Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
World's Largest Turbine: One Powers 5000 Homes [5 pics]
ecogeek.org — Two of the massive turbines were recently installed in Emden, Germany, and are officially being listed as prototypes.
msaleem- 1411 diggs
- digg it
- burkinaboy, on 02/04/2008, -2/+32Wow! I'll take two, please.
- cawpin, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2Well, take the first submission. It's just a little up the homepage. Buried.
- danger127, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Where do the 5000 homes (maybe hospital?) get power when the wind doesn't blow?
- namlinh, on 02/04/2008, -20/+13It's a duplicate of this original story: http://digg.com/environment/World_s_Largest_Wind_T ...
- snoutspout, on 02/04/2008, -9/+3no one likes a snitch ;)
- xtmno3, on 02/04/2008, -0/+8Why? The other one is 5 hrs older. I would say nobody likes a 'Top User' brown-noser.
- snoutspout, on 02/04/2008, -9/+3no one likes a snitch ;)
- hdar3415, on 02/04/2008, -0/+25That is one big ass turbine. Amazing that humans can even build something like that.
- sroop, on 02/04/2008, -0/+10Humans have built some amazing things lately..
- Avaseal, on 02/04/2008, -4/+2Ya but it'd be nice if they actually made use off half intelligent inventions they build.
Why do we still favor Fossil Fuels over clean, efficient, and essentially free (pays for itself) energy? oh ya thats right, money
- Avaseal, on 02/04/2008, -4/+2Ya but it'd be nice if they actually made use off half intelligent inventions they build.
- neio, on 02/04/2008, -0/+6Welcome back from your coma, I'm sure you'll discover lots of amazing things built by people in the future.
- Ezzilo, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5Humans? Germans!
- Rich7ejr, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4That is one big ass-turbine. Amazing that humans can even build something like that.
http://www.xkcd.com/37/
- sroop, on 02/04/2008, -0/+10Humans have built some amazing things lately..
- natsmythe, on 02/04/2008, -28/+0These things also kill a LOT of birds, make funny noises, and are UGLY. It takes a great deal of electric energy to make the aluminum needed for these giant turbines. Do they give back more electricity than they take to make? Environmentalism is all very well, but what people advocate ought to WORK. This article
http://www.scragged.com/articles/a-guaranteed-way- ...
outlines a GUARANTEED way to cut carbon footprint and people would LIKE doing it. Why doesn't someone talk about it? This article
http://www.scragged.com/articles/energy-conservati ...
explores energy use in India and China. If they follow our path, each country will put itself in a position of its entire economy being vulnerable to interruption of its oil supplies and they’ll run the oil price up even higher. There is an alternative, but they'd have to move FAST.- Strawgate, on 02/04/2008, -0/+6It takes roughly 13 kw-h to produce 1 kilowatt of aluminum. Just the fact that they have a payback time means they produce more electricity then the aluminum needed consumes, because someone had to pay for the electricity to begin with. Every single day, the amount of electricity outputted by one turbine. Each turbine produces roughly 7000 kilowatts per hour. That is 546 kilograms per hour... 13,000 per day, 4790625 per year.
- knugen, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Hmm, that scragged.com's design seems to be a bit inspired by the nytimes.com... Or is it just me?
- tgc1, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Don't be a tard.
- brstilson, on 02/04/2008, -0/+27"These things also kill a LOT of birds,"
False
"make funny noises,"
False
"and are UGLY."
Coal power plants are beautiful?
"Do they give back more electricity than they take to make?"
yes
You're reading propaganda from the coal/oil industry. - niczar, on 02/04/2008, -0/+7"Do they give back more electricity than they take to make?"
You're kidding, right? What do you think, that turbine builders don't pay for their electricity or oil they use?
Besides, a turbine has a lifetime of ~ 30 years. 7 MW over 30 years ... that's a ***** of energy. No way it takes that much energy to build one. It's probably on the order of a few days or weeks of spinning at most. - hitokiri808, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4How exactly does a 126 meter blade kill tiny little birds? I'm sure the prop doesn't move very fast...
- EricAnderton, on 02/04/2008, -0/+6"[...] and are UGLY."
You've obviously never seen what they do nowadays to mine coal. I'll take a hundred of these over any strip-mine anyday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal - Tagaiz, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2What are you talking about them being ugly. Here in Austria, they're everywhere and they look beautiful. Driving down the highway looking at miles and miles of these huge spinning things is awe inspiring. I would rather have them there even if they did nothing, rather then just plain countryside.
- bubbadigg, on 02/04/2008, -0/+0Kill alot of birds... only the dumb ones that fly into them.... hey, think of it as helping to make birds smarter through evolution. no more dumb birds, everyone is happy.
funny noises... nah, its not a funny noise, it is just the common sound of a large propeller blade slicing through the wind. If it was truely making "funny noises" then the repair crews would be there to get it back to the right noise.
Ugly.... now, now, in this day and age, we shouldn't make fun of things that you consider ugly. Let's just say that they may be aesthetically challanged. Besides, to some they are beautiful. We all can't look like you, you know! take more electricity to make... hey, the electricity is pretty cheap to make aluminum... and its just about free to make..
Remember that other ugly, noisy, environmentally bad thing called Hoover Damn... well much of the alumininum ore is converted to aluminum by.... you guessed it, the electricity produced by Hoover Damn. So you have a choice... build more damns, flooding areas where animals thrive, or put up windmills that only kill birds (on occassion).
Lastly, if you don't let these folks put up windmills, they their nasty little minds will find something else to work on.. like bombs, so let them have their toys... at least they aren't messing with you. - Gazoo2001, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Yeah, nat's been drinking the fossi-fuel spiked Kool-Aid...
Bird kills from wind turbines are non-zero, but are far less than from cars, homes, other buildings, power line towers, and so on. You can even read about it yourself!
http://web.syr.edu/~bpburtt/Birds/Aug08-04.htm
- Deathrideshorse, on 02/04/2008, -11/+0I thought the world biggest tubine was the Maglev?!?
- hankmt, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2It would be if it existed. In fact, it would be several thousand times bigger. Unfortunately, it's currently just a dream...no real-world plans for testing....YET!
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/832/ - DeFex, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4maglev is just a investment scam.
- SoulDesigner, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3monorail monorail
- hankmt, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2It would be if it existed. In fact, it would be several thousand times bigger. Unfortunately, it's currently just a dream...no real-world plans for testing....YET!
- INDOAZZ, on 02/04/2008, -4/+7What an ICON for sustainability!
- INDOAZZ, on 02/04/2008, -5/+4What an icon for people to find other resources for much needed energy.
- bamafun, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3impressive !
- Robitz, on 02/04/2008, -3/+19Why are there 2 front page stories on the exact same thing?
- dattaway, on 02/04/2008, -0/+13Because we can never have enough wind power. Digg it.
- kjcdude, on 02/04/2008, -0/+6One was submitted by msaleem which has a 33% success ratio (he was one of the whores who went on strike), the original poster was tomjenkinson, who actually found the story and has a 6% success ratio.
- petermoffat, on 02/04/2008, -0/+14*Wind* Turbine. This thing is 7MW, the worlds largest units are 700MW+. Though they are at fossil stations..
- torontoliam, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4Exactly what I wanted to say! I guess it's kind of good that the general public has associated the word "turbine" with wind though.
- GiJoeBob, on 02/04/2008, -0/+17Don Quixote is going to need a bigger horse.
- lordshank, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5Now just combine this idea with a ferris wheel, and we got a gold mine baby!
- benroy, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1What are the chances of there being competing wind-turbine related stories on the front page?
Oh...never mind. - nigh7dagger, on 02/04/2008, -3/+0That's what she said.
- polarbobbear, on 02/04/2008, -0/+9As an American living in Germany, I've got to be honest I am very impressed by the number of wind farms in this country. Every few miles driving down the autobahn you'll see another dozen or so of them. They're everywhere.
- jermo, on 02/04/2008, -7/+1Turbines are the new Ron Paul
- Opiate, on 02/04/2008, -2/+2Don't worry, the election will be over soon enough along with America and the constitution with it. Then we can all go back to sleep.
- neio, on 02/04/2008, -17/+1Poor birds, they are going to get killed by these turbines.
- DeFex, on 02/04/2008, -0/+18its an urban myth put out by oil companies. smog and pollution kills far more birds.
- Ezzilo, on 02/04/2008, -0/+8Stupid birds fly into the windturbines and the smart ones fly around and reproduce.Its called Evolution.
- Gazoo2001, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Once again...
http://web.syr.edu/~bpburtt/Birds/Aug08-04.htm
Number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the number killed by collisions with cars, buildings, various towers, etc, and from housecats. Quoting from the link:
"Summary of bird loss due to collisions
The figures here are the estimates of the number of birds killed per year by colliding with each of the various human structures discussed above.
400,000,000 by collisions with buildings and windows
85,000,000 by collisions with power lines.
70,000,000 by collisions with vehicles
20,000,000 by collisions with TV and radio towers
45,000 by collisions with the 15,000 wind turbines
If we eventually had a million turbines, they would account for only 1.5% of all the casualties that birds now undergo to live with we humans.
Just for comparison, the Audubon Society estimates that about 100,000,00 birds are killed by house cats each year."
- indorock, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5so what's the deal with the enormous differnce in the amount of European homes vs American homes it would power? Are you telling me that US households use twice as much electricity?? Insane...
- WoollyMittens, on 02/04/2008, -1/+12Maybe you should go and take a 5 mpg drive in your SUV to calm down. :)
- cyberdork, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Just look at American fridges...
- SimonGray, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1When energy is cheap(er) it makes less sense to save on it. Thank your lack of environmental taxation.
- Ocelot13, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2not only are there two articles on the same page showing the same exact thing BUT they both start out with "World's Largest Turbine.." and use the same basic principle.
how the hell are people even able to submit dupes? if i try to submit something thats a dupe, it wont even let me submit. it just says to dig the other submissions.- DeFex, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1maybe the other one is blogspam.
- NJank, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1is it the same website? identical URL? that's the only time it's actually prevented me.
- topace3000, on 02/04/2008, -2/+14Nuclear power is still more efficient and ironically even more environmentally friendly. Just sayin'.
- torontoliam, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2I'd like to see some stats to back up the "more efficient" part. Likewise with the "environmentally friend" - especially given the quantitativeness of the term. My impression is that nuclear is terribly inefficient...it's just that this isn't a concern because the fuel produces SO much heat.
- topace3000, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Nuclear is actually incredibly efficient compared to any method of generating electricity. It beats most alternative energy sources by far, and can compete cost-effectively against fossil fuels.
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm
- topace3000, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Nuclear is actually incredibly efficient compared to any method of generating electricity. It beats most alternative energy sources by far, and can compete cost-effectively against fossil fuels.
- WoollyMittens, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2I'd rather take my chances with the wind over nuclear radiation. But whatever.
- DeFex, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2big and centralized, and owned by huge corporation.
if one breaks or has to be shut down then it takes 10 years to fix and billions of dollars.
smaller companies can put up turbines. and if one breaks they can fix it in a couple of days for about as much as it costs to fix a train locomotive.
- torontoliam, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2I'd like to see some stats to back up the "more efficient" part. Likewise with the "environmentally friend" - especially given the quantitativeness of the term. My impression is that nuclear is terribly inefficient...it's just that this isn't a concern because the fuel produces SO much heat.
- DeFex, on 02/04/2008, -1/+335000 EUROPEAN homes, about 3 american homes.
- WoollyMittens, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2How much is that in Canadian dollars?
- DeFex, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Exactly the same as American ones.
In case you haven't read they have been even for a few months.
- DeFex, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Exactly the same as American ones.
- 0crabby0, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4That's because apartments are counted as German homes, and not stand alone structures.
- WoollyMittens, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2How much is that in Canadian dollars?
- trlrtrsh62, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3Too bad the left in the US won't allow these to proliferate. Just look at what the Kerry's and Kennedy's did to the proposed wind farm off of Cape Cod.
- Jektal, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5The LEFT is suppressing alternative energy sources?
- CedEx, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Not so much the left as the "privileged left". Rich people are all the same, regardless of political leanings. Only out to look after themselves and their ilk.
- Gazoo2001, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Kerry and Kennedy aren't suppressing ALL alternative energy...just the stuff that will be visible from their Cape Cod summer homes (the Cape Wind project)! Classic NIMBY (not in my back yard). Shameful.
- Spankov, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3The 'left'??? There is no 'left` in US politics. Anyone with even a hint of left-wing views is labelled a 'commie' and dismissed out of hand.
- Opiate, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2So to be left you need to be full on socialism? Ouch for Europe.. I never did understand the pride of being blood red.
- cyberdork, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Yeah, or just see it from the other side. Right wing American politicians reminds us Europeans of brown Nationalists.
- NJank, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2But the scenery... my beautiful scenery...
- Jektal, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5The LEFT is suppressing alternative energy sources?
- bigern75, on 02/04/2008, -1/+8come on USA politics, wake the ***** up and get with the program. This is the future along with solar power and many others.
I love the USA but I hate the politics that have separated this country.- 0crabby0, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Politics has very little to do with it. If your area doesn't have enough wind(Interior Southeast US) - No generator will be located there.
- cyberdork, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Give me a break. We are talking about Germany.. it's the size of Montana. If the wind blows hard we already call it a storm of the century over here.
And you think the US has less wind resources than Germany?
- cyberdork, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Give me a break. We are talking about Germany.. it's the size of Montana. If the wind blows hard we already call it a storm of the century over here.
- 0crabby0, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Politics has very little to do with it. If your area doesn't have enough wind(Interior Southeast US) - No generator will be located there.
- HarryWatson00, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1Yeah that is large. I bet it would take a lot of wind to get that going but then again I know nothing about wind power....but yeah the United States should work on that stuff...so we can save all of our OIL for cars...or we should start digging and relocate the wildlife around it to a place that is similar to their natural habitat. It isn't quite fair to move them but I also don't think its quite fair that we pay $3+ per gallon of gasoline...and they'll be able to live somewhere else.
- londubh, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3I hope they'll build more of these.
- Lanefair, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2Screw that, I wanna see the worlds largest turban!
Seriously though, I'd love to see turbine vs tornado. - NCWdigital, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I've always been fascinated by these windmills.
- hansolo, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5Too bad the so called environmentalists here in Vermont won't support wind turbines on ridge-lines..
they prefer to preserve the 'scenery' without thinking of the long term needs of the state.- coolred, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Some people might actually appreciate the 'scenery'
Makes sense to avoid the most scenic areas as tourism is also in the states interest.- hansolo, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2There are plenty of places to put it up and will not ruin the scenery.
What's the alternative? Depend on an aging nuclear plant and the looming expiration of hydro contracts with HydroQuebec that will drive up the costs.
- hansolo, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2There are plenty of places to put it up and will not ruin the scenery.
- coolred, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Some people might actually appreciate the 'scenery'
- Mr.Gone, on 02/04/2008, -2/+0You just wait till they turn that thing on high and blow all those Germans into the ocean. Who will be laughing then. Not those Germans I bet.
(of course I know it doesn't work that way, jeez.) - optoomistic, on 02/04/2008, -0/+9Quality invention,
every city should purchase 100!
They are not an eyesore, it could be the best addition to a city skylines since the pyramids were built!!- thallium205, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Or just build 300 nuclear power plants and power the entire United States.
- Gazoo2001, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Sounds good! Let's make sure to put them all in YOUR home state, which had better be downwind of my home state.
And, when they are decommissioned in 30 years, or 50 years, or whatever, we'll only have to wait 50,000 years before we can use that land again!- thallium205, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Sure, I live in Nevada. They can put them all next to Yucca Mountain. Sounds fine to me, I'm sure the US would pay big bucks to have them in my state.
- Gazoo2001, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Sounds good! Let's make sure to put them all in YOUR home state, which had better be downwind of my home state.
- thallium205, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Or just build 300 nuclear power plants and power the entire United States.
- mrynit, on 02/04/2008, -0/+6this makes bush mad
- ijmok, on 02/04/2008, -2/+0idea:
use theses beasts to preform electrolysis of water creating hydrogen, thus providing a sustainable, fuel - slantyeyed, on 02/04/2008, -3/+1no ignorant and litigious American would ever want that in their backyard, but the treehuggers will also complain it'll kill migratory birds.
- Gazoo2001, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2No, it's the fossil-fuel lovin' business-as-usual folks who will suddenly grow an environmental sensibility and want to "protect the birds," as long as it means wind turbines don't get built. Even though, of course, wind turbine bird kills are insignificant compared to other sources of bird deaths (car, building collisions; housecats; etc.)
A source: http://web.syr.edu/~bpburtt/Birds/Aug08-04.htm
- Gazoo2001, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2No, it's the fossil-fuel lovin' business-as-usual folks who will suddenly grow an environmental sensibility and want to "protect the birds," as long as it means wind turbines don't get built. Even though, of course, wind turbine bird kills are insignificant compared to other sources of bird deaths (car, building collisions; housecats; etc.)
- EvanCarroll, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1If they would just make it twice the size of this one, it would pay for itself in tourism.
- DommoOrigato, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I personally think wind is a viable power source in certain geographical locations. For example I live on the great lakes, and it is almost constantly windy. If they were to build say a few thousand offshore in lake michigan, then it is possible that the entirety of the midwest could be powered. However, the problem of baseload needs to be addressed, because even in a very windy place like out on the lakes, there are occasional calm days. Nuclear would probably be the best bet given the amount of freshwater available for cooling.
Secondly, what needs to be taken into account with all of the renewable energy sources is that they simply are too geographically dependent, and most are not constant in their energy production. Solar doesn't work at night, Wind doesn't work in calm days, Tidal requires certain types of conditions, etc. Thus at some point you need to have base load production by something like Nuclear Power. Also it must be remembered, that a lot of electricity is lost in transmission, so saying that people in kansas can benefit from tidal power in florida, is impractical. Powersources should be close to where the power is used to minimize the amount lost.
That's why I figure the best bet is to use a lot of renewables in areas that can truly support them, and have nuclear power pick up the base load. Even nuclear power could be argued to be semi-renewable with certain fuel cycles, and with the new generation of reactors, is extremely safe. - SimonGray, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2If people don't want windmills near their houses, they should just put them in a wind farm on the sea. The wind blows more consistently out there too. There is a large wind farm just outside Copenhagen for example... no one complains about that one.
- onedigg, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2I bet that one could chop your leg clean off
(house reference) - NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I guess European Homes average 1400 watts. Wow.
- AmericansRevolt, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Ok, according to the history channel, there is enough wind in south dakota alone to power the entire united states by wind turbine.
i say start a union just for wind turbines. pay people a fair share to live in south dakota for a couple years and get these turbines up. once up, keep a handful of skilled workers on payroll to maintain the systems. it would work brilliantly.. oh wait.... opec... i forgot ............. *going out back to shoot myself in the head to get away from this screwed up world* - Sizzor, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1I hate people who mis-pronounce turbine.....it rhymes with "bourbon."
- fixedcoma, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1*****, look at how tall that ***** crane is, the boom is as tall as the windmill, i'd hate to see some one ***** up !
- caponumen, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1But yet, when the wind is not blowing it is just another horrible industrial eye sore........
- Lewie, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I'd rather see a wind mill (which can be beautiful and harmonious with its environment) than a smoke stack, especially as it's polluting my air. Go drive by Gary, Indiana. They might as well rename it "Gray" Indiana, because that's all you see.
- nydwarf, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2It sliced, it dices, it powers a small town! This must have been made by Ronco right?
- wilsonthecat, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1"And, yes, it's enough power to fuel more than 5,000 **European** homes."
I like that part, maybe we could have a conversion to American homes?
"And, yes, it's enough power to fuel more than 2,000 American homes."
Or
"And, yes, it's enough power to fuel more than 1,000 Japanese homes."- Lewie, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Does every Japanese home have 3 (yes 3) PS3s?
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by