News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

AKS:

Actually, offshore windfarms aren't exactly rare in Europe. Beyond that, there is no evidence that building wind farms on land is actually "safer" - if anything, the potential for someone getting hurt is actually much higher since people don't exactly get to offshore farms that easily.

AoD
 
^^^^ is this AKS guy for real? this reminds me of having a discussion about physics with a grade school student who is using their "intuition" as a basis for their argument.

Two big thumbs up for more wind farms "here, there and everywhere"... which reminds me that Liverpool, England has a nice offshore windfarm directly out from the city center.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect AKS, I think at a certain point we just have to admit that engineers and scientists 25x smarter than us have probably thought of this obvious problem. With that in mind, since we don't seem to have any physics majors speaking up here, I'm going to take a crack at this. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

The physics of a hair dryer in a bathtub do not equate to a wind turbine in a lake at all. Electrical current will take the path of least resistance to reach ground. This can be deadly in a bathtub because your body often stands between the source of the electricity and the ground (the drain). While it may seem like the entire body of water is electrified, I don't believe that's how it really works. The electricity would likely take a straight line down to the ground. There might be an unlucky fish around at the time, but it's not going to lead to some sort of marine holocaust.
 
^^^^ is this AKS guy for real? this reminds me of having a discussion about physics with a grade school student who is using their "intuition" as a basis for their argument.

I can't wait until I'm a senior member so I can speak my mind like this! Until then I have to be more diplomatic :mad:
 
ugh... AKS, again can you re-read what I wrote. Then post.

Actually no, first read what I wrote, then could you read what Alvin and threnody wrote. in fact, read everything twice.
 
What I'm saying is, it would be safer to build the wind turbines on land. At least it's grounded. If they want to build it in the water, they better do a lot of experiments to prove it safe before they start building. Taking into account worst case scenerios. It would be bad planning to build first, then find the problems later and try to patch things later when harm is already done. Yes, lightening will strike, but they strike above. I don't think lightening strikes deep into the water? If you have a pole, it might well conduct the lightening into the bottom of the lake. Like I said, do the tests and experiments first to make sure there are absolutely no issues. Just don't go "hey here's an idea. Let's do it!"

we know what you're saying, it's just that you're absolutley clueless....learn some basics before embarrassing yourself like this.

With all due respect AKS, I think at a certain point we just have to admit that engineers and scientists 25x smarter than us have probably thought of this obvious problem.

It's only a problem when one doesn't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about. Many here don't seem to know what safety ground is, or how electricity is distributed, hence the outlandish claims...it's rather comical.
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying is, it would be safer to build the wind turbines on land. At least it's grounded. If they want to build it in the water, they better do a lot of experiments to prove it safe before they start building. Taking into account worst case scenerios. It would be bad planning to build first, then find the problems later and try to patch things later when harm is already done. Yes, lightening will strike, but they strike above. I don't think lightening strikes deep into the water? If you have a pole, it might well conduct the lightening into the bottom of the lake. Like I said, do the tests and experiments first to make sure there are absolutely no issues. Just don't go "hey here's an idea. Let's do it!"

No one has ever built wind turbines on water before. Ever.
 
All bashing and joking aside, I think it is important to clear up the concepts here. My electromagnetics is getting rusty, but I will take a stab.

Threnody is almost right, but not entirely. Electricity takes the path of least resistance, not the shortest path. Assuming the water is a homogeneous solution/mixture, the resistance is equal in all directions and the current will travel everywhere and not just straight down.

However, pure water is a very good insulator; it's only the ionic impurities in it that conduct electricity, and the more ionic it is the better is the conductivity of the solution. Thus, sea water, which has a much higher ionic concentration than our body fluids, is in general a better conductor than our body, and the current will likely pass through the water around the organisms more than through the organism itself.

But it is true that electricity in water most certainly can pass through organisms; that is, afterall, how electric eels work, by sending electricity out and stunning its preys or predators in its vicinity. And Lake Ontario is a body of fresh water (still not pure, completely deionized water though) so its resistance would be more comparable to our body fluids. However, in the situation of offshore wind turbines (which btw each produces a voltage comparable to an electric eel, ~600-700 V), the turbines are basically metal rods that stick directly to ground (the seafloor). Metal is many times a better conductor than even salt water, so presumably, most of the current will pass through the turbine itself and not "leak" to the water around.

Another reason why the electric-appliance-in-bathtub scenario doesn't translate directly to this situation, is because the current is being distributed through a much larger volume / cross-sectional area than the bathtub. The lake/sea/ocean is a much larger body of water than the bathtub, so the current is spread over a much larger area/volume, and the current density, or the current at each point in the conductor, would be correspondingly smaller. Thus, I would venture to say that it is fairly unlikely that any electrical "leakage" from wind turbines would cause significant casualties.

It is important to be sceptical and question established scientific thinking; even as scientists we would and should never completely take what other scientists say at face value. And engineering blunders certainly do occur (a greater problem that has happened to offshore wind turbines seems to be the leakage of harmful chemical solutions into surrounding waters). However, it is obviously important to get the correct information and learn how things really work.

*edit* Also, real-life physical/chemical situations are much more complicated and less "clean" than high school problem sets make things seem like, because no simplifying assumptions would hold. So, having high school physics/chemistry knowledge would not necessarily help in solving these problems, of course.
 
Last edited:
http://tesladownunder.com/tesla_coil_sparks.htm#Pool


TeslaPoolGlove_small.jpg
 
All bashing and joking aside, I think it is important to clear up the concepts here.

heh.

However, it is obviously important to get the correct information and learn how things really work.

Yes, instead of speculating while admitting that "My electromagnetics is getting rusty".

This has been a painful read.

Current flowing to ground is a fault condition, and, due to the presence of circuit breakers, doesn't usually last for a long time.
 
Wait a minute, am I missing something here? As far as I know, offshore wind farms have foundations in the bed of the lake/ocean. Ergo, it would be grounded.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27436310/

Great Lakes eyed for offshore wind farms
100,000 turbines could provide third of electricity needs for entire U.S.


TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - Imagine sections of the Great Lakes dotted with rows of gleaming, 12-story turbines, blades whirring in the stiff breeze as they generate electricity for homes and businesses onshore.

It's only an idea — for now. But government regulators are bracing for an expected wave of proposals for offshore power generation in a region that never seems to run short of wind.

Despite its allure as a plentiful source of clean energy, they say, offshore wind power could affect the aquatic environment and commerce. State and federal officials are taking initial steps toward writing rules, as conservation activists watch closely.

"This is our last frontier, our wild west," said Jennifer Nalbone, navigation and invasive species director for the advocacy group Great Lakes United. "Renewable energy is the direction we want go, but you don't want to enter it blindly."

Insiders reported on the situation this week during the International Submerged Lands Management Conference in Traverse City.

They said anchoring large wind farms on Great Lakes bottomlands would have implications for commercial and recreational navigation, water quality, fish habitat and even flight patterns for birds and aircraft.

'Huge amount of risk'
Wind power developers are wondering what kinds of regulatory hurdles they will encounter once they propose offshore projects, said John Cherry, a University of Michigan researcher studying the subject for the Great Lakes Commission.

"It's an unknown, so there's a huge amount of risk," Cherry said. "Everybody would like to be the second program to do it. The first will be a regulatory trailblazer."


Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Ireland have installed offshore turbines, and Germany has approved nearly two dozen projects expected to go online soon. Denmark's largest wind farm has 80 turbines roughly 120 feet high, planted 8 to 12 miles off the coast.

The U.S. has no offshore wind production, although projects are in the works for Atlantic waters off Texas, Delaware, New Jersey and Rhode Island. A feasibility study is under way for a possible wind farm in Lake Erie near Cleveland.

A Michigan State University study released this month said Michigan's portion of the Great Lakes could produce nearly 322,000 megawatts of power from wind — a huge sum equal to roughly one-third of all electricity now generated nationwide.

Harnessing that much power would require placing nearly 100,000 turbines in the lakes, a remote prospect. Still, the study illustrated wind power's considerable potential for the region.

"There is interest in the Great Lakes, and I know some companies are looking there," Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association, said in a phone interview.

Turf battles possible
The lakes would present unique challenges, such as ice cover in winter, she said. Developers also worry about excessive regulatory hoops with eight states and two Canadian provinces having jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also might get involved.

Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality processed a mock application earlier this year, said Tom Graf, a specialist in the Land and Water Management Division. Officials concluded legislation might be needed to deal with questions such as where turbines could be placed and leasing rates for use of Great Lakes bottomlands.

"We may find we don't have the authority to address a lot of these issues," Graf said.

The Great Lakes states have a solid legal basis for imposing tough regulation of offshore wind energy, said Chris Shafer, a professor with the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law in Lansing. It's rooted in the doctrine that Great Lakes bottomlands are held in trust for the citizens.

He urged the states to get started on designating sites that would be off-limits to turbines, such as shipping lanes, bird migration corridors and fish spawning sites. Michigan's Institute for Fisheries Research is developing a system to identify such locations, analyst Minako Kimura said.

The states also should require companies to pay a fair market value for use of public resources, Shafer said.

"It's entirely too easy to consider that a free resource that should be provided to the energy industry," he said.
 
i think the biggest issue is the possibility that some large ship could smash into the windfarm. of course, it's not really that big of an issue.


also, how do these things tolerate ice (moving ice on the lake)?


my belief is that if they pay for themselves during their life cycle or if their benefit outweighs any detriment of construction and implementation , they're worth it.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27436310/

Great Lakes eyed for offshore wind farms
100,000 turbines could provide third of electricity needs for entire U.S.






'Huge amount of risk'
Wind power developers are wondering what kinds of regulatory hurdles they will encounter once they propose offshore projects, said John Cherry, a University of Michigan researcher studying the subject for the Great Lakes Commission.

"It's an unknown, so there's a huge amount of risk," Cherry said. "Everybody would like to be the second program to do it. The first will be a regulatory trailblazer."

They are talking about a financial risk...
 

Back
Top