For what they do, you only need one here and one there.
Besides, sometimes there's not enough wind to turn two windmills.
Windmills require NO maintenance (except to turn the vane so they'll quit pumping).
ANYTHING with moving parts requires maintenance. For that matter, anything that sits outside, moving parts or not, eventually requires maintenance. The trick is to make those required upkeep chores as cheap and easy as possible.
-- aem sends...
One of the windest places in the North east is the top of Mt. Washington. Lets put a bunch of windmills up there. Probably could power the whole NE.
There are several nuclear power plants within 100 miles of here, they don't bother me a bit. But the damned windmills that are popping up annoy me no end.
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...
Whose design, do you know? The common German design used around here is a fixed 22.5 rpm irrespective of wind speed from minimum to max for voltage control. But again, these are large farms that are dispatched, not scattered single onesy, twosy type of installations. But, each turbine is monitored and can be controlled remotely.
Gray Co that I've mentioned before is 170 660KW Vesta for a total installed capacity of 112.2 MW. Basic statistics are at
generating capacity
...
I don't think Doppler radar can do dry air wind speed--it's the rain particles entrained in the air that they measure afaik.
--
HeyBub wrote: ...
If there's enough to turn one, there's enough to turn as many as you wish -- they don't interfere.
...
Snicker, snort... :)
You've obviously never tried to keep a bunch of them running on a large ranch... :(
--
I am not sure but this is typical of the ones scattered around the Niagara area of Ontario
The ones in Minot ND only pitch the tips.
These are the ones off the Fort Erie coast. The ones in Cape Cod would be about 8 times farther away. I am not sure how much of the view they would obstruct. It would just be a white dot on the horizon.
There are legitimate concerns with putting up windmills just anywhere. While I'm no fan of the Kennedys and you certainly can call them hypocrits because they run around advocating green solutions, I agree that they have a legitimate concern about putting up offshore windmills that destroy a pristine view. Here in NJ there was a plan to put 350ft high windmills offshore within sight of land. To me, that is unacceptable. The last thing we need to do is turn a beautiful ocean view into an industrial one. We spend a huge amount of money here buying up open land and forest to keep it natural and from being developed. To then turn around and destroy one of the most priceless views makes no sense.
If they can be located beyond sight, then I have no problem with that. But even that gets blocked by environmentalists, who then moan about bird strikes, harm to fish, etc. I'd also seriously question the economics of offshore windmills as compared to other alternatives.
Heaven forbid someone has to look at a windmill. It's much more pleasant to look at smoke stacks, light poles and exhaust pipes. Houston Texas now gets
25% of it's electricity from windpower. Texas gets 10% of it's electricity from windpower. I doubt if .0005% of the people in Texas have seen a windmill.We are also starting to get a lot of our water from the gulf of Mexico through desalination processes. Nobody seems to complain about that huge desalination plant on the coast. Phil Gramm was right, "we';ve become a nation of whiners". Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Either welcome progress or shut up and accept your lot in life.
What about the view from the water? We don't seem to mind turning the beach into condos and parking lots
Not to mention the 2-legged whales in droves... :( :)
Or, what's so different to watching a multi-thousand ton ship that is supposedly "scenic" as compared to a windmill that takes up far less area--just that it stays still??? It seems somehow an incongruous argument to me...
--
This is also why people fight the idea of public beaches. They want theirs and then everyone else is on their own.
Ships come and go (most importantly here "go") while a windmill is forever. I would bet that is the argument. Also depends on the ship. I know a couple of people who got their condos near the cruise port because they got a kick out of watching them come and go. Sorta like people used to do with trains.
So the ships can come (and go :) ) in front of and behind the windmill...the cattle do here and people stop to take 'pichurs' ...
--
That has yet to be demonstrated...
...
And how, precisely, do you think this magical event is going to happen?
We've had this discussion before and your vision of some nuclear explosion is simply not physically realizable.
--
Uh, while I don't agree that they are particularly excellent terrorist targets, the lack of demonstration is hardly reassuring.
He'd not talking about a nuclear explosion, he's talking about flying something explosive into the waste retention area, thus scattering high level waste over a wide area.
What you know! If a jar of pickles can spontaneously explode and destroy twelve city blocks with massive fatalities and render the whole area a toxic pit, then spent fuel rods are similarly vulnerable.
The point is to get any reasonable amount of power from windmills you need not, one "plant", not one ship, but thousands of them. And IMO, putting these 375 foot tall structures offshore and ruining the view when they are within sight of land is a major issue and would be a big mistake.
I already stated that here we have one nuke within 20 miles of my house. We have 3 more nukes in NJ. I'd be happy if they built more. I'd be happy if they opened up offshore to drilling, out of sight of land. I'd be OK with windmills located offshore out of sight from the beach. We have fall out in pollution from the coal fired plants to our west. We have major oil refineries supplying many other states with gasoline and diesel. Must we have to agree that windmills off the beach are a great idea too, just to make you happy?
That they aren't is pretty much self-evident to anyone who knows anything about them...there are far easier and more likely to be useful targets as has been amply demonstrated already.
I don't think he can make a credible scenario out of that, either...
--
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...
As long as you think we have to have them on the pristine plains, then yes, I do...
"HeyBub" wrote in news:qLOdnRaf5qSYZxTVnZ2dnUVZ_s snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:
Hmmmm, I've never noticed a legal disclaimer at the end of the pickle aisle. I'll have to take better notice next trip.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.