Norway to Build the World’s Largest Wind Turbine

[Ribeye]

Capable of powering 2000 homes. Maybe a viable alternative to more nuclear plants in the US?

http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/02/16/...-wind-turbine/

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/...nd-turbine.jpg

Norway is currently working on building the world’s largest wind turbine, a towering 10 MW machine that will blow away the competition. The Norwegian company Sway will build the 533-feet high monster, capable of powering 2,000 homes all by itself. Enova, a public agency owned by Norway’s petroleum and oil industry ministry, is helping fund the project, which is expected to cost $67.5 million to build.

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/..._turbine-2.jpg

Enova and Sway aim to install the behemoth in 2011 and test the turbine for 2 years on land in Oeygarden, southwestern Norway. After the testing and tweaking phase, they plan to install more of these machines offshore in Norway as part of an offshore wind farm. The turbine will be 533 feet high with a rotor diameter of 475 feet.

Currently, the largest wind turbine in the world is the Enercon E-126, rated at 6 MW, but capable of 7, with a rotor diameter of 413 feet. The new 10 MW turbine is not much larger than the current record holder, but due to advancements in technology and design it will be able to achieve a much higher power output. These advancements are due to reducing the weight as well as the number of moving parts.

[*Shinzon*]

That's pretty cool but for the same reason there aren't many in the states, I doubt we'd see that anytime soon. People are convinced that having these turbines is a nuisance and don't care that it would potentially lower their energy costs. There are plenty of areas in the states that have land that isn't suited for home development or malls and shit like that where these turbine farms could be placed. It's really a shame.

[archibaldcrane]

$67.5 million to build eh?

Let's say a house's electricity bill is $150/mo. 2000 homes X $150/mo X 12 months a year = 3.6 million.

Even if there were 0 operating costs, it'll still take nearly 19 years to break even.

That's a beast of an investment...

[Koga]

I think the money "saved" is more based off the very few environmental ramifications of using this type of power source heh.

[Qalbert]

I'm not sure I am a fan.

[Pikarya]

I'm not sure I am a fan.

ohu

[Qalbert]

Well I wasn't really blown away by the project.

[Alleya]

Well I wasn't really blown away by the project.

This whole global warming thing will blow over one day, and then the guys who shelled out for this thing will realize they've done nothing but spit into the wind for years.

I feel sorry for the CEO when the shit hits the fan and the investors throw caution to the wind. Then he'll really be up shit creek without a propeller.

Wait, what?

[Elesirdur]

Wind energy, when developed in good locations, is a great source of renewable energy that's good for up to 30% of a system's electricity needs. Always-on electricity generation like hydro or nuclear is always necessary. However, intermittent alternative sources like wind and solar provide excellent supplemental sources to reduce the draw on other sources when they are generating.

The irrational fear of nuclear power in North America just frustrates me deeply. I think most Americans would rather have a hundred new pollution-belching coal power plants than a nuclear reactor over utterly unfounded fears. Nuclear technology has developed significantly since the 1950s and early 60s when America built their power plants. Since then a safe technology has become even safer and efficient; not to mention new reactor designs that make better use of the nuclear fuel and can even reuse spent fuel.

Spain is the proof the world needs to demonstrate that an extensive wind energy system is effective and efficient at meeting electricity demands for a large population. It has also been hugely successful in Northern Europe, as well as in the newer developments throughout the United States and Canada. Those 5+MW behemoths are best suited for offshore sites, but it's great to see that turbine developers are continuing to push the envelope to create better means of harnessing wind energy.

[Colenzo]

pfffft lets go colonize another planet and fuck it up and leave/ rinse repeat

[Stumblingdrunk]

$67.5 million to build eh?

Let's say a house's electricity bill is $150/mo. 2000 homes X $150/mo X 12 months a year = 3.6 million.

Even if there were 0 operating costs, it'll still take nearly 19 years to break even.

That's a beast of an investment...

These numbers ignore the fact that oil is non renewable, that oil prices will go up, and that demand for oil is climbing exponentially.

[dudeguy]

pfffft lets go colonize another planet and fuck it up and leave/ rinse repeat

Is that you Colonel?

http://aura.gaia.com/photos/57/56190...l_Quaritch.jpg

[archibaldcrane]

These numbers ignore the fact that oil is non renewable, that oil prices will go up, and that demand for oil is climbing exponentially.

Oil is rarely used to produce electricity.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexpla...tion-large.gif
It kinda infuriates me when people conflate "alternative electricity sources" with the middle east or whateverthefuckelse.

[Stumblingdrunk]

Oil is rarely used to produce electricity.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexpla...tion-large.gif
It kinda infuriates me when people conflate "alternative electricity sources" with the middle east or whateverthefuckelse.

interesting

[Woozie]

I'm not sure I am a fan.

Well I wasn't really blown away by the project.

This whole global warming thing will blow over one day, and then the guys who shelled out for this thing will realize they've done nothing but spit into the wind for years.

I feel sorry for the CEO when the shit hits the fan and the investors throw caution to the wind. Then he'll really be up shit creek without a propeller.

Wait, what?

Awesome

The irrational fear of nuclear power in North America just frustrates me deeply. I think most Americans would rather have a hundred new pollution-belching coal power plants than a nuclear reactor over utterly unfounded fears. Nuclear technology has developed significantly since the 1950s and early 60s when America built their power plants. Since then a safe technology has become even safer and efficient; not to mention new reactor designs that make better use of the nuclear fuel and can even reuse spent fuel.

I hate the fact that everything you said here is true. We always here talk about how we need a non-polluting source of energy, but we already have one (nuclear). We need some sort of public education campaign for nuclear energy, though I don't know how successful that would be. It's just so retarded the way people perceive nuclear energy.

[Elesirdur]

I would love to know about the public perception to nuclear power in France and Japan; two nations which get the majority of their electricity generation from nuclear power. Given that their nuclear power programs were developed periods of political parties in power that were either very socialist or very right-wing, I'm guessing they just went ahead and put the plants in, regardless of what the public opinion is. However, I'm willing to be that the current opposition to nuclear power in those nations is small and maybe union/labour based. With about 40 years of living with safe nuclear, I would guess it's just a part of life in Japan and France.

[Kurokikaze]

You mention "Nuclear" and people go ape shit and think of WMDs is why.

[Elesirdur]

You mention "Nuclear" and people go ape shit and think of WMDs is why.

Which is just as irrational as saying "saltpetre" in the UK and expecting to wake up the next morning and find the Houses of Parliament blown up lol

[Orph]

Nuclear energy just needs a name change

[Kuya]

conflate "alternative electricity sources" with the middle east

?