Click below to be able to download pdf files:

Wind Turbine Erection Projects

Wind Turbine Transportation Projects

21 units of 0,9 MW Enercon wind turbines had been transported & erected in Susurluk / Turkey.

176 units of 0,8 MW Enercon wind turbines is going to be transported & erected in Soma / Turkey.

10 units of 2 MW and 1 unit of 0,8 MW Enercon wind turbines had been transported & erected in Sarkoy / Turkey.

10 units of 2 MW, 4 units of 2,3 MW, 1 unit of 0,8 MW Enercon wind turbines had been transported & erected in Uvecik / Turkey.

36 units of 0,8-0,9 MW Enercon wind turbines had been transported & erected in Datca / Turkey.

Main Crane: 500 ton capacity telescopic mobile crane Liebherr LTM 1500

38 units of 0,8 MW Enercon wind turbines had been transported & erected in Akhisar / Turkey.

18 units of 0,8-0,9 MW Enercon wind turbines had been erected in Gelibolu / Turkey.

49 units of 0,8-0,9 MW Enercon wind turbines had been erected in Cesme / Turkey.

PITEÅ.

Om 10-15 år är det inte omöjligt att Piteå har världens största vindkraftverkspark. Svevind AB har sökt tillåtelseprövning hos regeringen för bygget på 1101 vindkraftverk, som ska ta upp cirka 450 kvadratmeter.

Placeringen beror på många olika faktorer, bland andra vindmätningar och miljöaspekter. På flera platser i landet är vindförhållandena bättre, men det är här i de norra delarna som det finns tillräckligt med plats.

En tredjedel av basbehoven
Om planen på vindkraftverksparken går igenom kommer de stå för så mycket som en tredjedel av basindustrins elbehov. Dessutom kommer det vara så mycket som åtta procent av landets totala elkonsumtion. Utöver det har regeringen ett mål för landbaserad vindkraft. Denna park med vindkraftverk fyller upp halva det målet. Det är stora siffror det handlar om, inte minst eftersom en “stor” vindkraftverkspark vanligtvis skulle ligga på 30 till 40 vindkraftverk.

Fler jobbtillfällen
Det stora projektet är inte bara bra för elförsörjningen. Det kommer även ge ett flertal jobbtillfällen. När alla vindkraftverk är färdiga kommer underhållet ge jobb till en person per tio vindkraftverk. Den största utmaningen verkar vara att få lokala företag engagerade i händelsen. Idag är det Enercon som sköter all produktion, men om de lokala företagen lärde sig metoderna, skulle de kunna samarbeta med Enercon.

Tillstånd för tio kraftverk
För tillfället finns det inget tillstånd för alla de vindkraftverk som det finns planer på att bygga. Som det är idag finns det enbart tillstånd för tio stycken.
- Men vi jobbar såklart för att öka finansieringen för de andra delprojekten, säger Kristina Falk, chef för tillstånds- och miljöprocessen på Svevind AB.

LINDA BERNTSSON

Haren – Etwa 140 Gäste hatten sich im Harener Saal Witte eingefunden, um Näheres von den Auseinandersetzungen um die Ansiedlung des Windkraftanlagenherstellers Enercon zu erfahren. Eingeladen hatte die Dörpener Bürgerinitiative (BI) Saubere Energie, die seit langer Zeit gegen das in Dörpen geplante Kohlekraftwerk kämpft. Anlass für die BI, nach Haren zu kommen, war die Aussage von Enercon-Chef Wobben, Abschied von seinen Plänen für ein Rotorenwerk in Haren zu nehmen, wenn in Dörpen das Kraftwerk gebaut würde. Diese Aussage hatte landkreisweit für Aufsehen gesorgt.

Die Aktivisten der Bürgerinitiative suchten in Haren nach weiteren Mitstreitern im Kampf gegen das ungeliebte Kraftwerk. Mit ausführlichen Schilderungen, beginnend bei der naturgeschichtlichen Erdentwicklung bis hin zur aktuellen Klimasituation, begründete Jan Deters-Meisner, Sprecher der BI, warum keine Kohlekraftwerke mehr gebaut werden dürften. Kernaussage von Deters-Meisner: „Wenn die Konzerne ihre Kohlekraftwerke bauen, bleibt kein Platz mehr für erneuerbare Energien.“ Und für den Widerstand bleibe nur die örtliche Ebene.

Bezogen auf das politische Spannungsfeld zwischen Kohlekraftwerk in Dörpen und Rotorenwerk in Haren sagte Deters-Meisner: „Wer sich wie Wobben einsetzt, dem gestehe ich zu, eine falsche Entwicklung zu verhindern.“

Mit weiteren Aussagen zur Notwendigkeit einer Energiewende, mit Kostenanalysen und Prognosen über die wachsenden Arbeitsplätze erneuerbarer Energien erklärte Inge Stemmer von der BI ihre Sicht der Dinge.

Frank Klaß, ebenfalls von der Dörpener BI, ging auf die Aktivitäten von Wobben ein. „Wobbens Aktivitäten wurden von Anfang an behindert.“ Noch heute würde das Repowering genannte Aufstocken von Leistungen bei bestehenden Windenergieanlagen im Emsland verhindert. „In Meppen hat man einen großen Pakt mit den alten Industrien“ formulierte der BI-Aktivist.

Bernd Albers, Kassenwart der BI, wollte die Verdienste von Landrat Bröring nicht schmälern. Aber bei der BI müsse sich der Landrat erstmal entschuldigen, damit man wieder zusammenarbeiten könne. Sonst ginge dies nicht. Und wenn Bröring mit der Ansiedlung weiterer großer Projekte spekuliere, müsse er „Roß und Reiter“ benennen.

Mehrere Sprecher politischer Parteien stellten ihre Sicht der Dinge dar. Die Versammlung erweckte teilweise den Eindruck einer Wahlkampfveranstaltung. Fragen aus der Bürgerschaft von Haren, die nicht übermäßig vertreten schien, kamen kaum auf.  Selbst der Appell von Deters-Meisner funkte nicht sofort. Sein Aufruf: Wenn Sie hier in Haren wirklich wollen, dass die 1000 Arbeitsplätze gesichert werden, müssen Tausende von Harenern  nach Dörpen, meinetwegen angeführt von Bürgermeister Honnigfort“ brachte zwar Beifall. In die verteilten Aufnahmeformulare der BI, so ergab sich nach Ende der Veranstaltung, hätten sich aber nur wenige Interessenten eingetragen.

Allerdings werde man in der kommenden Woche mit einem Initiativkreis von sechs Personen zusammenkommen, um weiteres Vorgehen zu beraten.

Auch im Harener Rat dürfte das Thema Gegenstand von Beratungen werden. Johannes Held kündigte, unterstützt von Ulrich Wilde, einen gemeinsamen Antrag im Harener Stadtrat gegen das Kraftwerk und für den Bau der Windrotorenfabrik an.

http://www.eta.co.uk/cloud_making_ship_fights_global_warming/node/11030

A scientist at the University of Edinburgh says that a fleet of water-borne cloud makers could help reduce global warming. The unmanned sailing ships would patrol the oceans, spraying tiny droplets of seawater into existing clouds in order to enlarge and thereby whiten them – bouncing more radiation back into space and cooling the atmosphere in the process.

It is claimed that a change in the brightness of marine clouds could cool the earth enough to compensate for the increase in man-made carbon dioxide over the last century.

The ships would operate in a 1500-strong fleet and rotary-sail technology would ensure not only that the vessels received all the power they needed from wind and seawater, but that they could easily be operated remotely by computer.

Dr Stephen Salter says the seas off Namibia, California and the Southern Ocean are particularly well suited to the concept. He claims the effect could be applied locally, to cool down the Arctic or the seas around coral reefs.

A spokesperson for the Environmental Transport Association (ETA) said: “There are many groups around the world working on technological fixes to the problem of global warming, and whilst most appear beautifully simple, none is proven and changes need to happen now – there is no substitute for a dramatic reduction in the amount of fossil fuel we consume.”

What is a rotor ship?

A rotor-powered ship replaces conventional sails with spinning rotors. It works because a spinning body in a moving airstream experiences a force perpendicular to the direction of the airstream. In the case of the Dr Slater’s design, propeller-like turbines in the water beneath the ship power both the spinning rotors and the droplet-generator.

In 1926, a rotor-ship crossed the Atlantic, and whilst the technology did not catch on at the time, the high price of oil has prompted German energy company, Enercon to develop and this month launch the first rotor-powered cargo ship (pictured right).

How are clouds made artificially?

In this case, seawater is forced through an incredibly fine mesh to produce a mist of droplets less than one micron wide, known as cloud condensation nuclei. These ‘seeds’ are the particles around which water vapour coalesces to form rain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sort of reminds me of the epic battle of the Sun-tots & the Smoggies Pollution Ship….backwards.

De groene economie zorgt voor toekomstgerichte jobs. Daar lijkt nu stilaan iedereen van overtuigd. Groen! benadrukt dat nog eens voluit in de ‘Green New Deal’ waar zij samen met de zusterpartijen in de European Green Party voor gaan bij de komende verkiezingen.

Ik timmer al sinds 1985 een beetje mee aan die groene economie, onder andere als mede-oprichter en bestuurder van de groene stroomcoöperatie Ecopower. De  politici in België die vandaag de mond vol hebben van de groene economie hebben het – op zijn zachtst gezegd- de sector van de groene energie niet altijd makkelijk gemaakt. Ze kunnen misschien wel vertrouwen op een kort geheugen van de kiezer, maar de waarheid heeft ook zijn rechten. En na bijna 25 jaar knokken voor een beter investeringsklimaat voor de hernieuwbare energie mag ik toch wel even evalueren?

De enige partij die altijd consequent en onvoorwaardelijk onze sector heeft gesteund is de groene partij.

De andere partijen hebben eigenlijk 20 jaar nodig gehad om in te zien dat ze toen beter de voorstellen van Groen! hadden goedgekeurd. Want dat ze dit toen niet deden had en heeft nog altijd nefaste gevolgen voor onze economie en tewerkstelling. Dat geven ze nu nog steeds niet toe.

Ik moet denken aan het bezoek van de volledige personeelsploeg van Ecopower aan de fabrieksterreinen van onze windturbinefabrikant Enercon enkele jaren terug. Zo indrukwekkend dat toen onze zustercoöperatie Beauvent (West-Vlaanderen) even later ook ging, we een aantal journalisten meevroegen. De eigenaar van Enercon begon 25 jaar geleden in zijn schuurtje te sleutelen aan zijn eerste windturbine: nu werken er meer dan … 7000 mensen rechtstreeks voor hem en een veelvoud daarvan voor toeleveranciers, oa. bij Pauwels Trafo hier bij ons in Vlaanderen.

productiehall Enercon, Aurich, Duitsland

25 jaar geleden stond er in Vlaanderen op dat zelfde moment al een heuse fabriek met de beste windturbines van de hele wereld: HMZ in Sint Truiden, niet alleen de beste, maar ook de meest vooruitstrevende. De VUB stond vooraan in het onderzoek op wereldvlak (zie link onderaan dit artikel).

MAAR de politici van toen hadden geen toekomstvisie. Ze creëerden geen thuismarkt voor die windturbines. Buiten het windpark in Zeebrugge was er geen kader om windturbines te plaatsen in België, in Vlaanderen. Als Volkswagen geen enkele auto verkoopt in Duitsland, verkopen ze er ook geen enkele in Frankrijk. De jonge  minister van Begroting en Wetenschappelijk onderzoek, Guy Verhofstadt verschoof zelfs onderzoeksgeld van hernieuwbare energie naar kernenergie. Zijn handje in de grote pol van Electrabel.

België had alle kaarten in handen, maar miste de boot internationaal door een gebrek aan visie. HMZ hevelde zijn windturbine-afdeling over naar Windmaster (NL), later werd het als Turbowinds opnieuw Belgisch, maar het momentum was voorbij, voorgoed… Turbowinds is nu op sterven na dood. Doodjammer…

In Denemarken is de windturbinebouw de op één na grootste industriële sector die tienduizenden jobs vertegenwoordigt. In Duitsland nog veel meer.

Wij hadden alle troeven in handen om de ten dode opgeschreven autoassemblage te vervangen door toekomstgerichte productie van windturbines en toebehoren, maar VLD’ers, CD&V’ers en SP.a-ers gaven dit bij gebrek aan toekomstvisie uit handen. Domweg.

Ook vandaag missen onze universiteiten aansluiting bij het onderzoek naar hernieuwbare energie over heel de wereld. Mijn eigen universiteit, de KULeuven levert nog steeds ingenieurs en architecten af die blindelings kernenergie als DE oplossing zien voor ons energieprobleem. Als je naar de gebouwen van de KULeuven kijkt zie je overal enkel glas, koudebruggen, … zelfs bij nieuwbouw.

Het verschil tussen ecologisten en andere politieke overtuigingen is dat Groen!en niet alleen werken voor zichzelf en de huidige generatie, maar voor alles en iedereen op deze aarde, nu en in de toekomst: intergenerationeel en bij uitstek met visie!

Een fundamenteel verschil.

Neem 20 jaar voorsprong, stem Groen!

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/Article/Detail.aspx?articleid=QB288TGK

I Markbygden utanför Piteå ska en av världens största vindkraftparker byggas. Det statliga bolaget Sveaskog hyr ut marken till bolaget Markbygden Vind AB/Swevind/Enercon.

I en artikel i DN igår beskriver en representant för Östra Kikkejaurs sameby hur detta påverkar deras vinterbete. På en fjärdedel av marken kommer Svevind att bygga vindkraftverk.

Hur går detta ihop med FN:s urfolksdeklaration från 2007? En deklaration som Sverige stöttat, röstat ja till och stolt berättat om. Där står bland annat:

Article 26
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

Ursprungsbefolkningar har alltså rätt till det land och resurser som de traditionellt använt. Det står också:

Article 32
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.

Ursprungsbefolkningar har alltså rätt att vara med och bestämma över hur mark som de använder ska utnyttjas. Ursprungsbefolkningar har alltså rätt att bli informerade om, och ska ge sitt samtycke till, utnyttjande av naturresurser på mark som de använder. Staten ska erbjuda rättvis ersättning om marken utnyttjas. Staten ska också försöka förhindra negativ påverkan på miljön eller ekonomin.

Markbygden Vind AB har utfört en socialkonsekvensanalys för Östra Kikkejaurs sameby. I analysen har alla renskötare i samebyn intervjuats om sin renskötsel och vindkraftsprojektets påverkan på den. I analysen framgår att renskötseln för Östra Kikkejaurs sameby har blivit svårare och svårare på grund av saker som staten kunnat vara med och påverka. Olika stängsel och förluster av gamla renbeten har gjort Markbygden till en viktig plats för renarnas vinterbete, en plats som de nu också kommer att förlora.

FN har kritiserat Sverige för att inte leva upp till kraven i den deklaration som så stolt antogs 2007. Sveaskog vinner på vindkraftparken, renskötande samer förlorar. Vad säger det om den svenska ambitionen att respektera och agera för urfolkens rättigheter?

Läs mer om rätten till renbete och  Sametinget om urfolksdeklarationen
Läs hela deklarationen på engelska (pdf)

Si può dire che anche l’eolico sia una forma di energia solare, in quanto è il Sole la principale causa del clima sulla terra, e quindi della creazione di zone di alta e bassa pressione che determinano i venti. Il modo di sfruttare quest’energia addizionale dal sole, però, è del tutto diversa.

In tutto il mondo, la potenza media globale dei venti è di circa 870 TW, oltre 50 volte superiore al consumo energetico dell’umanità in un secondo. Non sono gli 86 mila terawatt dell’energia solare, ma è comunque molto più di quanto necessitiamo. E c’è il vantaggio che sfruttare questa risorsa è molto più semplice rispetto al solare: bastano qualche pala, una dinamo, l’allacciamento alla rete elettrica e siamo già pronti a produrre energia. Ed a costi nettamente più contenuti.

Nel 2007, secondo i calcoli del Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), un impianto di generazione eolica di larga scala ha un costo di costruzione di circa 1300 euro per chilowattora di potenza installata, cioè di potenza che il generatore eolico è capace di fornire come massimo. Tale rapporto sale leggermente con la potenza: i più moderni generatori eolici possono arrivare a potenze nominali di ben 2 megawatt, dal costo di 3.5 milioni di euro (esempi qui e qui per il generatore Enercon E-82). Può sembrare una cifra molto elevata, e tuttavia vorrei ricordare che per raggiungere 2 MW di potenza installata con il solare termodinamico servono ben 12.4 milioni di euro (parlando della moderna centrale Andasol-1), per meglio tacere del fotovoltaico. Una centrale a carbone ha costi al megawatt del tutto simili. Ma non è finita, perché l’energia eolica è una tecnologia in fase ancora di maturazione, ed è possibile che nel futuro i costi di costruzione e manutenzione degli impianti saranno ancora più competitivi.

Turbina Enercon E-70 da 2.3 MW a Reading, GB (da Wikipedia)

Purtroppo no: ci sono parecchi risvolti da considerare anche quando si parla di energia eolica, e si tratta di considerazioni che macchiano indelebilmente il “sogno” dell’energia pulita per tutti. In primo luogo, fino ad ora ho parlato solo di potenza installata, che purtroppo è cosa ben diversa dalla potenza reale che può fornire l’impianto. Mentre una centrale a carbone da 1 GW di potenza produrrà quasi sempre 1 GW di elettricità (tranne nei periodi di manutenzione), un parco eolico da 1 GW non raggiungerà quasi mai questa potenza. Per fare due conti, nel 2007 la Germania, il leader mondiale della produzione di elettricità dal vento, aveva una potenza installata di ben 22247 MW con i suoi generatori eolici: una cifra pari al 33% del fabbisogno medio annuale elettrico della nazione. Eppure, con tutta quella potenza installata in Germania si sono prodotti “solo” 39.5 TWh (terawattora) di energia elettrica, a fronte di un consumo nazionale di circa 585 TWh: insomma, dal vento la Germania ha coperto “appena” il 6.75% del suo fabbisogno elettrico. In sostanza, è come se le turbine eoliche tedesche fossero sempre andate al 20% della loro potenza massima. La Spagna (altro Paese di grande sviluppo del mercato eolico) nel 2006 è andata meglio, con il 29.3%; gli Stati Uniti, circa il 25.5%; la Danimarca il 27%.

In definitiva, l’economicità di una centrale eolica è seriamente messa in dubbio da questi fattori. Eppure, se si esclude l’idroelettrico ed il geotermico, l’eolico rimane sicuramente la fonte rinnovabile più conveniente, anche in virtù del fatto che, rispetto alla centrale a carbone presa come esempio, non consuma alcun tipo di carburante. Per confronto, in media nel 2006 gli Stati Uniti hanno speso 35 miliardi di dollari (circa 30 miliardi di euro di allora) per le loro centrali a carbone, della potenza installata di 313 GW: si può quindi assumere che una centrale a carbone da 1 GW di potenza installata, pur costando “appena” un miliardo di euro circa per la costruzione, consuma intorno ai 100 milioni di euro di carbone all’anno. Senza contare i costi di manutenzione dei due impianti, è comunque chiaro che con l’andare del tempo la competitività degli impianti eolici aumenta.

Ci sono però altri problemi legati allo sfruttamento dell’energia eolica. Innanzitutto, non si può sfruttare sempre e dovunque: ci sono zone meno adatte allo sfruttamento dell’eolico. In Italia queste sono situate soprattutto al sud, in particolare in Sardegna ed in Sicilia, poi la Puglia. L’atlante eolico del CESI può dare un’idea adeguata della distrubuzione dei venti nella penisola e, soprattutto, della produzione elettrica potenziale (espressa in MWh/MW annui, cioè dei MWh prodotti in un anno per ogni MW di potenza installata). Inoltre, i “parchi eolici” non sono di dimensioni trascurabili: per ottimizzare lo sfruttamento del vento, si richiedono circa 10 ettari di terreno per ogni megawatt di potenza installata. Una centrale da 1 GW occuperebbe, quindi, circa 100 chilometri quadrati! Numeri affatto trascurabili, che di fatto riducono la potenza installabile in Italia a circa 45 GW, che ci porterebbe ad una potenza reale di circa 10 GW, intorno cioè al 25% del nostro attuale fabbisogno energetico (costandoci circa 60 miliardi di euro). Purtroppo, non credo che neanche in futuro riusciremo mai ad andare oltre questa percentuale.

C’è poi un ultimo, e sempre meno trascurabile, problema legato agli impianti eolici: l’impatto locale. A parte la morìa di uccelli che si schiantano contro le pale (in realtà, abbastanza limitata), ed il rumore denunciato dalla gente che abita intorno alle turbine, i generatori eolici migliori (dalle centinaia di chilowatt in su) sono grandi, enormi. Il generatore Enercon E-70 nella foto sopra può essere alto fino a 113 metri, ed ha pale per un diametro di 71 metri. Inutile dire che in tanti giudicherebbero tale costruzione, paradossalmente, un “ecomostro”. Ed infatti sono in tanti i comuni in Italia che rinunciano ai parchi eolici, proprio per ragioni estetiche.

Una soluzione parziale ci sarebbe: l’eolico off-shore, cioè a largo della costa. Non è un mistero che il vento, nel mare, sia decisamente più elevata. In virtù di ciò, la Danimarca ha sfruttato i bassi fondali dei suoi mari per installare una potenza di oltre 3.1 GW da generatori eolici, abbastanza da soddisfare il 16.8% del fabbisogno di energia elettrica danese nel 2006. Il rovescio della medaglia è che l’eolico off-shore costa ovviamente di più come costruzione e manutenzione degli impianti, tant’è vero che in Danimarca l’energia elettrica per i privati costa più che da noi (23 centesimi di euro al KWh contro i nostri 19), ma è un modo per alleviare il problema dell’impatto visivo.

In Italia, purtroppo, i mari sono generalmente profondi, e quando non lo sono (come l’Adriatico) vi soffia poco vento, però qualcosa si può fare. Ma quando leggo che il primo impianto del genere in Italia, a tre miglia nautiche dalla costa di Gela, ha trovato comunque l’opposizione del sindaco (pure di sinistra) del paese, nonostante Gela abbia ormai poco da perdere dal punto di vista paesaggistico, penso che in fondo l’eolico in Italia avrà sempre poco successo, e forse manco ce lo meritiamo. Anzi, mi sorprendo che in fondo l’Italia sia il settimo produttore mondiale di energia elettrica dall’eolico, davanti a Paesi come Francia, Regno Unito, Canada ed Australia.

Aggiornamento 5/8/2008: anche il nuovo sindaco di Salemi (TP), Vittorio Sgarbi, si è dichiarato contrario all’installazione di generatori eolici nel comune che amministra. Afferma che deturpano il paesaggio, ed in alcuni casi può aver ragione; afferma che fanno un “rumore infernale” e, per quanto la questione del rumore sia ancora da approfondire in maniera esaustiva, ha torto (in realtà, non si tratta di niente di insopportabile); e certamente ha torto quando si mette a parlare di “energia che viene indebitamente sottratta” a Salemi… Forse un po’ meglio rispetto al sindaco di Gela, ma insomma, pare proprio che con queste fonti rinnovabili, in Italia, ci accenderemo giusto un paio di lampadine a fluorescenza.

WIND POWER (Part 3) The NIMBY factor

This image shows some of the 137 GE Towers at tThis image shows some of the 137 GE Towers at the Fenton Wind Farm near Chandler in Minnesota. Each tower produces 1.5MW for a maximum of just over 200MW of power.   This photograph taken by Brian P Smyla is a Creative Commons image. Click on the image to see a larger image in a new window.

I’ve mentioned in numerous posts the relative sizes of plants producing electrical power for the respective methods of production.

It’s not like an Authority is going build a nuclear power plant next door to where you live, or even in the suburb where you live. Most large coal fired plants are in locations where they have been for a long time now. Combined cycle plants are increasing in numbers, but mainly in areas zoned for those plants. They are built in relatively out of the way places, and often are already existing before you move into an area where a large plant exists.

If it’s a hydro plant, then living near the lake might actually seem quite nice.
With solar plants, we’ve seen that they can take up as much as maybe hundreds of acres, and in most cases they are built in out of the way places where there is good access to quality sunlight, so plants are few and far between, and never really in residential areas.

However, with wind powered plants, instead of taking up small closely oriented areas, they are spread out over vast spaces. Again, by their very nature, they have to be in high wind areas, like Mountain Passes, where the wind whistles through, and also along ridge lines where the wind soars up the slopes, and placed along the skyline where they are eminently visible. Hence they are in areas where they are quite visible, standing out because of their huge size. Opinion is varied as to whether they are aesthetically pleasing to look at, or are an eyesore. Those opinions vary, depending on whether or not they are in your line of sight, or whether you are just looking at them in passing or in photographs.

Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY)

The problem goes something like this.
An electricity provider decides to bite the bullet, and construct a wind farm, at enormous cost. An area has to be found where the wind blows strongly, and more importantly, regularly, Environmental Impact Statements are carried out, government approvals sought, and submissions are sought from the public.

Usually people not living in that area are satisfied that someone is doing something to move in the direction of using renewable forms of power. However, and usually for personal reasons, those who do live in the area where towers will be constructed, even though they approve of renewable power generation, they’re not all that keen on having the towers constructed in their area. Excuses are found so that construction might not go ahead where they live.

It’s okay if it’s Government owned land, although some say the effect of having towers in pristine areas detracts from the effect of that area, even though it might be rarely visited.

Local people gather arguments to support their position, and it helps if small furry animals are involved, and even more emotive if they have wings.

The excuses used to support their arguments are many and it helps if you use numerous excuses.

There’s the size of the towers and how they detract from the view, the noise of whooshing blades, the fact that they might be a hazard to aircraft. People with higher profiles are called in to support the argument, and it also helps if you can get a politician on side, because then you can effectively ‘wedge’ one side of politics against the other.

Most arguments have been proved time and again to be spurious but the most effective weapon has always been the political side of any argument, and this has worked effectively on more than one occasion.

This image shows the largest capacity wind towers constructed so far. This unit is the Enercon E 112 manufactured by a German Company. They have since been upgraded using the same title but the diameter of the blade rotation is up from the 112 to 114 Metres, (370 feet) and the height of the hub standing at 124 Metres. (403 feet) The unit is directly driven, removing the need for the CSD, and producing 6MW. Note how Enercon paint the bases to blend in with the background.   This image by Hadhuey and is a Commons Image. Click on the image to see a larger Image in a new window.

With respect to size, the towers themselves are said to detract from pristine views and the aspect of the countryside, with an argument that they probably decrease numbers of visiting tourists, while a counter argument is that the number of tourist visits actually increases because of the people who want to come and see them.
It has been said that the slowly rotating blades cause flickering light in the vicinity of the towers.

Old technology towers had blades that rotated quickly while newer, longer blades rotate at a slower, more regulated speed, between 5 and 20 RPM. Blades can be feathered as wind increases so the speed stays within this range. This feathering process, similar to what is used on propeller driven aircraft, changes the position of the blade with respect to the blowing wind, more open to catch lighter breezes, and closed somewhat as the wind increases. All this is achieved with the use of small sensors and computer programs allowing adjustments to happen automatically.

Now you again see that it is more complex and costly than just a blade blowing in the breeze generating electricity. The slow speed range is important because of the capabilities of the Constant Speed Drive (CSD) that drives the generator, because if the speed varied by a greater amount then the CSD would need to be considerably more complex, increasing the weight significantly, thus decreasing the efficiency.
The noise factor has also been used as an excuse, the constant ‘whoosh’ as the blade passes, but that would only be if you were close to the tower, and background noise from tower locations has been measured at around the same as for a 10MPH breeze.

Land use has also been used as an excuse. An average sized grouping of towers producing around 200MW might take up as much as ten square miles, which is quite a large area. The Power Authority would need to gain approvals from local land holders and therein lies one source of the problem. Those who agree are usually paid by the Authority to have the towers on their property, but those who disagree miss out, and the amount could be as much as $5000 per annum in the US, so it could have the potential to wedge neighbor against neighbor.

However, the biggest argument, and the one that has been proved to be the most spurious is the effect on wildlife. As soon as the word ‘wildlife’ is mentioned, the argument immediately becomes highly emotive, so here’s some facts on that front for you to mull over.

In the US, the toll of the towers is around 70,000 birds per year, an immense total, one that immediately produces the response that these towers be closed down.
70,000 birds. Man, that’s a lot. Especially when compared to birds that are killed each year by cars. That number is only 57,000,000. Yes! That’s right. 57 million birds are killed each year by cars alone.

Still, 70 thousand birds is a lot, especially when compared with birds killed by impacts with plate glass. That number is only 98,000,000. Yes! That’s right also. 98 million birds are killed each year by impact with plate glass.

Birds killed by wind towers approximates out to around one bird per tower per year. True, some of the older towers that rotate faster might bring the averages up somewhat, like those older first generation towers at Altamont Pass, but the newer technology towers have surprisingly fewer bird impacts that you might suspect. The same also applies for impacts with bats, also very little. Offshore wind farms have also been blamed for depleting fish stocks, also almost laughable. The noise factor has also been hit upon by detractors saying that the noise is amplified under water and this could have detrimental effects on whale movements in the area. Man, these people want it both ways. They tell us the whales are smart, and then they tell us they are too dumb to know that when they move into an area of loud noise, they don’t just swim off in another direction.

So, it all really comes back to this.
Yes, we do need alternative forms of producing electrical power and yes, wind farms are a viable option in that overall picture, but you’re not putting one of those things near where I live.
NIMBY.

Det tyska komglomeratet Siemens är också stor på vindkraft.

Det påstås att man har bättre och pålitligare turbiner i effektområdet 2,3MW  än sina konkurrenter , framför allt på de som står tills havs.

Siemens Wind Power som är namnet på Siemens vindkraftsområde sålde mer än sextusen vindkraftverk fjol med en sammanlagd effekt på 6.866 MW.

Siemens Wind Power har en huvudfabrik i danska Brande men äger också rotorbladsfabriker i Aalborg och i Engesvang.

Nu har man också nyss invigt ytterligare en fabrik i Brande och den skall tillverka navet till samtliga vindkraftverk.

Man siktar på att trefaldiga produktionen till 2011 och bli en av de tre största vindkraftsproducenterna i världen, säger Andreas Nauer, vd för Siemens Wind Power i Danmark, till den danska tidningen Ingenjören.

Vindkraftsmarknaden i världen domineras av fyra jättar – Vestas, Gamesa, GE Wind och Enercon.Siemens finns bl a noterat på den tyska Frankfurtbörsen.

Nedan se ett års aktieutveckling

Aunque de momento es un prototipo, Enercon ha desarrollado este aerogenerador de 138 metros de altura y 126 metros entre aspas, de 18 centímetros de espesor y un diseño que mejora la resistencia al aire. El aerogenerador E-126 tiene una capacidad de 20,000.000 kWh por año, que equivaldrían a unos 5.000 hogares. La velocidad de giro del rotor es de 5-13 rpm.

Dos de estos prototipos han sido instalados en Emden, Alemania. En otoño de 2008 se tiene previsto instalar 5 aerogeneradores más en Bélgica.

Vía:[digg]

+ info

• Enerco E-126, Características Técnicas, [PDF, 939 KB]

Technorati Tags:ingenieria, enercon, e-126, aerogenerador, mayor, mundo, grande, wind, power

La fuente de energía  alternativa  que nos ofrece una mayor esperanza, es la eólica. Se ha dicho hasta la saciedad que las reservas de petróleo a nivel mundial esta en su etapa final, pero parece  que hay que esperar que definitivamente se acabe, para entonces buscar soluciones, que después, nos saldrían mucho más costosas; en todos los sentidos. ¿Por qué no pensamos en las turbinas eólicas? ¿Cuáles intereses no se quieren afectar?

Cuando de verdad se tiene interés de resolver  un problema, el cual yo considero nacional, no importa la cantidad de dinero que se invierta en el mismo.

Solo imagíne usted, con cuatro turbinas (para ser conservador) de esa de la foto superior podríamos darle luz a 7,104 hogares, veamos. La Enercon E-126 con ella se puede producir más de 7 megavatios de energía. Si suponemos que cada familia consume 938 kw/h al mes, solo uno de estos aerogeneradores alumbraría 1,776 hogares.

Aunque está en pruebas todavía; se asegura que será, a parte de la turbina más grande del mundo, la de energía más barata por unidad de producción, las razones son las siguientes: Se pueden sustituir tres de las pequeñas por solo una, de tres a uno; tienen una vida más útil, el mantenimiento es más prolongado, entre otras.

Con un ancho de 413 pies aproximadamente 126 metros. Su base es de concreto armado con una turbina de diseño optimizado, la cuchilla y el spoiler se extienden a la parte inferior donde esta situado el centro. La sofisticada pala gira a 12 rpm, completando un circulo en 5 segundo, los generadores síncronos, son sustituidos por inversores de energía para un mayor ahorro, incluso con diferentes velocidades de viento. Muy bonito

Vía ecofriend