Weatherford Oklahoma is the home of a new windfarm that just came on line this year. The farm is owned by Florida Power and Light. It has 98 windmills that can produce 1.5 MW each peak. The mill are fantastic, majestic and just down right huge. The bases are 262 feet from the ground to the hub and the blades are 122 feet each.

I've heard complaints about noise so I wanted to check it out for myself. These windmills are quiet. At any distance you do not hear them at all because the wind noise in you ear drowns them out completely. Keep in mind that is is going to windy when ever a mill is running. I got really lucky and found a mill that was not turning when I first came up to it. The thing started up while I was right under it. The mills generate 2 different noises. They emit a kind of hum I assume comes from the mechanical equipment in the hub. A second "swooshing" noise comes from the blades. The swoosh is wild because you can not here it when the blade is at the top of the circle. The mills turn as a fairly low rpm but due to the size of the blades the tip speed is quite fast. As the blades come down you can heard a "woosh" and then just the hum and then as another blade comes down and you hear another woosh. Personally I find the combination of sounds similar to ocean sounds.

I'd sure rather have one of these things in my back yard than a coal or nuke plant.

Check out the pics in the share section!

 

Couldn't agree with you more Lakedude. There's a big controversy here in Taxachusetts because they want to build a wind farm off the coast of cape cod but the pol's are fighting it because it "spoils" their view..they would rather deal with the oil burning plant that produces a toxic plume of smoke 24/7 that settles over the land...cancer rates are way up...wonder why....Yeeesh.... I say with all the hot air coming from the state house, we would probably never have to burn another lump of coal or drop of oil here.....

 

I'm lucky enough to live pretty close to Palm Springs and the wind farm they have along the 10 FWY. All that I can say about the farm is that it's COOL! It's kind of sureal as you drive along looking at the sea of windmills. Wish I had one in my backyard to power my house.

 

Hi Lakedude:

Wind Energy FAQ
___That 30% cap factor and $0.065/kWh are killers given Nukes are in the $0.015/kWh and Coal is about double that nowadays … At least their initial costs are far below then that of a base load Coal/Gas/Nuke.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes

 

These are the ones along I-40 right?I drove by them twice in the last 4 months.The 1st time was in a huge rain-thunderstorm at night.It was pitch black with driving rain-suddenly sheet lightening would light up the landscape,and the windmills would just appear from nowhere.It was kinda SCI FI spooky;these HUGE windmills suddenly appearing.They ought to sell it as a tourist draw.The wind was blowing like heck;it always seems to be blowing hard in that TX-panhandle-OK area even when it isn't raining.
The operations and maintanence cost of these is 65 cents a KWH???Yikes,that seems awfully high.I currently pay about 10.6 cents per KWH.
If one of them produces 1.5MW at peak(about 2000 hp),maybe it averages 20% of that thru 24 hrs??It would then produce 1.5 MWX.2X24=7.2MWH every day=7200 KWH per day( it could supply roughly 150 houses).I must have this wrong,because this would mean that O&M is >$4500 per day for one windmill?
I'm missing something here?Thanks.Charlie
PS-Never mind.I got it-missed the decimal point(lower line said $.065-upper said .65 cents and I turned that into 65 cents somehow)).65 cents KWH O&M-so about $45 per day for one windmill that might produce 7200 KWH-which would cost me about $750 here in S Louisiana-that doesn't seem to bad-about 5% of what it is retailed for?.It should be a lot cheaper and quicker to build(and move if it came to that) than a coal or Nuke plant.
The windmills would cost $1.5 million each-make about $700/day-take 2000 days to break even-6-7 years-.If -when electricity goes up it will take fewer years.This is assuming they produce 20% of max power over a 24 hr period-maybe wind isn't that reliable.Other than being tough on birds(didn't see many in OK),there isn't much downside(unless the O&M is based on the potential peak power output of 1.5 MW instead of 20% of that)

 

Ok, so if nuclear is $0.015/kwh and wind is around $0.065/kwh, where does solar fit in? I've heard as much as $0.020/kwh, but I would think on an industrial scale it's far cheaper than that baseline for like home use or whatever. Oh, and phoebeisis, it says 0.65 cents, not 65 cents for maintenance. In other words, less than 1 cent.

 

Yep, an hour or so west of Oklahoma City.

The cost is currently a tad high but I could care less. I'd gladly pay more for cleaner power. As we start running out of non-renewables their cost will go up and wind power will become more and more competive.

 

xcel, regarding the 0.65 cents/kWh O&M fee -- I'm skeptical.

I drove out to see the wind farm in NM not too long ago, and the only workers I saw were there to keep the tourists away from the windmills.

The costs of windfarm energy in the US have much less to do with equiptment and manpower, and much more to do with cost of financing, regulations, local utility interest (read cost to connect to the grid) and tax incentives. The entire business begins and ends with politics.

Cost comparisons to nuke and coal are a joke, unless you pass off to the gov the cost of liability in the case of the former, and the indirect costs of pollution to the public, in the case of the latter alternative.

Just one more thing that bush and his cronies have completely jacked up, unfortunately.

 

I'm pretty sure that coal and nuclear power plants have been around for a lot longer than Bush and their operating costs haven't really changed over time. They've always been extremely cheap means of producing power. If anything, I'm seeing a lot MORE alternative power solutions getting discussed these days than ever before, contrary to what you've implied.

Personally, I'd love to see more exploration in hydroelectric, but the Sierra Club types hate it because you're creating a water resovoir where one didn't exist previously. Boo hoo! Hydro is very cost competative, renewable, every bit as reliable as wind or even more so, and of course has no toxic waste or emissions.

 

azcivic,

Read in the '04 energy bill the provisions for federal liability coverage for new nuke reactors. Perhaps xcel can tell us how much that is worth ?

Read up on windfarm energy development in the US. You will notice that it has gone in cycles, and that for the last couple of years, absent a single utility called FPL, no significant additions have occured. The underlying reasons have to do with taxation and capitalization which are essentialy driven, if not the purview of the federal government. The taxation part I imagine you understand; the capitalization part is true because of federal subsidies in place for coal plants but not for windfarms, which becomes the major determinant of loan rates.

Coal plants have indeed predated bush, but their contribution to global warming is a phenomenon recognized during his tenure, and one he ignores. Thus his culpubility. I should also mention bush's weakening of mercury contamination provisions for the coal plants, since one could just view that as a financial 'aid'. I cannot remember exactly where to read about that particular travesty, but I'd guess "clean water", or something similar as the gov label.

In terms of national current and future demand, Hydroelectric has been tapped. Environmental considerations aside, there really isn't anything of significant size left to consider developing.