I've been seeing what look like blades for wind generators every once in a while going north on 169 for about a year now, anyone have any idea where they're coming from/going to?
There are two manufacturers of the bases for the platforms in Tulsa. DMI and, someone else (come on brain!). There is also a planned wind farm on Osage County by the Kansas border by Cherokee Enterprises... but I do not believe that is in full motion yet. The only other explanation I can think of is they are going to the port to be shipped out to the gulf or somewhere in Kansas.
I've seen them to, very impressive pieces of equipment!
My wife and I have driven I-10 from Phoenix to the LA area numerous times and just west of Palm Springs is a huge windmill farm. I have always noticed how big they are, but really got an idea of the scale of these things from an episode of Dirty Jobs where Mike Rowe worked on maintaing one, and the other was on a recent trip where we passed a flat bed semi with one of the blades on it and it had to be almost 60 feet long and 9 feet across at the tip.
My brother is working on a wind farm installation down south of Corpus Christi so they might be going there.
Most the Blades are manufactured in Texas in this area. Towers they rotate on are made by Trinity Structural Towers. They have a plant here in Tulsa.
Sorry for this simple question...but provided you have the right land, how do you get in the wind farm business? I heard the big towers are 100k plus. Also, do they make smaller units that individuals can use? Something akin to people who use solar power to lower their energy bills?
Here's some options:
http://www.allsmallwindturbines.com/
The big ones, power company sized, are not in the $100,000 range. They are well over $1,000,000. The foundation (basically a large metal cylinder sunk into the ground and filled with concrete and rebar) and the crane to install them is probably in the $100K range.
keep in mind the wind potential models are for 164ft up. we have some buildings downtown taller than that. It amazes me they don't pack their roofs with turbines and reduce some of their own power consumption.
I know there are a lot in Western Oklahoma and there are lots along the highway between LA and Palm Springs/Palm Desert.
I agree with Inteller, it's strange that some buildings don't try to capitalize on their height. If not here, because of the tornados etc., then in LA and areas where the weather is relatively stable.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
keep in mind the wind potential models are for 164ft up. we have some buildings downtown taller than that. It amazes me they don't pack their roofs with turbines and reduce some of their own power consumption.
Wind turbines have enormous physical reactions which cannot be offset by existing building structures. Even designing new buildings with structures to accommodate has proven cost-prohibitive, and tends to compromise the intent of the building (i.e., maximize interior spaces) in most cases. Micro Turbines are being designed for this purpose, but are of limited availability at this point.
We tend to think of buildings as big, strong things when they're actually only strong enough to do what they're doing, plus a safety factor.
I recall as I drove by the new bank building at the SE corner of 15th and Utica as it was being constructed, I wondered if the structure were sufficient to hold itself up. Never felt quite so before looking at a bare building structure.
I'm sure it was engineered, but didn't look as though there was an ounce more steel there than needed.
Wrinkle is right. Vibration would destroy a building.
I was driving back from Dallas on Wednesday and saw three blades heading south in Oklahoma.
Them blades sure is big.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Wrinkle is right. Vibration would destroy a building.
I was driving back from Dallas on Wednesday and saw three blades heading south in Oklahoma.
Them blades sure is big.
well I'm not talking about the same size as what they construct for a wind farm. a few small ones are not going to shake the BOk tower apart.
The nacelle of a 1.5MW turbine weighs around 70 tons, the three blades together weigh more than that, about 75 tons (25 tons each). Then, there's the the pole.
If you understand moments at all, put 150 tons or so on the end of a 100 meter stick then try to hold it near the other end, with no wind.
Smaller turbines, like used for homesites, would probably work. But, they put out so little energy it's not really worth it. These things are only putting out their rating at windspeeds of over 30 mph. Even the best wind sites do not average winds like that.
A utility-grade wind farm would consider a 7-8 m/s (15.65-18.0 mph) windspeed average as good (Class 4 or better).
Tulsa doesn't come close to that. We're in a Class 2 wind zone, average of only 7-9 mph.
The top of a building would boost that to some degree due to up drafts on the sides of the building.
But, the increased average windspeed required of the smaller turbines would offset that.
Besides, you're really only distributing the load if you build up to the same capacity as one larger turbine. The structure still wouldn't handle it. So, must settle for small, relatively meaningless, output.
Take a look at this small wind turbine's power curve: Bergey 10kW Turbine (//%22http://www.bergey.com/Products/Excel.html%22) Power Curve Spec Sheet (PDF) (//%22http://www.bergey.com/Products/Excel.Spec.Frt.pdf%22)
Then look at GE's 1.5MW turbine's power curve:
GE 1.5MW Turbine (//%22http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/15mw/tech_data.htm%22)
That should make it abundently clear.
The GE turbine reaches 80% of its' rated output at 10 m/s, peak at 12 m/s.
The Bergey doesn't get to 80% until around 15 m/s and peaks at 17 m/s.
The GE will be producing 80% of its output while the Bergey is only outputting 30% of theirs.
And, in Tulsa type winds, the Bergey will never reach peak, or even 80% most times, short of a tornado.
The small turbines simply aren't very efficient, and cost almost 4x that of the larger ones in terms of $/kW.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Tulsa doesn't come close to that. We're in a Class 2 wind zone, average of only 7-9 mph.
According to the National Weather Service, Tulsa's average wind speed is 10.2 mph.
Big difference.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/climate/windavg.html
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Tulsa doesn't come close to that. We're in a Class 2 wind zone, average of only 7-9 mph.
According to the National Weather Service, Tulsa's average wind speed is 10.2 mph.
Big difference.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/climate/windavg.html
I was kind of guessing, knew it to be Class 2, missed the range slightly. The Class 2 to Class 3 border is 11.5 mph. Class 3 would be considered minimal for any wind power installation.
But, then again, other maps show Tulsa in the Class 3 zone (//%22http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap3/3-45m.html%22) (near the edge). So, depends on what readings one uses.
Very marginal here in Tulsa proper in any case.
Virtually all smaller turbines use 12 mph as their output point for documentation on annual kWHs.
Bergey's 10kW turbine, IMO, should be rated as only about 5kW since that is more practically what one would expect of it at a 12 mph average.
But, most small turbines rate that way, different from large turbines, which do better at stating their real output.
Here's the Official US Wind Map:
(http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/gifs/map2-1.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Tulsa doesn't come close to that. We're in a Class 2 wind zone, average of only 7-9 mph.
According to the National Weather Service, Tulsa's average wind speed is 10.2 mph.
Big difference.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/climate/windavg.html
I was kind of guessing, knew it to be Class 2, missed the range slightly. The Class 2 to Class 3 border is 11.5 mph. Class 3 would be considered minimal for any wind power installation.
But, then again, other maps show Tulsa in the Class 3 zone (//%22http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap3/3-45m.html%22) (near the edge). So, depends on what readings one uses.
Very marginal here in Tulsa proper in any case.
Virtually all smaller turbines use 12 mph as their output point for documentation on annual kWHs.
Bergey's 10kW turbine, IMO, should be rated as only about 5kW since that is more practically what one would expect of it at a 12 mph average.
But, most small turbines rate that way, different from large turbines, which do better at stating their real output.
Keep in mind that a whole bunch of home-based, low-wind-speed turbines are coming on the market in the next year or so, if they aren't already. So what's "marginal" here might become really viable quick.
But the point has been duly made. And I like solar more as alternative power in this part of Oklahoma because it's durable, reliable and no maintenance.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Tulsa doesn't come close to that. We're in a Class 2 wind zone, average of only 7-9 mph.
According to the National Weather Service, Tulsa's average wind speed is 10.2 mph.
Big difference.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/climate/windavg.html
I was kind of guessing, knew it to be Class 2, missed the range slightly. The Class 2 to Class 3 border is 11.5 mph. Class 3 would be considered minimal for any wind power installation.
But, then again, other maps show Tulsa in the Class 3 zone (//%22http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap3/3-45m.html%22) (near the edge). So, depends on what readings one uses.
Very marginal here in Tulsa proper in any case.
Virtually all smaller turbines use 12 mph as their output point for documentation on annual kWHs.
Bergey's 10kW turbine, IMO, should be rated as only about 5kW since that is more practically what one would expect of it at a 12 mph average.
But, most small turbines rate that way, different from large turbines, which do better at stating their real output.
Keep in mind that a whole bunch of home-based, low-wind-speed turbines are coming on the market in the next year or so, if they aren't already. So what's "marginal" here might become really viable quick.
But the point has been duly made. And I like solar more as alternative power in this part of Oklahoma because it's durable, reliable and no maintenance.
Agreed. Though, I'm not as hopeful as you about the lowspeed wind turbines' efficiency, especially when cost is considered. Maybe, we'll see.
Solar is a better option with much more upside potential with time. At least, here in the city. If you go out to western Oklahoma, wind remains best (in Class 4 areas).
I still think we should drill a pair of 20k-foot wells for EGS (Engineered Geothermal System). We're in a 150-200 degree C (300-400F) zone. Seems a near snap for oil outriggers.
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
My brother is working on a wind farm installation down south of Corpus Christi so they might be going there.
How can you get there going N on 169?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelWayne_71
quote:
Originally posted by joiei
My brother is working on a wind farm installation down south of Corpus Christi so they might be going there.
How can you get there going N on 169?
from this statement by Cannonfodder -
quote:
The only other explanation I can think of is they are going to the port to be shipped out to the gulf or somewhere in Kansas.
Catoosa Wind Mill Company Cutting Back (//%22http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=9617311%22)
There might be a reason why the demand for windmills is less than promised, as there are some concerns that utilities are only getting behind wind power to get new transmission lines built to areas where they actually plan to build coal-burning plants:
The interior West's abundance of both green-energy resources and traditional fossil fuels make some watchdogs nervous about a rush to build what has been called an Interstate highway system for electrons. The idea of expanding transmission lines is commonly pitched by politicians as a way to put people to work while removing a crucial obstacle to renewable power.
But it's not going to be just wind and sun on those wires. "Some proponents of expanding coal-fired electricity production are using windfarms as a rationalization for greatly expanding transmission lines through the region.
They talk a lot about wind power, but their real interest is vastly expanded use of coal in generating electricity," says Larry Swanson, a regional economist at the O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana in Missoula.
http://www.windaction.org/news/19326