Giant Wind TurbinesFloating wind farms placed far offshore could lead to affordable electricity -- without cluttering the view.
Huge turbines mounted on floating platforms could make wind power competitive with fossil-fuel-generated electricity. These advanced wind turbines, which are in development, could be situated far from the shore, too, avoiding battles with onshore residents who object to the presence of large wind farms. GE has announced a $27 million partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy to develop 5-7 megawatt turbines by 2009, each of which could power well over 1,000 homes. Supplanting the company's current 3.6 megawatt turbines, these giant energy factories should make wind power more economical, since the major cost of building and installing offshore wind farms does not depend primarily on a turbine's size, but on the number of them that need to be erected. By 2015, GE could have even bigger, 10-megawatt turbines, according to Jim Lyons, leader of advanced technology for GE's wind energy business. [For images and illustrations of wind turbines, click here.] Making the turbines larger, however, comes with technical challenges. The new turbines will be mounted to towers rising 90 to 95 meters and will have rotors measuring 140 meters in diameter. Imagine a structure larger than a football field rotating at a leisurely ten to twelve revolutions per minute. To decrease the weight of the massive rotor blades and tower, GE plans to use composite fibers, as well as alternatives to the weighty gearboxes now used to transfer energy from the rotor to the electrical generator. The new turbines will also need to be more reliable than their onshore counterparts, because maintenance will be far more difficult and expensive. GE is developing new ways to deal with the extreme battering the turbines will receive from the wind. Today's turbines compensate for changes in wind speed by actively turning their blades to catch less wind. The new turbines will adapt to gusts by using sensor-based technology that will quickly angle the blades out of the wind to reduce the wear and tear on the turbine. These sensors could include basic accelerometers, embedded fiber-optic sensors that detect shape changes in the blades in response to gusts, and forward-looking, laser-based "radar" that allows the turbine to anticipate wind-speed changes. None of these technological advances will make a difference, however, if erecting monstrous turbines is blocked by shoreline residents who see them as visual pollution. A potential solution is floating platforms that allow the turbines to be located farther out in the sea -- and out of sight. Current projects locate wind turbines in waters less than 20 meters deep. Going farther out on the continental shelf, which extends several hundred kilometers from the U.S. East Coast, would mean locating them at depths up to 50 meters, which is probably too deep to build towers or trusses that support turbines standing on the sea floor, at least at an affordable cost.
|
A More Durable Wind Turbine
12/04/2009









Comments
05/08/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
Join the club. Push the envelope further.
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
Oceanic windpower only makes sense for tropical islands that have sweet trade winds. They also have 'small' energy demand. Pumped storage would work for them, as would reverse osmosis water production.
But truly large scale wind energy production is out of the question in our lifetimes.
Ultimately, wind will always be a niche.
Hydropower is the real solution. The tropics abound with fantastic hydro-energy that is not being exploited. There are enough hydro-watts to power the planet as it stands.
05/10/2006
Posts:1
05/10/2006
Posts:1
I disagree. If you adhere to massive land farms of the Pickens Plan, for instance, you are spending a lot of money on land acquisition, legal battles, tensions with local populations, etc. (Pickens might disagree, since he mysteriously owns a lot of the land in the wind corridor)
Far offshore rigs combined with unpopulated desert solar and wave energy is the future I think. It has the interesting cultural side effect of making us think about space colonization as well, if you really want to push day dreaming to the next level. The idea that you can create energy out of nowhere and maybe live near that energy...
JTG
10/31/2008
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/12/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
It may seems a little strange.
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
city buildings. The only real argument is having them in shipping lanes near cities.
05/09/2006
Posts:1
http://www.industcards.com/wind-ireland.htm
I think they look fantastic. Especially if the alternative is a particularly nondescript stretch of the Irish sea.
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
Steven
www.SurvivingPlanet.com
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
Hmmm. I wonder how many batteries will be needed to run a city?
05/09/2006
Posts:1
One way U can back up a wind power farm would be to build hydrogen fuel cells at the wind farm site. When the wind blows, they convert the water to hydrogen. When the wind stops, the fuel cell acts as a giant battery and provides electricity, by converting the hydrogen back to water. The cycle repeats over and over, with minimal loss of electical power flow.
05/11/2006
Posts:1
But I do wish people like Ted Kennedy would be more consistent on their views. Don't claim to support wind energy and then refuse to have wind turbines put up in their area. Personally, I think they look pretty slick.
05/09/2006
Posts:1
Hal.
GAtineau, QC.
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/16/2006
Posts:1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3063433.stm
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/11/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
And exactly how much are the turbines going to slow down the wind? And if these turbines are built far offshore, what will the affect be?
Constructing an office building slows down the wind. Flying a kite slows down the wind. Planting trees slows down the wind. I'm not buying the butterfly effect.
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/10/2006
Posts:1
05/11/2006
Posts:1
05/14/2006
Posts:1
07/26/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/10/2006
Posts:1
05/16/2006
Posts:1
05/09/2006
Posts:1
So if we flip each "vs" to a plus (+), that'll make more sense to me.
Today's power plants are really just portfolios of turbines from different energy sources. When natural gas is cheap, they fire the gas turbines and ease up on the coal furnaces. And when natural gas prices shoot up, they let the gas turbines rest and rely on the coal furnaces. So even today, there's not a single source used for power generation. All we are doing with wind/solar/etc. is give additional support to the grid so we're not dependent on any single source of turbine fuel.
Competition is a wonderful thing.
05/10/2006
Posts:1
Such generators do not need high rpm to punch out plenty of EMF.
Further, homopolar generators are DC and might well be rigged to electrolyze hydrogen on the spot.
Clever anode membranes could repress chlorine production, eliminating the need for fresh water.
All manner of synchronization issues would be dead, and the voltages throughout the design would be nominal.
This concept ought to be pursued as a real route to the hydrogen economy.
The first, best use of the output: increased refinery efficiency. Convert 'bottoms' to 'tops'.
05/09/2006
Posts:1
05/10/2006
Posts:1
If there cheap enough to mass manufacture, I wouldn't mind seeing solar panels just about everywhere that people couldn't see them (on top of buildings, light poles, bus stops, and perhaps even wind turbines.
05/10/2006
Posts:1
This effect is do to the way our brains recognize optic input as real or noise.
The use of dazzle painting ended with radar. It didn't fool the beam.
05/10/2006
Posts:1
05/10/2006
Posts:1
06/20/2006
Posts:1
07/30/2006
Posts:1