I've read some of the articles in scientific journals citing huge death tolls from birds flying into wind turbine blades on a daily basis. (And several joggers in my city report being "grossed out" by the number of bird carcasses that litter the running path located near the mayor's favorite "green power generation" project.) But I've never seen any estimated tolls for the entire U.S. and how the death toll would average out for the megawatts generated.
=========================

Thanks for the excellent informative responses!

(Nobody answered the question posed -- which is actually very common on Yahoo Answers -- but a lot of helpful information was posted nonetheless on related issues.)

My experience:

Oil and Coal are dirty and too big of a carbon foot print.

Natural Gas, the collection facilities and the pipeline are dangerous.

Nuclear: We no explanation needed

Wind Power: We are getting close, but what about the impact on the birds (no pun intended) and also the the impact on the scenery

Tidal Generation: No good because it will impact our beaches and sea life.

Solar: Scenery issues and it will also attract more heat and raise local temperatures

Hydro: they don't want to give up the land to create enough pressure and then even with fish ways in might impact the wildlife.

Mind you no arguments about putting in shopping plazas and mini-malls that use a lot of power.

To get power there is aa trade-off, why is it the Liberals expect no trade offs but want the use of oil to stop? What is their solution?

convert 0.8 of its mass into energy.
How much energy would be available through fusion?
A) 4×10^15
B) 4×10^16
C) 4×10^17
D) 4×10^18
E) 4×10^19

2) Also, For how long could your body then operate on fusion power?

3) Which of these groups of particles has the greatest mass?
A)a helium nucleus with two protons and two neutrons
B)four electrons
C)four individual protons

4)News of a major solar flare today caused concern among professionals in the fields of communications and electrical power generation.
True or False. Why?

5)Scientists are currently building an infrared telescope designed to observe fusion reactions in the Sun's core.
True or False. Why?

6)What is the most common kind of particle in the solar wind, in which the overall charge is neutral?
A)proton
B)electron
C)helium nucleus

If you could please help me I would be so grateful!!!
I have a test in 2 days and need to figure this stuff out!
100 watts and .8 percent. And yes I'm in college. Never been good at science and I may be a dumbass but I still have gpa of 3.2. And this stuff is all new too me, I never took this in high school. I took chem and to me that's easier than this.
Da Jesus, if it's 3rd grade, why didn't you answer it. That's why no one picked you for best answer yet, dumbass. Go and kill yourself. But Thanks everyone else.

Does any knows some shops or area where I can find these? I know it is available here somewhere but I don't know where? If possible could you plase give me the address?

What would be the estimate price in Indian currency? I'll be using it in Wind Power Engery generation.
I don't know how to make one. So if they sell it ready made or you can have someone make it and then buy, how much would it cost? Actually it will be donated to a farm by a Bishop, so he asked me to find the information.

By domestic I mean a single house. We're building a new one and would like to power it as much as possible with our own energy supply. I've heard there are companies that provide wind and solar solutions for homeowners. Any idea where to look for such in India? Also, are they cost-effective yet? How long to recoup the investment on average? I'm asking for actual power solutions, by the way, not things like water heaters and garden lights and such.

I've tried the Suzlon and Vestas websites and I don't see any mention of any domestic solutions. All other places I've found for solar mention only outdoor lighting and water heating. Where are the power generation options? If you know any companies that cater to this market, please share here.

Nuclear power's biggest problems are economic: it is simply no longer competitive with other, newer forms of power generation. The final 20 U.S. reactors cost to billion to build, or some ,000 to ,000 per kilowatt of capacity. By contrast, new gas-fired combined cycle plants using the latest jet engine technology cost 0-0 per kilowatt, and wind turbines are being installed at less than ,000 per kilowatt.

Windmill power contracts were signed with power sold at three (3) CENTS per Kw-hr. Less than half the price of the most efficient solar cell panels.

Which of the following power sources are most likely to come from natural monopolies? Which could be st up as either as centralized power sources or as decentralized, soft-path sources? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each typo of setup?

a. wind turbines
b.hydroelectric power generation along a river
c. coal
d. oil
e.solar
f.nuclear

This sounds AMAZING, after reading it do you think this is a real possibility and how many jobs world wide could it create? Since the U.S. Government funded the initial research wouldn't it strengthen the country economically and as well as make the U.S. the world's leading energy provider one way or another? What do you all think?

Here's a quote
The scientists behind the technology, which has been developed in research funded by the US government, say that generating power in this way would potentially cost only around 3.5p per kilowatt hour, compared to about 4.5p for wind energy and between 10p and 31p for solar power. They say the technology would require up to 50 times less ocean acreage than wave power generation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/3535012/Ocean-currents-can-power-the-world-say-scientists.html

Also at 3.5 per KWH it's cheaper according this this table than any other major energy source

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour

Hi Everyone, I am working on a business plan which I need to submit to an investment board in Pakistan and a some other countries by December 2011. After speaking to numerous people and reading many journals I would like to know what would be the equipment specification and cost for:
1) Wind turbine for 20 small houses (only lighting, perhaps 2 bulbs and heating the gas stove) would be required.
2) Solar panels for the same need.

I understand batteries and additional equipment will be required if someone can answer these question for me I would be greatly appreciative. The first market I would like to target is rural Pakistan and the resources for both the solar and wind initiatives are as follows:

The average daily insolation amounts to approximately 5–7 kWh/m2/day. Especially
the southwestern province of Balochistan and Northeastern part of Sindh . There the sun shines between 6 to 8 h daily or approximately more than 2300–2700 h per annum. The average daily insolation of 5–7 kWh/ m2/day means daily sun energy of 18–25 MJ/m2/day is available as
input natural resource of energy to be exploited for photovoltaic power generation or solar thermal applications.

Wind speed from 5 m/s to 7 m/s persists in coastal regions of Sind and Balochistan provinces
and in a number of North-West Frontier valleys

Given this data could someone be kind enough to tell me the kind of equipment required to power a small village on 20 or so households for just lighting and heating the stove. My business plan intends to alleviate the poverty of these villagers who have been living in Darkness for centuries and to improve their environment.
Any information will be greatly appreciated.

sea/land breezes, mountain/valley breezes or chinook and santa winds. Why would one be better over the other

Do you get upset when you here politions who know nothing of power generations talk about solar and wind as if they will lower the current price at the meter?

Am I correct on this,
I tell people we need power when we need power in peek hours. Alternatives except for hydro electetric are not good at this. It is also only during peek hours we use an oil product due to how fast they come online.
I argue with any source of alternatives at this time (except for possible tidel, not considering nuclear alternative) would have to have huge energy storage operations to be feasible.
If we are going to build that energy storage capability we would be better off storing the energy we already waste at night, since we can not take nuke or coal plants completely off-line.
Just storing our wasted energy would have a greater impact than wind or solar.
We could even build more storage and run the Nuke plants at full capacity at night.

The storage I am talking about is like the Tom Sauk Reservoir (before it overflowed).
Am I being illogical.
I believe people have misunderstood my point. I have nothing against wind and solar. We need to use these. I am saying the first step toward moving to wind and solar should be building storage fascilities to capture the already wasted energy at night.

One other point, is we can not just take traditional services offline and online at will. It takes a while for Coal, and Nuclear to come online. If the wind stopped blowing at 4PM, we would have to have storage, or more peaker plants ready to come online.
I meant if we used alternatives on a large scale we would have to huge storage fascilities.
That means greater than 10% producivity.
Their are many areas where on a smaller scale alternatives will make since and will not need storage, just to use it as they make it.
Another point is wind will also increase the excess energy produced at night.

I need to know how the following things are sustainable.

Leisure Centre/Golf course
Canoeing to an Island across sea instead of boat or plane.
Walking around an island instead of car.
Wind turbine (power generation)
How wildlife and vegetation are protected by banning some areas of an island.
Forest
Picnic area.

Thanks

He mentioned ethanol, the production of which has been proven to be disastrous to the environment as well as damaging to food supplies.

He harped on electric cars which, again, create more pollution through the increased demand on power generation.

Wind & solar are useless outside of Jr High science projects.

So what mythological clean energy does he intend to throw away our money on?
How silly of me. Evidently everyone can have free power from wind or sun, we all just choose to pay ridiculous rates to burn fossil fuels.

Ethanol is a RENEWABLE fuel, but it is not a CLEAN energy source. This has been known for years. Do you people read anything other than fringe websites and propaganda?

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080318-biofuel-dead-zone.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/386784/ethanol_production_can_be_harmful_to.html

As for Iowa... Not a single commercial wind farm operates without subsidies to stay afloat. They are economically unviable. In other words, the entire country is paying so Iowa can pretend wind energy is practical. It would be impossible to duplicate this nation wide.

i love the way the song sounds but i have had trouble finding what it is. the commercial is for the toyota prius where the sun powers the wind in the car and then people come out of the ground to create the scenery. i know that is confusing but if you know what i am talking about i would love to hear from you. thanks.

I almost bought a wind turbine. I want to be able to harness natural resources and I'm worried about our polluting of the planet.

But.... I'm glad I didn't invest in a turbine.

When I pressed the vendor if he could stand by his claims for the power generation, he went all furtive and withdrew his original offer.

He said I'd get my money back and even be able to sell electricity BACK to the utility companies. Sounds brilliant.

But he couldn't give me a single example of anyone that does this.

In the past, I've bought a couple of solar panels, and neither of them worked.

I do use a wind up radio though.

Can anyone help me? I want a real example of power generation. What's the average power generated by a wind turbine? (I want the real figures, not the idealistic figures)

I looked a Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's river cottage web site, which publishes daily figures for power generation, and the figures don't look too impressive.

I want to build a machine that translates my physical exertions into useful energy. For example. If I could row for an hour, I might be able to turn a drum and get my laundry done.

Or cycle on a stationary bike and use that energy to turn a turbine or grind up all the packaging from my dustbin.

Where do I start looking for equipment?

Thanks

Energy: Wind
Question: Can this type of energy generation be sustainable for generations to come (explain)?

Can you help me out & explain why?

The only way to reach a goal is to identify it and work toward it.

Clean coal is a myth, Nuclear dooms the future generations, Why not do what is right, right now.
come on spud, how can leaving a radioactive waste product that is extremely toxic for thousands of years be "safe" it is more likely to create the technology to make solar generated electricity free to anyone than the technology to seal Nuclear waste in a safe way.
chef you are right......I do already have my opinion. Changing habits includes how we produce consumer goods, energy distribution, and our food production. A mass move to permaculture and local energy production coupled with new technologies for distribution can solve so many problems the moral and intellectual cowards say are unrealistic. Nuclear power right now is still too toxic in waste to embrace, despite the power it produces. You still must mine it, exposing the environment to damage and buy it from a producer/processer even before you address the waste issue.
Brad...that system is the earth itself, and until we learn to live within that system we will always be acting like the south end of a horse heading north.
sasha......your ignorance is epic and unfortunately your philosophy (if you could call it that) is all too common, It is the genesis of most of our problems on the planet.
meg.....I have lived in the mountains of northern Idaho for most of my life and now in Indiana. Both places have abundant untapped wind, water, thermal and solar energy resources. Clean coal is a fraud, there is nothing clean about coal. There is nothing safe about nuclear, until the waste issue can be addressed.
scott h ....if you are an engineer then you must realize what the word progress means and maybe innovation too. Of course the technology needs to advance, we are not still driving Model Ts and using wringer washing machines. My whole point is that our energy needs are able to be met with what we are provided with in abundance every day for free in a non toxic way.

Hello everyone,

I'm studying electricity in school, but I still don't have a firm grasp on electrical power systems and was hoping for some help. I have four main questions. Anyone working in power systems, please share your knowledge!

1. How do each of the various generation schemes (coal / steam turbine, wind farm, nuclear plants, etc) output power at exactly 60Hz? I understand the basics of how a electrical generator works, but I don't understand how they stabilized the output frequency to exactly 60Hz.

2. How do multiple generation points in the system synchronize their outputs to each other? How do all the different power plants and such dump power onto the grid together at the same phase?

3. I guess I don't understand the grid itself overly well. Could anyone explain the concept of the power grid? (for example, is it like multiple net contributors of power (power plants, etc) each acting similiar to batteries in parallel?

4. What happens to excess (unused) power? If a particular system has three 250MW power plants, but the neighborhoods they power only use up 600MW, what happens to the extra unused 150MW? I've heard that people monitor the power input/output and "adjust" the power output from the plants to match the consumers' usage. Is this true, and if so, how is this done? (shutting off generators, running them more slowly, etc). Also, if this is the case, what is done for power generation sources that cannot be human controlled (say, a wind farm; when the wind blows, it turns)?

Thanks in advance.

Wind farms are much less efficient than claimed, producing below 10% of capacity for more than a third of the time, according to a new report.

The analysis also suggested output was low during the times of highest demand.

The report, supported by conservation charity the John Muir Trust, concluded turbines "cannot be relied upon" to produce significant levels of power generation.

However, industry representatives said they had "no confidence" in the data.

The research, carried out by Stuart Young Consulting, analysed electricity generated from UK wind farms between November 2008 to December 2010

Statements made by the wind industry and government agencies commonly assert that wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year, it said.

But the research found wind generation was below 20% of capacity more than half the time and below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.
'Different manner'

It also challenged industry claims that periods of widespread low wind were "infrequent".

The average frequency and duration of a "low wind event" was once every 6.38 days for 4.93 hours, it suggested.

The report noted: "Very low wind events are not confined to periods of high pressure in winter.

"They can occur at any time of the year."

During each of the four highest peak demands of 2010, wind output reached just 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity, according to the analysis.

It concluded wind behaves in a "quite different manner" from that suggested by average output figures or wind speed records.

When will this utter waste of money cease and common sense prevail?
Why is so much money wasted on such an inefficient technology?
Can the world afford this wastage when so many people are suffering due to the global recession?
Is this one of the reasons why utility bills are soaring due to excessive green taxes?
What will this utter waste mean for our poor grandchildren?

More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12985410

First they own news networks that actively promote Obama and Democrats. MSNBS is a 24 hr campaign ad for Obama,
Second -They are the recipient of "Green Jobs" for wind power generation even though the jobs are almost all in their China plants.
Third - They were recipients of TARP funds and would have gone under without them. How does that make GE executives qualified to tell Obama how to run the country? Should we get some AIG guys as advisers also?
But why not have one that was a failure advise you. GE Finance would have failed without TARP and GE only has "Green Jobs" for growth.
Why not pick a winner to advise him instead of a loser.

topic, im looking to use .5" neodymium magnets to build a low resistance wind turbine, and i dont know how to determine what would be the best size of coil & diameter of wire to generate a given amount of electricity per rotation/etc...

can someone please help me? id be ever so greatful!!

Some "green" approaches really do not save any resources and only feel good. Wind power generation is one great example. They feel good, but produce very little usable power.

Hybrid cars are another good example. No detectable resource savings, but strong in the feel good department.

Turning off your air conditioner. Turning off unused appliances. Taking a bike to the store. These actually save power and resources. Real action takes effort.
This is a green paper, I just need some opposition

The text above in the body of this post is not mine, it's quote.

It seems to myself to be common that when someone opposes the dogma of AGW, or proclaims that the risks presented by elevated atmospheric CO2 are overstated, that the accusation inevitably comes that they are receiving money from 'Big coal, oil or mining'.

Do these people not realize that companies typically have broad portfolios. An energy company is likely to have both renewable and fossil fueled generating assets. For instance in my country of Australia the three major energy companies all have stakes in coal, gas and wind power generation, often with hydro and other renewables tacked on.
By the same token large Oil companies do not solely produce fuel for vehicles, they also produce lubricants and other industrial chemicals which will remain in demand irrelevant of any need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Same goes for mining companies, renewable energy options still ultimately consume raw resources that come out of the ground, from the aluminium in a wind turbine to the silica in a solar cell.

My question is that why does it seem to be suggested that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is going to be so detrimental to these companies that they would fund online bloggers, when the reality is that these companies still have a huge stake in what is considered the alternative to fossil fuels.
Isn't it far more likely that all that a reduction in the consumption of coal for power generation or oil for transport is simply going to force these companies to change their business model, rather than render them economically inviable?

Design power generation capacity: 1 MW
Generator speed: 750 RPM
Rotor speed: 20 RPM
Rotor hub: 15 000kg
Blade length: 30 metres