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
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.
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.
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.
A graph of the World’s Largest Wind Turbines.
101 responses so far ↓
1 Lee // Feb 3, 2008 at 10:29 pm
I agree about the bird thing being overblown. But 12 revs a minute is not slow. At the end of the blades, they’ll be traveling at nearly 180mph.
2 WiredForStereo // Feb 3, 2008 at 11:28 pm
That is true, according to my quick calculations, the tips would run about 177 mph, but that is only the tips, the great majority of the swept area poses very little danger to birds. If you come in 26 meters, the blade speed drops to 59 mph. Additionally, the sheer size of the blades and the turbine over all acts as a deterrent. Unlike skyscrapers and buildings with large glass windows, wind turbines are solidly colored so birds cannot fly through what they think is empty airspace but actually happens to be a window.
3 Irregular // Feb 4, 2008 at 6:40 am
Good job this turbine is not located in the UK. I can already hear the screams of the Rotary group complaining about noise pollution, aesthetic impact on our rural locations and the general desire to use renewable energy but not actually do anything constructive to help that mission succeed.
4 dip // Feb 4, 2008 at 7:10 am
Wait, do i get this right, We in germany can power 5000homes with this one turbine, but you yanks are only able to power less than half of this? i.e. “1776 American homes”. Wonder what you guys do wrong?
5 Chloe Edwards // Feb 4, 2008 at 7:28 am
What an absolute brute of a wind turbine ! I can’t believe the size of it compared to that man standing next to it at the base.
6 Tony // Feb 4, 2008 at 8:36 am
This does look awesome, and I’m obviously no expert, whilst reading through the comments about how fast the blades at the tips an idea struck me, would it be possible to put smaller turbines mounted on the tips of the blades perpendicular the the large blades, so that as the large blades spin the smaller ones could also produce power? It may well be a completely stupid idea, but one I thought worth sharing. I will now return to my humdrum existence.
7 SighGone // Feb 4, 2008 at 8:43 am
I’m a little confused. If it has a WIDTH of 126 meters, what is the length of the blade?
8 pubed // Feb 4, 2008 at 9:23 am
That’s really really freaking BIG!
9 magix // Feb 4, 2008 at 9:58 am
With such emphasis now upon decentralization, why pursue this path? Why not invest more money in distributed generation?
10 Stijn // Feb 4, 2008 at 9:59 am
We would need only seven of those to provide enough electricity for my entire town. And that’s not counting solar power, which is already very common in Limburg.
11 vlada // Feb 4, 2008 at 11:35 am
seheuhgurlusehrwgle
12 Saul Wall // Feb 4, 2008 at 1:58 pm
To Tony:
It is a creative idea but I suspect that the energy lost due to drag on the main turbine caused by the smaller ones would be more than the smaller turbines would produce.
13 homer // Feb 4, 2008 at 2:50 pm
dip: “1776 American homes” it’s just “all homes in USA in 1776 (year!)”
14 hal // Feb 4, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I seriously doubt this turbine breaks even in less than 10 years.
15 Andrew Kruse // Feb 4, 2008 at 6:49 pm
This company is the largest producer of wind turbines in Germany. They know what they are doing. I produce small wind generators and understand the technology. I would be you could never hear this machine. It likely turns at only 10-15 rpm. This machine is designed primarily for off-shore wind farms and breakeven is most likely 7-8 years like other designs.
16 WiredForStereo // Feb 4, 2008 at 11:07 pm
dip,
You are right, we Americans live in houses that are much too big and inefficient, but what difference can I make, I’m just a blogger. I live in a small house and I am working it make it more efficient. I spread the word, but few listen, it is called “The American Dream.”
Saul Wall,
Actually, there is very little power available at the hub. Smaller turbines don’t have the blade extending all the way to the hub, it just doesn’t provide down there.
Tony,
The efficiency is in the lift created by the air foil of the blade moving across the wind. If there were blades on the tips of the blades, you would begin to harvest power using drag which is less efficient. Additionally, a bunch of tiny blades moving at 180 mph would be VERY loud.
17 cyric // Feb 5, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I might be misunderstanding something, but according to Enercon own site, the tower hub height is 135 m tall and it has a rotor diameter of 127 m (so the blade length is half that, ~63.5 m). The total height is then about 135+63.5 = 198.5 m. This is still not as tall as the Fuhrländer Wind Turbine in Laasow Germany, which is ~205 m (160 m tower with 90 m diameter rotor). However this new turbine can generate much more power ~6-7 MW vs. 2.5 MW.
18 dib reply // Feb 5, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Yup, 3 TV’s on all day will do that. It’s why we’re fat too.
19 Waldo Hitcher // Feb 6, 2008 at 5:08 am
Ultra expensive low return wind turbine built instead of standard generating power methods, causes a significant net reduction in World wealth.
That means people at the bottom drop out of the wealth redistribution league, while rich countries indulge themselves with these ludicras “eco totem poles”.
This eco madness has gone too far. Either bring up the Eco technology beyond the efficiency of new generation or ditch it. At present Wind is five times as resource intensive to achieve the same in City (where the demand is) balanced secure 24/7 generation and wave/solar/tidal over 10 times as resource intensive.
Every one of these built starves poorer people of the resources it wastes. Six billion people would have to be reduced dramatically (ie die) if these eco technologies become widespread. The Earth can’t generate energy therefore sufficient wealth with stone age technology. Energy is the multiplier of wealth and every increase in real terms cost reduces potential wealth serverely and even more so in poor communities. Meanwhile the Germans are feeling very self satisfied at building expensive statues to their own ecological excellence with money that could have built efficient power stations in SS Africa.
The answer is to starve these “wind engineers” of funds until they can deliver the 5 times improvement in generation,storage and distribution efficiency necessary. Don’t pay for steam engines, make them deliver what we need.
The physics of the situation is clear even without the blindingly obvious solutions. The only thing that will return this wind or wave efficiency is scale, a technical solution that multiplies scale without multiplying mass. A windmill is not it , nor ever will be. As the height/span increases the rotating inertial mass goes through the roof.
Stop subsidising junk technology, start starving it .
Starve poor technology, not poor people.
20 Richard Leschen // Feb 7, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Love the giant 126 metre wind turbine, super.
Hope many more are built.
21 Ugly American // Feb 10, 2008 at 12:49 pm
re Waldo Hitcher
A 2007 US government study found wind power was half the price of coal per Kwh,.
Since then, the price of coal has more than doubled at some ports.
US anthracite (high grade coal) production peaked in the 1920s.
Oil, coal and nuclear power are scams. Everything from their exploration to to the waste products they produce is subsidized by income tax and has been for decades.
22 TheWindPower.net // Feb 16, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Most powerful wind turbines chart created by http://www.thewindpower.net . Thanks to indicate it !
23 Vicky // Feb 19, 2008 at 9:04 am
Yeah its big…. But there are some far far bigger ones in development…
24 harshavardhan // Feb 19, 2008 at 9:22 am
hi
can any one let me know the costs of each turbine..
25 R.Anandhan // Feb 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I am working in wind energy in india.E126 simply super turbine
ENERCON PROOF IMPOSSIBLE IS POSSIBLE
26 Another US Scumbag // Feb 19, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Despite being the world leader in charitable giving and foreign aid, I see it’s still chic to bash the US. We have our drawbacks, but so does every other nation on earth. Here in South Dakota, 20% of our electricity comes from wind, and more turbines are being errected daily.
27 Kolappan.Mahadevan pillai // Feb 25, 2008 at 6:18 am
ENERCON-EVERYTHING IS POSSIPLE
28 vlad // Mar 16, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Does any one know how much does it cost to build?
29 math person // Mar 25, 2008 at 12:32 am
Blade speed and bird kills - not what you think.
Try 355.7 mph at the tips. The circumference of a circle is 2*r*pi* = d*pi. If one blade is 413 feet, the diameter is 826 feet * pi = 2,594 feet / 5 seconds for one rotation around the circumference = 519 feet per second * 60 seconds * 60 minutes = 1,867,421 feet per hour / 5,250 feet = 355.7 miles per hour. Some birds fly horizontally as slow as a person walks. Try to walk through huge blades coming at you 355.7 miles per hour every 0.6 seconds (three blades completing a revolution every five seconds) randomly a few times and see if you escape getting hit.
As an economist, the question is not whether birds get hit and killed by wind power. Some will be. The question is whether fewer birds get hit and killed by wind power (the larger the turbines, the fewer of them there are, so fewer birds get killed by mega-wind power anyway) than by the oil and gasoline trucks that the wind turbines replace. The answer is yes. It turns out that the number two killer of birds (after house windows) is motor vehicles, with big trucks taking more than their share. Birds win overall with wind power (not to mention the cleaner air gives them back their normal life span and function).
30 economist // Mar 25, 2008 at 12:45 am
vlad -
The fixed cost is a sunk cost once the thing is up and running (just like a building) and connected to a storage system and distribution network, so that’s zero. The actual cost of the electricity prodcued is the variable cost per unit of energy produced, such as maintenance and replacement of worn parts. It’s probably way cheaper than coal. The actual energy source is caused by the interaction of the sun and the earth, so that’s free (a sunk cost worst) to the producer under clear solar/wind rights.
Your accountant and local politicians can tell you the additional unit costs of inefficient accounting, taxation and regulatory schemes and lobbying for unhelpful squirrelly laws from dirtier producers of electricity.
31 Barbara Azevedo // Mar 27, 2008 at 11:34 am
I would like to publish 1 photo of the The world’s largest wind turbine is now the Enercon E-126, you have in this website, for a publication I am developing about R.Energies in Portugal.
What would be the price for it?
32 Pancasatya Agastra // Mar 31, 2008 at 6:39 pm
As pointed out by cyric, the wind blade length is actually a little less than 126/2 meters taking account the diameter of the hub. The article simply dispersed the wrong information. Check Enercon’s website.
Math person’s calculation is correct, but the blade radius is wrong from the beginning. Consequently, the tip velocity is also wrong.
The wind speed versus power graph is not linear but asymptotic, hence, there is a point of diminishing return. No need to go so fast. Eventually, the mechanical properties of the blades will determine how fast the blades can/should turn. The faster the blade turns, the higher the mechanical loadings are. The higher the loadings, the shorter the lifespan of the blades. Say, fatigue!
33 Emilio // Apr 21, 2008 at 10:39 pm
“Wait, do i get this right, We in germany can power 5000homes with this one turbine, but you yanks are only able to power less than half of this? i.e. “1776 American homes”. Wonder what you guys do wrong?”
Well according to Mass.gov, “A megawatt is enough energy to power about 1,200 New England homes.” What so let me get this right at 7 Megawatts, thats 8,400 homes. So us YANKS aren’t really doing anything WRONG, are we dip?
http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/publications/0707land.htm
34 Bill Hyde // Apr 28, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Output of a windmill is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, eighth power at half speed, one twenty-seventh at one third speed, one sixty-fourth at quarter speed. Using Met Office figures plus 20%. i calculated that windmills spread all over the UK were producing less than 5% for fortnight in October, December and February. Which is why 27 nations around the world are building or planning nuclear power.
35 kyle hoge // May 3, 2008 at 4:36 pm
i would just like to know who wrote this article?
36 KevinM // May 18, 2008 at 10:12 am
How much is this baby? And how much does cost to install it?
37 dugudr // May 18, 2008 at 11:46 am
It’s too big. If we enough of this built it would slow the rotation of the Earth and fall into the Sun. Maybe that’s the solution, too.
38 Richard Leschen // May 18, 2008 at 7:15 pm
For Heaven sake,
To all those Troglodites in La-La Land who come up with lame excuses for knocking Wind- Power……….We who care about our Planet Earth are sick of acursed Nuclear Power Plants which only causes dangerous long- lived atomic waste which poisons our planet’s soil, air and water. The same goes for Coal Fired Power Stations which belt out stinking fumes which clog the air we breathe.
I say, ” Let the Wind Farms flourish, Wave generating power stations and Solar mirror electricity power generation stations as well.
Ruptured oil tankers spilling their stinking oil cargo kill far more bird, penguins and fish than any number of windmills anyway. ” Have you so soon forgotten the terrible maritime Oil Spill from the ‘ Lesson of the Curse of the Tori Canion.’ Don’t forget that nature’s Perigrine Falcons and Eagles also kill birds.
Richard Leschen
39 Vanya // May 22, 2008 at 7:50 am
This is an answer to DIP.
UNfortunately electricity is cheap. Almost every house you go to half the house is lit even when there is only one person home! or none. Lived here 20 years and still I hurt people’s feelings when I asked them not to leave lights on in my studio after they go to another room!
40 For Math Person // May 22, 2008 at 9:11 am
On The website of http://www.enercon.de/ the Model E-82 has a Rotor diameter: 82 m and the E-33 has a
Rotor diameter: 33.4 m. That tells me that the E-126 has a Rotor diameter: 126 m (413 Ft). That will make all the calculations you have done to be incorrect. the tip of the rotor travels at 177.
P.S. even if the blade was 413 feet the rotor would be much more than 826 feet. You would have to include the diameter of the hub. Also 3 blades completing a rotation every 5 seconds that means a blade passes you 5/3= 1.6 seconds.
I am sure that the sub level noises will cause the birds to be aware of it more than us. The movement also will allow birds to see it better.
41 Willie C Wuddle // May 27, 2008 at 10:50 am
I’d love to see more windmills here in Eastern Canada. Give me a can of beans and a case of beer and I could be self sufficient for at least two days. I can also think of a few local politicians who produce enough hot air to run a large windmill.
42 outlaw // May 27, 2008 at 5:06 pm
No one will say what it cost to build but if the figure is known its ten million or more. How long does it need to work to pay for itself.
43 American proud // Jun 3, 2008 at 12:18 pm
dip, yes the U.S. is over dependant on energy and we are very inefficient in its uses. But, we also enjoy the spoils of war….kicked yours twice. ha ha
44 Roger from Green Planet Solar Energy // Jun 20, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Apparently these are being installed in the North Sea as well. No shortage of wind there.
Some people object to these turbines. Here in Australia lots of people think they are ugly. To me they are magnificent; making energy for the cost of the turbine and its maintenance is one of the most sensible things humans have done so far.
45 TheWindPower.net // Jun 23, 2008 at 12:49 am
The most powerful wind turbines chart has been created by http://www.thewindpower.net . May you indicate it ???
46 Chris J Hind // Jun 25, 2008 at 7:12 am
I love it , its beautiful . In Australia you can travel tens of thousands of kilometers and never see one . In Thailand on , there are some which attract tourists . Fools say its inefficient , but thats short sighted . If Roman ruins can last thousands of years , I bet this megalith will be there making free power for a long time . Small speakers making bird warning calls can scare away birds .
47 Scott // Jun 26, 2008 at 4:50 am
Quote:
“The world’s largest wind turbine is now the Enercon E-126. This turbine has a rotor blade length of 126 meters (413 feet). ”
The article says Rotor Blade LENGTH. Not Diameter.
I’ve looked at Enercon’s websites, and I see no reference to the E-126’s diameter size. Or any reference to it at ALL, for that matter.
Several different web-pages report the Diameter being 126m and others say the Diameter is 126m
Yes, you can see that in the past Enercon have named their turbines after the diameter size, but to assume that continues without confirming it is a bit unscientific, wouldn’t you say?
Can anyone provide a link confirming this either way?
48 Scott // Jun 26, 2008 at 4:54 am
Sorry, that was meant to say:
Several different web-pages report the Diameter being 126m and others say the Blade Length is 126m
49 Jonathan // Jun 27, 2008 at 8:45 am
Re blade length/diameter. How about this link from Enercon in Germany: http://tinyurl.com/696oon
They state that hub height is 135m and overall height is 198m. It seems clear that the blade length is therefore 198-135 = 63m and the diameter therefore 126m.
50 fpsailor // Jul 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm
The real culprits for killing birds, from the bird experts (Hint: It’s not windmills, its not hunting): http://www.sibleyguides.com/mortality.htm
51 concerned citizen // Jul 15, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The first true plug-in hybrid cars should be reserved for Texas farmers and ranchers, those staunch backbone of the land people. They could recharge them with smaller windmill driven generators.
52 willie c wuddle // Jul 15, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I bet the rich get them first. They will have us everyday Joe’s working to pay for the generators then run their hummer size electric vehicles and boats at our expense causing the price of the remainder of the electricity to skyrocket.
53 logic person // Jul 16, 2008 at 3:03 pm
for people who can’t figure out how long the blades are, use logic. is it logical that the blades could sustain 20 plus years of 356 mph rotation? honestly.
54 Matt // Jul 17, 2008 at 10:55 pm
DIP - It’s called AIR CONDITIONING…Having lived in Germany for 2 years, there is a pretty HUGE difference in the amount of energy required in a German home vs. an American home during the summer!
We’re hardly “doing something wrong”.
55 Tom // Jul 19, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Does anyone know what rpm (input/output) the gearboxes run at for 2,3 or 4 MW systems? I realize this system is a direct drive (at 12 rpm -that’s got to be one big generator)?
I know of a very interesting new generator technology that just scaled up by a factor of 17,000% (to 10,000 lb-ft or 13k NM). It’s about 1/3 the weight of conventional generators and may hep out in these applications. Interestingly, big oil is who is advancing it right now.
56 Matthew // Jul 22, 2008 at 10:23 pm
in response to dip’s comment, i believe at least a small amount of that difference is in the climate, alot of germany is cooler in climate than the US. places like LA california and the massive surrounding metro get extremely hot (often above 100f in summer) and thus are “cranking up the a/c” i doubt that it accounts for the entire difference but part of it anyway. i admit, americans are probably a little more power hungry than germans. although recent government codes have changed requiring appliances like washer dryer and A/C must use a set minimum amount of energy per year in order to be sold.
57 Robert Walther // Aug 2, 2008 at 9:59 am
Emilio,
Us dum hllbillys hav to spend lot money to keep smrt Germans frm blowing up world every generation
58 Used Cisco // Aug 6, 2008 at 3:37 pm
This thing is amazing. We have lots of these in the midwest, but nothing this big!
59 Bill Green // Aug 12, 2008 at 4:56 am
Irregular said “I can already hear the screams of the Rotary group complaining about noise pollution…”
What has irregular got against Rotary? Most Rotarians are business people and so support technology that improves things. I am a member of Rotary and think every town should have at least one turbine. Far from being unsightly I think they are heartwarming and certainly no more unsightly that the pylons that march across the landscape.
60 eelectron // Aug 15, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Ugly American -Really!!! You think T-Boone would get into this business if it wasn’t heavily subsidized by our government. Left alone, wind would fail miserably.
Don’t forget, for every wind plant there must be a base plant (nuclear,coal,etc.) Which make it very expensive. Additionally, only about 25% of the unit maximum capacity is realized on average as energy is proportional to velocity squared. Without the base plants (choose coal or nuclear) blackouts are a fact, potentially long ones!!
61 Richard Leschen // Aug 16, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Readers please note….. All atomic Power Stations need Coal-Fired Power Stations to make the electricity to manufacture the atomic energy to build the atomic piles to run these Godforsaken energy plants. The sooner the whole World goes Solar, Tidal Power ,Wind Power,Wave Power the better. China is already choking to death by Australia selling them there Dopey Coal to further pollute our Planets already fast chocking LUNGS.
Richard Leschen
62 Greg // Aug 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm
IMHO people should stop demonizing atomic power its cheap and cleaner then coal (yes long term storage needed for the waste) there is room for multiple solutions and in fact the world will need them all soon enough. Because there are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. Options are good to have…
63 eelectron // Aug 18, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Richard Leschen - read some science books!!!
The coal/smog you see in China are from very crude plants. Coal is now nearly 50% efficient - totally different from the plants now in operation. Emissions are falling quickly.
What are you going to do when the wind stops??? Sit in the dark with your HUYA.
The idiots in Wasington and Hollywood and obviously - you don’t know anything about Nuclear power. Only low level wastes are buried, the rest is reprocessed - assuming our Congressional “Experts” ever get a clue. Look at FRANCE!!!!!!
64 SteveT // Aug 18, 2008 at 11:23 pm
After 50 years of wise land use planning which protected fragile mountain ecosystems, and recognized the importance of natural beauty to the human psyche, the US has been duped by the wind industry into deciding, for present and future generations, that the mountain tops are now industrial zones.
The cumulative effect of the billions of dollars being directed into wind farms will be a massive degradation of the natural environment. If these monstrous contraptions are allowed to pollute every horizon, what possible objections could we have to any other type of development? Hey, lets put some gambling casinos up there on the ridges, there are great roads, the power lines are run and the views are fantastic!
It would be one thing if windpower was a real solution, if redundant power plants did not have be constantly on line to make electricity during the 75% of the time that the wind is not blowing.
Electricity is produced by coal and natural gas, not oil, so wind power does not reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Insulating our homes and using hybrid cars, or better riding bicycles would do that, and if the billions spent on wind farms was used to help conserve energy, and develop dependable renewable energy like geothermal, biomass, small scale solar pv and water heating, we would save the landscape, solve the problem, and prevent the huge outflow of dollars to foreign countries that wind farms, which are mostly owned by foreign entities, represent.
The wind industry is nothing more than a modern day gold rush, and the pay dirt is 200% 5 year depreciation, 2 cents/kw direct tax credits, property tax abatement, green credits, etc. It is an investors dream. It has been a nightmare for the community fabric of every town that has been conned into accepting it.
65 Mr.V.M.Patel // Aug 25, 2008 at 3:23 am
Dear sir/medam
i have the experience in windmill since last three years and in electric field the experience is last 26 years.so i wish to take electric contract in your company so kindly request you to addmit me as a part of your company as a contractor. i willing the responce from your side.if you wish to devlope me as your vendor then send me the registration form of your company for my addmition as a contractor.
if you have any querry then free feel to mail me.
thanking you,
V.M.Patel
66 zalera girish // Aug 28, 2008 at 2:36 am
Dear Sir /Madam
I am really proud of your technology and I congratulate you .
Can anyone tell me the coast of installing up to the grid these mega turbines not necessary ENERCON E 112
instead even little smaller like VESTAS V90-30 to produce 60 megawatts.
67 steve // Sep 1, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I and my family own several thousand acres in west texas.we are looking for capital investors to develop a wind farm there.it is located in crez (competitive renewable energy zone) 9…send me an e-mail if serious.
68 Henk Daalder // Sep 2, 2008 at 10:04 am
The cost of building and connecting a windturbine the grid is measured in EUR/kW (or $/kW)
With the more current models the cost is 1400 EUR/kW
So a turbine with a genarator of 3 MW costs about 4.2 Million EUR, deliverd, build and connected to the grid
69 E.A. // Sep 6, 2008 at 2:44 am
Pay attention, soulless androids and Trekkies who keep applauding wind turbines. I am stating a view that’s not in the minority.
These monster machines pose serious concerns for those who aren’t aesthetically-challenged. Part of the whole quality of life is simply looking at a natural horizon without 400+ foot spinning distractions. It’s not just a NIMBY issue when planned on a massive scale, if you have aesthetic values beyond those of a robot. People who want half the planet to look man-made are sick, in my opinion.
Limited wind power in areas that are already “ugly” is OK, but people who actually live around them are rarely happy with the noise, sunlight strobe effect and red lights at night.
I think we should put at least equivalent effort into halting population growth (now 77 million annually) so demand for energy doesn’t keep rising. We expect every other species to live withing its means, but people have been exponential takers. Costly oil is finally slowing that down, but now they want the same gluttony transposed to “clean” energy.
True conservation should be about personal restraint, not meeting endless greedy needs. Growthism is the underlying issue in energy policy but it’s not being addressed directly. There is a still a general failure to admit that the planet is finite.
70 Wiredforstereo // Sep 9, 2008 at 6:15 pm
The megawatt andpower consumption numbers people are having problems with come to the following: I did the calculations using kwh production per year not peak instantaneous production. Simply take the per year consumption per US home, and that’s where the numbers come from.
All turbines have maximum efficiency based upon tip speed. 300+ mph is beyond the range that things explode. Smaller turbines are constrained by the same tip speed efficiencies, that is why they rotate faster but still have the same tip speed.
71 Batman // Sep 9, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I too think that people should seriously consider not getting pregnant to have children or at the very least just have 2 children, but no more. One child per family would be optimal and would shrink the population within 20 or so years if that plan were carried on for 20+ years duration. Unplanned children happen, but don’t plan to have more than 1-2 of them.
I laugh when I see people post about wind generators slowing down the orbit of the earth around the sun–goofy reasoning, but funny.
I often wonder why wind generator shapes mostly use the big prop type designs. There are other designs to be used to that wouldn’t give that strobe light show against the sunlight. There’s got to be other designs that are better and smaller. Bigger isn’t necessarily always better.
72 Ray The Money Man // Sep 10, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Quit talking about shrinking the population. You have your numbers backwards as far as the U.S. goes. We baby boomers barely have enough people to take care of us in old folks homes. That’s why we have to import them.
Back on post sp as to not Hijack this great blog post. This 7+ Mega. is a this of pure beauty!
http://thealternativeenergyinvestor.blogspot.com
73 Enviro // Sep 23, 2008 at 12:02 pm
It is amazing to see the number of people who are against clean, renewable energy. There will always be people who are against anything and everything. If we expect our society to survive we will have to develop clean non fossil fuel energy. Or we will go the way of the Dodo. Wind energy is simply the only practical available clean large scale renewable energy we can turn to right now. Anyone who thinks burning coal or oil is a smart long term solution is simply sticking their heads in the sand. Nuclear works but toxic waste will always be a problem. When the first nuke blows up, that industry will die overnight. The global warming time bomb is ticking and we are having these silly debates. In the near future, the problem will be irreversible and we will all pay the price. In the last hundred years we have gone full circle on energy and now we are addicted to it. Without it the world as we know it ceases to exist. All the people who don’t want to see wind power should sign an agreement that they will never be allowed to use any in the future. Let’s hope smarter minds prevail in this battle for our survival. Hats off to the Germans for doing it. All the old nonsense arguments about the evils of wind power are falling on deaf ears and have been shown to be not true. When will the die hard wind haters simply knock it off.
74 TheWindPower.net // Sep 29, 2008 at 4:49 am
The updated chart of most powerful turbines : http://www.thewindpower.net/213-wind-turbine-ranges.php
75 TheWindPower.net // Sep 29, 2008 at 4:50 am
The updated chart of most powerful turbines is present here : http://www.thewindpower.net/213-wind-turbine-ranges.php
76 Kirbert // Sep 29, 2008 at 8:22 am
Something this big requires a steady wind. In Denmark, they built a 2 MW wind turbine and quickly discovered it was too big. Because of the gyroscopic effects, it could not change direction fast enough to follow changing wind directions, and would have to just shut down in gusty conditions. They found that 1-1.5MW was just about the optimum size to take advantage of the wind they had. Obviously, Germany must have steadier wind.
77 G Cool // Oct 5, 2008 at 5:15 am
Wind storage Beacon Power (BCON)
http://www.beaconpower.com
78 A Canadian // Oct 5, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Thanks for all the comments and website references. you all helped me out on a law assignment. Wind power is a great source of energy.
79 Pedro // Oct 9, 2008 at 11:32 pm
In the UK we have 60,000 tonnes of nuclear waste with no plan of how to deal with it. It’s difficult to visualise, so imagine a pile of 15,000 elephants. That’s around a quarter of the world’s Asian elephant population.
Iodine-129, a by-product of nuclear fission, has a half-life of 16 million years but is still dangerous after 160 million years. Or to put it another way, if the dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period had had nuclear power, we’d still be looking after their waste.
wind turbines are a beautiful addition to a landscape and for people with some perception of the future, a symbol of hope.
80 bunny rabbit // Oct 13, 2008 at 8:03 pm
wtf is this whole fricking website about
81 hunter // Oct 15, 2008 at 8:56 am
you guys just have to realize this is a breakthrough in alternative energy.this is a way to a new and enviromentally powered earth btw theres a larger turbine about 10 feet taller then yours .your FACE!!ive seen it in real life search biggest turbine on google!!!
82 hunter collins // Oct 15, 2008 at 9:04 am
you lied there is one 425 feet in vermont and the queen can’t buy this one now can she
83 brandon tiger // Oct 15, 2008 at 9:05 am
you lied there is a bigger wind turbine in cape vincent vermont it was bought by the QUEEN of ENGLAND
84 Richard Leschen // Oct 15, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Message to Eelectron,
Please note electron has only one ‘e ‘ in it, unless you are a poet and claim poetic licence . if not, then please learn to spell correctly.
I have probably read more science books than you will in your life-time. Please take off your blinkers. Have you so soon forgotten the Chernobyl Catastrophy not that many years ago and the terrible aftermath, children still dying from atomic filth, soil still poisoned with atomic radiation. All or Chernobyl’s residents had to be moved a long way from Chernobyl as far too dangerous levels of radiation are still there to safely allow humans to live there for many life-times to come.
When the wind stops blowing there is still tidal power, see tidal generators in Scotland and other places on Earth with tidal energy.
Mr Eelectron, please GET A LIFE and read more Science Books to get a balanced education, which you sadly seem to lack at present. As you so love stinking coal, you probably have shares in it and atomic power as well. There is no such thing as CLEAN COAL, it is black when it comes out of the ground and black as its stinking small sooty particles sweep into the air and your poor soon to be tortured lungs. I know what I am talking about as I lived in London for many years from 1939 up to 1948 and we lived through some terrible smogs. Actually a number of people died from the SMOG in London. No matter how well you try to clean up the smoke particulates with electrostatic rods and steam cleaning techniques as was done at Battersea Power Station in London back in the 1960’s you cannot keep every smoke particulate from getting into the atmosphere or the carbon- dioxide gas. Now I suggest that you stick that in your pipe and smoke it !
Signed,
Richard Leschen.
85 Vimana Man // Oct 16, 2008 at 2:08 am
Go for Wind Power Baby, Tidal, Wave, Hot Rocks………anything but stinking Coal or Devilish Nuclear Power which is the Coals of Satan and Money Grubbing Capitalist Pigs.
Signed,
Vimana Man.
86 EARL POWLETT // Oct 16, 2008 at 2:39 am
I am interested in setting up a wind power system. Please help me as to what best suits me.
my house is wired with a 100amp breaker.
what information would you need to assist me
87 brock // Oct 25, 2008 at 12:24 pm
i like it
88 George // Oct 28, 2008 at 4:06 am
we produce and sell wind turbine : http://www.worldwindturbine.com
89 chris wheeler // Oct 28, 2008 at 9:31 am
how fast does the wind have to blow to make the turbin blades move
90 G-no // Oct 29, 2008 at 12:10 am
To Earl
You need to talk to a marine/boating store they have wind ginnies for 12/24 volt systems with115volt inverters they usually use them on sailboats.
G-no
91 Peter H. // Nov 4, 2008 at 6:25 pm
What is the power rating of more typical wind turbines as opposed to the largest?
92 Steve G // Nov 12, 2008 at 6:21 am
I guess the world will always be plagued by dinosaurs and nimbys and no matter what you try someone somewhere will object so I guess the saner amongst us will just have to put up with it. Personally, I have an open mind. I think large wind turbines are elegant and certainly much better than a power station belching out clouds of pollution. As for the cost, I think you may well find that if all the costs of power generation are taken into account including the cost to the environment, wind power might come out very well. Rather than global warming, which will happen anyway, we should be more concerned about diminishing resources. The coal and oil won’t last forever - wind will.
93 Vimana Man // Nov 13, 2008 at 12:11 am
To…..Steve G,
You are correct, you can’t please all of the people all of the time. Every ton of Coal that’s burnt is just adding to the pollution of Planet Earth. Wind power does not pollute our Planet.
94 Robin from Green Energy Efficient Homes // Nov 13, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I personally wouldn’t find it an eyesore to see one or more of these gargantuan machines perched on a hilltop or in an open field. There’s a large (but much smaller) wind turbine in downtown Toronto, right by the lake, that was funded in part by members of the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-op (trec.on.ca) and in part by Toronto Hydro, which agreed to buy a portion of its power to sell to its customers as green electricity.
The turbine in Toronto is definitely not an eyesore. It is a symbol of hope for the future. Everyone I’ve talked to loves looking at it, whether from afar, or from right at its giant base. One of the great things about these mega wind turbines is that you can see them from even farther away!
95 CNITDONE // Nov 15, 2008 at 2:01 pm
BTW.. one ton of CO2 is created for every ton of cement, now this wind monster is going to require at least 800 cubic tons of cement and reinforced steel to anchor. How many european dump trucks running on diesel is that for one wind farm ? how many dead birds and bats. Actually I don’t care..but 30% efficiency is just counterproductive, this monster is not going to shut down any existing power plants, wind energy cannot be stored as hydro or nuclear, it a use it or lose it proposition. Anyone know what the efficient wind speed to power ratio of this thing is? Cause it only works at peak efficiency ( let’s be generous and say 35%) when the wind is moving at precisely that speed. Wind to slow efficiency drops, wind to high efficiency drops, I”m not going to even touch the air density questions. Hey here’s another question how much petroleum based oil ( not the environmentally friendly type made of magic dust ok) do you think is in the generators of this wind sucker?.. at least 2000 gal in the turbine.now multiply time how many turbines and lets remember, like a car we need to change the oil ok or else, the big wind machine loses efficiency then grinds to a halt, or blows up in a really spectacular manner. Oh we have to change the multiple filters and seals as well, maintenance costs!!! oh clean the rotors of dead bugs, and sand and grit and( salt ..if your offshore) . or else ..we lose efficiency. And don’t forget to change the really beautiful blinking light on top. Damn it wait, we got to cut down 5 acres of forest for every turbine installed in a wooded area.. and we all know that trees give up their stored CO2 when dead right? It’s not like the trees convert it to something and no don’t say O2 please…chemistry chemistry. Cut trees, build a huge heat retaining base, I’m sure the erosion and heat retention is minimal.. no problem here. Argg we need to build more roda to get to the bases, hey how about a few more gas stations along the way so the manitenace trucks can fuel up, and restaurant so the workers can eat, and a hotel and and and …. how many jobs created for a wind turbine? And once built, where do the workers go, cause sure as hell they are not local are they?
96 WiredForStereo // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Um, what exactly is a cubic ton? That’s like saying a square kilogram.
And no one lied, this post is months old. The E-126 was the largest at the time.
97 Neil // Nov 25, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Forums are great for discussions. A lot of different viewpoints are expressed which hopefully cause us to look at issues from different angles.
However, it never ceases to amaze me how many people are incapable of discussing ISSUES without bashing PEOPLE. Why do people from one country have to bash the people in another country? How many of those criticizing the other country have actually lived there? I’m an American born in Florida to American parents but lived in Germany for 29 years of my adult life and since 2002 am back in Florida. As a whole Germans have a much greener attitude than Americans as a whole. It is practiced voluntarily in their daily lives in many ways - conservation, recycling, health. They definitely have a greener mindset.
This is not something that couldn’t happen in the US as well. In Germany it is the result of repeated promotion of a green mentality by the government and the media. Forums like this could contribute greatly to a changed way of thinking if everyone contributing would be respectful and mature regarding other viewpoints.
98 A. Shylock // Nov 27, 2008 at 8:00 am
The only way centralised power generation systems like these are financially viable is through subsidy, now I’m not saying subsidies are bad, I’m saying that for the subsidy given to install that wind giant, Americans could install home energy generation power systems, a localised empowering alternative, this is a subsidy worth investing in as it doesn’t require people to work as much, by getting into their cars to drive to the office using gas, diesel and other carbon emitting tools, they essentially nullify all benefits that this type of renewable energy has to offer, as they still require the money to pay for the energy and that means people still have to travel to work to earn a crust, small home based energy systems are the natural way for people to generate and use energy, it’s in harmony with their local environment. No monstrous gigantic power cables and no large hideously dangerous substations. Approximately a half of all energy generated by centralised eletricity power stations is used to distribute that energy on the GRID, therfore centralised electric energy generation systems require double the resources they need to sustain them, which means the energy charged to customers is double what it needs to be, which means they require at least twice the amount of time to recover the carbon they have emitted into the atmosphere, hmmmm….and they say these are supposed to be environmentally friendly, not as environmentally friendly as small localised energy genrating systems, that empower people and their communitites to become independent of the centralised industrial production system.
99 Stephen Thurston // Nov 27, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Well said, Shylock. The legacy of wind farm sprawl will be the sad hallmark of this period in history.
100 trnstn // Nov 27, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I agree with Shylock, building large scale wind farms does not contribute to a greener future in energy production, we should reuse the land we already utilize for our cities. The amount of land already consumed by urban sprawl would be enough land for small wind turbines and solar arrays in backyards, empty lots, tops/ sides of buildings, not to mention all the empty land under power line corridors.
101 DougO // Nov 28, 2008 at 9:34 pm
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 Comment