Windy Friday
Over the last months two new wind turbines were erected about three miles from my place. These are the biggest ones on can currently buy with a maximum output above 6 megawatt each. Yesterday the blades for the second one were lifted to the top of the 135 meter high tower. The crane used was the very first brand new Demag CC9800-1 and the lifted nose section with the three rotor blades weighed 369 metric tons.
bigger
Expected output from one of these is 20 million kilo watt-hours per year, enough for 5,000+ (European) households. High of the hub is 442 feet (135m), the rotor diameter 416 feet (127m), tower base diameter 48 feet (14,5m) - more here (pdf, page 6f).
To really get the size of this machine find the person in this picture:
bigger
The pictures are not mine, but stolen from a friend. More pictures of the lift are here and here
The whole setting up (and the cranes used) can be seen in this thread in a German crane-forum by navigating forward with the page-numbers ("Seiten") on the bottom.
Posted by b on April 24, 2009 at 17:25 UTC | Permalink
Who built this thing, and who designed it? Clearly the cranes themselves are German.
Enercon, the developer and builder of this turbines is a private German company. And yes the cranes are developed and build in Germany too though Demag is now part of Terex which is a U.S. company.
Very impressive - great series of pics.
Have you seen the numbers on payback time: first cost plus maintenance vs current fossil-generation & distribution? My windmill would be smaller and simpler - one can buy a kit to supply a single household but you have to be in a windy spot.
Posted by: rapt | Apr 24 2009 19:04 utc | 3
b-very nice
I was in Buffalo NY a couple of summers ago and I was impressed by the wind">http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/22/nyregion/windmillsA600.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/nyregion/22wind.html%3F_r%3D1%26ref%3Dnyregion%26oref%3Dslogin&h=280&w=600&sz=36&tbnid=OrK08nlrxYwzpM::&tbnh=63&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphoto%2Bof%2Bsteelwinds%2Bin%2Bbuffalo,%2Bny&hl=en&usg=__zM5ksHT_Tvt1nH9lHwzEEi5MGYY=&ei=RhPySf6ZJ5PGM-CctbIP&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image">wind turbines that dominate the lake skyling at an old steel mill. I thought they were pretty cool, but some locals think they're an eyesore. My buddy who was raised there thinks the wind turbines are nice and they give the city a modern focal point to contrast with the rust of dead and dying steel mills.
Posted by: DavidS | Apr 24 2009 19:34 utc | 4
Well, they've done a wonderful job. I've seen some big ones in Normandy, but this is HUGE!
Posted by: alabama | Apr 24 2009 20:35 utc | 6
Explain to me again how America is going to regain its economic primacy by leading the world in green energy? Oh, right, what they meant was, our new generation of rosy-cheeked mechanical engineers is going to get their asses kicked in the marketplace once again, so to put them to work the military-industrial complex will employ them to build new and deadlier standoff weapons.
Posted by: ...---... | Apr 24 2009 21:00 utc | 8
So, what's point?
To show as: crane, wind turbine, accomplishment of German engineering?
From eco-point of view they are OK. Is this solution? No.
Sorry. As far as I can see it. They are ugly!
Posted by: Balkanac | Apr 24 2009 21:01 utc | 9
Oh yeah? Big deal. You just wait till we get that clean coal thingamajig together, (cough, cough), spits.
Posted by: anna missed | Apr 24 2009 21:21 utc | 10
I would hate to be the guy on top of the nacelle as the blade assembly approaches....
Posted by: Peter VE | Apr 24 2009 22:16 utc | 11
http://i43.tinypic.com/5u21dl.jpg
DB Superior Pride - largest barge-mounted crane on earth at 2000 metric tons.
The 'little crane' amidships is a 150T Manitowac, the largest standard mobile
lattice-boom crane. The barge is used to dismantle in large sections the last
of the depleted North Sea oil platforms, now that Earth has achieved unlimited
renewable energy recycling keystroke impact power via the internet, following
the news release that 19 US banks will need Fed salvation to avoid bankruptcy.
Fire up your keyboards, the lights are getting dim at Washington and Wall Street!!
Posted by: Simple Simon | Apr 24 2009 22:39 utc | 12
b--Are these windmills the type that rotate slowly enough to not cause damage to birds, as, supposedly they enough time to avoid the blades? And are they too high to cause problems with night flyng bats?
Posted by: jawbone | Apr 24 2009 22:56 utc | 13
I have this concern. The winds spin along the spin of the Earth and when the power of the winds is reduced perhaps some of that reduction has some effect on the spin of the Earth. I realize that the effect of each turbine will be infitesimally small but when there are millions of these turbines shouldn't the effect on the spin be measurable? We have accepted this technology as if it were cost free but it must have some cost. Wouldn't it be thrilling if the Earth changed angular speed either faster or slower. Nobody seems to have adressed this problem. It seems that it is enough that a substitute for coal or petroleum be available to enthuse us into embracing it. The question is serious. Has some one an answer?
Posted by: jlcg | Apr 24 2009 23:26 utc | 14
The problem is that the average European uses about 5 kW (all energy, not just electricity) and wind farms only generate on average about 2 MW per square kilometre. Bigger turbines make no difference to this - they have to be spaced further apart. Even if we allocate 10% of the land surface to wind farms this will provide only enough energy for a population density of 20 people per square kilometre. European population density is about 400 people per square kilometre.
There are only two ways for Europe's energy needs to be supplied without fossil fuels. Either we build nuclear power stations like the French, or we negotiate with north African countries to use their deserts for concentrated solar thermal power, and build high-voltage DC connectors to carry the power efficiently to Europe. Concentrated solar power in deserts generates about 15 MW per square kilometre, so there's enough desert to supply the energy needs of Europe and north Africa.
Posted by: pmr9 | Apr 24 2009 23:39 utc | 15
jlcg #13 http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/headline_universe/earth_spin.html>Can Earth’s Spin Be Changed by Wind?
Compressed air generators in couple of years (google for info) , used just like an appliance in your home, no need for this monstrous expensive Dino.
Posted by: Syrian Nationalist Party | Apr 25 2009 2:39 utc | 18
As I understand it from a very good source, Ed Wallace who's website is www.insideautomotive.com and has a terrific radio show in Dallas on 570klif. anyway, Ed says, and he always speaks with the facts cited...those windmills work 8-11% of the time.
Sorry I can't recall the exact figure, but it was shockingly low. If someone e-mailed Ed, he would send to the reference. T-boone Pickens has been pushing these wind turbines for one reason.
Such an intermittent source of electricity requires power plants, REDUNDANT power sources that can be switched on and off. Only natural gas can off-set power supplies with relatively short notice. T-Boone owns more natural gas reserves than anyone in the USA.
Solar does provide a terrific opportunity however it too is subject to good weather. In the South especially in remote parts people have panels and live totally off the grid with TV A/C and fridge. They do live frugally and with a battery of batteries.
But, our power needs spike during daylight hours. So solar makes tremendous sense. Here's another funny point, if our rooftops could be sold off as mineral rights are, solar panels would be much farther along. There's no big money or monopoly on power if they open this us, why would they explore an uncontrollable resource?
Posted by: scott | Apr 25 2009 3:00 utc | 19
wind powers best when humid, and turbines block Kennedy and Cronkite views both dry and sticky. hydro in rivers and tidal basins needs to be safe for fish etc but would generate more power per speed of fluid. actually a neighbor in our warehouse building is a self-employed engineer, has a prototype for something pretty small, could generate electricity anywhere water flows, and catch both directions for tidal flows or in case Moses comes along. Is trying to get some funding for testing, modification, got the forms/permissions/licences to do so a couple of years ago at a particular Cape Cod location (I've forgotten which), now expired but re-instation shouldn't be difficult. Anyway, he's approaching the Stimulus tentacles/teats. Would make sense.
Personally, after the coasts go I expect stimulation of chaos by lack of power (also food, water, tv) and possibly plagues, including ethnically directed ones (Japanese and Koreans and all coastal Asians are gone from the earthquakes and ocean rise, but inland China needs tending) then welcome martial law and fitting (anti-terrorist) disappearances of people whose past e-mail/searches/comments suggest someone potentially pesky. Remember, it's all still out there, like the mind of God with just a little Alzheimer's. Phone numbers called and minutes conspiring are also automatically recorded, in case Tamerlane or Savonarola takes power, or maybe just the famous international bankers. (As I've said before, at that level they don't have religion, just business, and intermarriage fixes supposed ethnicities.) Machines search for key words like "paranoid" then meat agents follow through. Remember, they want 90% fewer "useless eaters", gonna take rolling up some sleeves and wrist fucking the human race.
When things are orderly, I suspect a Tesla based system of electricity from atmosphere and transmitted wirelessly will emerge. The coastal power plants (there for cooling sea water) will be gone, and J.P. Morgan did have 51% of $150,000 backing Tesla in experiments for same for a couple of years, long enough for his technical people and interested allies to judge and copy the designs. When Morgan pulled his money out, he told the holders of the 49% the scheme was fruitless, and oil has determined our situation/fortunes/wars.
When Tesla died 1/43 in Manhattan, alien and broke, the feds took his papers. The OSS loved wacky weapons, as does CIA, and Tesla was the original death ray guy. 66 years of Defense big bucks may well have developed the energy system we yearn for, plus it will serve only a Ted Turner/Kissinger/Cousteau optimum population.
MIT students last summer were transmitting electricity wirelessly for short distances, but Tesla (the guy who invented the a.c. system we use) claimed serious distance.
The problem is that the average European uses about 5 kW (all energy, not just electricity) and wind farms only generate on average about 2 MW per square kilometre. Bigger turbines make no difference to this - they have to be spaced further apart. Even if we allocate 10% of the land surface to wind farms this will provide only enough energy for a population density of 20 people per square kilometre. European population density is about 400 people per square kilometre.
Pop density in Europe is about 120 per square kilometer. In the U.S. it is less than half of that. Most new development in Europe for very big wind turbines will be on sea. Wind will be enough to replace some 30% of current electric capacity. We will need new ideas for the rest.
As I understand it from a very good source, Ed Wallace who's website is www.insideautomotive.com and has a terrific radio show in Dallas on 570klif. anyway, Ed says, and he always speaks with the facts cited...those windmills work 8-11% of the time.
That's wrong. One has to differentiate between full-load-hours, part-load-hours, no-load-hours - i.e. lots of wind, little win, no wind.
Old wind turbines had to shut down in storm and needed quite a bit of wind to work at all.
An E126 is able to deliver full load anywhere between full wind and little wind. Thanks to pitchable blades and the special generator it will deliver its max capacity in a wide range of wind conditions. Put on sea they will run 50% of the time at full-load condition plus 35-40% on part-load.
As far as wind turbines go, bigger seems to be better: Small windmills put to the test
Wind will be enough to replace some 30% of current electric capacity. We will need new ideas for the rest.
Electricity accounts for less than one-third of total energy consumption, so that means wind can replace less than 10% of total energy supply. The uneven output is manageable with pumped storage in mountain reservoirs and high-voltage DC to share the load across the continent: the problem is that in Europe there isn't enough land or shallow offshore sites. It's not just current electric capacity that has to be replaced - getting CO2 output down to the sustainable level of 1 tonne per person per year means replacing 90% of fossil fuel use. The only renewable source that can supply energy on this scale is solar thermal in deserts (withouthotair.com). For Europe this entails a long-term partnership with our neighbours in North Africa and the Near East - b and MoA readers might want to think about the geostrategic implications of this.
Posted by: pmr9 | Apr 25 2009 8:43 utc | 24
Ask someone who lives near one how they feel. Low frequency noise,shadow flicker, pollution of the night sky.
Not to mention the fact they are inefficient producers of electricity that only work best when they are placed exactly where raptors and migratory birds tend to favor,i e, where the wind is.
Not the answer.
Posted by: rs | Apr 25 2009 15:30 utc | 26
The problem is that the average European uses about 5 kW...
yup, that's the problem all right. and if renewable/sustainable sources will not provide that budget, the solution is to use less.
why is this so very, very hard to admit? the problem is always framed as "We have X number of people accustomed to using [a profligate amount of energy mostly for frivolous purposes at ridiculously low cost], therefore we must engineer a solution that will permit this unrealistic situation to continue." further framings include "And the number of people and their lifestyle demand is inevitably increasing so we must 'predict and provide' for an unbounded consumption." Since we know that infinite resources are not available, we know that unbounded consumption is not possible; yet we persist in trying to "plan" for it. (as for example in the tragicomedy of road and highway planning and construction).
it's kinda like our medical technology, which is increasingly geared to solving the following problem: "How can we make it possible for people to live an extended lifespan even while eating crappy malnutrional artificial food, getting almost no exercise, and being immersed in noise, stress, and a bath of industrial toxins and solvents from birth?" and then we proceed to spend billions on solving that problem via palliative techno-fixes which, not coincidentally, are proprietary, patented, and vastly lucrative.
[sigh]
it's hard to solve a problem of an elephant in the living room when the problem is always phrased in such a polite and euphemistic way as never to mention the elephant in the living room.
To underline DeAnander's statement:
Electricity consumption differs dramatically in households around the world. In fact, the average household in Europe consumes 4,667 kWh, in Japan 5,945 kWh per year, whereas the typical American household consumes 11,209 kWh. American households use three times more electricity for lighting, and twice as much in refrigerators than in the EU. This doesn't necessarily reflect a difference in comfort. As we'll explain, there are high efficiency appliances that consume 2 to 10 times less electricity for the same functionality, and that are usually of higher quality too.Or simply use less appliances, unplug power packs when not in use do not have TV and stuff on stand-by but shut them off ...Using only highly efficient and money saving appliances can reduce the electricity consumption of an average household to as low as 1,300 kWh/y, without any loss of comfort.
According to this Wikipedia article, Norway uses twice per capita (2,812 Mw) what Americans use. What are Norwegians doing with all that juice?
The Norwegians export energy in the form of aluminium, fertilizer, photo-voltaic grade silicon and other energy intensive products.
Posted by: Billibaldi | Apr 26 2009 12:59 utc | 30
One step forward, two steps back?
Wind farm may be torn down to make way for nuclear siteTo passionate advocates of the atom and renewable energy alike, this says it all. One of Britain's pioneering wind farms is threatened with demolition to make way for one of the Government's planned new generation of nuclear power stations.
The tall turbines of Haverigg wind farm, only the second commercial one to be built in Britain, have been turning for 17 years between the hills of the Lake District and the waters of the Duddon estuary on the Cumbrian coast. But they also happen to be right on one of 11 potential sites for new nuclear reactors announced by ministers 10 days ago.
Something went wrong when I posted the above; the URL is: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/wind-farm-may-be-torn-down-to-make-way-for-nuclear-site-1674379.html
The comments to this entry are closed.
Who built this thing, and who designed it? Clearly the cranes themselves are German.
Posted by: alabama | Apr 24 2009 17:38 utc | 1