Slashdot Mirror


Giant Floating Windmills To Launch Next Year

pacroon writes "StatoilHydro is building the world's first full-scale floating wind turbine, Hywind, and testing it over a two-year period offshore of Karmøy, Norway. The company is investing approximately $80 million. Planned startup is in the fall of 2009. The project combines existing technology in innovative ways. A 2.3-MW wind turbine is attached to the top of a so-called Spar-buoy, a solution familiar from production platforms and offshore loading buoys. A model 3 meters tall has already been tested successfully in a wave simulator. The goal of the pilot is to qualify the technology and reduce costs to a level that will mean that floating wind turbines can compete with other energy sources."

162 comments

  1. Transmission? by William+Robinson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TFA does not talk about transmission. How exactly they are going to manage a good reliable power transmission with the kind of floating power station, Any idea?

    1. Re:Transmission? by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 4, Informative

      A power cable.

      The raft wont be floating freely, it will be anchored to a specific spot where the conditions for wind is good. However its much cheaper to use than construction something from the sea bottom in deep water. Most sea wind power are close to shore wind power plants that is build where the water is shallow or on islands. With this techonolgy a wind farm can be set up in deep water where the wind conditions are good.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    2. Re:Transmission? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed, Denmark already has extensive offshore windfarm resources, and they produce a good percentage of their power from wind as well. A small country like Ireland could well produce most or all of its power with this technology.

      This also solves the issue with noise from wind generators anchored in deep water, which the Danes have estimated could cause problems for whales - sound travels much farther in deep water.

      And can we please spare the feckless comments on injuring birds, large size windmills move much too slowly to cause a bird damage unless they ploughed into it headlong, and any bird that would do that will have difficulties with flying into cliffs as well.

    3. Re:Transmission? by Weh · · Score: 1

      i didn't know there was a "noise" problem but if there was; how is this going to solve it?

      one of the problems I can see is that there will be a lot of torque/forces on the turbine hubs/axes due to the gyroscopic forces/spar motion combo. I'm sure the engineers thought of that already though, I'm just wondering how they solved it.

    4. Re:Transmission? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 4, Informative

      i didn't know there was a "noise" problem but if there was; how is this going to solve it? Apparently there is a problem at greater depths...

      Tests carried out in Denmark for shallow installations showed the levels were only significant up to a few hundred metres. However, sound injected into deeper water will travel much further and will be more likely to impact bigger creatures like whales which tend to use lower frequencies than porpoises and seals. A recent study found that wind farms add 80â"110 dB to the existing low-frequency ambient noise (under 400 Hz), which could impact baleen whales communication and stress levels, and possibly prey distribution.

      As far as I understand it, towers will transmit the noise directly to the ocean floor, but a floating platform, even if anchored, distributes most of the noise at the surface, although I could be mistaken in that.
    5. Re:Transmission? by William+Robinson · · Score: 5, Informative

      The raft wont be floating freely, it will be anchored to a specific spot

      Thanks.

      I found a better article that explains the concept with better pictures.

    6. Re:Transmission? by grizdog · · Score: 3, Informative

      And can we please spare the feckless comments on injuring birds, large size windmills move much too slowly to cause a bird damage unless they ploughed into it headlong, and any bird that would do that will have difficulties with flying into cliffs as well. I don't object to windmills, but the tip speed of the large windmills is quite fast. The article said these would be 80 meters in diameter, so if they rotated at one revolution every three seconds, that would be almost 200 miles per hour at the tip. I think that one of the main reasons large turbines do rotate so slowly is the high tip speed is difficult to deal with - at the speed of sound (340 m/s) shock waves become a problem, and structural problems show up at slower speeds. And of course, there are the birds.
    7. Re:Transmission? by tomtomtom777 · · Score: 1

      How exactly they are going to manage a good reliable power transmission with the kind of floating power station, Any idea?

      Water, especially sea water is an excellent conductor...

    8. Re:Transmission? by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      Could use them as filling stations or rest stops for the floating cities http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/21/1728255

    9. Re:Transmission? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 4, Informative

      And of course, there are the birds. Borrowed from here:

      To help our understanding of turbine hazards to birds we'd like to make an analogy, to your bicycle. Turn your bike upside down or put it in a work rack, set it to the highest gear...the one you use to go fast on a level slope.... and now move the wheel slowly with your hand. The chain moves rapidly with only a few degrees of wheel rotation. This symbolizes today's cutting edge 1.5 mW turbines, which have a very large surface area of blade exposed to the wind and a gearbox that turns the dynamo quickly while the blades move slowly. Birds dodge these slow moving blades relatively easily.

      Now put the bike in the lowest gear...the one you use to climb hills...and move the wheel with your hand fast enough to turn the chain as fast as before. That symbolizes the 20-year-old "bird-o-matic" wind turbine design. Small blades with small surface areas have to turn rapidly to overcome the magnetic force of the dynamos, which generate electricity.

      Recapping: small blades, low surface area, lots of dead birds possible; very big blades, with large surface area exposed to wind, very few dead birds.
    10. Re:Transmission? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I have to guess these versions of them still have the NIMBY problem tho....I doubt they'll let you put these up off the coast of cape code...they don't seem to like them there .

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Transmission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      >How exactly they are going to manage a good reliable power transmission
      >with the kind of floating power station, Any idea?

      The subsurface structure:
      Water depth: about 220 m (approx. 720 ft); buouy is a cylinder standing vertical in the water, the draft is about 100 m (305 ft);- buoy diameter, say 10 m.

      Topside structure/turbine data:
      Operating wind speed: 3-27 m/s; about 40 m long blades; rated capacity and speed: 2.3 MW; 5-15 rpm.

      Mooring system:
      Attached to buoy at about mid-point (say at depth 50 m); 3 mooring lines.

      The power transmission system, the electrical cable:
      The cable is attached to the buoy at either depth 50 m or at buoy bottom. The buoy will be subjected to both dynamic and static motion due to waves, currents and wind. The static motion is mainly horizontal offset caused by the static loads that are counteracted by the mooring system. The cable arrangement is able to adjust to these buoy motions without mechanical overload, this is achieved by the following methods:
      1. Bend stiffener in the interface with the buoy (a 2-3 m long conical plastic thing which main purpose is to avoid overbending and associated fatigue damage in the interface with the buoy.
      2. The cable is arranged in a compliant riser configuration between seabed and buoy, this allows the spar buoy to move without causing excessive tension and bending in the cable. This effect is achieved by "storing" over-lenght in a buoyant cable section. Hence - when the buoy moves - cable lenght is simply "paid" out (or in) from the buoyant section. Starting at the buoy there is a bend stiffener followed by say 150 m cable, then perhaps 60 m cable equipped with buoyancy until eventually there is cable to the seabed. There is of course an anchor somewhere at the seabed to keep the cable fixed.

      The above technology is well known from the oil industry, the described riser configuration is a so called "pliant wave" or "lazy wave configuration". The main challenges with this concept is that it is new uncharted territory and that we do not yet know the actual parameters. Our experience is from the oil business, where such cables between platform and seabed are routinely used.

      Greetings from a member of the engineering team within Nexans Norway AS, the Halden plant, which will design and manufacture the power transmission for the Hywind project.

    12. Re:Transmission? by JJ · · Score: 1

      I wonder about your phrase "most or all". That seems very ambitious.

      --
      So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    13. Re:Transmission? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Nice, but I think they mixed up the gears. The first one should be low gear (chain goes fast, wheel goes slow) and the second high gear (chain goes slow, wheel goes fast). Or maybe it's some weird bike thing.

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    14. Re:Transmission? by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

      No, they got it correct you are just looking at it from the wrong side. They are talking about moving the wheel and watching the chain. You are talking about moving the chain and watching the wheel.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    15. Re:Transmission? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ireland is one of the best locations in Europe for wind power as it is situated on the Western edge of Europe and is exposed to high winds from the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea. Wind power utility factors tend to be higher in Ireland than anywhere else. By the end of 2006 the installed capacity of wind power in Ireland was over 745 MW, or around 6% of the total power production in the country (which climbed 50% in 2006).

      So its not really that much of a stretch to see 80% or 90% of the power in the country being generated by offshore wind platforms over the coming two decades, although there are no concrete plans to do so, unfortunately.

    16. Re:Transmission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they got it correct

      No, they got it wrong.

      you are just looking at it from the wrong side.

      The side is irrelevant:

      High gear = fast rotating wheel, slowly moving chain. This is identical with slowly moving chain, fast rotating wheel.

      Low gear = fast rotating wheel, slowly moving chain. Identical with slowly moving chain, fast rotating wheel.

      They are talking about moving the wheel and watching the chain. You are talking about moving the chain and watching the wheel.

      Either perspective doesn't change the gear ... They mixed it up, but the example is still valid, of course.

    17. Re:Transmission? by Hojima · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or you can use the windmills to electrolyze water and compress the hydrogen so that we wont be dependent on foreign oil to run our cars. Hell, it would be good to have individual generators running on it so you don't face the power loss from the cables.

    18. Re:Transmission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the 3D artist have some fun. Never mind all the comments here about bird deaths cause by windmills - did you notice how close the helicopter seems to be flying to that thing? And on a dark, stormy night, no less! I think I'd rather take my chances with an albatross than be on that chopper.

    19. Re:Transmission? by pohl · · Score: 1

      The text, however, is asking you to observe the chain, and equate the speed of the chain movement with the speed of the blades. It is not asking you to observe the speed of the wheel movement.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    20. Re:Transmission? by pohl · · Score: 1

      s/"with the speed of the blades"/"with the speed of the turbine"/

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    21. Re:Transmission? by Platinumrat · · Score: 1

      A thing that floats and catches the wind. They have a name for that. It's called a "sailboat". I this case they'd have a tried and tested method for holding it in place called... an "anchor". But, given it's not designed to move by windpower and probably doesn't have a method of steering it might not fit the definition of a sailboat, so we'll go with wind generator and they can run the transmission cable up the anchor cable.

    22. Re:Transmission? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I think that one of the main reasons large turbines do rotate so slowly is the high tip speed is difficult to deal with - at the speed of sound (340 m/s) shock waves become a problem, and structural problems show up at slower speeds.

      I don't understand why shock waves become a problem. Could you clarify?

      Why would structural problems show up at lower speeds? I thought that they would show up at higher speeds.

    23. Re:Transmission? by aqk · · Score: 1

      NO.. THEY DID NOT get it wrong.
      They got it "backwards" alright, - but correctly.
      If you are gedankenly-challenged (are you perhaps of the distaff persuation?) then try it with a real bike.

      Put your bike in highest gear, then turn your wheel.
      You will note the pedals DO NOT move very fast.

      Now - put it in LOWEST gear.
      Turn the wheel. You will note the chain and pedals move quickly.

      ie- from the perspective of transmitting power from wheel to pedals, everything is reversed. Low becomes high and vice-versa.
      Get it?


    24. Re:Transmission? by instarx · · Score: 1

      Feckless? The area of the blades in the windmill's blade-arc is about 98% open space, and even less at the tips. That's hardly like a cliff - in fact it is a lot more like open sky than a cliff. As for blade speed, to you the speed of the blades may appear slow, but your brain is being fooled by he windmill's size and low RPMs just like a bird's would be.

      I'm not saying the windmills would or would not be harmful to birds, but your ideas on why they would not be show remarkably poor reasoning on your part.

    25. Re:Transmission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people around the world seem to have something against wind turbines, that's why we've started a couple of years ago to develop a alternative.
      We produce natural looking trees and plants from recycled plastics, these trees and plants convert free available energies like SUN, WIND & THERMAL into electricity, all year around. Besides the aesthetic values, they are 75% more effective than any other known system, durable, easy to install and cheaper as roof panels.
      Solar Botanics is a solution for many people, villages, cities and places of natural beauty.
      Currently we are in the testing face, molding and designing different tree and plant species, the tests are underway and they look promising, cheaper, cleaner and more energy , while saving our beautiful countryside. Our order portfolio is growing by the day, we never thought that it would be like that.

      we welcome your feedback,

      Your Solar Botanic Team

      attached ppt 4.5 MB

      Ongoing development of design and testing is underway, we'll keep you posted
      solarbotanic@apollo.lv

    26. Re:Transmission? by instarx · · Score: 1

      Borrowed from here:
      Pulease. As an actual degree-granted environmental scientist (M.S., Environmental Sciences and Engineering), I find this site to be total baloney. Please take a look at treehugger's staff list - not a single environmental scientist or engineer in the bunch. In fact, there isn't a single technical degree in the lot of them. They're all web gurus, ex-fashion designers, design students and 20-something "serial entrepeneurs" (I would be embarassed to write that about myself) who have clearly jumped on the sustainability bandwagon. I read things like "did work for Microsoft" in their career summaries. Anyone who has ever hired consultants knows fuzzy descriptors like that are red flags for an attempt to make a consultant with weak credentials sound more qualified than he or she really is. One senior staffer's big accomplishment listed in her career summary was "lived on Maui", for crying out loud. Their Science and Technology Editor read a book by David Suzuki! That's actually listed in his qualifications! YOU'RE QUOTING THESE PEOPLE AS EXPERTS ON WIND-TURBINE BLADE DESIGN!?

      This "article" about the so-called misconceptions of wind-turbine bird-kills from a bunch of "sustainability enthusiasts" (their words) is about as worthless as it gets.
    27. Re:Transmission? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      This "article" about the so-called misconceptions of wind-turbine bird-kills from a bunch of "sustainability enthusiasts" (their words) is about as worthless as it gets.
      If it were done as a book, it would at least have the advantage of keeping a number of hand-sized sheets of paper in a convenient unit. Now, what could you use that for?
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    28. Re:Transmission? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      YOU'RE QUOTING THESE PEOPLE AS EXPERTS ON WIND-TURBINE BLADE DESIGN!? Not at all, it was literally one of the first results on Google that seemed to have a nice easy to grasp explanation of the reduced danger that modern wind turbines pose to wildlife. I'm sure someone with a bit more time on their hands could find a few more authoritative articles. However you seem to be getting terribly upset, purely because:

      As an actual degree-granted environmental scientist (M.S., Environmental Sciences and Engineering), I find this site to be total baloney.

      This "article" about the so-called misconceptions of wind-turbine bird-kills from a bunch of "sustainability enthusiasts" (their words) is about as worthless as it gets. Seriously, unless you have a specific argument against what I quoted, your opinions on the authors are entirely irrelevant. They do in this case explain what I wanted them to, and I don't vouch for the rest of the site.
    29. Re:Transmission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO.. THEY DID NOT get it wrong.

      Of course they did.

      try it with a real bike.

      OK: High gear = few pedal movements = little chain movement = lots of wheel movements. (And they defined high gear as "the one you use to go fast on a level slope", so they really mean it. ;))

      Low gear = lots of pedal movements = lots of chain movement (supposing you change the gear at the back wheel, not at the pedals, of course) = little wheel movements.

      Put your bike in highest gear, then turn your wheel. You will note the pedals DO NOT move very fast.

      Now - put it in LOWEST gear. Turn the wheel. You will note the chain and pedals move quickly.

      Perfectly right. Now, compare this statement with their's:

      [High gear:] The chain [and the pedals] moves rapidly with only a few degrees of wheel rotation.

      I'd call this contradictory to reality.

      from the perspective of transmitting power from wheel to pedals, everything is reversed. Low becomes high and vice-versa. Get it?

      Yes, I got it (like I did before). But still, their description of a bike's gear is erroneous. Get it?

    30. Re:Transmission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The text, however, is asking you to observe the chain, and equate the speed of the chain movement with the speed of the blades/turbine.

      But still, they don't know how a bicycle's gear works. See my other reply.

      It is not asking you to observe the speed of the wheel movement.

      I can't say what they really wish me to compare, because their logic is faulty. Please, look at this statement and try to explain how a slow wheel rotation should translate to quick chain (and pedal) movement while using the highest gear:

      [...] set it [the bike] to the highest gear...the one you use to go fast on a level slope.... and now move the wheel slowly with your hand. The chain moves rapidly with only a few degrees of wheel rotation.

      Thanks. The very point of highest gear is that slow moving pedals translate into a quickly moving wheel (so that a slowly moving wheel translates into even slower moving pedals.

      PS: Please note that talking about chain movement makes little sense if you don't define where you change the gear, but I take it they mean a more classical bike with the different gears located at the wheel, not at the pedals. It is better to compare wheel movement with pedal movement.

    31. Re:Transmission? by instarx · · Score: 1

      Seriously, unless you have a specific argument against what I quoted, your opinions on the authors are entirely irrelevant. They do in this case explain what I wanted them to, and I don't vouch for the rest of the site. ha ha. You quote unqualified, self-promoting dilitants as your technical source to justify your point of view, and somehow that makes my observations on the quality your experts irrelevant? You and I clearly live on a different planet. On mine experts quoted to support a technical argument should have some hint of technical ability. Credentials if you will. If not, your argument remains unsupported. And remember what your [frankly] off-the-wall argument was: spinning windmill blades look like a solid cliff face to birds. Uh huh.

      It is plain wrong when people cite biased PR sites that masquarade as scientific sites to argue against global warming, and I see no difference in what you did to support your position. So yes, I am angry about it. It is scientifically and logically deceptive to cite people who don't know a damned thing about the topic in question and to give the impression that they are "experts". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you did it by accident, but be more careful next time, please.

    32. Re:Transmission? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      You quote unqualified, self-promoting dilitants as your technical source to justify your point of view, and somehow that makes my observations on the quality your experts irrelevant? But eh, they did explain it. If their explanation (the only part I quoted) was wrong, feel free to point out the error.

      And remember what your [frankly] off-the-wall argument was: spinning windmill blades look like a solid cliff face to birds. Uh huh. I said a bird blind enough to get hit by one of these would also have trouble hitting just about anything, I did not say windmills=cliffs.

      It is scientifically and logically deceptive to cite people who don't know a damned thing about the topic in question And for the third time, the one single and only point that matters: were they wrong?

      and to give the impression that they are "experts". Where did I do that?

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you did it by accident, but be more careful next time, please. Sufficient unto the day, the evil thereof.
    33. Re:Transmission? by instarx · · Score: 1

      But eh, they did explain it. If their explanation (the only part I quoted) was wrong, feel free to point out the error.

      No, they did not explain it. They made up some stuff they thought supported their conclusions. Point out the error(s)? Ok, I will.

      1. They say that modern wind turbines use wide blades. That is not the case. The most efficient shape for blades has remained unchanged - long and thin.

      2. They say that blades turn slowly. Not true. In their non-technical dilitant way they have confused low RPMs with low blade speed (they're artists, web designers, and self-promoters - not engineers). Even at a low RPM the tips of long blades can be travelling very fast - even approaching the speed of sound.

      3. They say that just by adding gearing (their stupid bicycle analogy) turbines can get the same energy from lower blade speeds. Just put some gears in to speed up the generator part! Again that is not true. There is no free lunch and the blades have to turn at their most efficient speed given the wind-speed. You can't simply slow them down and add a gear to speed up the generator. Again, they show their utter lack of understanding not only of wind-turbine design, but of even the basic physics of everyday mechanical systems.

      And these are the people you quote as experts! And because you did many people now think that wind turbines have been shown to be completely harmless to birds - based on the musings of a bunch of incompetents.
    34. Re:Transmission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To help our understanding of turbine hazards to birds we'd like to make an analogy, to your bicycle. Turn your bike upside down or put it in a work rack, set it to the highest gear...the one you use to go fast on a level slope.... and now move the wheel slowly with your hand. The chain moves rapidly with only a few degrees of wheel rotation. This symbolizes today's cutting edge 1.5 mW turbines, which have a very large surface area of blade exposed to the wind and a gearbox that turns the dynamo quickly while the blades move slowly. Birds dodge these slow moving blades relatively easily.

      Now put the bike in the lowest gear...the one you use to climb hills...and move the wheel with your hand fast enough to turn the chain as fast as before. That symbolizes the 20-year-old "bird-o-matic" wind turbine design. Small blades with small surface areas have to turn rapidly to overcome the magnetic force of the dynamos, which generate electricity. This bicycle analogy is total nonsense. The higher the gear, the greater the amount of wheel motion that corresponds to a given amount of chain motion.
    35. Re:Transmission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This bicycle analogy is total nonsense.

      The analogy itself is good--albeit I explicitly didn't call it an analogy, because it's just another example in the field of mechanics. In mechanics, it doesn't matter whether you look at a windmill or at a bicycle.

      The higher the gear, the greater the amount of wheel motion that corresponds to a given amount of chain motion.

      It is a great relief to me (I'm the AC from that whole part of this thread above) that I'm not the only one who understands how a bike actually works ...

    36. Re:Transmission? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      No, they did not explain it. They made up some stuff they thought supported their conclusions. Point out the error(s)? Ok, I will.

      1. They say that modern wind turbines use wide blades. That is not the case. The most efficient shape for blades has remained unchanged - long and thin. The size of the blades has changed a bit since the early days though, don't you think? Going from small to 80 meters plus, which is much easier for birds to see and avoid? They even have to use specialised trucks to transport the blades around. Would you say the blades are physically wider than the early ones?

      2. They say that blades turn slowly. Not true. In their non-technical dilitant way they have confused low RPMs with low blade speed (they're artists, web designers, and self-promoters - not engineers). Even at a low RPM the tips of long blades can be travelling very fast - even approaching the speed of sound. And the tips are attached to the rest of the blade, which moves much slower, reducing the effective danger zone for birds as well as giving them something they can actually see. Speed of sound my arse.

      3. They say that just by adding gearing (their stupid bicycle analogy) turbines can get the same energy from lower blade speeds. Just put some gears in to speed up the generator part! Gah this is painful. They specifically mentioned much larger turbines, which do produce higher power at lower RPM, a point which was aimed at the lowest common denominator, everyone else seems to have grasped, but you completely missed.

      And these are the people you quote as experts! And because you did many people now think that wind turbines have been shown to be completely harmless to birds - based on the musings of a bunch of incompetents. Well heres a group possibly a little more to your liking in terms of qualifications: the Danish Wind Industry Association:

      Birds often collide with high voltage overhead lines, masts, poles, and windows of buildings. They are also killed by cars in the traffic. Birds are seldom bothered by wind turbines, however. Radar studies from Tjaereborg in the western part of Denmark, where a 2 megawatt wind turbine with 60 metre rotor diameter is installed, show that birds - by day or night - tend to change their flight route some 100-200 metres before the turbine and pass above the turbine at a safe distance.

      In Denmark there are several examples of birds (falcons) nesting in cages mounted on wind turbine towers.

      The only known site with bird collision problems is located in the Altamont Pass in California. Even there, collisions are not common, but they are of extra concern because the species involved are protected by law.


      You sir are a buffoon, and my recommendations is that you either reduce the dose or increase it. Or quite possibly IHBT.
  2. Floating... by Llywelyn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will make them a little hard to tilt against. A charge on horseback is nearly as dramatic when they are out at sea.

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    1. Re:Floating... by fmarkham · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ploughing the ocean waves is always difficult when the horses keep sinking.

    2. Re:Floating... by deniable · · Score: 4, Funny

      Use horses trained for water polo.

    3. Re:Floating... by cmacb · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...or seahorses.

    4. Re:Floating... by coren2000 · · Score: 1

      Come Sancho, Don Quixote does not fear the flying dragons!

      "Ho, there, foul [flying] monster! Cease the knocking at thy craven knees and prepare to do battle!"

    5. Re:Floating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Seahorses?

  3. Birds? by jamesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the arguments against wind farms on land has been that they take out the odd bird now and then. Would bird activity be lower out to sea at the altitude that these things sit at?

    1. Re:Birds? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      Taking out an albatross could be bad luck.

    2. Re:Birds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      considering the bird thing was never really a problem on land either, lower bird activity might even push it into the negative range; i.e. new birds would occasionally pop into existence around it or become healthier by flying near it.

    3. Re:Birds? by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't get this bird killing thing. I've spent lots of time walking amongst the giant wind turbines around Tehachapi, CA where I grew up. I never saw a dead bird out there nor had I ever heard of these things killing birds until just a few years ago. Does anyone actually have any data on this? So far it sounds like an urban legend.

    4. Re:Birds? by StormyWeather · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just environmentalists looking for a reason to hate the technology. We have tons of the power windmills here, and even when the wind is howling those things move slow as a glacier. The old water pump windmills of the plains would have been a bigger threat, but I'll bet the birds loved the water from the horse troughs.

    5. Re:Birds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Studies show that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is negligible compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities such as traffic, hunting, power lines and high-rise buildings...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Birds

    6. Re:Birds? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      See? The electric windmills don't give the birds water. They are BAD! :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Birds? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course the windmills will produce traffic (a service technician coming to control them every now and then), power lines (obvious) and high-rise buildings (for the companies who build and operate those windmills). Possibly they'll also produce hunting (I can't currently find any link, but I'm sure with enough creativity, you'll find one). So you have to add all those birds killed by those activities to the numbers of windmills. You'll see immediately that the resulting sum is larger than the effect of any activity you mentioned.

      And don't tell me that this calculation is not serious. After all, the RIAA gets away with this type of calculation all the time!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:Birds? by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Funny

      See? The electric windmills don't give the birds water. They are BAD! :-) I think you missed one of the fundamentals when it comes to "floating windmills".
      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    9. Re:Birds? by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Actually, just anti-environmentalists looking for ways to paint every environmentalist as a raving lunatic.

      Most of us who like the idea of wind technology don't particularly care about the handful of birds it might effect, and resent getting stereotyped by the people who want to marginalize everything we stand for.

    10. Re:Birds? by jafiwam · · Score: 1, Informative

      You don't get it because it makes no sense.

      It's complete bullshit.

      Note the following facts:

      The original "wind turbines kill birds" campaign used several outlets to say the same thing, using the same four dead birds picture with no evidence.

      Glass buildings in cities, radio towers (lights at night), cars all kill way more birds than wind power ever could.

      "Fluffy" the house-cat let out at night, and feral cats kill 10,000 times the estimated bird kill from 100% of the US power needs from wind.

      In other words, it's hippy bullshit created by folks with (now) lots of money and a bad case of NIMBY-ism. Ex-hippies lie just as much as any other baby boomer does.

    11. Re:Birds? by Peaker · · Score: 1

      What about nuclear energy?
      Do you support that or do you prefer existing solutions?

    12. Re:Birds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not pure urban myth. One of the early wind farms--at Altamont Pass, I think--was "built along a major raptor migration corridor in an area with high wintering concentrations of raptors and in the heart of the highest concentration of golden eagles in North America" (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/PROGRAMS/bdes/altamont/factsheet.pdf). Oops.

      Altamont did kill a lot of eagles, and since it was one of the first, the reputation stuck. The reality is that Altamont has "has the highest numbers and rates of raptor kills of any wind facility in the world." (same source). Since then, the wind industry has learned a lot about siting (don't put them in the endangered species nesting area, duh) and construction (shape the nacelle so it's not an attractive place for birds to land/nest). Probably most important, the infrastructure industry in general takes the stakeholder process a lot more seriously now--when you start talking with biologists, the Audbon society, whoever early on, you can avoid things like this rather than having to fight them in courts.

      These days, bird kills are pretty negligable. The last factoid I heard is that a typical housecat kills as many birds as two wind turbines.

      (Oh yeah, to those posters who said the turbines turn slowly: I think that's an optical illusion because they're so big. A 70m diameter rotor spinning at 15-20 rpm may look slow, but the blade tips are going over 100mph).

    13. Re:Birds? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Just environmentalists looking for a reason to hate the technology."

      People who shun technology are called Ludites.

      The last time I heard of a windfarm cancelled because of birds was here in the state of Victoria in Australia, it was about 2yrs ago. It was a right-wing government minister that killed the project, obsetnsibly because of concerns by experts over "rare birds". This proffesional anti-environmentalist trawled the environmental impact statement and found a mention of (IIRC) the orange-bellied parrot. He was the one who chose to kill the project there were no prosteters, and the impact statement had given the project the thumbs-up.

      The "environmentalists" have been ranting about wind farms since the 1970's, the vast majority of people (green or otherwise) knew the bird thing was bullshit and wanted the farm. However when the minister cancelled the project because "experts said rare parrots were found breeding in the area", mass-media dutifully blamed "environmentalists".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Birds? by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Studies show that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is negligible compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities such as traffic, hunting, power lines and high-rise buildings...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Birds What about human activities like ... eating? The most obvious problems are often overlooked. Given a highrise with 10K people inside, it really doesn't matter if one or two birds crash into it, if they are renting the ground floor to KFC.
      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    15. Re:Birds? by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 0

      In this case Darwin says the bird must die

    16. Re:Birds? by LucBorg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh yeah, those poor, poor environmentalists, they are treated so badly by the media.

      And what about the whole "ban plastic bags" campaign also led by the enviros? The reason we have plastic bags now is because those same powerful environuts cried and whined that having paper bags would destroy the forests. So we switched to plastic. Now the envirofascists say plastic is bad for the climate, or whatever their favourite cause/animal of the day is, and tell us to go to paper bags. The evil media that hates you environuts so much never seem to remember it was your fault in the first place.

      It's left-wing idiots like you that cause so many of the world's problems, and then blame everyone else for it. Thankfully the fascist green lobby is losing power now as the truth slowly comes out.

    17. Re:Birds? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In this case Darwin says the bird must die No, Darwin says the bird will die. The theory of evolution isn't a system of demands, but a scientific theory. It doesn't tell you how things should be, it tells you how things are, to the best of our knowledge. Just like the theory of gravitation doesn't tell you that things should fall down, it just tells you that they do fall down (under certain conditions).
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    18. Re:Birds? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Somehow or another (there are a lot of different and sometimes contradictory mechanisms at play) most people associate "chickens" (and eating chickens) with an enormously different set of concepts and moral ideals than they do wild birds of all sorts -- especially the big pretty ones like herons and such, but somewhat for any bird outside. Even pigeons and seagulls fare better, I think.

      Random vaguely-offtopical bonus link: Polish chicken!

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    19. Re:Birds? by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, the tips are fast. But the issue is not the speed per se, but whether they can be avoided. Since the rotational speed is lower, they are simply not fast enough for persistence-of-vision to make them invisible (to humans. I suppose studies would need to be done as to bird persistence of vision...)

      Also, the time in between blades to pass through the gap depends solely on rotational speed, not tip velocity. That's what people mean when they say they turn "slowly."

      It depends on how you model the danger. Is the problem birds hitting the blades (bird velocity causes the actual damage to bird) or blades slicing through the birds.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    20. Re:Birds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is a project of mine and I have researched it too. The number of bird deaths is about the same as the number of birds killed by a house cat allowed outside. So one cat = one windmill. The further important information here is that the already sick or injured bird is really the only likely bird to be caught by a house cat.

    21. Re:Birds? by pavon · · Score: 1

      The difference is that those chicken would have never even existed if they weren't being raised for food, and killing them has zero impact on the "natural" (current) ecosystem (raising them is another issue).

      I have no moral qualms whatsoever about killing animals for usefull purposes. I do have issues with killing so many wild animals that it affects the sustainability of the species as a whole, or shifts the local ecosystem in undesirable (or unpredictable) ways. Which is why I'll eat as much cow and chicken as I want but rarely eat (unfarmed) fish.

      Of course, the number of birds that are killed by skyscrapers and windmills is completely inconsequential.

    22. Re:Birds? by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      What about nuclear energy?
      Do you support that or do you prefer existing solutions?


      Haha, it's the old false choice fallacy. In fact, I prefer nuclear energy over coal and petroleum, but I also prefer wind/solar/wave/hydro over nuclear.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    23. Re:Birds? by KostasPlenty · · Score: 2, Informative

      To reinforce that point, the article in The Age had some detail on the risk posed to parrots. It read something like: "up to 0.6 parrots per year will die". As far as I understand it had to do with State - Federal politics one being Labour and the other Liberal at the time and nothing to do with the bloody parrot. The Federal government blocked a state decision which as far as i know is difficult to overcome.

    24. Re:Birds? by morefiend · · Score: 1

      That's what Coleridge teaches.

    25. Re:Birds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Orange Bellied Parrots' - who's habitat is no where near the site, they've never been seen AT the site.

      I guess yellow bellied pollies would have been a bit obvious.

    26. Re:Birds? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention domestic and feral housecats. They've been estimated to kill MILLIONS of birds annually.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    27. Re:Birds? by cha5on · · Score: 1

      What about human activities like ... eating? The most obvious problems are often overlooked. Given a highrise with 10K people inside, it really doesn't matter if one or two birds crash into it, if they are renting the ground floor to KFC. This is a serious problem, people!! Only five years ago I would see at least 3 chickens crashing into the highrise where I work on my floor alone, but today I consider it fortunate to see about a chicken a week. Won't someone think of the poor high-flying kamikaze chickens?
    28. Re:Birds? by ryszard99 · · Score: 1

      a service technician coming to control them every now and then),

      emphasis mine. I cant help but wonder if you're a nederlander...

      --
      -- $_='ab-bc ratvarre';tr"'a-z'"'n-za-m'";print
    29. Re:Birds? by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Me personally, I support it. I would also like to see something equivalent to the Apollo Program devoted towards developing economical Fusion power, since from my (admittedly limited) understanding, fusion produces radioactive waste with a much shorter half-life than fission. Fuel for fusion is also much easier to obtain.

      But I figure wind, solar, and maybe something like biodiesel from algae farms can all contribute to a solution with less environmental impact than coal and less dependencies upon sources in foreign countries than petroleum.

    30. Re:Birds? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Possibly they'll also produce hunting (I can't currently find any link, but I'm sure with enough creativity, you'll find one).

      After all, the RIAA gets away with this type of calculation all the time!


      That's easy. Following the RIAA example, windmill operators will hire people to hunt down the birds, and/or shoot them on sight.

  4. Norway, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I'm sure those windmills with keep them cool...

    1. Re:Norway, eh? by Brieeyebarr · · Score: 0

      Windmills don't work that way!

  5. Just out of interest by CrackedButter · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why is it that wind turbines aren't augmented with solar panels on them? I'm talking either in the base stem or actually on the blades, seems like a no brainer in so much that you save space and it would be useful for the those areas which are windy and sunny. I don't mean to suggest that their power generating capabilities are linked either, just why can't they take up the same space and whatever energy either of the technologies generate can be fed into that country's electrical grid.

    1. Re:Just out of interest by polar+red · · Score: 4, Insightful

      because solar panels can easily be fitted onto roofs, and looking out of my window, i can still see hundreds that don't have 'em yet, so putting solar panels out into the sea sounds a waste of time.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    2. Re:Just out of interest by phreeza · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the majority of the surface area on a wind turbine is tilted at an angle unsuitable for that. the only place that would make sense is probably the top of the cabin. The Blades are subject to a lot of stress/deformation, might also be that solar cells don't handle that well.

    3. Re:Just out of interest by ImaLamer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look out of my window all I see are large apartment buildings and I can't help but to think they could be cutting their overall energy consumption with solar panels. The tops of these building are flat and wide and raise above the landscape, I look out and see an energy farm.

      I think there should be a city ordinance that states that each apartment building with more than 10 subunits should be forced to either install a set of solar panels or allow the local utility to do so. The surface area in my city alone could help the resident imprint. Make the law at the city level so it can be chosen to be followed by the local residents and if the property owner installs the system themselves allow their panels energy to impact the residents bill. I think there are forces in this type of legislation that could drive the market for panels and attracting residents with energy savings.

      Putting panels sky scrapers don't make sense because they simply use too much energy compared to their top surface area, their impact would be minimal - but look around, there are many places these things could go. In some buildings during the day there is absolutely no one too, they are off somewhere else using energy but the building where they live is just feeding into the grid (or paying off their evening's usage).

      It would be costly and would need to be implemented over some time frame; but the market would drive for the cheapest - and eventually most efficient of hardware.

    4. Re:Just out of interest by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Solar power should be required by the design standards for commercial air conditioning systems.

    5. Re:Just out of interest by Archades54 · · Score: 1

      However minimal it may be, it still is a saving. It adds up, each little tiny bit.

      --
      If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
    6. Re:Just out of interest by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      A windmill is made up largely of vertical surfaces, which wouldn't get much direct solar energy. I'm guessing they don't stick solar panels all over them because for the same cost they could build another windmill, or put those same solar panels on a horizontal surface somewhere where they'd actually do some good.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Just out of interest by smallfeet · · Score: 1

      What is the pay back on solar panels these days? They do have a limited life span and used to be expensive to install. Have they gotten to a break even point yet? I guess it depends on which sun zone you are in.

    8. Re:Just out of interest by grizdog · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make sense to put a solar panel in a place that doesn't get a lot of sun, which, relatively speaking, is most of the world. I'm not sure that a lot of thought has gone into putting solar panels at sea, if you look at a map, like this one, they don't seem to care about the ocean. It would seem that the air over the ocean would be more humid, in general, than air over land, and thus worse for solar collection. I agree with your basic premise - there are lots of places where it would be a lot easier to place solar panels than the sea. Buildings in the desert, or power lines crossing the desert immediately come to mind.

    9. Re:Just out of interest by Cally · · Score: 4, Informative
      The costs of manufacturing p/v (electricity-generating) cells is still high enough that they're not yet a mass-market item. Solar water heating, however, is getting pretty mainstream here in the UK. Unsolicited testimonial: to my left I have a view out the window of a misty, grey, drizzly and damp prospect (a typical English summer, in other words.) To my right, a bathroom with gallons of free hot water. Result, happiness :)

      On the other hand -- I've noticed very small p/v and wind turbine installations popping up on the roadsides in our area in the last few years - powering things like illumination lights for traffic signs, lights at bus-stops, speed-triggered LED speed warning signs and the like. The wind turbines are dinky things with rotor diameters of perhaps three or four feet. (Note, this is along the shore of the Severn Estuary, which is presumably more reliably windy than most places inland.) I'm curious if manufacturing economies of scale have brought such small devices down to the point that they're cost effective, as well as green, anyone know?

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    10. Re:Just out of interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Belgium, people are expecting a ROI after 7 years, and that the panels yield 80% of their maxium after 25 years.

      Weather is crap in Belgium, and shit is expensive, so if break-even is at ~7 years here, it must be quite good somewhere sunny!

    11. Re:Just out of interest by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      California is doing this now... heard a report on NPR about it a couple weeks ago, with a 10 year timeline to get something like 3000 MW online....

      http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/3588/

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    12. Re:Just out of interest by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      I disagree - while the skyscraper may not have all its demands met by solar, it would be a fine candidate, because it may enough consumption that it could guarantee that all the solar is being used, and seems more likely to have the capital for it than a smaller complex would.

      The problem is that these things still do not make enough sense from the purely financial perspective. Electricity is cheap. Solar panels have a big up-front cost, and when you consider interest, maintenance, and such, the pay-back period is generally inferior to decent investments of the ordinary variety (stocks, bonds, real estate, etc).

      Why spend money to save money, when you could spend money to make even-more-money? The answer has to be some sort of moral impulse, and that's not really a way to get the backing of people who only want money from their investments.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    13. Re:Just out of interest by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It appears they are suitable for small things along the roadside where the cost of installation of electrical service far outweighs the cost of electricity - signs along the highway, and such - and moreover things which aren't exactly the most critical infrastructure (like, oh, stoplights).

      When it comes to things that chew lots of power, though, I'm sure there's no contest.

      It reminds me of those solar garden-lights that they sell that you can just stick in the ground instead of digging trenches and running out conduits and getting the services of an electrician and such. They're not quite as bright as the wired kind, and they don't last the whole night (so you can't have them running in the early morning), but they're good enough for the job of glowing for a few hours in the evening after it gets dark and before you head indoors. They wouldn't exactly work to light up the inside of your house.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    14. Re:Just out of interest by Graymalkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wind turbines can be manufactured "green" since most of their construction materials are recyclable. They are also fairly easy to construct since they don't require any sort of exotic manufacturing processes. The DOE's website has a nice diagram of a modern wind turbines components. Modern turbines are highly efficient and when situated correctly pay for themselves very quickly. As you've seen turbines have gotten cheap enough that individual units have become suitable for people to buy themselves. Small scale turbines can generate enough power for a single household for a day. They're often set up in grid-tied setups where the turbine complements grid power to a home. You can also use them for entirely off-grid usage where they charge a battery bank which is used when the wind isn't blowing.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    15. Re:Just out of interest by polar+red · · Score: 1

      shit is expensive Hmm ... how much for a kilo?
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    16. Re:Just out of interest by kendric · · Score: 1

      Well, as always, it depends on your definition of being cost effective. To get a nice cheap Skystream Windmill would be about $15,000 taxes in. This would produce enough power to comfortably provide electricity for a house or a small business (around here around 500kw a month). With proper battery and storage, one could go completely off the grid saving about 100 bucks a month. Doing that, it would take just over 15 years to get ones money back, but you can find that good will comes putting up wind towers, price of electricity doesn't go up over the years, and that your initial investment doesn't have much concern about spending 15 grand in one shot. If you are creative the rotor itself is about $5,000.00 without mounting or foundation, but if you were to basically put a hole in the ground with a giant pipe sticking up 60 feet for less than $10,000 you can save some serious money there. People might wonder why I know this, and it's because I just ordered a couple for my company.

  6. Power cable to sweden by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Funny

    How exactly they are going to manage a good reliable power transmission with the kind of floating power station, Any idea?


    They've discovered that a relatively unorthodox technology, known as "peer to peer" is a good solution. Unfortunately big corporations have made it illegal in every country but sweden. The upshot is that, instead of using the natural infrastructure of a p2p network that already exists, the company will be based in sweden, and all of the floating windmills will be directly tied to their HQ, by long cables. From sweden, the company will then export it back to your house, beside the windmill, on trucks.

    But don't worry, you will get a shiny plastic wrapper for your 1-ton battery, and an insert with lots of credits to the corporations who made it possible, and copyright notices.
    1. Re:Power cable to sweden by jeps · · Score: 1
      No,no - that was the old scheme. Thanks to DVD John (from Norway), they have now found a way to remove the DRM on the power in real time, so instead of going through the HQ of StatoilHydro (a Norwegian company) it may flow directly to the Norwegian power grid from the west coast of Norway, where the wind mills are located.

      - jeps (Oh - I'm from Norway, in case you wondered :)

    2. Re:Power cable to sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wouldn't that be pier-to-pier?

  7. Are the masts designed to fold under extreme winds by distantbody · · Score: 1

    ...or are they designed to 'fight' them (i.e. stand strait at all costs)? Cthulu help them if it's the latter...

  8. Re:Are the masts designed to fold under extreme wi by phreeza · · Score: 1

    submerging them in a controlled manner would be a cool solution to that, not sure if its feasible though...

  9. Re:Are the masts designed to fold under extreme wi by polar+red · · Score: 5, Informative

    the latest generation of windmills produce electricity by wind speeds up to 30m/s, and at higher speeds, they just turn the blades out of the wind, so they won't get damaged.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  10. "Planned startup is in the fall of 2009" by S3D · · Score: 1

    Am I only one who read it as "Planned startup fail is in the 2009" ?

    1. Re:"Planned startup is in the fall of 2009" by bjourne · · Score: 1

      Am I only one who read it as "Planned startup fail is in the 2009" ? Yes, the rest of us are able to read. Maybe you need to have your glasses checked up?
  11. Steady winds by nadaou · · Score: 4, Informative

    Critically offshore winds tend to be much more steady than winds on land, where topography, trees, and buildings combine to create turbulence and resulting gusts. At sea the winds have nothing to slow them down meaning higher output, and nothing to make them subject to sudden gusts meaning less wear and tear on the gears (a squall or frontal gust mainly has a single onset and slow relaxation) and more predictable output.

    * Being able to go deeper means further offshore, which means less people on land looking for an easy pay off due to bogus eyesore / property value complaints.

    * In a massive storm these ones lean over, spilling away the force of the wind and reducing exposed surface area as cos(tilt).

    * The bird cuisinart effect is largely debunked. Many more are killed flying into windows (home or glass box buildings), stationary bridges and radio towers, and hit by cars while attending to roadkill. Many studies out there to back this up. "Homepower magazine" does a nice job of collecting peer reviewed studies (they had a great writeup on it, but I can't find that now). Also need to balance against the more dilute effect of wildlife killed by a coal plant's SO2 etc emissions. Granted most studies are not looking at sea birds.

    --
    ~.~
    I'm a peripheral visionary.
    1. Re:Steady winds by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The bird cuisinart effect is largely debunked."

      Not debunked. Solved. Early wind turbines were small and very fast. Too fast for birds.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Steady winds by Digestromath · · Score: 4, Funny

      I vaguely remember reading about 'early' wind turbines... they were mostly made of wood and dotted the picturesque country side (I hear the Dutch ones were particularly pleasant). I imagine we would have noticed the wholesale avian depopulation in the interveining 800 years of vertical axis wind turbines.

    3. Re:Steady winds by Daimanta · · Score: 1

      Dutch windmills or not that high. I think modern electricity windmills are more along the flightpaths of windmills.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    4. Re:Steady winds by nadaou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not debunked. Solved. Early wind turbines were small and very fast. Too fast for birds.


      While the newer ones turn at a much lower RPM, they are so much bigger that speed at the tips of each blade are easily moving in excess of 100 kph.

      Math: Say 100m diameter turbine, takes 5 sec to turn once. circumference = PI*d = 314m which means the tip has to travel 314m/5sec or 62.8m/s = 226 km/hr. I just made up the 5 sec, I don't really know the standard RPM would be exactly.

      Even so, the new monster turbines are so big they are pretty hard to miss. (har har)

      But none the less the problem is still very much debunked vs. popular ideas on the matter.

      Another big problem with the first big farms in California is that they put them in the middle of a mountain pass well known as a thoroughfare for migratory birds. So particularly bad placement. Of course some birds will fly into anything you stick up into the air. The idea is to understand how many will, and how to minimize the strikes.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    5. Re:Steady winds by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      windmill != wind turbine

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Steady winds by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      "windmill != wind turbine" A mill doesn't just refer to something used to grind flour. Therefore a mill can pump water, grind flour, generate electricity or run an early industrial age loom. Any kind of motor or gearbox can be described as a mill. So a typical car has a little mill in between the front wheels powering it...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    7. Re:Steady winds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean horizontal axis, the propeller shape. Verticals are typically spiral or egg beater shapes.

  12. Re:Are the masts designed to fold under extreme wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The blades can rotate to optimize the for the wind angle. If the wind is too strong, they can just position them in a very "unoptimized angle".

    When the force on the blades is minimized I should think the rest of the mill is pretty aerodynamic.

  13. Windmills by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 5, Funny

    TFA does not talk about transmission. How exactly they are going to manage a good reliable power transmission with the kind of floating power station, Any idea?
    Well, the summary says they're windmills, so I assume it will be transmitted in the form of flour.
    1. Re:Windmills by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, the summary says they're windmills, so I assume it will be transmitted in the form of flour.

      That's why they call it a flourishing industry.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Windmills by Adriax · · Score: 4, Funny

      That pun was rather half baked.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re:Windmills by celle · · Score: 1
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of virgins."

      No wonder liberty is in such decline.
      Virgins?
      And where do you plan on finding those?

    4. Re:Windmills by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      Here, of course.

    5. Re:Windmills by Zoolander · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bread between the lines, and you'll get it.

      --
      Meep.
    6. Re:Windmills by th0ma5 · · Score: 1

      Gosh, flour power! Boom, boom!

    7. Re:Windmills by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      People who sacrifice virgins are missing the point of virgins.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    8. Re:Windmills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dough!

  14. Bats seem to have a real problem with them by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is an old article I remembered about and fortunately google brought it up http://www.coxwashington.com/reporters/content/reporters/stories/2005/11/13/BC_WINDMILLS_BATS_ADV13_COX.html

    From the article
    " Towering up to 228 feet above the Appalachian Mountain ridge, far above the tree line, windmills are lined up like marching aliens from War of the Worlds.
    Up close, they emit a high-pitched electrical hum. From a distance of a few hundred yards, their 115-foot blades make a steady whooshing sound as their tips cut through the air at up to 140 mph."

    "A study conducted at FPL's Mountaineer Wind Energy Center here this year indicated that its 44 turbines may have caused between 1,300 and 2,000 bat deaths in a six-week period. That study was led by Edward B. Arnett, a scientist with Bat Conservation International, and financed largely by the American Wind Energy Association and its 700 member companies."

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Bats seem to have a real problem with them by nfk · · Score: 1

      That's quite interesting. I wonder if the bats that are getting killed have their echolocation system working at such a frequency that it matches the rotation of the windmills, thereby always sensing they have a clear path ahead.

    2. Re:Bats seem to have a real problem with them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember these are old style turbines...

      A study of a FPL Coal plant in central Flordia had 3000 dead birds in a single night. 2000 the following night.. Report from the Florida Ornithological Society here.

      http://futureenergy.org/FloridaFieldNatural.pdf

      You can't compare the fast spinning small turbines at Appalachian Mountain ridge -with modern turbines. It's like expecting a model T Ford to do a head on crash as well as a Volvo with Air Bags and Stability Control/ABS etc.

  15. Probably not by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    Considering the number of Slashdotters who must have had experiences being in failed startups, I rather doubt you're the only one.

    But if you still need to hang on to that feeling of uniqueness, don't worry --- I personally didn't read it that way!

  16. to launch? by nih · · Score: 0

    what use will they be in space?

    --
    I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
    1. Re:to launch? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Never heard about the solar wind? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  17. Floating in sky? by jm1234567890 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only person who thought this meant floating in the sky?

    1. Re:Floating in sky? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're not the only one.

  18. Since it is alway out among the waves . . by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not include a wave generator as part of the system?

    For the rare individual who does not know. A wave generator in this context does not make waves but uses the motion of waves to generate electricity.

    1. Re:Since it is alway out among the waves . . by nfk · · Score: 3, Funny

      "A wave generator in this context does not make waves but uses the motion of waves to generate electricity."

      It's a good thing you clarified, otherwise the rare individual would imagine this company has the department of "Let's make this thing work", which tries to harvest energy, and the department of "No you won't", which sabotages their efforts.

    2. Re:Since it is alway out among the waves . . by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      Better yet, install a wave motion gun.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    3. Re:Since it is alway out among the waves . . by andersa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because wave generators are difficult to build. Much more difficult than windmills. Actually nobody has yet to build a succesfull full scale wave generator. There are just too many things that can go wrong. Seawater is very corrosive and its much more difficult to harness the wave energy in a way that doesn't destroy the mechanism of the turbine.

    4. Re:Since it is alway out among the waves . . by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Probably because they can get more power for their money out of building another few windmills than they could by strapping on a few wave generators.

      These things are probably not optimized for wave-generation anyway. You'd be more concerned that your windmills can stay in one spot despite waves, and storms, and such. Otherwise, you're liable to lose windmills.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    5. Re:Since it is alway out among the waves . . by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      Because wave generators are difficult to build. Much more difficult than windmills. Actually nobody has yet to build a succesfull full scale wave generator. There are just too many things that can go wrong. Seawater is very corrosive and its much more difficult to harness the wave energy in a way that doesn't destroy the mechanism of the turbine.

      Good answer, one I should have thought of myself. Combining two immature technologies is probably a bad idea. Hopefully in the future when both are mature it can be done.

    6. Re:Since it is alway out among the waves . . by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Probably because they can get more power for their money out of building another few windmills than they could by strapping on a few wave generators.

      Possible but the earlier poster above was probably right that it is a bad idea to combine two immature technologies.

      These things are probably not optimized for wave-generation anyway. You'd be more concerned that your windmills can stay in one spot despite waves, and storms, and such. Otherwise, you're liable to lose windmills.

      Wave generators extract energy from the vertical movements of the waves, they are still anchored in one spot. Likely the Windmill parts would need some adjustment for the motion but perhaps not as much as you would think as I doubt that they are solidly anchored to the sea floor, I suspect like a tethered buoy they will do at least some bobbing around. One thing about wave generators is (I believe) that their output will be steadier and more predictable than a windmills will be.

    7. Re:Since it is alway out among the waves . . by IICV · · Score: 1

      Until he clarified I thought Sony was building these things.

  19. Video by MrZaius · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0oN5G3WVf0

    Check out the last minute of the above to see their mock-ups.

  20. British Solar Water Heating by StCredZero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are some great devices for solar water heating produced in Britain. If you treated this as a water preheat, you could use this with a Stirling engine and have your own solar-thermal unit with solar energy storage.

    The big problem there is getting your hands on a Stirling engine.

  21. Don't label all critics as anti-environmentalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, just anti-environmentalists looking for ways to paint every environmentalist as a raving lunatic.

    The world isn't made up of just environmentalists and anti-environmentalists. It also contains rational non-advocates, who look at a line of reasoning or evidence and analyze it logically and/or scientifically, regardless of its source.

    And when such a non-advocate comes across an environmentalist who is gibbering a load of nonsense, it should come as no surprise when the wrath of the gods descends upon the guilty party.

    You need to distinguish between the latter scenario and being attacked by gibbering anti-environmentalists.

  22. Gorillaz by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    I thought you were going to link to this video.

    Good close-ups of an interesting floating windmill design at 1m21s and 2m36s. I'm not too sure how it works though...

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  23. Hippie hunters by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Your troll is about as mind-numbingly senseless as bouncing your head off a Koran and chanting "kill all infidels".

    This particular "envirofacist" once supported a young family in the early 80's by working/living at an old growth sawmill in Australia. The logs from the trees we were cutting were up to 14' in diameter, I left the job becuse the forestry lease was running out and the area was to become a national park. We had some problems with people up trees, chained to dozers, ect, but they pale in comparison to professional "hippie hunters" who went and busted up protester camps.

    BTW: I was implying the media (and it's readers) are generally lazy, not evil.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Hippie hunters by polar+red · · Score: 1

      BTW: I was implying the media (and it's readers) are generally lazy, not evil. maybe the journalists are not lazy, but they don't get the time and resources anymore to investigate a story to the bottom ? I point my finger to the beancounters.
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    2. Re:Hippie hunters by LucBorg · · Score: 1

      LOL senseless eh? So why take the time to reply?

      Your frustrated rant about hard times in your past has nothing to do with what I wrote about. Try staying on topic. What the hell does your previous job have to do with anything?

      Talk about troll.

      Nice to see you got another one of your environut friends to come and take a point off my post. LOL! That'll show me to speak the truth!

    3. Re:Hippie hunters by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "LOL senseless eh? So why take the time to reply?"

      I'm an environmentalists, I care about dumb animals.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  24. Powdered water by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Obviously they will be distributing powdered water. The main market is expected to be drought prone areas like Barcelona. Quite a concept really.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  25. Small wind battery chargers by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Informative

    Small battery chargers are very easy to make. All you need is a 36V DC cooling fan for a large stationary motor and a diode. That will charge a 12V battery quite nicely and costs only about $100. This is a nice setup to power a cottage or a RV. We used one for many years, till the grid finally caught up with the cottage.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  26. Spin 'Em Up! by toddhisattva · · Score: 5, Funny

    can we please spare the feckless comments on injuring birds Nope. The environmentalists buttered their bread and now they have to lie in it. For over a century they have whined about every overspecialized subspecies being "endangered."

    Now it's time to use their own bullshit against them. It is time to shut down every idiotic "green" project by any means necessary. Building a wind farm? Expect to hear every single lie told about conventional power thrown back in your face.

    All those power lines leaking radiation into the environment!

    Wind turbines have huge carbon footprints because of their refined metal content. The only carbon-neutral wind turbines are made of wood.

    The iron used in wind turbines has a half-life of billions of years!

    The quantum flux caused by their rotating magnets makes eggshells thinner.

    The vanes mix the air and cause acid rain.

    Electricity from wind turbines has been shown to cause moleculitis in kids.

    Using dozens of tiny generators instead of one big generator puts tons more negative ions into the atmosphere. Or is it positive ions? It better not be neutral ions, because those are pure poison.

    --
    Usually, I am against using lies to counter lies. The corrective for lies is truth. But in this case, I expect the creative use of lies to illustrate previous lies will be funny as hell, because it is so deserved.

    Hoist by their own petard. Hehe, I said "petard."
    1. Re:Spin 'Em Up! by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      It takes skill to come up with stuff like that. Good job.

    2. Re:Spin 'Em Up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey there Narrow-Minded,

      Environmentalists are not always right, but who are? Many people with different opinions will debate each other to produce the best solution. That's how it works.

      Without environmentalists, someday some species extinct causing huge imbalances in the world, and the consequences will be unprecedented.

      I am an engineer, not an environmentalist but at at least I'm open-minded enough to listen to warnings from others. Think about it.

    3. Re:Spin 'Em Up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cuts off nose* Take that, face!
    4. Re:Spin 'Em Up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously off your meds, because everything you wrote is complete ass-crackery. You are a wacko!

  27. Wide Varriety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well as it stands just about every where in the world people are looking for more and more cost efficient ways of getting power. What I think we need to start asking our selves though is when do we draw the line and get everyone to work on a similar type of energy? How many ways are we trying to get energy now any ways? wind, solar, oil, nuclear, water, natural gas, what others are there?

    1. Re:Wide Varriety by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 1

      Diversity is probably a good thing, especially with natural sources. For example, the sun is only up half of the day, depending on your location and time of year. The wind doesn't always blow as well.

      Besides, I don't think any one source of power is going to adequately meet our needs anyway, and really - wind and water energy sources are fueled by the sun anyway.

      --
      No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
  28. anecdotal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When I got my small windcharger years ago it was around a dollar and 50 cents a watt full bloat retail price. I imagine it is cheaper now or sure should be. You need a small tower, guy wires, charge controller and then battery storage, (and inverter if you want to run normal appliances instead of dedicated energy friendlier DC appliances, think laptop and car cord instead of desktop energy hog) but for a small one that isn't all that much extra. I have both solar PV and wind, along with a variety of 12 VDC stuff and a small inverter for normal gadgets, and it is peace of mind to have some guaranteed amount of electricity bought and paid for. It doesn't replace all my power, but when the grid is totally down, having some charged batteries and the means to keep them charged more or less effortlessly is pretty nice. And that is one of the cool things about alternative energy, it never has to be either/or, you can still be grid mains tied and supplement what you need, say for a critical circuit or two in your home, your home office and computers on what is in essence a big nice UPS, or the refrigerator, or say you want something to run your furnace when the power is down or to have a fan during a summer heatwave,etc.

    Also, if you want an interesting geek project, you can build your own windchargers for pretty cheap, several websites and plans on the net. Building the blades is actually the hardest part, and even then you can cheat and just buy the blades, and most everything else can be scrounged so it is still cheap.

  29. Feel Good Inc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why has there only been one Gorillaz mention in this entire thread?

  30. Floating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I read the headline, for some reason I thought they were going to be floating in the air, like on big Zeppelins or something. Actually, that would be kind of cool.

  31. Feel good inc! by noodlesbff314 · · Score: 1

    This sorta reminds me of the floating windmill in feel good inc. That is soo cool. I suppose it would cause traffic in the air.....and problems and stuff...but its still cool

  32. Are windmills recyclable? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    The only reason I can imagine that we use such UGLY! forms of power which now we're polluting the surface of the ocean with is that we're short on alternative options and we need to try everything we can. But, this much I promise you, windmills are temporary. Maybe they'll be around 10 years, 50 years or 100 years, but they will be replaced with more technologically advanced forms of power eventually.

    Personally, I'm looking forward to reactor sized fuel cells. I like the tech since unlike wind power which I believe will negatively impace global wind currents if they become too popular, fuel cells will eventually (initial models, not likely) give back to the environment by helping to sustain fresh water supplies.

    So point being, these massive windmill towers that are ugly as sin and should never have been put up need to be recyclable. Since they're only a temporary solution, they shouldn't later be landfill.

  33. Re:Don't label all critics as anti-environmentalis by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

    But the person here made a comment about environmentalists opposing windmills for the sake of birds. That's not a position most environmentalists take. Call it a strawman argument, call it a red herring, whatever.

    I have no problems with rational non-advocates. The person who tried to paint every environmental advocate with the same brush is not one of those.