and so far I haven't seen a single insurance company willing to sell a policy of that nature.

John Day Dam(1959-68) 183'--2160MW

The Dalles Dam(1952-57) 260'--1779.8MW

Bonneville Dam(1933-43 & 1974-81) 197'-- 1084.9MW

Mcnary(1947-56) 183'--980 MW

The order these dams are on the river--Starting upstream and moving down is: Mcnary, John Day, The Dalles and then Bonneville.

6004.7MW actual, 1501.175MW average and 8640MW potential. 24hrs a day 7days a week.

There is possibly higher than 2635.3MW that could be recovered by applying what technology was used on the John Day Dam. There are 11 dams total, just on the Columbia river.

I will try to find a fair value for how many wind turbines this represents.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/274995

Why two foils then w/NASA and DOE engineers seeking results? Fluke? Why 3 now?

This statement In Canada there are many areas with wind that are not populated.

Completely unpopulated or just with hillbillies that don't count?

That mindset is unsettling- What will we gain from it? A lot? Some? or a little?

Huh?

"Not populated" is pretty self explanatory.

In this instance, we are the "hillbillies" that are being seen as redundant.

Unless consensus amongst the hillbillies (most of us here in Canada) is to allow windgen erection on adjacent public lands then our provincial govt will allow and rake in the loot (not good....it just encourages them....sort of like voting for the b........s).

The target of the windgen industry is private landowners with resultant agreements and contracts ad nauseum infinitum which brings it into denser populated areas.

Currently those northern flat lying areas that are barely populated and those communites found there can benefit from windgens....if the winds warrant their construction. Otherwise the unpopulated area is so vast that building a transmission grid into it would be cost prohibitive. Most areas of this nature (in Ontario) have small hydro dams and a few rivers have been dammed in such a way as to allow reservoirs supplying the generators all year. These projects are normally hundreds of miles in length and utilize spring runoff.

Some yaers ago a study was conducted addressing the potential of building a dam across the length of James Bay. Had the hypothetical dam been built most power utilities in North America would need to shut their doors.

Duck, is Hydro Quebec completed? Are they building anywhere today?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec%27s_electricity_transmission_system

James Bay 1 is complete though not to full potential....not to mention shoddy grid tower construction. Great Whale is on ice. The environmental impact was the deciding factor (or so they say).

To secure the funding for JB 1 they sold the power to New York state at a ridiculously low price. Smaller utilities in the US became concerned that any further development would impact the local economies.

There's enough potential hydro power in Ontario, Manitoba, Labrador and Quebec to supply NA.

So it's politics as usual, eh?

Politics, jobs, control, security...........

What's interesting is that in throughout Ontario were once many small turbines supplying local communities. These were left to rot by the promise of BIG POWER and now there's plans to rebuild some of the existing structures. Unfortunately windgen is the 'green' alternative here.

My community has managed to salvage an Edison turbine built in 1919. Most of it is bronze and is in good condition.

I had considered buying property solely for the reason that it had hydro generation potential.

It gets difficult to go ahead with a project like that with the ministry restricting everything.

There is a stream that bisects my property and I'm not even supposed to span it with a foot bridge without ministry approval. At a fee of course.

In many cases I agree with the ministry here. Damming small streams or somehow changing the flow can have harmfull effects down the road (as in burst dams and resultant road washouts, destruction of fish habitats, introduction of diseased fish through commercial fish ponds etc etc. )

Generally we rely on the ministry to supply raw data and work with them on any possible new ideas that may come up. For private landowners they are very helpfull in assessing timber stands and agricultural evaluation.

Their mandate is conservation but that doesn't always jive with the government that is in power at the time.

Don't span it. Funnel the water into a flume and use it to turn a water wheel. Run a generator off the wheel. They can't say a word about that.

An interesting article from my native state:

http://www.physorg.com/news76555636.html

I don't want the things atop my beloved Green Mountains. Perhaps 10 miles out to sea wouldn't bother anyone.

That's what it's all about man. They're damn ugly and a blot on the landscape.

I have managed to read through all the new posts--

2,485 MW

It is the overload output of John Day Dam --(2160MW)

This is just a fact that I offer to keep things in perspective.

I will try to participate after I get some family time in--It is (family) THE only thing that really matters.

It would drive the cost even higher for construction, maintenance and operation.

For sure, but they want to put them in Nantucket Sound. Seems like a perfectly good place to me, but not to others:

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/category/locations/americas/us/massachusetts/

The residents of Nantucket could possibly see them on a clear day, in the distance,with a glass. I think their real concern is slamming into them with their yachts, whilst drunk.

Here's a couple anti-windgen sites:

http://www.wind-watch.org/

http://www.ridgeprotectors.org/

I'm not against windgens, but I am against putting them just anywhere.

It happens:

There are no great fields emanating from wind turbines. In the generator housing, the fields are contained within the stator cell. It is clean, non-interruptive energy. I don't put much credence in what the tree-huggers report, usually they get their info from the same websites that believe nuclear energy, is 'dirty power'.

This is a copy paste from a new thread:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26697/Price-construction-of-windturbines

State line was and is a Florida Power & Light project in Washington and Oregon--Seattle City Light has contracted to buy some or all of the power--Seattle City Light web page claims construction cost to be at $2 million a MW--Within reasonable distance of $3.6 per 1.5MW.($2.4/MW)

Something interesting: John Day Dam output-in megawatts is twice that of Bonneville Dams'(Almost exactly twice) JJD-2160MW, and Bonneville-1084.9MW.

The John Day Dam is upstream, two dams and has a height of 183'(The Dalles Dam is between them). Bonneville is 197' tall.

1075.1 MW difference--The Wind, White Salmon, Klickitat and the Dechutes rivers enter the Columbia after the John Day Dam. These are all substantial rivers and are not taken into consideration. The John Day Dam was built between 1959-1968. The Bonneville Dam was built from 1933-1943 for an output of 526,700MW and in 1974-1981 had a second power house built that more than doubled the output(558,200MW).

NOW--By Buznegs construction cost of $2.4 million a MW--This represents $2,580,2400 or my $2,150,200,000. That is 2.58 or 2.15 BILLION DOLLARS.

This is ONE dam and a conservative estimate and is based on technology differences of 1968 versus 1943 and 1981.

We could remodel/rebuild one dam and affect very little and there is enough potential gain to offset 10 huge wind farms. (based on 35%,out of the 30-35% figure published in the wiki info for state line)

100% grid penetration--Roll On Columbia Roll ON.

I think people should get a choice--If one wants wind power, they should get it and that's all, and they should be required to live where the generators are.

Kilgore,

Those are some interesting figures and good thinking. Water power is indeed an underutilized resource. In fact many streams could be producing power through the use of turbines suspended in the water. Our local utility has investigated the concept and found the major drawback to be cost of the enviromental impact statements. As each separate instalation would require one the ammortized costs just wouldn't pay out.

Kilgore -

That's great and we should definitely tap all the hydro that we can responsibly tap (most of the big sources in the U.S. are already in production).

BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH!

That was my point in a previous post. No SINGLE source is going to make up for oil. We'll need hydro, wind, tidal, solar, and most of the other sources that you can think of. We've been very spoiled by oil

I agree completely--I just stumbled into this dam efficiency thing.

I had always heard that the John Day Dam was the biggest producer. I didn't realize by how much. Just a smidgen over twice the output of a dam almost a hundred miles downriver. Dollar values aside--The megawatt output is enough to offset 10 huge wind farms.

I wish we could get the power we already have flowing through the dams that we aren't getting anything out of. Then spend tons of money researching and developing something new or improving wind generators. I personally think solar concentration is fascinating--I was the kid burning stuff with a lens.

H-E-B and Wind Energy Corporation announced today the successful installation of a state-of-the-art vertical axis wind turbine at the H-E-B retail support center in Weslaco, Texas, marking a historic milestone in accessible, renewable energy. The turbine, which is installed adjacent to the facility, is now functional, generating electricity, and operating at speeds as low as four miles per hour

Interesting. It doesn't appear to have a lot of blade area - how much power does it generate?

Hey, I am currently doing a Masters degree with respect to Wind Energy and Climate Change.

I always look at it this way. I would rather have a wind turbine in my back-yard than a nuclear reactor. Agreed we will need a lot more wind turbines than reactors, but if something goes wrong with a reactor the neigbourhood included is a lot larger.

Some people sometimes make issue of noise, but that is usually not an issue. On a sunny day, some have issues with the shadows cast from the tower, and the blades, but again, the are usually issues considered in placement, and on the whole won't affect you.

Wind turbines are not usually built incredible close to where people actually live. What do you mean by your area?

With respect to the birds there has been considerable research. It isn't really an issue. For a few reasons: more birds species will suffer as a result of climate change if we don't do something about fossil fuel use.

If placement is considered the flight paths of birds again, will not be an issue.

You will find information regarding bird deaths in a great deal of the literature, the truth is birds are more likely to die flying into your kitchen window, or by being eaten by the family cat.

Hope this helps

S

Sounds like a sales pitch.

Since you will become a master--Answer these two questions, if you can:

1-Why did they change from two foils to three?

2-Why did they slow down the RPMs?

For aesthetics and birds at the cost of efficiency, from what I have read.

This Mod-2 windmill was engineered by NASA and Boeing for the DOE in the mid seventies.

From what I've read, the main reason that three blades (and slower speed) are preferable to two blades (and higher speed) is because of acoustic noise. Three-bladed turbines are quieter.

Wind Turbine Technology Offshore (PDF)

Wind Turbine Blade Design (PPT)

Wind Turbine Design - Blade Count

Noise varies as the seventh power of the blade speed. Since three-bladed rotors can run at slower speeds that two-bladed rotors for the same power output, they make less noise.

Steve

Hi Steve--

Excellent links, although I couldn't get the powerpoint file.

The point I was making is that engineering has changed from producing the most energy efficiently(as they did in the late 1970s)--To trying to make everyone happy and producing some power.

From what I read, the efficiency penalty isn't that much (a few percentage points). Such compromises are common in engineering. Until the catalytic converter was developed, automobile engines were de-tuned from their maximum fuel efficiency point in order to reduce emissions. Hydroelectric plants balance energy production with ecosystem considerations (water levels, river flow rates, etc..).

Sure.

Dam draw downs are one.

Not good ideas, just popular with some people. Draw down dams--and need wind power. Prescibe something fruity and lose one source of power and require another.

I say optimize and refine and recover what we have, and please dont DISABLE IT and then call THAT progress or engineering.

I am not prepared to compromise on anything.

Wind turbines are a new, environmentally friendly way to produce energy. Currently, the electricity used in your house comes from the burning of coal, which is a lead contributor to pollution of our environment. Turbines are a "green" way of producing the same energy, with no pollution. To answer your wife's question, no, there are no negative health effects of living near wind turbines. Wind turbines are merely large metal rods with blades swinging from the top of them. The only complaints that have been made about wind turbines is that they aren't very physically appealing. If you're willing to look at wind turbines without being constantly bothered, there is no negative aspect. You should feel lucky that your community is taking part in such a "green" project, as you are no longer polluting the environment from energy consumption.

I have heard of some issues due to shadow flicker from blades that had a gloss finish, most turbines have a dull matt finish due to this.

Other that that they're safe, have worked in the industry a while and haven't seen or heard of a bird or animal being injured by a turbine, do know of at least one human who injured themselves while erecting one though.