- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
"Having fewer total turbines means a wind farm could space them farther apart, avoiding airflow interference. The turbines would be nearly twice as tall, so they’ll reach a higher, gustier part of the atmosphere. And big turbines don’t need to spin as quickly, so they would make economic sense in places with average wind speeds around 5 meters per second… "
You must log in or # to comment.
Didn’t realise they would be transported by plane, only ever seen them going out by barge.
I’ve seen one transported by ground vehicles. It was a humbling experience.
They can’t be, yet, as the article points out - they’re building a new plane
They are already building wind turbines, this is just about bigger ones. Would have thought they are assembled by where ever you load the barge
I’m no Boeing engineer, but the design on the thumbnail does not look airworthy at all, the wings are too small and probably too far rearward to generate the necessary lift. And only 4 engines? Look up pictures of the late An-225 for an actual superheavy airlifter.
You need wing area and engine power to carry weight, not to carry space. That plane is made to carry extremely lightweight wind turbine blades that take up a lot of space but are very low density.
Yes, if you fill that payload area with iron, it won’t fly. But if you use it for its intended purpose, the wing area is large enough.
Lmao, it’s like a flying T-Rex.
How about smaller and more capable windmills?
But do we really need bigger turbines? It seems the ones we have work fine.
“GigaWind turbines would decrease the cost of energy by 20 to 35 percent while increasing output by 10 to 20 percent” - efficiency matters
