Comments on: Huge Offshore Wind Network Could Solve the Calm-Day Problem

By: harold black

harold black — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:10:24 +0000

THIS IDEA MAKES MORE SENSE THAN MANY OF THE PROFFERED ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES:

WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL AND ALSO HAVE TO SIMULTANEOUSLY DEAL WITH GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS. THIS SYSTEM ADDRESSES BOTH OF THESE ISSUES.

WE SHOULD LOOK AT ANOTHER 5YRS OF OFF-SHORE WIND DATA AND IF THE FINDINGS ARE SUBSTANTIATED THEN TAKE THE OBVIOUS NEXT STEP.

MY CONGRATS TO THE PEOPLE AT THE U. OF DE. WHO DID THIS.

By: m

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:44:43 +0000

scott – that’s like saying car accidents kill people, so i will drive a truck.

By: scott

scott — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:11:30 +0000

m – Sorry about the birds..but how many birds have been killed in oil spills? From eating plastic trash strwn about? Or from flying into lighted infrastructure – buildings, etc. We have to have some form of energy…..I’m not ready to do dark and light candles or not have a blender or cell phone. If you could ask a bird which it prefers, I think it would take its chances with the wind turbines.

By: ChH

ChH — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:40:40 +0000

They should have offshore wind turbines with a water tank in the nacell instead of a generator. The turbine turns a shaft which runs down to a submerged positive-displacement pump (PDP) to lift water into the tank. Off the same stand pipe near the bottom, have a hydroelectric generator.
This solves many problems:
1. If the wind dies, you can still generate power for several hours (depending on tank size & hydroelectric generator throttling).
2. PDP’s have a wide range of efficient speeds. The turbines can be optimized to extract all available wind power without the limitations currently placed on them by the generator.
3. Grid operators know exactly how much energy is available for future power generation even if the wind were to stop dead – just measure how much water is in the tank.
4. A hyrdoelectric generator is a more simple device than the generators currently used in turbine nacells. Separating the turbine speed from the generator speed means no expensive, less reliable & electrically noisy solid-state inverters are required.

By: humble reader

humble reader — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:25:25 +0000

“When did we North Americans become so stupid?”
at least in the land of milk and honey,
when everything here was privatized under ‘the great communicator’s’
trickle-down economic plans. windfall profits for the party in power, but
no further investment in infrastructure by the companies that bought
in since then. only lots of flashy marketing ending with crap like enron…
now when the wind blows, power lines fall and regions like the northeast
go into black out.

By: m

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:21:29 +0000

what the picture doesnt show is all the dead birds.

they have these in Kingston, Ontario….birds by the hundreds washing up on the shores.

By: scott

scott — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:35:33 +0000

I bet someone would cough up the billions to build new oil platforms, refineries, etc all up down the coast. Pros and cons to all energy sources, but I say go with the wind. Some think they are ugly…but not as ugly as the platforms…drive along the Santa Barbara coast on a clear day, all the platforms are really ugly and spoil the view.

By: gepinniw

gepinniw — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:21:59 +0000

“…installing cables like those Kempton used in his study to hypothetically connect the different turbines could cost as much as $1.4 billion.”
Big deal. The Chinese are spending nearly 1 trillion on new railroads, not to mention a myriad of other infrastructure projects. When did we North Americans become so stupid? We need nation-building projects like this.
Bottom line – we have the resources – all we lack is the imagination!