Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-14-2008, 01:20 PM
dkveuro's Avatar
Sword of Damocles
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here an' there.
Posts: 2,548
Wind farm technology question.

In Wales (UK) they are about to build the largest wind farm in the world...so far.
I watched the BBC video of the Romney Mash wind farm and because of it have a question.

Why is the main...and very heavy gearbox and generator.... at the TOP of the tower? It seems to me it would be safer and more easily serviced if the generator was at the base.

Is there some valid technical reason the tower is built this way ?
A generator at the base could be driven by a belt or shaft and would be eminently more practical to carry out maintenance in this position.

A friend of mine was recently employed by the company who operate the wind farm along I-40 east of OKC and he commented on the difficulty of working at those heights and the fear inducing sway of the tower in the wind.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_west/7762242.stm

__________________
[http://languageandgrammar.com/2008/01/14/youve-got-problems-not-issues/ ]

"A liberal is someone who feels they owe a great debt to their fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-14-2008, 01:28 PM
G-Benz's Avatar
Razorback Soccer Dad
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas/Fort-Worth
Posts: 5,711
I would surmise that the losses due to the transfer of energies via a belt or gearbox would make wind-generated power too inefficient to be financially feasible.

Consider that hydro-electric generators are coupled to the water and transfer energy in the same manner but don't have the physical challenges.

If you've ever looked at a dyno sheet demonstrating the HP output of an engine at the crank versus output at the drivetrain, there is a pronounced reduction of power due to the losses of energy transfer (friction, additional weight of the drivetrain, heat, etc.)
__________________
2009 ML350 (106K) - Family vehicle
2001 CLK430 Cabriolet (80K) - Wife's car
2005 BMW 645CI (138K) - My daily driver
2016 Mustang (32K) - Daughter's car
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-14-2008, 01:30 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,392
that would be one loooong belt or shaft,
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-14-2008, 01:39 PM
dkveuro's Avatar
Sword of Damocles
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here an' there.
Posts: 2,548
Well you both make good points....however, I grew up in eastern UK and we had a lot...well, a few windmills there for grinding wheat to make flour.

The grinding stone was at the ground level. On the water wheel type of power provider, the belt in the mill was very l-o-n-g running all the machines....mostly used in the cotton industry.

So, if it worked a hundred years ago.....?
__________________
[http://languageandgrammar.com/2008/01/14/youve-got-problems-not-issues/ ]

"A liberal is someone who feels they owe a great debt to their fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-14-2008, 01:41 PM
Carleton Hughes's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,611
The losses due to friction and torsional deformation/vibration would be unthinkable.
Just imagine a child's skipping rope twirled faster and faster.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-14-2008, 01:45 PM
G-Benz's Avatar
Razorback Soccer Dad
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas/Fort-Worth
Posts: 5,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkveuro View Post
Well you both make good points....however, I grew up in eastern UK and we had a lot...well, a few windmills there for grinding wheat to make flour.

The grinding stone was at the ground level. On the water wheel type of power provider, the belt in the mill was very l-o-n-g running all the machines....mostly used in the cotton industry.

So, if it worked a hundred years ago.....?
And that's why they are obsolete.

The technology of that era required such energy transfer because it was impossible to construct them otherwise. The obvious energy transfer losses did exist then, but that's was all there was.
__________________
2009 ML350 (106K) - Family vehicle
2001 CLK430 Cabriolet (80K) - Wife's car
2005 BMW 645CI (138K) - My daily driver
2016 Mustang (32K) - Daughter's car
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-14-2008, 02:14 PM
dkveuro's Avatar
Sword of Damocles
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here an' there.
Posts: 2,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Benz View Post
And that's why they are obsolete.

The technology of that era required such energy transfer because it was impossible to construct them otherwise. The obvious energy transfer losses did exist then, but that's was all there was.

Well yes...but BIG ships use l-o-n-g propeller shafts and deliver ENORMOUS power.
__________________
[http://languageandgrammar.com/2008/01/14/youve-got-problems-not-issues/ ]

"A liberal is someone who feels they owe a great debt to their fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-14-2008, 02:19 PM
Medmech's Avatar
Gone Waterboarding
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkveuro View Post
Well yes...but BIG ships use l-o-n-g propeller shafts and deliver ENORMOUS power.
Ships can afford to lose horsepower, the idea behind a windmill is to make energy not lose it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-14-2008, 02:33 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,971
I would think it is cheaper also to build them that way, less parts, less parts to wear out, and less maintenance. As far as the access, I think they only get maintenance once per year. As far as the ship example, there is no right angle gearing, just a straight shaft, same as the wind generators.
__________________
1998 C230 330,000 miles (currently dead of second failed EIS, yours will fail too, turning you into the dealer's personal human cash machine)
1988 F150 144,000 miles (leaks all the colors of the rainbow)
Previous stars: 1981 Brava 210,000 miles, 1978 128 150,000 miles, 1977 B200 Van 175,000 miles, 1972 Vega (great, if rusty, car), 1972 Celica, 1986.5 Supra
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-14-2008, 02:45 PM
t walgamuth's Avatar
dieselarchitect
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lafayette Indiana
Posts: 38,611
I have not done a structural analysis of a windmill but I know something about wind loading of buildings. I believe with some certainty that the extra weight of the mechanism up at the hub is pretty incidental comapred to the wind loads imposed on the structure. In fact I bet the wind load is so great that the extra weight can be ignored in the calculations.
__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-14-2008, 03:22 PM
waybomb's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,555
Up in Tehachipi, there are a number of a different sort of windmills. They have a ribbon in the shape sort of like a standing egg, that has it its axis vertical, so all the mechanicals are at the borrom. There's only a few of them amongst all the rest of the regular windmills. I suspect they take up more room.
__________________
Thank You!
Fred
2009 ML350
2004 SL600
2004 SL500
1996 SL600
2002 SLK32
2005 CLK320 cabrio
2003 ML350
1997 C280 Sport
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-14-2008, 05:12 PM
dynalow's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,599
Let me shift gears a little. My town does not have any ordinance regarding windmills. Nothing about where they are permitted, how high they may be built, collapse radius, etc . Some of the surrunding towns have adopoted their own, but so far mine has not.

Next month my zoning board is going to have to deal with our first application for a privately owned windmill. I understand he's going to ask for a height variance of 135 feet. (35 feet is the max. allowed in any district in my town.)

My initial reaction is to vote against it, under the theory that its encroaching on the township committee's legislative powers.

Any comments?
What does your town permit, if they have an ordinance in place?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-14-2008, 05:27 PM
Botnst's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 44,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkveuro View Post
Well you both make good points....however, I grew up in eastern UK and we had a lot...well, a few windmills there for grinding wheat to make flour.

The grinding stone was at the ground level. On the water wheel type of power provider, the belt in the mill was very l-o-n-g running all the machines....mostly used in the cotton industry.

So, if it worked a hundred years ago.....?
Think about the energy necessary to get the mass of a long belt or shaft started and up to speed -- that's wasted energy.

Then think about the same energy source without having to overcome all that inertial. The energy that would have been wasted on starting (and maintaining a spinning mass) would be net output instead of net loss.

The type of technology they had was dictated by the material available and the engineering knowledge. Belts were made of animal skin. Wheels of plant material. They have a lot of mass for the amount of strength they provide. That put an upper limit on how much energy they could transfer, too.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-14-2008, 05:29 PM
LUVMBDiesels's Avatar
Dead on balls accurate...
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Red Lion,Pa
Posts: 2,207
Personally, I like the vertical axis turbines better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine
__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf ‘86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-14-2008, 05:41 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynalow View Post
Let me shift gears a little. My town does not have any ordinance regarding windmills. Nothing about where they are permitted, how high they may be built, collapse radius, etc . Some of the surrunding towns have adopoted their own, but so far mine has not.

Next month my zoning board is going to have to deal with our first application for a privately owned windmill. I understand he's going to ask for a height variance of 135 feet. (35 feet is the max. allowed in any district in my town.)

My initial reaction is to vote against it, under the theory that its encroaching on the township committee's legislative powers.

Any comments?
What does your town permit, if they have an ordinance in place?
I believe the tower has to be 1.5 times higher than the distance to the nearest structure.

If that is the case, it must be on a large piece of property. You would probably not hear it. Why would you oppose it? I don't really understand your explanation.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page