New Record: World’s Largest Wind Turbine (7+ Megawatts)







WiredForStereo of The Way explains the operation of these new turbines:







A graph of the World’s Largest Wind Turbines.

Comments 438




      Why is so little going into wave and tide power generation?









    1. The blades are 75 meters. Diameter = 154 meters includeing the HUB. Just to correct you 🙂


    413*pi = 1298 ft
    1298/5 = 260 ft/sec
    (260/88)*60 = 177 mph





    With regards to nuclear power the following:


    Anton Cordier.













    Crazy idea eh?


    Local recycling must make more sense than extraction.

    Curent process……..

    wonder why?
    Any thoughts on my thoughts are welcomed……

    This is a good thread!



    1. one4gaia,


      The easy sell:


      Here a copy of an earlier post of mine:


      Please realize:
      20% of 20% = 4%

      By for instance:
      2. Educating the general population how to save energy.

















            Please decrease your export surplus with US!


            Don’t believe it? Google it!



            A very Dutch (European 🙂 )









        1. Mike, my english may be kind of rusty, but….what the %&¤## are you rambling on about???




  19. The (RSA) DTS unique design allows us to build (wind turbines) HAWT’s over 20 MW per unit operating at a wind speed of 11 m/s. That is three times the size of your 7 MW wind turbine (please publish the wind speed required to generate 7 MW from your wind turbines to readers, it is not for us, because we can calculate that ourselves).

    Anton Cordier

  20. This windmill has been put to shame. The new KiteGen system uses kites to produce renewable wind energy for as low as 0.03 Euros per kilowatt hour. As they build the KiteGen wind power systems to get bigger their efficiency increases exponentially. The largest size being studied so it can be made in the future is a 25km diameter KiteGen that produces 60GWs a year. These create no shadow, take up very little land area since most is in the sky, and create relatively low amounts of noise.

  21. trying to answer people’s questions. I have been in the power generation and finance world for all of my adult life, working for hedge funds and energy companies. Hopefully this will help answer some of the questions.

    1) Reni, no those turbines are not anywhere close to the largest in the world. More than likely they are 1.5 MW GE machines

    2) nuclear is important. BUT, as an energy consultant I see nuclear as the best solution and best answer. its the most effective form of energy, but it would cripple the oil and gas and renewable industry businesses so bad it would devastate the global economy.

    3) average cost per project is about $2.2 m per MW (cost are going down as turbine prices and construction prices are going down)

    4) You cant use rail systems effectively for turbines. You only get savings on rail if you travel 50 cargo loads over 5,000 miles. I have worked with shipping turbines in the past, its very difficult process. rail is ideal, BUT it just cost so much money by rail. Plus, unless the wind farm is right at the off-ramp to the railway, you still have to spend the money to load them on the trucks. Shipping is about $150 k per MW to anywhere in the U.S. thats 50 feet or 5,000 miles. (just very basic rough numbers)

    5) those Enercon turbines work ideal in lower wind speeds…about 7.5 meters per second

    6) if you support wind, then you should support natural gas. Gas sets the margin for energy pricing in most windy states, so wind prices are hedged to gas pricing.

    7) most turbines from India are not financiable and that is why we dont see more turbines from Suzlon in the U.S.

    8) GE, Vestas, Siemens, Enercon, are tier 1 turbines. Gamesa, Nordex, Unison, Suzlon, Clipper, Nordic, Furlander, etc are some other well known brands

    9) U.S. needs an energy bill….period

    10) Most payout on wind is about 10 years or less. Payouts are generated from Tax equity investors from hedge funds, banks, institutional lendors, and oil and gas companies.

  22. reply to…… Neves Terriani Laera.
    I can not believe how short sighted and nieve you are being in thinking there is no place for Nuclear and that wind power is more important !
    Ask the French how their electricity supply would function without Nuclear power stations, ask the french how long they have been operating safely. Ask them how many lives have been lost in comparison to other industries.
    What you will find is that it is safer by a country mile to work in the Nuclear industry than to cross the road and walk to the local shop.
    Yes, Nuclear accidents are catastrophic and headline grabing, however the huge benefits to climate change of zero emissions and the recent step change in safety management and critical fail safe systems (which chernobyl didnt have) make me believe they outway the manageable risks.
    Wind will never be practicable in our energy hungry world. Please do not be fooled.

    1. comment to nuclear power by anonymous

      1) the french pay about $150 per MW for their energy. Most U.S. cities pay about $50-%80. Nuclear would make our energy bills double or triple…..that is why we use coal and gas as our energy margins. The French have one of the world’s worst grid systems.

      2) Nobody has ever said wind is the solution. Wind cannot be the solution. Its only capable of sustaining about 25% of the nations power….right now its about 3%

      3) coal is the most unsafe. Natural gas is by far the safest form of energy is the entire world and there is not any argument that can be made against it. Its cheap, clean, safe, and effective. Nuclear is very safe in today’s world.

      1. The French also have the lowest carbon emissions/inhabitant of any of the highly industrialized nations when you exclude countries with massive hydro-electric capacity (Sweden and Canada, for example)

        Coal is the cheapest source of energy and really not “unsafe” at all, if you exclude the Global Warming “bogeyman”.

        The threat posed by GW/Climate Change is completely speculative at this time. While I absolutely believe that there is a link between atmospheric CO2 levels and the burning of fossil fuels, the exact impact of a continued rise in CO2 is not an established fact. A large percentage of the scientists who contributed to the studies of temperature and climate variations and greenhouse gas atmospheric concentrations behind the “Global Warming” political movement, disagree with the conclusions that have been drawn from their work by non-scientific hacks with an “agenda” and a stake in the game (Like making billions from the sale of carbon credits or gaining vast powers to control the energy policies of countries).

        If CO2 is the main threat from coal energy then natural gas is not a good alternative since it also produces huge amounts of CO2, albeit a little less than coal. And if CO2 is not considered a threat, then coal is virtually as safe as natural gas, because the technology to remove the actual pollutants such as SO2, HCl, NOx, Hg and particulate from flue gas is available and very advanced. Modern coal-fired power plants are nearly as efficient and clean as gas-fired plants and the energy they produce is significantly cheaper.

        Denmark, the leading country in wind-energy worldwide and strong proponent of “green” energy, nevertheless continues to build coal and coke-fired power plants to supplement the nearly 20% energy produced by wind power. Their energy split is about 50% coal, 30% gas and 20% wind – not accounting for hydroelectric and nuclear which are hidden in the supplemental electric power imported over the grid from Sweden.

        Most countries are in the same situation as Denmark, resulting in coal being the source of nearly half of the world’s electric energy. The only source that realistically can challenge coal in the next 50 years is nuclear. Natural gas and oil are currently near their maximum potential with little or no reserve production capacity and could not fill the void. Wind energy is comparatively very expensive and therefore a luxury only very “rich” societies can afford so it will remain a very small part of the global energy picture.

        China passed the United States as the No. 1 producer of GHG this year and this trend will continue as more and more of our industrial production is shifted to countries where labor and energy costs are low and environmental regulation is nearly non-existent. Driving up the US energy costs with more environmental legislation only accelerates the trend and increases global GHG emissions… A losing battle.

        Ironic is when US windmills are produced in China with energy from coal-fired power plants and steel from coke-fired smelters by workers paid dismal wages, without health insurance and unprotected by OSHA rules… But at least they won’t put them up near Martha’s Vineyard or on T. Boone Pickens own 68,000-acre ranch because, as he stated, “those things are ugly”…

  23. Hey guys,

    I stumbled onto this page and I couldn’t help commenting on the fact that 1,776 American homes = 5,000 European homes of 4. That had me laughing for a while.

    Anyways, I’m a sales consultant for a cast iron business in China. For all their ductile iron products, they usually report the price at around 12 RMB per kg. That’s about $ USD1.79 per kilogram. A 2005 study by NREL showed that the standard cost for Cast iron parts in a wind turbine for the consumer costs about $4.00 per kilogram to build. These parts are usually 30 metric tonnes or more per wind turbine, which means (4 – 1.79) x 10,000 x 30 ( or however many turbines are in a farm).

    On cast iron parts alone, that’s a price difference of about 650k USD per turbine, where it only costs about 200k USD to produce.

    Somewhere, someone is making a killing on building these things, nearly (300%)… but it’s certainly not the manufacturer, or the assembler, or the end user.

    And you thought oil companies were dirty…

    P.S. oh and in case you were wondering, a lot of companies use parts from China, from G.E. to Gamesa to Vestas, all the big green energy companies

  24. Very good initiative you done this type of great achivemnt.

    tell how of turbines you want to installl. also let us tell about your future plan for such windmill?????

  25. Hi, just wondering if anyone could help, a wind farm is coming really close to my home, and the proposed tower is 120m high with the blades being 80m, total at height 200m or approx. 600ft. Are these the largest in the world, and is there anyother farm with this size of turbine. Just interested. Reni

  26. Kindly I need to know the minimum wind speed for the E-126 (largest wind power till present)

    thank you

  27. I like to comment by Mr. Pravinkumar on 5th march that, we have need offshore wind farm for future. It is to much noted point for enercon team.Hope that take action on the point for future of enercon and India also.

  28. I like solar water heaters and radiant barrier they both seem to save me money. and didn’t cost that much with tax credits.
    I got mine from company call sunrise solar solutions


    1. From an individual’s economic standpoint tax credits for “green” energy projects make sense… but any product that requires tax credits in order for people to buy into it, is not economically viable on its own.

      Since tax credits are paid for with taxes raised on the same people that get the credits (as a group) we are actually fools for letting our government do this to us.

      The government pays one person a tax bonus for doing something economically “stupid” with money taken from other people who decide not to make the “stupid” decision. If the government actually succeeded in getting nearly everyone to do the “stupid” thing (which is theoretically their goal with energy tax credits) then they wouldn’t collect enough taxes to actually pay for the incentives. So it is a policy that is designed to fail even if it succeeds…

  29. I think this turbine is quite lame. It is extremely large and produces around 7MW. I have done some researching and found out that one large UNDERWATER turbine produces 240MW. I think that before wasting such materials into building this turbine, waste them into building three underwater ones producing each 240MW, 720MW in total.
    I might be wrong, though. I’m only 15, what do I know, really?

    1. I searched in vain for large tidal turbines. I found some information on an experimental turbine being installed off the coast of the UK. But the size of the 2 impeller structure was 1.2 MW, not 240MW. In theory a 240MW open design water turbine, as could be used in ocean current, would have to be GIGANTIC, I doubt one could be built. One proposed project in Asia has 300 individual turbines at 1 MW each for a total of 300 MW.

      On the other hand, hydroelectric dam turbines where the water is confined and forced through a duct to the impeller housing can be as large as 700 MW each but these don’t work in open waters.

  30. The reason we don’t have freight rail in the US is very simple. In the mid 1900’s, the automobile companies bought up the majority of our freight lines and had the track ripped up. This was done to get people more dependent on autos. If the infrastructure were still there, it would be much cheaper to move our cargo by train instead of car. Less fuel, less manpower, less damage to infrastructure. Trucking would be absolutely prohibitive if we made the trucking companies pay for all the damage to the interstates.

    Tom Waite, MD-PhD
    New York

    1. Tom..

      We still have freight by rail, a tremendous amount of it actually.
      As far as the comment about trucking companys being made to pay for road repairs…..they do, every mile a truck drives in the us they are charged for, some states charge more than others but surficeit to say, they Do pay….Do you pay for every mile you drive over and above fuel and upkeep…I think not. Please try to be informed before stepping in on a discussion

  31. Dear Sir,
    Here in Brazil, I feel is possible to locate these two systems together ( wind and solar ), because of environmental condition, positive for both of them. BUT, costs are already limitant factors to be considered… over strategic priorities, naturally. I feel is a matter and a question of time… just time will show, how good ans positive are these two ways to produce clean and permanent energy.

  32. Would it be sensible and practical to install a solar farm under an already existing set of wind turbines/windmills, so the land that is otherwise left alone can be utilized?

    1. For both wind and solar the selected location is a critical part of the project viability. It is very unlikely that a good wind site would also be a good solar site, so locating them together doesn’t make much sense.

  33. Dear jj guncsaga,

    You said that, “One of our wind machines (grid connected) can be installed for less than 2 million USD per megawatt.”

    Isn’t it pretty costly? The turbines from India, I think, are available at almost 1/3rd of this price.

    Any comments?

    Azfar A Khan (Mr.),
    Islamabad, Pakistan

    1. >> Isn’t it pretty costly? The turbines from India, I think, are available at almost 1/3rd of this price.<<

      The turbine is only a fraction of the installed cost. The infrastructure (access roads, grid connection, construction, land purchase/lease & preparation) is the bigger part of the project. Most good wind sites are located in logistically difficult places (ridges, mountain passes, at sea) and therefore are expensive to develop. But I am sure that Indian or Chinese-built turbines would be cheaper than US built ones.

  34. All this data is amazing and precise!? Us “Average Joe’s” appreciate the explanations, thank you. Here’s a question I’d like answered? How much of the power generated by these windmills is lost, traveling up to 10, 20, 30+ miles, from the windmills down to the power station…? Seems like it’s not very cost effective, either way. There’s got to be a more efficient way!

    J. America

    1. Joe….
      food for thought…
      as we type there is a plan being implemented, and under construction, for a new power grid to transport, wind generated, power from the texas panhandle down to the houston area. And as i’ve been told, asfar as flordia. The new grid is not here-say,

  35. Bob H
    Could anything like this be constructed?

    We just happen to have something that would work. But Money money, And because the propeller icon is the norm who will listen?

  36. Instead of thinking about 5 o r 7 MW turbines, what specially built wind generator could handle over 120 mph winds continuosly? Any ideas? Blade size would have to be compact (less than 2 meters in diameter). Could anything like this be constructed?

    1. Hi Bob
      Most things are possible with a full spec.
      What variation in wind speed and density do you need catering for?
      Are the up stream flow conditions steady state?
      Why limit to 2 metre diameter?

      1. Guy,
        The application would be coordinated with the outflow winds produced from a skydiving wind tunnel (Skyventure is the franchise). Most wind tunnels that draw outside air through the chamber utilize 4 outflow vents. Steady state ranges from 15 mins up to 1 hour continous flow. Inner chamber wind speeds range from 110 to 160 mph. With the outflow vents, the speed would be less. I always thought that investors in this type of tunnel design could utilize small wind generators to recoup some of the power.

        1. Hi Bob
          For Skydiving tunnels the energy efficient method woul be to recirculate the air investing in a little more ducting.
          The vents and an extra small centrifugal fan can the be used to pressurise the system to vary the density marginally if required.
          The main fan is then only keeping the flow moving at the required speed an will use much less power.

  37. After Chernobyl, I really do not understand how people still think in nuclear energy projects. Today, and in the future, people need to develop projects where other aspects are considered, over efficiency. In this sense, even if wind energy is not so effective as nuclear energy, the final and positive results of wind energy are much bigger, especially when environmental and human health aspects are inside the balance .

    1. I, on the other hand, can’t believe how many people continue to deny the true effect of a bad return on energy investment because they “like the idea” of windmills.

      Wind power costs 3-4 times as much as fossil fuel based power to produce. The costs are real and indicative of the energy investment in manufacturing and erecting the project, the poor availability of the power produced and the short lifespan of the equipment.

      If it was implemented on a global basis the cost of the energy component of every commodity would go up by a factor of 3 or 4. This would cause basic foods to become unavailable in the 3rd world and cause millions if not billions of deaths.

      Cheap energy is necessary for the world to sustain a 6-7 billion population. Wind power is and will always be a special application high cost power source for isolated communities or government-subsidized showcase projects in very rich countries that can afford to WASTE resources on such ridiculous ventures.

  38. I think fusion power has the potential to be another one of those energy wasting potentials, ie its another joke, BUT, I’m prepared to sit and wait for people who have done solid research on fusion to post whether it another windmill special or has a potential.

  39. It always seems that getting higher energy efficiencies out of the traditional technologies is the way to go – instead of this new age subsidised crap.

    With carbon nanotubes to name only one technology, I am sure a bit more efficiency can be gained. The only trouble is developing the technology requires significant new technology.

    It’s like “wow, on an “x Nanometer” cpu process I can get a quad core cpu at 3Ghz and at 40 watts……amazing….The only troulbe being that this finer technology requires total refinement and more precision of every part of the process….. It really just goes on and on.

    Only those in these industries really know exactly what the potentials could be.

    Also sea-bourne turbines need anchoring… How the fook will they achieve that cheaply?

    It’s just pointless. I’m not even going to think about it, not that I was much anyway…… :/
    I think the world’s in total decline anyway, why bother, yada yada..

  40. Hi Friends,

    From my point of View these High Capacity wind turbine need to install in Sea so that the Turbine will be utilized fully. And the Great Draw back is that Manufacturing of this turbine is too costly & if you install in onshore it is waste unless if you have high potential site. Investing Hugh money in this High Megawatt turbine we can design in such a way that we can utilize offshore.

    1. The cost of large plant as you said would be high, but harvesting 100x the energy with a small fraction of the land compared to a wind farm and the ability to store energy more than offsets the cost factor.
      The marine version could be designed to also harvest wave energy but it will cost more per unit of power. Where total energy recovered is the primary goal the marine version may be the right choice.
      The lower maintenance and capital cost of a land unit may make such units attractive, especially when other features such as quiet and environmentally safe operation are considered.

  41. I agree with a previous comment about this being a way for the rich to get richer… Wind turbines are a total joke, almost as big as green hybrid cars. They dont work if there is no wind and the return time is pathetic. So leave it to our government to give massive cash to anyone wanting to put them up. If world governments were any kind of smart they would all use nuclear fission power plants and give all their research funding to nuclear fusion and there might actually be an answer to the worlds power needs.

    1. you can get a piece of that money if you invest in these companies manufacturing and buying the wind turbines. so all i hear is ‘wah wah im a little baby and the big man is stepping on me and i just want to complain’. Invest your money and perhaps you can be RICH and get richer. The cycle starts somewhere

  42. Dear Mercer,[If you see any prospective to develop any kind of job in Brazil, and if you need to establish a PARTNERSHIP, our small consulting company ( http://www.agroterriani.cjb.net ) is located at Rio de Janeiro-Brazil. We are sure about the huge market to be exploited in Brazil and, over the other companies that are begining similar ventures, the market space is still very positive. I am Agronomic Engineer, 55 years old and I lived in a large number of provinces of my country. So, I am sure about my personal knowledge of brazilian potentialities. On the other hand, I have full personal interest in wind turbines, because I believe this is one of the most important technologies for the future. kindest regards. Please, be in contact.




  46. Hi guy,

    I’m going to presume that a HAWT is a Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine and a VAWT, a Vertical Axis Wind Turbine but I might be wrong?
    It’s good having acronyms, but I’m sure not everyone knows what it means until detailed. I always find it helpful to mention the acronym and its meaning at the beginning of any thread or post.
    Oh, and I don’t know what AOA means…..

    1. Hi Andy
      Sorry for not explaining the acronyms.
      You are correct : Horizontal & Vertical axis wind turbines.
      AOA is the angle of attack : The angle of the chord of an airfoil to the airflow relative to that airfoil.
      Independent control off the angle of attack of all airfoils on a vertiical axis wind turbine enables much greater energy harvesting than unit with fixed airfoils. Control of the angle of the airfoils also enables self starting and controlled stopping if the latter is required.

  47. The largest HAWT may produce 7 + MW but that is less than 1% of what is possible using a lift based VAWT with a simple mechanical control system for the AOA of the vertical airfoils for all wind speeds.
    A 750+ mega watts VAWT would be huge:
    There are limits to the height of airfoils , even those supported by stays.
    With a large diameter such that the rotation is measured in mpr instead of rpm there is virtually no limit to diameter. A high diameter to height ratio also enables air velocity to partial recover prior to reaching the leeward airfoils, increasing the efficiency substantially. The energy recovery per land/sea area could be substantianly greater with such VAWTs.
    The large mass of such a VAWT also has an advantage in that it enables the seperation of energy harvesting to that of electrical generation. In fact the greater the mass the better.
    Happy to expain to interested parties.

  48. I am sure about the potentialities of wind energy, especially in countries with coast territories. BUT, on the other hand, the innitial costs of instalation and the maintenance costs, the use of wind turbines is a limitant factor for the use of this energy source in porr countries like mine ( Brazil ).
    So, I think is important to work in the development of smaller wind turbines to be used in small comunities and, evventually, in private properties. This is the ideal solution for energy problems, today. I really do not know if this is interesting for the companies who have the technologic sources, because this procedure can excessivelly open the market for this kind of product.
    In terms of results, I feel this is the best solution for this anergetic alternative.

  49. Michael N is correct. I can’t really agree with Union Glashutte watches comment. In fact Union’s comment seems more like an uneducated viewpoint.

    I believe that these devices are just the latest way for “rich men” get richer through their “contacts” and contracts.

  50. These machines are absolutely amazing. The kicker is being able to produce them cost effectively.. It’s hard when people are so tied to one way of living that they can’t open their minds to something new– even if it is better. People are scared of what they don’t understand, so if we want to get these out in the public, the info needs to come out pronto.

    1. Amazing they are… but in my view useless technological wonders.

      Many people who post on this site have a pretty good idea of what the issues are and what the potential for this technology is, not your average “I don’t understand it so I don’t like it mentality”. I’m mercenary enough that if I thought wind had real potential I would jump on the bandwagon in a second.

      Production cost is not the main problem with windmills. Installation costs, maintenance cost, short life cycle and low availability make them dinosaurs bound for the museum of bad ideas.

      They will never be more than a special application high cost power source for isolated communities or government-subsidized showcase projects.

      1. Thank God someone else sees wind the same way as me. I am sick to death of wind power purveyors telling porkies about what a wind farm can and cannot do. Most don’t even seem to know the difference between power and energy, and think that simply placing a few more wind frams over a wide spread geography will solve the problem. Except for limited energy applications wind is a waste of time.

  51. All I could say is great. There are people thinking. I am waiting for windmills. I am Waiting for the day we are not dependant on foriegn oil. What about the birds? Can we put a warning sounds on the blades? Neon Lights?
    Is there funding for these windmills? Who pays 50 cents per killowatt?The average cost is more like a dime. But New York is more like 10 cents for the electricity and 10 cents for the delivery. Which means the most you could get retail prices is 10 cents per kilowatthour

    So Michael N correct me if i am wrong but the cost will take at least four times as long to recover than you estimated But still handsome return.

    1. Joseph,

      The analysis above is much too rosy for a typical competitive market. Change the installed cost to $2,000 per kW (Typical). Change the availability to 22% (Worldwide average) and the value of the kW generated on the open market to $0.06 (These kW, because they are not available on demand, fall in the lowest value tier of electric supply)

      Now the cost of the project is $150MM and the value of the electricity generated in a year is $8.6MM… A 17.3 year payback without including maintenance and interest costs… No investor in their right mind would go for that deal!

    2. Joseph,

      The analysis above is much too rosy for a wind project in a competitive market. None of the factors used can transpose to the “real world”.
      Replace the installed cost with $2,000/Kwh (Typical) the availability with 22% (Worldwide average) and the value of the electricity produced with $0.06/Kwh (Wind Kwh fall in the lowest value tier because they are supplied “when available” rather than “when needed”).

      Now the project cost is $150MM and the value of the electricity produced in a year is just $8.6MM, which means the project payback is over 17 years without taking maintenance or interest costs into account… No sane investor would go into this type of venture without heavy government subsidies.

  52. can someone tell me if the electrical out put from a wind power site can be storesd and used later someother time, for example in days of little wind or in a still or calm air?


    1. The ability to store days worth of electricity is a costly endeavor. Current storage methods utilize a solar collector and molten salts to provide enough heat to drive steam turbines . The other is battery storage. During a no wind event, a compressed air storage method ( air compressors driven by turbine to provide compressed air to storage tanks which supply air motor/generator) allows the wind farm 5-15 minutes to power down the grid connection and afford the utility company time of notice that the wind farm is offline for the time being.

      1. Another “easy” way on storaging this energy is by a reversible dam system. It is a hydroelectric generating dam with the possibility of pumping water to the higher position. That way you storage potential energy by night that you can recover by day.

  53. The island of Kauai HI (pop. 63k) has a utility cooperative, oil-fired 75MW generating capacity and charges homeowners between $0.40 – 0.50 per kwh.
    There is reliable (to the extent state/fed.govt. data is trustworthy) data about wind availability, min class 3 E and N, class 7 S, close to shoreline. Except for Pacific Missile Range, no populated areas near the class 7 wind areas..

    Would off-shore installation of 15 x 5MW turbines (estimated US$75 million installed) make economic sense, keeping existing plant on weekly stand-by maintenance ?

    With populated areas near shorelines and MAJOR (2 lane road) along coast, wind-generated hydrogen could be dispensed along road. Pipe trench could also accommodate power transmission line, which currently overhead and subject to frequent (high wind generated) damage and outages.

    This nonagenarian keeps dreaming, hopefully not Don Quixote like ?

    Would appreciate comments, thank you.

    20100108 20:16 UTC

    1. The first thing I notice is an installed cost of $1,000/kW which is half of the typical total installed cost of a wind project. Is the price the purchase price of the 15 turbines alone or a complete installed cost for the project? I am a bit suspicious that this cost is too low.

      With 75MW installed to replace a 75MW oil-fired facility and a typically wind availability of 25% the project will not generate enough power (even if unlimited energy storage was available) to cover the energy that is currently produced by the oil-fired facility. In a coastal area with a good exposure and higher than average winds these turbines might reach 30% availability which means that they could replace 22.5MW currently produced with fossil fuel but the oil station will have to stay operational and will just run at reduced loads most of the time except on high wind days.

      In an open market environment, the current electric cost of $0.40 to $0.50 per kWh is extremely high and would make the wind power very competitive especially at $1,000/kW installed cost. The “market” value of the electricity produced in one year (75,000 x 0.3 x 24 x 365 = 197 million kWh) is between $80MM and $90MM at those rates which quickly pays for the $75MM estimated project cost. The wind generated power would be significantly cheaper than $0.40-$0.50/kWh

      The only question is that the current electric supplier might raise their rates if their fixed costs (personnel & maintenance) remain the same and they only save a fraction of their fuel cost while selling less power. If you are still forced to buy supplemental power from them when the wind is not blowing (not a true free market situation) then the savings realized with the windmills will be wiped out by the increased cost of the fossil fuel power.

      I hope this is useful to you.

    2. Dear Sir,
      One of our wind machines (grid connected) can be installed for less than 2 million USD per megawatt. The hydrogen production has been solved at our 500 acre Palatka, FL laboratory. I am positive that we can get down to that magic $1000 per kW mark on 100 land based machines or more. The 100 offshore machines will be around $1,500-$2000 per kW.
      We have already successfully done it with an ocean turbine which operates in the North Sea near Scotland.

  54. You are damn £$£$£$£ right.

    Another thing is that, global production of goods mostly happens in those “cheap” countries, so they can hardly be criticised for having fuel pollution issues can they as they produce probably 80% of the worlds goods.

    The gross hypocrisy. How many crappy old toys with limited educational value or longevity were produced for “most of us” to enjoy this christmas. Whatever the gadget, be it really well used, or a e-penis, or bragtool/keeping up with the neighbours tool, it keeps people occupied and quite happily disassociative from their family, friends and neighbours. My point may not get across properly, but I hope it’s understand by some.

    Computers and the internet are extremely useful communication, opinion sharing tools (which is what I’m doing now) but unfortunately they have definitely blunted my social qualities lol and e-opinions have no value to those who need to be influenced ie governments et al.
    However, the technology is a double edged sword and can be used for wonderful things (apparently!)

    So, the energy point you raise about “green” trendy energy sources, but with a horrendous emboided energy status, subsidised by rich economies. You are certainly right on that. I think we should also nod to hewlett packard (I think) extreme packaging waste…. How many energy is wasted, that could be saved.

    Are companies wasting tons of energy or are they, in effect overall, more energy efficient than homeowners lol.
    Anyway, I think these turbines are shite and nothing more than the latest attempt to “redirect” money from taxpayers into “dubious sources” company pockets.
    Whenever you have moving parts, there will always be energy loss.
    Solar power, when a cell is developed that reaches a “provable and credible” 30% conversion efficiency, with a good ratio of embodied energy cost, will be better in some ways. Maybe we should stick panels onto the wind turbines lol……….

    Sometimes, though, I am not sure if my information sources are misinformation or just plain hearsay/urban legend…

    Without testing things myself (which I cannot do) I really don’t know what is fact and fiction. It’s quite irritating.

  55. by my figuring 413 ft diameter/2 = 206ft radius x pi 3.14 = 646.84 feet circumference x 12rpm x 60 minutes for feet/hr / 5280 to get mph means that the blade tips are going 88.2mph.

    I agree the birds have far worse things to worry about (like cats for example which kill 100 million birds /year), but any bird (or anything else) that meets one of those blades (and there are 3 blades every 5 seconds) is totally dead.

  56. In regard to the above discussion of the relative cost of fossil fuel energy versus wind energy, some will say that the “cost” is not an important consideration because we are dealing with “more important matters” such as climate change….

    Cost is important because the cost of an energy production facility is almost directly proportional to the energy expended to create it and wind energy has a very low return on this “invested energy”. The energy used to produce the concrete, steel, aluminum to make and install the turbines, the energy used prepare the site and erect the turbines, the energy used to maintain them during their useful life adds up to a significant percentage of the total energy output of the turbine during its lifetime…

    It would equate to planting a low yield crop where you need to use 70% of your harvest to reseed the field for next year…

    The bottom line is that wind energy cannot truly replace fossil fuels. It is “window dressing” for the benefit of the Green movement but it is close to useless in the global world energy picture. Only extremely rich nations can afford to produce energy in such an inefficient manner because they can subsidize it with money from their high tech economies that are less dependent energy costs.

    Nations like India and China need “cheap” energy to continue growing and providing for the basic needs of 2.5 billion people through their energy-intensive heavy industry and manufacturing.

    Another 3 billion people live in far worse conditions and WILL eventually follow behind China and India when given the opportunity. When you are starving, freezing or dying of disease you can’t afford to worry about environmental impact and if you live in the USA or Europe, in obscenely opulent luxury by their standards, you cannot morally deny them this opportunity.

  57. Andy,
    conventional central station thermal power plant efficiency in the US ranges from a low of about 30% for nuclear, about 37% for new coal and load following/peaking natural gas, and 45% to 55% for a natural gas plant operating in combined cycle mode. These are nameplate out-of-the-box efficiencies; actual operating efficiencies can be and often are lower. Additional energy loss in transmission and distribution is about 7% as Michael points out. You can see the efficiency of the entire US energy system in an interesting flow chart here: (click on charts to enlarge) https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/energy/energy.html

    Note in 2008, that the total energy input to electricity was 39.97 quads (quadrillion btu’s), while electricity delivery was only 12.68 (plus a tiny bit more from imports, mostly from Canada). Total system efficiency is 32%, not counting inefficient appliances and consumer waste. From coal to incandescent light bulb, system efficiency drops to about 1% after taking into account 7% efficient lightbulbs (15 lumens per watt out of about 220 max possible for white light), and then subtracting for misdirected light (about 50%). This does not include further deductions for leaving lights on when people are not in the room, or burning lights in the day when the sun could work just fine. Lighting accounts for about 14% of US electricity (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp) ; by comparison 19% of US electricity comes from nuclear fuel.

  58. Thank you Michael, that is a better start to a comparison that I could have achieved.

    I can see the maintenance costs, the dismantle costs, embodied energy impacts and quite massive.

    as for 92.8% energy, that’s far far better than I expected.

    Just to clarify on energy delivery…….

    You are stating, based on your knowledge sources/education that for every 1 KW that leaves the building: 928 watts will make it to the end user.

    Are there any losses in the power plant due to heat loss etc? or is that dealt with by heat exchangers?

    For instance, 1KW of energy is produced directly by burning, how much is lost to the atmosphere as heat. There must be some even if it’s 1%, so now we are down to 999watts……does the 928 watts figure take all this into account.

    I suppose I should have asked the following to be clearer.

    If the energy value of the fuel source is 1KW pre-burning, how many watts WILL get to the consumer?
    Is it still 928.

    If so, that is almost brilliant.

    1. The 7.2% loss is strictly distribution losses in power lines and transformer stations between the power plant and the end user.

      The net efficiency of converting thermal energy in fossil fuels to electric energy is not nearly that good. It is variable depending on the type of fuel and type of equipment used.

      There are always losses due to heat escaping with the flue gas after combustion and these are minimized by using heat exchangers.
      There are losses of heat to the cooling water or cooling air (through the cooling towers) used to condense the steam after all useful mechanical energy has been extracted from it.

      There is a significant portion (up to 10%) of the electric energy produced that is used to operate catalytic converters, scrubbers and particulate collectors to clean the flue gas.

      There is another large portion of the energy that is used to drive ID and FD fans, feed water pumps and other auxiliaries.

      Finally there is the efficiency of the turbine(s) and generator(s) which is not 100% either.

      A modern coal fired power plant can convert up to 47% of the thermal energy in the coal to electric output leaving the plant.
      A combined cycle gas plant (Gas Turbines + Steam boiler + Steam turbine) is more efficient (up to 60%) but makes up for it by using more expensive fuel (Natural Gas)

      This has an impact on the amount of CO2 and H2O formed in the production cycle but not on the net cost of the kWh produced since the efficiency of the conversion is accounted for in the fuel cost

      For coal the fuel cost is around $0.01/kWh produced – The number $0.006/kWh I used above is too optimistic… I found it in a internet article discussing the cost of various forms of energy but I question it now having done my own calculation. It doesn’t change the comparative economics much but it should still be corrected.

      1. You are forgetting about all the power that leaves the plant and ends up stolen. Grow ops are on every block and many use more power then 1o or 15 houses, it is these larger size grow ops that have to steal power to operate safely and there is really no telling how much power is being stolen, I have known people who have bypassed their power meter for legal purposes too (though it is still illegal obviously)

  59. (waits for someone to mention keywords embodied energy costs of an entire project for one turbine……From start to finish………)

    Seriously though, has anyone got any data on the embodied costs?
    I mean, it’s some serious amounts…………

    Tons of plastic
    Tons of concrete
    Tons of communication, email, radio comms for working on site, batteries, steel cost, co2 released, and much more…………Transport.

    Solar power is perhaps going to be the better method in the end, IF solar cells can reach 40% conversion one day at least, no noise, but then you need trackers.

    Really, in my opinion we should also look at reducing energy full stop…..

    Also, how many kilowatts of electricity, produced at a power station, are needed to produce a usable 1KW, to the consumer?
    Maybe it sounds silly, but, high voltage power lines, transformers 750kv to 400 V, then 400 V to 230 etc all have losses don’t they?

    I would consult the internet oracle, but there is a lot of misinformation or just purely incorrect information these days, due to affiliations with money…….

    1. This may be useful to you:

      Wind turbine project installed cost: $2,000/kW
      Typical mechanical life of a wind turbine: 20 years
      Hours per year: 8,760
      Average availability of wind power: 24%
      Market value of 1 kWh of electricity at production site: $0.07
      Value of total electricity produced during wind turbine life:
      20 x 8,760 x 0.24 x $0.07 = $2,943/kW installed
      As you can see the payback on wind turbine projects is iffy even with no maintenance and operating costs included in the equation.

      For comparison here is the same equation for a coal-fired power plant:
      Coal power project installed cost: $2,500/kW (High end number – Some coal fired plants are built for $1,500/kW)
      Typical life of a coal fired plant: 30 years
      Hours per year: 8,760
      Average availability of coal-fired power plant: 88%
      Total electricity production during plant life: 231,000 kWh/kW installed
      Value of electricity produced: $16,188/kW installed
      Lifetime Cost of fuel = 231,000 x $0.006 = $1,388/kW installed
      Net Value of total electricity produced during plant life: $14,800/kW installed.

      This is of course oversimplified. Excluding maintenance and operating costs is not reasonable and these impact the economics. Operating cost for wind turbine projects are lower because there is no manpower required to run them, however their maintenance costs are surprisingly high. Gear boxes last 6-7 years and are extremely expensive to replace and any maintenance is difficult because the turbines are typically in difficult to reach areas and require huge cranes for any substantial repair.

      What should be clear is that wind power is several times more expensive than fossil fuel power and that, without international regulation it cannot compete. As long as burning fossil fuels is an acceptable alternate ANYWHERE, production will move there to find the lowest energy cost (Just like it has done to find low labor costs). All we will do is triple US consumer electric bills and export the few heavy industry jobs that remain in the US to China and India.

      The answer to your other question about the losses incurred between production point and use point for electricity is 7.2% (At least it was in 1995). 92.8% of the electricity that leaves the US power plants ends up going through a meter at an end user’s facility (Industrial/Commercial/Residential)

    2. we need high voltage lines to transfer power as it keeps resistance in the line low therefore you can move energy long distances more efficiently . if the voltage was low you would lose so much power in the lines it would be impractical to use as there would be not enough power to supply homes hence putting the earth back into the stone age=]

  60. Michael N. I think you really need to back up what you say or for that matter what anybody says. This sure is just a lot of talk back and forth of apparently I know everything. After reading everyone comments it be easy to look at anybody’s point and throwing out statistics, proving them right. How about if anybody wants to be taken seriously how about some references or links to some references. Other wise this doesn’t matter I can pull statistics out of thin air.

    My thoughts are that I agree that there are other places to put money first energy efficiency is the most cost effective way to first attack this problem head on. One thing I don’t understand is why they do not use more efficient transportation of good updating the rails instead using trucks.

    And another curious thought what about small wind and solar for high usage areas such as factories or say Wallmarts. There is no transmission loses .Is it just not cost effective say even for Wallmart, if they produced there own materials.

    anyways sorry if the spelling and grammar are a little off. Up late and found this thread I found very interesting. So somebody please actually take this question seriously very interested in what is thought.

    1. Charles,

      Thank you for the feedback. There are multiple sources for all the statistics I cite and they are easy to find via Google.
      I am sure that others would immediately point out where I cite incorrect numbers if I did so. If there is specific data you would like to know about I will be glad to provide a reference.

      I am not trying to release some earth-shattering new statistics, but just to make people aware of the fact that the wool is being pulled over their eyes in regard to the benefits of wind power and more generally in regard to the impact of the energy policies our government is trying to promote.

      Our economy is profit/cost-driven and this means that rail has to compete with road trucking for the goods transportation business. Railroads are more competitive in Europe because people live in much more concentrated urban areas so the rail system can serve a bigger percentage of the people. In the US people are more spread out so the more flexible trucking system is needed to reach them where they live. Running freight trains into a remote town of 2,000 people is neither cost effective nor energy efficient.

      In regard to the comment about making the Wal-Mart stores self supporting with solar and wind power I would suggest to you would end up with all the stores located in the Arizona desert and on mountain ridges where those power sources are abundant. It would just require the customers to drive a little further to do their shopping… Just/Kidding of course but my point is that where you can harvest solar/wind power efficiently and where you need the power is typically not the same place. You can’t choose to ignore that fact because of one “Green” building located in a windy & sunny area of Spain that provides 100% of its own power. If you transplanted that same building to Minnesota the occupants will sit in the dark and die of cold before long.

  61. i think that the the mills that the wind blows could turn to fast that cuses a over power in electricity.

  62. Bram/Matt:

    – The higher energy use per inhabitant in the USA compared to countries such as Germany or Japan is due to several factors, not just to a wasteful attitude on the part of Americans.
    The States have much more heavy industry than the other “Western” countries. If you use the energy use per GNP$ then the US numbers are more in line with the European numbers. For example: Norway, The Netherlands and Ireland rank worse than the US.
    The population density of the United States is much, much lower than it is in Germany or Japan, making all travel distances further than in other countries. The urban structure in the USA is also very open making it impossible for a large percentage of Americans to walk or use public transportation to get anywhere. Changing this will take generations as it is our entire way of life that needs to be changed.

    – The high percentage of wind power being used by some European countries (Denmark, Spain and Portugal in particular) is deceptive because the countries do not exist in a vacuum. If all European countries reached the same high percentages of wind energy (over 10%) their ability to balance the load using neighboring countries’ power generation/consumption would be impaired. With 19% of its electricity produced by wind power and a capacity factor of 24% Denmark is a perfect example. They an installed capacity of nearly 100% of their average demand which means that on windy days 100% of their electricity comes from wind turbines but it also means that all their other power generation facilites must shut down on windy days or they must export the excess power. On low wind days they must make all their electricity in other ways, which in Denmark’s case means either importing it or starting up a whole bunch of fossil fuel generators. If they were an island they would be stuck burning a whole bunch of gas and coal… For this the danes pay the highest electric rates in the World. On the other hand France with 1% wind energy and 76% nuclear energy has one of the lowest electric rates of any country and emits half of the GHG/inhabitant that Denmark does… Draw your own conclusions.

    – The comment by Mikemike above that really opened my eyes is the one about solar energy. He is absolutely correct that capturing solar power is contributing to global warming as it retains solar radiation in the atmosphere that would otherwise be reflected and partially lost. Solar power is NOT a good solution to combat global climate change. One suggestion advanced by President Obama a few months ago was that all house roofs in the US should be painted white to reflect as much solar energy as possible and help counteract the greenhouse effect. This should have triggered my radar that installing solar power panels has exactly the opposite effect… If you have solar panels on your roof you are a threat to the environment… That is just plain funny and true.

    – The creation of jobs should never be taken into account when evaluating whether something is viable or not. This leads to absurd things such completely unsustainable industries feeding on tax-payer money and making everyone (on average) poorer.

    – I believe worldwide population control must be one part of the solution and a worldwide energy policy must also be. The European Community has exported a large part of its heavy industry to China, India and Turkey to appear more “green” but if they continue to import steel, cement, paper and textiles at the same rate they have just exported their GHG emissions which is fundamentally hypocritical.
    Consumption of goods should always be added to the energy equation to create a true picture of what is going on. This year China has become the largest GHG producer in the world but they are using a lot of that energy to make goods for Europe and the USA… Who is truly creating the GHG?

  63. Using less energy for the energy consumers in America should be coupled with wise choices of energy production. The global solution is less energy from Co2 creating problems, locally. If an immediate solution for us is energy conservation, than the less energy required to produce energy consumed, is making a wise choice. Education is at the root of change, and often neglected, and ignorance is bliss only for the uneducated.

  64. Well I think this offending comment is just inappropriate. You do not know the people discussing here, but one thing I guess: You cannot be a well educated scientist yourself cause all of them would respect other peoples thoughts and try to comment unemotional .

    From the science point of view: We don’t know what the high concentration of CO2 causes, but it is manmade and not comparable to the usual appearance of CO2 after a warming of the planet. Right now it’s beforehand of the warming. And yes, we had higher concentrations about 100 million years ago (just looked it up). No humans being there at that time…

    Good times discussing the topic. You rather should stay unemotional though. I’m out again.

  65. Quit talking about science and global warming you uneducated idiot non-scientists. CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. Global warming causes CO2. Northern regions of the world have vast amounts of CO2 in the soil, and when warmed, release this CO2 into the air. This happens over and over on Earth in time cycles measured in thousands of years. People who support the “global warming” hoax should be hanged for treason because they will be responsible for global taxation and removal of national sovereignty in many developed nations. I am a strong proponent of wind farms. Not because of CO2 or other pseudo-science issues, but because it’s renewable. We don’t have to keep digging holes and putting smelly smoke into the air to use wind farms. Another reason is that solar panels are not sustainable. They cause more global warming than any greenhouse gases. This happens because they trap energy from the sun that otherwise would have a larger reflection rate. Wind mills use energy that is already on earth and hasn’t the possibility of leaving on it’s own. Wave power can hurt local ecology, and geothermal power has dangers (only when developed on a large scale) of interrupting the normal processes of the earth’s insides.

    1. mikemike,

      I would have to agree with Matt that insulting others is not the way to get your point across.

      While there is some questions about the global warming data, especially in view of recent E-mail exchanges between various research institutes showing that they have falsified data to fit the results they wanted to show, there is also no doubt in my mind that man is releasing large quantities of carbon that has been trapped in fossil form for 2 billion years and that this will increase levels of CO2 above those that would otherwise occur.

      The main point of all my posts here has been to bring to people’s attention that wind energy is not a viable solution on a global scale.

      – It is extremely expensive from a capital cost standpoint, from a maintenance standpoint and from a life expectancy standpoint. On its own (without substantial government subsidies or regulation) it CANNOT compete against any other form of generation.

      – It does not significantly reduce GHG emissions because it requires cycling fossil fuel back-up capacity that runs inefficiently and overproduces GHG emissions when doing so.

      – Due to its random availability it is limited to a maximum capacity of around 20% of the total power requirement of an area AND it puts significant constraints on the type of generation that can be used to make the remaining 80% of the power preventing any further GHG emission cuts.

  66. I went halfway through the discussions and can’t comment everything, just some thoughts:
    – Maybe one should think sometimes about the demand side than about the supply side 😉
    – Energy consumption per person is way better in Germany than in USA and I think taking the percentage of wind energy, Germany is still leader although USA produce more MWs in total.
    – Nuclear power is no solution for peak power as plants can’t be started or shut down quickly. Regarding all investments (government,…) for research and establishing the technology nuclear power is the most expensive energy supply ever. Not regarding the waste we will run out of uran in about 25 years.
    – Wind turbines are not able to be the only energy supply, but they are a good addition for reducing pollution.
    – Visual pollution and bird kill are rather inappropriate arguments. How many animals have you killed with your car already? And why not living in a cave underground so that we don’t have to see all these ugly houses and skyscrapers anymore?

    There will be always pros and cons, one only has to decide which arguments are more important. And it’s not a one men’s decission…

  67. The problem of low to no wind can be solved.

    1. We can use hydro more as storage rather than base load.

    2. We use energy from waste and biomass to store enough methane to power gas turbines which can see us through those periods.

    3. We can build a big enough grid that can make up for drops in one area.

    4. We can develop new storage techniques e.g. compressed air.

    One point – all functioning grids have to be “overdesigned” to deliver reliable energy. Otherwise, for instance, large parts of the UK would have had no electricity recently when 7 out of 12 of its nuclear reactors were out of commission.

    1. An oversimplistic view of the issue:

      Using hydro as “storage”. .. If we simply reduce hydro output when wind is available how does this improve the GHG emissions? Cutting down one none polluting source to make room for another…

      Trying to put excess wind energy into hydraulic storage: Most hydro plants are not designed for reverse operation and since there is typically no lower storage reservoir on most hydro projects (on rivers) these cannot be reversed.

      Finally given the total hydro capacity in the world this could only be used to back-up a tiny fraction of the wind energy that is proposed.

      Biomass energy contributes just as much CO2 as burning conventional fuels if it from waste that would otherwise be allowed to retain carbon in a non-gaseous form… The only way biomass is better than burning NG, oil or coal is that IT IS ASSUMED that crops will be planted to replenish the biomass fuel (Corn for ethanol, forest for woodchips etc.)

      Capture of natural released methane to convert it energy is not practically feasible at this point.

      If what is meant by “size of the grid” is the capability to carry more power from point A to point B it really does not help with the low availability of wind power, unless a fast response power source is available nearby. The losses associated with transporting energy many hundreds of miles kills any environmental benefit derived from it.

      The grid capacity is not “overdesigned” at all, they are actually close to maximum capacity because environmental pressures have delayed and cancelled construction of needed new capacity.
      When 7 of 12 reactors go down, many high GHG emitting standby sources go online to replace them. These sources are must less cost-efficient than the base loaded nuke plants. You don’t want to use those sources to back-up wind energy as they will wipe out any environmental benefit.

      European countries are electrically interconnected so when UK had a shortage they probably imported electric power from France… didn’t you notice a garlic smell coming from the outlets?

      I want to make clear that I have nothing against wind energy, but I have a problem with utopian plans that make it MAJOR part of a global plan to reduce GHG emissions. With the current technology, it simply cannot be done, yet politicians and special interest groups pretend that it is THE solution and the masses are buying it.

      1. Hi Michael N,

        I’ve been reading your comments with attention as I’m very interested in the whole renewable energy subject. I understand a lot of your concerns regarding the ups and downs of wind turbines and the needed stability for the grid.

        Now is my question, how do country’s in Europe manage those up&downs? Country’s like Germany and Spain (both in the top 10 of biggest economy’s in the world) know how to handle that kind of inconveniences.


        Spain uses already 35% (!!) renewable energy. How are they able to manage that with al the drawbacks you describe? Is their a huge inefficiency?

        About the costs: Aren’t we just paying the price for independent energy supply? For example in Europe (where I live) in 2030 we will have to import 90% from our oil from the middle East and 60% from our gas from Russia. Imagine what kind of problems some geopolitical tensions could cause.
        Imagine what kind of problems this can cause in a world where we can’t play the imperialist any more. Where new economy’s start dictating the rules. Our kind of capitalism is very vulnerable and is overdependent on foreign energy import. Think about the impact of a high oil price on our economy.

        About the looks: Here in Belgium we are proud if they build such an e126 in our backyard. They’ve build eleven e126’s in Estinnes (+70 MW or ~50.000 family’s). These are the best windmills in the world:


        It’s a symbol of modern society and independence. We can produce our own energy no matter what happens in the rest of the world.

        If the EU wants to guarantee security, stability, a nice environment, peace and prosperity in and around Europe, Renewable energy is the way to go.

        Even if it’s not that much cleaner for the environment, it has still huge advantages above the alternatives. It’s nice, it’s cool, it has obvious advantages, it’s a business. Give the money to your own people instead of Russians or the Middle East. Germany employs around 250.000 people in the renewable energy sector. Within 10 years there will be 400.000.

        Create your own energy business instead of financing some misty Russian or Middle East regimes.If the government wants to put a green jacket above al those motives, well, so be it 🙂

    1. I can try to design based on your cost/budget/power requirements any size wind machine for you. from kW to gW We can build wahtever you need. Ours is a flexible design.

    2. I can design custom wind machines based on your cost/budget/power requirements any size wind machine for you. From kW to gW We can build what ever you need. Ours is a flexible design. low tech servicing, high efficiency power

  68. For all of you disbelievers to see and know: See the future here:
    Spain, 8th of November at 5:50 a.m. Windpower covered 53,7% of Spain´s electricity consumption. You can see it in this here:
    Left down you can search the date, and click “consultar”. (in green colour – wind power)

    Go Renewable energy!!

    1. What they are talking about is a one-time event.

      Spain has enough installed wind capacity that during this one-time event 53.7% of the electric energy used in Spain came from wind.

      Denmark has exceeded that percentage a long time ago but still only produces 19% of their yearly energy via wind power. Spain produces 13% of their yearly energy with wind.

      Denmark is the leading nation in the World in regard to percentage of energy produced with wind AND has the absolute highest electric rates in the World… you draw your own conclusions.
      Fortunately, Denmark is also a very wealthy nation and the Danes can afford to pay for it.

      Of course, they exported all their heavy industry to Turkey, India and China where they don’t have be concerned about expensive energy and environmental regulations…

    1. Clive,
      We can support onshore as well as offshore wind machines.(all patented and built to your requirements)
      We also have a patented commercial sub sea generator.
      Please email your requirements and you are cordially invited to
      Palatka, Florida laboratory. Guest accommodations included.

  69. We can supply 2 megawatt wind machines for $ 2 million dollars per megawatt installed here in the U.S.A. . All you need is to bring the grid service connections in to the site.

  70. I am wondering what these 7+ mW wind turbines costs to purchase, what the cost to install, what they cost to maintain etc?
    I can not find this information anywhere?

  71. Michael N – You are seriously misinformed on the macro-economic effect of wind power versus coal/nuclear et cetera. Furthermore your comment on hydrogen production and storage as a transmission solution is way off base. How much would it cost to build these supposed hydrogen pipelines. NO LINE LOSSES ???!!!!???? Hydrogen is the TOUGHEST gas to store – it leaks through glass, iron, et cetera. FUEL CELLS??? You argue AGAINST wind and FOR fuel cells?? Have you done an economic analysis of the amount of energy it takes to produce Nafion versus the cost of wind-produced energy? Please read and do more research before spreading misinformation. And I believe that you’re just SLIGHTLY biased since you work on coal-fired projects and depend on them for your income.

    1. Makani,

      You seem quite upset about my posts which contain valuable information aimed at trying to advance a real solution to our energy/climate change issue. You make unfounded accusations yet do not provide any useful information of your own.

      I am an environmental & process engineer and I do work on all kinds of energy projects so I have no special allegiance to coal-fired energy. If you had read all my posts you would know this.

      The basic problems with using wind energy to replace fossil fuels are the following:
      – Low and erratic availability (22-26%)
      – No practical means of storing the energy on the scale required if wind energy becomes more than the minute portion of our energy production it is now.
      – Extremely expensive capital costs/kwh compared to other energy production methods (more than triple coal/gas generation). This makes wind projects non-profitable without massive government subsidies which means no private investments.
      – Short equipment lifespan compared to conventional energy production equipment.
      – Currently requires back-up through conventional fossil fuel generation, such as NG combustion turbines, making the net GHG emission reduction quite small.

      If you want to contribute in a useful manner please tell me how you address the above concerns.

      In regard to my comments on hydrogen production you completely misunderstood my position. I suggested that future large scale hydrogen production was one of the potential means by which we could store energy produced by non dispatch-able sources such as wind and solar and make them viable. If hydrogen could be produced and stored at the wind generation site and then used to power fuel cells to produce power when the wind dies down the erratic nature of the wind energy could be overcome, contrary to the current method which consists of firing up NG gas turbines to replace the missing wind power. If you want to say that this is not currently viable then I will agree and tell you that’s why there is no useful application of wind-energy on a large scale today.

  72. I’m not sure this is the forum or the Website to get into long philosophical discussions, so I’ll make this my last comment on any subject. However, I can’t let stand the last writers suggestions that there is no global warming, that man has affected the world climate and that windmills don’t kill birds. What planet are you on? The writer is simply wrong on all these proven facts but can only support the argument with some illusion to a god. A myth of a god whose presence has never been proven. Get out of your church and travel around the world a bit. For example, I frequently fly to Europe over Greenland, and have been for 30 years (contributing to global warming in the process no doubt). The Ice has retreated massively. You now see ground that was covered 30 years ago with ice, and has been covered by ice for millennium. It’s a simple and frightening example of the effect mankind has on the world, to suggest this is a natural part of the world’s evolution defies understanding of the slow changes that take place in nature. On the other hand I doubt the writer even believes in evolution, and probably believes the earth is 4,000 years old. I’m less concerned about the world than I am the future of mankind. The world is resilient and will recover once we’ve all gone. The trouble is that the end of mankind’s existence on the world will be a very ugly sight as people struggle for the last remaining resources. I am only thankful I lived through the luckiest generation in history, and won’t be around to see the end.

    1. Steve:
      I agree with you on the evidence of climate change being caused by mankind and having potential serious repercussions on the future of the species. But I see no reason to attack the person’s beliefs because he is misinformed on the scientific evidence.
      Unfortunately, this whole issue has been hijacked (by both camps) for political gain and common sense has been killed in the process. You can either be conservative, religious, pro-business, pro-America and don’t believe global warming is real or you are liberal, atheist, anti-business, pro-environment and believe global warming is real. No crossing of the ideological lines allowed…

  73. First you have to sign on to the whole GHG thing, which I and millions of intelligent people refuse to do. Short of a nuclear winter caused by man, man can no more cause global cooling / warming than windmills be responsible for the deaths of millions of birds! The world has and will continue to heal itself no matter what we miniscule creatures try to do to it. If GOD wished us to change the global climate, we’d have been given teh power to do so. We don’t have such power, therefore, we cannot have a substantial impact the Earth cannot rebound from. Why not worry about getting food to people in countries with rougue governments? Why not try to spend money here to improve this country? Why waste millions on “Carbon Credits” that do absolutely nothing but provide a job for those who hwould operate a ruse to defraud hard working companies and people of their money? Get over it. There is NO global warming. The GHG’s you refer to have been there for eons and will be there for eons, long after putz’s like yourself are gone and no longer hurting the economic base of this country. The Earth has been cooling for some time and will continue to do so. Get over it.

  74. Steve, here is the explanation of the relation between kilowatts and kilowatt-hours (which admittedly is a bit confusing). There are 24 x 365 = 8760 hours in a year, so a 7 megawatt turbine producing at 100% capacity year round would produce 7 megawatts x 8760 hours = 61,320 megawatt-hours; since a wind turbine produces at about 33% capacity factor this is equal to 1/3 of the above, or about 20,000 megawatt-hours. That is the same as 20 million kilowatt-hours.

    Michael has a number of valid points about the technical limits of wind, but also he makes some important mistakes. His data regarding the percentage of wind power (0.5%) and coal (over 50%) in the US, is years out of date. Wind output has tripled and will pass 1.5% this year, with total renewable electricity growing to over 3%. The result for coal use is the opposite of what he claims: in the 1990s coal amounted to over 50%, but fell below this level years ago, and today is shrinking to near 46% (for 12 months rolling to july 2009) as natural gas and renewables displace it successfully. for up to date info see– http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html

    In other words, Michael is missing a key turning point, and declares wind and renewables a failure just as they are actually beginning to have a real effect.

    Michael is correct that wind does not reduce carbon as much as people think if the wind is backed up by fossil fuel, as is commonly the case. However, his value of 9% reduction is a gross underestimation. Simply replacing coal with relatively low efficiency, simple cycle natural gas plants will cut carbon emissions by 30% to 40%, even without further displacing some of that natural gas power with wind.

    As for the intermittant character of wind, that is a technical challenge, but one that is currently not very significant. Except for a couple of local areas in the country, we are a long way from wind producing 20% of our power.

    The argument that we need storage for wind is correct; however we don’t need to wait for hydrogen technology. We can use pumped water storage, which is well proven and relatively cheap, and the nation has over 20,000 megawatts of existing capacity. In addition, output of wind and solar can be balanced by conventional hydropower, which is not just operated as “baseload” as Michael claims. Much of 77,000 megawatts of conventional existing US hydropower can be used to follow variable load or to meet peak demand, and can respond much faster than natural gas.

    If we include hydropower and biomass as renewable (which I know many enviros are reluctant to do), then renewable energy provides 7% of US total primary energy (as opposed to only the sources of electricity cited above), vs. 9% for nuclear and 23% for coal. In fact, renewable energy is worth more than the nuclear, due to the gross inefficiency of nuclear power–less than 30% of of heat from uranium fission gets delivered to customers as electricity. This is in addition to all the other serious problems of nuclear, such as outrageously high cost for new plants, radioactive hazards from mining, transport and waste disposal, not to mention the threat of accidents and international security issues. To illustrate: I suspect that the world’s major nations would not have the slightest concern if Iran and N. Korea were building solar or wind manufacturing plants.

    So, I will go with renewables over nuclear or fossil fuel. Also, I strongly agree with comments saying we need to invest much more heavily conservation and energy efficiency as, in general, these are the most cost effective ways to reduce carbon emissions and avoid wasting resources.

    1. Robert,
      I still don’t think you get it. The ONLY solution to our energy requirements is population control. All we’re doing in the meantime is moving the deckchairs around on the deck of the sinking Titanic. Wind power is an interesting concept, but nothing else. It will likely make some people very wealthy though. However, it won’t come even slightly close to resolving today’s energy needs, to say nothing of the needs of a world population that will increase by approx 40% – conservatively – over the next 50 years. In order for wind generators to be a solution we would need thousands of these 500 ft monsters all over the country. Think NIMBY. This will be unacceptable to a vast majority of the population. If the world, which is dominated by religious nutters of all flavors, continues to ignore the need for birth control the solution can only be Nuclear. With regards to Iran and North Korea, the west is less concerned about nuclear power plants than nuclear weapons plans.

    2. Robert,
      From your comments you appear to have “a horse in the race”. Let me address a couple of the misrepresentations you made about my prior postings.
      – The total GHG reduction possible with wind power IS 9% when compared with the alternate of building a new combined cycle gas generating unit as I stated. Wind generating stations have an average availability or service factor of 19.2% worldwide. I generously allow 26% (Not 33% as you state which totally unrealistic as an average). Therefore the best possible outcome would be 26% GHG reduction since 74% of the time the demand has to be generated by burning fossil fuel. Since cycling power plants are significantly less efficient than base loaded ones the average net GHG saving is only 9%. This is directly from two engineering studies done by companies I work with on cost evaluation and feasibility of building new wind farms. These rules apply when you consider wind energy as a large scale alternative to building new base loaded gas-fired units.
      The comparative capital cost study of a combined cycle gas unit versus a wind farm with gas turbine back-up power also reveals that the wind farm/gas turbine installed KW cost is more than twice the cost of the combined cycle plant. The 9% fuel saving cannot come close to covering this differential cost.
      – Your statement that you can cycle hydroelectric plants to compensate for the fluctuations of wind power is anecdotal at best or at worst a smoke screen to cover the fact that wind power is not a real large scale solution. With only 6% of the US electricity generated by hydroelectric stations the most they could realistically back-up through drastic cycling is a 0.5-1.0% wind energy share, so we have to face that if we move forward with wind power as our main energy strategy the overwhelming majority of the back-up power will be fossil-fuel based.
      – Using the potential reduction in GHG emissions caused by replacing an old coal-fired power plant and a new gas-fired one and extrapolating that to imply that building wind turbines would make more sense has no logical basis. Building new super critical coal boilers to replace older units would also reduce GHG emissions by 30% or more. Because more than half of the US coal- and gas-fired power stations are over 30 years old it would make perfect sense, from an environmental standpoint, to replace them all with new technology. This is not happening because of environmental activism and the media-induced anti-coal frenzy so instead the old dirty plants continue to operate under extended consent decrees approved by the same politicians who kill the new projects. Absurd!
      – My previous numbers on the fraction of the US electricity generated by coal is a bit out of date but still at 48% according to my source. Wind is now at 1.2% and total renewable energy at 3% although suspect those numbers are skewed by “fake” information. Most new coal-fired projects I have worked on in the last 4-5 years have been designed to also burn 20% “biomass” according to the permitting which may allow them to be classified as partially renewable energy sources.
      – Your numbers on the percentage of total renewable energy use in the US are completely wrong or have been manipulated to appear favorable. For electric generation 9% renewable (when including hydroelectric) is correct but that percentage decreases drastically when adding non-electric energy use for transportation which is nearly 100% petroleum based, for direct residential and commercial heating, which is nearly 100% gas and fuel oil based, for heavy industry, which is almost exclusively petroleum (petro-chem industry) and coal (steel-industry) and construction, which uses almost exclusively diesel fuels. My numbers are closer to a 4% share.

  75. “Birth control at replacement levels would stabilize the population, and it’s long-overdue. Current world growth tops 75,000,000 per year!”

    –EA: this is awesome. Plus, to be even more “green,” we should kill off the old people once they become useless to the rest of us.

    Plus: if we kill unemployed people, that helps reduce a lot of energy, righ there.

    -Plus, those convicted of major crimes more than once ought to be sacrificed as well, for the envinronment. Of course, not by electric chair, since that is inefficient. You can kill someone with much less power by inserting an electrode into the heart.

    Maybe we could ask for volunteers to sacrifice themselves. Again, electric chair should not be used, as this is very inefficient. Visually, makes a great impression, with all of that buzzing and sparks, like in the movies, but inefficient.

    Instead of killing humans before birth, we could just give everyone the right to life, but you only get 30 years. That way, we all get to share in life equally, and in a “green” way.

    We are putting too big of a burden on the earth as can be seen by …uh, global warming, I mean global cooling, I mean … climate change.

    Look at all of the starving kids, who are starving because of political instability and foreign nation-building, er, I mean, because of “famine.”

    We need to kill ourselves off. It is obvious that nature cannot do it herself, in her own “green” way.

  76. Wow, this looks really attractive. I live in the hills of Sonoma County North of San Francisco. It’s pretty bucolic here. Wouldn’t it be just wonderful to see a bunch of these 400 plus feet monstrosities on the surrounding hillside. Ok so assume you like that sort of thing. Where did this article writer learn mathematics? How does 7 Megawatts translate to 20, million KW a year? And even if it did where does the wind blow nonstop 365 days a year? It actually calculates out at 61.32 KwHours per year, enough to power approx 6900 houses (average USA use is 8900 Kw per year). seems like the writer is using a 25% utilization rate. Assuming a figure of 1766 houses per generator and a local population in Northern California of 10 Million people (rough number) at 4 persons per house, that’s 2.5 million homes or 1415 of these pretty towers. While the new Green’s spout nonsense like how the worlds going to be saved by wind farms and solar panels manufacturers are making lots of money and the real green solution is being avoided. We have too many people in the world and the world population is exploding! The ONLY solution is population control and/or Nuclear Energy.

  77. people who say that wind energy is useless because: – a) energy cannot be stored b) wind does not blow 24/7 … such people are very naive!! Conversion of wind energy to hydrogen (which can be easily stored) causes no more than 20% “energy” wastage.
    This hydrogen can be used to generate electricity and used directly in vehicles. Unreal!

  78. This is a great way to produce clean energy instead of using coal. I am all for wind power, but there are also many steps that could be taken to ensure the energy that is produced isn’t wasted. For the high price of one of these towers, the government may well have run a tax credit for the purchase of better insulation, double-paned windows, and a ‘cash-for-clunkers’ type program for less-efficient home cooling/heating appliances.

  79. I visit the Amish, the Amish use windmills and windturbines, they would not use them if they did not work. The Amish do not waist money or time, on things that do not work, and yet Amish are heavily investing in putting up windmills and wind turbines. These windmills and widtubines compress air, to run everything from water pumps to powered compressed air equiptment. They use large tanks to store compressed air, actually used propane tanks, maybe they are on to something here?

    I live in Michigan, which surounded by great lakes, that said have vast resource of untaped wind power. I think windturbines are beautifull majestic sculptures in the lanscape, I love to see more and bigger the better. I think their is money be made in long term business scheme, putting up more windfarms, which also provide local jobs. I would love to see windturbines, double even triple in size next couple years, as a mega windturbine would be very interrsting to look at.

    I see allot of comments, dumping on the use of windturbines. I Just have to wonder why, and what are the motives, of these individual and their affiliation status, with competative power producers. I hear in the news, that consumers are using less electricity. Their are more alternative electric power suppliers, contributating more percentage wise, to electric power production. Still though, the electric companies are pushing need for more coal and nuclier power plants to be built, and you got to ask yourself and wonder why as they are not needed!

    1. Because the Amish use them it’s got to be the right way to go with our National Energy Policy… Are you serious? Oh, and I also think they look beautiful and cool… Get real!

      Electric Energy consumption has been steadily rising in the United States in the last 20 years and coal burning’s share of that energy has been steadily increasing past the 50% mark.

      Meanwhile wind power has been massively subsidized in the past 20 years yet still can only muster a measly 0.5% of the American energy production. If there was real money to be made in windmills there would be heavy investments, but like any program that is kept alive by government dollars, it’s not a “healthy” place to invest. The wind industry is basically on government life-support.

      Mega-turbines like this one may improve the costs marginally but we are still talking about an energy source that is several TIMES more expensive than competing technologies per KWh produced. While fuel cost is zero, capital costs are similar, installation costs are higher, maintenance costs are prohibitive and due to mechanical stress factors the turbines have relatively short lifespans, which makes it even more difficult to recover investments.

      Some will object that the costs should not be a factor when the goal is to “save the planet”, but reality is that it is. Raising energy costs in the USA will only drive industry out, to countries that do not have the same scruples about protecting the environment and we will accomplish nothing.

      Denmark has the highest % of wind energy use in the World… and the highest energy cost of ANY country in the world… and they import all their cement, steel, raw materials etc. from countries like Turkey and India who have no significant GHG reduction programs in place. Is that where we want to go?

      My vote is for 80% nuclear by 2050 because it is the only realistic path we can start on now that takes us anywhere near the 80% GHG reduction targeted by the administration. In 20-30 years maybe a new development will allow us to change paths and I would applaud that, but let’s not waste resources on subsidizing wind-power. It’s a dead horse for the word go.

  80. Most studies I have read point to the relative cost effectiveness of conservation and efficiency vs changing the way we currently produce electricity. Wind power is getting about 90% of subsidy dollars while C and E is getting practically nothing by comparison. Why are we not doing the most cost effective things first? C and E provides a return on investment unlike any form of generation. When C and E are no longer the most cost effective solutions to reductions in fossil fuel consumption, we go to the next most cost effective method, which will likely be nuclear. Nuclear is proliferating around the world, just not in the US. The charts accompanying the Waxman-Markey bill show massive construction of nuclear generation beginning in about 15 years. C and E also ramp up considerably beginning in 10 years but the there is a tremendous push for wind power over the next 10 years. I conclude that the wind industry has successfully lobbied for favorable treatment, and that it has nothing to do with the contribution that wind power will make to our energy needs. Wind power is a waste of precious resources that should be directed toward C and E, but public policy firmly backs wind power at the moment, because the wind industry has done a good job of misrepresenting itself to the public and to government.

  81. Michael N.

    I was certainly happy to read all your good posts about the real truth of wind energy technology and its place / effect on the grid. It is almost unbelievable to me where our energy policy is being guided by this administration and the Democratically controlled congress. It is hard to believe they can be so ignorant so you have to assume they have some other agenda. Who are advising our leaders?

    Anyways, I just hope through the internet and other modern day information sources the average American soon wakes up and starts to demand that our leaders begin to do what is best for our country. Our energy and probably most especially our electrical energy is too critical to our long term survival.

  82. Interesting discussion. From my view, there is no “answer” to the 80% reduction at this time. There will probably be a combination of solutions, all of which will be dependent on future technological developments and it may take longer than 41 years. As for the current technologies, the cheapest and best is energy conservation. You don’t need: to drive to work in a vehicle the size of your living room; to live in the middle of nowhere commuting from a former cornfield that has been converted into concrete and grass that is mowed every week by a 2 cycle machine that emits more GHG’s than the family car (why not convert to vegetables and mow the remainder with a person powered machine (might solve the obesity problem)); to live in a 5,000 sq ft house; to use 2 cycle man sized toys; etc, etc. Over time, better urban planning, smaller vehicles, public transit, and more cycling and walking will help and will also lead to a better social life. Smaller & hybrid cars can make an immediate dent since hybrids do not idle in traffic congestion and electric cars hold promise for the suburbs but note the cars will be small.
    Nuclear energy can form part of the solution but it is also dependent upon some developments. For whatever reason, many of the projects went 5 or 6 hundred per cent over budget and may have something to do with no (or at least very rare) new plants built in the last 25 years. The fuel will not be almost free as the cost for uranium will skyrocket and the waste will still have to be put away for thousands of years.
    I am familiar with 2 existing wind power farms in Eastern Canada approx 30 MW each and one very large project (over 1,000 MW). One project is exceptional at 46% capacity and the other is the average for this region at 38%. This does not mean that other fuels pick up the remaining 54 & 62% because full load electricity is not required all of the time and most of the wind blows in the winter when the load is highest. They are balanced against hydro power (store water when the wind is blowing) and savings from oil fuel avoidance. Neither of the projects is subsidized and both actually save the Utility money. However, they cannot be scaled to save the world, just form part of the solution. The larger 1,000 plus MW project(s) will be built in Northern Quebec and Labrador. They will balance against the huge existing hydro projects storing water when the wind load is sufficient. The primary energy market is New York State which is several thousand miles away. The line losses are I think about 20 or 25% at the most. Line losses are largest at each end of the system.
    As for future technology needs: economical electrical power storage and conversion; better, cheaper and smaller nuclear plants; more efficient engines; more efficient peaking plants to support intermittent wind and solar; and more eco-friendly lifestyles.

  83. Wind power may not solve all the worlds problems but i don’t find anyone here coming up with better ideas. Ferrel cats kill 10 times as many birds as wind farms do but i don’t here anyone complaining about them! I build wind farms and the ones i put up don’t make any noise at all, unless you have youre ear pressed up against the tower! As far as i’m concerned the tree huggers have run out of things to complain about so they are nit-picking anything they can. Every one on this blog has used a computer to post: which uses electricity, which uses energy of some sort. so when your done chasing oil tankers with you diesel powerd boats maybe you will find a real cause to pick on.

    1. Nick: Most people objecting to wind power in this thread do not oppose it on environmental impact grounds but rather on the fact that windmills do not come close to solving the problem and provide cover for those who want to “appear” to be green while refusing to face the real magnitude of the global GHG emission problem.
      Having lived near several large windmills I do agree with you that (while they ARE annoying and ugly) windmills are not a major threat to wildlife or quality of life.

      1. How can you admit that turbines are “annoying and ugly” yet call them “not a major threat” to quality of life? What IS “quality of life” if nature continues to be visually degraded?

        Some of us put very high value on keeping the landscape as unfettered as possible. We are dismayed by mindless population growth for the same reason. It’s no trivial thing to industrialize what’s left of nature, which continues to shrink in the face of growthism.

        Turbines are increasingly visible from protected areas, which degrades the whole experience of escaping to nature. Climbing a mountain in a national park and not being able to screen out turbines on the horizon cheapens the whole experience. Their movement sets them apart from power lines, which are rarely white and contrasty also.

        And remember, they’re talking about dramatically increasing the scale of these things. What you see today could be repeated 100 or 1,000-fold in worst-case scenarios. This is not something to casually dismiss. Both aesthetic and economic arguments should be used.

        1. E.A.
          I also place a high value on the beauty of nature and my tranquility, but those considerations have become secondary to trying to solve global environmental and economic issues.
          While we live in a highly industrialized, efficient, convenient and “pampered” environment, we can afford to worry about such things as impact on wildlife and visual impact. On the other hand, if your life depended on the power from that windmill you would probably not care as much if it killed a few birds or cluttered a “beautiful” view.
          The world population has reached such a level that it can no longer be sustained without heavy industrialization. Rapid growth in countries such as India and China, both striving to achieve the “lifestyle” of western countries, is adding a huge new stress on the world’s already damaged environment… And they are still in the early stages of their industrial development. This will be getting a lot worse.
          We have to face the fact that there is no status quo possible and there is no way back to “the way it used to be”.
          If windmills provided a real solution to the energy problem I’d advocate covering every shoreline, every National Park, every mountain range with them.

          1. You and I radically differ in that I DON’T accept the inevitability of mindless population growth. I’m not anthropocentric or a Creationist, i.e. one who thinks everything revolves around human needs because some old book said so. Nature is actually more important than people because it keeps us alive, not vice versa. Blindly putting people above nature is a dangerous priority. It can only be gotten away with up to a point.

            Biologists have stated that the optimal world population might be as low as 2 billion, not the depressing 9 or 10 billion we’re currently headed for. Society needs to stop treating large families as a “freedom” since they are more of a burden overall. Pragmatic choices must be made on a finite planet.

            Birth control (two or fewer children per couple) is old technology that could solve far more problems than building skyscraper turbines. Reducing demand is far more intelligent than coddling it on auto-pilot. Societies throughout history have collapsed when they pushed the growth envelope. Newer technology doesn’t make us immune to that.

            I would NOT trash a view just to satisfy my own energy needs, so speak for yourself on that. Solar and safe nuclear (like the new “portable” reactors) can help minimize the visual impact of the energy grid. It’s not inevitable that views must be sacrificed to the God of overpopulation. It’s only happening because people don’t respect limits to growth.

          2. Michael N wrote: “If windmills provided a real solution to the energy problem I’d advocate covering every shoreline, every National Park, every mountain range with them.”

            That’s a disturbing display of anthropocentrism that contradicts your other statements. If do you have aesthetic values they must be easily bought and sold. I’m guessing you’re a Republican.

            In that scenario, unspoiled nature would be reduced to film footage, like the scene with the old man in Soylent Green. A depressing legacy for the human race.

            Sure. Instead of wisely using birth control to restore balance, let’s just convert the remaining scenic parts of the planet into industrial parks to satiate techno-drones. Then, we might find another planet to spoil in the same manner. Growth for the sake of growth itself, like a tumor set free from one body to invade another. Progress with no soul.

          3. E.A. wrote: “That’s a disturbing display of anthropocentrism that contradicts your other statements. If do you have aesthetic values they must be easily bought and sold. I’m guessing you’re a Republican.”

            I think the issue is not selling my values but realizing what the extent of the problem is and how high the cost to survive it might be. You are quick to label me so you can take refuge in the fact that I am not “enlightened” like you and thus you don’t have to deal with the issues I raise.

            Are you willing to make the sacrifices it will take to keep the planet alive? I mentioned paving the parks/mountains/seashores with windmills only to highlight what extremes we might need to go to in order to reverse the environmental destruction that is in progress.

            Would you be willing to cut your personal energy consumption by 90% in order to use only “your” share of the current worldwide production? This would include also cutting all forms of consumption by 90% as all consumption equates to energy. Producing and distributing goods including food, accounts for a huge portion of your energy footprint.

            Advocating birth control as the solution in a society where the population growth rate (minus immigration) is already seriously negative is not going to take you very far.

            Advocating population and industrialization growth limits on foreign (developing) countries where the real growth is, will get you labeled as an American Imperialist but will not do anything to fix the problem either.

            Since I can’t see a realistic way to stop the world wide growth trend I choose to look for the least damaging solution to allow us to survive until reason sets in. Wind Energy isn’t it as I have repeatedly stated here if we are to roll back our GHG emissions by 80% in 40 years.

    2. You build wind farms and refuse to criticize them? What else is new with the profit motive? It’s apparent that the turbine business is run by the same mindset that’s happy to scar the land with oil wells. Wind is worse in many ways because the structures are permanent, spinning and usually larger. It perpetuates the trashing of nature under a “green” badge.

      Give a specific example of a turbine that makes “no noise” except up close, as you claim. Evidence debunks that claim. The noise is often broadcast long distances in unexpected ways, especially at night when ambient (masking) noise drops and people are trying to sleep.

      A video project called “The Voices of Tug Hill” (on YouTube, etc.) goes in-depth about life around monster turbines. Noise a is a major issue, in addition to visual blight, the strobe effect of blade shadows, and the impact of service roads.

      Your (well-worn) comment about everyone using electricity misses the point. Just because one is born into a wasteful society doesn’t mean one must either live in a hut or be a full-on glutton. People use energy at different rates based on personal choices.

      Many people calling themselves “conservatives” have little interest in conserving anything but money. They think nature owes them a ravenous lifestyle with no sacrifices. Many Creationists think Jesus will return and wipe out nature, so why should they conserve?

      I’m for halting population growth via birth control, using solar panels on roofs and making nuclear as safe as possible. Freezing demand-growth (sheer numbers of people) would finally give us a stable supply target. It will fix countless other environmental problems as well.

      1. E.A.
        I do agree with you on this point. The current crisis is brought on by continued growth of world population and the rapid development of previously non-industrialized giants, India & China.
        But since there is no realistic way to decrease world population rapidly, impose population growth limits on a global scale or prohibit industrial development in other countries, I see no solution along that route short of direct catastrophic environmental changes forcing global policy changes or causing a massive population decrease.

  84. Rajeev, at last somebody who makes sense talking about wind energy. I participated in the beginning of this blog as a fervent opposer of this ridiculous idea that windpower could make a serious dent in world wide fosil fuel consumption. And got a little tired of the total lack of understanding by the general public (and about 70% of the bloggers in this blog) with respect to energy.
    But I like to pint out there is at least one project in the world where windpower could make sense. Have a look at the following link:

    1. This type of example is commendable as long as people understand that this cannot be duplicated on a large scale. The island is a very low energy consumer with no industry, no mass transportation and a very mild climate… basically a residential community in the middle of the best wind power conditions you can get (Windy coastal area with hilltops). The pumping system to store energy is absurd from an economic standpoint but with an unused source of power (excess wind energy that can’t leave the island) an energy storage system that returns about 20% of what you put into it is better than nothing. You can disregard economics when you build a utopian green energy showcase like this island using government money but it would be economically disastrous to scale this up. If the islanders were asked to pay for the true cost of the equipment and infrastructure themselves they would all move back to the mainland and there would be no need to produce any energy on the island… Problem solved!
      Sorry if I sound sarcastic. So much of this green talk is “doublespeak” that I even get mad when I hear about a very nice project like this. I know that some will seize this “banner” and use it to advocate that we should convert our entire power production to wind mills and pumping stations even if it makes no sense at all.

  85. Hi….my two bit.

    The only way i believe wind can play a part in our quest for alternate sources of energy, is when we master a cheap and efficient way of storing this unstable power. It could either be building wind plants together with pumped storage or with a reverse fuel cell unit (breaking up water into H2 and O2 and then using H2 to recombine to produce power)

    Another interesting technology could be compressed air…using the wind turbines to compress air at low demand periods and then using this compressed air to drive generators

    Or perhaps someone will come up with a simple idea….

    Keep it (b)flowing…….

  86. Although solar is more “predictable” than wind it is still a non-dispatchable power source.
    The capability to convert and store electric energy in a large scale, cost effective and energy efficient way is the key to making both solar and wind viable options. In my opinion the most promising technology is electro-catalytic conversion of seawater into hydrogen which can be stored in tanks and transported in pipelines.
    That’s where I would invest my “green” dollars if it was up to me. You can make it whenever the wind blows, the sun shines and the atoms split. Then you can use it in fuel cells in your own home to create the electricity you need on demand or fuel your hydrogen powered car with it… no more grid losses… no more black outs… no more gas stations… no more oil imports. Forget solar panels and rooftop windmills, get me a hydrogen tank and a fuel cell!

  87. Frankly, nuke for now and solar when it gets more efficient, in the long run, are going to be our best bets.

    Although…if they could figure out how to harvest the energy produced by kindergartners at recess we might have a longer term solution to our energy problems…j/k 🙂

  88. This article explains very well why subsidizing ineffective renewables to fight global warming is causing us to miss the only opportunity we have to reduce fossil fuel consumption – massive conservation and efficiency. Wind power will not push the fossil fuel horizon out more than 4 or 5 years in the next century. C and E could push it out 40 or 50 years. 90% of subsidies are going to wind power. Almost nothing, by comparison is going to C and E. Government are in complete denial about the real target.


  89. OMG! This is the first time I had seek wind turbine in picture. I could generate (7+ Megawatts) of electricity.

    It has to be in japan!

  90. this is big verry big can i see closely i live in Pakistan City Karachi i have a poultry forms but here is not electricty i made one small windterbine i made generator work is finish his weight 102 kgs i still working his blade i fiber glass
    i think i finish this month and nest month i installed in my form

    1. Kieran:
      Not specifically in wind power but I have 30 years technical experience in all forms of power generator, power distribution and environmental engineering. I work daily with people who produce and sell power, people who analyze power project feasibility and who deal with all these issues. Although I currently work on several coal-fired projects I am in agreement with a long term plan to phase that type of power out but not in favor of something that will cost more and not significantly improve GHG emissions… that would be stupid.

      1. ######Your experience: Not specifically in wind power but I have 30 years technical experience in all forms of power generator, power distribution and environmental engineering.#####

        As my experience is basically zero i always rely on various sources to check the information and the attempt to find a medium that matches the answer sought.

        While your explanation of the technology is quite fulfilling and would satisfies my thirst to find a balance to what is being spilled out as we in Australia call ‘spin’ I also make a habit of questioning the ‘truth’ from both sides when attempting to find the ‘medium’.

        As i have no basic knowledge in the field of energy (power) production or transmission I rely on what is available out there to fulfil my thirst to clarify technical jargon.

        ####You wrote:It is unrealistic to expect that a MW produced in Kansas can back-up a MW missing in New England because the transmission losses would eat up 50% of the power.####

        And i thought to myself that 50% seems a little over the top as far as high voltage transmission is concerned, and especially in the US where the electrical transmission is basically networked as a whole to ensure a stable current to keep the infrastructure stable hence not causing blow outs due to transformer shut down.

        This text is purely a copy of what I’m reading so it may not be as accurate as to what your knowledge is so I expect a lecture of some sort :=)
        Why is it then that the official figures state the power loss in transmission around 7% but you state it as 50%?

        If the figure is the 7% I would be inclined to say that if your figure in one item is so far out of whack, then how can do I translate the remainder of your text?

        The reason I am asking this question, is that while there are a lot of people out there seeking answers to make an uneducated decision in the daily medial/political spin on the environment issues, we are entitled to get a fair go at finding answers are not?

        The one outcome of the Copenhagen B-S festival was that there is a lot of doctoring of documents behind closed doors to ensure the data matches the ‘spin’ and that does not help the cause.
        Nor does incorrect or overstated figures in technical text.

        I say this without prejudice and hope for a fair outcome for the whole humanity, which i am afraid will not happen without the gradual reduction of population.

        1. Ray,

          Thank you for your reply and for staying very focused.

          The figure of 7.2% is the 1995 US power losses in distribution of power which is correct. In the US the average kWh produced travels approximately 100 miles from the placed it is made to the place it is used.

          Power losses in transmission are proportional to the distance traveled. They are due to resistances losses (Electricity converted to heat and lost to the environment) and Corona losses (Ionization of the air surrounding the conductor causing electrons to migrate off the line to the environment).

          The reason transmission distance averages 100 miles is because fossil fuel generation plants (coal boilers, gas turbines, combined cycle plants) and nuclear power plants are generally placed near populated areas.

          IF we were to transition to wind power as our primary power source we would now have much longer transmission distances to deal with because the effective wind generation areas (areas with frequent AND stable wind conditions) are concentrated in the mountains, some open plains and some coastal areas. I was speculating that high concentration of wind farms would occur in Kansas-Oklahoma, New England, the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevadas where current and proposed wind projects are mostly located. This would mean much longer average transmission distances to population centers and would result in much higher losses (My 50% number is a speculative figure assuming power produced in Kansas being used in New England which is an extreme case).

          I completely agree with you in regard to the population issue. There are not enough resources on this planet to support 7 billion people living at the current consumption levels of the USA, Europe, Japan and other “Western” cultures, yet all countries strive for this “standard”. Something is going to have to give but I don’t see anyone willing to give up what they “have” until something catastrophic happens to force the issue.

  91. I concur with your explanation and this is evident with anyone building turbines. The only way to provide true non-GHG energy is to make sure
    these wind farms are offshore and producing hydrogen. We have done it with the wind and ocean turbines in our grouping of patented commercially available systems. We as business people and inventors have successfully swayed investors to our inventions. Once we make green energy sexy enough, you will see a tidal wave of investments come to the aid in building super efficient non-GHG power systems. BUT, dirty power is more profitable right now. We’re getting closer though!
    Soon the real power of the people spoken through their 401k’s, etc… will be the change the earth needs.

    1. I agree 100% – I only want people to know what the real issues are and make informed decisions. The route to Green Energy, which we all should want, seems to pass through development of new efficient energy storage or energy conversion technologies. While these are being developed let’s not invest in dead-end technologies that are expensive and resolve nothing.
      However, don’t put too much stock in the investor’s mood. They will invest in anything that can make money even if it’s a bad idea. Investments in conventional wind farm technology is 100% driven by government subsidies not by real market factors.
      Because the net GHG emission reductions from using wind energy are so modest it makes more sense financially AND ENVIRONMENTALLY to replace old inefficient gas and coal boilers with new super critical units which produce as much as 20% more electricity for the same GHG emissions. Engineering Companies in the power industry know this but it is not a politically acceptable position because it makes it clear to all that we are settling for cutting our GHG emissions by only 20%.
      On the other hand, moving forward with current wind farm technology on a large scale, with a maximum potential GHG emission cut of 9% is acceptable because the public perceives that wind farms are “clean”… As with the investor’s mood, public acceptance of an idea is not a criteria that should be used to decide if it is a good one.

      1. Good points Michael, we should be seriously investing in Hydrogen conversion and storage for the long term energy future.
        In the meantime ? well i for one see wind energy as a big white elephant.
        More efficient generation systems and our old freind Nuclear would be a stop gap for the rest of this century while we wait for new technology and energy breakthroughs to occur.
        But governments are taking the easy way out and pleasing the green lobby by subsidising wind turbines.

  92. While I see a lot of well-meaning people supporting the use of wind power, they don’t really understand the “big picture”.
    It seems logical that putting a windmill up and having it “pump” energy into the grid would be a positive thing because it would logically reduce the use of “bad power” (GHG-producing fossil fuel power).
    This is the simple “Happy Face” the wind power industry puts on the issue.
    But the secondary consequence, which is overlooked by most people, is what happens to the grid when this variable (basically unreliable) source of power is added?
    The grid is designed to follow the demand which varies seasonally but also from day-to-day based on temperatures, other weather conditions, human events/schedules. At any instant the power produced must equal the power used because there is no “storage” capacity in the grid. You can’t put more in than is used or put less in than is used.
    To follow the variable demand the power producers use a variety of “building blocks” from steady running constant load units (Nuclear, Hydroelectric) to slow load-following power plants (Gas & Coal boilers) to rapid start high demand units (Combined Cycle Gas Units) to peaking units (Gas & Diesel generators). Typically, the further up on the demand curve a unit is the more expensive it is to run and the more GHG gasses it makes. It is optimal (economically) to run the base loaded units at maximum capacity and only use the expensive units to fill-in the ripples at the top of the demand curve.
    When you add a new source that itself is fluctuating based on wind velocity in a short time span and also fluctuates from 0-100% availability from day-to-day, you can no longer rely on a few small peaking units to fill the ripple, because the “ripple” becomes much larger than the demand ripple and becomes bigger the more wind power sources are added. Large Coal & Gas fired power plants are not designed to be taken in and out of service on a day to day basis. When they are staffed, maintained and fueled they need to run at high capacity to justify their operating costs.
    These units would have to be phased out in favor of new peaking gas-fired turbines and huge numbers of them equal in capacity to the added wind power capacity.
    This is a terrible idea, basically forcing the building new GHG-producing generating units, and not very efficient ones, in order to be able to insert wind-power into our grid. It is definitely not the route to 80% reduction in GHG by 2050…
    And please don’t tell me that because there will be so many windmills spread over a large area they can be interconnected to even out the load so they will need no back-up. This is fantasy. Wind is a large scale phenomena which comes and goes over entire regions. Transporting electric power more than a couple of hundred miles is unrealistic until we develop commercial ambient temperature superconductors. The average KWh in the USA travels less than 100 miles from the place it is made to the place it is used yet 7.2% of the power is lost in the process. Double or triple those distances and you have more than wiped out any GHG emissions savings with line losses.


    That shows your ignorance. the blade tip speed of a blade that long is more than fast enough to kill bats and birds.

    1. Sure, 12 rpm doesn’t sound like it could harm a fly. However, a rotor diameter of 413 ft at the above mentioned rpm equates to a tip speed of 177 mph. Sounds lethal to me. Buildings, cars, and oil spills are still a big pet peeve to birds worldwide, but I provided this simple calculation just so the original author does not trivialize the impact this device will have.

  94. Ich glaube nicht alle, was die Windturbinen die Leistung ereichen koennen, ­weil die Windturbinen mit horisontalen Achsen viele unten Nachteilen:
    1- Durch die schraegen Fluegel wurde meiste Windstroemmungen gerutscht.
    2-Das Windradempfaengt nur eine Windrichtung beschraengt die Leistung
    3- Niedrige Effekt
    4- Mit langen Fluegeln dreht der Rotor sehr langsam, weil der Luftwiderstand sehr gross ist.
    5- Bei Rechnung wurde die Leistung dÎ Windturbine mehrmal Uebertreibt

  95. We have Renewable Energy Management Expert™ certificate program. Could we have a case study on this t”oy”? I would like to include in my presentation.


    Mike Marco

  96. I agree that wind farms are not a solution but only a bandaid. Nuclear is our best choice. Wind would work well on an individual basis; ie, not one where the consumer pays the wind company but one where the consumer owns his own windmill. This as well as solar panels on every new home would ease costs. Having any entity other than yourself provide basic energy is why we never get ahead. We have become slaves to coal, gas, and oil. None of which can be harvested by individuals at home.

  97. All this talk of “non-polluting” wind farms doesn’t account for their massive VISUAL pollution at great distances, plus clear-cuts and access roads that pollute the immediate terrain.

    There are also big problems with turbine noise and shadow-flicker for people and animals that live up to thousands of feet away. The whole concept of wind “farms” is a misnomer, since “farm” conjures images of pastoral, quiet scenery.

    Wind power (on an industrial, land-grabbing scale) is the mean side of Green. It’s disturbing to see these eyesores pushed as “clean” energy when they defile almost every landscape and seascape they’re built on.

    1. We need proactive solutions to counter the growing demand for energy. Everyone reading these blogs just plugs in. We must all account for this power useage. We are private companies using our own monies to create energy and jobs as well as clean energy. It is not a perfect world and we as inventors must try to alleviate as much of the future burden with ingenuity and development.

      1. Half the problem in the first place is the idea that “growing demand” must be coddled no matter what. Why is it so hard to question human numbers? We expect other species to live in balance while we run rampant over nature with housing-starts, roads and turbines.

        You can tell a superficial environmentalist from a pragmatic one by the former’s blindness to overpopulation. You don’t solve overpopulation by treating it as inevitable. It’s an unnatural situation caused by death control overriding birth control. Birth control at replacement levels would stabilize the population, and it’s long-overdue. Current world growth tops 75,000,000 per year!

        The planet is FINITE and the population/economy can’t grow ad-infinitum just because there’s money to be made in a pyramid economy (false prophets chasing false profits). One of the truest quotes ever written was: “Perpetual growth is the creed of the cancer cell.”

    2. Land grabbing? It’s still possible to use the land for other activities – eg. farming.
      Defile a seascape?! – reminds me of that Daily Show skit about that “horrible wind farm project that’s visible 7 miles out to sea from some expensive homes off Marthas Vinyard” and how much physcological damage it would do to the owners of their million dolllar mansions seing these tiny white specs in the distance!)
      Shadow flicker on animals? That has to be a joke right? Name me a study about squirrels (or cows that people will eventually slaughter anyway) going crazy from shadow flicker! If the animals are in a field I’m sure they’re perfectly capable of moving somewhere else by themselves. And noise… wind turbines aren’t that noisy – I’ve stood underneath a 2MW turbine and it’s barely audible in average winds … you could argue that we should ban airplanes they are noisy, lorries and roads are noisy too. And if they’re in an upopulated area who’s going to hear this noise?
      Anyone who believes resources (oil and gas especially) but coal and nuclear are depletable (ie. not infinite) should realise that 1 MW from wind, wave, tidal, solar is 1MW of non-renewables we didn’t use (and can use in the future). So its stupid that some people say JUST because you need a backup for when there’s no wind that you should rule out wind power completely.
      UK Studies show given an efficient grid we can hit 30% wind (unreliable renewables) before the grid would suffer. Portugal, Germany, Holland are already at 15-25% renewables already. But 30% is possible due to several factors:
      1. pumped hydro or just plain hydro (can typically start in under 90 seconds to meet grid fluctuations – the US is 20% hydro power).
      2. gas (again has a better start time than coal)
      3. grid usage is often predictable (kettles on during TV advert breaks) and small fluctuations in power are made by experts, adjusting the voltage so as to make sure demand=supply. You underestimate grid balancing done every day for decades if you don’t understand this concept.
      4. There is always grid excess capacity – inefficient coal power plants are often mothballed for days or months because they are only brought in during peak use (summer daytime 11am – 6pm when air conditioners in homes and offices are running).
      Now there are vast open tracts of land in the world with no people, and few animals, and are not an area of “outstanding natural beauty” (but also close enough to a grid or populated area for transmission purposes). Stick wind farms in these places.

    3. I would much rather have a little “visual pollution” though I think wind turbines are graceful in any case…than a coal fired, smoke belching power station or an invisibly radiating nuclear power station shredding my genes.

      Would you offer up your backyard for nuclear waste or coal ash EA? If not, get used to cleaner and truly renewable energy!

      1. Smoke-belching power station? That’s a scare tactic from the 1960’s… How many “smoke-belching power-stations” are in your back yard? The flyash disposal is so minute compared to the hundred million tons of garbage the US population produces each year. Having a municipal landfill in your backyard is much closer to reality.

        Modern coal fired power plants are actually very, very clean. The issue is CO2 emissions which are clear, non-toxic, but contribute to global warming. Coal-fired power stations produce a little over 50% of the electricity in the USA and their share is growing every year because other electric power sources (nuclear, hydroelectric) are stagnant. Wind, solar, geothermal and other “renewables” account for less 1% in total.

        The true cost of wind energy is approximately 4 x as much as coal energy. Would you be willing to pay 4 x as much for electricity and for the energy component in every service and product you buy? Most people wouldn’t be able to. That’s the primary reason I don’t see wind power as a “real” solution to any of our current problems.

  98. hi,
    this is incredible. we have urgent need for turbines like this if you’ll be gracious enough to mail us a full literature on its spec, output, land area requirement if we need it modules to give 100mw.
    we need urgent reply please.
    well done and keep breaking through.

  99. With respect to Mike N, I whole-heartedly agree with his statements. But there are solutions to his pause about wind energy. Firstly it is a free energy source to drive mechanical/electrical devices.

    We have designed our economical wind turbine machines to not only provide a constant available source of electricity, but also produce viable non- polluting by-products. Hydrogen is easily sourced from our turbines to provide zero emission fuel to produce electricity when wind is unavailable.
    Our turbine operates not only on land but also underwater in the tidal and ocean regions of our planet. Please contact me by visiting our website, http://globalwindengineering.com/contactus.aspx for any information and I will gladly speak or write back to you ASAP.
    Sincerely, John Guncsaga. Executive, V.P.

  100. Because energy cannot be stored and production has to follow demand wind power is a “fake” solution to GHG reduction and global warming stabilization.

    Contrary to hyped claims by the ill-informed, Hawaii will not get off fossil fuel by installing 100% wind turbine generating capacity instead they will guarantee that they can NEVER meet the 80% GHG reduction by 2050 set as a goal by the Obama administration. Even in Hawaii they can’t summon the wind so the turbines will on average produce around 26% of the power they need… the other 74% will have to come from a variable source that can come in and out on demand: single cycle gas and oil turbines. On windy days no problem 100% power from the wind. On the “average” day 26% power from the wind 74% from gas and on bad days 100% power from gas and 0% from wind. Because gas/oil units with fluctuating demand make much less efficient use of the fuel than modern combined-cycle base-loaded gas units the TRUE savings in GHG emissions savings realized in this scheme is only around 9%.

    There is a reason natural gas barons, such as T-Boone Pickett, promote wind farms: They virtually guarantee a huge future demand for natural gas and a “WINDFALL” for them because you can’t back-up wind farms with base-loaded nuclear or coal-fired units. Don’t be fooled, the “wind promoters” are not all selfless environmentalists.

    US Utilities that have recently bought wind-energy contracts from the big wind farms in Kansas know it: The yearly number of starts on their small gas-fired peaking units has skyrocketed and their natural gas consumption along with it while they have reduced their consumption of cheap coal.

    If our aim is to cut GHG emissions by 80% by 2050 (just 41 years) wind power cannot even be a part of the solution because it locks-in a large GHG producing back-up capacity. As much as I hate it, the only existing technology that can get us there is nuclear combined with electric cars and (wishful thinking) an efficient electro-catalytic method of producing Hydrogen from water for applications where a combustible fuel is required. If we started right now building enough nuclear power plant to replace all older coal and gas units as they fade out and building additional ones to cover growing electric transportation needs we have a small change to get to the goal of 80%.

    If we go the wind route I predict we will be at 110% of current GHG emissions in 40 years, still making over 70% of our electric power with coal and gas power plants.

    1. Michael, you’re right, and you’re wrong..
      If the turbines are spread geographically, there’s always wind somewhere, and the average production value will prove to be more stable than is the case now, so the solution is to interconnect the windfarms. On the other hand, I don’t think those turbines alone will prove to be the answer for the carbon emission problem.
      It’s not or, it’s and. Build the turbines and build the nuclear power plants. Build them both.

      1. Toon: I tried to keep it rather simple with my example of Hawaii which can physically not be interconnected with other power grids.
        But on a 48-state basis we are facing exactly the same situation:
        Wind is a large scale atmospheric phenomena which affects areas too large to interconnect. It is unrealistic to expect that a MW produced in Kansas can back-up a MW missing in New England because the transmission losses would eat up 50% of the power. There is a capability to “shift” moderate amounts of power between adjacent areas so wind can exist as a small (and expensive) GHG reducing factor IF we plan to continue to use gas and coal as our primary power source. If we decide on a wholesale move to nuclear wind becomes unnecessary and diverts effort and resources from replacing existing fossil plants with nuclear. Wind power is a distraction that politicians use to avoid dealing with the problem. As religion was called the opium of the people, wind power is the opium of the green movement…

        1. Michael: I totally agree with you. Nuclear is the best way to go – technically. Sorry to say though, I don’t believe we will see any new nuclear plant coming online in the next 20 years. We want them but people will not have them approved. And placing them in the dessert – well – we run into those big losses of 50% in those high-voltage power lines. So we are mmh, screwed, unless we reduce the losses to – let’s say 10%. Isn’t that more realistic? So while we can start saving (?) money for nuclear which may never spend, we could complement what we have with todays technology, readily available: wind and solar. BTW: Just a few weeks ago I saw an entire summer school class understand that solar works on the grid, even though at the beginning of class most of them had the notion that it did not, since at night, well – no sun. Then again, we hang out in CA. We have a history with working wind energy (about 30 years) and being weird.

          1. While I have nothing against solar and wind power technology, neither is ready for “prime time” on wide scale. Wind, solar, geothermal and other green technologies account for less than 1% of the electric power generated in the USA today (50% coal-20% Natural Gas-20% Nuke-7% Hydro-2% Petro-1% Other) and that is electric power only.

            The other big energy consumer is transportation which is almost 100% Petro and finally direct use energy (Habitation heat and direct processing heat) which again are 90% Petro-based. Wind/Solar is no solution for those either.

            Converting a significant portion of the US electric production to wind and solar, which are non-dispatchable power sources (You can’t decide when they produce power) and also geographically restricted puts a huge constraint on how the rest of the power generation facilities will operate. A grid with 20% non-dispatchable power is practically uncontrollable and requires a huge percent of the remaining power to be rapid on/off sources such as gas fired turbines. The portion of our electricity produced by natural gas turbines would have to go to over 50% to accomodate 20% wind power. If over 50% of your power comes from burning Natural Gas it is obvious that you will NEVER achieve a 80% reduction in GHG emissions.

            Transmission losses in electric power lines are currently 7.2% of the power produced in the USA but power is typically produced within 100 miles of where is used. Wholesale power transfers from solar zones (southwest) and wind zones (mountains, coasts, plains) to population zones could easily triple or quadruple those losses. There is no current technology to reduce electric transmission losses as we are already using the highest voltages possible (Balancing resistance and corona losses).

            Many new technologies could change the whole picture such as massive energy storage, efficient electro-catalytic hydrogen production, ambient temperature superconductors etc. but with the current technology investing in wind/solar over nuclear will aggravate our GHG emission problems not improve them.

        2. michael: you said before…

          there is no current technology to reduce transmission losses – well, there is, high voltage DC.

          wind energy is not ready for “prime time” on wide scale – it is widely used and integrated in europe, much more than 1% of the energy produced in countries such as germany, denmark, UK, spain.

          It is unrealistic to expect that a MW produced in Kansas can back-up a MW missing in New England – true, but it is very realistic for MW in the wind rich New England coast to power New England. Again, proven in Europe, the US only needs to catch up.

          1. High Voltage DC is nothing new and does reduce line losses because it eliminates the voltage drop due to line inductance, but it is a rather small factor. Corona losses due to extreme high voltage (over 750KV) is what limits the capability to transmit power over long distances. This is also a problem with DC power. That is why DC is barely used in power transmission. The power saving is offset by the huge cost of converting AC to DC then back to AC.
            As far as New England is concerned you just proved my point. If you chose to use New England wind power in New England only you have 26% of your power need covered (Average wind availability = 26%). But that’s an average number. You also have committed to a secondary rapidly variable power source equal in capacity to the wind turbines that covers the other 74% of the electric energy needed in New England. This will be a mix of single cycle gas turbines and combined cycle (Turbine/Boiler) gas units.
            Because these units will operate up and down depending on the wind load their efficiency will be reduced. Net result is only a 9% reduction in GHG emissions and a guarantee that you won’t go any lower than that in the future. The USA is targeting an 80% GHG-reduction by 2050. It is impossible to achieve if we opt to spend our resources subsidizing wind power. Spending money on wind power is a BAD idea from an Environmental standpoint. It’s like having to cross the Atlantic as fast as possible and deciding the best option is to get into a row boat and start rowing. Sure you will make progress in the right direction but you’re never going to get there and once you are 30 miles off the coast your options are used up.
            Europe already made those bad choices and they are realizing it right now. Danish power engineers say that they have reached the absolute limit of the amount of wind energy they can use (20% of total power) because their grid is becoming unstable. Being a little country with big neighbors they have the added benefit of being able to sell their excess wind power to Germany & Sweden and use back-up capacity from their grids when the wind energy production drops off. This cannot be done on a global scale.

      2. the logistics to connect these turbines globally would far exceed their value. and not to mention the volt loss over hundreds and thousands of miles would proove not practicle.

    2. I rotation every 5 seconds means the tip of the blades are moving at 180 miles an hour in case any didnt catch that! i think that could kill a bird???

  101. People keep saying that because “wind turbines are only aprox 33% efficient you need to have 100% grid backup”… but forget 2 BIG points!
    1. They are 33% efficient – but that means 33% of max capacity… it does not mean they sit idle for 67% of the time!… the wind CAN be blowing 100% of the time but turning the blades slowly (this is what 33% means) it does not mean 10 days a month of 30mph winds, 20 days of nothing! That means 100% grid backup is NOT NEEDED. There is never really “no wind” (apart from the doldrums)… at ground level there may seem to be “no wind” often – but that is because wind is disturbed for a long time by trees and buildings.. but pretty much every day you will see clouds moving across the sky – and that’s why turbines are tall! Trust me – go 100metres up in the air – and you will feel wind on what seems like a non-windy day! And it won’t be gusty (like near the ground it will be sustained). When you have an efficient grid then when there’s less wind in one end of the country, there can be higher wind speeds somewhere else… (this is the same way insurance companies work… not everybody has a car crash at the same time), it is very rare for the wind to not be blowing fast enough to blow a turbine somewhere.. and when there is this is how the grid works – there are old, inefficient coal power stations that are almost never used because there cost per MW is so high – they are turned on at peak time!!
    2. Every watt of energy saved by generating electricity from alternatives is oil / gas / coal (and yes even nuclear) saved for the future… these are not renewables… oil is peaking, 83 MILLION barrels a day is NOT sustainable… estimates put max production at 50 million barrles in 15 years, 30 million barrels in 30 years… gas is peaking, oil HAS peaked in 60 countries (UK 1999, Norway 2002, USA 1970, Venezuala, Mexico, China, etc).

  102. Yes, OK, Wind turbines are part of a short term solution to mankinds future energy needs.
    But lets not bury our heads in the sand……..Fossil fuels WILL run out eventually……and until that happens we must strive to change our energy habits and develop new and novel solutions to our needs.
    I prefer Nuclear power, given that Mankind can get together and adopt a safe disposal method for the High level waste…….like burial in subductive tectonic regions.

    Any thoughts folks?


  103. If only this issue was a Trivial Persuit to those of us who are impacted by the intrusion of these monstrous machines into our lives with their sleep depriving blade thump, reduction in value of our tourism business and value of our properties, and untold impact on wildlife habitat and wildlife mortality. What avian species stands a chance against a blade tip moving at 180 MPH? Wildlife protection has been reduced to counting dead animals in “post construction mortality studies”.

    In remote areas like Maine’s mountain regions it will cost the wind industry over $110 per MW to deliver electricity to the grid. Electricity is currently selling for about $35 per MW in the day ahead ISO NE grid in Maine. The difference is made up in subsidies.

    If the public monies being directed to wind power in Maine were instead directed to energy efficiency and conservation programs for Maine families, each household would be eligible for $15,000 for insulation, better windows, heating system upgrades, or a more fuel efficient vehicle. The budget this year is about $15 per household. Since conservation and efficiency are well known to be the most cost effective means of reducing fossil fuel consumption, aren’t these spending priorities completely reversed from what is intuitively obvious?

    Instead $4.75 billion of our tax dollars is being directed toward the deployment of 1800 1.5 MW turbines on over 200 miles of pristine ridgeline, plus hundreds of miles for access roads and hundreds of miles of new transmission corridors to reach remote wind projects. All for about 4.5% of the average daily demand of the New England grid. 2700 MW of installed capacity is 675 MW of actual generation using the 25% forward capacity factor assigned by the grid. The grid operates at an average daily demand of about 15,000 MW. 675 divided by 15,000 is 4.5% Am I missing something?

    President Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex controlling government spending. It has n0w become the global warming industrial complex but the same players are in control – GE, Goldman Sachs, ex- Enron employees who know a good scam when they see one, retired politicians who are now industry lobbyists. Wind power is not about electricity production. It is about using global warming as an excuse to steal your money.

    God help anyone who lives within sight or earshot of the Enercon E-126. Their lives will never be the same from the day the blades start turning.

  104. Who is missing the point ?
    Indeed this monster will probably keep this web site and a thousand (probably millions) like it running for eons 8 hours per day with a capacity factor of 33% (By the way eons is a little too long, a mechanical contraption like this will probably fall to pieces in a couple of years) when the wind blows.
    But what do we do when the wind doesn’t blow ?
    Therefore America should do the following:
    1) Burning coal in a cleaner way,
    2) Efficiency of energy use in the broadest sense of the word,
    5) Super conductivity.,
    6) Plasma fusion.,
    Just a few ideas.

  105. Who are you people? YOU’RE MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT!

    And think of all the energy you all have collectively wasted by running your computers just to keep arguing about whether something is viable or not. A machine of the size described in this article would be able to provide enough juice (“capacity factor” included) to keep this web site and a thousand like it running for eons, at almost no additional cost once it’s built and flying.

    NONE of the other non-renewable resources that any of you clowns have mentioned falls in this class.

    Get over it and grow up.

    1. I happen to work in the power industry and those wind mills are way more expensive to maintain than ANY other form of power production equipment. They wear out like every other machine but are difficult to access because they are typically spread out on mountain ridges with poor access and they don’t have the foresight to all break down at the same time like a single 600MW steam turbine. That’s why most of them are “abandoned-in-place” once they have a serious failure. Typically 10-15 years. The wind consortiums are set up so the entity owning and operating the wind mills can go bankrupt once they have pumped all the available subsidy money out, leaving the task of cleaning up the mess to the landowners or the government.

  106. Unfortunately we have constructed super-megapolis population centers where tens of millions live clustered together under unsustainable conditions except for a massive energy, food, water and transportation lifeline to the outside. Well over half the population of the earth live at the mercy of the “infrastructure”. If we have to scale back to more natural living we first have to dismantle the urban civilization and then reduce the earth’s population by 2/3… A few 7MW windmills are not going to change the fact that there are too many of us and we are using up the world’s resources at a catastrophic speed.

  107. If you look at a map of the globe it is obvious that the cost of interconnecting everyone into a single grid would be an absurdly expensive, environmentally disastrous undertaking, and the line losses from such long transmission lines would be enormous. Much smarter is to think small. Self generation with small scale hydro, wind, solar, ground source, biomass makes infinitely more sense on both the impact on the planet from massive unnecessary infrastructure, and on more sustainable living. The inconvenient truth is that we are addicted to convenience and waste. We need to reconnect with living sustainably. Generating our own electricity at the home or community level is a step in the right direction.

  108. what’s the stator rated volatege of the generator? how many converter is there E126? are they series or parellel? where the transformer? what’s the lower voltage of the transformer?
    who know these message? thanks.

  109. H6 Len
    Hello everyone: H6, here, I am very impressed with the Knowledge and dialogue you’re having here. I am a back yard tinker, who has no back yard, yet, I have discovered a new and unique way to generate energy for power. It works and I believe it will do away with the need for these monstrous windmill turbines (bold, but you will see).

    Would love to work with some of you, on the technical aspect of my design; on electrical etc. This is serious, it’s a simple law of physics that everyone ignores, but with modern innovation, it’s shockingly amazing, at what is produced. My business plan is almost completed; then my invitation letter to Investors, it’s that close to finishing. This one principle utilizes five completely different designs that are phenomenal. Just waiting to secure all the patents needed to cover all areas. Email: osiimpactearth@yahoo.ca If you can contribute in any way, before I hire the big dogs: Welcome. You will be compensated in time. I am in London, Ontario at present, but eminent move back to Toronto soon. Just a hint of its power; the first Energy Structure, design #1, uses 40-60 already existing (wind) ‘turbine generators’ and can run three times as long with a high capacity factor of 96+%. I did not re-invent the wheel. It’s not new technology, but better use of technology.

  110. I think environmentalists should sit down and think seriously about what it is that they want to accomplish. First you want to stop the emissions of greenhouse gasses, which cause global warming. But when Wind Farms are installed to cut the emissions you complain about it disrupting the view! How about everyone that has issues with wind power hops on a bicycle with a generator attached to it… Then we can produce the power needed without disrupting the view.

    Whatever the way of producing power, it being wind, solar, wave, geothermal, hydroelectric or what ever else. There should be a global energy grid that can transport the generated electricity to wherever it is needed. Think about the power use during the day, most countries use more power during business/daytime hours than during the night, which requires alot of peaking plants to supply that power. If you have a global grid, the power can just be routed to wherever it’s needed. In total the use of power should not change much during the hours of the day, if you see it on a global scale.

    1. Environmentalists often skirt the root environmental problem; the one that keeps driving up demand for energy, water and food. That problem is OVERPOPULATION of the human species, at the expense of most others.

      We can’t keep adding 75,000,000 people annually to a finite planet and expect nature to supply every want, with no reduction in quality of life. There is no hypocrisy in decrying wind-turblight on the landscape if one also criticizes mindless population growth and rising energy demand. Environmentalists who think we can have it all (endless growth AND sustainability) are deluded.

      “Environmentalists” who see no limits to human numbers have no business using that term. They are just techno-apologists and greenwashers.

  111. yes this is a quite a machine i have worked on Re-Power 5 MW and Suzlon 2.1 and Gamesa Eolica 2.1 this would be quite an engineering marvel if this would actually become a product over here in the states 413 ft is ridiculous also thats another 100 FT then the ones im currently working on ….. has anyone on this site worked on or been around this turbine if so please reply thank you

  112. they’re not even that loud! has anyone actually ever been under one? id rather live next to a wind turbine then a neuclear power plant. And forget about this bird issue buisness, statistics show only one bird is killed per 10 years of each wind turbine, so possibly 3 birds for a wind turbine’s life span x the minimal amount of wind turbines we have (using reverse phycology so someone might build more turbines) more birds are killed by domestic cats then wind turbines. cats kill hundreds of millions a year worldwide. although this is alread more then the amount of birds wind turbines affect, i’l continue,
    between 100 million and 1 BILLION birds are killed by tall buildings, 60-80million from cars and turcks, pesticides, jet engines, smoke, homes and electricity distribution all contibute about 100 MILLION birds each for the U.S alone.
    i am a student, hoping wind power will be a possible solution for at least 25% of the worlds electricity in the next 10 years. it is completly possible. Just that some think its too expensive.
    with all the money being spent on the perfection of clean coal (which i think is the silliest solution for energy yet, pffft, putting it underground is just hiding it and will most likely affect the techtonic plates with the pressure of the gas and the digging down) it could be invested into alternative energy sources. i wish more people would understand that we don’t have all day to act and everyone can contribute by just telling others the benefits and what will happen if nothing is done.
    one last thing, already thousands of animal and plant species are extinct due to global warming, the earths biodiversity will never be the same. if you dont care about this, then i wonder how selfish you must be.

    if you disagree, i will be sure to accept you’re opinion, but i am extremely passionate about in not ducking up our world


    if you disagree, i will be sure to accept you’re opinion, but i am a very strong believer in not ducking up our world

  114. The US is the Saudi Arabia of wind. ie: Lots of wind and open spaces to put turbines in proximity to population centers. If we can increase the efficiency of our electricity usage, the wind will become cheaper still.

  115. It’s very impressive but I imagine it’s just that bit too big for most applications and the industry will stick with the physical size used for current 2MW – 3MW turbines.

  116. I want one of these bad boys on the roof of my house!! Actually the base will just barely fit into my backyard! I could hook up the neighbors and make a fortune. To hell with the flight path of the planes coming into O’hare, they can go around this thing, a few dollars in an unmarked envelope will see to that! And, I’ll just close the windows to avoid hearing the whoosh. THis has potential, with this much powere generated I’ll have plenty of cash to pay off city hall and get the right permits!!

  117. It had to be Germany, they are miles ahead in this field evry year i visit Germany they have more and more wind turbines erected. Come on United States your well behind!

    1. Not true. The USA has more MW of operating wind power production capacity than any other country in the world…
      But it’s still a bad idea because there is no way to store the energy.
      Wind power plants have to be backed up with 100% capacity in conventional power for the times the wind is down (74% of the time on average). With the current technology a wind power plant has to pay for itself only through the fuel savings they allow the conventional power producing facilities to make by reducing load to a less efficient operating level. With the current US electric rates wind power cannot pay for itself without government subsidies.

  118. There is a cheaper and better way.

    1. Wave Water Pump – WWP
    • Lifts a small quantity of water to a high head due to the Potential Energy of the incoming wave, collects it in a piping network and feeds it to a hydro-turbo generator to produce electric power
    • A set of pumps up to ten and a mile wide may be installed in line with the incoming wave to extract most of its energy.
    1. Wave Air Pump – WAP
    • Compresses air due to Kinetic Energy of the incoming wave, collects it in a piping network and feeds it into the air inlet of a turbo generator. Fuel is injected as needed to maintain turbo generator output irrespective of wave heights.
    • Utilizes an existing power plant, or a new power plant close to the shore.
    • Ideal for off-shore wind turbine farms, as it utilizes the off-shore wind turbine supporting structure as a Wave Air Pump at negligible cost.
    2. Wind Turbine Pump – WTP
    • Present design of wind turbines call for installing 3-blade turbines to directly drive a generator installed at the top of the wind turbine supporting structure.
    • One firm boasts that it had developed a 100 meter diameter wind turbine and installing a 5-Mega Watt generator weighing 403 tons at the tope of the wind turbine supporting structure. This is an engineering achievement, to provide the highway to transport the equipment to site, lift a 403 ton generator and install it at a minimum height of 70-meters above ground level. Many reasons make this as ridiculous: Cost, Frequency Stabilization, Operation and Maintenance, and dependability; since NO Wind NO Power Output.
    • A simpler way is to make the wind turbine directly drive a fluid pump installed at the tope of the mast, transmit the power down the mast to a ground based generator. This technology is known and developed.
    • Another method is to have the fluid power drive an air compressor at ground level, collect the compressed air from more than one wind turbine and feed the compressed air to the air inlet of a turbo generator. Fuel is fed according to power requirements and is used to stabilize frequency. This is a known and proven technology.
    • In this manner power is generated irrespective of availability of wind and is more economical than any other proposed systems.

  119. The whole idea is complete nonsense, technically and economically. When the wind don’t blow, the thing don’t go. Ergo, conventional backup power has to be constructed and kept on line to meet the electricity demand when there’s no wind.. Or do without electricity.

    It says the thing generates DC which is then converted to AC. I can’t imagine how MW of power is inverted. Do they make electronic devices that big?

  120. It sure would have been nice if they gave us a few econimic facts.

    What does it cost?
    How much does it cost to set it up?
    What are the anticipated maintenance costs?
    What is it’s expected life?
    How much will they have to charge for the power it creates?

    I love the fact that it could easily coexist in most urban enviroments. If it was at oneone edged of a park it could easily be serviced.

    And about those birds, I see lots killed by buildings all the time, so a few more dead birds is a small price to pay for the CLEAN power this creates.

  121. lets get the facts on rotor tip speed done once and for all.
    GIVEN: Diameter is 126 meters. ( give or take a few decimeters)
    It Takes 1 blade, 5 sec to do 1 rev.
    distance traveled 1 rev: (126*2)*pi =791meters
    meters /sec: 791/5= 158m/sec, OR (158*3600) =570010 m/hr OR
    570kph. OR 570*.6 = 342mph.
    This equates to 1.256 Radians/sec ( 71.9 deg/sec)
    it doesnt matter, the rotational velocity is the same in radians or degrees per sec. however speed along any point along the blade will vary with the distance from the center from zero for center of the hub to +340mph at the tips.
    I WOULD rather have a roof covered in solar cells to supply my house with electrical power during the day, Use the grid power by night supplemented with wind power 24hrs a day when the wind is blowing. Yea, this may cut my demand for oil/coal/nuclear based power, but in the end, its green power.

    No matter what you do, you are always going to get “the butterfly effect”.
    ie. solar cells are dark in color, and absorb photons for electrical generation and more in the EM band generating excess heat and transferring it into the atmosphere.

  122. Many people have commented saying we should build nuclear plants, and this may be fine for those countries with vast water supplies, but down here in Australia, where we have had a drought for the past 12/13 years, nuclear reactors require far too much water to cool their reactors. The other option is to place them near oceans or lakes, but then again this only kills the sorrounding fish and marine life, partly on whose behalf we are trying to step away from coal generation. If we are truley intent on ‘saving the world’ Australians simply cannot afford to do it through nuclear, leaving wind/solar/tide etc of which wind is the most efficent and cost effective.

  123. holy crap that is really BIG who would want to spend their time on something that big??!?!?!?!?!?!

    1. Your average city sky scraper is far bigger and more complex. This also pales in comparison to the size of suspension bridges. Why do you find this so alarmingly large?

  124. We have for years researched a unique verticle axis turbine design that incorporates the dyno into the turbine hub. Since the advent of ‘True-Turbine “Jet” propulsion, propeller designers have had to take a back seat except for helicopters till they could ply their clever craft to set up their Ponzi scheme with their Propeller Towers. It’s actually a perversion of the definition of ‘Turbine’ to call Propeller Towers Wind “Turbines.”They fought and argued long and hard against the ‘Jets’ and have carefully money funnelled all alternative wind energy R & D away from even considering looking into anything that is not a ‘Propeller Tower’for generating electric power from wind. But, like Wall Street Bankers, they know their inevietable demise will come when cheaper, more efficient, verticle axis turbines are even slightly developed for their potential, they revolve ‘with’ the flow of the wind, not against it, and can maximize wind force capture while gyroscopically stabilizing. Propeller Tower advocates know this and have had to lie and cover to get as far as they have while shutting out the whole truth about wind dynamics, just like building the “Spruce Goose,” its like giant scale prestige. Even though the Chevy might be a great car, they only want the BMW. Come to think of it, Propeller Towers do resemble Mercedes Benz emblems. They just are not the “ONLY” way to convert wind to electric power, and probably are not the best. They do need to research “New” alternative wind energy potential designs for cost effective benefit and not just for Fad, Trend, Prestige, and Profit. Propeller Towers are neither NEW or perfectable means of deriving electric power from wind.

  125. Hmmmm this is… i can not! explain it its sooooooo weird and its kindof a waist of money!!! >.>

  126. Green,
    Timing is everything. It makes no sense to invest in more expensive and less reliable generation before it is needed. CO2 is a poor excuse to stop using the cheapest forms of energy. The price of energy should drive the switch to non-fossil fuel, not some politically correct theory of global warming. Building wind farms before they are economically justifiable requires subsidies that only enrich wind farmers and make citizens poorer. Just because we know how to build huge turbines doesn’t mean its a good idea. Lets use that money on conservation, efficiency and to continue looking for real solutions to the end of fossil fuels, which will not happen anytime soon according to the US Energy Information Administration:

    1. By all means let’s let economics decide but TRUE economics; with ALL the costs factored in. This would include the truly terrifying costs of SCIENTIFICALlY correct global warming.
      As for EIA figures on future oil production, no geologist worthy of the name would endorse them.

      1. Please explain costs of global warming. Compared to cost of current worldwide meltdown. Thanks.


  128. This is not about money its about reducing carbon emissions and eventually not relying on hydrocarbons for energy because we will run out of them and wind power is not being seen as the only solution, the solution is everything from solar, wave, biomass, etc. One big change will be more and more electric cars using hydrogen fuel cells. Think about the cost in materials, money and to the environment of oil and gas platforms and this cost is always there because most workers are transported by helicopters which burn fuel and cost money. Wind and other green energy is cheaper if you look at the bigger long term picture.


  130. This windmill is cool and all, but you green energy people need to understand its limitations. It would take more than 20 of these things just to support 1 of the mills required to make the materials to build this windmill. That doesnt include the copper for the windings, and the maintenance parts required for sustained energy production. In fact after 10 years most windmills are more expensive to repair than to replace. so what are you really saving.

    1. That’s because they don’t know yet. It’s guarenteed that some parts will fail well before their estimated design lifetimes but that’s really the only way to find out. However the structural and wear aspects are very similar to the engineering required for high bridges, automobile vibration wear for same and a huge body of practical knowledge in the aeronautics and aeromechanics field. The thing will very likely work as planned for the most part with few nasty surprises.
      Given that your own calculations show that it could produce the energy required to manufacture, ship and assemble it in less than a third of a year, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect an energy payback in under five years. As for the financial aspects, it is, of course a prototype (a test bed in fact) and therefore was never expected to break even.
      Now a mass-produced model in the thousands or tens of thousands is another thing. Given that most power plants are replaced every 40 years on average and that power transmission technology has gotten cheaper in the form of DC transmission lines which make it easier to synchronize new incoming power sources with the existing grid via transformers, it shouldn’t be much of a burden to go this route. Especially if wind is given the same subsidies, tax breaks and favourable legislation that the fossil fuel industry is given,

      1. My bad!
        I missed the capacity factor you put in at the start of your calculation. Since you’re already estimating that the windmill’s average output is only a third of its’ maximum rating then the evergy payback time will only be the 102 days you estimated.

  131. AYM,
    Fact – Electricity generation accounts for only about 14% of worldwide energy consumption.
    Fact – Wind power cannot exceed 20% of electrical generation without grid reliability problems due to the well documented intermittancy issues. Only a cost effective storage solution can solve that problem. Got one?
    Fact – Therefore wind power cannot reduce fossil fuel consumption, which is primarily used for transportation and heating, by more than 2.8% (20% of 14%).
    Fact – Wind power, at full deployment will not extend the fossil fuel supply by more than 2.8 years per century at current rates of consumption, which are anticipated to grow as undeveloped countries become industrialized and burn coal and build nuclear reactors.
    Fact – Wind power, at full deployment will not reduce GHG emissions by more than 2.8%, so will have no measurable impact on climate change, as if we can actually control the climate in the first place. Al Gore notwithstanding the debate is far from being settled.
    Fact – If the money being used to subsidize wind power was spent on conservation, insulation, energy efficient lighting and heating equipment, and fuel efficient vehicles, the reductions in fossil fuel use would be many times greater than the benefits provided by wind power. An example from Glenn Scheede is a dollar spent on CFL light bulbs will save 5 times as much energy in 5 years as a dollar spent on a wind turbine will generate in 20 years.

    A 2.5 MW turbine is equal to a 3000HP engine and costs about $5 million.
    At 10% capacity credit that $5 million turbine is equal to a 300 HP Ford pickup truck which costs about $25,000.

    Wind power is a transfer of wealth scam. Nothing more. Utility companies build wind turbines because they make money for their shareholders from the ill conceived and unjustifiable but nevertheless real subsidies, not because wind power makes sense. No one who is in the electricity generating business will denigrate wind power because it is an attractive investment.

  132. There is nothing wrong with wind power. Looking at the total energy consumption of the human species, total energy consumption was around 0.5 ZJ (15TW) per year from of all sources. It is estimated that 72TW of wind can be commercially exploitable.

    At best coal technology only coverts to about 45% of it’s energy to electricity. It is limited by basic thermodynamic limitations. Arguments of the direct replacement of the equivalent BTU’s is a disingenuous argument since the only thing being replaced is the electricity generated.

    The EIA puts the production costs of wind electricity around 0.9 c/kwh. A Minnisota utility study put the additional costs of having 25% wind at less than an additional half cent to the cost of electricity. Adding capital costs does increase the overall costs of wind power, and this levelized cost is presently higher than coal and gas but lower than nuclear. Wind capital costs have gone steadily down though except for the last year or so because of explosive US demand which put in I think around 12 to 14 GW of capacity over the last 2 years. The equivalent to 4-5 1GW nuclear power plants for around the 20-25 billion US. Fairly cheap considering the equivalent figures for nuclear power being discussed by the utilities.

    According to a 2007 Stanford University study published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, interconnecting ten or more wind farms allows 33 to 47% of the total energy produced to be used as reliable, baseload electric power, as long as minimum criteria are met for wind speed and turbine height. Confirmed in the DOE’s wind 2030 study.

    Clean coal has been bandied about for years. No private industry has tried it. Bush promised it before 2000. Zero. Latest foray by public/private consortium failed. The supposition that since wind cannot be used for total replacement of coal, it is a waste of money is erroneous. Although cost savings are slowing down for wind, it is still a maturing technology. Coal is a much more mature technology, and any improvements are more incremental and hence will not lead to larger cost savings, although tech improvements for various streams ie waste will be improved and you will only see small improvements. When cap and trade or any schema that internalizes cabron costs comes, the situation vis a vis coal will be even less favorable. Industry itself doesn’t believe in the absolute future of clean coal, in a very similar way that the US car industry didn’t understand the nature of high oil prices or hybrids and dragged it’s feet and the industry is dragging it’s feet on coal.

    Wind power has been installed world wide by all types of utilities. The market is growing in all types of markets in all types of utilities both private and public. The imputation that wind doesn’t have definable parameters is of course misinformation. The utility companies of the world aren’t that stupid. They would not build anything that they couldn’t justify. There are definite studies from the DOE on down on the advantages and disadvantages of wind. Wind isn’t the exclusive answer to our energy problems. There are distinct problems that require the implementation of solutions, some of which exist, some of which are in developement. But the implementable parts of wind to the energy needs of today and tomorrow are very viable and cost effective. They aren’t perfect but then no technology is ideal especially since it seems more of a value question and hence more qualitative than a quantitative question.

    Society has to build capacity for replacement and growth. We know about conservation and that should be maximized. But that will only go so far. We know how much we already have, pollutes and why. We need to diversify. We need to create green technologies that maximize our resources and extend our options. Wind power is a very viable and far better solution to that of coal which still hasn’t changed fast enough in this changing environment. Coal still has and probably alway will have a place. It will have to leverage it’s positive aspects and create/ameliorate it’s liabilities just like wind does. And wind does do this in a very transparent fashion. Coal still has no implemented solutions to it’s latest liabilities and no real timetable when they will be a reality.

  133. He He He, I DID NOTsay that it paid for itself! I only showed that a windmill of that size (smaller ones take much longer) recuperates the energy spent on the production of its steel and concrete in about 102 days. Nothing more. When you take everything into account then you’ll see that a windmill (also add on the subsidies, tax-brakes, adaptions to the grid, horrifying maintenance costs, back-up conventional powerplants (the wind doesn’t blow always 🙂 etc. the list is endless) will never be viable.

    I suppose you don’t believe
    Then try this: Ask any “serious” windmill manufaturer a serious quotation!.
    With a serious quotation I mean including:
    1. Guaranteed output
    2. Complete turn-key costs (I mean you make the last agreed payment when the contraption is functioning and delivering the energy to the grid, the connection to the grid and a sales contract with the local energy distrbution company.)
    3. A 5 year warranty on material failures and maintenance.
    4. A reasonable maintenace contract.
    I assure you, when you try that you will drown in a guagmire of irrelevant nonsense exuses. You will never get that quoationbecause those manufacturers know very well that their product isn’t viable.Windenergy is a green polical driven Ponzi Scheme.

  134. Alexander, thank you for your response to Bhavath’s question. 102 days and it’s paid for itself right? but the money isn’t really the issue, since in initial production, transportation, construction etc energy has already been used. Most probably from fossil fuels. So, even though the whole thing is paying for itself in an amazingly small period of time, we’re still producing green house gases and burning fossil fuels to make this thing.

  135. Wind turbines present an ecological paradox that must be dealt with. What sort of environmentalists would trash priceless vistas and say that it’s good for the environment? Nature is supposed to be easy on the eyes, not an acquired mechanical taste. Turbine pushers are busy wrecking wilderness acreage, historic landmarks and postcard rural scenery. Spinning white beams rarely fit the landscape, especially when placed on ridge-tops. Along with blighted horizons, many trees are cut for roads and clear-space around turbine bases. One can only hope that their favorite scenery is outside a “wind resource zone” and won’t end up resembling Coney Island.

    Low-profile (and hopefully quiet) turbines powering one home at a time are better aesthetically, and THEY should be subsidized, along with solar panels on existing rooftops. The idea should be to minimize impact on untouched lands and uncorrupted views. This is not NIMBYism. The world (with population growth of 75 million annually) has a finite supply of places on which to build spinning skyscrapers. The land and oceans have been trashed enough already.

  136. Godeon,
    Off course not!
    Please see the capacity factor of 0.33 I have taken into account.
    Please read my other comments in this blog, then you know exactly how I think about these futile wind contraptions.

    And because their total futility with regard to solve the worlds energy crisis and the dramatic climate change we have started to construct a webpage where all aspects of the worlds energy situation are highlighted and put into a proper perspective. Where we also invite everybody worldwide to contribute.
    At the moment this page is under construction, please have a quick look at Global Energy Crisis , just the get the idea. We hope to be up and running in a couple of weeks and we are looking forward to your future contributions.

  137. Bhavath,
    Part of the Energy balance of a 6 MW Wind Turbine,br/>

    Wind mill with a capacity of 6 MW produces per year:
    Watts installed: 6,000,000
    Capacity factor:0.33
    Days: 365
    Joule/year: 6.2+13 Joule

    The energy needed to produce the 680 tons of steel used in the 6 MW Wind Turbine.
    The Windmill contains 500 ton of steel in structure plus about 180 of steel re-enforcement bars in the reinforced concrete. That makes a total of 680 tons of steel.
    Now visit the following link:http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80841e/80841E06.htm

    Let’s take the US number of 23.9E+9 Joule per ton. That means to produce the 680 tons of steel necessary for the 4MW windmill you need 1.6E+13 Joule of energy.

    The energy needed to produce the 1500 M3 of concrete used in the 6 MW Wind Turbine.
    Let’s have a look at the Portland Cement Company’s information:
    Visit the fllowing link: http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/image.cfm?imageName=images/0202/ee4cc.gif&fileName=020201b.xml

    So, to produce, transport and pour 1.500 tons of concrete you need 1.500 x 2,345,824,341 = 3.51874E+12 Joules of energy.
    For the 680 tons steel you need: 1.6E+13 Joule of energy
    1.6E+13 Note: The figure of concrete includes everything, production, transport and pouring. The figure for steel only includes the conversion of iron ore to rough steel. So the energy needed to convert the steel in plates, make a tower of it and erect the tower is not included. As far as I can find that represents another 25 % of energy.
    For the 1500 m3 of concrete you need: 0.351874E+13 Joules
    So a Wind Turbine with an installed power needs for its steel and concrete:
    (1+ 0.4 (25 % more) + 0.35)E+13 = 1.75E+13 Joule
    It produces: 6.2E+13 Joule per year.
    In about 1.75/6.2 = 0.28 year equals 102 days the WIND Turbine has produced the energy needed for its steel and concrete

    1. So 3 & 1/2 months to generate the energy for it’s concrete and steel? What’s the lifespan of the turbine? 5, 10, 25 years? Seems like it’s still a win.

    2. That is assuming the thing produces 6MW. In reality, a wind mill only produces about 18% of its installed capacity in a year. And the power it produces isnt helping anything. It just puts a coal-fire power plant on standby, still burning its fuel but not generating electricity. Then when the wind stops, it then generates the power. Wind does not work.

      1. do the same analysis for any other type of power generation, clean or not… of course you use energy to build the damn thing… the point is once its constructed there is no byproduct associated with operating it…

  138. To : The other guy.

    Sire, or old English for a distinguished gentleman like YOU!………..
    Please see the “Collins English Gem Dictionary”, Canker is a Noun and means the following……….eating sore, thing that eats away, destroys, corrupts.–v.t . = verb transitive infect, corrupt = verb intransitive.decay.– cankered a. = adjective, = canker-worm, n. = noun.
    If you do not know the meaning of a particular word or words…..please check a dictionary first before having a dig at me.
    You said in your letter, ” im for wind energy etc….”
    Good on you Mate, if you are an Aussie, but you meant I am which is spelt I’m you should have spelt it with a Capital “I”.
    I do use words that make sense, just check you dictionary first before insulting me, a German who has learnt the English Language since I was a child, and who is a teacher of the English Language as well.

    Vimana Man.
    Vimana Man.

  139. hey Vimana Man, keep in mind that that has only happed once, im for wind energy but we really need to look into other alternative sources to. by the way wtf is a bloody canker. use words that make sense


  141. If you don’t see a need to reduce fossil
    Fuel use then the economics will never
    Pencil out. Otherwise wind power is the
    Most mature tech when properly sites.
    Projects have the lowest financial risk and
    Shortest lead time. The fluctuating
    Generation will be less of an issue with
    A smart grid. Leave your car plugged in
    Let the system decide when to charge it.
    Current turbines will be upgraded as
    Tech improves. How big will these things
    Get. Amazing.

    i wouldnt listen to any of the comments.
    they suck!!!!!!!


  143. To all readers of this Site,



    Vimana Man.





  147. SteveT
    I posted the following comment on your saveroxbury.org page:
    Lets see what we can do 🙂 !

  148. Alexander,

    The Facts: Wind Power…
    reduces pollution…
    • Unlike other forms of power generation, wind energy is clean
    and renewable. It’s “clean” because its operation doesn’t
    • Every unit of electricity generated by wind power will avoid pollution
    in March by the Heads of States.
    power stations.
    generates reliable electricity
    • Modern wind turbines are extremely robust machines designed to operate
    of the sea.
    By comparison, the load factor of conventional power stations averages 50
    for 100 % of the time.
    to the consumption of 1,375 average EU households.
    • Security of energy supply is improved by renewable sources such as
    politically unstable countries for the supply of fuel.
    is already making an important contribution to electricity supply…
    • Over the past decade the global market for wind power
    has been expanding faster than any other renewable energy source. Since
    the year 2000 the average annual increase in cumulative installed capacity
    has been 28 %.
    had reached 74,000 MW. In Europe, it had reached
    These three sectors all contribute to a sustainable, secure and competitive
    energy supply.

    others may enjoy The
    World’s largest Wind Turbine

  150. SteveT, thanks for the compliment 🙂
    1) The energy crisis


  152. Alexander,



  153. farzad



    But this is all totally irrelevant when you realize that:
    2. Educating the general population how to save energy.

  155. Alexander,

  156. Bernd,
    I completely concur with SteveT:

    Therefore I repeat:


  158. Dear Readers,


    It is perfectly possible to capture Raw Electrical Energy from the Earth with out the need for any polluting machinery as follows. Go to the Internet and look up the following…http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/forsale/plans/earthbattery/ebpage1.htm


    Vimana Man.


    Mr Halkema:







  162. Dear Alexander,
    be the reason:
    can give some facts:
    The E.ON Group describes itself as the world’s largest
    to energy imports to distribution and customer sales.
    It says that “since the opening of Germany’s electricity market
    plants from small utilities and private investors by dumping prices.
    meaning that the wind turbine operators are forced to sign contracts which
    What about their credibility when publishing "wind reports"?
    Eric Rosenbloom is the president of an anti-wind NIMBY group
    called National Wind Watch. What does aweo.org stand for? Who knows. The website
    does not identify the organization sponsoring the website. The whois record
    for the website hides the organization behind aweo.org.
    Find out the truth about some of Mr
    imaginative distortions.

    The Dutch engineer Hans Halkema belongs to a world which
    be proved wrong.
    Energie Agentur
    "Grid Integration of Wind Energy" written
    by a national panel of independant scientists:
    this is the English

  163. Dear Steve, T,






    Vimana Man.

  164. To Author : Steve T.

    Dear Steve, T.

    The Chapters of the book run so :
    To New York by Vimana
    A-Lan Explains the Vimana
    Matter and Mass
    And a couple more chapters.



    Vimana Man.

  165. Vimana,

  166. To all on Planet Earth,

  167. To all those on Planet Earth,
    Investigate please and you will soon have the answer !

  168. Dear Steve,


    And not to waste my time, just read the following:
    Denmark for instance:
    Do your homework and make some simple calculations.



  172. Bernd and Vimana,

  173. Dear Bernard Reibe,

    Loved your last comment of 8th Jan 2009.
    For God’s Sake You WANKERS,







    1. Edward S:





    <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxp6QTjgJg”

  179. Wind power is not a solution.
    Please think!
    And read: “Wind energy- the whole truth” at: http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/
    And to show how completely irrelevant wind power is in regard to the worldwide energy and climate crisis visit the following link: http://www.bp.com/iframe.do?categoryId=9024179&contentId=7044895

    Therefore America should do the following:
    1) Burning coal in a cleaner way,
    5) Super conductivity.
    6) Plasma fusion.
    Just a few ideas.



  181. The number 5000 and 1776 are questionable.






  184. I think we should invest in wind turbines. You UK people can go jump of a cliff, you to germany people.The US Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =)


  186. I agree with Shylock, building large scale wind farms does not contribute to a greener future in energy production, we should reuse the land we already utilize for our cities. The amount of land already consumed by urban sprawl would be enough land for small wind turbines and solar arrays in backyards, empty lots, tops/ sides of buildings, not to mention all the empty land under power line corridors.

  187. Well said, Shylock. The legacy of wind farm sprawl will be the sad hallmark of this period in history.

  188. The only way centralised power generation systems like these are financially viable is through subsidy, now I’m not saying subsidies are bad, I’m saying that for the subsidy given to install that wind giant, Americans could install home energy generation power systems, a localised empowering alternative, this is a subsidy worth investing in as it doesn’t require people to work as much, by getting into their cars to drive to the office using gas, diesel and other carbon emitting tools, they essentially nullify all benefits that this type of renewable energy has to offer, as they still require the money to pay for the energy and that means people still have to travel to work to earn a crust, small home based energy systems are the natural way for people to generate and use energy, it’s in harmony with their local environment. No monstrous gigantic power cables and no large hideously dangerous substations. Approximately a half of all energy generated by centralised eletricity power stations is used to distribute that energy on the GRID, therfore centralised electric energy generation systems require double the resources they need to sustain them, which means the energy charged to customers is double what it needs to be, which means they require at least twice the amount of time to recover the carbon they have emitted into the atmosphere, hmmmm….and they say these are supposed to be environmentally friendly, not as environmentally friendly as small localised energy genrating systems, that empower people and their communitites to become independent of the centralised industrial production system.

  189. Forums are great for discussions. A lot of different viewpoints are expressed which hopefully cause us to look at issues from different angles.

    However, it never ceases to amaze me how many people are incapable of discussing ISSUES without bashing PEOPLE. Why do people from one country have to bash the people in another country? How many of those criticizing the other country have actually lived there? I’m an American born in Florida to American parents but lived in Germany for 29 years of my adult life and since 2002 am back in Florida. As a whole Germans have a much greener attitude than Americans as a whole. It is practiced voluntarily in their daily lives in many ways – conservation, recycling, health. They definitely have a greener mindset.

    This is not something that couldn’t happen in the US as well. In Germany it is the result of repeated promotion of a green mentality by the government and the media. Forums like this could contribute greatly to a changed way of thinking if everyone contributing would be respectful and mature regarding other viewpoints.

  190. BTW.. one ton of CO2 is created for every ton of cement, now this wind monster is going to require at least 800 cubic tons of cement and reinforced steel to anchor. How many european dump trucks running on diesel is that for one wind farm ? how many dead birds and bats. Actually I don’t care..but 30% efficiency is just counterproductive, this monster is not going to shut down any existing power plants, wind energy cannot be stored as hydro or nuclear, it a use it or lose it proposition. Anyone know what the efficient wind speed to power ratio of this thing is? Cause it only works at peak efficiency ( let’s be generous and say 35%) when the wind is moving at precisely that speed. Wind to slow efficiency drops, wind to high efficiency drops, I”m not going to even touch the air density questions. Hey here’s another question how much petroleum based oil ( not the environmentally friendly type made of magic dust ok) do you think is in the generators of this wind sucker?.. at least 2000 gal in the turbine.now multiply time how many turbines and lets remember, like a car we need to change the oil ok or else, the big wind machine loses efficiency then grinds to a halt, or blows up in a really spectacular manner. Oh we have to change the multiple filters and seals as well, maintenance costs!!! oh clean the rotors of dead bugs, and sand and grit and( salt ..if your offshore) . or else ..we lose efficiency. And don’t forget to change the really beautiful blinking light on top. Damn it wait, we got to cut down 5 acres of forest for every turbine installed in a wooded area.. and we all know that trees give up their stored CO2 when dead right? It’s not like the trees convert it to something and no don’t say O2 please…chemistry chemistry. Cut trees, build a huge heat retaining base, I’m sure the erosion and heat retention is minimal.. no problem here. Argg we need to build more roda to get to the bases, hey how about a few more gas stations along the way so the manitenace trucks can fuel up, and restaurant so the workers can eat, and a hotel and and and …. how many jobs created for a wind turbine? And once built, where do the workers go, cause sure as hell they are not local are they?

  191. I personally wouldn’t find it an eyesore to see one or more of these gargantuan machines perched on a hilltop or in an open field. There’s a large (but much smaller) wind turbine in downtown Toronto, right by the lake, that was funded in part by members of the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-op (trec.on.ca) and in part by Toronto Hydro, which agreed to buy a portion of its power to sell to its customers as green electricity.

    The turbine in Toronto is definitely not an eyesore. It is a symbol of hope for the future. Everyone I’ve talked to loves looking at it, whether from afar, or from right at its giant base. One of the great things about these mega wind turbines is that you can see them from even farther away!

  192. To…..Steve G,

    You are correct, you can’t please all of the people all of the time. Every ton of Coal that’s burnt is just adding to the pollution of Planet Earth. Wind power does not pollute our Planet.

  193. I guess the world will always be plagued by dinosaurs and nimbys and no matter what you try someone somewhere will object so I guess the saner amongst us will just have to put up with it. Personally, I have an open mind. I think large wind turbines are elegant and certainly much better than a power station belching out clouds of pollution. As for the cost, I think you may well find that if all the costs of power generation are taken into account including the cost to the environment, wind power might come out very well. Rather than global warming, which will happen anyway, we should be more concerned about diminishing resources. The coal and oil won’t last forever – wind will.

  194. To Earl

    You need to talk to a marine/boating store they have wind ginnies for 12/24 volt systems with115volt inverters they usually use them on sailboats.


  195. I am interested in setting up a wind power system. Please help me as to what best suits me.
    my house is wired with a 100amp breaker.
    what information would you need to assist me

  196. Go for Wind Power Baby, Tidal, Wave, Hot Rocks………anything but stinking Coal or Devilish Nuclear Power which is the Coals of Satan and Money Grubbing Capitalist Pigs.


    Vimana Man.

  197. Message to Eelectron,

    Please note electron has only one ‘e ‘ in it, unless you are a poet and claim poetic licence . if not, then please learn to spell correctly.
    I have probably read more science books than you will in your life-time. Please take off your blinkers. Have you so soon forgotten the Chernobyl Catastrophy not that many years ago and the terrible aftermath, children still dying from atomic filth, soil still poisoned with atomic radiation. All or Chernobyl’s residents had to be moved a long way from Chernobyl as far too dangerous levels of radiation are still there to safely allow humans to live there for many life-times to come.
    When the wind stops blowing there is still tidal power, see tidal generators in Scotland and other places on Earth with tidal energy.

    Mr Eelectron, please GET A LIFE and read more Science Books to get a balanced education, which you sadly seem to lack at present. As you so love stinking coal, you probably have shares in it and atomic power as well. There is no such thing as CLEAN COAL, it is black when it comes out of the ground and black as its stinking small sooty particles sweep into the air and your poor soon to be tortured lungs. I know what I am talking about as I lived in London for many years from 1939 up to 1948 and we lived through some terrible smogs. Actually a number of people died from the SMOG in London. No matter how well you try to clean up the smoke particulates with electrostatic rods and steam cleaning techniques as was done at Battersea Power Station in London back in the 1960’s you cannot keep every smoke particulate from getting into the atmosphere or the carbon- dioxide gas. Now I suggest that you stick that in your pipe and smoke it !


    Richard Leschen.

  198. you guys just have to realize this is a breakthrough in alternative energy.this is a way to a new and enviromentally powered earth btw theres a larger turbine about 10 feet taller then yours .your FACE!!ive seen it in real life search biggest turbine on google!!!

  199. In the UK we have 60,000 tonnes of nuclear waste with no plan of how to deal with it. It’s difficult to visualise, so imagine a pile of 15,000 elephants. That’s around a quarter of the world’s Asian elephant population.

    Iodine-129, a by-product of nuclear fission, has a half-life of 16 million years but is still dangerous after 160 million years. Or to put it another way, if the dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period had had nuclear power, we’d still be looking after their waste.

    wind turbines are a beautiful addition to a landscape and for people with some perception of the future, a symbol of hope.

  200. Thanks for all the comments and website references. you all helped me out on a law assignment. Wind power is a great source of energy.

  201. Something this big requires a steady wind. In Denmark, they built a 2 MW wind turbine and quickly discovered it was too big. Because of the gyroscopic effects, it could not change direction fast enough to follow changing wind directions, and would have to just shut down in gusty conditions. They found that 1-1.5MW was just about the optimum size to take advantage of the wind they had. Obviously, Germany must have steadier wind.

  202. It is amazing to see the number of people who are against clean, renewable energy. There will always be people who are against anything and everything. If we expect our society to survive we will have to develop clean non fossil fuel energy. Or we will go the way of the Dodo. Wind energy is simply the only practical available clean large scale renewable energy we can turn to right now. Anyone who thinks burning coal or oil is a smart long term solution is simply sticking their heads in the sand. Nuclear works but toxic waste will always be a problem. When the first nuke blows up, that industry will die overnight. The global warming time bomb is ticking and we are having these silly debates. In the near future, the problem will be irreversible and we will all pay the price. In the last hundred years we have gone full circle on energy and now we are addicted to it. Without it the world as we know it ceases to exist. All the people who don’t want to see wind power should sign an agreement that they will never be allowed to use any in the future. Let’s hope smarter minds prevail in this battle for our survival. Hats off to the Germans for doing it. All the old nonsense arguments about the evils of wind power are falling on deaf ears and have been shown to be not true. When will the die hard wind haters simply knock it off.

  203. I too think that people should seriously consider not getting pregnant to have children or at the very least just have 2 children, but no more. One child per family would be optimal and would shrink the population within 20 or so years if that plan were carried on for 20+ years duration. Unplanned children happen, but don’t plan to have more than 1-2 of them.

    I laugh when I see people post about wind generators slowing down the orbit of the earth around the sun–goofy reasoning, but funny.

    I often wonder why wind generator shapes mostly use the big prop type designs. There are other designs to be used to that wouldn’t give that strobe light show against the sunlight. There’s got to be other designs that are better and smaller. Bigger isn’t necessarily always better.

  204. The megawatt andpower consumption numbers people are having problems with come to the following: I did the calculations using kwh production per year not peak instantaneous production. Simply take the per year consumption per US home, and that’s where the numbers come from.

    All turbines have maximum efficiency based upon tip speed. 300+ mph is beyond the range that things explode. Smaller turbines are constrained by the same tip speed efficiencies, that is why they rotate faster but still have the same tip speed.

  205. Pay attention, soulless androids and Trekkies who keep applauding wind turbines. I am stating a view that’s not in the minority.

    These monster machines pose serious concerns for those who aren’t aesthetically-challenged. Part of the whole quality of life is simply looking at a natural horizon without 400+ foot spinning distractions. It’s not just a NIMBY issue when planned on a massive scale, if you have aesthetic values beyond those of a robot. People who want half the planet to look man-made are sick, in my opinion.

    Limited wind power in areas that are already “ugly” is OK, but people who actually live around them are rarely happy with the noise, sunlight strobe effect and red lights at night.

    I think we should put at least equivalent effort into halting population growth (now 77 million annually) so demand for energy doesn’t keep rising. We expect every other species to live withing its means, but people have been exponential takers. Costly oil is finally slowing that down, but now they want the same gluttony transposed to “clean” energy.

    True conservation should be about personal restraint, not meeting endless greedy needs. Growthism is the underlying issue in energy policy but it’s not being addressed directly. There is a still a general failure to admit that the planet is finite.

  206. The cost of building and connecting a windturbine the grid is measured in EUR/kW (or $/kW)
    With the more current models the cost is 1400 EUR/kW
    So a turbine with a genarator of 3 MW costs about 4.2 Million EUR, deliverd, build and connected to the grid

  207. I and my family own several thousand acres in west texas.we are looking for capital investors to develop a wind farm there.it is located in crez (competitive renewable energy zone) 9…send me an e-mail if serious.

  208. Dear Sir /Madam
    I am really proud of your technology and I congratulate you .
    Can anyone tell me the coast of installing up to the grid these mega turbines not necessary ENERCON E 112
    instead even little smaller like VESTAS V90-30 to produce 60 megawatts.

  209. Dear sir/medam

    i have the experience in windmill since last three years and in electric field the experience is last 26 years.so i wish to take electric contract in your company so kindly request you to addmit me as a part of your company as a contractor. i willing the responce from your side.if you wish to devlope me as your vendor then send me the registration form of your company for my addmition as a contractor.
    if you have any querry then free feel to mail me.

    thanking you,

  210. After 50 years of wise land use planning which protected fragile mountain ecosystems, and recognized the importance of natural beauty to the human psyche, the US has been duped by the wind industry into deciding, for present and future generations, that the mountain tops are now industrial zones.

    The cumulative effect of the billions of dollars being directed into wind farms will be a massive degradation of the natural environment. If these monstrous contraptions are allowed to pollute every horizon, what possible objections could we have to any other type of development? Hey, lets put some gambling casinos up there on the ridges, there are great roads, the power lines are run and the views are fantastic!

    It would be one thing if windpower was a real solution, if redundant power plants did not have be constantly on line to make electricity during the 75% of the time that the wind is not blowing.

    Electricity is produced by coal and natural gas, not oil, so wind power does not reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Insulating our homes and using hybrid cars, or better riding bicycles would do that, and if the billions spent on wind farms was used to help conserve energy, and develop dependable renewable energy like geothermal, biomass, small scale solar pv and water heating, we would save the landscape, solve the problem, and prevent the huge outflow of dollars to foreign countries that wind farms, which are mostly owned by foreign entities, represent.

    The wind industry is nothing more than a modern day gold rush, and the pay dirt is 200% 5 year depreciation, 2 cents/kw direct tax credits, property tax abatement, green credits, etc. It is an investors dream. It has been a nightmare for the community fabric of every town that has been conned into accepting it.

  211. Richard Leschen – read some science books!!!
    The coal/smog you see in China are from very crude plants. Coal is now nearly 50% efficient – totally different from the plants now in operation. Emissions are falling quickly.

    What are you going to do when the wind stops??? Sit in the dark with your HUYA.

    The idiots in Wasington and Hollywood and obviously – you don’t know anything about Nuclear power. Only low level wastes are buried, the rest is reprocessed – assuming our Congressional “Experts” ever get a clue. Look at FRANCE!!!!!!

  212. IMHO people should stop demonizing atomic power its cheap and cleaner then coal (yes long term storage needed for the waste) there is room for multiple solutions and in fact the world will need them all soon enough. Because there are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Options are good to have…

  213. Readers please note….. All atomic Power Stations need Coal-Fired Power Stations to make the electricity to manufacture the atomic energy to build the atomic piles to run these Godforsaken energy plants. The sooner the whole World goes Solar, Tidal Power ,Wind Power,Wave Power the better. China is already choking to death by Australia selling them there Dopey Coal to further pollute our Planets already fast chocking LUNGS.

    Richard Leschen

  214. Ugly American -Really!!! You think T-Boone would get into this business if it wasn’t heavily subsidized by our government. Left alone, wind would fail miserably.

    Don’t forget, for every wind plant there must be a base plant (nuclear,coal,etc.) Which make it very expensive. Additionally, only about 25% of the unit maximum capacity is realized on average as energy is proportional to velocity squared. Without the base plants (choose coal or nuclear) blackouts are a fact, potentially long ones!!

  215. Irregular said “I can already hear the screams of the Rotary group complaining about noise pollution…”

    What has irregular got against Rotary? Most Rotarians are business people and so support technology that improves things. I am a member of Rotary and think every town should have at least one turbine. Far from being unsightly I think they are heartwarming and certainly no more unsightly that the pylons that march across the landscape.

  216. Emilio,
    Us dum hllbillys hav to spend lot money to keep smrt Germans frm blowing up world every generation

  217. in response to dip’s comment, i believe at least a small amount of that difference is in the climate, alot of germany is cooler in climate than the US. places like LA california and the massive surrounding metro get extremely hot (often above 100f in summer) and thus are “cranking up the a/c” i doubt that it accounts for the entire difference but part of it anyway. i admit, americans are probably a little more power hungry than germans. although recent government codes have changed requiring appliances like washer dryer and A/C must use a set minimum amount of energy per year in order to be sold.

  218. Does anyone know what rpm (input/output) the gearboxes run at for 2,3 or 4 MW systems? I realize this system is a direct drive (at 12 rpm -that’s got to be one big generator)?

    I know of a very interesting new generator technology that just scaled up by a factor of 17,000% (to 10,000 lb-ft or 13k NM). It’s about 1/3 the weight of conventional generators and may hep out in these applications. Interestingly, big oil is who is advancing it right now.

  219. DIP – It’s called AIR CONDITIONING…Having lived in Germany for 2 years, there is a pretty HUGE difference in the amount of energy required in a German home vs. an American home during the summer!

    We’re hardly “doing something wrong”.

  220. for people who can’t figure out how long the blades are, use logic. is it logical that the blades could sustain 20 plus years of 356 mph rotation? honestly.

  221. I bet the rich get them first. They will have us everyday Joe’s working to pay for the generators then run their hummer size electric vehicles and boats at our expense causing the price of the remainder of the electricity to skyrocket.

  222. The first true plug-in hybrid cars should be reserved for Texas farmers and ranchers, those staunch backbone of the land people. They could recharge them with smaller windmill driven generators.

  223. Re blade length/diameter. How about this link from Enercon in Germany: http://tinyurl.com/696oon
    They state that hub height is 135m and overall height is 198m. It seems clear that the blade length is therefore 198-135 = 63m and the diameter therefore 126m.

  224. Sorry, that was meant to say:

    Several different web-pages report the Diameter being 126m and others say the Blade Length is 126m

  225. Quote:
    “The world’s largest wind turbine is now the Enercon E-126. This turbine has a rotor blade length of 126 meters (413 feet). ”

    The article says Rotor Blade LENGTH. Not Diameter.
    I’ve looked at Enercon’s websites, and I see no reference to the E-126’s diameter size. Or any reference to it at ALL, for that matter.

    Several different web-pages report the Diameter being 126m and others say the Diameter is 126m

    Yes, you can see that in the past Enercon have named their turbines after the diameter size, but to assume that continues without confirming it is a bit unscientific, wouldn’t you say?

    Can anyone provide a link confirming this either way?

  226. I love it , its beautiful . In Australia you can travel tens of thousands of kilometers and never see one . In Thailand on , there are some which attract tourists . Fools say its inefficient , but thats short sighted . If Roman ruins can last thousands of years , I bet this megalith will be there making free power for a long time . Small speakers making bird warning calls can scare away birds .

  227. Apparently these are being installed in the North Sea as well. No shortage of wind there.

    Some people object to these turbines. Here in Australia lots of people think they are ugly. To me they are magnificent; making energy for the cost of the turbine and its maintenance is one of the most sensible things humans have done so far.

  228. dip, yes the U.S. is over dependant on energy and we are very inefficient in its uses. But, we also enjoy the spoils of war….kicked yours twice. ha ha

  229. No one will say what it cost to build but if the figure is known its ten million or more. How long does it need to work to pay for itself.

  230. I’d love to see more windmills here in Eastern Canada. Give me a can of beans and a case of beer and I could be self sufficient for at least two days. I can also think of a few local politicians who produce enough hot air to run a large windmill.

  231. On The website of http://www.enercon.de/ the Model E-82 has a Rotor diameter: 82 m and the E-33 has a
    Rotor diameter: 33.4 m. That tells me that the E-126 has a Rotor diameter: 126 m (413 Ft). That will make all the calculations you have done to be incorrect. the tip of the rotor travels at 177.
    P.S. even if the blade was 413 feet the rotor would be much more than 826 feet. You would have to include the diameter of the hub. Also 3 blades completing a rotation every 5 seconds that means a blade passes you 5/3= 1.6 seconds.

    I am sure that the sub level noises will cause the birds to be aware of it more than us. The movement also will allow birds to see it better.

  232. This is an answer to DIP.
    UNfortunately electricity is cheap. Almost every house you go to half the house is lit even when there is only one person home! or none. Lived here 20 years and still I hurt people’s feelings when I asked them not to leave lights on in my studio after they go to another room!

  233. For Heaven sake,

    To all those Troglodites in La-La Land who come up with lame excuses for knocking Wind- Power……….We who care about our Planet Earth are sick of acursed Nuclear Power Plants which only causes dangerous long- lived atomic waste which poisons our planet’s soil, air and water. The same goes for Coal Fired Power Stations which belt out stinking fumes which clog the air we breathe.
    I say, ” Let the Wind Farms flourish, Wave generating power stations and Solar mirror electricity power generation stations as well.

    Ruptured oil tankers spilling their stinking oil cargo kill far more bird, penguins and fish than any number of windmills anyway. ” Have you so soon forgotten the terrible maritime Oil Spill from the ‘ Lesson of the Curse of the Tori Canion.’ Don’t forget that nature’s Perigrine Falcons and Eagles also kill birds.

    Richard Leschen

  234. It’s too big. If we enough of this built it would slow the rotation of the Earth and fall into the Sun. Maybe that’s the solution, too.

  235. Output of a windmill is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, eighth power at half speed, one twenty-seventh at one third speed, one sixty-fourth at quarter speed. Using Met Office figures plus 20%. i calculated that windmills spread all over the UK were producing less than 5% for fortnight in October, December and February. Which is why 27 nations around the world are building or planning nuclear power.

  236. “Wait, do i get this right, We in germany can power 5000homes with this one turbine, but you yanks are only able to power less than half of this? i.e. “1776 American homes”. Wonder what you guys do wrong?”

    Well according to Mass.gov, “A megawatt is enough energy to power about 1,200 New England homes.” What so let me get this right at 7 Megawatts, thats 8,400 homes. So us YANKS aren’t really doing anything WRONG, are we dip?


  237. As pointed out by cyric, the wind blade length is actually a little less than 126/2 meters taking account the diameter of the hub. The article simply dispersed the wrong information. Check Enercon’s website.

    Math person’s calculation is correct, but the blade radius is wrong from the beginning. Consequently, the tip velocity is also wrong.

    The wind speed versus power graph is not linear but asymptotic, hence, there is a point of diminishing return. No need to go so fast. Eventually, the mechanical properties of the blades will determine how fast the blades can/should turn. The faster the blade turns, the higher the mechanical loadings are. The higher the loadings, the shorter the lifespan of the blades. Say, fatigue!

  238. I would like to publish 1 photo of the The world’s largest wind turbine is now the Enercon E-126, you have in this website, for a publication I am developing about R.Energies in Portugal.
    What would be the price for it?

  239. vlad –

    The fixed cost is a sunk cost once the thing is up and running (just like a building) and connected to a storage system and distribution network, so that’s zero. The actual cost of the electricity prodcued is the variable cost per unit of energy produced, such as maintenance and replacement of worn parts. It’s probably way cheaper than coal. The actual energy source is caused by the interaction of the sun and the earth, so that’s free (a sunk cost worst) to the producer under clear solar/wind rights.

    Your accountant and local politicians can tell you the additional unit costs of inefficient accounting, taxation and regulatory schemes and lobbying for unhelpful squirrelly laws from dirtier producers of electricity.

  240. Blade speed and bird kills – not what you think.

    Try 355.7 mph at the tips. The circumference of a circle is 2*r*pi* = d*pi. If one blade is 413 feet, the diameter is 826 feet * pi = 2,594 feet / 5 seconds for one rotation around the circumference = 519 feet per second * 60 seconds * 60 minutes = 1,867,421 feet per hour / 5,250 feet = 355.7 miles per hour. Some birds fly horizontally as slow as a person walks. Try to walk through huge blades coming at you 355.7 miles per hour every 0.6 seconds (three blades completing a revolution every five seconds) randomly a few times and see if you escape getting hit.

    As an economist, the question is not whether birds get hit and killed by wind power. Some will be. The question is whether fewer birds get hit and killed by wind power (the larger the turbines, the fewer of them there are, so fewer birds get killed by mega-wind power anyway) than by the oil and gasoline trucks that the wind turbines replace. The answer is yes. It turns out that the number two killer of birds (after house windows) is motor vehicles, with big trucks taking more than their share. Birds win overall with wind power (not to mention the cleaner air gives them back their normal life span and function).

  241. Despite being the world leader in charitable giving and foreign aid, I see it’s still chic to bash the US. We have our drawbacks, but so does every other nation on earth. Here in South Dakota, 20% of our electricity comes from wind, and more turbines are being errected daily.

  242. re Waldo Hitcher

    A 2007 US government study found wind power was half the price of coal per Kwh,.

    Since then, the price of coal has more than doubled at some ports.

    US anthracite (high grade coal) production peaked in the 1920s.

    Oil, coal and nuclear power are scams. Everything from their exploration to to the waste products they produce is subsidized by income tax and has been for decades.

  243. Ultra expensive low return wind turbine built instead of standard generating power methods, causes a significant net reduction in World wealth.

    That means people at the bottom drop out of the wealth redistribution league, while rich countries indulge themselves with these ludicras “eco totem poles”.

    This eco madness has gone too far. Either bring up the Eco technology beyond the efficiency of new generation or ditch it. At present Wind is five times as resource intensive to achieve the same in City (where the demand is) balanced secure 24/7 generation and wave/solar/tidal over 10 times as resource intensive.

    Every one of these built starves poorer people of the resources it wastes. Six billion people would have to be reduced dramatically (ie die) if these eco technologies become widespread. The Earth can’t generate energy therefore sufficient wealth with stone age technology. Energy is the multiplier of wealth and every increase in real terms cost reduces potential wealth serverely and even more so in poor communities. Meanwhile the Germans are feeling very self satisfied at building expensive statues to their own ecological excellence with money that could have built efficient power stations in SS Africa.

    The answer is to starve these “wind engineers” of funds until they can deliver the 5 times improvement in generation,storage and distribution efficiency necessary. Don’t pay for steam engines, make them deliver what we need.

    The physics of the situation is clear even without the blindingly obvious solutions. The only thing that will return this wind or wave efficiency is scale, a technical solution that multiplies scale without multiplying mass. A windmill is not it , nor ever will be. As the height/span increases the rotating inertial mass goes through the roof.

    Stop subsidising junk technology, start starving it .

    Starve poor technology, not poor people.

    1. Finally, a voice of sanity. I especially resent the bloke who denigrates those who appreciate a view without an eco-totem pole casting flickering shadows and reflections, as well as low-frequency rumbles that surely all together must interfere significantly with someone’s sensory acuity, their sanity, and their sleep (not to mention the lost revenue when tourists stop coming to get away from the industrial atmosphere of the cities, only to find that Northumberland has been thoroughly studded with these eco-industrial beasts!) This madness must stop, and I believe you have really well put the case to the madmen who pursue their eco-bucks to the denigration of the planet. Two weeks ago, President Obama issued an Executive Order redefining what is acceptable as an alternative energy source for use by the US Federal government. Now Small Modular Reactors are an option and are considered both a viable alternative, and a renewable source. With co-generation, SMR’s efficiency goes through the roof. Requiring no gigantic “smart grid” sucking the efficiency like a vampire–things that are inherent to these nasty wind machines–Nuclear SMRs are going to allow us to meet all our CO2 reduction goals, without the canard of “nominal power output” being accepted by the lost eco-sheep, and without the 100% conventional, CO2-generating backup generators–which must be kept on idle at all times should the wind die down, or a cloud pass over a solar cell–and which all of these wind turbines require. Building them, in the last analysis, creates more greenhouse gasses than they replace.

  244. I might be misunderstanding something, but according to Enercon own site, the tower hub height is 135 m tall and it has a rotor diameter of 127 m (so the blade length is half that, ~63.5 m). The total height is then about 135+63.5 = 198.5 m. This is still not as tall as the Fuhrländer Wind Turbine in Laasow Germany, which is ~205 m (160 m tower with 90 m diameter rotor). However this new turbine can generate much more power ~6-7 MW vs. 2.5 MW.

  245. dip,
    You are right, we Americans live in houses that are much too big and inefficient, but what difference can I make, I’m just a blogger. I live in a small house and I am working it make it more efficient. I spread the word, but few listen, it is called “The American Dream.”

    Saul Wall,
    Actually, there is very little power available at the hub. Smaller turbines don’t have the blade extending all the way to the hub, it just doesn’t provide down there.

    The efficiency is in the lift created by the air foil of the blade moving across the wind. If there were blades on the tips of the blades, you would begin to harvest power using drag which is less efficient. Additionally, a bunch of tiny blades moving at 180 mph would be VERY loud.

  246. This company is the largest producer of wind turbines in Germany. They know what they are doing. I produce small wind generators and understand the technology. I would be you could never hear this machine. It likely turns at only 10-15 rpm. This machine is designed primarily for off-shore wind farms and breakeven is most likely 7-8 years like other designs.

  247. To Tony:

    It is a creative idea but I suspect that the energy lost due to drag on the main turbine caused by the smaller ones would be more than the smaller turbines would produce.

  248. We would need only seven of those to provide enough electricity for my entire town. And that’s not counting solar power, which is already very common in Limburg.

  249. This does look awesome, and I’m obviously no expert, whilst reading through the comments about how fast the blades at the tips an idea struck me, would it be possible to put smaller turbines mounted on the tips of the blades perpendicular the the large blades, so that as the large blades spin the smaller ones could also produce power? It may well be a completely stupid idea, but one I thought worth sharing. I will now return to my humdrum existence.


  251. Good job this turbine is not located in the UK. I can already hear the screams of the Rotary group complaining about noise pollution, aesthetic impact on our rural locations and the general desire to use renewable energy but not actually do anything constructive to help that mission succeed.

  252. That is true, according to my quick calculations, the tips would run about 177 mph, but that is only the tips, the great majority of the swept area poses very little danger to birds. If you come in 26 meters, the blade speed drops to 59 mph. Additionally, the sheer size of the blades and the turbine over all acts as a deterrent. Unlike skyscrapers and buildings with large glass windows, wind turbines are solidly colored so birds cannot fly through what they think is empty airspace but actually happens to be a window.

  253. I agree about the bird thing being overblown. But 12 revs a minute is not slow. At the end of the blades, they’ll be traveling at nearly 180mph.

Leave a Reply
