The Rocky Road To Wind Power 281
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times has an interesting story on the logistical problems involved in transporting disassembled towers that will reach more than 250 feet in height from ports or factories to the remote, windy destinations where the turbines are erected. In Idaho trucks laden with tall turbine parts have slammed into interstate overpasses requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs. In Texas the constant truck traffic is tearing up small roads in the western part of the state where the turbines are being rapidly erected. And in Maine a truck carrying a big piece of turbine got stuck for hours while trying to round a corner near Searsport."
"'It left a nice gouge in Route 1,' said Ben Tracy, who works nearby at a marine equipment store and saw the incident. On a per-turbine basis, the cost of transportation and logistics generally varies from around $100,000 to $150,000, said John Dunlop, an engineer with the American Wind Energy Association, and experts say that transportation logistics are starting to limit how large — and as a result how powerful — wind turbines can get. There is talk of breaking a blade up into multiple pieces, but 'that's a very significant structural concern,' says Peter Stricker, vice president at Clipper Windpower who added that tower bases were getting too large to squeeze through underpasses. But a partial solution may be at hand. While vast majority of turbine parts now travel by truck, in Texas and elsewhere, some wind companies are looking to move more turbine parts by train to save money. But even the train routes must avoid low overpasses when big pieces of wind turbines are aboard. 'It's not your typical rail-car shipments,' said Tom Lange, a Union Pacific spokesman."
Dirigible. (Score:5, Insightful)
or blimp.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dirigible. (Score:5, Funny)
Why wouldn't they be?
Just hang the pre-assembled windmill upside down, run electricity backwards through the generator, and voila! - You've got a nice powerful propeller to drive it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Pick your favorite large dirigible, and study how short its life was and what happened to it.
The heavy lifters all seem to have been struck by lightning or otherwise done in by weather.
Dirigibles are not a safe, reliable, or cost effective mode of transportation.
Re:Dirigible. (Score:5, Informative)
I'll pick three: three of the last four airships built by Luftschiffbau Zeppelin
#1 LZ-127, the Graf Zeppelin [wikipedia.org]: 11 years of safe, reliable operation, including a flight around the world and a million miles of passenger service. Scrapped at the beginning of World War II.
#2 LZ-126/ZR-3, the USS Los Angeles [wikipedia.org]: 10 years of safe, reliable operation. Scrapped at the beginning of World War II.
#3 LZ-130, the Graf Zeppelin II [wikipedia.org]: two years of safe, reliable operation. Scrapped at the beginning of World War II.
The big threat to properly-designed rigid airships seems to be World War II. Now that it's over, new airships shouldn't have any trouble.
Re:Dirigible. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
facts (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It seems to me that most airplane crashes with fatalities have near 100% fatality rates.
2/3s of the people on the Hindenburg (62 out of 97) survived.
The Akron was a deadlier crash, with only 3 out of 86 surviving. That crash was deemed to be operator error. More might have survived if it hadn't been over ocean in a storm.
R101 was 6 out of 54 survivors. The R101 suffered from equipment failure, resulting in the loss of a gas bag. The crash may have been avoided (or less deadly) except for a design flaw.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After being in the met life blimp, I have to say, the size required to lift a cabin 2 people and a bit of camera equipment is crazy. I'd hate to see the size of one made to lift a load of 10s of tons.
Re:Dirigible. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate? WTF are you babbling about, man? I'd pay to see one that was capable of moving 10 tons because it'd be a damn cool feat of engineering.
You, OTOH, with a name like ArsonSmith, should stay the fuck away. ;)
Re:Dirigible. (Score:4, Funny)
You, OTOH, with a name like ArsonSmith, should stay the fuck away.
WTF are you babbling about, man? I'd pay to see that because it'd be a damn cool feat of pyrotechnics.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Just hang the pre-assembled windmill upside down, run electricity backwards through the generator, and voila! - You've got a nice powerful propeller to drive it.
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dirigible. (Score:4, Interesting)
A few weeks back, I watched an entire wind farm go by on a single train. Blimps are more maneuverable than trains and are better at accessing remote country, sure, but you just can't get the same sort of throughput.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Train plus big heavy lifting helicopter (think Chinook or similar) for "last mile". Or to make OP happy, a dirigible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
not strong enough. the weight of a small 2-MW turbine-nacelle : 60 tonnes.
http://ecogeneration.com.au/news/repowering_turbine_technology/00337/ [ecogeneration.com.au]
Wind Farm implies Wind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wind Farm implies Wind (Score:5, Funny)
If by impractical you mean "extremely fast", then yes.
Not too surprising (Score:5, Funny)
You can always expect problems when you're transporting large things along a windy road. I'm sure the initial issues will blow over, and they'll tackle the remainder with much gusto.
Re:Not too surprising (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not too surprising (Score:4, Funny)
I hope they bring their GPS! (Score:2, Funny)
Some winding little windy roads
Some little windy winding roads
Some windy little winding roads
Some winding windy little roads
Some little rocky windy roads
Some little windy rocky roads
Some rocky little windy roads
Some windy winding little roads
Some windy rocky little roads
Some windy little rocky roads
Some rocky windy little roads
Re:I hope they bring their GPS! (Score:5, Funny)
It is very windy. You are likely to get blown by a grue.
And Distillation Columns are Small? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was driving down an American interstate, it certainly can't be "private"
Re: (Score:2)
If I wasn't bound by privacy agreements, I could post a picture of a 120 foot long distillation column 15 foot in diameter getting trucked down the interstate. It is far larger than any of these wind turbines and took up 2 lanes of interstate while traveling 40 miles an hour.
The types of things transported by industry in America are heavier and larger than wind turbine blades. This story is ridiculous.
Maybe they should focus stimulus money towards already crumbling roads and bridges? There's no chance roads just started crumbling after a few loads of wind turbines.
I don't think a distillation column is designed to be light as possible and catch wind. That probably makes a huge difference. I've seen these things driving down the road going up and down HW 35 near Austin and they are freaking HUGE! Imagine the difficulty in driving a 150 ft wing 60 mph in high wind. It's not the same thing as hauling distillation equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the difference between windmill shipment and distillation column shipment are the destinations.
A petro chemical plant is situated near highways. And same probably for the distillation column manufacturer.
But windmill destinations are way out in the boonies through small towns and smaller roads.
Thanks,
Jim
In otherwords... (Score:5, Funny)
If we don't solve the size problem it will lead to an erection problem.
Doing it wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
FTS: " In Idaho trucks laden with tall turbine parts have slammed into interstate overpasses requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs"
You're supposed to put them on the truck parallel to the ground.
Just saying.
Re:Doing it wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, it's a good thing they're running into the overpasses that need repairs. It'll kick start the process. However, if they were to run into an overpass that was brand new, or that had just finished being repaired... Oh Boy! Somebody would be in trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it's a good thing they're running into the overpasses that need repairs. It'll kick start the process. However, if they were to run into an overpass that was brand new, or that had just finished being repaired... Oh Boy! Somebody would be in trouble.
Yep. When I read about that my first thought was that I detected the scent of cooking pork. You send the driver down a road you know he can't manage, perhaps misreporting the height of his load to him. Turbine must be rebuilt, producing more revenues; bridge is damaged, leading to a repair job, more revenues.
Where I live the helicopter they use to run around and find plants was recently damaged during a training run by someone who regularly destroys vehicles. I suspect he's the designated vehicle-destroyer.
Re: (Score:2)
You get what you pay for I guess. I don't know about Idaho, but up here all the overpasses are marked with a maximum hight.
You'd have to be a drooling idiot to drive your truck into one. Not that it's never happened, we have our share of drooling idiots...
Re:Doing it wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Someone want to calculate the minimum safe stopping distance of a wide-load truck laden with a 50-meter section of tower traveling at, let's say 45MPH without jackknifing or breaking the load restraints?
IMO, the problem isn't the truck drivers, it's either failure to properly plan the route by the companies, or else improper height measurements. Those signs on the overpasses are for surveying the route, and not really effective as a last-minute warning.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone want to calculate the minimum safe stopping distance of a wide-load truck laden with a 50-meter section of tower traveling at, let's say 45MPH without jackknifing or breaking the load restraints?
Usually when you're carrying several million dollars worth of equipment, it's a good idea to have someone in a car scout out the route ahead of time... just saying, you know, it's common sense?
Re:Doing it wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when is a lazy/incompetent trucking company the wind power industry's fault?
Re:Doing it wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
Seth
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Doing it wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
You're supposed to put them on the truck parallel to the ground.
They tried it that way initially. But while the overpasses were high enough, they were far too narrow.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That reminds me of an old joke.
Two people are in a truck. One says to the other "Look at that sign on the overpass. It says 'No trucks over eight feet high'."
The second person looks around and then replies "I don't see any cops around. Let's go for it."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't have to lay them on extendable flat beds or standard low boys. Wind towers are very strong and can support themselves. Many times a wind tower trailer is nothing more then a goose neck and dolly designed to utilize the tower section as the trailer. Only air, hydraulic and electric lines are ran through the tower section for control. With this setup you can adjust the tower height so you can get it a few inches from the ground if necessary or raise it up to clear obstacles. Though some parts cant w
President Obama was right... (Score:4, Funny)
...Green energy does create jobs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Newsflash (Score:5, Insightful)
Trucks carrying "oversized loads" are more likely to have difficulties than other trucks.
Same as it's always been.
Re:Newsflash (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Truckers are very aware of clearance heights
An overpass in the nearby city would beg to disagree. At least once every year, some trucker, usually hauling farm machinery, will run into the overpass.
So.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Is it REALLY too much to expect of truckers these days, that they know their height limitations? I mean, EVERY bridge posts its clearance. In feet and inches, no less!
What do these fucking rednecks think the signs are for, to pad the "sign budget" for next year or something?
Then again, where I live, 18-wheelers like to camp the passing lanes on six-lane freeways... Trucker quality has probably gone down.
Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, not every bridge posts its clearance. Pay attention sometime, you'll see quite a few that don't.
Add to the the fact that the signs are rarely accurate. Overpass says 13'9"? Better go slow - if they've put another layer of asphalt on since they put up the sign, it's probably more like 13'6", which is the height of a standard box trailer.
Where was the escort driver? You know, the guy driving the little crappy car with the pole strapped to its bumper? The guy that's supposed to be warning the trucker of low bridges? The guy the trucker has to trust implicitly in order to go down the road?
And while yes, trucker quality did go down somewhat a few years back when the big carriers started putting people through two week trucking schools, the reason we hang out in the passing lane is because of all the slow assholes in cars in the other lanes. They can accelerate from 55 to 65 in a couple seconds. It takes us up to a minute or so, depending on conditions. Get rid of the people who think 40mph is an appropriate freeway driving speed and we'll be more than happy to return to the righthand lane - all we want to do is maintain a constant speed.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It still is, I just went through one of those for "retraining" because I hadn't driven in over 6 months. All they taught was enough to pass the DOT backing, safety inspection, and road test. The rest of safe driving we were supposed to learn while team driving with a "trainer" for 30 days. The trainer was most likely a driver who had six months driving experience or a little more. The training consisted of the trainer sleeping until his shift to drive while I drove, then doing a little workbook review with me, then driving out his shift while I drove. As you can imagine, not very helpful.
The other thing people forget about the truckers is that they are also their own secretary, maintenance man, planner, etc. In a ten hour day driving, there is usually 2-3 hours more of work to do after that. Trucking is not just about driving.
And then there's the four wheelers.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And while yes, trucker quality did go down somewhat a few years back when the big carriers started putting people through two week trucking schools, the reason we hang out in the passing lane is because of all the slow assholes in cars in the other lanes. They can accelerate from 55 to 65 in a couple seconds. It takes us up to a minute or so, depending on conditions.
It's been my observation as a non-trucker that the majority of the non-truckers on the road treat you guys like shit. Pulling in front of 18 wheelers and forcing them to slow down, riding in your blind spots, pulling alongside when you need to swing wide to make a right-turn, etc, etc. It drives me nuts when people pull this crap and I've never even driven an 18-wheeler. It just seems pretty damn rude and inconsiderate.
For what it's worth I always stay out of your way and am happy to flash my lights to signal that the lane is clear when you are trying to change lanes. I don't think your profession gets the respect it deserves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you need to learn basic geometry and reading comprehension.
Underpasses are often at a dip in the road - when you have a long vehicle, you won't have both front and rear tires in the dip at the same time. When the bus is halfway through the bridge, the distance between the dip and the bridge is irrelevant.
And no, they don't necessarily measure the bridge from the lowest point, or highest point, or any point. They measure it wherever they feel like measuring it that particular day. There's no standar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh boo hoo (Score:5, Interesting)
How much carnage does the average coal mine produce? Typically ripping apart a huge, huge chunk of the countriside (for open cut), innumerable trucks and other big machines trundling around, not to mention the massive construction required for the actual power generation plant itself.
This type of story strikes me as particularly stupid: "big objects hard to move around" doesn't equate to "wind power worse than other types of power" as the summary seems to imply.
I also find it hard to believe that the truck traffic for installing windmills is coming through at such a huge volume that it is actually degrading any half-decent road. That would involve tens of thousands of trucks, surely?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And how much carnage does oil produce? It's not as though trucks carrying gasoline never crash, and oil tankers never spill. Gas stations sometimes blow up, oil wells sometimes catch fire. All that stuff causes damage and costs money.
But now what's causing these problems? Truck drivers not paying attention to whether they have enough clearance? Infrastructure being unlabeled or mislabeled as to how much clearance is there is? Figure it what's causing the problem and try to fix it. This isn't really
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But this seems more of a planning and transportation issue with moving large, heavy objects as opposed to an issue specific to wind turbines themselves.
Re:Oh boo hoo (Score:5, Interesting)
This is indeed a logistical problem, and not an inherent problem. It's also not a problem with weight.
Wind turbines and wind towers for those turbines are very different. Towers are large and bulky, built to be structurally sound. Interstate laws require that only so much weight can be put on any given set of wheels. Heavy, illegally-running trucks (liquid haulers, etc) can easily get much heavier, on fewer wheels. The weight problem is already managed, and oversize trucks are routinely checked, where other trucks aren't as much.
If smaller roads that happen to carry large amounts of truck traffic are getting torn up, then it's not surprising, given that trucks are trucks. This Texas road in specific is notorious for being undermaintained, and the Highway Department can whine, but they know they need to do something.
I seriously doubt that this remark about 'a big gouge in Route 1' was because of weight, but rather because of size. Perhaps it clipped an overpass. Perhaps (god forbid) it actually slid off the truck. Accidents are remembered, but gradual wear and tear on a road isn't an 'accident' that happens all at once.
Putting a truck laden with a section of tower can clog up a heavy construction area for hours. Can you plan around that? Yes, but only so much. Incidents will happen, and I distinctly remember one of these trucks knocking down all the cones in a construction area, because it was either the cones or the signs.
This is 'routine' logistical work for any oversize hauler. If someone's screwing up, fingers are easy to point. It may be the driver, or it may be that construction crew that was lazy with their cones, but it's manageable, up to a point. If you can't get it through no matter which route you take, it's too big to transport.
For states back east, it's messier still because the roads are smaller (you can't fit one of these around most of those corners) and the clearances are sized to match.
Eventually, wind tower construction companies are going to have to mobilize. Contract for several years here, and several years there, and it makes more sense to actually relocate the manufacturing facility for large products to save costs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eventually, wind tower construction companies are going to have to mobilize. Contract for several years here, and several years there, and it makes more sense to actually relocate the manufacturing facility for large products to save costs.
Which means they will have to transport the very large equipment required to build these towers and such, so I am not so sure that is the answer. Most are already built relatively close to where they are being installed to begin with.
The problem seems to be that this is
Re:Oh boo hoo (Score:4, Interesting)
This is off the top of my head, but I think the wear on the road goes up with the cube of the weight.
The most common rule is that erosion is proportional to the fourth power of axle load. I like to crank that one out when truck advocates tell me not to ride my bicycle.
The problem with heavy loads on narrow country roads is that you can use a truck with lots of axles, but then turning becomes an issue. Makes me wonder if there is a market for something like a giant centipede. It could have 10 or 20 hydraulically actuated legs. Only one leg would move at a time. It could step right over a low fence and deliver heavy components directly to a construction site in the middle of a field.
Re:Oh boo hoo (Score:4, Interesting)
Link:
http://www.ale-heavylift.com/equipment/index.asp?cid=%CEt%EA [ale-heavylift.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Road failure is sort-of binary - everything is fine until the failure, at which point all goes to hell pretty quickly. Not quite that simple, but pretty close - soil has a failure point which is sudden and catastrophic. The pavement will hold together for a while after the base and subbase have failed, but not long.
Now to your other point:
Americans in particular are willing to accept almost any amount of destruction as long as it happens someplace else. Rip the top off of a mountain in Apalachia and pois
Re:Oh boo hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
This type of story strikes me as particularly stupid: "big objects hard to move around" doesn't equate to "wind power worse than other types of power" as the summary seems to imply.
Maybe you're reading a different summary than I did. Maybe you're reading the summary differently. What I read was simply that wind power was not all sweetness and light like some in the eco movement would have us believe. Those that slam on minute amounts of radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant don't bat an eye on the primary (making the thing) or secondary (transporting) or even tertiary (road damage requiring massive amounts of oil to repair) costs of wind power. Heck, these aren't mentioned at all, as if turbines appear out of nothingness in their desired positions, with all the required power-grid infrastructure also magically appearing. I didn't read it to say this is worse than other forms of generating energy, merely that we need this information to have a factual, objective discussion about energy production on this planet.
Yes, "big objects: hard to move around" is obvious when you stop and think about it. The problem is, too many people don't stop and think about the repercussions of their ideology. We all need to, both eco-whackos and global-warming-deniers, and everyone in between, if we're going to have a chance at survival on this planet.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
as if turbines appear out of nothingness in their desired positions, with all the required power-grid infrastructure also magically appearing.
You clearly never played SimCity 2000
Alternative designs don't have that problem (Score:3, Interesting)
There are alternative designs that do not have that sort of problem. For example, Windspire is a 30' tall wind turbine that can be erected even in densely populated areas.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Alternative designs don't have that problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Aerisyn Puts 'em on Barges. (Score:3, Informative)
So it doesn't have to really go on the highway unless the tower factories are located in a place that doesn't have access to shipping. Of course rivers and waterways only go so far and sooner or later the towers have to hit the road.
Nuclear not great either (Score:3, Funny)
And the Diablo canyon nuclear power plant was part way finished before they realized they were putting it in backwards and had to start over.
So? (Score:3)
The insurance policies should cover this damage - wait, they DID ship them with insurance, right?
The insurance companies, once they get fed up of paying for wrecked turbine parts and bridges, will start demanding competent drivers for the trucks, or they won't insure. Therefore the trucking companies will have a choice - deal with the union so they stop providing idiots who don't bother checking the height of their load and their maps, or they can pay the repairs out of their pockets.
This is how capitalism is SUPPOSED to work.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am sick to death of hearing low-watt right-wingers touting capitalism as a panacea for the world.
Well, if you're sick of hearing the opinions of other people Mr. Know It All, perhaps the internet isn't for you. I might suggest you move to North Korea, they don't do capitalism at ALL there and in fact, you probably won't get internet either, so you won't have to listen to anyone else. That way you kill two birds with one stone.
Now go play with your blocks
I'd rat
My -2 cents observation better transport design (Score:4, Insightful)
Observations,
These are very special hauling requirements, so they require a much more specialized design. I am uneasy about that generic hauling truck trailer shown in the picture.
1. If the blades are 50 yards long, then designing a hauling truck like an old fire engine ladder truck might be better. Those had a rear cab and movable wheel carriages in the back.
2. Also the trailer design in the picture is horrible regarding height. Design a trailer with lengthwise side support that allows blades to travel four or five feet lower. This could also incorporate hydraulic lifting to raise the trailer over bumps and low spots. Think lowrider cars that jump up.
3. Additional tires on the truck and trailers to distribute weight and save the roadways. Heavy equipment haulers here in TX once in a while have as many as 50 wheels per tractor\trailer(s). For max wheels see this site (the bottom picture).
http://www.goodtransportationinc.com/ [goodtransp...ioninc.com]
4. I hope for low interstate overpasses that trucks could exit, then take the service road up, over (and adjacent) to the interstate then return to the interstate.
5. And a lead car with laser height and side measurement device to alert the hauling convoy of incorrect, changed, or terrain shifted height/side measurements.
I know this is blitheringly obvious. But plan and triple check. Just yesterday in Dallas a large fork lift plowed into a 14 foot 5 inch clearance underpass and thoroughly shattered the first cement beam.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa090722_wz_tootall.6696c458.html [wfaa.com]
Thanks,
Jim
Re:My -2 cents observation better transport design (Score:5, Informative)
At the end of the day the truck driver should know how high their load is.
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA (here TX only), I have not seen much construction like you describe. Especially the height warning signs. Most highways here have two height signs and a fairly generous clearance. But no specialized IR light interruption warning signs. And certainly no sacrificial beams. In lieu of sacrificial beams, TXDOT found that the pillars were vulnerable so care was put in directing wayward trucks away from the support pillars.
Thanks,
Jim
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I suppose those help a little bit. Especially those guys carrying something that juts up like the elbow of a digging machine screeching to a stop.
That hit yesterday was physics to the max powerful. Somewhere amongst the road litter of cement chunks there is a bow shaped piece of that armor strip.
Have a great weekend,
Jim
Trains (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no, clumsy drivers! (Score:2)
Oh no, clumsy drivers! Well, that's it. Wind power is /doomed/.
Weight-mile tax (Score:3, Informative)
The solution is a weight-mile tax, so that truckers pay the full cost of the damage they do to the roads. But good luck getting it enacted, because the national trucking industry hates the weight-mile tax system. [accessmylibrary.com]
Why not post about the damage oil trucks make? (Score:5, Insightful)
Living in Texas, with oil and gas, wells I can personally attest to damage done by service trucks to our road. This is due to to constant need to move the product to market, or service the water that comes from the wells (yes gas and oil wells produce water too).
I have seen these trucks that carry the crude oil from gas wells get into accidents. I have seen bridges totally destroyed from burning oil under them (concrete breaks down under the extreme heat).
Do we write about the millions of dollars in damage our oil trucks create yearly? Or do we single out a few accidents in trucking, carrying oversize loads instead.
Do we even hear about the oversize building moments that tie up traffic? Do we hear about the daily fatal accidents from truck accidents? Or do we single out a few trucks that just happened to be carrying wind turbine parts?
Gyromill (Score:2)
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248068.stm
Problem solved.
Bring them in through Canada (Score:2)
Idiots (Score:2)
Hire transportation firms experienced in hauling oversized loads. The photo in the NYT article of the long load is pretty pathetic. Here in timber country (before the spotted owls screwed it all up), long logs were moved with a steerable rear trailer.
Man bites dog story (Score:2)
It's only posted because it is novel. Trucks carrying oil rigs tip over. Semi-trucks hauling drilling equipment hit overpasses. Coal mines explode. Gas wells blow out. Pipelines explode. Trains hauling industrial equipment for refineries derail etc.
Do we cry "Oh the horror!"
No. We're picking on wind turbines because they are novel.
Next week it will be a story about the nasty glass splinters from solar panels.
BTW, if you are going to "do it yourself" and put in fiber glass insulation in your home, buy some *
Solution: Come build your turbines in Oregon (Score:2, Insightful)
In Oregon we actively work with companies installing turbines to make it as easy as possible to transport & install them. We work with the manufactured housing builders as well, but that's another story. Unlike Texas with its oil, or other states and their coal, we don't have locally buried hydrocarbons adding to our economy, so we are happy for the economic benefit from these installations. We've had one wind turbine generator fall of around a corner, while inside a tunnel, which did wedged things up.
Large loads... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You want omelets, you break eggs. (Score:5, Insightful)
People from the 1920s and 30s would have LAUGHED at us for making these arguments if we made them back then.
Folks today don't want to make investments for the future. THey don't want to take any risks. It's like society has had its balls collectively cut off.
Look at the space program! We've been in limbo for decades and now that they finally want to do something INTERESTING again people are like "it's too expensive!" or "it's too risky!"
Let the people who take on the challenge accept the risk, as it's always been. Let's invest in our future. Let's stop being pansies. PLEASE.
Re: (Score:2)
strap on batteries and wings and just fly them.
Your strap-on has batteries? Lucky you!
-Taylor
Re:I'm no engineer.. (Score:4, Informative)
I often wonder why they build them with a single-stem trunk? Surely a triple- or quadruple-stem trunk could give added stability with a lower materials cost, and greater ease of transportation, if greater assembly time.
For that matter, why not have two (or, of course, more) propellar sets one above the other? Harness not too much less than double the amount of power without needing larger individual propellar blades.
I'm sure there are fundamental reasons why these wouldn't work, but I'm not an engineer.
Tubes are extremely strong, so you don't really need multiples. Plus, all of these turbines have the capability to rotate, as far as I know, and rotating one turbine around one tube is a lot easier than rotating a gang of them around without their blades hitting something.
They're just keeping it simple. Some of the generator bodies are the size of a small bus, they just don't look like it from far away.
-Taylor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The larger the turbine and the higher it gets, the more efficient they are, both in construction and operating costs and in electricity delivered. see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design#Turbine_size [wikipedia.org]
They are getting close now to maximum size because of materials science limitations (cost/benefit), and also because of the transportation limits mentioned in the article. Much larger ones could be built directly adjacent to a seaport dock then barged to a direct sea or coastal ins
Re: (Score:2)
Your picture and description is excellent. But I suspect that the largest wind turbines might easily the width of a railroad track (something like 12 feet).
I think your suggestion to air lift might be interesting. If weight is not exceeded. If a heavy lift helicopter can lift about 45,000 kg /99,208 lbs /49.6 tons.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/helicopters/q0284.shtml [aerospaceweb.org]
Thanks,
Jim
Re: (Score:2)
A good middle ground might be to build a temporary gravel road to the site. Gravel is used for the road which transports the space shuttle to the pad. It gets messed up and regraded after every job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Railroads (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm..
Problem: giant airfoil blades are too heavy for current helicopters: current helicopters need bigger airfoils to get the thrust at a reasonable power level. Some kind of giant blades are necessary...
Re: (Score:2)
turbines are air foils. Along comes a heavy wind, say goodbye to the helicopter.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen 2 blades per flat car moved routinely where I live. The problem is how to get them to the end location from the terminal.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a dog, his name is Segway.
Anyways, speaking of dogs ...