'If We Want Bigger Wind Turbines, We're Gonna Need Bigger Airplanes' (ieee.org) 184
Long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 shared this article from IEEE Spectrum:
The world's largest airplane, when it's built, will stretch more than a football field from tip to tail. Sixty percent longer than the biggest existing aircraft, with 12 times as much cargo space as a 747, the behemoth will look like an oil tanker that's sprouted wings — aeronautical engineering at a preposterous scale.
Called WindRunner, and expected by 2030, it'll haul just one thing: massive wind-turbine blades. In most parts of the world, onshore wind-turbine blades can be built to a length of 70 meters, max. This size constraint comes not from the limits of blade engineering or physics; it's transportation. Any larger and the blades couldn't be moved over land, since they wouldn't fit through tunnels or overpasses, or be able to accommodate some of the sharper curves of roads and rails.
So the WindRunner's developer, Radia of Boulder, Colorado, has staked its business model on the idea that the only way to get extralarge blades to wind farms is to fly them there... Radia's plane will be able to hold two 95-meter blades or one 105-meter blade, and land on makeshift dirt runways adjacent to wind farms. This may sound audacious — an act of hubris undertaken for its own sake. But Radia's supporters argue that WindRunner is simply the right tool for the job — the only way to make onshore wind turbines bigger. Bigger turbines, after all, can generate more energy at a lower cost per megawatt. But the question is: Will supersizing airplanes be worth the trouble...?
Having fewer total turbines means a wind farm could space them farther apart, avoiding airflow interference. The turbines would be nearly twice as tall, so they'll reach a higher, gustier part of the atmosphere. And big turbines don't need to spin as quickly, so they would make economic sense in places with average wind speeds around 5 meters per second compared with the roughly 7 m/s needed to sustain smaller units. "The result...is more than a doubling of the acres in the world where wind is viable," says Mark Lundstrom [Radia's founder and CEO].
The executive director at America's National Renewable Energy Laboratory Foundation points out that one day blades could just be 3D-printed on-site — negating the need for the airplane altogether. But 3D printing for turbines is still in its earliest stages.
Called WindRunner, and expected by 2030, it'll haul just one thing: massive wind-turbine blades. In most parts of the world, onshore wind-turbine blades can be built to a length of 70 meters, max. This size constraint comes not from the limits of blade engineering or physics; it's transportation. Any larger and the blades couldn't be moved over land, since they wouldn't fit through tunnels or overpasses, or be able to accommodate some of the sharper curves of roads and rails.
So the WindRunner's developer, Radia of Boulder, Colorado, has staked its business model on the idea that the only way to get extralarge blades to wind farms is to fly them there... Radia's plane will be able to hold two 95-meter blades or one 105-meter blade, and land on makeshift dirt runways adjacent to wind farms. This may sound audacious — an act of hubris undertaken for its own sake. But Radia's supporters argue that WindRunner is simply the right tool for the job — the only way to make onshore wind turbines bigger. Bigger turbines, after all, can generate more energy at a lower cost per megawatt. But the question is: Will supersizing airplanes be worth the trouble...?
Having fewer total turbines means a wind farm could space them farther apart, avoiding airflow interference. The turbines would be nearly twice as tall, so they'll reach a higher, gustier part of the atmosphere. And big turbines don't need to spin as quickly, so they would make economic sense in places with average wind speeds around 5 meters per second compared with the roughly 7 m/s needed to sustain smaller units. "The result...is more than a doubling of the acres in the world where wind is viable," says Mark Lundstrom [Radia's founder and CEO].
The executive director at America's National Renewable Energy Laboratory Foundation points out that one day blades could just be 3D-printed on-site — negating the need for the airplane altogether. But 3D printing for turbines is still in its earliest stages.
Just imagine (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Just image if someone would invent nuts and bolts to make a two piece modular blade that can be bolted together in the field.
With the HUGE stresses on those blades, you do not want any joints in them.
Typically, each blade is round at the hub end, allowing for a shit-tonne of studs to hold it in place. Farther out, the blades are much thinner, so there's not as much volume for hardware. Additionally, the joint represents a region of concentrated stress, and good engineering practice avoids those as much as possible.
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Interesting)
Just image if someone would invent nuts and bolts to make a two piece modular blade that can be bolted together in the field.
Seriously? Just imagine if drive-by slashdot trolls understood mechanical engineering. A 95-meter blade carries gigawatts of cyclic bending and torsion through continuous carbon and glass fibers. Cut those fibers for a bolted joint and you’ve destroyed the very thing that gives the blade its strength, forcing all that stress through a splice or sleeve — the weakest possible link. Even if you bury the joint inside a fairing or coating, the tips are moving at more than 300 kph -- any discontinuity in stiffness or surface finish risks tripping the boundary layer and shredding efficiency. Turbine blades also flex millions of times a year for decades, and a even a hidden joint would still create micro-slips and stress risers — a fatigue factory, not a long-life structure. Add to that the fact that blades are tuned so their natural resonances stay out of operational ranges; drop in a splice and you shift mass and stiffness where it matters most, leading to tower resonance, gearbox grenades, and very expensive noise. And even if you somehow engineered the perfect internal splice, you’d still need to prove to insurers and certifiers that it can survive twenty years of salt spray, UV, lightning, and cyclic loading — a test program that would cost more than building the custom transport aircraft in the first place.
This is why engineers designed the aircraft around the blades — not the other way around. Structural integrity and aerodynamic continuity are non-negotiable. “Just bolt it together” isn’t an idea; it’s cosplay engineering for people who think physics bows to their snark.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm (Score:3)
But we're looking at clearing huge tracts of forest so the plane can land and take off? and more forest to move the blades to their destination?
Sounds like a half thought out plan. Our present turbine fields have surprisingly little impact. Mostly looking like back roads going through the woods, a clearing for the towers, and a line to get the power to the mains.
I know this sounds radical, but is it not possible to make the blades in smaller pieces, to be assembled on-site? At the same time, make them recyclable.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm all about wind power.
But we're looking at clearing huge tracts of forest so the plane can land and take off? and more forest to move the blades to their destination?
Sounds like a half thought out plan. Our present turbine fields have surprisingly little impact. Mostly looking like back roads going through the woods, a clearing for the towers, and a line to get the power to the mains.
I know this sounds radical, but is it not possible to make the blades in smaller pieces, to be assembled on-site? At the same time, make them recyclable.
An aircraft like this will likely be a lot further up the logistics chain, using existing airports to transport blades from near the factories to other places where they're loaded onto local logistics (road, river, sea). I suspect a lot of the larger wind turbines are being used offshore. This is similar to most other outsized cargo aircraft (I.E. Airbus' Beluga).
Making multi-piece blades makes them heavier and more complex, meaning more prone to failure. A wind turbine blade is expected to have a servic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They will need to scale up though. SANY has been installing 131m blades for over a year now, and the next generation will be even bigger.
SANY has also developed a system for setting up a new blade factory very quickly and reliably, so they can simply build one near to where the blades are needed.
Re: (Score:2)
They will need to scale up though. SANY has been installing 131m blades for over a year now, and the next generation will be even bigger.
SANY has also developed a system for setting up a new blade factory very quickly and reliably, so they can simply build one near to where the blades are needed.
A much better option than a special purpose plane. I'm sure the monster would have other uses, but not only the biggest plane ever built, but designed to land on unimproved strips. They's probably need to use the same type of temporary metal landing strips used on Pacific islands during WW2, only with clearing out stumps instead of sand.
I live in an area with a lot of wind farms. Clearing and leveling forest land to make an airstrip is a challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all about wind power.
But we're looking at clearing huge tracts of forest so the plane can land and take off? and more forest to move the blades to their destination?
Sounds like a half thought out plan. Our present turbine fields have surprisingly little impact. Mostly looking like back roads going through the woods, a clearing for the towers, and a line to get the power to the mains.
I know this sounds radical, but is it not possible to make the blades in smaller pieces, to be assembled on-site? At the same time, make them recyclable.
An aircraft like this will likely be a lot further up the logistics chain, using existing airports to transport blades from near the factories to other places where they're loaded onto local logistics (road, river, sea). I suspect a lot of the larger wind turbines are being used offshore. This is similar to most other outsized cargo aircraft (I.E. Airbus' Beluga).
Although the article notes: "Radia's plane will be able to hold two 95-meter blades or one 105-meter blade, and land on makeshift dirt runways adjacent to wind farms"
Also I suspect this plane may never see the light of day. The whole thing sounds like a pitch for VC funding.
On that, I agree completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"96% of wind turbines are recyclable, but the blades are made of fiberglass, which is not normally recyclable (but it has been done)." If it's not economically viable, then it probably won't get done. And governments it seems would rather bury the old blades in massive landfill, than take the hit of paying companies to make second-rate surfboards out of all that waste. Well that's what they are doing in Australia where land is still relatively abundant - they bury the fibreglass, at the same time as spruiking how recyclable they are in theory. It disgusts me really.
I'm hoping to see the first recycled reactor core! ;^)
Re: Ummm (Score:2)
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing you're here. You need to be on these planning teams. Why the engineers didn't consult with Slashdot readers in the planning stage is anyone's guess, but good for you for pointing out they are completely on the wrong track. This could have been a disaster.
Me no smart! Anyhoo, glad you set me straight. I now support this. because this is the most genius idea evah. 8^)
As one guy in here noted, this thing reeks of venture capital bait.
You got one thing wrong ddimm - it's a good thing you are here!
Re: (Score:3)
I’m all about wind power.
No, you are not. The “I’m totally pro-X, but” preface is a tell. It’s rhetorical Kevlar for what follows, not an argument. My guess is you are a fossil-fuel shill, not a serious commenter. If you’re “all about wind,” you should know the logistics wall we’re hitting with 90–100m blades and why new transport concepts exist in the first place.
But we’re looking at clearing huge tracts of forest so the plane can land and take off? and more forest to move the blades to their destination?
False premise, twice. First, nobody’s proposing to chainsaw national forests so an outsized cargo bird can
Must a turbine blade be INSIDE a cargo hold (Score:3)
It seems to me that some kind of heavy lift helicopter solution might make more sense. My understanding is that a reliable 100m turbine blade can be made weighing about 35 tons. Although the most capable current helicopters can only accommodate an external lift weight of about 20 tons, it seems easier to build a more powerful helicopter than a massive aircraft that can land on a makeshift dirt runway.
Re:Must a turbine blade be INSIDE a cargo hold (Score:5, Interesting)
Possibly, even more practical might be an airship. Existing airships can already lift up to about 100 tons, and they can land in any large open space.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, it could tie down at each assembly site on the hill tops. Just needs a calm day and a whole lot of ballast there ready to load up before releasing the blade.
Re:Must a turbine blade be INSIDE a cargo hold (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess the calm day requirement is going to be a problem given that ideal sites are windy places. :/
Re: (Score:2)
Surely two helicopters would be better - they each hold one end of the blade, and they don't need to actually land, just lower the blade to the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds a tad risky: the choppers would have to fly in perfect sync or else they'd drop the blade or rip it apart.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only has it been done before, we now have drone technology that make it even easier to synchronize multiple aircraft.
A dozen extra large drones, some slings, and a chase helicopter with the operator. Seems very doable.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, even better idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Use drones, eliminate the human error element.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Existing airships can already lift up to about 100 tons, and they can land in any large open space.
Existing? Currently there are no commercial cargo airships. At all. Just a few small prototypes. And a lot more renderings to lure dumb investors into wasting their money.
Re: (Score:2)
Better I would say is a mount that brings the blade to neutral buoyancy and then a series of drone airships that handle the propulsion.
Re: (Score:3)
Possibly, even more practical might be an airship. Existing airships can already lift up to about 100 tons, and they can land in any large open space.
I do like the airship “what if” angle — blades are long and (relatively) light, so on paper it seems tailor-made for buoyant lift. I've already posted about it, elswhere in this thread.
The catch is handling. A 95m blade slung under an airship turns into a weather vane the size of a football field. Crosswinds, gusts, even wash from the stabilizers during takeoff/landing would make it a nightmare to keep stable. Then once you’re down, you’ve got the classic LTA problem: mooring
Re:Must a turbine blade be INSIDE a cargo hold (Score:5, Informative)
An airplane provides two major benefits: range and efficiency. Radia is targeting ~2000-km range at max payload. This permits a factory to turn out giant blades and move them pretty much wherever. Need to refuel? Just land at any airport and gas up. A Skycrane [wikipedia.org], by contrast, has a maximum range of 370 km with no payload. Need to refuel? First you need to hover and detach your payload, then go over somewhere else to refuel, then re-hitch your payload and continue on. Generally speaking, fixed-wing aircraft a vastly more fuel-efficient at moving things than helicopters, whose main advantage is hovering and not needing a runway.
Re: (Score:3)
A Skycrane, by contrast, has a maximum range of 370 km with no payload. Need to refuel? First you need to hover and detach your payload, then go over somewhere else to refuel, then re-hitch your payload and continue on.
Yes, but the airplane can't take things to their destinations. They have to deliver them to an airport, then the things need to be transported by truck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Must a turbine blade be INSIDE a cargo hold (Score:5, Informative)
A Skycrane, by contrast, has a maximum range of 370 km with no payload. Need to refuel? First you need to hover and detach your payload, then go over somewhere else to refuel, then re-hitch your payload and continue on.
Yes, but the airplane can't take things to their destinations. They have to deliver them to an airport, then the things need to be transported by truck.
Please read the article before commenting. This plane lands right at the windfarm on a dirt runway.
Re: (Score:3)
Fully loaded C-130s have landed many times in farmers fields or pastures, unloaded, and taken off again. Some crash, most don't. You'd have people on site doing a competent survey first to minimize stress on the aircraft, but it's perfectly do-able.
Re: (Score:2)
https://taskandpurpose.com/new... [taskandpurpose.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but one or two blades at a time (as stated in the article) for 2000km doesn't sound really efficient. Sea and rail transport still seems the best way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
As the article points out: ground transportation is the limiting factor for larger on-shore turbines. Rules of the road and rail place a practical upper limit of 70 m. So, sure, you could build a 100-m blade - similar to the largest offshore turbines - at a coastal facility, and you could transport it to a large port nearest to your wind farm. But then what? How do you get it the last mile (or last 1000 mi) to your site?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that's the real question. How do you handle the last miles? I may be a bit pessimistic, but I think building makeshift runways and trying to land a huge airplane on them doesn't seem very realistic to me.
I'm thinking in transport from seaport to seaport and from there by waterways to the final destination. Or maybe, if we're talking about wind farms to last several decades, building capable railroads (if possible and economically viable) just as we do with ore mining regions.
Obviously, I'm not in th
Re: (Score:3)
That may work in some cases, but I don't see that being a viable solution for, say, the middle of the Dakotas. There are navigable rivers, yes, but not something you're going to float a 100-m turbine blade along all the way from, say
Re: (Score:2)
Even better, you can use the turbine blades as the rotor of the helicopter!
Even better - transport in sections (Score:2)
I don't remember anyway saying "Oh shit, the Empire State Building won't fit down 5th avenue, we can't erect it!"
What exactly is the problem with making the blades in sections and assembling on site just like buildings, aircraft, ships etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
At first approximation, weight and strength, neither being an issue with a brick pile.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the forces they have to put up with I very much doubt they're any less fragile than an aircraft fuselage and both Boeing and Airbus transport those around to the final assembly.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real question is whether it should be in the air at all or whether we should accept 70m blades as a maximum and move on with our lives. In the air absolutely that kind of cargo needs to be in a hold.
A 70m long 35tonne object that is designed aerodynamically to be affected by wind is not something you want on the bottom of any aircraft. The weight isn't the issue, the shape and unpredictable wind forces during transportation are.
Re: (Score:2)
You could construct a fairing around the blade to make the wind forces more predictable. Maybe even add wings and tow it from an airplane like a glider, and air drop the blade so you don't need a runway. Rocket boosters would help it take off.
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about this crazy solution? Redesign the factory to be mobile and manufacture the blade onsite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like the last sentence of the summary? "The executive director at America's National Renewable Energy Laboratory Foundation points out that one day blades could just be 3D-printed on-site — negating the need for the airplane altogether. But 3D printing for turbines is still in its earliest stages."
Sounds like that's still a couple steps ahead of this plane that's no more than VC flypaper at present. And it has the advantage of being something that can be constructed and implemented incrementally.
This long-range transport plan will require blade mfgs and the installing utilities to stake their businesses on this plane's success. That seems like a really risky proposition until this thing is proven, which makes it a chicken and egg problem with a multi-billion dollar downside.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't put money into it, but maybe someone will get rich doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't 3d print it. They are fiberglass and you should be able to setup a portable factory where you build the blades onsite. It's probably cheaper then this airplane with all the certifications, etc as well as finding runways that will support it.
The easiest thing (IMHO) would be to make the blades in sections with the joints being attached on site. While the blades might be slightly heavier the process of joining 2 pieces of fiberglass is an already solved problem.
This makes no sense at all (Score:2, Interesting)
Lifting gigantic windmill blades by airplane makes absolutely no sense at all. They are already so large they do not fit down streets - so we will make them larger and they will go airport to airport and then what? They still have to fit down streets to get to the turbine.
HOW ABOUT we use a lifting body like an airship instead? Heck, it can even be a motor assisted lifting body so we don't need to offset all that weight in gas alone. Then we can deliver the blades RIGHT TO the worksite, no roads or runway
Re: (Score:2)
"so we will make them larger and they will go airport to airport and then what?"
That answer is actually in TFS. The plan is to " land on makeshift dirt runways adjacent to wind farms."
Re: (Score:2)
A dirigible, tes - and if it were remotely controlled and unmanned, you could even use cheap, available hydrogen as the lifting gas.
Re: (Score:2)
This. 100%. https://aeroscraft.com/ [aeroscraft.com]
I'm not sure why we're not using them more for such jobs. Not the best for cross ocean travel, but from factory to location on continent and factory to boat off is easy. Seems a lot cheaper than building larger airplanes and then going through all the work of getting massive infrastructure to remote locations.
Re: (Score:3)
Airships and windy areas don't mix well.
Chinese companies solved this by being able to build factories really fast, close to where the blades are being used. They are great for large projects where a factory can produce about 1000 blades/year, enough for ~333 turbines. They are much bigger blades too, over 130m each, nearly double what these guys are hoping to move.
Re: (Score:2)
and they will go airport to airport
I approve of real Slashdotters not reading TFS.
Re: (Score:2)
> HOW ABOUT we use a lifting body like an airship instead? ...says the person completely ignorant of the history of airships. There's a reason they aren't used for anything.
It's not immediately clear that a larger airplane would need a larger airport. The size of the runway needed really depends on the minimum speed needed to take off and stay aloft, and how quickly it can reach that speed from a standstill. A huge plane with large, efficient wings and powerful engines that can take off in 5000 feet of r
I always wondered (Score:3)
Savage (Score:2)
You just destroyed their entire business model. Between sticking with smaller turbines, and building on site, what was the problem again?
Re: (Score:2)
There is no joins in the blades. Each of the three blades is continuous fibreglass, for the entire 70 metres.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no joins in the blades.
That does not mean that other blade designs can't have joints. They may be less desirable for many reasons, but they are doable.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have joins though. Whether they could have joins is kind of irrelevant.
Besides, there's obviously a good reason, presumably for strength, for not having joins. Otherwise they'd have been making them with joins all along. Just like there'll be a good reason why it's always three blades too. Although, I have seen a prototype single blade wind turbine. It used counterbalancing to effect three blades.
Re: (Score:3)
why it's not possible to assemble those blades on location. It's not like they are made from huge 70m-pieces.
They are not made from 70m pieces, but they are made in 70m large moulds. If you want to see how this is done have a look here: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2... [offshorewind.biz]
Re: (Score:2)
What about breaking the mould in many parts, transport and assembly them in location?
Assemble on site (Score:2)
Delivered at the wind farm? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's right there in the summary - "land on makeshift dirt runways adjacent to wind farms". I have my doubts about the practicality of that - large planes generally need a tarmac runway. You're going to need some interesting landing gear to land a plane that size on a soft surface. And enough flat ground to lay out a very long runway.
Trump kills windmill projects (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Trump kills windmill projects (Score:5, Insightful)
More windmills ~ of any size ~ just isn't going to happen soon.
More windmills are happening all the time. I know this isn't a US Government MAGA approved message, but apparently there are more countries than just the USA in the world, and while America may look inward and pretend green energy doesn't exist, the rest of the world is very much ploughing ahead with windfarms.
Literally your first link is from offshorewind.biz, which on their front page right now has multiple stories detailing new approvals and new proposals for wind farms.
Re: (Score:2)
US wind tech is quite primitive anyway. Chinese companies are already deploying blades twice this long. When you see photos of them at the factory they look photoshopped because the scale is hard to wrap your head around.
Re:Trump kills windmill projects (Score:5, Interesting)
It may be what he's going for but he doesn't have resources to back it up. If he tried it during the Marshall plan days it might have worked. But now the US exports solid IOU's in exchange for knickknacks. He's tearing apart the confidence in the IOUs, even publicly flirting with the idea of defaulting, while destroying the fundamental's of the US economy. It's an annoyance for other countries while it wrecks havoc on the US economy. In the long run this will weaken the US and strengthen other countries' trade. Already happening in the short run. Ask US farmers how its going versus Brazilian farmers. Ask Ford how their balance sheet looks this last quarter.
Re: (Score:3)
From the article, it sure sounds like what killed that project was a lawsuit AGAINST the Federal government and the energy company from "The Mayor and City Council of Ocean City Maryland". In other words, a Maryland city sued to stop the wind farm and the Federal government is basically conceding.
No, the Trump administration is not fighting back, they don't think offshore windfarms are economical, but they didn't kill the project. A lawsuit did.
I can't say for sure, but it's a good bet that Ocean City didn't want the windfarm there because they are a seaside resort town.
You are outright making stuff up: there's no mention of any of your claims in the linked articles. Not only that, but your fabrications ignore that these are projects on federal waters--outside the jurisdiction of any mayors or city councils.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2... [offshorewind.biz]
"The US Department of the Interior (DOI) has filed a motion in the US District Court in Maryland to remand and/or vacate its approval of the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) for US Wind’s 2 GW offshore wind farm planned to be
Why not vertical instead ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why vertical-axis wind turbines are not more common
Far less efficient. In other words vertical wind turbines generate less power.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why vertical-axis wind turbines are not more common
Because they are on the ground.
they take less horizontal space
That's outright false.
you can potentially stack shorter pieces as high as you want
Can you stack them high enough that they get into where the wind actually is? And if so, why not just put one windmill where the wind is?
(and use guy lines for stability)
So make them use more horizontal space?
I'm no expert so I guess they have good reason for this race to gigantism, but it seems a bit like the dinosaurs...
Obsolete and dead?
VAWTs make sense only on the tops of lonely hills.
Re: (Score:2)
We could assume that it's done the way it is because someone put a lot of work into figuring out which would be the more cost-effective approach, but should we? Maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no expert so I guess they have good reason for this race to gigantism, but it seems a bit like the dinosaurs...
For virtually all engineering projects the results tend to gravitate to one "ideal" design that presents the least tradeoffs and best value for money. In this industry that is 3 bladed turbines, and the larger the better up to the a limit where installation of larger becomes too costly or outright impossible. The present designs are peak efficiency.
Engineers deal in the reality of now with things they know. Vertical turbines additionally suffer from something of a lack of knowledge. There's few of them so t
unbongtanium (Score:2)
More attach swarm of drones... (Score:2)
Super Guppy returns (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There is prior art. Does the blade need to be inside the plane rather than strapped to the top?
Good luck finding a suitable spot for a runway in the mountains.
Swarm of drones? (Score:2)
Maybe instead of bigger airplanes we could use a swarm of drones...
They could deliver the blade not near but exactly at the mount point....
Amazing! (Score:2)
Insufficient Capacity (Score:2)
Maybe it is just me, but . . .
If a wind turbine use 3 blades then why build a monster plane that can only transport 2 or 1 at a time?
Also, the plane must land somewhere. If the wind generator is at a high point (mountain?) then trucking could be very difficult.
Cargo blimps (Score:2)
And you can probably install the blades directly from the blimp.
More waste. (Score:2)
Or just build a construction shop on-site that will be needed anyway when one of these huge blades inevitably needs to be repaired. Yes that's only practical for larger wind farms but the smaller farms won't have a runway either.
Same problem with mining equipment (Score:2)
You know those giant dump trucks that they use in open-pit mines?
They would make them bigger if they could just transport bigger tires by road. No matter how you orient the tire, it's just too wide or too tall to carry on a supply truck. And they use lots of tires, they get chewed up quickly...
solution (Score:2)
The solution is simple. Just build them in earth orbit and drop them to the construction site. Problem solved.
Re: don't make bigger ones (Score:3)
Of course the capital cost for a tiny turbine is lower but the cost per kilowatt hour generated is much higher. Remember that doubling the length of those blades roughly quadruples the power output. A single turbine with 100m blades produces about 10,000 times the energy of a 1m blade turbine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Physics and economics disagree. Power harvested increases by the square of blade length (since swept area = Pi*r^2). If you double the blade length you get four times the power output. Economically (and environmentally and aesthetically) it makes more sense to build one bigger turine instead of four smaller ones. That means only one concrete base, one tower, one nacelle to maintain, and more flexibility in siting the turbine.
LOL! (Score:2)
We're talking about turbines producing megawatts each and you're posting links about turbines producing 400 watts?
LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
This is similar to what I thought from the above Skycrane etc.
How about swap-able turbine blades:
1. attach the wind-blades as the helicopter blades
2. carry the regular helicopter blades
3. land at site
4. remove the wind-blades
4a. install wind-blades
5. attach helicopter blades
6. back to base or go next base?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Compare time, distance, and cost?
Also, depending . . . maybe fly-in the mast?
Could be that the high point location for the turbine is a very difficult drive?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)