New Record: World’s Largest Wind Turbine (7+ Megawatts)

The world’s largest wind turbine is now the Enercon E-126. This turbine has a rotor diameter of 126 meters (413 feet). The E-126 is a more sophisticated version of the E-112, formerly the world’s largest wind turbine and rated at 6 megawatts. This new turbine is officially rated at 6 megawatts too, but will most likely produce 7+ megawatts (or 20 million kilowatt hours per year). That’s enough to power about 5,000 households of four in Europe. A quick US calculation would be 938 kwh per home per month, 12 months, that’s 11,256 kwh per year per house. That’s 1776 American homes on one wind turbine.

The turbine being installed in Emden, Germany by Enercon. They will be testing several types of storage systems in combination with the multi-megawatt wind turbines.

enercon-e126-emden.jpg

enercon_e-126_worlds-largest-wind-turbine.jpg

These turbines are equipped with a number of new features: an optimized blade design with a spoiler extending down to the hub, and a pre-cast concrete base. Due to the elevated hub height and the new blade profile, the performance of the E-126 is expected to by far surpass that of the E-112.

enecron_wind_turbine_bottom.jpg

WiredForStereo of The Way explains the operation of these new turbines:

[The E-126]… has no gearbox attaching the turbine blades to the generator, in fact, the generator is housed just at the widest part of the nose cone, it takes up the entire width of the nacelle to generate power more efficiently, and provide longer service life with less wear.

Also like small turbines, these have inverters instead of synchronous generators, that is to say, a separate controller that converts the wild AC generated into something the grid can use. This means the rotor can run at more optimum and varied speeds.

Again like small turbines, this one does not shut right off at a predetermined speed due to gusts or just very high wind speeds. It simply throttles down by turning the blades slightly away from the wind so as to continue to generate power though at a lower production rate. Then the instant the wind is more favorable, it starts back up again. Many smaller wind turbines do something similar except have no blade pitch control, they use a technique called something like “side furling” where the whole machine, excepting the tail, turns “sideways” to catch less wind but continue operating.

Money, why else? Big things are cheaper per unit production. If you have 3 2 MW generators, you have to have three (at least) cranes to put them up, build three foundations, have to maintain three machines, and have three times the parts to fail. If you have one, it is larger and more expensive in itself to move, but not as expensive as having to move three smaller ones.

I don’t understand how people can be so concerned about birds becoming mush with modern wind turbines, especially ones this big. It only turns at 12 rpms. That means it takes five seconds to complete one revolution. That is slow but this is much bigger and easy to see compared to the whirring blades of old. The Altamont Pass turbines gave wind turbines such a bad name because they were built in the middle of the natural habitat of rare birds, the turbines were the small fast spinning type, and they were built using lattice towers, the kind birds love to nest in. These are slowly being replaced and all of the new ones are of the slower rotating kind. In the end, it comes down to this. Stationary buildings and moving cars kill literally millions of times more birds than wind turbines. And things like the Exxon Valdez spill kill millions of everything. So let’s go with the best option.

e-126.jpg

largest_turbines_graph.gif
A graph of the World’s Largest Wind Turbines.

466 thoughts on “New Record: World’s Largest Wind Turbine (7+ Megawatts)”

  1. Its not a major hazard for a few turbines to be set up here and there. Its when we build many in a localized area that happens to be in a major migratory route that kill a lot of birds, and it does add up over time and will only get worse with more and more turbines being set up across the country.

  2. If you don’t see a need to reduce fossil
    Fuel use then the economics will never
    Pencil out. Otherwise wind power is the
    Most mature tech when properly sites.
    Projects have the lowest financial risk and
    Shortest lead time. The fluctuating
    Generation will be less of an issue with
    A smart grid. Leave your car plugged in
    Let the system decide when to charge it.
    Current turbines will be upgraded as
    Tech improves. How big will these things
    Get. Amazing.

  3. i think its a pile of rubbish… (meaning the comments not the wind thingy)
    i wouldnt listen to any of the comments.
    they suck!!!!!!!

    x

  4. To all readers of this Site,

    Some of you are very caring about this Planet and its inhabitants. A very few of you seem to hate wind turbines, or wind mill electrical generators. Please, those of the latter view, just Thank God that you were not a child at Chernobyl when their Atomic Power Plant blew up and wrought such terrible consequenses to the immediate population. Don’t you GET IT……..it’s the little children, especially who are doomed to a life of very short duration as their little bodies fight to overcome the terrible legacy of crippling radiation damage which has been wrought upon them by this ATOMIC FILTH which poured out of those accursed atomic chimneys and spread their cancerous radiation over all and sundry, especially those close to the atomic chimneys and well down wind. WAKE UP, I SAY ! For Heaven’s sake, Atomic Power is a BLOODY CANKER of DEVILLISH PROPORTIONS. The sooner all atomic power plants and stinking COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS are consigned to the DUST-BIN of useless inventions will be a great day for the Earth. Yes, all coal-fired power stations are a CANKER ON THE FACE OF PLANET EARTH.

    Cheers,

    Vimana Man.

  5. I would like to ask all of you a question.Wind mill requires no fuel and so it is clean. Agreed. But it needs tons of steel and other alloys. A lot of coal is burnt for making the steel. Did any body in the world has considered this pollution?My be it can nullify the advantages!

  6. This Horizontal Access Windmill Turbine (HAWT) is more of a killer than the average Vertical Axis Windmill Turbine (VAWT) which are lower in frequency than HAWT. If this is true than what about rare earth magnets as bearings for the VAWT so that efficency can be increased for a more compatible design.

  7. Do not see any way in the world that wind energy is anything but a global ponzi scam. Given they have been operating in America for a quarter of a century and still enjoy 24 tax dollars for every one dollar of conventional energy I would say they are in it for the tax dollars and little else.

    Most experts agree that fusion will be on-line before the storage issues related to wind power will be solved. Wind energy is just an icon to those who long for the elusive “holy grail” known as energy independence.

  8. SteveT
    I posted the following comment on your saveroxbury.org page:
    I understand that: “last night the voters of Roxbury, Maine succumbed to promises of much lower property taxes and voted 87-81 to allow 22 turbines on the ridges above the town”. That looks like a pretty small margin and I hope the decline in local revenues are added to the integral costs of those 22 wind turbines. I think I can provide the arguments to turn that vote around in the future, despite the promise of lower property taxes or any other “pay for play”. Because that’s what it is, in a disguised form!
    Lets see what we can do 🙂 !

  9. Alexander,
    Visit saveroxbury.org and leave a comment. I will then be able to contact you via your email address without broadcasting it to the web. I agree with your assessment of the wind industry’s advantage. Last night the voters of Roxbury, Maine succumbed to promises of much lower property taxes and voted 87-81 to allow 22 turbines on the ridges above the town. We will fight on.

  10. Among the many myths that wind power has attracted here is one also used in this discussion:
    The Myth: As an energy source, wind power can’t make any difference
    The Facts: Wind Power…
    reduces pollution…
    • Unlike other forms of power generation, wind energy is clean
    and renewable. It’s “clean” because its operation doesn’t
    produce any carbon dioxide, the largest contributor to global warming. There
    are also no other harmful gases or waste products. By contrast, power stations
    burning fossil fuels, mainly coal and gas, are responsible for a quarter
    of the increase in greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. It’s “renewable” because
    its fuel source is the wind – freely available and constantly renewed.
    • Every unit of electricity generated by wind power will avoid pollution
    from an existing power station. This is most likely to be fuelled by coal or
    gas. The operation of an average 2 MW wind turbine will reduce CO emissions
    by 4.4 tonnes per year. In total 370 million tones of CO can be avoided in
    Europe by the use of wind power, which represents 36 % of the target agreed
    in March by the Heads of States.
    • In the United States, if wind energy were to provide 20 % of the
    country’s
    electricity, this would displace a third of the emissions from coal-fired
    power stations.
    generates reliable electricity
    • Modern wind turbines are extremely robust machines designed to operate
    in all types of climate – in the desert, the Arctic and the middle
    of the sea.
    • Wind turbines generate electricity most (70-85 %) of the time, although
    their output varies according to the strength of the wind. They start generating
    power when the wind is blowing at about 4-5 metres per second and then stop
    again if it reaches gale force strength – about 25 metres/second.
    • Over the course of a year, a wind turbine on land will generate
    around 30 % of its theoretical maximum output, depending on the specific
    site. Offshore, the percentage is higher. This is known as its load factor.
    By comparison, the load factor of conventional power stations averages 50
    %. Because of stoppages for maintenance or breakdowns, no power plant generates
    for 100 % of the time.
    • Wind turbines can carry on generating electricity for 20-25 years.
    Over their lifetime they will be running continuously for as much as 120,000
    hours.
    On an average site, a 2 MW wind turbine will produce electricity equivalent
    to the consumption of 1,375 average EU households.
    • Security of energy supply is improved by renewable sources such as
    the wind because there is no reliance on extensive fuel supply chains or
    politically unstable countries for the supply of fuel.
    is already making an important contribution to electricity supply…
    • Over the past decade the global market for wind power
    has been expanding faster than any other renewable energy source. Since
    the year 2000 the average annual increase in cumulative installed capacity
    has been 28 %.
    • By the end of 2006, the worldwide capacity of wind power generation
    had reached 74,000 MW. In Europe, it had reached
    48,000 MW. This is enough to meet 3 % of European electricity demand. Denmark
    gets 20 % of its electricity from wind power, Spain 8 % and Germany 7 %.
    •The EU overall long-term target of at least 20% renewable energy in 2020
    should be accompanied by sector-specific targets for electricity (35% by
    2020, of which wind can provide 12%), heating (25%) and biofuels (12%).
    These three sectors all contribute to a sustainable, secure and competitive
    energy supply.

    Anyway, for those coal supporters here is my video Energy from Coal
    the
    others may enjoy The
    World’s largest Wind Turbine

  11. SteveT, thanks for the compliment 🙂
    Next week Obama gets sworn in and his energy team is going to have (and is having already) a fresh look at:
    1) The energy crisis
    2) The oil dependence of the US (By the way, Wind Power is NOT going to solve the US oil dependence, because the US hardly uses any oil for its electricity generation).
    Where can you help me to get my message across? Being it with the Obama Energy team or with your local Governor in Maine. Be aware that during the last decade the Wind Power industry has grown worldwide so big, that it is going to be very hard to turn this tide. The wind industry has reached critical mass and has (for the UNINFORMED general public and the UNIFORMED politicians) a very popular “do-good” and “save the world” message.

  12. Konstantin Mihnev, "Innovative Energy Systems" Ltd

    Enercon is on right way but not due the size of this wind turbine. Their main achievment lie in the improvement aerodynamic profile. It could be even subject to more improvement by implementing new technologies. Unfortunatelly the main producers as Enercon, Nordex, Siemens, GE, etc. are not accepted innovations by other small companies, probably becouse to justify that they have large R&D units which is exoected to produce new ideas and to realize them. Practically this ocuure very rare. For example we have some solutions but fail in contacts with the established producers- they simply pay no attention, or say – give us your idea, we will consider it, which is not realistic.

  13. Alexander,
    Your posts are unassailable. I don’t know why the wind proponents keep up their assault. Its checkmate.

    Their “every little bit helps” argument would be benign enough if “little bit” didn’t mean having thousands of the things on the top of this page sprawling all over the few unspoiled places that are left, like the beautiful mountains and lakes of Maine, where 6000 turbines will be required to meet the goal of 3000 MW of capacity by 2020. Maine could easily meet all of its electric needs with long term hydro contacts with neighboring Canada, but the ex governor has manipulated the political process and bamboozled the ill-informed legislature into believing that turbines will save the earth.

    Its 20 below zero in Maine today. I am sick to death of the AGW fanatics. Humans will adapt to whatever happens to the climate. The have shown that capability through several periods of glaciation and warming. The real risk humans face is governments that think they know whats best.

  14. farzad
    Going from 3 to 5 blades might increase your output by 2%, but it could add 10% to the costs (Just think in the size of the hub!).

    Adding too many blades lowers the total power collected though, not raise it. The drag of moving a large number of blades through the air takes power away from the output. As another blade is added, the drag of moving it forward through the air takes away from the torque available to the output shaft. Power losses due to added drag mount faster than power production form adding blades. The fewer the better from that standpoint.

    Generally a ‘prime number’ of blades is desired to minimize vibrations. Even numbers give the system more problems between the ‘forcing frequencies’ of torque/pressure pulsations as each blade passes the tower and resonant/natural frequencies of the components.
    Have a look at Optimising Wind Turbines and at Wind Energy Technology. Both links give a pretty good idea of blade design for wind turbines.

  15. Bernd Our discussion is becoming completely senseless, whacking each other around the ears regarding which report is more reliable.
    The European Wind Integration Study (EWIS) is as reliable and gives a much better idea of the magnitude of the problems wind power generates to have it integrated in a Pan European Electricity Grid.
    And the Facts about the German Electricity Grid in the Vattenfall report shows where the money goes, when you pay your electricity bill in Germany.
    But this is all totally irrelevant when you realize that:
    1) Today humanity uses 426 Quads (426.000.000.000.000.000 BTU) of energy per year, of which the lion’s share comes from burning coal. (50 % worldwide, I don’t think that is a very bad estimate)
    That means: 213.000.000.000.000.000 / 20.000.000 (This is the amount of BTU one ton of coal produces when burned.) = 10.650.000.000 tons of coal are burned by humanity every year. With the result that we are pumping 10.650.000.000 x 2.86 (burning one ton of coal produces on average 2.86 tons of CO2 (plus a lot of other harmful stuff)) = 30.459.000.000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year.
    2) In ten years time humans will “need” or use 150 Quads more, thinking about the 3 billion people in the fast developing countries like China, India, Indonesia, Russia, etc., sitting on very big coal reserves!
    3) Global warming has set in and one of its major contributors is CO2. Our days are counted if we don’t do anything about it!
    In my opinion it will be impossible to take coal out of the energy equation for the next 100 years, because all the renewables (now worldwide probably a energy contributor of less than 3 %) will not be able to off-set the amount of energy produced from coal and coal is the most available fossil fuel in those fast developing populous countries. Social pressures will force those fast developing countries to burn coal anyway (in a clean or dirty way). Wars have been fought for much sillier reasons. Therefore I am of the opinion that we have to develop the technology to burn coal in a clean and environmental friendly way, despite the extreme difficulties and extremely high costs. We cannot deprive humanity today of about 213 Quads (halve of its energy “needs” or usage) and we cannot go-on burning fossil fuels as we do today without destroying the global climate completely. Both ways (depriving or dirty burning) will bring war, death and mass extension for humans.
    I am of the opinion that all resources spend on Wind Energy is a waste of time and resources because it only tackles 4 % of our total energy problem in about 15 years time ! ( 20 % of our total energy needs go to electricity generation and the politicians want 20 % of our electricity from Wind Power in about 10 to 15 years time. 20% of 20% = 4%)
    These resources could be used in a much better and effective way. By for instance:
    1. Informing the general public about our real energy needs and explain how much we waste.
    2. Educating the general population how to save energy.
    3. Creating a real awareness about everybodies personal footprint and make it a national and global sport to make those individual footprints as small as possible, through schools and television programs (EDUCATION)
    4. Going for the technology to burn coal (and other fossil fuels) as clean as possible. Humanity is going to burn them anyway.
    5. Plasma Fusion and Super Conductivity are the only technologies that really can get humanity out of its energy predicament. But it will take decades before we have those technologies available.
    For me Wind Power is as ridiculous as putting sails on 300.000 ton Super Tankers to of-set 4 % bunker oil by WIND Power. (And when you make some simple calculations you will see that this rediculous idea is of the same order of magnitude as Wind Power!)
    A great consolation for me during our discussions was the book I was reading by Richard Dawkins called: “The Ancestor’s Tale, A pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution”. There it becomes completely clear that life will go-on on earth with or without humanity. But I would appreciate it if we (humans) could be part of life on earth in the future.

  16. Alexander,
    The DENA report is so far the most reliable analysis as the authors represent some 20 institutions, companies, authorities etc (yes, one of them is EON Netz, a division of EON, while the “Wind Report” is an exclusive EON product) and because the results of the study were evaluated by two independend experts who accompanied the study. Do you know of any other study that was eloborated on a comparable basis?
    There are some results of this study I find encouraging for any supporter of renewable energies:
    An 80 Mio industrial country is capable of installing about 50GW reneable energy sources within some years raising the share of total electric power to 20%. Wind power production will rise to 78 TWh/a in 2015 resulting in a reduction of 40Mio tons carbon dioxide. The wind related regulation and reserve capacities can be covered by conventional power station park. The extension of extra high voltage transmission network would will be 0,025ct/kWh for private households.
    Who says that the global energy/warming crisis can be solved by wind power alone? It’s just a valuable contribution, one important step towards a possible solution…Here again my
    Video

  17. Bernd,
    According to you the DENA report is “the only reliable objective analysis” (which in itself is off course ridiculous) and in the same post you reproach the Dutch engineer Halkema that one of his references where he gets his facts from is the E.ON wind report. But E.ON is one of the major collaborators in your only reliable objective analysis the DENA report. In other words when Halkema refers to it, E.ON is not objective, but when E.ON collaborates in the DENA report they all of the sudden are objective. For me that kite doesn’t fly!
    The DENA report does not discuss the viability of Wind Energy, but the consequences of Wind Energy on the German Electricity Grid, because some politicians took the well intended (WE ARE SO GREEN,) but “irresponsible” decision to go for enormous amounts of WIND Energy.
    I completely concur with SteveT:
    The Dena Grid Study acknowledges that for the development of wind power to continue beyond 2015, there are currently no solutions available. The study also does not include the cost of the transmission infrastructure that must be built to accommodate wind up to 2015 in the increase in house hold energy costs. The cost of the transmission will be socialized with tax policy, but that’s just a way of hiding the true cost of wind power.

    Therefore I repeat:
    It is not possible to solve the Global Energy Crisis and The Global Warming Crisis with Wind Power and without developing the technology to burn coal in a clean and environmental responsible way.. Read my posts of 12.30.08 at 4:33 pm & 01.08.09 at 9:25 am earlier in this blog.

  18. i wonder why they do not use larger blades. is it becouse larger blades need much more powerful supports to handle or is it somethig else?

  19. Dear Readers,

    Regarding Wind Power and storing this energy effectively for the times that the wind is not blowing. The solution is very easy, simply build large super gyroscopes balanced on Magnetic bearings in a Vacuum or Tor- Chamber, linked to a generator with a magnetic clutch. Then, when the wind is blowing for a steady period of time, simply use a portion of this available energy to spin these super gyroscopes to high speed in order to harness the electrical potential for the occasions when the wind is not blowing.
    Another sollution is, if a group of windmills is built high up and close to a set of water dams, use the excess energy of the active windmills to pump the lowest level dam-water up to the higher dam. Then,when the wind is not blowing, simply allow the water in the higher dam to run through a set of tunnels and turbines to escape into the lower dam and spin turbines coupled to electrical generators. By doing this you will gain a steady power output from the spinning turbines coupled to the generators.
    It is a sad fact, that on your planet, there are still a number of people who love to find fault with wind-mills.
    There is often an easy solution to most problems, if people will only put on their THINKING-CAPS.
    Sadly, some people just love to grumble and tear down Earths Science, somewhat Vaunted though it still is; but you will find that in the main, these people never contribute much of value or inventiveness to your world.
    “Wind power will never supply the Base Load energy we need, they continue to bleat” ( like sheep). Well, I have shown you a way to gain a good deal of base energy, but many will not accept this solution, they would rather continue to grumble and live in their little Dickensian World where the Coal Barons back in the early 1800’s ( Victorian times ) first began to poison Earth’s atmosphere and the lungs of all living creatures then, and as modern power barons continue to do; ” A pox on all of them,” I say.

    For thousands of years Earth Men navigated to many parts of their world using natural energy differentials which were not always reliable, but even now, the motors of your cars and aerial conveyances occasionally break down.
    Millers of long ago ground their corn, oats, barley etc using windmills. The important thing here is that they did not pollute their world which GOD gave to them and to you.
    A warning give I now unto all those captains of industry who continue to pollute your Earth. When the Day of Judgement Commeth, as it surely will, those Captains of Industry with their insatiable Lust for Filthy Lucre, read Money and other worldly riches will be held accountable for the pollution which they and your earlier Captains of Industry have wrought upon this now despoiled Earth.
    The only reason mankind still uses hydrocarbon fuels is because Earth’s Citizens have been COLLECTIVELY-HOODWINKED by greedy Captains of Industry, who have effectively enslaved mankind to the Hydrocarbon Treadmill. since the early 1800 ‘s.
    It is perfectly possible to capture Raw Electrical Energy from the Earth with out the need for any polluting machinery as follows. Go to the Internet and look up the following…http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/forsale/plans/earthbattery/ebpage1.htm
    The title of this article is….. Earth Energy. Subtitle = Experiment#1 How to assemble the 12 vdc system/kit. I found this under Google and am getting more information on the safety aspects of building this system from an Electrician friend of mine for the benefit of those citizens of Earth who wish to be somewhat freed of the Polution Cycle.
    WARNING ! Before attempting to build this system, get advice from a qualified electrician, or see if he is prepared to help you build it. Do not try it alone, unless you are a qualified electrician. This Earth Energy Battery Article is 10 pages long. To increase the voltage, one only needs to add to the number of copper pipes buried vertically in the ground. Again be very careful and get a qualified electrician to help you with this project for both you and everybody’s safety.

    Cheers,

    Vimana Man.

  20. Alexander, you would like to know were Hans Halkema got it wrong. Here is just one example,

    Mr Halkema:
    “…this proves that the spreading of Wind turbines over great distances has little effect on making the total power more constant, no matter whether dealing with on- or offshore Wind turbines….It also becomes clear how difficult it will be to maintain a steady power for the grid by adjusting the power of the conventional powerplants to counteract this chaos of hundreds of very sharp peaks in the wind power.
    ..It indeed means that around 90% of the total so-called installed wind power (turbine capacity) must be available from conventional power plants, in order to compensate for the variations of wind power. ”

    DENA Study: The needed amount of wind related regulation and reserve power is about 8-9% of the installed wind power capacity….

    Today these can easily be provided by conventional power plants, in the near future this will be done by renewable energy sources.
    Reserve power has always been needed to compensate power demand on an hourly or daily scale, for a longer period of weak winds there is a reserve of about 10,000MW from reservoir power stations available.
    Guess, where Mr Halkema has got his “facts” from, in fact, it’s the EON wind report!

  21. The Dena Grid Study acknowledges that for the development of wind power to continue beyond 2015, there are currently no solutions available. The study also does not include the cost of the transmission infrastructure that must be built to accommodate wind up to 2015 in the increase in house hold energy costs. The cost of the transmission will be socialized with tax policy, but that’s just a way of hiding the true cost of wind power. Germany is in a tough spot. Having rejected nuclear energy and without an abundance of coal or gas, it has little choice but to pay the wind pipers. The US is in a different place. We have proven reserves of coal and gas to meet demand for centuries. If we can assume that Germany will solve the technological hurdles that will allow the proliferation of wind farms in the near future, cannot we also assume that given several hundred years of plentiful and cheap fossil fuel, the US, with help from the rest of the world, will have enough time to develop fusion, wave power, or even rediscover the ability to cause energy masses upon their axis?

    On a more sober note, one issue that seems to be missing in the “wind power at all costs” discussion is the impending worldwide recession that will make it very difficult for governments to tax and spend at will as unemployment will be at unprecedented levels. The printing presses may keep printing money but the only result will be runaway inflation.

    Survival will be the name of the game and energy usage worldwide is going to decrease for the foreseeable future. We will meet GHG emissions goals as a by-product of this massive decline in the worlds standard of living. The market should determine how we meet our energy needs going forward, not government mandates. Governments have done enough damage already.

  22. Dear Bernd, thank you very much for the link to the Dena Grid Study report. Fascinating reading. I will come back on that in a couple of days. I am not impressed with the imaginative distortions of Mr. Rosenbloom. And I would like to know were Hans Halkema got it wrong.

  23. Dear Alexander,
    first of all I wish to honour your ambitious commitment on climate and environmental
    matters. The more I wonder why you are so critical on wind energy. Is it
    because you are misinformed? When I look at your quoted sources this could
    be the reason:
    You refer to the "Wind Report" by EON. As this company is just round
    the corner where I live here in Germany and as I knew a lot of EON people I
    can give some facts:
    The E.ON Group describes itself as the world’s largest
    investor-owned power and gas company. Headquartered in Düsseldorf, Germany,
    the Group has operations in Europe, Russia, and the US that include the entire
    power and gas chain, from electricity and heat generation and gas production
    to energy imports to distribution and customer sales.
    EON has a long track record of fighting energy efficiency and renewable energy.
    It says that “since the opening of Germany’s electricity market
    in April 1998, E.ON has tried to shut down gas-fired high efficiency co-generation
    plants from small utilities and private investors by dumping prices.
    EON has a long tradition of fighting against the most successful laws in Europe
    to phase-in renewable energy. It says “since the very beginning, the
    company, under the name PreußenElectra (Veba) and Bayernwerk (VIAG),
    has fought against the renewable energy law with several court cases” (which
    it lost) tries to block wind development in Germany by ‘grid blockades’,
    meaning that the wind turbine operators are forced to sign contracts which
    enables E.ON to shut down wind turbines in peak production and low demand situations.
    What about their credibility when publishing "wind reports"?
    Eric Rosenbloom is the president of an anti-wind NIMBY group
    called National Wind Watch. What does aweo.org stand for? Who knows. The website
    does not identify the organization sponsoring the website. The whois record
    for the website hides the organization behind aweo.org.
    Find out the truth about some of Mr
    Rosenbloom’s
    imaginative distortions.

    The Dutch engineer Hans Halkema belongs to a world which
    technology lies 15 years behind us, many of his "facts" can be easily
    be proved wrong.
    My advice, please read the only reliable objective analysis by the Deutsche
    Energie Agentur
    "Grid Integration of Wind Energy" written
    by a national panel of independant scientists:
    this is the English
    Summary

  24. Dear Steve, T,

    If you need to contact me, you can Email me at the following address..

    rvimana@vic.chariot.net.au

    I am trying to get as many people as possible to read this book, for I believe that it is the best book I have ever read apart from The Bible.

    If you look at T. T. Brown on the Internet you will find that back in the early 1900’s he was conducting experiments into electrogravity research if you are interested in this field of material science.

    Cheers,

    Vimana Man.

  25. To Author : Steve T.

    Dear Steve, T.
    Many thanks for you questions. Yes I hope that we have no more atomic disasters on Earth and hopefully no more World Wars. I lived through the Second World War in 1939 to 1945 in London and it terrified me and my whole family. Now to answer you questions in detail.

    1. No not all went smoothly with all the advances in the material sciences between the 2 continents of Atlantis and Lemuria we are led to believe.
    Some 30, 000 to 40,000 years ago great Material and Scientific advances had been made amongst the Atlanteans and the Lemurians, but in their quest with the material science they decided to have a competition between the two great Continents. The competition started off quite friendly at first, but they gradually lost respect for one another over time. Bitter rivalry finally broke out as they flaunted their Scientific achievments in the face of one another until outright war broke out between the 2 continents. Not content with releasing a few binding crumbs of the energy of the Atom such as we had done in exploding our Atom bombs and Hydrogen bombs, these inhabitants of Atlantis and Lemuria had learned to rotate entire Energy Masses upon their axis. This simply means that they had learned how to make any mass attain a speed very close to 186,000 miles per second or close to the speed of Light and move in any given direction from a fixed reference point on Earth. In learning to weild such titanic forces they were playing with energy levels far greater than the Atom Bomb or Hydrogen Bomb. How did they do this exactly? I don’t know, but their material science was obviously many years ahead of ours. The rest of this story if fascinating so I will not spoil it for you. If you care to read the story of Daniel Fry’s you will find it in a book called …….”They Rode in Space Ships, by Gavin Gibbons, an Oxford Don. You can find this marvelous book on the Internet which has legally been reproduced by Shane Donovan an American.
    You should find this book with pictures and drawings on………………….
    Daniel Fry Dot Com Rode in Space Ships : I found it under Google some two years ago.
    The Chapters of the book run so :
    The Vimana at White Sands. ( Vimana = a magnetically driven Scout Craft)
    To New York by Vimana
    A-Lan Explains the Vimana
    Gravity
    Matter and Mass
    Space
    Time
    And a couple more chapters.
    A-Lan is the being who contacted Daniel Fry near the White Sands Missile Proving Grounds on the 4th of July (Independence Day) back in 1950.
    He stressed that there are 3 basic sciences….. The first is the Spiritual Science which is needed above all others to keep us from enmity and war with our neighbours, the second is the Material Science which leads us to manage materials and their use and eventually to Space Flight. The third Science is Social Science, or how man co-operates with one another in finding food and shelter, housing, and getting along with each other peacefully, etc.

    A-lan Alan (his full name) stresses that we should always put the worship of God first, or the Spiritual Science, Next the Social Science, and last of all the Material Science.
    The reason that Atlantis and Lemuria ended up waring was that over the years they lost sight of the Spiritual Science as they concentrated almost entirely on the Material Science to the exclusion of the Spiritual and Social Sciences. This is a condition which threatens our World today as we see so much emphasis on the posession of material things to the exclusion of love for our neighbour and a love for GOD which should be our first goal.
    Jesus summed it up perfectly when he gave the two following Commadments saying…………………………
    1. Though shalt love the Lord thy God, with all they might, with all they strength and with all they soul. And the second is likened unto it,

    2 . And Though shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two laws hang all the Prophets and Commandments.
    I hope you like the book They Rode in Space Ships as much as I do.
    Cheers,

    Vimana Man.

  26. Vimana,
    Thanks for your informative post. You are most certainly correct that the tragedy of Chernobyl must not be repeated. Hopefully we have learned from this disaster and would not repeat the same mistakes. As you point out so eloquently, ancient civilizations made great achievements in technology that were somehow lost along the way. But I wonder, as these ancient technologies were developed, if all went smoothly. Do you suppose there were setbacks along the way that maybe even cost people their lives? Civilization is an experiment isn’t it? The hypothesis is that we will reach a state of profound knowledge and awareness, but there will continue to be many fits and starts along the way, and many mistakes made, as we pursue this quest. Success is rarely had without risk. I would love to be able to row to the nearest star in my little pulling boat.

  27. To all on Planet Earth,
    My apologies, the military ordnance rockets launched by the Chinese against Genghis Khan and his troops was in the year 1214 AD, not 1217 as I had stated before.

  28. To all those on Planet Earth,
    Before writing anything on this web-site please remember that you are probably one of those lucky ones who was not around Chernobyl when the Atomic Power Station blew up, killing and maiming so many adults and children, especially those brave souls who had to clean up and bury the atomic waste spewed out by the exposed and shattered atomic reactors. Those brave people who went in to mop up the atomic FILTH and shovel it into drums and who had to dispose of it; Yes,they all died and in AGONY TOO.
    “Would to GOD that I had not needed to go in an clean up that Atomic Filth,” was probably the thought of many of these rescue and clean up crew before they died.
    Imagine those poor parents who lost their children through the nuclear filth spread throughout the air in and around Chernobyl after the blast.
    These poor children dying by inches from the cancers they were doomed to inherit after being exposed to these dangerous atomic fallout particulates.
    To get a good idea about the terrible legacy of atomic power I suggest you read a number of the Indian Vedic History Books, translated from the Sanskrit Tongue into English, as I have done. One book, the Mahabharata talks about a great Indian Maharaja in days of Yore, who cursed himself after dropping the BRAMA WEAPON in one of the wars against thousands of enemy troops in India. He dropped this Brama weapon from his VIMANA or Aerial Craft, from many thousands of feet during a great battle many thousands of years ago, long before Jesus Christ was born upon Earth.
    After dropping the Brama Weapon, (read Atom Bomb) it exploded and sent out its deathly blast and light which was “Brighter that a Thousand Suns,” and destroyed those enemy troops far below.
    The Maharja who was also the pilot of this VIMANA realised the atrocity of his act and cursed himself for what he had done and said with great sadness……
    “Cursed be me, for I am become DEATH the DESTROYER OF WORLDS, woe unto me for the wickedness that I have this day wrought unto the Earth and o its people.” And he wept pitifully.
    After landing back at base he was so sorrowful that he could not be comforted for many days.
    Some people think that these accounts are just fables, but they are not. I had the good fortune to be taught physics and mathamatics for five years by a very clever Indian Science Teacher who had studied all these books and their culture and who knew for a fact that Aerial Craft existed not only in India around 30,000 to 40,000 years ago but even earlier and upon the Continents of Atlantis and Mu or Lemuria as it was know in days of Long ago.
    No, my friends, the Wright Brothers were not the first men on Earth to fly.
    They may have been the first to use craft with wings, but cultures far older than those of the West had Aerial travel in Sky-Craft which needed no wings, but were driven by super-powerful magnetic forces which bore them heavenwards. These craft were known as VIMANAS.
    Please search your Libraries and you will find that a wonderous age existed many thousands of years ago not only in India but on the great continents of Mu, or Lemuria and Atlantis. Read the ancient Indian Texts of Yore and you will find diagrams of these sky-craft and strong clues as to how the engines of these craft were constructed. MERCURY was one of the constituents used in powering such sky-craft which roared like thunder as they coursed the Firmament.
    We think that we are so cleaver with our Rockets to the Moon and Mars and Venus etc, but really, relying on such VAUNTED technology is about as intelligent as a man loading up a small dingy with a few hundred pound of rocks who want to cross a small stream. He must throw one rock at a time with great force from the stern of his dingy to propel himself and his dingy across the small stream. Not only must he propel himself and the dingy, but the rocks within the dingy as well. This is the situation which still encumberes your science by clinging to rockets in your attempt to cross space and reach the stars. A man with greater intelligence would fashion a pair of oars and rowlocks to cross the stream and not rely upon rocks thrown by his arm with great force to cross a narrow stream.
    We have known for many years that out there in SPACE there are a multitude of natural magnetic forces which we can use to propel our space craft, but still Earth men cling to to the status quo. The rocket engine has not made one really basic advance since the military ordnance rockets repulsed the invading hordes of Ghengis Khan back in the year of 1217 AD. Certainly you have improved the shape of the rocket motor a little and found fuels with a little more specific thrust than gunpowder, but the basic concept of the rocket has not made any real advance since 1217 AD.
    If you are fortunate enough to have read the works of James Churchward you will have a good lead into the ancient cultures of Earth.
    Remember it is easier to ridicule than to investigate, but it is not as profitable. This last quotation is from my friend A-Lan Alan. Who is he…..
    Investigate please and you will soon have the answer !

  29. Dear Steve,

    You seem to miss the point entirely by talking about “Monstorous Arm Waving Machines on every mountain top and windy farm field.
    ” Please don’t forget that in Scotland they have wave turbines that use the energy of the water rushing into natural caves that forces air through turbines to produce great electrical energies which are used to light and power villages supporting many hundreds of people. In time these tidal powered electricity generators will become more numerous and they are underground and will not spoil your view of the landscape. I would rather see Windmills or ….Giant Arm Waving Machines all over the countryside than be threatened by STINKING Coal-fired power stations and Atomic Energy Stations dotting the landscape. It is so sad that many people have already forgotten the terrible lesson of Chernobyl and the terrible legacy of death and destruction left behind not only on the humans who suffered its terrible atomic pollution, but upon the poisoning of the soil in and around Chernobly making it unfit for cultivation and human habitation for aeons to come.

  30. Sorry Bernd, where did I demonize alternative renewable energy such as geothermal, biomass combustion, fuel cells, hydropower e.g. tidal energy? Which are all very valuable, viable and promising technologies to off-set the burning of fossil fuels. There we go again (see my former post) the “Wind Lobbyists” are criticized and they start barking against the “Anti Wind Lobby” implying that the “Anti Wind Lobby” is against alternative renewable energy technologies and don’t see the need to off-set carbon burning. To show you how committed I am together with a Spanish partner I inform you that we reforestate 10 hectares of waste land in the tropics (Central America) per year (we started 4 years ago) paid out of our own pocket to off-set some of the CO2 generated by the burning of fossil fuels without cashing in on possible CO2 trading! How committed are you?
    And not to waste my time, just read the following:
    Denmark for instance:
    70 to 80% of the electricity generated by wind power in Denmark is exported to Germany because the Danish grid cannot handle the fluctuations. Don’t believe it? Visit: A Problem with Wind Power by Eric Rosenbloom. Also follow the well referenced links there.
    And the biggest fallacy of the Danish Wind Power! Now they are also exporting their surplus electricity to Norway (again at a financial loss), because Norway can ramp their hydro plants easily up and down. This really kills the argument of last resort used by the Wind Power Lobby “But wind power off-sets some carbon emissions!”. ( I am very sorry if I stepped on some looong toes with the expression “Windmiller”) Not in Denmark! Over there apparently the Wind Power reduces the output of the cleanest and environmentally friendliest renewable. How friendly and reliable Hydro Power is, is very well explained by David M. Clemen in his post reacting on an article in the SciAm China’s Big Push for Renewable Energy.
    Please read visit: Wind turbines: the whole truth. READ IT (it is heavy reading) and tell me if there is one fact incorrectly stated, just one.
    Look up the problems VESTAS is having in Denmark with its wind turbine farms.
    Look up the Windreport 2005 from E.ON in Germany (not a small player in Wind Power).
    Do your homework and make some simple calculations.

  31. Turbines in New England have a 10% capacity contribution to the grid because seasonal wind patterns are in opposition to the demand curve of the grid. To achieve 20% grid penetration in New England you would need to build 200% of the total grid capacity in turbine name plate capacity. That is tens of thousands of turbines. Cost effectiveness aside, is there ever a point at which there are simply too many turbines cluttering the landscape? By installing monstrous arm waving machines on every mountain top and windy farm field we are paying a high price for the loss of our connection to the beauty of the landscape. I would much prefer a clean coal plant in a previously industrialized area.

  32. Sorry, Alexander, but you seem to miss the point. Why being critical on a source of energy as wind power that supplies the world with 20% of its electricity need? These 20% will reduce the greenhouse gases emissions by million of tons, see it as an alternative to fossil fuels, as it is plentiful, renewable, widely distributed and clean. No sensible person expects wind power to solve our energy problem, this can only be one step in the right direction. There are a lot of innovative technologies capable of supplying the future world with alternative energy such as geothermal, biomass combustion, fuel cells, hydropower e.g. tidal energy and first of all the whole range of solar technology. So please stop painting bleak pictures, don’t waste your time in demonizing promising technologies but support innovative technologies!

  33. Bernd and Vimana,
    Please don’t call people that are critical on Wind power “Wankers” or “lovers of smoke stags” or think that we have a stake in the coal or oil industry. Because that is utter nonsense. Those that are critical on wind power are as worried as you are about the energy crisis and the global warming. But those Critical on Wind Power also realize the following:
    Humanity needs 426.000.000.000.000.000 BTU of energy per year and obtains it for about 50 % burning that dirty coal!
    Only about 20% of the energy needs worldwide goes to electricity generation of which the “Windmillers” want to off-set 20 % with wind power. Great and how do we generate the other 80 % of the electricity? Still burning that dirty coal!
    And the remaining 80% of the worldwide energy needs are still obtained by burning dirty fossil fuels.
    We, the critics of Wind Power, are getting sometimes very desperate about the fact that the “Pro Wind Power Lobby” sees Wind Power as the Holy Grail to our worldwide energy problems.
    Please have a look at the following scenario: We plant as many windmills necessary to generate 20% of our electricity needs worldwide. It doesn’t matter how many that will be (calculate it, just to have an idea!) With those windmills we have covered 4 % of the world’s energy needs. And now, as supposedly seriously worried people about the health of our climate, explain the “Critics on Wind Power” how you want to supply the other 96 % (408.000.000.000.000.000 BTU) of energy to the world without the extremely expensive and difficult technology for burning coal in a clean way.

  34. Dear Bernard Reibe,

    Loved your last comment of 8th Jan 2009.
    I just hope that wind power turbines, and solar panels and solar towers, are developed even faster than they have been up till now. Those people who hate wind power with such falacious arguments as……..wind turbines kill birds etc are short of reasoning power. When I lived in Glenroy in Victoria in Australia, 7 birds died over 20 years, through hitting my big glass window in my lounge room. Did I go outside my house and scream …….” You wicked window, you just killed an innocent bird,” no of course not.” Did I go outside and smash my window in a rage, shreiking …” You killed another poor innocent bird?” No, what would that accomplish ? I grew up in London as a child not far from the Battersea Power Station and saw the stinking soot coming out of this Power Station’s chimneys day after day. Yes I even lived through the terrible days of Smogs in London and know just how many people died from the London smogs.
    Those of you, citizens of Planet Earth who are in love with Atomic Power and Coal Fired Power Stations should have lived through the Terrible Smogs of London. These were caused through the burning of coa lin Coal Fired Electricity Power Stations in my Native England and in fire- places in most of the homes in England just after the Second World War and well after this war.
    Those of you who are so in LOVE with Atomic Power, and coal fired Power Stations should go and live next to these Devil’s Chimneys and get a good lung-full of the stinking fumes from the Coal Fired Power Stations smoke-stacks. Those of you who love atomic power stations should get a good whif of the fumes from the atomic nucleotides that are vented into the atmosphere at times, such as irradiated Iodine Fumes etc, breathe in and enjoy.
    For God’s Sake You WANKERS,

  35. As the link in my post from 01 JAN 2009 does not function, here is another attempt. I am fascinated by those beautiful, effective and environmentally sound modern wind turbines. My latest video shows the Enercon E-126 at Rysumer Nacken near Emden in Germany. I have attempted to show the size, power and the fact that – to me – these machines are aesthetically appealing. Have a look at my
    Video
    Here are some additional facts. The energy consumption for production, installation, operation and decommission of a wind turbine is usually earned back within 3 months of operation.
    When the wind industry first began to develop in California in the early 1980s, wind-generated electricity cost 38¢ per kilowatt-hour. Since then it has dropped to 4¢ or less in prime wind sites.. By 2020, many European wind farms will be generating electricity at 2¢ per kilowatt-hour, making it cheaper than all other sources of electricity
    However, even here in Germany there is a mighty lobby working against renwable energy. The reason for this is that here in Europe there are only few big power companies which control the energy market. They own huge power plants and make good profits. So renewable energy e.g. from wind turbines is not welcome as those wind farms are usually operated by small companies or even private people. Fortunately in Germany the power companies are forced by law to allow all those renewable energy suppliers to use their power supply lines and to pay a fixed price for this energy.

  36. It is not possible to solve the Global Energy Crisis and The Global Warming Crisis without developing the technology to burn coal in a clean and environmental responsible way.
    And please, before calling anybody a MORON, check the worldwide energy consumption and then come to conclusions based on facts.
    Yes, the “clean burning of coal” is going to be extremely difficult and I even say extremely expensive. But I don’t believe in the word “impossible” as long as we don’t cheat on the laws of nature.
    The crux of my argument is that people are going to burn coal because it’s cheaper and more readily available than other alternatives.
    ”We need time but no pollution”, to develop serious energy sources like Plasma Fusion (in conjunction with Super Conductivity) and lower our energy needs per capita drastically by changing our lifestyle in the developed world.
    1) Today humanity uses 426 Quads (426.000.000.000.000.000 BTU or 1.055 x 10.000.000.000.000.000.000 joules) of energy per year, of which the lion’s share comes from burning coal. (50 % worldwide, I don’t think that is a very bad estimate)
    2) In ten years time humans will “need” or use 150 Quads more, thinking about the 3 billion people in the fast developing countries like China, India, Indonesia, Russia, etc., sitting on very big coal reserves!
    3) Global Warming has set in and one of its major contributors is CO2. Our days are counted if we don’t do anything about it!
    In my opinion it will be impossible to take coal out of the energy equation for the next 100 years, because all the renewables (now worldwide probably a energy contributor of less than 3 %) will not be able to off-set the amount of energy produced from coal and coal is the most available fossil fuel in those fast developing populous countries. Social pressures will force those fast developing countries to burn coal anyway (in a clean or dirty way). Wars have been fought for much sillier reasons. Therefore I am of the opinion that we have to develop the technology to burn coal in a clean and environmental friendly way, despite the extreme difficulties and extremely high costs. We cannot deprive humanity today of about 220 Quads (halve of its energy “needs” or usage) and we cannot go-on burning fossil fuels as we do today without destroying the global climate completely. Both ways (depriving or dirty burning) will bring war, death and mass extinction for humans.
    A great consolation for me lately was the book I was reading by Richard Dawkins called: “The Ancestor’s Tale, A pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution”. There it becomes completely clear that life will go-on on earth with or without humanity. But I would appreciate it if we (humans) could be part of life on earth in the future. We will definitely not be there, if we pretend to WINDMILL ourselves out of this inevitable predicament.

  37. Wind can not provide more than 20% of grid capacity without instability. Smart grids and economic storage are billions of dollars and decades away. Wind power’s effective capacity is much less than 30-40% claimed by the wind industry. Turbines are gigantic, intrusive, noisy, arm waving machines that degrade the quality of life of anyone living near them. Electricity accounts for only 20% of worldwide energy production. Do the math. 20% of 20% is 4% of worldwide energy production can be met by wind turbines that only produce at 10% capacity. How many turbines is that? How many beautiful landscapes are sacrificed? How many taxpayer dollars in subsidies to the wind industry, without which the industry would not exist? Wouldn’t it make more sense to promote community based biomass and hydro (high capacity dispatchable generation) invest in fusion nuclear, cut energy consumption in half with conservation, build fuel efficient transportation, do things that reduce demand for fossil fuels? What drives this obsession to degrade the environment with wind “farms”? Reminds me of the Billy Cristal sketch where he intentionally hits himself with a hammer and then says “I hate it when that happens!”

  38. I seldom see so many MORONS posting against a sane alternative to fossil-based energy generation. Hey, morons: What’s the market price of WIND? How will a war in the Middle East affect the price of WIND? These are all rhetorical questions. The answer is that wind power is a good alternative that is immune to this horrible world market for fuels. The world market for fuels is so damaging that all supplies rise in price once one pocket of the world sees some strife. A previous poster wanted us to rely only on domestic production … yet he’s such a MORON that he didn’t realize or admit that the price of domestic crude oil would ALSO RISE when the price of foreign crude oil rises in response to yet another bombing in the Middle East.

    Also, we must ask what’s the pollution emitted by a wind turbine. That’s another rhetorical question. Obviously the pollution footprint of a turbine is ZERO … considering that if you’re going to build an energy plant anyways, the amount of steel and concrete and copper involved is a constant.

    Wind is one of the solutions that we MUST accept. We MUST raise these towers and we MUST let them amortize for decades, like bridges, generating into our power girds all the while. These efforts are in addition to nuclear, to solar, to tidal, to dams, etc. Our energy infrastructure now is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels, which are pricey and polluting and damaging to world peace. That infrastructure must change since we can’t afford not to.

    1. Edward S:

      Wind energy is actually incredibly expensive despite the fact that the “fuel” is free. A coal-fired power plant costs approximately $2,500/KW to build, has a 94% availability factor and a 40-50 year life. A wind farm costs $1,900/KW to build, has a 26% availability factor and less than 20 year lifespan. The low availability, high maintenance cost and short life span makes the wind-KW approx. 3 times as expensive as a coal KW even when the fuel costs are taken into account.

      Switching to a high percentage of wind power will raise domestic energy costs and make the US industries even less competitive against China/India who rely heavily on coal-based electricity.
      Morever, dependence on foreign oil will not diminish with more wind energy as oil is used almost 100% for transportation, not in electric power generation.

      The true reduction in GHG emissions that wind power could provide are much less than would be expected. The net GHG reduction between a mixed wind/gas turbine generating facility and a 100% gas combined-cycle facility capable of sustaining the same population is only 9%. A nuclear facility, on the other hand, reduces GHG emissions by 100%.

      I will not call you a moron but an ill-informed, well-intentioned person advocating the politically correct but technically absurd, solution to our current energy-environmental dilemma.

  39. I am fascinated by those beautiful, effective and environmentally sound modern wind turbines. My latest video shows the Enercon E-126 at Rysumer Nacken near Emden in Germany. I have attempted to show the size, power and the fact that – to me – these machines are aesthetically appealing. Have a look at
    <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQxp6QTjgJg”

  40. Wind power is not a solution.
    The whole truth about wind turbines is never told by lobbyists and governments.
    How could the very weak and extremely unreliable initial energy source of a wind turbine ever produce a steady power of any significance?
    Please think!
    And read: “Wind energy- the whole truth” at: http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/
    And to show how completely irrelevant wind power is in regard to the worldwide energy and climate crisis visit the following link: http://www.bp.com/iframe.do?categoryId=9024179&contentId=7044895
    And play around with the charts you see there (The BP charts regarding energy reserves and energy consumption worldwide over the last 20 to 40 years.) and make some calculations. And if you don´t get confused with the zeros, you will get my point.

    The number one priority of the US (or any country) must be: Complete Independence of FOREIGN fossil fuels. America is sitting on one of the biggest fossil fuel reserves in the world, called COAL. Good for another 100 or 200 hundred years! Like China and Russia. Pour your 2 trillion dollars into developing the technology to burn that stuff in a clean and efficient way. And once when America has that technology, imagine the power that will bring by exporting that technology to the rest of the world? Having that technology will turn the table completely for America. Instead of wasting a trillion dollars on wind. Have a look at: http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/wind-mills-electricity-yield.html There you will see how many monster wind turbines a small country like the Netherlands has to build just to compensate their 1% increase of yearly electricity consumption.
    Can you imagine Russia or China coming- up with that kind of technology first? America will be literarily blown of the face of the earth! And don’t forget that electricity is only 30% of all energy used. Why tackle only 30% of the problem with futile, but ingenious, wind turbines and not tackle the complete problem.
    Therefore America should do the following:
    1) Burning coal in a cleaner way,
    2) Efficiency of energy use in the broadest sense of the word
    3) Promoting a drastic change of life style (There are about 6.5 billion people, who all have the right to have some energy to their disposal).
    4) Put a 1 or 2 dollar tax on gas and use these revenues to force (or help) those dumboos in Detroit (I mean the CEO’s) to develop the most fuel efficient cars in the world. America has the technology and could lead again!
    5) Super conductivity.
    6) Plasma fusion.
    7) Energy efficient housing. (Insulation, window planning and if you like put some solar panels and silly wind mill on the roof, but without subsidies and or tax breaks, but make it obligatory.)
    8) Rethink city planning, so you don’t need a car to move from shop to shop.
    Just a few ideas.
    Alexander

  41. Wake up, those of you who knock WIND POWER ! You seem to forget that to generate power from atomic energy plants you have first to dig the stinking uranium, or DEVIL’s ore out of the ground, then separate it from the dross that surrounding it, and then process it. Digging machines use diesel or petrol to fuel their engines, or electric power. Next you have to crush and mill the uranium ore, then turn it into yellow cake. Next you must turn it into uranium hexalfluoride gas, then separate the Uranium 235 from the Uranium 238 and still carry out more complex tasks to turn it into URANIUM power pellets. These power pellets then have to be placed into stainless steel rods etc before you can even use it in the Atomic Power Stations. Most of the power needed to do this comes from Coal-fired Power Stations, thus adding to the carbon burden. Uranium ore is not a renewable source any more than base oil or shale oil, or oil from tar sands. Wind energy and Tidal energy will last until our Earth burns up after many more millions of years when our Sun runs out of hydrogen gas to turn into helium through natural atomic Fusion.

    Wind energy, solar energy, tidal power and energy from hydro-power or from hot rocks ( read geyser power) do not contribute to green-house pollution, as does stinking coal. Long lived Nuclear Waste, some of it needed to be burried and not able to all be reprocessed is still a headache, as it can, in certain cases leach into the water supply. What sane person wants to take on such a terrible abonimable risk. Even low level atomic waste, NIMBY. No, I don’t want any Atomic Waste no matter how low the level of radiation…… No, NOT IN MY BACK YARD THANKS !

  42. The number 5000 and 1776 are questionable.
    7mwatts/5000 gives you 1400 watts. Now that’s is no electric water and no electric heat and no air conditioning.

    1776 is also a crap number. It just so happens to be the year the declaration of independence was signed?
    3941.44 would be the wattage with the 1776 number. That’s electric heat and electric water. This is crappy science and high school grade school math. Why bash the USA when it is china building so many coal plants?

    This 7 m watts only produces when the wind blows, meaning you got to have a coal or naturals gas plant somewhere to take up the slack. Not very efficient to build two electric power stations, when before you had one.

  43. Konstantin Mihnev, Innovative Energy Systems Ltd

    The wind industry R&D is focused on improvinng technical characteristics of conventional HAVT’s. We have created a prototype of vertical axis wind turbine, more efficient than horizontal axis mashines. We had tried to speek with big manufacures of HAVT’s so that to suppport our R&D but it appears that they have no interest of doing so, probably because the existing industry work with high profit margins and nobody of key factors there has no interest completely new wind systems to appear in the market at the moment.

  44. In my Science and Sustainability class at school, we have discussed that same thing, and it’s a good idea Michael, but it costs millions of dollars to build and launch a space shuttle into outer space. Plus there is limited space in a space craft. Plus, the amount or fule that it would take to launch and send a space craft to the sun is a tremendous amount. Plus, the time it would take for the shuttle to get to the sun would be a waste of time, money, and fuel because in the time it would take, you could be just about finished letting the nuclear waste de-toxify. It only takes about 150-200 years for nuclear wast to become un-harmful. And when you launch the shuttle, you have to think about all of the space shuttle missions that have gone sour. It wouldn’t be a good thing to have radioactive waste everywhere now would it? Good question though.

    By the way, if anyone cares, I reccomend the series Pendragon if you like sci-fiction or fantasy books.

  45. I would love to go up one of these turbines. I’ve been a turbine tech for 2 yrs and this thing’s a monster. hope they bring ’em to Texas soon.

Leave a Reply to Edward Simmons Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top