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
A summary of it's operational potential -- I've done the same on a
monthly basis from EIA statistics over a six-year period and found
essentially the same values.
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.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:42:01 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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.
Meaning, exactly what? That the locations suitable for windmilss are
so extremely limited that offshore Cape Cod, which most people would
agree is a pristine view, is on the short list? According to
Pickens, the whole midwest of the USA is highly suitable for wind
Thanks for the ignorant slam. Perhaps you can share with us where
you superior folks live so we can return the favor.
Last time I checked there are many viable and more practical ways to
produce electricity besides windmills. We get an insignificant amount
of power from them today and could easily continue to do so in the
future without any great calamity.
Only if most people there are OK with having windmills there. There
could be benefits that make them attractive as well. Some areas have
clearly agreed to have them. Palm Springs, CA is one example. If
the tax revenue base, jobs, etc makes them worthwhile and the locals
are OK with it, then it's fine with me. On the other hand, if some
other areas don't want them because they ruin our view of the ocean
and choose nuclear power, do you have a problem with that?
If you'll actually choose and do, no; I'd far prefer it over wind as
being the most reliable, cost-effective solution for central generation
even here. OTOH, it's that area of the country that has also shut down
at least one and forced another to never start up over nothing but
populist politics and NIMBY-ism.
The problem I have is that most who don't want option a, b, c, ... want
the benefits but none of the requirements to help with any alternative
option and are more than glad to let somebody else take their garbage
(so to speak). CA building in AZ comes to mind as does their incessant
Well, sure. People in Oklahoma are used to windmills, albeit much smaller
ones. Windmills are everywhere.
People in Oklahoma are also used to oil wells. And Indians.
Oklahoma is Texas' attic; the place where we store all our crazy aunts.
A windmill here and there is a far cry from several hundred wind
And, altho beside the point, the number of windmills is rapidly
dwindling as there is a use for solar that is catching on pretty quickly
where they haven't gone to submersible grid power (or in many places
they're making the move to solar from the grid). Water tables are lower
and windmills require a lot of maintenance.
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.
Took a while to find it on the web, but for the prime example...
Windmills: surviving on the Plains
By DARLA BRACKEN
"The XIT Ranch had 325 windmills over its vast 3 million acres and a
special full time crew to take care of them. There were many different
types and designs and hundreds of companies manufacturing them between
the 1880s and into the 1920s and 1930s."
While others weren't as large as the XIT, the fulltime windmill crew was
a common occupation until thru the 30's into the war years on the High
Plains. The manpower shortage during the war really was the beginning
of the emphasis to shift to alternate power sources although it didn't
become terribly prevalent until the 50s and 60s as electric power
distribution lines expanded drastically w/ the advent of the electric
It was also dangerous business often, having to climb a tower w/ a
runaway vane after the brakeline had broken being one of most perilous.
(1) We were supplied totally by wind until after WWII when in '48 got
REA hookup for the first time. Until then, both windmill and Delco 32V
windcharger system were our water and only electric power on the place.
The windcharger was immediately decommisioned, of course, the windmill
continued until the well casing failed and a new well was drilled in the
mid/late 50s. It, of course, used submergible pump and much larger
nuke plants have that little problem with waste hazardous for a
million years, and make excellent terrorists targets.
the used fuel pools are in unhardened steel buildings, a airliner, or
small plane into one of those buildings would make thousands of miles
of land unihabitabe.
i am all for nuke power once they solve the waste problem.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.