Slashdot Mirror


The Rocky Road To Wind Power

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times has an interesting story on the logistical problems involved in transporting disassembled towers that will reach more than 250 feet in height from ports or factories to the remote, windy destinations where the turbines are erected. In Idaho trucks laden with tall turbine parts have slammed into interstate overpasses requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs. In Texas the constant truck traffic is tearing up small roads in the western part of the state where the turbines are being rapidly erected. And in Maine a truck carrying a big piece of turbine got stuck for hours while trying to round a corner near Searsport." "'It left a nice gouge in Route 1,' said Ben Tracy, who works nearby at a marine equipment store and saw the incident. On a per-turbine basis, the cost of transportation and logistics generally varies from around $100,000 to $150,000, said John Dunlop, an engineer with the American Wind Energy Association, and experts say that transportation logistics are starting to limit how large — and as a result how powerful — wind turbines can get. There is talk of breaking a blade up into multiple pieces, but 'that's a very significant structural concern,' says Peter Stricker, vice president at Clipper Windpower who added that tower bases were getting too large to squeeze through underpasses. But a partial solution may be at hand. While vast majority of turbine parts now travel by truck, in Texas and elsewhere, some wind companies are looking to move more turbine parts by train to save money. But even the train routes must avoid low overpasses when big pieces of wind turbines are aboard. 'It's not your typical rail-car shipments,' said Tom Lange, a Union Pacific spokesman."

44 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Dirigible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    or blimp.

    1. Re:Dirigible. by PBoyUK · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe they're not a fan of blimps?

    2. Re:Dirigible. by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why wouldn't they be?

      Just hang the pre-assembled windmill upside down, run electricity backwards through the generator, and voila! - You've got a nice powerful propeller to drive it.

    3. Re:Dirigible. by Carnildo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A few weeks back, I watched an entire wind farm go by on a single train. Blimps are more maneuverable than trains and are better at accessing remote country, sure, but you just can't get the same sort of throughput.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    4. Re:Dirigible. by Weedhopper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hate? WTF are you babbling about, man? I'd pay to see one that was capable of moving 10 tons because it'd be a damn cool feat of engineering.

      You, OTOH, with a name like ArsonSmith, should stay the fuck away. ;)

    5. Re:Dirigible. by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pick your favorite large dirigible, and study how short its life was and what happened to it.

      I'll pick three: three of the last four airships built by Luftschiffbau Zeppelin

      #1 LZ-127, the Graf Zeppelin : 11 years of safe, reliable operation, including a flight around the world and a million miles of passenger service. Scrapped at the beginning of World War II.
      #2 LZ-126/ZR-3, the USS Los Angeles : 10 years of safe, reliable operation. Scrapped at the beginning of World War II.
      #3 LZ-130, the Graf Zeppelin II : two years of safe, reliable operation. Scrapped at the beginning of World War II.

      The big threat to properly-designed rigid airships seems to be World War II. Now that it's over, new airships shouldn't have any trouble.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    6. Re:Dirigible. by Normal+Dan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm noticing a trend. Zeppelins cause World War II. If we don't want another World War II, we shouldn't build them. World War II 2 would suck more than the first one.

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    7. Re:Dirigible. by vchiaroscuro · · Score: 3, Funny

      We'd finally have more material for the History Channel.

    8. Re:Dirigible. by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      You, OTOH, with a name like ArsonSmith, should stay the fuck away.

      WTF are you babbling about, man? I'd pay to see that because it'd be a damn cool feat of pyrotechnics.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. Not too surprising by gringer · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can always expect problems when you're transporting large things along a windy road. I'm sure the initial issues will blow over, and they'll tackle the remainder with much gusto.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
    1. Re:Not too surprising by MeanMF · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, with a little more planning it should be a breeze.

    2. Re:Not too surprising by PBoyUK · · Score: 4, Funny

      Insightful? 'WHOOSH' has never been more appropriate.

  3. In otherwords... by hampton · · Score: 4, Funny

    If we don't solve the size problem it will lead to an erection problem.

  4. Doing it wrong. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

    FTS: " In Idaho trucks laden with tall turbine parts have slammed into interstate overpasses requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs"

    You're supposed to put them on the truck parallel to the ground.

    Just saying.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Doing it wrong. by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      FTS: " In Idaho trucks laden with tall turbine parts have slammed into interstate overpasses requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs"

      Actually, it's a good thing they're running into the overpasses that need repairs. It'll kick start the process. However, if they were to run into an overpass that was brand new, or that had just finished being repaired... Oh Boy! Somebody would be in trouble.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Doing it wrong. by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Someone want to calculate the minimum safe stopping distance of a wide-load truck laden with a 50-meter section of tower traveling at, let's say 45MPH without jackknifing or breaking the load restraints?

      IMO, the problem isn't the truck drivers, it's either failure to properly plan the route by the companies, or else improper height measurements. Those signs on the overpasses are for surveying the route, and not really effective as a last-minute warning.

    3. Re:Doing it wrong. by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not just common sense, in most states oversize loads are required to have scout and chase vehicles. When I was a teenager a few times I drove a scout car with a flexible fiberglass pole the height of the load being carried plus one inch ahead of an over-height load. Supposedly the route was clear but it was still a required precaution.

      Since when is a lazy/incompetent trucking company the wind power industry's fault?

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    4. Re:Doing it wrong. by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're supposed to put them on the truck parallel to the ground.

      They tried it that way initially. But while the overpasses were high enough, they were far too narrow.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Doing it wrong. by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you do a google image search for 'Trackhoe' check the third hit. Whoah. That's some insurance money on that one.

      Seth

  5. President Obama was right... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Green energy does create jobs.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  6. Newsflash by Shag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trucks carrying "oversized loads" are more likely to have difficulties than other trucks.

    Same as it's always been.

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    1. Re:Newsflash by nine-times · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, no, there have been a couple accidents, so we should ditch wind power. Time to go back to good ol' oil, which has never had any kind of problem whatsoever.

  7. Oh boo hoo by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How much carnage does the average coal mine produce? Typically ripping apart a huge, huge chunk of the countriside (for open cut), innumerable trucks and other big machines trundling around, not to mention the massive construction required for the actual power generation plant itself.

    This type of story strikes me as particularly stupid: "big objects hard to move around" doesn't equate to "wind power worse than other types of power" as the summary seems to imply.

    I also find it hard to believe that the truck traffic for installing windmills is coming through at such a huge volume that it is actually degrading any half-decent road. That would involve tens of thousands of trucks, surely?

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Oh boo hoo by Celeste+R · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is indeed a logistical problem, and not an inherent problem. It's also not a problem with weight.

      Wind turbines and wind towers for those turbines are very different. Towers are large and bulky, built to be structurally sound. Interstate laws require that only so much weight can be put on any given set of wheels. Heavy, illegally-running trucks (liquid haulers, etc) can easily get much heavier, on fewer wheels. The weight problem is already managed, and oversize trucks are routinely checked, where other trucks aren't as much.

      If smaller roads that happen to carry large amounts of truck traffic are getting torn up, then it's not surprising, given that trucks are trucks. This Texas road in specific is notorious for being undermaintained, and the Highway Department can whine, but they know they need to do something.

      I seriously doubt that this remark about 'a big gouge in Route 1' was because of weight, but rather because of size. Perhaps it clipped an overpass. Perhaps (god forbid) it actually slid off the truck. Accidents are remembered, but gradual wear and tear on a road isn't an 'accident' that happens all at once.

      Putting a truck laden with a section of tower can clog up a heavy construction area for hours. Can you plan around that? Yes, but only so much. Incidents will happen, and I distinctly remember one of these trucks knocking down all the cones in a construction area, because it was either the cones or the signs.

      This is 'routine' logistical work for any oversize hauler. If someone's screwing up, fingers are easy to point. It may be the driver, or it may be that construction crew that was lazy with their cones, but it's manageable, up to a point. If you can't get it through no matter which route you take, it's too big to transport.

      For states back east, it's messier still because the roads are smaller (you can't fit one of these around most of those corners) and the clearances are sized to match.

      Eventually, wind tower construction companies are going to have to mobilize. Contract for several years here, and several years there, and it makes more sense to actually relocate the manufacturing facility for large products to save costs.

      --
      There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
    2. Re:Oh boo hoo by Tanktalus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This type of story strikes me as particularly stupid: "big objects hard to move around" doesn't equate to "wind power worse than other types of power" as the summary seems to imply.

      Maybe you're reading a different summary than I did. Maybe you're reading the summary differently. What I read was simply that wind power was not all sweetness and light like some in the eco movement would have us believe. Those that slam on minute amounts of radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant don't bat an eye on the primary (making the thing) or secondary (transporting) or even tertiary (road damage requiring massive amounts of oil to repair) costs of wind power. Heck, these aren't mentioned at all, as if turbines appear out of nothingness in their desired positions, with all the required power-grid infrastructure also magically appearing. I didn't read it to say this is worse than other forms of generating energy, merely that we need this information to have a factual, objective discussion about energy production on this planet.

      Yes, "big objects: hard to move around" is obvious when you stop and think about it. The problem is, too many people don't stop and think about the repercussions of their ideology. We all need to, both eco-whackos and global-warming-deniers, and everyone in between, if we're going to have a chance at survival on this planet.

    3. Re:Oh boo hoo by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is off the top of my head, but I think the wear on the road goes up with the cube of the weight.

      The most common rule is that erosion is proportional to the fourth power of axle load. I like to crank that one out when truck advocates tell me not to ride my bicycle.

      The problem with heavy loads on narrow country roads is that you can use a truck with lots of axles, but then turning becomes an issue. Makes me wonder if there is a market for something like a giant centipede. It could have 10 or 20 hydraulically actuated legs. Only one leg would move at a time. It could step right over a low fence and deliver heavy components directly to a construction site in the middle of a field.

    4. Re:Oh boo hoo by Viceice · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
  8. Re:You want omelets, you break eggs. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People from the 1920s and 30s would have LAUGHED at us for making these arguments if we made them back then.

    Folks today don't want to make investments for the future. THey don't want to take any risks. It's like society has had its balls collectively cut off.

    Look at the space program! We've been in limbo for decades and now that they finally want to do something INTERESTING again people are like "it's too expensive!" or "it's too risky!"

    Let the people who take on the challenge accept the risk, as it's always been. Let's invest in our future. Let's stop being pansies. PLEASE.

  9. My -2 cents observation better transport design by JavaManJim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Observations,

    These are very special hauling requirements, so they require a much more specialized design. I am uneasy about that generic hauling truck trailer shown in the picture.

    1. If the blades are 50 yards long, then designing a hauling truck like an old fire engine ladder truck might be better. Those had a rear cab and movable wheel carriages in the back.
    2. Also the trailer design in the picture is horrible regarding height. Design a trailer with lengthwise side support that allows blades to travel four or five feet lower. This could also incorporate hydraulic lifting to raise the trailer over bumps and low spots. Think lowrider cars that jump up.
    3. Additional tires on the truck and trailers to distribute weight and save the roadways. Heavy equipment haulers here in TX once in a while have as many as 50 wheels per tractor\trailer(s). For max wheels see this site (the bottom picture).
    http://www.goodtransportationinc.com/
    4. I hope for low interstate overpasses that trucks could exit, then take the service road up, over (and adjacent) to the interstate then return to the interstate.
    5. And a lead car with laser height and side measurement device to alert the hauling convoy of incorrect, changed, or terrain shifted height/side measurements.

    I know this is blitheringly obvious. But plan and triple check. Just yesterday in Dallas a large fork lift plowed into a 14 foot 5 inch clearance underpass and thoroughly shattered the first cement beam.
    http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa090722_wz_tootall.6696c458.html

    Thanks,
    Jim

    1. Re:My -2 cents observation better transport design by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      When I worked on road systems we installed simple IR light interruption height sensors before bridges. The sensor triggers a warning sign so the driver knows they are over height. Of course some drivers have this idea that the warnings are always set a metre too low. Most of our low bridges have sacrificial steel beams fitted before the bridge. That way the expensive concrete doesn't get hit.

      At the end of the day the truck driver should know how high their load is.

  10. Re:I'm no engineer.. by Facegarden · · Score: 3, Informative

    I often wonder why they build them with a single-stem trunk? Surely a triple- or quadruple-stem trunk could give added stability with a lower materials cost, and greater ease of transportation, if greater assembly time.

    For that matter, why not have two (or, of course, more) propellar sets one above the other? Harness not too much less than double the amount of power without needing larger individual propellar blades.

    I'm sure there are fundamental reasons why these wouldn't work, but I'm not an engineer.

    Tubes are extremely strong, so you don't really need multiples. Plus, all of these turbines have the capability to rotate, as far as I know, and rotating one turbine around one tube is a lot easier than rotating a gang of them around without their blades hitting something.

    They're just keeping it simple. Some of the generator bodies are the size of a small bus, they just don't look like it from far away.

    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
  11. Re:Alternative designs don't have that problem by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So let me make sure I have this right: you're comparing a 1.2kW 30' consumer grade single household turbine to a 200-250' 3-5MW commercial wind turbine? You're not serious are you? Let me do a little math.... The Windspire turbine is 2000 to 4000 times smaller than the commercial power plants the NYT article is discussing.

  12. And Distillation Columns are Small? by pandymen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I wasn't bound by privacy agreements, I could post a picture of a 120 foot long distillation column 15 foot in diameter getting trucked down the interstate. It is far larger than any of these wind turbines and took up 2 lanes of interstate while traveling 40 miles an hour. The types of things transported by industry in America are heavier and larger than wind turbine blades. This story is ridiculous. Maybe they should focus stimulus money towards already crumbling roads and bridges? There's no chance roads just started crumbling after a few loads of wind turbines.

  13. Why not post about the damage oil trucks make? by Torg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Living in Texas, with oil and gas, wells I can personally attest to damage done by service trucks to our road. This is due to to constant need to move the product to market, or service the water that comes from the wells (yes gas and oil wells produce water too).

    I have seen these trucks that carry the crude oil from gas wells get into accidents. I have seen bridges totally destroyed from burning oil under them (concrete breaks down under the extreme heat).

    Do we write about the millions of dollars in damage our oil trucks create yearly? Or do we single out a few accidents in trucking, carrying oversize loads instead.

    Do we even hear about the oversize building moments that tie up traffic? Do we hear about the daily fatal accidents from truck accidents? Or do we single out a few trucks that just happened to be carrying wind turbine parts?

  14. Wind Farm implies Wind by hax0r_this · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I could be wrong, but isn't it likely to be really windy at the site of the wind farm? Couldn't that make airships impractical?

    1. Re:Wind Farm implies Wind by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 4, Funny

      If by impractical you mean "extremely fast", then yes.

  15. Re:Railroads by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmm..

    Problem: giant airfoil blades are too heavy for current helicopters: current helicopters need bigger airfoils to get the thrust at a reasonable power level. Some kind of giant blades are necessary...

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  16. Re:I hope they bring their GPS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd hate to get lost delivering one of those big turbines while navigating those back roads, you could get lost for days driving on...

    Some winding little windy roads
    Some little windy winding roads
    Some windy little winding roads
    Some winding windy little roads
    Some little rocky windy roads
    Some little windy rocky roads
    Some rocky little windy roads
    Some windy winding little roads
    Some windy rocky little roads
    Some windy little rocky roads
    Some rocky windy little roads

    It is very windy. You are likely to get blown by a grue.

  17. Re:I'm no engineer.. by zogger · · Score: 3, Informative

    The larger the turbine and the higher it gets, the more efficient they are, both in construction and operating costs and in electricity delivered. see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design#Turbine_size

        They are getting close now to maximum size because of materials science limitations (cost/benefit), and also because of the transportation limits mentioned in the article. Much larger ones could be built directly adjacent to a seaport dock then barged to a direct sea or coastal installation point, but once you have to transport them on land, it gets iffy. Notice the shuttle has to be flown back piggyback when it has to land at edwards-there's simply no reasonable way to move the thing on land, just too big.

    Now there's some HUGEMONGOUS mining equipment out there, but it doesn't travel on the roads, and even to transport the things (excavators, dump trucks, crawlers, etc) they have to be partially disassembled and then reassembled on site and they use rail transport as much as they can to get to the site.

    Just for fun if you like big land stuff

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_T_282B

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_797B

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komatsu_D575 (we have two impressive big crawlers here on the farm, serious big oak pushing around brutes, smaller than this bad boy though, one is 114 tons and the other one I don't know, looks to be a scosh bigger)

    and I always liked this one, I wanted one as soon as I heard about it when I was a kid ;)

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Alaskan_land_train

    What's neat about this stuff... real terraforming

  18. Large loads... by flatbedexpress · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I understand what these truckers go through everyday. My company is currently hauling the largest I-beam bridge girders ever built in the midwest. The beam alone is 186 feet long which puts us at an overall length around 240-260 feet. The current issue is the routing provided by each states permitting offices. Some will have you scout the route and hand it in to them so they can authorize it with a permit. But, others will not do that and force you onto the worst roads you could ever be on. Another issue is the rest of traffic on the road. We have fools on a regular basis act like idiots around us especially when we are making a turn. But, we usually have police assistance for the bigger loads to stop the idiots out there.

  19. facts by LKM · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not a question of cherry-picking. Lightning does not ignite dirigibles because they're filled with hydrogen, which does not ignite unless mixed with oxygen. Most dirigibles of the time passed through thunderstorms and were hit by lightning repeatedly, without harm. The problem is that these ships vent hydrogen when landing. If struck then, the ships could ignite. Fortunately, modern blimps don't use hydrogen at all, so there's no chance of them being ignited by lightning.

  20. Re:So.... by spauldo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, not every bridge posts its clearance. Pay attention sometime, you'll see quite a few that don't.

    Add to the the fact that the signs are rarely accurate. Overpass says 13'9"? Better go slow - if they've put another layer of asphalt on since they put up the sign, it's probably more like 13'6", which is the height of a standard box trailer.

    Where was the escort driver? You know, the guy driving the little crappy car with the pole strapped to its bumper? The guy that's supposed to be warning the trucker of low bridges? The guy the trucker has to trust implicitly in order to go down the road?

    And while yes, trucker quality did go down somewhat a few years back when the big carriers started putting people through two week trucking schools, the reason we hang out in the passing lane is because of all the slow assholes in cars in the other lanes. They can accelerate from 55 to 65 in a couple seconds. It takes us up to a minute or so, depending on conditions. Get rid of the people who think 40mph is an appropriate freeway driving speed and we'll be more than happy to return to the righthand lane - all we want to do is maintain a constant speed.

    --
    Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  21. Re:So.... by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It still is, I just went through one of those for "retraining" because I hadn't driven in over 6 months. All they taught was enough to pass the DOT backing, safety inspection, and road test. The rest of safe driving we were supposed to learn while team driving with a "trainer" for 30 days. The trainer was most likely a driver who had six months driving experience or a little more. The training consisted of the trainer sleeping until his shift to drive while I drove, then doing a little workbook review with me, then driving out his shift while I drove. As you can imagine, not very helpful.

    The other thing people forget about the truckers is that they are also their own secretary, maintenance man, planner, etc. In a ten hour day driving, there is usually 2-3 hours more of work to do after that. Trucking is not just about driving.

    And then there's the four wheelers.

    --

    You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
  22. Re:So.... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And while yes, trucker quality did go down somewhat a few years back when the big carriers started putting people through two week trucking schools, the reason we hang out in the passing lane is because of all the slow assholes in cars in the other lanes. They can accelerate from 55 to 65 in a couple seconds. It takes us up to a minute or so, depending on conditions.

    It's been my observation as a non-trucker that the majority of the non-truckers on the road treat you guys like shit. Pulling in front of 18 wheelers and forcing them to slow down, riding in your blind spots, pulling alongside when you need to swing wide to make a right-turn, etc, etc. It drives me nuts when people pull this crap and I've never even driven an 18-wheeler. It just seems pretty damn rude and inconsiderate.

    For what it's worth I always stay out of your way and am happy to flash my lights to signal that the lane is clear when you are trying to change lanes. I don't think your profession gets the respect it deserves.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.