How this will support their theories— hmmm what was that about theories??? It’s all in the harnessing of it and the distribution of it— figure that out and maybe it could work but not on the premise of stopping global warming. Natures way is a gift we aren’t smart enough to figure out.
Air turbulence?? I thought it was the heat from the steaming carcasses of gajillions of bald eagles slaughtered by the 7 ton blades…
Silly me.
Comment by Claire: pink pig barbarian, etc — April 30, 2012 @ 9:59 am
Looks like they would have at least consulted an aeronautical engineer, pilot, adult with common sense, or teenager with above common sense about the turbulence factor/decreased efficiency of placing them in a straight frigging line.
Or maybe just wait for a flock of geese to fly over.
mojo (4) & joe (6)
Ahh, you noticed that.
I pondered (read: pon-der-ed) upon that very observation for a while.
I’m guessing that they decided upon that layout geometry for economic reasons (perhaps it entails the cheapest overall underwater* cabling costs, dunno).
I’ll bet there’s a study, somewhere, evaluating the aerodynamic shadowing factors vs wind distribution for a number of layout geometries. Might be a fun thesis.
One would assume that this photo is not of the prevailing wind direction. If it is, it appears that somebody screwed-up. However, any layout will have some shadowing on the third or fourth row, no matter how you slice it, so it may well be a viable layout in whatever overall-value function one uses to decide these things.
* Might not be water. Might be a land fog. Dunno. Similar considerations apply. Might have other constraints having nothing to do with efficiency (e.g. field corners).
Comment by DougM (jackassophobe) — April 30, 2012 @ 10:54 am
I say we just kill ‘em. They’re starting to get on my nerves.
Eddies and vortices are evidence of energy lost. Next: wind turbine blades with winglets on the tips.
That way we can have sliced as well as smashed birds.
Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — April 30, 2012 @ 11:11 am
Soooo, that fat fucker, Ted Kennedy (…who knew sumfin about water under a bridge…) was right about wind turbines, near his house, up East! {…Bonus knowledge: In Hell, they really fucking *fan* the flames, Senator :o}
Comment by Colonel Jerry USMC — April 30, 2012 @ 12:13 pm
Slightly off topic, but I wonder if that is have an effect regarding the drought in Texas?
They are just about to drop the drought status, but we have had the DRIEST April ever.
Comment by Melissa In Texas — April 30, 2012 @ 12:35 pm
Down through the decades of my techy careers I’ve invoked Heinlein’s TANSTAAFL…. a lot. Invariably I’ve gotten the blankest stares and unending arguments from the left-of-center.
b) I think Heinlein should be required reading in high school. Taken together, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, Glory Road, and Red Planet (teenagers with guns! shooting whatever needs to be shot!) should provide something to both educate and offend just about everybody.
Comment by Ironic in Denver — April 30, 2012 @ 3:13 pm
Correct, DougM.
Just because the pic was taken of them neatly in rows into the wind, doesn’t mean its the prevailing wind direction.
We have a rather large wind farm near me and the rows seem to be not quite perpendicular, but slightly angled to the prevailing direction. (like the leading edge of a modern, non-aerobatic airplane wing)
Rest assured, there are many thousands of hours of CFD that go into determining turbine placement.
Windmills are pretty handy if you want to get a taxing entity to help secure right of way, which you can use for other things. I’ve heard a pipeline fits well in the confines of the area needed for overhead cables.
But will such evidence make any difference to those “enlightened” ones?
Nah, they will just make something up explaining how this supports their theories.
Comment by logdogsmith — April 30, 2012 @ 9:07 am
How this will support their theories— hmmm what was that about theories??? It’s all in the harnessing of it and the distribution of it— figure that out and maybe it could work but not on the premise of stopping global warming. Natures way is a gift we aren’t smart enough to figure out.
Comment by geezerette — April 30, 2012 @ 9:30 am
Now it becomes obvious: wind turbines cause Global Warming.
“Climate scientist Professor Nigel Tapper …
“I do believe in global warming and I believe we have to look at alternative energy.”
Click red shoes together three times.
“If you were to use solar panels rather than turbines you would still have an effect.”
O rly????????????
Comment by ZZMike — April 30, 2012 @ 9:49 am
I love that the wakes from the front bird-dicers are lowering the efficiency of the ones behind…
Comment by mojo — April 30, 2012 @ 9:53 am
Air turbulence?? I thought it was the heat from the steaming carcasses of gajillions of bald eagles slaughtered by the 7 ton blades…
Silly me.
Comment by Claire: pink pig barbarian, etc — April 30, 2012 @ 9:59 am
Looks like they would have at least consulted an aeronautical engineer, pilot, adult with common sense, or teenager with above common sense about the turbulence factor/decreased efficiency of placing them in a straight frigging line.
Or maybe just wait for a flock of geese to fly over.
Comment by joe — April 30, 2012 @ 10:51 am
mojo (4) & joe (6)
Ahh, you noticed that.
I pondered (read: pon-der-ed) upon that very observation for a while.
I’m guessing that they decided upon that layout geometry for economic reasons (perhaps it entails the cheapest overall underwater* cabling costs, dunno).
I’ll bet there’s a study, somewhere, evaluating the aerodynamic shadowing factors vs wind distribution for a number of layout geometries. Might be a fun thesis.
One would assume that this photo is not of the prevailing wind direction. If it is, it appears that somebody screwed-up. However, any layout will have some shadowing on the third or fourth row, no matter how you slice it, so it may well be a viable layout in whatever overall-value function one uses to decide these things.
* Might not be water. Might be a land fog. Dunno. Similar considerations apply. Might have other constraints having nothing to do with efficiency (e.g. field corners).
Comment by DougM (jackassophobe) — April 30, 2012 @ 10:54 am
I say we just kill ‘em. They’re starting to get on my nerves.
Comment by Hog Whitman — April 30, 2012 @ 11:10 am
Eddies and vortices are evidence of energy lost. Next: wind turbine blades with winglets on the tips.
That way we can have sliced as well as smashed birds.
Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — April 30, 2012 @ 11:11 am
Soooo, that fat fucker, Ted Kennedy (…who knew sumfin about water under a bridge…) was right about wind turbines, near his house, up East! {…Bonus knowledge: In Hell, they really fucking *fan* the flames, Senator :o}
Comment by Colonel Jerry USMC — April 30, 2012 @ 12:13 pm
Slightly off topic, but I wonder if that is have an effect regarding the drought in Texas?
They are just about to drop the drought status, but we have had the DRIEST April ever.
Comment by Melissa In Texas — April 30, 2012 @ 12:35 pm
Down through the decades of my techy careers I’ve invoked Heinlein’s TANSTAAFL…. a lot. Invariably I’ve gotten the blankest stares and unending arguments from the left-of-center.
Comment by TimO — April 30, 2012 @ 1:02 pm
a) at last! proof of man-made climate change….
b) I think Heinlein should be required reading in high school. Taken together, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, Glory Road, and Red Planet (teenagers with guns! shooting whatever needs to be shot!) should provide something to both educate and offend just about everybody.
c) Meanwhile, more “green energy” bullshit gone astray and fucking up the environment:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/04/28/solyndra-not-dealing-with-toxic-waste-at-milpitas-facility/
Comment by Ironic in Denver — April 30, 2012 @ 3:13 pm
Correct, DougM.
Just because the pic was taken of them neatly in rows into the wind, doesn’t mean its the prevailing wind direction.
We have a rather large wind farm near me and the rows seem to be not quite perpendicular, but slightly angled to the prevailing direction. (like the leading edge of a modern, non-aerobatic airplane wing)
Rest assured, there are many thousands of hours of CFD that go into determining turbine placement.
Comment by Buzz — April 30, 2012 @ 5:40 pm
Well there you go! Ted Kennedy was right to not want those wind mills off Martha’s Vineyard!
So instead… DRILL BABY DRILL!
Comment by Paul — April 30, 2012 @ 7:22 pm
Windmills are pretty handy if you want to get a taxing entity to help secure right of way, which you can use for other things. I’ve heard a pipeline fits well in the confines of the area needed for overhead cables.
Comment by Jess — May 1, 2012 @ 3:37 am
^ interesting point Jess. Can I use the land under the windmills to grow weed?
Comment by Ironic in Denver — May 2, 2012 @ 7:16 am