World's Largest Wind Turbine 445
PeteJones writes "'Construction work on the REpower 5M was successfully completed last night with the installation of the rotor. Thus the main work on the prototype of the 5-megawatt, world's largest wind turbine has finally been completed.' The pictures are quite impressive. With 3 18-ton rotor blades pumping out 5 MW I wonder if my neighbours would mind one in my backyard?"
Wind power efficiency (Score:2, Insightful)
If that's becoming less true, I think this is a great thing. I worry a little about the environmental effects of "taking energy out of the wind", but I haven't read about anyone important who shares my worry, so it's probably unfounded.
Re:Wind power efficiency (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wind power efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole of Europe was once covered with forests. Now most of it is covered by farmland and urban areas, which offer less resistence to wind. If anything, those windmills will bring back more "natural" conditions.
Re:Wind Requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Any wind? Not unless it's frictionless and massless, my friend - overcoming inertia is not a free lunch.
Wow, only need 199 more! (Score:4, Insightful)
De-FUD'ing windpower. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wind power is not perfect, but it is here now (as opposed to fusion energy) has no waste problem (as opposed to current atomics) has local and well understood failure modes (things break, fall down) Produce a lot of power when we need it most (wind is driven by energy from sunlight) and it is economically competitive.
The key to a sensible energy future is to not be fanatical for/against any one source, but to exploit them all where and how it makes sense.
Re:Wind Requirement (Score:2, Insightful)
It's probably more complicated than that. These things work more like airplane wings than rotary compressors. The entire mass of air moving near the blades is likely affected by vortices and other aerodynamic effects. You probably want to give each section of disturbed air enough time to move back out of the way before the next blade slices through. Cutting through the previous blade's vortex isn't likely to be very efficient.
Re:Wind power efficiency (Score:4, Insightful)
BIG, SLOW MOVING BLADES DO NOT CHOP THINGS UP. PERIOD. The danger posed is extremely minimal. It's theoretically possible for a bird to run into one of the slim, slow-moving blades, and that would likely cause injury, just as if they had run into one of our fancy new all-glass-exterior skyscrapers. But more birds are killed every minute by deforestation and destruction of wetlands, than will be killed by this thing in its entire working lifetime.
Re:Wind power efficiency (Score:3, Insightful)
With these premises, would you not think that there is one good optimum size of the blades, and you should probably just build taller tower systems suspending many smaller generators?
Another consideration would be energy required to actually build and deploy smaller vs larger.
Re:Wind Requirement (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wind Requirement (Score:4, Insightful)
After a certain point, the returns start diminishing. Each extra dollar spent gets you less benefit than the one before it. After a while, you get less performance with more surace area.
Or you use new materials, if they exist.
Air travel stagnated for a very long time, because the alloys available to make airplane engines were too heavy. An engine block powerful enough to generate the thrust necessary to move a large plane full of passengers and cargo was too heavy to lift its own mass into the air, let alone the airframe, the people, and their luggage. It wasn't until the development of stronger, lighter alloys that air flight moved beyond the wood-and-canvas ultralights of the early 1900s.
If it was simply a matter of adding more surface area, we'd be powering the entire world off of one 3-mile diameter fan in Death Valley, that generated 17 billion kilowatts (or whatever) off of the breeze generated by a butterfly in Japan.
Re:Well, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wind Requirement (Score:2, Insightful)