Each wind turbine has a buoyant trunk. The wind turbines are held together, to each other, by steel bars forming a rigid phalanx structure of wind turbines. The whole floating structure is firmly attached to the sea floor via cables. Similar to floating oil rigs firmly attached to the sea floor via cables. Floating offshore windfarms will supply energy to coastal communities.
Wind turbines are UGLY and they kill birds. I've been through Palm Springs, CA twice and it was 2 times too often.
Putting wind turbines off shore where no one can see them is a great idea.
In less than a week two really great big time ideas on energy have been posted here.
It's amazing what a 20% increase in gas prices will do.
Bret Cahill
I think they are quite sculptural, interesting and peaceful to watch turn. So they really turn fast enough to kill a bird? I suspect no more than big glass windows.
I'm not sure they are going to be able to put them far enough off shore to not be visible, transmitting power back to land would be some distance and water depth would be incredible.
Here is a photo of the Danish Hornsrev off-shore wind-farm, as it appears from the best vantage point on land (17 km distance, elevation
20 m).Here is another photo from the beach, distance 25 km, from where 23 m of the turbines are below the horizon, and 87 meters visible above it:
150 years ago the whole landscape of most European countries, was dotted with windmills. They were not a problem then, so why should they be one now. You see cattle grazing underneath them. They take up very little pasture land. They can even be made to look like old fashioned windmills if that is what people want.
150 years ago the whole landscape of most European countries, was dotted with windmills. They were not a problem then, so why should they be one now. You see cattle grazing underneath them. They take up very little pasture land. They can even be made to look like old fashioned windmills if that is what people want.
People don't know what they want... They complain about fossil fuel fired power plants and scream for "sustainable" alternatives. Sustainable alternatives come along and people whine about the "spoiled landscape" and some dead birds. Somebody will complain about whatever the alternative to windmills comes along. You can't make them happy.
Methinks most of these people would prefer we go back to living in caves and grubbing for berries that have fallen to the forest floor.
Amazing the stories you can tell with lens selection.
Here is a photo from California where most of northern Europe is below the horizon.
I couldn't see a damn thing. Next time you're taking a photo of europe would you tell that girl to get out of the way?
Let's keep it that way, as I prefer a northern Europe view:
Ya know, I admit that it took me a while to notice that the first pic was of California. But the second is blatantly not of Europe or California... I think you should take the male optical illusion" test just to be sure your vision is OK.
distance and
"spoiled
whatever
About off shore stuff to all.
Hibernia Oil platform (off coast of Newfoundland, the one the USAF wants to shoot a titan missile over), Mass= 1,200,000 tons ~ mass 12 CVN,s.
The displacement of Hibernia is about equal to all the USA's nuclear carriers combined.
In the 70's there were Global Security concerns (Global includes US and USSR national security) about putting reactors in India and Pakistan, canucks AECL went and subsidized them anyway, you know the rest.
At that time a viable was put forth, to maintain nuclear control but still electrify developing nations cheaply using nuclear power.
Ships in the >100,000 ton class, up to the
1,000,000 ton oil platform type rigs, specifically dedicated to be "portable nuclear generators" would be moored off shore and connected to the national grid by what is basically an extension cord.There's no technical problem, USS Enterprise has numerous reactors operating without incident since
1960, lifespan 50 years.It solves the NIMBY, solves the profliferation, solves the energy crunch, and can be removed if an emergency were to occur, and another subbed in, or the customer doesn't pay.
Most importantly, it doesn't harm birds:)
Why wasn't it done?
Try telling an influential and entrenched industry who knows how to put up concrete blocks on the ground that ship or sub based reactors really work. (Note the eyes glaze over look).
Regards Ken S. Tucker
What the??? Have you been reading up on the NYSCC Stadium stuff or somethin' ???
One wonders why the people who ask such questions bother to breathe.
Then there are the others that never open their eyes and go about there whole life hurting the environment with a huge smile on their face.
There was only three words there and none of them have multiple meanings.
I am sure almost everybody has about the same understanding of
"hurting the environment"
I believe it means disturbing the earth in a manner that will eventually do a disservice to mankind.
Did you have another perceived meaning you can try to build some case with?
I'll be willing to bet my definition is different from yours... Superfically not so much, but fundamentally profoundly different.
Yeah...that's a, nice & simple definition that doesn't take into account he law of unintended consequences.
No...but apparently you do....
Funny you should try so hard to hide.
Pretty hard for all of us to take a troll as yourself seriously.
Maybe try again with some reality in your words?
buh bye
Me, a troll? LOL...
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.