FEB 25

"If you've ever wondered "how could wind possibly contain enough energy to power our world?" here's you answer for you."
LOL! Nice spin on the disaster there Hank. At least it wasn't a nuclear power plant being destroyed... now that would have been a disaster with "fallout". ;)

How can you possibly relate a wind turbine collapsing to a nuclear meltdown? The scales are orders of magnitude apart. Plus, the fix is just a matter of relatively simple engineering (compared to nuclear). I'd hardly call it a disaster... Still, it does look pretty spectacular :P

And WHY oh WHY do we still have this anti-nuclear stigma permeating every facet of `eco-friendly' media. I'm sure Hank knows as well as most educated ecogeeks that fission reactors are relatively safe, in and of themselves. Chernobyl was a series of ridiculous human errors, but unfortunately sets the benchmark for almost all anti-nuclear activists around, even today. The real issues against fission tech. should be more along the lines of: storage of waste (which isn't that hard these days, but still an issue), consumption of resources (Uranium sources would only last another 50yrs or so on a 100% fission-based energy economy), clean-up of decommissioned fission sites, etc... It really is a shame that most people don't have an adequate appreciation of the significance nuclear energy has and will have for our energy economy. I'll be interested to see the shift in the anti-nuclear zeitgeist when fusion has its day in the sun (pun intended).

There is enough solar energy to power the whole world. Just because the oil and coal companies would ask to believe that it is not possible to protect their own self-interest, It doesn't mean is feasible.
We could power the whole nation with solar energy from the Mojave Dessert.

Great, now we can add "wind turbines will explode and kill people!" to the list of straw men used by "environmentalist" wind critics.

Hey Hank,

Great post. I just wanted to let you know that I dug around and found the whole story. This is a shameless plug, but I thought you'd find it interesting. Give it a read and keep up the great work.
http://earth2tech.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/vestas-wind-turbine-explodes-with-power/


Craig.

Bigger turbines is not the route to take. The incident here points to another problem with wind turbine technology - just like aircraft - there are serious structural/material problems (eg. fatigue)connnected with use and the environment (rusting etc) and the need to maintain them. Also not enough research is being conducted in alterantives. For example the energy that come from numerous and cheaper turbines - driven by traffic vortices and metropolitan vortices. Here one can foresee the development of roof tiles that can like tidal mechanisms move up and down with gusts of wind, bricks that do the same. A whole host of new technology awaits. Unfortunately, we have become so focussed on size (big).

Hello !

Accidents are present anytime and anywhere .
Seems that this wind turbine concept belongs to the
past.
Is possible that in not wery long time this old concept to be replaced with a new type called ''TORNADO''.
This new type belong to the vertical axe wind turbines ,
and is possible to be developed for the first time
in Romania.
For security this new type will have two complete
new protection sistems who not permit to the active
parts to get out of sistem .
This new concept permit also to use in addition other forms of clean energy , and for this case the
global eficiency can increase teoretical about 6 times .
The future belongs to clean energy in my opinion .

Theo

There is 'Base Load Power(nuclear power stations). This kind of electrical power generation is very good at providing a steady supply of electricity. For instance this is what powers street lights, traffic signal systems, and other municipial infrastructure. It is good at generating a steady souce of powere, but cannot adapt to changing power needs and takes a long time to power up or down.
'Peak Load Power' is best provided by generating stations using coal or gas. They are what supply power when it is most needed - early evening, morning, etc. These stations can start up, power down, and change output to meet the changing demands of grid systems. they are also the least expensive to build and operate.
Wind power is great at providing power when the wind is blowing (but not too hard). However, since we cannot control when the wind blows or where, it is not reliable. It can also cause a grid system to crash (Just look at what happened in Germany recently). Also, building transmission lines from these wind 'farms' to generating stations can be more expensive than the wind turbines themselves!
For every kilowatt generated by wind generators there must also be a conventional generating station on stand-by to take over when the wind stops blowing, or blows too fast. Otherwise, the grid system using wind power could crash. That costs a lot of extra money.
Substitute sunlight for wind and you get the same result for solar power. Solar panels are lousy electricity generators at night, or on cloudy days, or when the panels are covered in dust, snow, or ice.
Finally, take away all the subsidies for wind and solar power and they become almost as expensive per kilowatt-hour as nuclear energy, the most expensive type of power generation known to man.
Coal is still king, still the cheapest source of power generation around, and with the new "clean coal" technology, is so clean that it drives enviro-wacos nuts! They just cannot bring themselves to admitting it.
Some day solar and wind power will be a big part of the answer or maybe all of it, but until we can efectivly store electricity until it is needed it ain't gonna happen. Meanwhile, we have enough coal to meet our needs for at least a couple of hundred years and probably more. It was put here for a reason. Lets use it.

so i says to the guy thats not my dog its my car :o