The cleanest energy is antimatter.
Those are essentially the same thing from different points of origin -- and we don't want to be too close to the wind of either.Well I would prefer solar and nuclear to wind energy.
It's been a lot windier than usual around here so far this year but what happens when there's not enough to drive them? No wind, no power.
It's been a lot windier than usual around here so far this year but what happens when there's not enough to drive them? No wind, no power.
A null wind day, from the perspective of a person on the ground happens not that often. These things are set up on wind averages in certain areas and bearing in mind that you only need about 5kts to make on of these thing turn, in the right area, they can still produce power. Speed plays no or very little part in the power output. The gearing system in these beasts driving constant speed gearboxes is getting to be better and better with each new generation of model. Personally though, I would go nuclear, but that is another opinion.
Matt
Having been through your area (most of the church installations were done in Minnesota) and stationed in Nebraska, I'd say that is more the occasion when the wind has them going in circles; if tornadoes only remained in one spot: windpower galore.I live in Iowa, where if the wind isn't blowing people go into a full blown panic.
Would you want one of those in your back garden?
Or would you prefer a Large Hadron Collider under your feet?
Or a coal power station?
Or a giant nuclear power station cooling tube?
I'm with CERN
Wow :o Never seen one get anywhere near that speed. The ones around here appear to control their speed by feathering those huge blades. When they are under maintenance they do completely feather and stop turning.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 770 guests