China is building a wind turbine of unthinkable dimensions

[@kc10man]

Lived in Mianyang for a few years. Just seeing these turbine parts from the side of the freeway on the way from Mianyang to Deyang is impressive! Very underrated manufacturing hub.

[@tihzho]

Do Americans really need football fields and stadiums as units of measure to understand dimensions? 😆

[@jamesthrbr]

Sadly, yes.

[@elevationmoto6208]

No, not really. All that Americans need to know is "you can see it from space!" 🌞🌠🇺🇸

[@jamesrecknor6752]

That or my 1966 Cadillac

[@meatpopsicle1567]

I guess it's better for visualization, as most Americans can relate to the size and area of the average American football field. I'm certain it is a form of mental shorthand, using a common object for understanding the size and scope of a another given object. What do Eurotrash use as a comparison exemplar, I wonder? Barley corns? Guillotines? Cheese wheels? Beer steins? Wooden shoes? "Heinrich? How long is that queue of Russian tanks coming rapidly toward us? There must be two-hundred tanks!" "I estimate it to be at least 5 million beer steins long!" "Very impressive! That is long!"

[@user-iv7pl2uo7q]

For the U.S., a more relatable comparison would be the number of monster trucks or cases of Bud Light.

[@daverose8082]

The numbers and sizes are difficult to imagine. Having scaled diagrams of turbines next to each other would really help.

[@ConstructiveMinds100]

too difficult. too advanced

[@Mrbfgray]

Yes and maybe toss in a shadow of other iconic structure--Empire State Building, Golden Gate Bridge, Eiffel Tower.....

[@manuell3505]

At least dump the imperial units.

[@ConstructiveMinds100]

@@manuell3505 imperial units are good They remind avrage UK racist of their glory.

[@smallmodelcollector]

​@@manuell3505 Having been educated in the US; I can confirm Imperial is the dumbest measurement system of our time. Working on old cars with fraction wrenches and bending sheetmetal with 7+ digits to go metric. The US must waste millions of hours of manpower calculating this stupid system. You can teach any child metric in 1 day so why they stick to Imperial is a mystery.

[@RoySATX]

Living in San Antonio, TX most of my life I use the height of the Tower of the Americas as a reference, it stands at 622' (to the top of the roof, I don't count the tower which rises to 750'). So when I think of a 450' blade, that's two-thirds the height of the tower and damn impressive. I wouldn't want to be too close to it in operation, to be sure.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Wind speed increases up to a height of 700 ft, 200 m. Near the ground, ground friction slows the air speed and all air in contact with the slowed air is slowed by air to air friction. A tower height of 1000 ft, 300m would be ideal for a 450 ft, 150m blade.

[@nateums]

If it’s offshore then I’d be ok with it… imo wind farms ruin the scape of a land vista

[@gregggoodnight9889]

True that, especially if you are a bird.

[@justanotherguy2824]

Dear US-Americans! Please could you stop bothering the rest of humanity with your completely anachronistic units of measurement? Hardly anybody outside the USA understands what "853 feet" or "120 miles per hour" means. This video in particular is about Chinese wind turbines. No Chinese engineer ever designed a wind turbine in feet, they use metric, like >95% of all people on this planet. The names of the wind turbines include their dimensions in metric (e.g. at 2:50, the Heizhuang H260-18MW has a rotor diameter of 260m). Converting this to some ancient, complicated units of measurement does not make sense.

[@anthonybrannon2611]

If I can learn the metric system, you should be able to learn the SAE system. We fought to free ourselves from the imperial government and the imperial measurement system also.

[@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy]

Even for Americans and British, the use of the metric system should be standard in engineering. There is no sense in hanging on to measurement units based on barleycorns.

[@davrocket5304]

chila garbage

[@FahimMahbub89]

Also, what's the actual area of the NFL stadium? Anyone outside the US hardly bothers about the NFL. And the video is about China. 😂😂😂

[@anthonybrannon2611]

@@FahimMahbub89 NFL fields measure 300 feet long by 150 feet wide. ( You can do the conversion to meters) OH, and screw China.

[@pham6011]

Viva China

[@BritishAnts]

American AI voice written by china! 😂

[@feiipin2k]

Power of wind turbines are defined by: P=0.5pV³πR², so yes if you double the radius of the blade you got 4 times more power. Also at higher altitudes you have more wind.

[@chairmakerPete]

Wind turbine power defined by Wind not blowing = no power Wind blowing gently = no power Wind blowing at just the right speed = some power Wind blowing too strongly = no power

[@remakeit2628]

@@chairmakerPete Wind turbines have a "capacity factor" so your comments are plain stupid! I suggest you get a better education.

[@holgernarrog962]

@@chairmakerPete It is clear that a dirty windill does not produce useful electricity. But it is indeed to study the formulas to understand the windmills and its limitations better.

[@tompsheridantsheridant7354]

DARZHNARZHERLARBLE? DARZHNARZHERLABLE?

[@Cynthia_Cantrell]

@@chairmakerPete Iowa gets over 60% of its power from wind now, and in terms of watt hours, Texas gets 3x that much energy. Excelon coerced $694 million from the state of Illinois by threatening to shut down two of its nuclear power plants, complaining that it couldn't compete with all the cheap wind power coming in from Iowa. The fact of the matter is, wind power plus 4 hours of battery storage is still cheaper than nuclear, and so is solar PV.

[@manuell3505]

Imagine someone gets duct-taped on the end of a blade as punishment.

[@robinbrai]

That's your fear ❤

[@ts13579_texas_usa]

Thanks a whole lot, really, for expressing area in terms of "NFL football fields". I've never been in one or seen one, and I don't have even the vaguest clue about the size of such a sports field. ;)

[@SiliconBong]

My thoughts exactky, now if they had measured the energy output in AllBlacks per second I would understand.

[@gordjohn2322]

@@SiliconBong HaHa You're funny. LOL

[@henrykmielczarek3189]

@t.shandelman341 🤣🤣🤣 super .

[@ts13579_texas_usa]

@@henrykmielczarek3189 thank you!

[@drgeoffangel5422]

Come on, everyone knows that the standard unit measure of a wind turbine blade, is one NFL football field. There is one in the French National Physics laboratory, just next to the standard metre rule, all held in a special (kinda big) climate controlled room!

[@alekansawarman1441]

China Technology is The Best in The World. China Creates Modernization and Prosperity of The World.

[@guycore5478]

Wind turbine escalation is like Itchy and Scratchy wielding larger pistols until they're the size of Earth. Once we make wind turbines as wide as a planet, we can harness the solar wind. Checkmate, physics.

[@1965CTAC]

To compare the production of kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year between a nuclear reactor and the biggest wind turbine, we need to consider their respective capacities and average annual energy output. Let's assume a hypothetical scenario for this comparison: Nuclear Reactor: Suppose the nuclear reactor has a capacity of 1,000 megawatts (MW) and operates at a capacity factor of 90%. The capacity factor represents the actual output relative to the maximum potential output over a given period. Calculation: Annual energy output = Capacity (MW) x Capacity factor x Hours in a year Annual energy output = 1,000 MW x 0.90 x 8,760 hours (assuming 24 hours per day, 365 days per year) Annual energy output = 7,884,000 MWh (7.884 million kWh) Biggest Wind Turbine: Let's assume the biggest wind turbine has a capacity of 10 MW and operates at an average capacity factor of 40%. Wind turbines have lower capacity factors compared to nuclear reactors due to variable wind conditions. Calculation: Annual energy output = Capacity (MW) x Capacity factor x Hours in a year Annual energy output = 10 MW x 0.40 x 8,760 hours Annual energy output = 35,040 MWh (35,040,000 kWh) Now, to determine how many wind turbines would be needed to produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear reactor: Number of wind turbines needed = Annual energy output of nuclear reactor / Annual energy output of a single wind turbine Number of wind turbines needed = 7,884,000 MWh / 35,040 MWh Number of wind turbines needed ≈ 225 wind turbines Please note that these calculations are based on hypothetical assumptions and the actual performance of nuclear reactors and wind turbines may vary. Additionally, the size and capacity of wind turbines can vary, so the number of turbines required for equivalent energy production can differ accordingly. 😪

[@gunsumwong3948]

You calculation is over-complicated. First you used a 10MW wind turbine against a 1,000MW nuclear generator so there is a factor of 100. Then you claimed a nuclear plant can operating continuous so a use factor of 0.9 with a wind turbine could have only 0.4 so another factor of 2.25. Therefore the combined effect it will need 100x2.25=225 wind turbines to compete with a nuclear generation unit. This is just simple arithmetic! However the use factor of 0.9/0.4 = 2.25 between nuclear and wind is theoretical and may not easily realise in practice. This video is about 18MW turbine manufactured by two Chinese companies and they are already used in the field. Also 0.4 use factor may be the American data as it has nearly all wind turbines on land whereas the new 18MW big wind turbines are for mainly the offshore installations capable of a much longer continuous generation. The data from China are Nuclear capacity Nuclear wind capacity Wind Unclear/wind year installed (GW) generation (TWh) installed (GW) generation (TWh) use factor/GW 2021 52 407 236 655 2.82 2022 55.53 417 365.44 772 3.55

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

@@gunsumwong3948 At least a wind turbine doesn't leave its deadly waste to be taken care of for many years forward, by our children's children, many years after its it has been used for a short time intensive power production!! And also Denmark, at the very Forefront of Wind Mill Production, has planned a huge Wind Park at sea.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188 If you consider the sheer weight of mine tailing and other deadly material produced by each power source, nuclear wins hands down. An additional factor in favour of nuclear is the potential of fluid chemistry for the fuel. (Used in Oakridge, USA until President Nixon cancelled it. ) Pressurized water reactors, the standard type since the 1970s are grossly inefficient, producing a massive amount of waster by nuclear standards. ( Solid fuel rods, without reprocessing, demands the removal of the fuel rods when 0.5% of the fuel has been converted. The fission products include radioactive gases, Xenon, and others, which split the rod apart. Once the rod starts to split it has to be removed to a tailing pond. Nuclear reactors, using pressurized water, can only operate at low temperatures, implies a conversion efficiency of no more than 1/3. Include the transmission losses of 1/4, the pressurized water is under the pressure at depth of 2 miles, 3 km, in the ocean, implying it has to be situated well away from users. The amount of the solid rod fuel energy converted to useful work before being removed to a tailing pond is only a thousandth of the energy available. ) The advantage of a design using chemical combination of uranium as a working fluid are (a) The radioactive gas products of fission simply bubbled up out of the fluid, allowing all the fuel energy to be used (b) No high pressure container is needed. (No potential for the roof of the reactor to blow off, as in Chernobyl.) (c) In the event of overheating, a dump tank can be used, designed to dissipate heat and dampen all nuclear reactions. (No potential for a Fukushima.) (d) All reprocessing is contained on site with no removal of waste products from behind the containment wall. (e) The potential for useful energy from the fuel is near 100% as raw heat can be used for industrial processes. (The reactor temperature would be high enough for concrete production, etc. ) (f) The temperature of the heat sink can be as high as 400 Kelvin, hot enough for desalination. (Pressurized water reactors require a 300 Kelvin heat sink.)

[@RuleofFive]

You forgot a few things: 1. You can't make nuclear bombs from wind energy. 2. You don't have horrible accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima or the danger of Europe's largest nuclear plant Zaporizhzhya in the middle of a war zone. 3. The cost of nuclear plants. 4. The leaks from nuclear plants. 5. The inability to safely store nuclear waste. 6. The 50 years required to store the waste for safety. 7. The danger of plants requiring a massive amount of fresh water during severe droughts. Time to move on. Maybe wind isn't the answer but neither is nuclear.

[@nicomeier8098]

Don't forget to mention that a nuclear reactor does always, 24/7, all year long, produce reliable energy. Also note that the dreaded nuclear waste from conventional nuclear reactors can be used to produce electricity in specialized nuclear reactors. This technology has been around for decades but certain groups don't want it to be utilized.

[@billhanna8838]

Have they worked out what they are going to do with the 8 million tons of F/G blades when there use by date arrives , I see Germany are dumping them in landfills ... Green energy ???

[@gerrydave7586]

What a landscape!!! Isn’t it beautiful? 🤣🤣

[@matthiasknutzen6061]

Think it looks cool

[@ivanmcdonald1]

Used to be

[@jamesthrbr]

Did anybody notice that there was no mention of capacity factor or capital cost, including storage?

[@Dr.Pepper001]

And dismantling/disposal at end of life cycle.

[@Ismalith]

You mean because a lot of right wing drones found some simple speech bubbles that storage is also a point and now they demand it in every video about renewables or they are going full Karen?

[@jamesmacleod9382]

"It's Chinatown Jake". Seriously though such considerations don't seem to be part of the equation when China want to show up the world.

[@burtingtune]

Propaganda by definition leaves out awkward details.

[@prunar]

If you rely on combustion of material for energy production, naturally you consider the need for limiting production during off hours. If winds high up are reliably constant, why the need for storage? Why do you not require that from combustion driven energy sources?

[@hornplayer1228]

So it turned out not to be "unthinkable" after all.

[@holgernarrog962]

But it does not make sense...Electricity is better generated by nuclear or coal rather than dirty valueless windmills.

[@mofleh177]

The more you know about the engineering and manufacturing challenges to build such a project, the more it appears "unthinkable" to you! But for a naive person building a wind turbine with 1 mile long blades is nothing extraordinary!

[@holgernarrog962]

@@mofleh177 Why wasting time, money and efforts for such a green religious nonsense. Why not building a 3000 MW nuke, or a large coal power plant that produce useable electricity?

[@anonanon2031]

Why are people so bad at math, choosing wind turbines over solar?

[@jonathaneffemey944]

Thanks for posting

[@JohnRinNoHo]

Are wind turbines profitable on their own without government subsidies or assistance?

[@glynnec2008]

@Catholic Guitar Music Yup, that was Warren Buffett's analysis as well.

[@faisal-ca]

Diversification of energy resources is the key. Special with the size of China's industry and overall population. They still largely depend on Oil and Gas, but at least they are working on alternatives.

[@stephendoherty8291]

They rely more on coal for power.

[@FahimMahbub89]

Energy production in China mainly depends on Coal, not oil/gas.

[@onnonius]

The amount of energy to produce these things from raw resources will take years of operation of these things to even play even. Its a waste of energy.

[@stephendoherty8291]

@@onnonius and the carbon footprint of a concrete power station is? Plus every day its used it generates carbon (oh and nuclear uses way more cement and then waste disposal for 10000 yrs). Hydro is another cement using monster and Inevitability kills the river it relies on (as the chinese see with the 3 gorges dam)

[@Liboch]

@@stephendoherty8291 I come from a developing country, when I was growing up more than 60 years ago, my house was made from wood and bamboo, roof of thatched palm leaves, firewood for cooking from coconut frond, light was by vegetable oil lamp, land preparation by buffalo, and our food was all organic. Not much of a carbon footprint. That's probably your dream, but it's very tough just to survive.

[@clown7841]

The bigger, the higher its stand, the harder it falls.

[@jamesmacleod9382]

Especially in China.

[@godzillamothra5983]

said the frog in the well

[@dcmhsotaeh]

@Lirikku most of Communust Chinese big ventures have fallen

[@remon2541]

I guess you never fly?

[@clown7841]

@@remon2541 I don't! 'bout you, what are you using to fly? Marijuana, cocaine, Methamphetamine hydro- chloride, fentanyl - what?

[@rheinmoses29]

How much Diesel does the engine consume? The engine is necessary to keep the turbines moving if there is no wind so that the wind turbines don't rust in the salty sea air

[@surfstarcc1]

The world's largest bird killer

[@micpic119]

I like the wind turbines because they make the landscape look so pretty.

[@carstenlarsen8144]

if they start them all at once- they can really make some heavy winds..? might even turn the days a bit quicker due to shorter days bc earth might turn faster ? ? may bee cutting out a hold months in the calender...let it be a coooold one- to save fuel for heating.. Like to see a cartoon making it alive..

[@robertodebeers2551]

Which is better? All this massive infrastructure for wind, or arrays of solar power close to the ground?

[@digital6string1]

I see solar as the most sensible way to generate electricity,infinite supply.

[@robertodebeers2551]

@@digital6string1 Me, too. No huge moving parts with solar.

[@andyharpist2938]

Eddy currents and rusting must be formidable out there in a salty environment.

[@sunshinesun121]

They are using Composite materials with Coatings . No issue of degrading due to salts, uV, IF, etc.

[@wajahatsohail2435]

Just amazing

[@simonbaxter8001]

So, what is the effect on the climate and weather patterns when you take so much energy out of the weather system? Energy isn't free and everything in physics has a secondary effect!

[@lightningdriver81]

This trend is just nuts.

[@jmlfa]

I thought China was copying us.

[@zhaokwong5544]

Amazing!

[@xdanbo1859]

Solid State Wind Energy with no blades is potentially a longer term future wind tech.

[@Trust_but_Verify]

Wind turbine so big that it will propel Earth to a different galaxy! 🤣

[@holgernarrog962]

These giant dirty windmills are limited to the sea. On land there is no chance to find roads, to transport the components of them to their places, no land based cranes to errect them. The general challenge of all dirty windmills is that it produce its electricity according to the coincidences of the weather and not the demand. The value of this electricity is very low. The technical main challenge is that these sea wind mills can only become installed if there are a couple of days without wind and waves. The second challenge is that maintenance and repair of these giant windmills can only be done if there are some days without wind and waves. Thus it increase maintenance costs and reduce availability.

[@MikeHudson-px2gc]

Geothermal is the answer. Cheaper, more reliable, and runs 24/365 no matter the weather conditions.

[@delavan9141]

Kinda seems that way, doesn't it, when you don't know what the technological challenges are and the costs to solve them.

[@MrCubflyer]

They have been using Geothermal in Alaska for many years.

[@geneva760]

I wonder what the tip speed is of these huge turbines?

[@rxwhat33]

Just the tip?

[@joeking1019]

probably fast enough to take out organic flying entities.

[@denisoreilly3210]

at 800 ft diameter = 2731ft circumference @ 2.5 sec / revolution = 1092ft/Sec * 3600= 3,932,928 ft/hr / 5280ft/mile = 745 mile/hr

[@glynnec2008]

@@denisoreilly3210 what happens when it hits Mach 1 ?

[@42lookc]

I would be particularly concerned about the centrifugal force of such stupendously enormous blades. In time, will they stretch beyond their limit to remain intact, and then the tips separate at nearly "supersonic" speeds?

[@davidbutler99]

What about toroidal blades to increase efficiency?

[@heyhoe168]

More blades?

[@johannesbruwer4072]

Well, on that gigantic scale the blade area would be so much larger than the current blades that the blade itself would probably become too heavy to be safely supported. It would also be a costly nightmare to try to construct, not to mention transport.

[@glynnec2008]

Interesting idea. I see lots of videos of them being deployed on boats and drones, so there must be something to them.

[@PS-Straya_M8]

Why not install a wind turbine on a mountain .. instantly saves hundreds of feet?

[@chonpincher]

The comment at the end of the video said that the failure of one unit greatly reduces the power output of the windfarm. Well, a gigawatt farm would comprise fifty-five 18-MW units. So the failure of one unit would result in a loss of < 2% of electricity produced.

[@ianharvey3696]

And with no wind the output of all 55 would be, exactly, 55 x 0 = ZERO. Thank goodness for sensible electrical generation like Nuclear and coal......

[@Akazaji]

@@ianharvey3696 There is always wind where these farms are built. The only question is how much. You will never see a wind farm built on the leeward side of a mountain, and on the windward side, there is wind. Likewise, there is always wind on the coast.

[@ianharvey3696]

@@Akazaji Utter nonsense, typical Greeniot wrong information. UK is now totally surrounded by these things. Each winter at times of max cold, we get a blocking high, little to no wind. Thankfully we still have coal as a reliable standby, may interest you to know that coal is running here right now as just had a period of calm weather.....

[@krashd]

@@ianharvey3696 There is nothing sensible about coal, that is the sort of thing only an idiot would say.

[@jakebern6890]

@@ianharvey3696 youre wrong , brits are the americans of europe, thinking they know everything better

[@icraftcrafts8685]

if a copper thief could find their way up there, that thing would be broken in minutes

[@glynnec2008]

Chinese thieves are very efficient. They will steal the copper during construction. It's called Tofu Dreg

[@basvanderhoek9293]

The ugliest noisiest massive bird killers in the world. Very short technical lifespan, and old blades can not be recycled. The only reason these monstrosities are build, is the government subsidy .Yikes

[@SWOBIZ]

Like all wind turbines, these giant turbines will require reliable power sources (natural gas, coal, nuclear) to compensate for their chaotic energy output. Because their output is erratic, they only produce about 40% of the energy of an equivalent reliable plant. Hence, you need 2.5X as much wind capacity to equal a reliable plant's capacity. Don't forget to add those costs into the bottom line.

[@infinitelyexplosive4131]

This is why people use LCOE to measure cost

[@snorttroll4379]

levelised cost of energy. how levelised is it? over a year?@@infinitelyexplosive4131

[@snorttroll4379]

this. btw. how are those rust batteries coming along?

[@mrgadget1485]

In Soviet Russia, the Turbine is rotating wind.

[@RonTodd-gb1eo]

No matter how big still won't generate any power when the wind ain't blowing.

[@tomraw4893]

exactly

[@Deontjie]

Don't be so negative. Solar wind farms depends on tax-payer's subsidies, not wind.

[@sunshinesun121]

Are they DUMB enought not to HAVE CHECK and Analyse The Area Wind Data ? Easy to do with a Weather Station.

[@krashd]

They are not as stupid as you Ron, they only build them in areas with frequent wind.

[@MovieMuscle]

The blade speed at the tips would be crazy.

[@meatpopsicle1567]

The number of birds and bats killed each year by these monsters would be impressive, too.

[@LeoOfficial0]

​@@meatpopsicle1567nope, and there are so many things that kill much more birds than windturbines, research before commenting something

[@meatpopsicle1567]

Yup. Millions of dead song birds. Thousands of dead raptors, owls, and vultures. And now, dozens of dead whales and dolphins. Stop simping.

[@brianramirez4953]

I don't know why they are still building bladed turbines when there are bladeless technologies that are efficient and safe for birds.

[@LionheartNh]

Put small ones on cars then the faster you go the more charge u will get.

[@gregm6894]

Or, make everyone wear those beanies with the spinning propeller!

[@davidkettell6236]

it costs more to manufacture one of these wind turbines than it can produce in three of its predicted lifetimes.

[@krashd]

Gee, that must be why everyone is building them everywhere. How long does it take you to get dressed in the morning? "David, take the shoes off your hands and put them on your feet!"

[@snorttroll4379]

where did you get those numbers from

[@acegolfman3203]

Small scale nuclear is the best imo. Electricity will be really cheap in the future. In Finland, it's almost free now

[@filiptemmerman4370]

It is the speedlimit of 296 km/u at the bladetip that makes bigger turbines turn more slowly ! Above the 296 the degradation would be to high !

[@johndawson6057]

Thanks.

[@roiq5263]

Km/u? h?

[@glynnec2008]

Such a "slow" speed will merely kill a bird, not slice it completely in half. They need to speed things up to simplify the disposal of the carcasses.

[@gunsumwong3948]

This video is one year old and is already history. China has installed and tested 18MW wind turbine and the new one on the drawing board is 22MW!

[@ggee7391]

I see a time when broken blades will be floating about in the oceans for years after the turbine has failed, been abandoned or struck by a hurricane. Oh and aren't the towers made out of coal and iron ore which both have to mined? Err and the blades are made from oil and sand which also has to comes out of the ground. Err yeah and don't forget the old turbines have to [of should be] removed by the same diesel powered ship that put then in. And still too the scrap steel plate towers will have to be recycled using a smelting plant and even more coal. Can see a time when adverts start appearing on the internet saying " were you sold green energy between 2002 and 2005 if so you may entitled to compensation" ha ha yeah great idea - be better off putting a small windmill on each house. And all of this to reduce CO2 which is not even a pollutant.

[@Rajesh_Singh301]

Current commercial wind turbines produce 3 mega watts, enough to power 1500 homes and they last 20 years. Wind energy generation is the cheapest among all sources, and this is the reason turbines are popping up everywhere. The 18 mw turbine China is developing is just crazy. It will power 40,000 homes.

[@alfredfleming3289]

When the wind blows. If they are so great why does it take so much tax funding to keep them operating?

[@godbluffvdgg]

Bullshit.

[@jameskirk3210]

Not really, if 3 Mw are sufficient to power 1,500 homes then 18 Mw are sufficient to power 9,000 homes and not 40,000 it’s a little bit less, isn’t it?

[@infinitelyexplosive4131]

@@alfredfleming3289 because we want more and subsidizing them helps make people build them faster? Duh.

[@patrickgrengs7594]

You need to factor in the hot-standby power which triples the cost of a wind-farm. Additionally, although they "may" last 20 years, the maintenance costs run linearly -- at the half-life, the windmill's net electric delivery is 50% of its installed baseplate delivery in terms of cost of electricity delivered - maintenance costs. The windmills at sea deteriorate much more rapidly due to the ever-present high-salinity of the air. Replacement parts, 15-20 years out, will be prohibitively expensive due to the debt-financed extraction of hydrocarbons which pulls future energy (hydrocarbons) production into the present.

[@tomraw4893]

If they built them on the moon, they could be made even bigger due to much less gravity/weight.

[@schsch2390]

Or they could build them in high orbit, no gravity at all.

[@GO-su3lf]

how many years the ROI

[@jan_phd]

That means a really large mechanism, will fall on people.

[@essenegnostic8711]

How much oil will it require ?

[@sixmillionsilencedaccounts3517]

to build and maintain. :DDD

[@helenrushful]

If China made it I'd give it a shelf life of a year or so before the effects of metal fatigue and cheap chips kick in. Last year they released a 'NEW" chip that was completely Chinese made.....only it wasnt. I wouldnt go near anything this size that has been manufactured in China. I lived in Shanghai during the late 90's early 2000's and witnessed Chinese architectural blunders on a scale that the West would never tolerate. Of course the media didnt cover it either, just like they arent talking about the issues with their new aircraft carrier. China knows how to copy things badly, but too much corruption there to expect that money gets spent in the places it should when developing these sorts of this. Just look at Russia to see what a completely opaque, corrupt autocracy turns out.

[@glynnec2008]

Yes, tofu dreg construction is alive and well in China (and vividly documented on many KZbin channels)

[@c雨颖]

Isn't United States a dictatorship? Why are you posting rumors? Why should you live in China? Are you mentally ill?

[@thomasklein4265]

It's so big that it stays stationary and it spins the earth under it 😂

[@joblo341]

What measure is "level 17 winds"? Since the blades are larger and slower moving, won't that also reduce the sound generated? Won't slower blades be less hazard to birds? As far as I can see, these super large turbines are limited to ocean installations. Why? Is it a limitation of delivering long blades on ground?

[@joblo341]

@NoForum You are right. But, apparently it depends ... On land tip speed is often limited to reduce noise "pollution", ie not allowed to go supersonic. On sea, noise is not an issue, so they can go faster, which can cause strength and weight issues. Larger blades can catch slower winds and generate power.

[@TheRealBillBob]

Turbines like Solar panels take up too much space and are eye sores. The thing I want to do is go visit the beaches of the Caribbean with nothing but giant turbines blocking my view of the beach horizon.

[@joblo341]

@@TheRealBillBob Aesthetics are a valid concern. Many places have a permitting process that consider that issue among others before construction is allowed. Public input is requested, like your preference for a good view. Last year I saw an interesting article. In Germany, a small town created a co-operative wind farm. They collectively paid for the installation and shared the profits, lower cost for electricity and excess sold to general power network. Then Germany passed standards for wind farm installations. The new standard was going to require them to remove several towers that were "too close" to homes, even though the home owners had not complained. I didn't hear the what the final resolution was. Bureaucracy run wild.

[@cyberguroo]

Just move further into the ocean, >15kms and nothings gonna be visible.

[@am74343]

Why don't these engineers work on perfecting the designs we already have, so that wind turbines aren't breaking in high winds or spontaneously catching on fire? Our current materials simply cannot take the stresses that such forces are placing upon the blades, rotors, bearings, and towers! Stop putting the cart before the horse! Also, what is a "Level-17 typhoon?" Which scale is that?

[@andrewordog4397]

I'm sure the birds will love it

[@saiwolaw2842]

Thinking about that one wind turbine can produce 10 million dollar worth of electricity every year is so satisfying.

[@drgeoffangel5422]

How much do they really cost? taking the costs of all the ongoing maintenance, and other on site work, required to install, and commissioning them!

[@Cazador60140]

But America prefers electricity by coal and gas fired turbines . MGGA and MCGA

[@holgernarrog962]

In most countries the electricity of dirty wind mills is of very low value. But indeed you can imply a subsidy scheme in which the operator of a wind mill makes 10m revenues.

[@holgernarrog962]

@@Cazador60140 China as well...The biggest source of electricity in China is coal...followed by hydro.

[@captainwin6333]

@@drgeoffangel5422 Less than the cost of fossil fuels because dimwits like you only factor in the cost of the fuel when there's also the cost to the environment and the cost due to climate change. Wind doesn't cause climate change.

[@jameskeith7608]

Madness on a gigantic scale

[@philcolbert7864]

Since the mainstream media is discussing the obvious fact that ETs are real and that we've recovered their craft, why do we keep wasting out time with ridiculous windmills when obviously the ETs have got more sophisticated (say zero point) energies that we can copy if we haven't already

[@thackthack177]

The bigger they get the shittier the maintenance is I’m guessing

[@Willburys]

Is not the Question Bigger is better! That Inlay and the transmission is more important.China has an Big Think Problem!

[@talkthetalk3798]

You think Chinese are working like those slow American workers in doing their maintenance jobs in USA?

[@floor993]

No birds or insects in that area after these shit is ready, change’s in climat appear in those sectors. Total madness

[@mikemakuh5319]

There was a time when the motto at GE was""Progress is our most important product". I see it has been replaced with: " if a customer is dumb enough we'll take the suckers dough".

[@DrunkenChewbacca]

UK had to start up Coal power plants due to Solar not keeping up with demand. Hopefully wind energy is better and larger blades can turn larger generators for power.

[@meatpopsicle1567]

The U.K.'s effort to become "green" has also included a lot of wind turbines: more than 11,500, as a matter of fact. In spite of this, the kingdom has found it necessary, embarrassingly, to fire up Old Reliable to keep the lights on this spring. Oddly, no one counted on the wind not blowing sometimes....

[@vejet]

The Schipkau turbine will put it to shame - 365 meters!

[@web3982]

Well, Don Quixote, fight this!

[@Seasherm]

Another important reason for the taller towers is to limit bird strikes. The higher off the ground, the few bird strikes. Of course, skyscrapers continue to be the big bird killers.

[@dorothygale5896]

They're also putting a coal fired power plant on stream every week using high sulfur coal.

[@gregm6894]

Because, unlike the 'go green' nuts in western society, the Chinese realize you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.

[@bhami]

This video says *nothing* about blade and turbine life, except to say that it might be unknown. We frequently hear about non-recyclable blades that must be replaced every fifteen years!

[@horserous]

Not forgetting the battery pack. Another constraint.

[@cpcattin]

Good for the Chinese. They gotta build for somebody. The free world is walking away from Chinese manufacturing.

[@stevenmoomey2115]

What is the Tip Speed? That is what will limit the Capacity, Controllability and usable Life of the Wind Turbine.

[@RonOside]

It cost more to build a wind turbine than it will ever save.

[@krashd]

Incorrect.

[@johnhudelson2652]

Ditch the horse-and-buggy feet and inches and use metric units exclusively.

[@tonybarracuda3505]

???? Too stupid to figure it out for yourself?

[@iLoveBoysandBerries]

These are bird blenders

[@tata-n8q8u]

I saw the video of installation of a giant wind turbine recently on the Chinese channel CCTV here on youtube. But I am not sure if it was this one, as the channel is in the Chinese language

[@heene]

Very interesting, especially seeing how they are transported, but in future can you compare sizes with something other than NFL stadiums? Only people in America will know what you are talking about, don't forget the whole world watches KZbin. I don't even know what an NFL is, let alone what size their stadiums are, so it was hard to understand some of the figures when the turbines were compared to them.

[@SanketDube]

How many pizzas is one football field again?

[@gtipeter]

Why are you using film from SiemensGamesa in AAlborg Denmark from 4.28-4.34??????

[@canuckprogressive.3435]

These huge blades turn so slow they will be no threat to birds!

[@carstenlarsen8144]

shure..they might even rest on them..enjoying a free ride and sundowns etc. might sit on them as the blade pass lowest point- and then the birds fast get a elevation to 300 m...thanks..flap flap

[@allylilith5605]

ye, just like planes far away fly very very slowly

[@Hogger280]

Wind generators are not the "Dream" but the "Nightmare"!!

[@gordjohn2322]

@Kevin Cook What a useless statement that says nothing! Can't you at least say why you think they are a 'nightmare'?

[@mv3240]

Maybe a nightmare for birds.

[@Hogger280]

@@gordjohn2322 Insults are useless as well. Nice bait; I think you know all of the problems with wind turbines, but if you don't I'm not going to convince you.

[@Hogger280]

@@mv3240 For maintenance, for recycling, for capricious power production, especially in bad weather.

[@holgernarrog962]

@@gordjohn2322 A nightmare for the poeple that have to pay for the useless dirty electricity.

[@rossnolan7283]

It would seem that the advance ratio is such that more blades could be added to the larger turbines to get more power out of the swept area - also that structural limts and tip speed now constrain the design - external cable bracing should be more efficient by simply extending a strut along the rotation axis and bracing the blades off that . similarly bracing the tower externally to the bottom of the blade radius . The bending in the blades is very evident and introduces oscillatory loads as for helicopter rotors that are centrifugaly relieved - The blade erosion problem seems to be a major issue limiting service life as is fatigue . The square cube law of scale looks to be defied somehow -- having more smaller turbines might result in more average wind (not all eggs in one ,big, basket )

[@michaeledwards2251]

Wind speed is low at ground level due to ground friction, and air to air friction slows wind speed up to a height of 700 ft or 200m. The size of the wind turbines is only now approaching the optimum for collecting wind energy. An additional factor is the poor design of current wind turbines : all the heavy parts demanding maintenance, with a potential fire risk, should be at ground level. Horizontal wind turbines are the only option (a) The blades are in the air flow at 200 to 300 metres. (b) The generators, and all electrical circuitry are at ground level. (c) A wide base achieved by having tensioned steel ropes up to the start of the blades.

[@grahamkearnon6682]

Always look to Denmark for the future of wind turbines, GE are very late to the party with not much experience.

[@Kefoo_]

-- And that's NOT just blowing off hot air, either!

[@lionvictor9944]

Go China go.Amazing.

[@Deontjie]

Please stop killing our rhinos. It is now four per day. Rhino horn will not enlarge your manhood.

[@silentblackhole]

Good to see China embracing the company competition brought about by capitalism. Now you just need to let the population decide the government, not just the products consumed.

[@GregMoress]

Would you go so far as to call it... Inconceivable???

[@spinnymathingy3149]

How tall is the tip of the blade At it’s highest point ?

[@juliane__]

No they are not build. They are concepts, there isn't even a prototype. These turbines will enter market earliest in five years. Presumably later. 1:10 "more than 300ft" (90m) guys you have been stuck in the 00ies. In 2003 was a 160m hubhight prototype erected and 150m iscomercially available for years now. They are no exception.

[@myitperson]

Lots of money for the builder, no one talks about the value received

[@remon2541]

In Europe / Netherlands we start to limit the dimensions of wind mills to 1000 feet, 305meter. Larger than that simply cannot be transpired over roads or otherwise.

[@joeking1019]

and they're SO ugly, like a land rash of scabs appearing everywhere that cannot be recycled

[@krashd]

There are no roads in the sea though so the UK's offshore wind farms have no such limitations.

[@njdoughboy]

Imagine the amount of wind cooling extracted from the atmosphere by these machines. Air molecules will sit over insolated land surfaces for hours longer during the course of a day, increasing the searing heat experienced by humans and all lifeforms. Ah the folly of it all.

[@old-pete]

Windturbines do not extract "cooling", they just mix the air better.

[@chad0x]

Wind speeds higher up are faster, so putting turbines waaaaAAAaaay up in the sky means MORE POWER! We should be putting wind turbines up in orbit but building them *hanging downwards* to capture wind at the edge of space which moves close to the speed of light! This would provide free unlimited power forever with just one turbine. To get the energy to the ground simply use a long string of interconnected paper clips.

[@chad0x]

To save money, build everything out of renewable coal. Even the paperclips.