Ocean based and out of sight so as not to harm the eyes delicate need for aesthetics like landfills and smoke.
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1682/86/
A spinning blimp.
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1616/8/
2 types of floating wind turbines
Comments ... #
His wind power map for Ohio doesn't show the newest study, which shows great wind up higher. The "wind directors" funnel more wind into the actual turbine. The bottom neo magnets that levitate the machine, are also part of the generator. The upper bearing is also a magnetic bearing.
Wind harvesting over the years has shown that the yield increases by the square of the height, instead of linearly. That means an 80FT tower can get 4 times as much wind as a 40FT tower. I'm sure there are many other considerations, but largely you need taller towers for the best usage of an investment in a wind-powered generator.
What's so bad about wind power for homes is this same thing. You'd need to install such a tall tower that urban planners would scream. So, wind power is only possible in the city and the suburbs for layouts like estates (where residents are highly unlikely to "spoil the view") and certain rights of way (where the neighbors will NIMBY it to death) and parks (same sentiments as with the estates).
For social reasons, therefore, wind power in the cities and suburbs is an abortion.
Fortunately, lots of wind scours our flat farmlands. Enterprising farmers can work with regulators to install a generator or two on their vast acreage, suitably arranged to avoid taking up any noticeable amount of their land. Farmers looking to diversify their incomes can make that sort of investment. SO WHY AREN'T THEY DOING IT?!?!
We have an entire lakeshore also laying fallow (so to speak) with wind power. Again, the NIMLVs (not in my lake view) are at fault.
Topping this entire dysfunctional energy cake is an extreme reluctance by utilities to diversify their generation base. Why even make the investment when the PUCO just rubber-stamps their current infrastructures anyway?
Height is very good, but you can put maglevs up hight too, and still add wind directors.
Neighborhoods demanding qiet won't do old kinds of wind turbines as you've said, but the new verticals can be silent. Solar from nanosolar, xunlight, ,,those kinds of technologies will be allowed, as well as paint on multilayer solar coatings and roofing.
If we don't change course we are screwed thats for sure. I'm begining to wonder if we can make it even if the whole world gets on board and gives it all they have.
The solution to our electricity needs lie with nuclear power, not wind turbines (at least of current design). Wind turbines are incredibly inefficienct, and demand huge swaths of land to produce enough energy to support a small city. Same thing with solar.
Nuclear energy, however, provides HUGE energy potential on a very small footprint of land. Plus, no greenhouse gasses of any kind. The nuclear waste can now be very safely stored in Yucca Mountain, so that issue is largely resolved. Until fusion becomes a reality, fission is our best best for reliable and clean energy.
First Energy has almost poisoned us all and made the are uninhabitable for 250,000 years,, or so. And they've nearly done that TWICE. The cost per killowatt of a nuclear plant built today is, get this now, $4000 to $8000 dollars per killowatt hour. A new coal plant costs $3 billion dollars. Solar and wind are already cheaper than both.
The reason the utilities don't want wind and solar is that it means decentralization of power generation, and they fear that the most.
They don't want to become mere backup power sources. Instead they want to continue to run Enron scams on us in a phony "free market" which First Energy just tried to do.
Good thing we don't live in France.
Nearly 80 percent of [France's] electricity comes from 58 nuclear power plants, crammed into a country the size of Texas."In France, we have nearly no coal. We have no oil. So clearly, nuclear appeared to be the best way," Gadonniex explains. "And 30 years later, it appears to be a very smart decision."
Because nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases, France has the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and because the price of oil is now around $60 a barrel, it has the lowest electric bills in Europe. In fact, France has so much cheap electricity, it exports it to its European neighbors. French nuclear plants supply power to parts of Germany, Italy and help light the city of London.
The above was from an April 2007 episode of 60 Minutes.
Nuclear power-related articles in a September 2007 issue of the Economist magazine :
HeyHey, nuclear power is still a good option, but there's no real efficiency problem with wind and solar. The fuel's FREE.
The real problem with solar is the cost of the cells. A utility doesn't have much problem at all with access to land; angled solar cells can be lined up in existing rights-of-way. Literally, there's no reason that solar panels can't run down the length of I75's median.
The same land concerns apply to wind power, but we on Lake Erie are blessed with vast stretches of open territory with only marginal extra costs for building towers in shallow water.
I have some concerns about the service life of a generator, but with a sufficient base of buyers, the manufacturers should start increasing their MTBF.
I concur with prime's suspicion as to why a utility company just won't do something like this. They fear decentralization of power, since they are all about centralizing it. I have to add to that suspicion another one: That the modern utility is a dinosaur that can't adapt. Rather than take the risks associated with working with the managers of the rights-of-way we have, the utility company would rather just apply for a rate increase through the state. Ohio's PUCO has a well-worn rubber stamp. Why would FirstEnergy give a fuck about anything else?
Good thing we don't live in France.
Ah, but are France's nuclear ambitions truly peaceful? Or are they planning to attack Israel with their nuclear power plants? (sorry, I'm starting to get these threads mixed up)
France's nuclear program may not be for peaceful purposes. In recent years, VeloNews has reported that France is planning to attack the U.S. because Lance Armstrong, a Texan, won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times.
Nuclear does have a carbon footprint- all the concrete [heating limestone is one of our major sources], the mining of uranium [the mine tailings are radiating neighbors], plus all the manufacture of the electronics to control these plants [do we really trust Windows RC?], plus transportation to Yucca [much right thru Toledo on the Interstste & RR], plus the earthquake probabilities at Yucca- read the hearing transcrpts from 7 years ago in Cleveland!
posted by robertbrundage on Jun 03, 2008 at 07:25:10 pm #
How would anyone know what the cost of a nuclear power plant is??? there hasn't been one built for 30 years.
posted by Linecrosser on Jun 04, 2008 at 03:12:32 pm #
with new nuke plants coming in at estimates of $4000 to $8000 per KWH, and new coal plants coming in at $3 billion, we'd better start looking at alternative power. And its cheaper. I certainly hope that the city will really embrace solar, its made here, and O.C. makes fibers for turbine blades.
Here is a guy making a friction free magnetically levitated wind turbine, available now as I recall. www.racecom.com
posted by prime3end on May 30, 2008 at 07:53:00 pm #