See how wind turbines generate clean electricity from the power of the wind. Highlighted are the various parts and mechanisms of a modern wind turbine.
As you said, many people are ignorant, but I believe the reason is a lack of education on alternative energies. Windpower is a very economical energy source. The turbines are relatively cheap, simple, and easy to repair. While it would never be feasible to directly be used for transportation, it might be a good option to create clean energy for electric cars & trucks in the future. (of course we would need to overhaul our transportation infrastructure)
That also reminds me, when I was on my road trip from Ontario to Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.) I saw hundreds of windmills in farms and not far away from cities too, At that moment I felt a little too short and surprised of hoe many windmills are being used by humans and remembered of how much energy my friends and I use and most of the time waste every single day??!! .
I'd like to see: A) Solar panels on every possible existing man-made surface to minimize loss of open space. B) Small wind turbines (maybe 50 feet max.) on an individual user scale. C) Some large OFFshore wind turbines, within limits. D) Nuclear plants or pods in the safest possible areas. E) A lot more conservation and personal restraint. F) A major effort to stabilize world population so demand doesn't keep rising.
The compressed air engine that you are referring to is intriguing technology, but does not have the capability yet to produce nearly enough electricity to be used as a power source. As far as the health problems reported, they are mostly just people looking for an excuse to prevent the construction of new turbines. If you think about it, how could a steel pole sticking in the ground with wings on it cause any health issues? It doesn't emit any toxins that would cause them.
Narrator says: rotates at 18 rpm and "that's not nearly fast enough to generate electricity" Perhaps the government should tell Enercon, Northern Power and GE about this. They all make large wind turbines that have no gearbox. The fact is you can build a wind turbine with a low torque, high speed generator, or a high torque, low speed generator, both are commercially viable with the latter gaining on the former.
Hi JMC porshe, I agree that the output of energy from traditional nuclear power is not efficient when compared to the amount of hazardous waste produced. In retrospect, many people are unaware that there has been another type of nuclear tech used primarily by Germany that is more efficient and can store more than an entire 40year lifecycle of waste on site. This technology has been around since traditional nuclear power but has higher upfront costs, but based on the reduction of waste and the fact it is virtually impossible for the system to meltdown; I feel the cost is somewhat mitigated. So what is this Technology? It is called Pebble Bed Reactors (PBR) and the system does not produce enough heat to reach the critical temp threshold, as well as, it is a dual source as it also turns turbines from the channeled heat produced instead of traditional steam. Check it out yourself!
What do you mean by EXTREMELY inefficient? One turbine (depending on size of course) can produce a large amount of electricity to power several homes. A farm with several does this even more so, matching the output of a typical fossil fuel power plant all while using no fuel and producing no emissions. It's like free energy. When you consider the simplicity of a turbine's design, it's hard to believe that it would be more expensive to run than a coal fired power plant like the one in Fall River.
You could, in principle, use sunlight to achieve that. Heliographs were used back in the 1800s to transmit messages wirelessly over long distances, but I'm not aware of this technology being used for Internet communication.
The place in Nevada is called Yucca Mountain, and it is not currently used to store nuclear waste. It was built under the Bush administration and never put to use because of the security threats involved with transportation and storing. Waste is either stored in pools or in dry casks at the plant itself. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for the waste to become stable, not a comforting feeling. Now consider the byproducts of wind. Don't say bird killings, because that's getting a bit old.
There are people that completely deny the advantages of windpower as an alternative to fossil fuels. It is a no-brainer, because it offers essentially free, continuous energy. They are low maintenance, are relatively cheap, and of course clean. They are clearly better alternatives to our current energy sources.
I agree with everything you just listed, but now I'm confused. Why so much pushback on industrial wind farms? They can be located in places just as secluded as a nuclear power plant as you mentioned. They are remarkably efficient, cheap, and clean (especially compared to nuke plants). Land beneath the farm can be easily used for grazing and even some agriculture. Lets not forget the financial advantage it would have for those who build wind farms on their property.
One thing that would help wind energy is to get away from standard wind turbines which is a 300 year old method. I have a wind turbine that will produce 6x a nuclear power plant and will work at 1 mph wind speed because I dont wait for the wind to come to my Turbine I bring the wind to my turbine. Standard turbines have to have 15mph to work.
It takes massive amounts of money (not to mention environmental cost) to find, drill, extract, and transport fossil fuels like coal and oil. Wind requires no "harvesting" before being put to use so it is essentially "free." About the nukes, the only reason they are profitable is because of the massive subsidies they are given. These subsidies, dating back to the 70s are our tax dollars. Nuclear power plants are very inefficient because they cost so much to run without government intervention.
So , you did miss what you have . The multi bladed farm turbines were designed to pump water , a slow process , requiring high torq . Pump the water , tank it high & use that to drop chunks of energy when required also . Energy & energy storage using mostly existing kit , and allowing it back in the hands of the guys who need it , near the grass roots .
Unfortunately, some of these giant turbines at wind farms are killing thousands of federally-protected migratory birds, mostly raptors (eagles, hawks, falcons....). Can something be done to prevent this carnage?
I dont feel like re-finding all the numbers but you can look up yourself how much a nuclear power plant produces relative to all the turbines in the country and look at the cost also. And free wind energy? The fossil fuels are at the bottom of the ocean are "free for the taking also then. Its just basic logic that a controlling energy sources like coal, fossil fuels, and nuclear power can produce more than a little bit of wind. Im a sailor but there is a reason why are ships are nuclear and not
Absolutely. The problem is, the technology is constantly changing and is just currently not cost-effective. I hope we can figure it out soon though. Regards, Zero
i already explained that the subsidies go to research not the actual plants and there havent been build recently because greenpeace type lobbyists want to limit them and where does the waste go? I actual have a best friend whos job is to design the containers for the waste. The go into a mountain in nevada for a 1000 years completely safe and contained.
Nuclear engineering came about after WWII and WAS thought to be the answer to all of our energy problems. Only 20% of US power is from nuclear, because it is very inefficient and expensive. There hasn't been any nuke plants built recently for that reason. They simply would not be profitable without government subsidies. Lets not forget the nuclear waste. Plants have already reached their carrying capacity, so where does it go?
it does except when you do the research on the practicality of it. The Wind turbines are EXTREMELY inefficient. I live on Aquidneck Island and the turbines sit unused because they cost us more than they make. We cant even afford to repair the damn thing and believe me, if wind would work it would work here in the sailing capital of the world. They are more trouble than they are worth and they are a huge eyesore. The cooling towers in fall river are a eyesore also but atleast they accomplish some
Imagine how inefficient a sailing boat would be if the wind was expected to charge a turbine to turn a propellor rather than being used directly to power the boat along. Energy is lost from the system the sailboat would never work. and that is why you have never seen it or anything similar in the 2000 year developement of the sail boat. For the same reason the idea of feeding wind electricity into a grid is inefficient and just doesn't work
You don't seem to acknowledge the future scale planned for these things. Few scenic areas with a modicum of wind would be unaffected. Germany is a good microcosm. Look up the "Darmstadt Manifesto" and you might get some insight into what's in store for America, etc.
Its a combination of technologies that will help us someday eliminate the need for coal and oil to power our civilization. As anyone should know by now, there is no silver bullet.
***** Why should wind be shunned just as nuclear power is? And yes its part of the larger system that combined will allow us to never run out of power, as well as allow us to provide power for everyone.
Jonathan Roehm Wind farms should be shunned because they've proven to be hideously expensive to the average consumer, they do nothing but line the pockets of rich land owners.
Giving incentives will help people gravitate to using more alternative energy like wind and solar. And here is a company that doing just that, helping millions financially, while helping the planet. Watch this video on North American Power at Getting Free Energy (Google it) narrated by Deepak Chopra. It's powerful, world changing stuff.
Sounds great! So wheres my savings? Or by this time n age prices would be sky rocket w/o these mills? Just curios... theres just way to many to not notice the "savins"...ty
well go yell at the engineers that they arent doing the impossible fast enough and like i said before, there is a infinite source of energy, nuclear. Proven to be exceedingly clean and effective assuming the country its in doesnt get swallowed by the sea or is run by a college educated operator.
You are going to a radical extreme in your attempt to sway me against windpower. No turbines have been proposed in the grand canyon. If it was, I would strongly oppose it. What you don't consider is that for every person that has a NIMBY standpoint, there are others that would happily accept having a windfarm on their property. In western Texas for instance, where the land is almost useless for agriculture, property owners have begun to "harvest wind." now that property provides a stable income.
Bearing in mind that the prevailing winds in most of the Northern Hemisphere wind farms are bound to slow the rotation of the earth. This slowing down will cause the moon to shift in its orbit and either crash to earth or leave the earth's gravitational field. In either case it will result in the destruction of all life on earth.
Let's not get too happy about wind turbines as a "green" solution to anything. They are being placed in too many landscapes where they don't belong, and landscapes are a big part of environmental aesthetics. I see the mass proliferation of wind turbines as a mistake rivaling AGW itself. People are obsessed with "building big" and it's just not compatible with a rural quality of life.
+Geo T maybe, but it's only temporary my friend. I would rather have wind turbines everywhere, and clean abundant energy, then not. Clean abundant energy will propel our evolution and soon he will be creating clean nuclear energy and other clean energy sources, which can then replace these wind turbines, which have the most environmental impact after hydropowerplants.
"Clean" energy is a huge misnomer when you consider the industrial dirtying of priceless landscapes by wind turbines. Read the "Darmstadt Manifesto" for wisdom from a nation already overrun with these eyesores. The U.S. ought not follow that blind path.
What is "vague" about me pointing out the sheer size and scale of these things, and the many complaints that proposed installations receive? You've got to be a wind shill of some sort. People turn blind when they make money from industrial blight. What angers me is that it's supposedly being done to "help the environment." Pardon folk like me who consider natural scenery to an integral part of the environment!
You just keep trivializing the landscape blight issue. Have you ever seen turbines in large numbers in person? People seem to have trouble comprehending their actual size. Future plans for them replacing fossil fuels involve close to 4 million large towers. They glare & tower over natural features and their access roads are as bad as oil & gas drilling. I'd suggest reading sites like Wind-Watch or WindAction. There's a reason people constantly fight these monster towers in most proposed areas.
Because big filthy corporations do not want to sell the energy cheaply. Plus since it is a clean energy source, the government would not be able to carbon tax people. See, love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Now tell me that is not so
More? There are already too many if you have any aesthetic values. These are basically skyscrapers on rural and semi-wilderness lands, seen from many parks already. I suggest reading the "Darmstadt Manifesto on the Exploitation of Wind Energy in Germany." That nation is already saturated with turbines and has lost much of its countryside character. The UK is reaching the same conclusion now. America is bigger but they keep creeping in and it's all relative. Putting them at sea doesn't render them invisible and causes a special kind of horizon blight, since nothing but flatness is there to break them up.
Vccine It's not a "clean" energy source unless you force yourself to see the landscape as detached from the environment and expendable. Get a soul, man!
***** Yeah, so it is better to have nuclear power plants. Oh wait, Chernobyl, fukishima didn't work out so well after an incident. Yes, I would rather have the *landscape* filled with wind plants and solar plants rather than have a nuclear power plant near my city. To me personally, human life (and animal wildlife to an extent) is more important than a nice view out of your front balcony. And yes, it is a clean energy source since it does not directly pollute the environment.
I think the infrasound is the worst. They don't tell you about that. You cannot always hear it, but it will give you headaches that will make you want to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It's constant, never goes away. You cannot concentrate, you wither away. You take pills, but they won't help. You tell people, but they don't believe you. They don't know what it does to a person. I am very much in favor of the environment, but windturbines aren't the way to go if you ask me. I might not convince you, but wait till you live in the neighbourhood of one. It is hell. Not everybody experiences this. But the unlucky few will go through HELL.
You're using false context that pretends wind turbines are somehow *replacing* existing eyesores. They are encumbering the landscape in *addition* to those other eyesores. It's cumulative. And wind turbines have qualities that make them stick out on the landscape more than other structures. In the Columbia river zone of northeast OR & southeast WA, the blight has become shocking in its scale recently, and many more are planned. They are devastating rural landscapes and it's really a shame.
This sort of thing has come to bite us in the butt before, so: With wind turbines proliferating, anyone wonder what could be the effect of extracting kinetic energy from the atmosphere? Long term maybe. Cause and effect 'n all.
nearly 7.5 bn people on the planet. you place enough of wind turbines, who knows what the effect's could be? Life's a balance. Wind energy comes indirectly from sun energy, so no, we're not gonna run out. but there might be localized effects near a wind farm, shifting wind currents, possibly.
I'm no expert really, but from what I know wind energy is really the sun's heat energy, which heats up the air, creating convection currents: hot air goes up, cools, the comes back down. This along with the friction forces between the 'solid' earth and the fluid atmosphere also has a role. Along with many different forces. I'm not worried of it being a diminishing natural resource, but if you place windbreaks on natural air currents in the form of these giant moving windmills, it could have a significant effect on the local ecology. The same way suddenly stopping a marine current in the middle of the Gulf could have significant effects on coral reefs, zooplankton, etc. Just theorizing. Like I said, I'm no ecologist.
This is a very good video. School appropriate, and students can watch it at home for homework if they want to. Good job, Energy 101.
Thanks! This is helping me greatly with my earth science assignment
Good information for the basic learners about wind energy
As you said, many people are ignorant, but I believe the reason is a lack of education on alternative energies. Windpower is a very economical energy source. The turbines are relatively cheap, simple, and easy to repair. While it would never be feasible to directly be used for transportation, it might be a good option to create clean energy for electric cars & trucks in the future. (of course we would need to overhaul our transportation infrastructure)
Excellent. Thnaks. WIND is future electricity source. We shall use it since it is green, free and available.
That also reminds me, when I was on my road trip from Ontario to Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.) I saw hundreds of windmills in farms and not far away from cities too, At that moment I felt a little too short and surprised of hoe many windmills are being used by humans and remembered of how much energy my friends and I use and most of the time waste every single day??!! .
Excellent video! Very informative! Renewable energy is the way of the future!
I'd like to see: A) Solar panels on every possible existing man-made surface to minimize loss of open space. B) Small wind turbines (maybe 50 feet max.) on an individual user scale. C) Some large OFFshore wind turbines, within limits. D) Nuclear plants or pods in the safest possible areas. E) A lot more conservation and personal restraint. F) A major effort to stabilize world population so demand doesn't keep rising.
I can't stop watching this!!!
The compressed air engine that you are referring to is intriguing technology, but does not have the capability yet to produce nearly enough electricity to be used as a power source. As far as the health problems reported, they are mostly just people looking for an excuse to prevent the construction of new turbines. If you think about it, how could a steel pole sticking in the ground with wings on it cause any health issues? It doesn't emit any toxins that would cause them.
Thanks heaps Im going to use this next week with my science classes.
Wow, nice presentation this helped me on my wind energy essay.
You helped my study about how wind turbines work too!!
That was sooo last school year. I got a 7/8 on that essay :D
This time I'll use Inplix instructions to make it by myself.
I bought instruction from inplix and I build it very very cheap.
Boy am I learning a lot!!!!!!!
Great video.
Wind turbines?
I'm a big fan.
Narrator says: rotates at 18 rpm and "that's not nearly fast enough to generate electricity" Perhaps the government should tell Enercon, Northern Power and GE about this. They all make large wind turbines that have no gearbox. The fact is you can build a wind turbine with a low torque, high speed generator, or a high torque, low speed generator, both are commercially viable with the latter gaining on the former.
thanks this really helped me with the project im doing!
I wish the more pple world check out wind power. Its safer,cleaner and the best thing is is all around us. Plus it's free who own's the wind.
Hi JMC porshe,
I agree that the output of energy from traditional nuclear power is not efficient when compared to the amount of hazardous waste produced. In retrospect, many people are unaware that there has been another type of nuclear tech used primarily by Germany that is more efficient and can store more than an entire 40year lifecycle of waste on site. This technology has been around since traditional nuclear power but has higher upfront costs, but based on the reduction of waste and the fact it is virtually impossible for the system to meltdown; I feel the cost is somewhat mitigated. So what is this Technology? It is called Pebble Bed Reactors (PBR) and the system does not produce enough heat to reach the critical temp threshold, as well as, it is a dual source as it also turns turbines from the channeled heat produced instead of traditional steam. Check it out yourself!
What do you mean by EXTREMELY inefficient? One turbine (depending on size of course) can produce a large amount of electricity to power several homes. A farm with several does this even more so, matching the output of a typical fossil fuel power plant all while using no fuel and producing no emissions. It's like free energy. When you consider the simplicity of a turbine's design, it's hard to believe that it would be more expensive to run than a coal fired power plant like the one in Fall River.
You could, in principle, use sunlight to achieve that. Heliographs were used back in the 1800s to transmit messages wirelessly over long distances, but I'm not aware of this technology being used for Internet communication.
Nice film. Well done.
The place in Nevada is called Yucca Mountain, and it is not currently used to store nuclear waste. It was built under the Bush administration and never put to use because of the security threats involved with transportation and storing. Waste is either stored in pools or in dry casks at the plant itself. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for the waste to become stable, not a comforting feeling. Now consider the byproducts of wind. Don't say bird killings, because that's getting a bit old.
There are people that completely deny the advantages of windpower as an alternative to fossil fuels. It is a no-brainer, because it offers essentially free, continuous energy. They are low maintenance, are relatively cheap, and of course clean. They are clearly better alternatives to our current energy sources.
This is so cool
thanks very informative just what i need for my background info!
I agree with everything you just listed, but now I'm confused. Why so much pushback on industrial wind farms? They can be located in places just as secluded as a nuclear power plant as you mentioned. They are remarkably efficient, cheap, and clean (especially compared to nuke plants). Land beneath the farm can be easily used for grazing and even some agriculture. Lets not forget the financial advantage it would have for those who build wind farms on their property.
The only alternative energy source that I can think of using compressed air is a small engine like device. look it up.
One thing that would help wind energy is to get away from standard wind turbines which is a 300 year old method. I have a wind turbine that will produce 6x a nuclear power plant and will work at 1 mph wind speed because I dont wait for the wind to come to my Turbine I bring the wind to my turbine. Standard turbines have to have 15mph to work.
thank you
1 : 100... Ratio..
Huge amount of torque !!
Nice video
It takes massive amounts of money (not to mention environmental cost) to find, drill, extract, and transport fossil fuels like coal and oil. Wind requires no "harvesting" before being put to use so it is essentially "free." About the nukes, the only reason they are profitable is because of the massive subsidies they are given. These subsidies, dating back to the 70s are our tax dollars. Nuclear power plants are very inefficient because they cost so much to run without government intervention.
Clean energy is the way of the future
Trop cool 😊😍❤️
@catothewiser
Solar energy is from the sun. Oil is a fossil fuel. Don't mix up the two.
So , you did miss what you have . The multi bladed farm turbines were designed to pump water , a slow process , requiring high torq . Pump the water , tank it high & use that to drop chunks of energy when required also . Energy & energy storage using mostly existing kit , and allowing it back in the hands of the guys who need it , near the grass roots .
I actually think wind turbines are really pretty in the hills like that
Unfortunately, some of these giant turbines at wind farms are killing thousands of federally-protected migratory birds, mostly raptors (eagles, hawks, falcons....). Can something be done to prevent this carnage?
This doesn't cover the negative aspects though, gotta keep the whole scope of it in mind when approaching the topic
What would you consider to be the alternative? What about the physical and mental health of people living nearby those?
Where can I see subtitles for this video?
I dont feel like re-finding all the numbers but you can look up yourself how much a nuclear power plant produces relative to all the turbines in the country and look at the cost also. And free wind energy? The fossil fuels are at the bottom of the ocean are "free for the taking also then. Its just basic logic that a controlling energy sources like coal, fossil fuels, and nuclear power can produce more than a little bit of wind. Im a sailor but there is a reason why are ships are nuclear and not
Ey, awesome video.
can i use it in a school project? :)
Absolutely. The problem is, the technology is constantly changing and is just currently not cost-effective. I hope we can figure it out soon though.
Regards,
Zero
did they figure it out zero?
i already explained that the subsidies go to research not the actual plants and there havent been build recently because greenpeace type lobbyists want to limit them and where does the waste go? I actual have a best friend whos job is to design the containers for the waste. The go into a mountain in nevada for a 1000 years completely safe and contained.
Nuclear engineering came about after WWII and WAS thought to be the answer to all of our energy problems. Only 20% of US power is from nuclear, because it is very inefficient and expensive. There hasn't been any nuke plants built recently for that reason. They simply would not be profitable without government subsidies. Lets not forget the nuclear waste. Plants have already reached their carrying capacity, so where does it go?
it does except when you do the research on the practicality of it. The Wind turbines are EXTREMELY inefficient. I live on Aquidneck Island and the turbines sit unused because they cost us more than they make. We cant even afford to repair the damn thing and believe me, if wind would work it would work here in the sailing capital of the world. They are more trouble than they are worth and they are a huge eyesore. The cooling towers in fall river are a eyesore also but atleast they accomplish some
Destroying the landscape? What then do you propose is a better alternative?
Now Washington is getting Sea Turbines.
Why can't people realize the benefits of windpower. It seems like a no-brainer
Thankអរគុណ👏
Nice!
Great, but I'd like to know the cons as well.
There isn't
0:53 to get to the point
Farm Factor- October 7, 2014
for more on Wind Energy
this will be good for my progeck
so true
what compressed air engine am i referring to cause i got no clue.
this realy helped with my speech
Hi ben mcleod! We are so glad to hear this video helped your speech! Hope you got an A!
cool
Imagine how inefficient a sailing boat would be if the wind was expected to charge a turbine to turn a propellor rather than being used directly to power the boat along. Energy is lost from the system the sailboat would never work. and that is why you have never seen it or anything similar in the 2000 year developement of the sail boat.
For the same reason the idea of feeding wind electricity into a grid is inefficient and just doesn't work
They should add wind lens, like the Japanese, to produce three times to four times energy.
what kind of electricity that wind turbin produce? ac or dc? can we combine it with PV?
AC or DC depends upon what generator is used in particular case. Generally, they generate AC power. (according to my knowledge)
Helmi Hermain I
You don't seem to acknowledge the future scale planned for these things. Few scenic areas with a modicum of wind would be unaffected. Germany is a good microcosm. Look up the "Darmstadt Manifesto" and you might get some insight into what's in store for America, etc.
it is worth it.
how does wind energy pumps electrical power generation?
is it okay if i use a clip from this in a video i'm doing for school? I'll credit you
bro this is literally the US Department of Energy, it's public domain
idk if u still use this account but its public u dont have to credit him
Just learned this and I'm 18 years old.
It's fascinating that people believe building these things will save the known universe. They rely on diesel back up generators for goodness sake.
Its a combination of technologies that will help us someday eliminate the need for coal and oil to power our civilization.
As anyone should know by now, there is no silver bullet.
Jonathan Roehm I agree and winds farms isn't one of them.
***** Why should wind be shunned just as nuclear power is?
And yes its part of the larger system that combined will allow us to never run out of power, as well as allow us to provide power for everyone.
Jonathan Roehm Wind farms should be shunned because they've proven to be hideously expensive to the average consumer, they do nothing but line the pockets of rich land owners.
***** if everyone thought like you and quit ideas because they were to far away from your goals, we would still be in the stone age
Giving incentives will help people gravitate to using more alternative energy like wind and solar. And here is a company that doing just that, helping millions financially, while helping the planet. Watch this video on North American Power at Getting Free Energy (Google it) narrated by Deepak Chopra. It's powerful, world changing stuff.
how much volts?
this is lies
11 volts
Um what
Sounds great! So wheres my savings? Or by this time n age prices would be sky rocket w/o these mills? Just curios... theres just way to many to not notice the "savins"...ty
well go yell at the engineers that they arent doing the impossible fast enough and like i said before, there is a infinite source of energy, nuclear. Proven to be exceedingly clean and effective assuming the country its in doesnt get swallowed by the sea or is run by a college educated operator.
You are going to a radical extreme in your attempt to sway me against windpower. No turbines have been proposed in the grand canyon. If it was, I would strongly oppose it. What you don't consider is that for every person that has a NIMBY standpoint, there are others that would happily accept having a windfarm on their property. In western Texas for instance, where the land is almost useless for agriculture, property owners have begun to "harvest wind." now that property provides a stable income.
survival of the fittest, the birds who are smart enough not to kill themselves will live...
gods will as i like to call it =D
I want to use at myself at home
that why we dont need nuclear, brother and sisters.
im watching this in 2020
Smae lmao
סרטון יפה היה יכול ליהיות יותר טוב
Bearing in mind that the prevailing winds in most of the Northern Hemisphere wind farms are bound to slow the rotation of the earth. This slowing down will cause the moon to shift in its orbit and either crash to earth or leave the earth's gravitational field.
In either case it will result in the destruction of all life on earth.
Let's not get too happy about wind turbines as a "green" solution to anything. They are being placed in too many landscapes where they don't belong, and landscapes are a big part of environmental aesthetics. I see the mass proliferation of wind turbines as a mistake rivaling AGW itself. People are obsessed with "building big" and it's just not compatible with a rural quality of life.
+Geo T maybe, but it's only temporary my friend. I would rather have wind turbines everywhere, and clean abundant energy, then not. Clean abundant energy will propel our evolution and soon he will be creating clean nuclear energy and other clean energy sources, which can then replace these wind turbines, which have the most environmental impact after hydropowerplants.
who feel a slight vibration from the wind turbines and that's from with in their homes
"Clean" energy is a huge misnomer when you consider the industrial dirtying of priceless landscapes by wind turbines. Read the "Darmstadt Manifesto" for wisdom from a nation already overrun with these eyesores. The U.S. ought not follow that blind path.
correction, wind is the worlds natural resource. believe it or not you can find wind every where! lol
Betz limit has been smashed and debunked regards Graham S Flowers
wind makes me cold
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what type of Electrisity
Lucy Gilmour electricity*
What is "vague" about me pointing out the sheer size and scale of these things, and the many complaints that proposed installations receive? You've got to be a wind shill of some sort. People turn blind when they make money from industrial blight.
What angers me is that it's supposedly being done to "help the environment." Pardon folk like me who consider natural scenery to an integral part of the environment!
here from ATA geo like if u r too
The word "both" is pronounced, "B-ow-th," not, "B-ol-th."
These also kills birds and bats which are vital to our environment. It seems like nothing is really being done to fix this.
You just keep trivializing the landscape blight issue. Have you ever seen turbines in large numbers in person? People seem to have trouble comprehending their actual size. Future plans for them replacing fossil fuels involve close to 4 million large towers. They glare & tower over natural features and their access roads are as bad as oil & gas drilling.
I'd suggest reading sites like Wind-Watch or WindAction. There's a reason people constantly fight these monster towers in most proposed areas.
kozak wiatraczki es
why don't we have more of these?
Because big filthy corporations do not want to sell the energy cheaply. Plus since it is a clean energy source, the government would not be able to carbon tax people. See, love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Now tell me that is not so
More? There are already too many if you have any aesthetic values. These are basically skyscrapers on rural and semi-wilderness lands, seen from many parks already. I suggest reading the "Darmstadt Manifesto on the Exploitation of Wind Energy in Germany." That nation is already saturated with turbines and has lost much of its countryside character. The UK is reaching the same conclusion now. America is bigger but they keep creeping in and it's all relative. Putting them at sea doesn't render them invisible and causes a special kind of horizon blight, since nothing but flatness is there to break them up.
Vccine It's not a "clean" energy source unless you force yourself to see the landscape as detached from the environment and expendable. Get a soul, man!
***** Yeah, so it is better to have nuclear power plants. Oh wait, Chernobyl, fukishima didn't work out so well after an incident. Yes, I would rather have the *landscape* filled with wind plants and solar plants rather than have a nuclear power plant near my city.
To me personally, human life (and animal wildlife to an extent) is more important than a nice view out of your front balcony.
And yes, it is a clean energy source since it does not directly pollute the environment.
I think the infrasound is the worst. They don't tell you about that. You cannot always hear it, but it will give you headaches that will make you want to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It's constant, never goes away. You cannot concentrate, you wither away. You take pills, but they won't help. You tell people, but they don't believe you. They don't know what it does to a person.
I am very much in favor of the environment, but windturbines aren't the way to go if you ask me. I might not convince you, but wait till you live in the neighbourhood of one.
It is hell. Not everybody experiences this. But the unlucky few will go through HELL.
You're using false context that pretends wind turbines are somehow *replacing* existing eyesores. They are encumbering the landscape in *addition* to those other eyesores. It's cumulative. And wind turbines have qualities that make them stick out on the landscape more than other structures.
In the Columbia river zone of northeast OR & southeast WA, the blight has become shocking in its scale recently, and many more are planned. They are devastating rural landscapes and it's really a shame.
Wyoming is to damn windy!!
at least my tax dollars are being put to good use in some areas
This sort of thing has come to bite us in the butt before, so: With wind turbines proliferating, anyone wonder what could be the effect of extracting kinetic energy from the atmosphere? Long term maybe. Cause and effect 'n all.
Are you afraid of "using up" all the wind?
nearly 7.5 bn people on the planet. you place enough of wind turbines, who knows what the effect's could be?
Life's a balance.
Wind energy comes indirectly from sun energy, so no, we're not gonna run out. but there might be localized effects near a wind farm, shifting wind currents, possibly.
Isn't that sorta like being afraid of using up all the air from so many life forms using the air? I believe wind is being constantly created.
I'm no expert really, but from what I know wind energy is really the sun's heat energy, which heats up the air, creating convection currents: hot air goes up, cools, the comes back down.
This along with the friction forces between the 'solid' earth and the fluid atmosphere also has a role.
Along with many different forces.
I'm not worried of it being a diminishing natural resource, but if you place windbreaks on natural air currents in the form of these giant moving windmills, it could have a significant effect on the local ecology.
The same way suddenly stopping a marine current in the middle of the Gulf could have significant effects on coral reefs, zooplankton, etc.
Just theorizing.
Like I said, I'm no ecologist.
Perhaps a simulator is required. That’s a good question.