Each Haliade-X will stand 260 meters (853 ft) tall, with a 220-meter (722-ft) rotor incorporating three 107-meter (351-ft) blades

Each Haliade-X turbine is a self-contained 12-13 megawatt generator in its own right, capable of generating 67 gigawatt-hours annually under perfect conditions. Making them so huge is key; not only do those 351-foot (107 m) long blades capture some 45 percent more energy than anything else on the market, it’s also more effective at lower wind speeds, making its output more predictable. Also, using fewer, larger turbines cuts down significantly on installation costs.

Vineyard Wind 1 might be the largest offshore wind project in America, but its 800 MW capacity lags far behind the world’s largest offshore wind project – the 3.6 gigawatt Dogger Bank project in the UK, which will use the same GE turbines. How does that compare to onshore? Well, the world’s largest wind project overall is China’s Gansu wind farm, with a planned capacity of some 20 gigawatts – although according to The New York Times, political factors have rendered it “mostly idle.”

https://newatlas.com/energy/vineyard-wind-ge-haliade-x-turbine/

PermeateFree said:

Each Haliade-X will stand 260 meters (853 ft) tall, with a 220-meter (722-ft) rotor incorporating three 107-meter (351-ft) blades

Each Haliade-X turbine is a self-contained 12-13 megawatt generator in its own right, capable of generating 67 gigawatt-hours annually under perfect conditions. Making them so huge is key; not only do those 351-foot (107 m) long blades capture some 45 percent more energy than anything else on the market, it’s also more effective at lower wind speeds, making its output more predictable. Also, using fewer, larger turbines cuts down significantly on installation costs.

Vineyard Wind 1 might be the largest offshore wind project in America, but its 800 MW capacity lags far behind the world’s largest offshore wind project – the 3.6 gigawatt Dogger Bank project in the UK, which will use the same GE turbines. How does that compare to onshore? Well, the world’s largest wind project overall is China’s Gansu wind farm, with a planned capacity of some 20 gigawatts – although according to The New York Times, political factors have rendered it “mostly idle.”

https://newatlas.com/energy/vineyard-wind-ge-haliade-x-turbine/

You cant take that much energy out of the natural environment and not see consequences.
I’d like to see a Royal Commission into wind turbines and I’d expect their terms of reference to be broad and far reaching.

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

Peak Warming Man said:

PermeateFree said:

Each Haliade-X will stand 260 meters (853 ft) tall, with a 220-meter (722-ft) rotor incorporating three 107-meter (351-ft) blades

Each Haliade-X turbine is a self-contained 12-13 megawatt generator in its own right, capable of generating 67 gigawatt-hours annually under perfect conditions. Making them so huge is key; not only do those 351-foot (107 m) long blades capture some 45 percent more energy than anything else on the market, it’s also more effective at lower wind speeds, making its output more predictable. Also, using fewer, larger turbines cuts down significantly on installation costs.

Vineyard Wind 1 might be the largest offshore wind project in America, but its 800 MW capacity lags far behind the world’s largest offshore wind project – the 3.6 gigawatt Dogger Bank project in the UK, which will use the same GE turbines. How does that compare to onshore? Well, the world’s largest wind project overall is China’s Gansu wind farm, with a planned capacity of some 20 gigawatts – although according to The New York Times, political factors have rendered it “mostly idle.”

https://newatlas.com/energy/vineyard-wind-ge-haliade-x-turbine/

You cant take that much energy out of the natural environment and not see consequences.
I’d like to see a Royal Commission into wind turbines and I’d expect their terms of reference to be broad and far reaching.

Theres also legal issues, a lot of that wind is coming from European Union countries and Britain is no longer a member of that trough based Union.

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

Only the dumb ones.

Nice

Witty Rejoinder said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

Only the dumb ones.

And those that cant see well.

Maybe put LED string lights on them

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

Only if they fly into them.

I would venture to suggest that having a 100 metre plus blade length just about rules out land transport and puts it into the realms of sea transport only, so only suitable for offshore wind farms.

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

Yes. I know what you’re thinking but typically the carcasses belong to the leaseholder and can’t be legally scavenged by omnivorous humans.

Interestingly, birdstrike counts per MWh are lower when the turbines are bigger.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-wind-sector-trend-helping-turbines-to-kill-fewer-birds

It’s good that there’s some kind of control cabin at the top.

I can imagine puppets being trapped in there during a violent storm, desperately calling: “International Rescue, c-c-calling…International Rescue… do you read me….you are our only hope. This whole structure is going to collapse at any moment…we’re all going to die!”

Bubblecar said:

It’s good that there’s some kind of control cabin at the top.

I can imagine puppets being trapped in there during a violent storm, desperately calling: “International Rescue, c-c-calling…International Rescue… do you read me….you are our only hope. This whole structure is going to collapse at any moment…we’re all going to die!”

You do know that International Rescue won’t come, don’t you?

Bubblecar said:

It’s good that there’s some kind of control cabin at the top.

I can imagine puppets being trapped in there during a violent storm, desperately calling: “International Rescue, c-c-calling…International Rescue… do you read me….you are our only hope. This whole structure is going to collapse at any moment…we’re all going to die!”

I hope the cyclone wind brake works.

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

As a general trend, the larger the wind turbine the slower it spins, so the birds see the blades and fly around them. It’s the smaller ones rotating faster that seem to be the greater hazard for birds.

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

As a general trend, the larger the wind turbine the slower it spins, so the birds see the blades and fly around them. It’s the smaller ones rotating faster that seem to be the greater hazard for birds.

Similarly, if you drive below the speed limit, birds seem to get used to the speed. If you drive faster, they seem not to be able to avoid you.

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

As a general trend, the larger the wind turbine the slower it spins, so the birds see the blades and fly around them. It’s the smaller ones rotating faster that seem to be the greater hazard for birds.

They could paint spinning whirler patterns on them so they look like a corkscrew effect

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

As a general trend, the larger the wind turbine the slower it spins, so the birds see the blades and fly around them. It’s the smaller ones rotating faster that seem to be the greater hazard for birds.

Birds of prey are at risk because they are concentrating on the ground, not looking where they are going. But I understand birdstrike is not a big thing. The windfarm just South of us had the biggest blades in Australia when it was built. I don’t know if that is still the case. The tips move at phenomenal speed, even though they look like they are just lazily swishing around. We went to an open day at another wind farm down on the coast from here about 15 years ago. I think they must have cleaned up the carcases off the ground before the open day…

(tic, very tic. Not many birds get killed)

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

As a general trend, the larger the wind turbine the slower it spins, so the birds see the blades and fly around them. It’s the smaller ones rotating faster that seem to be the greater hazard for birds.

They could paint spinning whirler patterns on them so they look like a corkscrew effect

The birds might see that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

As a general trend, the larger the wind turbine the slower it spins, so the birds see the blades and fly around them. It’s the smaller ones rotating faster that seem to be the greater hazard for birds.

They could paint spinning whirler patterns on them so they look like a corkscrew effect

The birds might see that.

Very Not Good for anyone driving along the roads in the vicinity though. Or the pilots flying overhead.

buffy said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

They could paint spinning whirler patterns on them so they look like a corkscrew effect

The birds might see that.

Very Not Good for anyone driving along the roads in the vicinity though. Or the pilots flying overhead.

No one has to look at them

I would research bird vision and see what frequencies birds most respond to

use those frequencies in the paint maybe

start in a lab first

look at alternatives if any

could be a few

buffy said:

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

As a general trend, the larger the wind turbine the slower it spins, so the birds see the blades and fly around them. It’s the smaller ones rotating faster that seem to be the greater hazard for birds.

Birds of prey are at risk because they are concentrating on the ground, not looking where they are going. But I understand birdstrike is not a big thing. The windfarm just South of us had the biggest blades in Australia when it was built. I don’t know if that is still the case. The tips move at phenomenal speed, even though they look like they are just lazily swishing around. We went to an open day at another wind farm down on the coast from here about 15 years ago. I think they must have cleaned up the carcases off the ground before the open day…

(tic, very tic. Not many birds get killed)

No. The number of birds killed by turbines is not high. More are killed by solar thermal towers.

From the website of the Macarthur windfarm here, who have been doing monitoring:

—————————————————————————————————————————-

An extensive two-year bat and avifauna mortality monitoring program at Macarthur Wind Farm studied mortality rates resulting from collision with the blades of wind turbines, with a particular focus on threatened species known to occur within the region.

Results show negligible effects on populations of threatened species. Key findings from the two-year monitoring program include:

Only two collision mortalities of listed threatened species were detected during two years of intensive monitoring (a Black Falcon in 2013 and a Southern Bent-wing Bat in 2014)

The birds that collided most commonly with turbines in 2014 were introduced Eurasian Skylarks

The annual mortality of all native birds in 2014 was estimated at 3.31 ± 0.78 per turbine Amongst native birds, species of raptors were more prone to collision than any other group of birds, consistent with other wind farms in southern Australia

———————————————————————————————————————

You can read their reports via the links here: https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/how-we-source-energy/macarthur-wind-farm

Tau.Neutrino said:

buffy said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The birds might see that.

Very Not Good for anyone driving along the roads in the vicinity though. Or the pilots flying overhead.

No one has to look at them

I would research bird vision and see what frequencies birds most respond to

use those frequencies in the paint maybe

start in a lab first

look at alternatives if any

could be a few

a search for bird vision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision

This Is How Birds See The World As Compared To Humans And It’s Pretty Amazing
https://www.boredpanda.com/human-vs-bird-vision/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

How Birds Really See the World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG2y8dG2QIM

Bird Vision – What Birds See (and you can’t!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3L-m55Orw

Tau.Neutrino said:

buffy said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The birds might see that.

Very Not Good for anyone driving along the roads in the vicinity though. Or the pilots flying overhead.

No one has to look at them

I would research bird vision and see what frequencies birds most respond to

use those frequencies in the paint maybe

start in a lab first

look at alternatives if any

could be a few

What do you mean no-one has to look at them??? They are large. And they are very visible. I think very beautiful.

buffy said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

buffy said:

Very Not Good for anyone driving along the roads in the vicinity though. Or the pilots flying overhead.

No one has to look at them

I would research bird vision and see what frequencies birds most respond to

use those frequencies in the paint maybe

start in a lab first

look at alternatives if any

could be a few

What do you mean no-one has to look at them??? They are large. And they are very visible. I think very beautiful.

They do stand out as one of our finer artistic achievements.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

buffy said:

Very Not Good for anyone driving along the roads in the vicinity though. Or the pilots flying overhead.

No one has to look at them

I would research bird vision and see what frequencies birds most respond to

use those frequencies in the paint maybe

start in a lab first

look at alternatives if any

could be a few

a search for bird vision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision

This Is How Birds See The World As Compared To Humans And It’s Pretty Amazing
https://www.boredpanda.com/human-vs-bird-vision/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

How Birds Really See the World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG2y8dG2QIM

Bird Vision – What Birds See (and you can’t!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw3L-m55Orw

Birds see differently to us

so we dont have to see whirly designs

does this please you

it might save a lot of birds

Some uni research for a few smarties

They’re giving a capacity factor of over 50% in that article.

That’s pretty high.

sibeen said:

They’re giving a capacity factor of over 50% in that article.

That’s pretty high.

I don’t know if it is pretty but it is high.

Impressive those turbines.

They might have to bring them in by large helicopter.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Impressive those turbines.

They might have to bring them in by large helicopter.

Bits are a bit big for most helicopters.

dv said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

Yes. I know what you’re thinking but typically the carcasses belong to the leaseholder and can’t be legally scavenged by omnivorous humans.

Interestingly, birdstrike counts per MWh are lower when the turbines are bigger.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-wind-sector-trend-helping-turbines-to-kill-fewer-birds

Well no, I wasn’t thinking about dinner. Someone at the book launch yesterday read a poem about an eagle that flew into a wind turbine.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Those birds think they are so fucking good with their 3D huespace. Kill them all I say.

buffy said:

From the website of the Macarthur windfarm here, who have been doing monitoring:

—————————————————————————————————————————-

An extensive two-year bat and avifauna mortality monitoring program at Macarthur Wind Farm studied mortality rates resulting from collision with the blades of wind turbines, with a particular focus on threatened species known to occur within the region.

Results show negligible effects on populations of threatened species. Key findings from the two-year monitoring program include:

Only two collision mortalities of listed threatened species were detected during two years of intensive monitoring (a Black Falcon in 2013 and a Southern Bent-wing Bat in 2014)

The birds that collided most commonly with turbines in 2014 were introduced Eurasian Skylarks

The annual mortality of all native birds in 2014 was estimated at 3.31 ± 0.78 per turbine Amongst native birds, species of raptors were more prone to collision than any other group of birds, consistent with other wind farms in southern Australia

———————————————————————————————————————

You can read their reports via the links here: https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/how-we-source-energy/macarthur-wind-farm

Ooh thanks

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Those birds think they are so fucking good with their 3D huespace. Kill them all I say.

I wonder how women would look in 3D huespace ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Those birds think they are so fucking good with their 3D huespace. Kill them all I say.

I wonder how women would look in 3D huespace ?

Pardon?

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Those birds think they are so fucking good with their 3D huespace. Kill them all I say.

I wonder how women would look in 3D huespace ?

You are getting confused with X-Ray spectacles.

Divine Angel said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Those birds think they are so fucking good with their 3D huespace. Kill them all I say.

I wonder how women would look in 3D huespace ?

Pardon?

Cough

I wonder how humans would look in 3D huespace ?

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

As a general trend, the larger the wind turbine the slower it spins, so the birds see the blades and fly around them. It’s the smaller ones rotating faster that seem to be the greater hazard for birds.

The blade tips are still moving at great speed, much faster than birds fly.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Those birds think they are so fucking good with their 3D huespace. Kill them all I say.

I wonder how women would look in 3D huespace ?

You are getting confused with X-Ray spectacles.

I’m just wondering if we had bird vision what the world would look like.

Astronomy and the night sky might be more interesting.

Things like that and other things.

The bird hue space that we cannot see could have some potential as a bird deterrent.

but it could easily be an attraction

Still it might be worth researching across their unique spectrum some some different designs

It might save a few birds.

sibeen said:

They’re giving a capacity factor of over 50% in that article.

That’s pretty high.

I’m pretty sure they don’t manage that high..about 34%?

Some say that wind turbines kill very few birds, but that cannot be determined. Foxes for instance would quickly workout that dead birds can be found around turbines and would patrol these locations regularly (like most nights).

PermeateFree said:

Some say that wind turbines kill very few birds, but that cannot be determined. Foxes for instance would quickly workout that dead birds can be found around turbines and would patrol these locations regularly (like most nights).

except for the offshore ones….

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Some say that wind turbines kill very few birds, but that cannot be determined. Foxes for instance would quickly workout that dead birds can be found around turbines and would patrol these locations regularly (like most nights).

except for the offshore ones….

Only because foxes don’t like swimming against the tide.

PermeateFree said:

Some say that wind turbines kill very few birds, but that cannot be determined. Foxes for instance would quickly workout that dead birds can be found around turbines and would patrol these locations regularly (like most nights).

That is a fair point to make. Not mentioning cats of course.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Impressive those turbines.

They might have to bring them in by large helicopter.

Bits are a bit big for most helicopters.

I’ve waited for the blades to be manouvred around corners around here over the last 10-15 years as the towers have gone in. The truckies are amazing. Last year one didn’t quite make the corner and toppled near Coleraine. I think these ones here are 70m long. Do a Google search for wind turbine blades road transport. Lots of pictures of runs that went well and ones that didn’t.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Some say that wind turbines kill very few birds, but that cannot be determined. Foxes for instance would quickly workout that dead birds can be found around turbines and would patrol these locations regularly (like most nights).

except for the offshore ones….

Heaps of things that will take dead birds off the surface of the water.

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Impressive those turbines.

They might have to bring them in by large helicopter.

Bits are a bit big for most helicopters.

I’ve waited for the blades to be manouvred around corners around here over the last 10-15 years as the towers have gone in. The truckies are amazing. Last year one didn’t quite make the corner and toppled near Coleraine. I think these ones here are 70m long. Do a Google search for wind turbine blades road transport. Lots of pictures of runs that went well and ones that didn’t.

Wasn’t transition taking photos? or was that stumpy?

Divine Angel said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Those birds think they are so fucking good with their 3D huespace. Kill them all I say.

I wonder how women would look in 3D huespace ?

Pardon?

Tau’s posts today should be ignored.

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Impressive those turbines.

They might have to bring them in by large helicopter.

Bits are a bit big for most helicopters.

I’ve waited for the blades to be manouvred around corners around here over the last 10-15 years as the towers have gone in. The truckies are amazing. Last year one didn’t quite make the corner and toppled near Coleraine. I think these ones here are 70m long. Do a Google search for wind turbine blades road transport. Lots of pictures of runs that went well and ones that didn’t.

I reckon there’s got to be an upper limit for how big a fan blade you can transport by land. After which it becomes water transport only, either offshore or by river/canal barge.

party_pants said:

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Bits are a bit big for most helicopters.

I’ve waited for the blades to be manouvred around corners around here over the last 10-15 years as the towers have gone in. The truckies are amazing. Last year one didn’t quite make the corner and toppled near Coleraine. I think these ones here are 70m long. Do a Google search for wind turbine blades road transport. Lots of pictures of runs that went well and ones that didn’t.

I reckon there’s got to be an upper limit for how big a fan blade you can transport by land. After which it becomes water transport only, either offshore or by river/canal barge.

There is always the alternative of manufacture or assemble on site.

roughbarked said:

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Bits are a bit big for most helicopters.

I’ve waited for the blades to be manouvred around corners around here over the last 10-15 years as the towers have gone in. The truckies are amazing. Last year one didn’t quite make the corner and toppled near Coleraine. I think these ones here are 70m long. Do a Google search for wind turbine blades road transport. Lots of pictures of runs that went well and ones that didn’t.

Wasn’t transition taking photos? or was that stumpy?

stumpy.

PermeateFree said:

Some say that wind turbines kill very few birds, but that cannot be determined. Foxes for instance would quickly workout that dead birds can be found around turbines and would patrol these locations regularly (like most nights).

The turbines would have an air intake vortex, this would take in birds much like jet engines on large planes do.

Around 40,000 to 500,000 birds die from wind turbines a year in America.

The Wind Sector Trend Helping to Minimize Bird Deaths
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-wind-sector-trend-helping-turbines-to-kill-fewer-birds

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

buffy said:

I’ve waited for the blades to be manouvred around corners around here over the last 10-15 years as the towers have gone in. The truckies are amazing. Last year one didn’t quite make the corner and toppled near Coleraine. I think these ones here are 70m long. Do a Google search for wind turbine blades road transport. Lots of pictures of runs that went well and ones that didn’t.

I reckon there’s got to be an upper limit for how big a fan blade you can transport by land. After which it becomes water transport only, either offshore or by river/canal barge.

There is always the alternative of manufacture or assemble on site.

No, there’s not. Apparently that can’t be done.

Also difficult to use river/canal barge out here where there amn’t no canals or barges or rivers big enough or in the right places.

Well placed marine wind farms can reach capacity factors over 50%, e.g. the Hywind Scotland project averaged 55.3% in 2019.

The article does say “under perfect conditions” so I suppose they haven’t been dishonest but it would probably be more meaningful to give numbers closer to the industry average. This is an article about proposed use in the US offshore wind industry where capfacs are more typically in the mid forties.

buffy said:

Divine Angel said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I wonder how women would look in 3D huespace ?

Pardon?

Tau’s posts today should be ignored.

Very scientific Buffy.

dv said:

Well placed marine wind farms can reach capacity factors over 50%, e.g. the Hywind Scotland project averaged 55.3% in 2019.

The article does say “under perfect conditions” so I suppose they haven’t been dishonest but it would probably be more meaningful to give numbers closer to the industry average. This is an article about proposed use in the US offshore wind industry where capfacs are more typically in the mid forties.

Wikipedia says Macarthur does 27% and isn’t living up to expectations. Never the less, AMP bought a half share last year.

party_pants said:

buffy said:

roughbarked said:

Bits are a bit big for most helicopters.

I’ve waited for the blades to be manouvred around corners around here over the last 10-15 years as the towers have gone in. The truckies are amazing. Last year one didn’t quite make the corner and toppled near Coleraine. I think these ones here are 70m long. Do a Google search for wind turbine blades road transport. Lots of pictures of runs that went well and ones that didn’t.

I reckon there’s got to be an upper limit for how big a fan blade you can transport by land. After which it becomes water transport only, either offshore or by river/canal barge.

Might get to the point where you need to build the foundry on site :-)

Tau.Neutrino said:

buffy said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon?

Tau’s posts today should be ignored.

Very scientific Buffy.

You are raving.

Tau.Neutrino said:

buffy said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon?

Tau’s posts today should be ignored.

Very scientific Buffy.

Leaves thread to listen to classical music.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that turbines could already kill 140,000 to 500,000 birds a year in America. Even at the high end, that is a small number compared to the hundreds of millions of bird deaths from collisions with buildings and automobiles or the billions of birds killed by cats, but it still looms large in permitting decisions.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-wind-sector-trend-helping-turbines-to-kill-fewer-birds

Probably raw stats like that are not much use. The death counts are insignificant compared to total birth death counts or even anthropogenic birth death counts. It’s only really important if for instance there are specific endangered species of bird in particular areas that are placed in greater risk by the presence of turbines. I mean no one would, or should, give a shit if 100000 pigeons or grey headed sparrows or red-billed quelea were killed by wind turbines per year because there are fkn billions of them.

dv said:

Well placed marine wind farms can reach capacity factors over 50%, e.g. the Hywind Scotland project averaged 55.3% in 2019.

The article does say “under perfect conditions” so I suppose they haven’t been dishonest but it would probably be more meaningful to give numbers closer to the industry average. This is an article about proposed use in the US offshore wind industry where capfacs are more typically in the mid forties.

A quick BOTE has them with a capacity factor of over 59% which is why my eyebrows were raised.

sibeen said:

dv said:

Well placed marine wind farms can reach capacity factors over 50%, e.g. the Hywind Scotland project averaged 55.3% in 2019.

The article does say “under perfect conditions” so I suppose they haven’t been dishonest but it would probably be more meaningful to give numbers closer to the industry average. This is an article about proposed use in the US offshore wind industry where capfacs are more typically in the mid forties.

A quick BOTE has them with a capacity factor of over 59% which is why my eyebrows were raised.

And fairly so

dv said:

Probably raw stats like that are not much use. The death counts are insignificant compared to total birth death counts or even anthropogenic birth death counts. It’s only really important if for instance there are specific endangered species of bird in particular areas that are placed in greater risk by the presence of turbines. I mean no one would, or should, give a shit if 100000 pigeons or grey headed sparrows or red-billed quelea were killed by wind turbines per year because there are fkn billions of them.

I think you miss the point about life and subscribe to we can do what we like without a seconds thought as to effects on other living creatures. It is precisely that attitude which has brought us to our present and perilous hold on nature, including our own future.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Probably raw stats like that are not much use. The death counts are insignificant compared to total birth death counts or even anthropogenic birth death counts. It’s only really important if for instance there are specific endangered species of bird in particular areas that are placed in greater risk by the presence of turbines. I mean no one would, or should, give a shit if 100000 pigeons or grey headed sparrows or red-billed quelea were killed by wind turbines per year because there are fkn billions of them.

I think you miss the point about life and subscribe to we can do what we like without a seconds thought as to effects on other living creatures. It is precisely that attitude which has brought us to our present and perilous hold on nature, including our own future.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Probably raw stats like that are not much use. The death counts are insignificant compared to total birth death counts or even anthropogenic birth death counts. It’s only really important if for instance there are specific endangered species of bird in particular areas that are placed in greater risk by the presence of turbines. I mean no one would, or should, give a shit if 100000 pigeons or grey headed sparrows or red-billed quelea were killed by wind turbines per year because there are fkn billions of them.

I think you miss the point about life and subscribe to we can do what we like without a seconds thought as to effects on other living creatures. It is precisely that attitude which has brought us to our present and perilous hold on nature, including our own future.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you miss the point about life and subscribe to we can do what we like without a seconds thought as to effects on other living creatures. It is precisely that attitude which has brought us to our present and perilous hold on nature, including our own future.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

thank fk for insects

SCIENCE said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

thank fk for insects

More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

PermeateFree said:

thank fk for insects

More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered, the analysis found. The rate of extinction is eight times faster than that of mammals, birds and reptiles. The total mass of insects is falling by a precipitous 2.5% a year, according to the best data available, suggesting they could vanish within a century.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature

Why insect populations are plummeting—and why it matters

New research shows that large-scale declines in insects, while perhaps less dramatic, are by no means a thing of the past—and that insects may be more vulnerable than we thought. A study published recently in the journal Biological Conservation made headlines for suggesting that 40 percent of all insect species are in decline and could die out in the coming decades.

Why it matters
“There is reason to worry,” says lead author Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, a researcher at the University of Sydney in Australia. “If we don’t stop it, entire ecosystems will collapse due to starvation.”

The study follows several high-profile papers on insect declines that shocked even experts in the field. In October 2017 a group of European researchers found that insect abundance (as measured by biomass) had declined by more than 75 percent within 63 protected areas in Germany—over the course of just 27 years.

The study found that half of the moth and butterfly species studied are in decline, with one-third threatened with extinction, and the numbers for beetles are almost exactly the same. Meanwhile, nearly half of surveyed bees and ants are threatened. Caddisflies are among the worst off—63 percent of species are threatened, likely due in part to the fact that they lay their eggs in water, which makes them more vulnerable to pollution and development.

Why the decline?
There are a number of reasons why these animals are in trouble, and there’s no single smoking gun, Wagner says. “I’m afraid the answer is that it’s death by a thousand cuts.”

Factors behind the decline include, perhaps foremost among them, habitat changes wrought by humans, such as deforestation, and conversion of natural habitats for agriculture. In Europe and North America, the decline of small family farms, known for open pastures, hedgerows, and other areas where “weedy” plants like wildflowers can grow—areas that are perfect for insects—has certainly played a part, Wagner adds, as has the draining of wetlands and swamps.

Along with agriculture comes the use of chemicals like herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides. Insecticides, unsurprisingly, hurt non-target species, and neonicotinoids have been implicated in the worldwide decline of bees. Pesticides may play a role in one-eighth of the species’ declines featured in the study. (Related: 9 ways you can help bees and other pollinators at home.)

Climate change undoubtedly plays a big role as well, especially extremes of weather such as droughts, which are likely to increase in intensity, duration, and frequency in the future, Wagner says. Other factors include invasive species, parasites, and diseases.

Insects serve as the base of the food web, eaten by everything from birds to small mammals to fish. If they decline, everything else will as well, Sánchez-Bayo explains.

They also provide invaluable “services” to humanity, including plant pollination, says John Losey, an entomologist at Cornell University. About three-fourths of all flowering plants are pollinated by insects, as well as the crops that produce more than one-third of the world’s food supply.

“No insects equals no food, equals no people,” says Dino Martins, an entomologist at Kenya’s Mpala Research Centre and a National Geographic Explorer.

“Even insects that can seem very abundant can disappear over a short period of time,” Schowalter says. “But unless somebody is watching or concerned, nobody prevent that.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/02/why-insect-populations-are-plummeting-and-why-it-matters/

SCIENCE said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

thank fk for insects

Nematodes… they are everywhere

There’s a lot of weird stuff online but some of the weirdest stuff is where someone responds to what you’ve said with “No…” and then proceeds to present material that agrees with you.

According to google only Tassie keeps bird strike data.

dv said:

There’s a lot of weird stuff online but some of the weirdest stuff is where someone responds to what you’ve said with “No…” and then proceeds to present material that agrees with you.

Hope you are not trying to pass that old one of yours again.

LOL.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

There’s a lot of weird stuff online but some of the weirdest stuff is where someone responds to what you’ve said with “No…” and then proceeds to present material that agrees with you.

Hope you are not trying to pass that old one of yours again.

LOL.

“Hope you are not trying to pass that old one of yours again.”

Sentence fails structural test. Consider rephrasing.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

There’s a lot of weird stuff online but some of the weirdest stuff is where someone responds to what you’ve said with “No…” and then proceeds to present material that agrees with you.

Hope you are not trying to pass that old one of yours again.

LOL.

“Hope you are not trying to pass that old one of yours again.”

Sentence fails structural test. Consider rephrasing.

At least I am not an environmental ignoramus who thinks he is a genius.

LOL

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Hope you are not trying to pass that old one of yours again.

LOL.

“Hope you are not trying to pass that old one of yours again.”

Sentence fails structural test. Consider rephrasing.

At least I am not an environmental ignoramus who thinks he is a genius.

LOL

Ref

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

“Hope you are not trying to pass that old one of yours again.”

Sentence fails structural test. Consider rephrasing.

At least I am not an environmental ignoramus who thinks he is a genius.

LOL

Ref

Most of your environmental utterances.

I mean explain in simple terms to me why you think my concern about endangered birds is misplaced?

dv said:

I mean explain in simple terms to me why you think my concern about endangered birds is misplaced?

This thread and the general comments are not about endangered species, but all species in all categories, of which my following posts pointed out the degraded condition of the environment largely created by human domination. Your post below that drew my attention to your crass comment and demanded a response. However you not being satisfied did what you normally do when being corrected (no matter how kindly) is to infer you were misunderstood and the corrections made actually agreed with your ridiculous comments.

Your post as follows:

From: dv
ID: 1664386
Subject: re: Massive 853-foot-tall wind turbines
Probably raw stats like that are not much use. The death counts are insignificant compared to total birth death counts or even anthropogenic birth death counts. It’s only really important if for instance there are specific endangered species of bird in particular areas that are placed in greater risk by the presence of turbines. I mean no one would, or should, give a shit if 100000 pigeons or grey headed sparrows or red-billed quelea were killed by wind turbines per year because there are fkn billions of them.

Well I think we might have to agree to disagree. I think the risk to endangered birds is an important concern and should be taken into account locally.

dv said:

Well I think we might have to agree to disagree. I think the risk to endangered birds is an important concern and should be taken into account locally.

That is not what was being discussed and to imply that I am not concerned about endangered birds is totally ridiculous and just another attempt of yours to save face. You ought to learn when to back out gracefully, rather than digging a deeper hole.

PF and dv all in agreement now? Splendid.

Superficial semantics shouldn’t spoil our solidarity on these issues.

Bubblecar said:

PF and dv all in agreement now? Splendid.

Superficial semantics shouldn’t spoil our solidarity on these issues.

Yes I think I’ve finally won him ‘round.

This thing is comparable in height to the Sydney Tower…

Bubblecar said:

Jaysus, I worked out the capacity factor of 59% based on 13 MW, they are claiming in this a 12 MW generator and a 63% capacity factor. I thinks that’s over egging the pudding.

“The average capacity factor of Chinese wind farms installed between 2006–2013, if calculated based on reported annual electricity generation and end-of-year installed capacity, is 14.4%.”

Lol

I prefer 260 m rather than some odd number of feet….

dv said:

This thing is comparable in height to the Sydney Tower…

I wonder what the optimum height of these things is.

The bending moment at the base of the pole would be proportional to the height cubed, so deflection at the top would be proportional to height^5.

Those things can’t be easy to handle economically.

party_pants said:

I prefer 260 m rather than some odd number of feet….

Three gross of cubits

dv said:

party_pants said:

I prefer 260 m rather than some odd number of feet….

Three gross of cubits

According to my Wikipedia units download a cubit is 0.5 m, so it would be closer to 4 gross of cubits.

cubits are gross.

Wind Turbines Kill Birds. This Incredibly Simple Trick Has Saved Them.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a33809700/wind-turbine-blades-bird-deaths-down/

If all the blades were painted black, the spinning turbine might still appear as “motion blur” that is not visibly distinctive enough to alert passing birds. So in this study, the researchers built on the example of previous findings and painted just one rotor on each turbine, which means the single black rotor spins with a frequency that keeps it visible instead of part of a blur.

Could a ridiculously simple change save birds from wind turbine-related deaths? Scientists in Norway have presented a 9-year study where they painted wind turbines a highly visible black and observed a 70 percent drop in bird deaths. In turn, this could remove one of the most stalwart critiques people have used to slow the spread of wind power technology.

Goes back to listening to music.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

This thing is comparable in height to the Sydney Tower…

I wonder what the optimum height of these things is.

The bending moment at the base of the pole would be proportional to the height cubed, so deflection at the top would be proportional to height^5.

Those things can’t be easy to handle economically.

I don’t know. The literature appears to be littered with estimates of the maximum practical rotor diameter for a wind turbine that subsequently gets beaten …

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

This thing is comparable in height to the Sydney Tower…

I wonder what the optimum height of these things is.

The bending moment at the base of the pole would be proportional to the height cubed, so deflection at the top would be proportional to height^5.

Those things can’t be easy to handle economically.

I don’t know. The literature appears to be littered with estimates of the maximum practical rotor diameter for a wind turbine that subsequently gets beaten …

The other question is:

Is a single cantilever pole supporting these turbines really the most efficient way to do it at all scales?

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I wonder what the optimum height of these things is.

The bending moment at the base of the pole would be proportional to the height cubed, so deflection at the top would be proportional to height^5.

Those things can’t be easy to handle economically.

I don’t know. The literature appears to be littered with estimates of the maximum practical rotor diameter for a wind turbine that subsequently gets beaten …

The other question is:

Is a single cantilever pole supporting these turbines really the most efficient way to do it at all scales?

Skyhooks?

Wind farm collision risk for birdsCumulative risks for threatened and migratory species

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2d42fcbd-31ea-4739-b109-b420571338a3/files/wind-farm-bird-risk.pdf

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I wonder what the optimum height of these things is.

The bending moment at the base of the pole would be proportional to the height cubed, so deflection at the top would be proportional to height^5.

Those things can’t be easy to handle economically.

I don’t know. The literature appears to be littered with estimates of the maximum practical rotor diameter for a wind turbine that subsequently gets beaten …

The other question is:

Is a single cantilever pole supporting these turbines really the most efficient way to do it at all scales?

Is there any other way?

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I don’t know. The literature appears to be littered with estimates of the maximum practical rotor diameter for a wind turbine that subsequently gets beaten …

The other question is:

Is a single cantilever pole supporting these turbines really the most efficient way to do it at all scales?

Is there any other way?

He did suggest all scales. I’m wondering if he meant some of the smaller scales?

Bubblecar said:

OMG. That’s big.

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

There was a lot of speculation about that a couple of years ago, when a large number of dead birds were found on a wind turbine site.

IIRC, it was later shown that no more died there than on an equivalent area of land that didn’t have wind turbines on it.

Birds do regularly hit mirrors, windows, trees and the ground.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

OMG. That’s big.

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

There was a lot of speculation about that a couple of years ago, when a large number of dead birds were found on a wind turbine site.

IIRC, it was later shown that no more died there than on an equivalent area of land that didn’t have wind turbines on it.

Birds do regularly hit mirrors, windows, trees and the ground.

What do you expect from a bird brain?

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The other question is:

Is a single cantilever pole supporting these turbines really the most efficient way to do it at all scales?

Is there any other way?

He did suggest all scales. I’m wondering if he meant some of the smaller scales?

Not really.

Small wind mills/turbines have traditionally had a single pole/tower, and things have been scaled up from there.

I just wonder if it is the best way to do it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

Is there any other way?

He did suggest all scales. I’m wondering if he meant some of the smaller scales?

Not really.

Small wind mills/turbines have traditionally had a single pole/tower, and things have been scaled up from there.

I just wonder if it is the best way to do it.

At White Cliffs

Yes, birds do get killed – “green” advocates don’t traditionally care very much because it doesn’t fit into their thought patterns, if its “green” energy it can do no harm.

I don’t see these types of turbines as being easy to build or maintain, if something goes wrong all the stuff you need to get to is up in the sky.

The better option are vertical wind turbines with large blades, if made from metal they withstand lightning strike, can be easily repaired, built and maintained. The large rotating shape with easily seen rotation and colour change keeps birds away. A vertical turbine doesn’t need complicated directional control AND can be designed to be impossible to overspend. All the complicated stuff can sit at the base for inspection, testing and repair. The turbines blade/ housing’s weight sits evehnly on the bearings meaning better reliability. ( there are fast rotating vertical turbines but I don’t recommend these because of bird/ bat / insect strike).

No doubt the efficiency will be lower but in 200 years this type of wind turbine will still be working.

wookiemeister said:

Yes, birds do get killed – “green” advocates don’t traditionally care very much because it doesn’t fit into their thought patterns, if its “green” energy it can do no harm.

I don’t see these types of turbines as being easy to build or maintain, if something goes wrong all the stuff you need to get to is up in the sky.

The better option are vertical wind turbines with large blades, if made from metal they withstand lightning strike, can be easily repaired, built and maintained. The large rotating shape with easily seen rotation and colour change keeps birds away. A vertical turbine doesn’t need complicated directional control AND can be designed to be impossible to OVERSPEED. All the complicated stuff can sit at the base for inspection, testing and repair. The turbines blade/ housing’s weight sits evehnly on the bearings meaning better reliability. ( there are fast rotating vertical turbines but I don’t recommend these because of bird/ bat / insect strike).

No doubt the efficiency will be lower but in 200 years this type of wind turbine will still be working.

wookiemeister said:

Yes, birds do get killed – “green” advocates don’t traditionally care very much because it doesn’t fit into their thought patterns, if its “green” energy it can do no harm.

I don’t see these types of turbines as being easy to build or maintain, if something goes wrong all the stuff you need to get to is up in the sky.

The better option are vertical wind turbines with large blades, if made from metal they withstand lightning strike, can be easily repaired, built and maintained. The large rotating shape with easily seen rotation and colour change keeps birds away. A vertical turbine doesn’t need complicated directional control AND can be designed to be impossible to overspend. All the complicated stuff can sit at the base for inspection, testing and repair. The turbines blade/ housing’s weight sits evehnly on the bearings meaning better reliability. ( there are fast rotating vertical turbines but I don’t recommend these because of bird/ bat / insect strike).

No doubt the efficiency will be lower but in 200 years this type of wind turbine will still be working.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savonius_wind_turbine

Used whenever cost or reliability is a good deal more important than efficiency.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

Yes, birds do get killed – “green” advocates don’t traditionally care very much because it doesn’t fit into their thought patterns, if its “green” energy it can do no harm.

I don’t see these types of turbines as being easy to build or maintain, if something goes wrong all the stuff you need to get to is up in the sky.

The better option are vertical wind turbines with large blades, if made from metal they withstand lightning strike, can be easily repaired, built and maintained. The large rotating shape with easily seen rotation and colour change keeps birds away. A vertical turbine doesn’t need complicated directional control AND can be designed to be impossible to overspend. All the complicated stuff can sit at the base for inspection, testing and repair. The turbines blade/ housing’s weight sits evehnly on the bearings meaning better reliability. ( there are fast rotating vertical turbines but I don’t recommend these because of bird/ bat / insect strike).

No doubt the efficiency will be lower but in 200 years this type of wind turbine will still be working.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savonius_wind_turbine

Used whenever cost or reliability is a good deal more important than efficiency.

Which by the way isn’t entirely accurate. eg: dust and lack of someone to maintain it is the reason why the one of these that was erected at White Cliffs in the early seventies, hasn’t worked since the late seventies.
The engineer who set it up, pissed off back to Germany and was never seen again. The old lady who owns it gave up on it decades past.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

Yes, birds do get killed – “green” advocates don’t traditionally care very much because it doesn’t fit into their thought patterns, if its “green” energy it can do no harm.

I don’t see these types of turbines as being easy to build or maintain, if something goes wrong all the stuff you need to get to is up in the sky.

The better option are vertical wind turbines with large blades, if made from metal they withstand lightning strike, can be easily repaired, built and maintained. The large rotating shape with easily seen rotation and colour change keeps birds away. A vertical turbine doesn’t need complicated directional control AND can be designed to be impossible to overspend. All the complicated stuff can sit at the base for inspection, testing and repair. The turbines blade/ housing’s weight sits evehnly on the bearings meaning better reliability. ( there are fast rotating vertical turbines but I don’t recommend these because of bird/ bat / insect strike).

No doubt the efficiency will be lower but in 200 years this type of wind turbine will still be working.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savonius_wind_turbine

Used whenever cost or reliability is a good deal more important than efficiency.

Which by the way isn’t entirely accurate. eg: dust and lack of someone to maintain it is the reason why the one of these that was erected at White Cliffs in the early seventies, hasn’t worked since the late seventies.
The engineer who set it up, pissed off back to Germany and was never seen again. The old lady who owns it gave up on it decades past.

They suffer from lightning strike. Ive visited one as a power authority apprentice years ago. The tip of the blade gets hit then peels apart. You need specialist certification to even get into the head ( you have to climb up a long ladder to get into the head, then there’s the limited space)

Keep it simple, keep it reliable, make it easy to maintain.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

OMG. That’s big.

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

There was a lot of speculation about that a couple of years ago, when a large number of dead birds were found on a wind turbine site.

IIRC, it was later shown that no more died there than on an equivalent area of land that didn’t have wind turbines on it.

Birds do regularly hit mirrors, windows, trees and the ground.

What do you expect from a bird brain?

I expect more than from a mosquito brain.

What’s planned for wind turbines in Australia?

mollwollfumble said:

What’s planned for wind turbines in Australia?

There is quite a bit of discussion about new wind farms but I haven’t been paying attention.

mollwollfumble said:

What’s planned for wind turbines in Australia?

I put that exact phrase in search engine.
just a few off the first page of results.

https://selectra.com.au/energy/guides/renewable/wind

https://arena.gov.au/renewable-energy/wind/

https://www.nwfc.gov.au/wind-farms

https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/technologies/wind

https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/wind-energy

https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-newest-and-biggest-wind-farm-sets-benchmark-for-lowest-price-94301/

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

True or not?

mollwollfumble said:

Divine Angel said:

Pardon me for hijacking the thread.

Do birds regularly get hit by wind turbine blades?

True or not?

Tau or somebody posted a link about that elsewhere in this thread.

so if we follow this idea through to its logical conclusion we should paint all the blades black and then we’d be able to reduce bird strike by 97.3%, which is almost as good as giving everyone COVID-19

Some engineering discussion on this, including footage of making and testing the blades. Not the sort of thing that can be done on site.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr7QZ364jPY

Skip the intro bit, from about 2:40 minutes mark the discussion begings.