Wind Turbines, hopefully on their way out

Associate
Joined
18 Aug 2010
Posts
2,104
Location
Scotland
I know it will be quite a few years before it happens (if it happens), but it just looks so cool thinking about not having to look at all of those spinning blades taking up all that space. Something coming which will replace those blades and though wind farms will still exist, it will at least (for me) be a vast improvement to the mess that's already out there.


http://www.wired.com/2015/05/future-wind-turbines-no-blades/
 
If they're more efficient to build and produce power, then i'm all for it.

However, i do like the look conventional wind turbines. I love seeing them dotted around, i think they can be almost beautiful. No problems with them here in terms of looks.
 
It does say they capture 30% less and to resolve can be doubled up in the same space. Surely it will only add more of an eyesore if there's more of them?

Regardless looks like a great idea.
 
Less efficient power wise but able to pack more into the same land space apparently. I like regular wind turbines to be honest.
 
If they're more efficient to build and produce power, then i'm all for it.

However, i do like the look conventional wind turbines. I love seeing them dotted around, i think they can be almost beautiful. No problems with them here in terms of looks.

+1 we've got more and more in our area, I think they look fantastic and yes I live fairly near a couple of them.
 
deep sea wind power would work if we can get the pitfalls sorted, build them as big as you like because nobody can see them to complain.

on land i'd be more of an advocate of the other sources. wind is all well and good but you can never be guaranteed it'll produce the power when it's needed, which is kind of pointless without means of mass storage [which is possible, but so far all the methods have their own can of worms].
 
Captures 30% less so they'd need to build at 2 to capture as much energy as a wind turbine but they only cost half as much, so it would effectively cost the same amount of money to capture a similar/slightly higher amount of energy.

I'm all for the improvement of this concept however! Simplicity can be good.
 
Captures 30% less so they'd need to build at 2 to capture as much energy as a wind turbine but they only cost half as much, so it would effectively cost the same amount of money to capture a similar/slightly higher amount of energy.

I'm all for the improvement of this concept however! Simplicity can be good.

2 of these would provide 40% more energy for the same cost as 1 regular one.
 
+1 we've got more and more in our area, I think they look fantastic and yes I live fairly near a couple of them.

Are you two insane :eek: Do the one's you have/seen look different to the one's where I am?

We have over 150 of the bloody things. There is not one single direction I can look too and not see the damn things. :mad:

They should never been allowed to erect them from the start, Anywhere ! . The energy that was used to produce/install them will never be produced by them in the life time they have or even ours for that matter.
 
Are you two insane :eek: Do the one's you have/seen look different to the one's where I am?

We have over 150 of the bloody things. There is not one single direction I can look too and not see the damn things. :mad:

They should never been allowed to erect them from the start, Anywhere ! . The energy that was used to produce/install them will never be produced by them in the life time they have or even ours for that matter.

Sensational bull... If you plant a wind turbine in a crappie place, maybe on occasion it won't work too well.
 
They should never been allowed to erect them from the start, Anywhere ! . The energy that was used to produce/install them will never be produced by them in the life time they have or even ours for that matter.

That's quite a lot of nonsense.

It's not unreasonable to expect 5,000 megawatt hours per year for a commercial turbine.

At commercial electricity prices of around 10p per KWh, that's £500,000 of electricity per year.

Given that a commercial turbine costs approx £2million to build and install, it will have paid its production cost in 4 years. And I would somewhat doubt that all of that cost it in the form of energy.
 
oil wont last forever yet people complain about the look of turbines / solar panels. lets not forget all the people against nuclear power aswell.

were I work they are installing 7600 1x2 meter panels onto the roof which all warehouses should be made to do to offset electric usage

11% of power from wind

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
 
Last edited:
Maybe not the right word to use....but they look very monolithic in the pictures.

Very alien and eerie when you look at the desert and sea pictures.

All for progress though.
 
That's incredible that that amount of cells only offsets the power usage :eek:.

Do you make batteries? :D

no but we have 2 massive large chilled areas, lots of fans!. a battery charging room with around 120 BIG batterys charging 24/7. anywere between 2000 - 3000 lights + all offices
 
Sensational bull... If you plant a wind turbine in a crappie place, maybe on occasion it won't work too well.

As is your response !

That's quite a lot of nonsense.

It's not unreasonable to expect 5,000 megawatt hours per year for a commercial turbine.

At commercial electricity prices of around 10p per KWh, that's £500,000 of electricity per year.

Given that a commercial turbine costs approx £2million to build and install, it will have paid its production cost in 4 years. And I would somewhat doubt that all of that cost it in the form of energy.

Not talking about cost as in £££, I'm referring to energy used to produce
How much to power to produce 1 compared to what it will produce on average in it's life time ?

It's all energy taken out for a minuscule amount in return.
 
Back
Top Bottom