http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070903.wdutchwind0903/BNStory/Science/home
The comments section is very interesting and worth a visit, even though it turns into a wind vs nuclear discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dutch adding more wind turbines
IJMUIDEN, Netherlands — There is no shortage of wind in the densely populated Netherlands, but there is a shortage of space and in a nation that likes its houses small and its gardens cosy, opposition to wind farms is immense.
That is why a new Dutch wind farm is being built so far out to sea that it is barely visible on the horizon, reducing the visual impact of its 60 turbines to virtually nil while at the same time harnessing higher offshore wind speeds.
Offshore wind farms are likely to appear more and more frequently off European coastlines as governments seek to increase their use of renewable energy without angering their citizens by placing giant turbines on their doorsteps.
The €383-million ($549-million Canadian) Q7 wind park development, 23 kilometres from the Dutch North Sea coast, is the farthest offshore wind park anywhere in the world, and its developers Econcern and Eneco Energie say a further five to 10 such wind parks will likely follow in the next few years.
"Q7 will contribute enough electricity for 125,000 households, but it is also a learning process. We are learning how to build these wind farms, how to organize the supply chain, and how to manage and operate them," said Bernard van Hemert, one of the wind farm's engineering directors.
"Most campaigns against turbines are based around the noise and the visual impact, and these have been reduced by going offshore. It is more expensive to do it here than to do it on land, but we have all agreed we don't have enough space on land," Mr. van Hemert said.
Blessed with shallow sandy soils around their coastline, Dutch engineers say the foundations for the turbines can be hammered 25 metres into the ground in just a matter of hours, although there are myriad other challenges.
The proportions are breathtaking. The turbines extend about 98 metres from the ocean, with three sharp narrow blades, each 40 metres long.
It is hoped that when they start rotating in early 2008 they will cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 225,000 tonnes, helping the Dutch to meet a target of 20-per-cent renewable energy use by 2020.
Tricky logistics
The turbines are so massive that they can be transported only by sea and there is only one factory in Europe which can weld and construct the 4.5-metre-diameter piles, which must be first driven into the sea to form the base of the turbines, Mr. van Hemert said.
"It is a huge logistical operation that requires lots of space. There are only a few crane vessels that can handle those huge structures and hammer them down.
"But bringing up the cables is the most challenging for all offshore wind projects."
Expert divers are helping to fit the electrics.
Developers have also had to ensure that the wind park is well away from busy shipping channels.
"Studies in the United Kingdom have shown that there can be some radio interference but in the situation we have here it is completely safe and there is no risk of confusion or reduced visibility for vessels."
Jim Mollet, chairman of a Dutch group campaigning against wind energy acknowledges off-shore wind farms have some benefits over land-based wind turbines.
"They can be a better solution. But the problem is people tend to believe they are an entire solution. We think the vast sums spent on wind farms would be better spent on research and innovation in other energy sources."
Wind farms cannot generate the sheer amounts of energy the continent requires with cost or space efficiency, he added.
6 comments:
Preaching to the choir. Let's hear more about what the GSPA is doing about this wind turbine development.
Thinking critically, the comment section is made from far away from the Netherlands. The commenters are again from canada.
The concept of putting these out to sea appears to be good from the human perspective however these generate electric and magnetic fields from the generators and cabling to shore and they also generate low frequency sound(infrasound) and dissonance.
Salt water is a conductor of electrical nature as well as sound.
This idea doesn't bode well for the already declining and stressed out marine life !
....but as usual this fact will be ignored or swept out of view?
It was with a certain amount of interest that I listened to the Farley Mowat interview on CBC'S Sounds Like Canada this morning.He has donated 200+ acres of Cape Breton peninsula to the Nova Scotia Nature Trust to keep it forever out of the hands of greedy developers.
While I am sure that Mr. Mowat is glad no wind turbines will be erected on this tract, the greedy developers he was refering to are shoreline cottage developers. He said that this type of development has ruined most of the shoreline in Nova Scotia already.
It's always nice to hear someone else's thoughts.
John McManus
John, stay away from Farley. He's too old to withstand the invasive surgery you put Charlie through!
Sounds like Farly is a deep green,not that that's a bad thing.
At least by speaking from a firm philosophical approach he says what he means and lives by it,as does David Suzuki.
That is not characteristic of the green activists whose loyalty to the planet is questioned every time the wind changes direction.
"no nukes"--"no windfarm"---no coal"--anthems of the GPC, or is it another day and another issue?
I have to ask at this point,if you oppose every current viable means of power generation except hydro,
although it too certainly upsets wildlife,then what?
If we were to flood all the lowlands of NB to replace Lepreau's output with hydro,some of the hordes of people displaced would be upset.
My Point is Jim Mollet,said---
"We think the vast sums spent on wind farms would be better spent on research and innovation in other energy sources."
That is just so green,
study it to death.One minute it's "we can't afford to wait,the planet can't wait" next it's "let's research other energy sources".
We know ,what the hazards are ,of the present technologies.Every time someone starts to spread another urban myth about ALT/energy ,such as subaudiovibratory effects (check out animal magnetism and the nature of mass hysteria), I need to ask "so what viable,sustainable and practical solution do you have? I have no doubt new sounds interrupt sleep,I do doubt it can make people ill. If so I have to wonder how I or any of the 9 million in Toronto area survived the sub and auditory noise and vibration,24/7.
Perhaps I am tougher than some,not convinced of that ,every one else as well as myself; in my area of abode ,has survived moving beside a busy RR track and all of us sleep well.
I'd trade it in a minute for that little whooshing sound,the one, one has strain to hear, as opposed to ground shaking,screeching ,grinding heavy metal concert at 2:40 every morning. I'd suggest banning trains, however ,I believe the concept is the greenest,if goods need be transported,unless the GPC has issued a new bull decrying trains and supporting pack animals. .
Post a Comment