We should build wind turbines underground!

delad wrote: »

No no, hang on, hear me out. So it seems the main opposition to wind turbines is that they will ruin scenic areas and the countryside. Since most of our wind power will be generated on the west coast of Ireland this is a fair enough argument. But what if the turbines were stored underground and only came up above ground at night time. This would annoy no one since they wouldnt be able to see them in the dark. They could also be brought above ground at other select times during the day, like during times of strong or gale force winds. Restrictions could be placed on them also, eg, they are only allowed to be above ground for a maximum or 4 hours during daylight.

The UK want to buy wind energy from us and have said it will bring significant wealth to Ireland:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/18/ireland-wind-power-grid

So is this idea feasible?

It would be fairly annoying to the poor unsuspecting cow that gets impaled on the fcuking thing

Check this out - seems feesable...

The problem with wind farms is that they’re stuck wherever they’ve been stationed. Granted, they’ve been installed in areas that benefit from high wind activity, but what if you had a portable wind farm that could follow you wherever you needed power? Enter the Mobile Cow Wind Turbine, designed by Pope Design!

The Mobile Cow Wind Turbine has the potential to solve energy issues wherever they might arise, as long as there is a strong wind blowing from the Cow's rear (even works when other Cow's pass wind). Consider it – be it a rock concert, a disaster relief mission or even a military operation – power is going to be needed and rather than using finite resources, what better way to offset any unfriendly eco-impact than to use the cow wind around you to diversify or completely power your energy needs?

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/christianp/christianp1109/christianp110900057/10648560-wind-turbine-in-the-field-of-cow.jpg

:D:D

D1stant wrote: »

Eh... no.


Did you ever hear the one about the Kerryman who wanted to travel to the Sun....

...I thought I read somewhere before that average speeds during daylight hours where higher because of the heat pushing the air around...could be wrond, and nope - never heard that story...car to enlighten me?

I'm all for natural energy sources no matter what it does to the scenery, the people complaining about really haven't got a clue about where we get out energy from at the moment and what effect it's having on the environment and the high costs involved in producing it.
We need to think towards the future but at the moment politicians are more worried about their pubs closing down due to lack of business than the important things

delad wrote: »

No no, hang on, hear me out. So it seems the main opposition to wind turbines is that they will ruin scenic areas and the countryside. Since most of our wind power will be generated on the west coast of Ireland this is a fair enough argument. But what if the turbines were stored underground and only came up above ground at night time. This would annoy no one since they wouldnt be able to see them in the dark. They could also be brought above ground at other select times during the day, like during times of strong or gale force winds. Restrictions could be placed on them also, eg, they are only allowed to be above ground for a maximum or 4 hours during daylight.

The UK want to buy wind energy from us and have said it will bring significant wealth to Ireland:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/18/ireland-wind-power-grid

So is this idea feasible?

That idea is not feasible. Do you realise how big of a hole would be needed for just one turbine? It would take up as much space as the empire state building! And that is without taking into consideration the space required for the gear to lift the turbine!

jesus wept

do people just bang the keyboard with their forehead and expect intelligent comments to appear ?

the OP has a idea that in fact is POTENTIALLY workable , might not be financially viable in the current climate , but the price of oil is only going one way

they could be placed if not under ground then close to it - has no one come across telescopic's before ? high pressure hydraulics ?
also the windier areas dont need massively large ones , so the calculations done earlier on how much it would cost to " raise " the turbines is far from correct and a red herring ( does your face look like this :eek: ? )

so the power to drop and lift - easy

coastal area with a small bay , dam the sea end , use some of the power from the turbines to pump sea water into the dam , then when extra power is needed to lift/drop the turbines you release the sea water from the dam back into the sea - hydro power , this also can cover loss of production on windless days

it has been said by many many leading lights in the field of wind and hydro power that Ireland could be the " middle east " of green power in a decade , while only spending a 1/4 we used bailing out the banks

with some of the attitudes shown here, im not surprised ,we will still be 90% dependent on oil and gas imported, while surrounded by sea and living on the windiest rock in Europe

and we take offence to the stupid Irish joke's ?
im thinking the truth hurts

hoochis wrote: »

That idea is not feasible. Do you realise how big of a hole would be needed for just one turbine? It would take up as much space as the empire state building! And that is without taking into consideration the space required for the gear to lift the turbine!

think before you post - it DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A COMPLETE SOLID STRUCTURE

christ - compressed air or oil can push a telescopic turbine into the air , and keep it there until it needs to come down

its far from impossible - everyone thought the mars mission today was toast

well think again - we have the technology to DO ANYTHING - just maybe not the cash

and with that attitude we will still be burning polish coal and using British nuke stations - and pumping saudi oil

pathetic

Didn't I read somewhere RyanAir were launching the first fleet of wind turbine powered planes in Spring 2013.

edit, yup i did
They're calling them airplanes.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Didn't I read somewhere RyanAir were launching the first fleet of wind turbine powered planes in Spring 2013.

in fact teddy - you are kind of half right

all modern planes have a wind turbine that drops from the fuselage if the engines fail, as to give power to the avionics and guidance systems

so in a way , yes ryanair do have wind powered airplanes :pac:

Geo-thermal pipes into Dail Eireann. That's the way to go. Plenty of hot air there that can be used to heat water, and thus create steam.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Did you know a 11 KW Turbine costs about 80,000euro. That would power one and a bit electric showers!

JESUS - thats some shower ya have teddy :eek: - how feckin big are ya ??

but seriously - here ya go

Toaster : 800-1500W
Microwave : 600-1500W
Dishwasher : 1200-1500W
Washing Machine : 500W
Vacuum Cleaner : 200-700W
Iron : 1000W
Electric Mower : 1500W
Clothes dryer : 4000W
Ceiling Fan : 10-50W
Table Fan : 10-25W
Electric Blanket : 200W
Hair Blow dryer : 1000W
Electric Shaver : 15W
Laptop Computer : 20-50W
Desktop Computer : 80-150W
TV (19" colour) : 70W
Clock radio : 1W
9" disc sander : 1200W
3" belt sander : 1000W
Fridge / Freezer : 500W
25" colour TV : 150W
Electric Kettle : 2000W
Power Shower : 240W

Power shower is one with a motor, my electric shower is like 9kW. Admittedly it's not on maximum the entire time, but they use a savage amount of power.

There are a number of other big problems with say a telescopic base. The first is strength, there are serious forces on a wind turbine, which cause a large bending moment right down the tower. This is part of the reason they are wider at the bottom.

If we were to have a telescopic tower, it would have to be considerably wider at the bottom to allow the other sections to fit inside it. On a quick calculation I'm just after doing on Microsoft calculator, you'd need a pressure of 50 bar, in a 1M diameter tube to lift a 350 Tonne turbine. Obviously these are inversely proportional to one another, but any thinner of a hydraulic ram, and you're getting into pressures which the Shell2Sea protestors would say will kill everyone in a 50km radius if damaged.

That's about 70 tonnes of fluid per turbine, which has to be kept somewhere too.
Then you're onto collapsible blades and all that lark.

What may work is lying them flat, and then winching them upright, electrically, but that has serious problems of its own. Not worth it I don't think. I quite like them too.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Power shower is one with a motor, my electric shower is like 9kW. Admittedly it's not on maximum the entire time, but they use a savage amount of power.

There are a number of other big problems with say a telescopic base. The first is strength, there are serious forces on a wind turbine, which cause a large bending moment right down the tower. This is part of the reason they are wider at the bottom.

If we were to have a telescopic tower, it would have to be considerably wider at the bottom to allow the other sections to fit inside it. On a quick calculation I'm just after doing on Microsoft calculator, you'd need a pressure of 50 bar, in a 1M diameter tube to lift a 350 Tonne turbine. Obviously these are inversely proportional to one another, but any thinner of a hydraulic ram, and you're getting into pressures which the Shell2Sea protestors would say will kill everyone in a 50km radius if damaged.

That's about 70 tonnes of fluid per turbine, which has to be kept somewhere too.
Then you're onto collapsible blades and all that lark.

What may work is lying them flat, and then winching them upright, electrically, but that has serious problems of its own. Not worth it I don't think. I quite like them too.

Again , its could be done but should it ? well that is a different question

my point was that some of the best ideas are shot down by na sayers who dont have a clue , then it turns out to change every body's life in some way ,
the OP asked could it be done in some way - and yes it could be done - would it be cost to much ? probably , but could it be done - well yes

i think some of the respondents here are forgetting that lots of new TOWER BLOCKS in quake prone city's are on hydro rams that MOVE AND STABILIZE a building in a quake

so the can lift and move a sky scraper but not a wind turbine of some description ?
im sure it can be done , has it been done ? i don't know
should the question be asked can it be done ? yes
or as a species we will never move on

the question that the OP asked is valid and more like it should be asked

the real problem in this debate is the NIMBY question , which is for the greater good , 20 peoples view and quality of life or 200,000 peoples ?

answer this , and sunken turbines with hydraulics will never need to be built