Germany Is Building the World's Tallest Wind Turbine (translate.goog) 77
Longtime Slashdot reader Qbertino writes: Heise, a German IT news publisher, reports (English version via Google Translate) that the German state of Brandenburg is getting the world's tallest wind turbine, with an overall height of 300 meters (approximately 365 meters including rotor blades), designed to capture so-called third-level winds at higher altitudes. The article also includes a short 3D animation illustrating the construction and its size relative to standard modern wind turbines. The wind turbine uses a dual-framework base instead of a traditional closed tower to access stronger high-altitude winds, aiming to match offshore energy output while keeping onshore operating costs.
According to Heise, the prototype could lead to the installation of up to 1,000 units across Germany -- fitting seamlessly between existing wind farms without needing extra land.
According to Heise, the prototype could lead to the installation of up to 1,000 units across Germany -- fitting seamlessly between existing wind farms without needing extra land.
Birds, schmirds (Score:3, Funny)
We're not stopping until we can slice and dice a 737.
Re:Birds, schmirds (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It is actually not much of a risk to birds. Higher means more wind and steadier wind.
Re:Birds, schmirds (Score:5, Informative)
It is actually not much of a risk to birds.
Wind turbines kill a negligible number of birds.
The "bird issue" is FUD from the fossil fuel industry.
Global warming is a far bigger threat to birds.
Higher means more wind and steadier wind.
Power output increases as the cube of the wind speed.
Double the wind speed, and power production goes up by a factor of eight.
Re:Birds, schmirds (Score:4, Insightful)
The fossil fuel industry doesn't care about wind turbines. The main impediment is NIMBYs.
Re: (Score:2)
NIMBYs started by the fuel industry, and anti-progressives
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are high on your frequency and low on your distance there. The frequency is inaudible, between 0.1 and 1.0 Hz depending on the diameter. The thump you feel in your body can go well over 1km.
Re: (Score:2)
Different studies probably focus on different frequencies. This was my source: https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
I know people complain about the noise and I would not like it either. But I would not mind them if they were far enough so that the noise is below 10 dB. Which means at least 500 m away for 20-200 Hz range. More may be needed for lower frequencies as you indicated.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now let's talk about what happens at 330m from a coal power plant.
Re: (Score:2)
NIMBYs would object to the construction of a nearby coal plant as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind turbines are a threat to fossil fuels because they push the grid to transition away from big central generation like coal and gas plants. They also make peaker plants less profitable, especially when paired with relatively small batteries.
That's one of the reasons why the fossil fuel industry supports nuclear. A new nuclear plant getting the go-ahead is another 25-30 years of fossil fuels, minimum. It ensures that the grid will remain designed around big single points of generation and failure. While t
Re: (Score:2)
Coal, oil, and gas are commodities. If you dig it up, you can sell it. Wind turbines don't materially affect the price.
Re: Birds, schmirds (Score:2)
They affect the price people are willing to pay. It's called supply and demand, not just supply
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait what kind of "eysores" yo get when all the plants start dying...
Re: (Score:2)
windmills kill a large number of at-risk rare large birds
Citation needed.
The most at-risk large bird is the California condor. Zero have been killed by turbines.
Spotted owls are the next most endangered. Zero again. They fly low.
Wind turbines kill a small number of at-risk birds, and not enough to be significant.
Habitat loss and climate change are far bigger threats.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a long term experiment at a wind-farm in Europe, where they monitored bird kills. They found zero. Most birds stay out of the radius, the rest avoids the blades.
Re: (Score:3)
In general, migrating birds fly at altitudes of 3000 feet and more above ground, far out of the reach of windmills, and hunting birds fly at the level of their prey. For most birds, this means insects flying at less than 100 feet, out of the reach of
Re: Birds, schmirds (Score:2)
We've done far worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Nice direct lie you have there. Makes you scum.
Bald eagles (Re:Birds, schmirds) (Score:3, Informative)
Wind turbines kill a negligible number of birds.
The "bird issue" is FUD from the fossil fuel industry.
Global warming is a far bigger threat to birds.
The "bird issue" isn't that the windmills kill birds, the problem is how windmills have been impacting bird species that had already seen significant losses in population from human activity.
I'll see mention of how domestic cats kill more birds than windmills as some kind of defense to continue putting up windmills in spite of the bird deaths. There is some truth to that, domestic cats kill birds by the billions (with a "B") every year while windmills kill birds by the hundreds of thousands. Domestic cats
Re:Bald eagles (Re:Birds, schmirds) (Score:5, Insightful)
Most studies show that nuclear power kills more birds per MWh produced, and of course fossil fuels are far worse.
https://www.usnews.com/news/bl... [usnews.com]
https://www.tandfonline.com/do... [tandfonline.com]
https://www.sustainabilitybynu... [sustainabi...umbers.com]
The reality is that human existence and modern life are going to have an impact on the environment, but at least with wind and solar it is minimized. With solar there can also be benefits thanks to the shade provided.
Re: (Score:3)
Most studies show that nuclear power kills more birds per MWh produced, and of course fossil fuels are far worse.
Maybe I could be convinced of this if given some explanation on how nuclear power kills so many birds. They aren't likely dying from radiation or flying into the containment structure, that's not a lot of area for a bird to fly into compared to the energy produced.
The reality is that human existence and modern life are going to have an impact on the environment...
Sure, human activity will have an impact simply by us eating, drinking, breathing, pissing, and shitting. There will be those that expect humans to somehow remove themselves from the environment. Human activity can also improve the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Even big industrial plant kills a lot of birds. Every big mining operation kills a lot of birds.
Also the plant itself isn't the only area that becomes difficult for wildlife to survive in. Due to security concerns a much wider area has to be made safe and defensible. Trees and other plants that can conceal people cleared out, for example.
Re: (Score:1)
Here in the UK there are several projects using radar and lasers to dissuade bats and birds from flying into the blade paths. It happens enough for the operators to fund the development and installation of the equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that being done to save birds?
Or just to get the protesters and complainers to shut up?
Re: (Score:2)
The operators fund that to influence public opinion, not because it is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
It is actually not much of a risk to birds.
Wind turbines kill a negligible number of birds.
The "bird issue" is FUD from the fossil fuel industry.
Global warming is a far bigger threat to birds.
And cats. Cats are the biggest killer of birds by far. Then buildings and windows. If we were really worried about bird deaths, we'd get rid of cats as well as buildings and windows.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no birdologist but wouldn't having it higher protect more birds? And larger slower moving blades would be less dangerous too? Not to mention that wind power kills far less birds than the pollution from other types of energy production does.
All of which could very well be true. What people are tired of, is the marketing crapola about how pure and simple newer power solutions are. The reality paints a very different picture. From construction demands to actual lifespans to lack of recycling.
Another example is EV marketing. When we tell people that EVs are practically maintenance free in order to sell the idea of EVs, it only makes it way more dangerous for the rest of us on the road when the gullible EV owner drives it down to the bald tire
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
When did anyone claim fiberglass blades were recyclable? Worst thing that happens is they end up in a landfill where they aren't toxic. As opposed to the spent fuel from radioactive water heaters, which will remain a toxic waste hazard forever after it has ceased to be radioactive.
Another danger to birds (Score:3)
And larger slower moving blades would be less dangerous too? Not to mention that wind power kills far less birds than the pollution from other types of energy production does.
Domestic cats are much more of a danger to birds than wind turbines.
It has also been shown that painting wind turbine blades can mitigate bird kills [smithsonianmag.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Quite amusing how people that gave zero fucks about wildlife and pollution are suddenly very concerned with birds and fiberglass blades in a landfill.
Re: (Score:2)
No Help Needed (Score:2)
We're not stopping until we can slice and dice a 737.
Boeing don't need any help with that, they seem to be doing great all by themselves.
Re:Science fiction panoramas coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny thing about this, I remember seeing lots of paintings of landscapes including windmills back in the day.
Re: (Score:2)
I think spinning wind turbines look nice. Like modern day windmills. They enhance many landscapes. There is a feeling of being connected to nature as they harvest energy from the wind.
Certainly nicer than endless fields of crops and walls dividing it all up, as we have in the UK. The patchwork look isn't great.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind generators appear in the background of peaceful and serene scenes in the mech anime Macross Plus.
Re: (Score:2)
"Dystopian"? You think accelerating climate change is better?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apparently this is about making things look less like paintings.
And its well known that dirty skies have better sunsets.
We can sit in our airconditioned hellboxes while the world collapses and marvel at the beautiful sunset. Utopia!
Re: (Score:2)
We're heading to a dystopion future one way or another. Even if it's an intermedian one.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can have "bad" or "worse". You think there is some rational choice here or not?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If anyone doubted what leaded gasoline did to developing minds.
Re: (Score:1)
That's derpy hand waiving not facts. If a blade gets sheered off in a tornado, it's not going to contaminate the soil even if it explodes. Moreso when you start going off about nuclear, which is infinitely more costly, dangerous and unreliable than wind. Which doesn't stop blowing for months or even years the way your radioactive water heaters do for maintenance/refueling.
Re: (Score:2)
"unreliable than wind."
I agreed with you until that but sorry, the above is just total BS. France has been using majority nuclear power for almost 70 years without a problem.
" Which doesn't stop blowing for months or even years"
Umm, I'm afraid it does. A non moving high pressure system - very common in europe these days - produces very little wind. Meteorology not your strong point either is it.
Re: And then... (Score:1)
We often have 100km/h winds in Brandenburg. Never heard of any wind turbine collapsing.
Re: (Score:3)
Slightly sensible (Score:3)
I'm not a huge fan of windmills, but this does seem like a better idea than offshore turbines. It does of course use vastly more material per MWh than a standard onshore turbine,even allowing for the higher availability. I very much like that it can be installed among existing wind turbines rather than destroying even more woodland and farms.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you did there, you're not a "fan" of "windmills"!
Destroys farms how? (Score:1)
Cows and sheep aren't going to GAF about overhead turbines, but plants will? How does that work. If anything it would give farmers a stable second source of income to help them weather bad crops years, no?
Re: (Score:2)
It's about having a mixture of sizes and geographic locations. That improves the overall capacity factor of the fleet as a whole.
Offshore is more expensive, but has the advantage of using space that is otherwise under utilized. Also the wind is more consistent out to sea.
Re: (Score:2)
My favourite part about your post is your use of English implies the people who believe windmills are a net gain are the ones ... "not brainwashed". You're pleading to the actual free thinkers in your first sentence. Putin won't be happy. No Rubles for you today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In other news... (Score:1)
Germany makes a U-turn on nuclear energy phaseout.
https://oilprice.com/Alternati... [oilprice.com]
https://brusselspost.com/germa... [brusselspost.com]
France produces far less CO2 per unit of electricity on the grid than Germany because France is able to rely on nuclear power when the wind doesn't shine and sun doesn't blow, while Germany must use fossil fuels since they've closed their last operating nuclear power plant in April of 2023. France also pays a lower rate for their electricity, and this margin is above what can be explained by
The nominal power utput is ... (Score:2)
The bigger they are... (Score:2)
...the harder they fall.