Assuming they aren't super noisy. It's not mentioned in the video, but noise pollution also matters...

Also zero recycling

@@Steamrick The image showed them off shore away from anybody

@@Steamrick why do noise pollution matter... in the middle of the ocean?

@@IrrationalThings Aside from being a more general point regarding wind turbines, not just offshore turbines, there's also the effect of noise on sealife to consider.

That's so sad to hear :(

Nuances, nuances! Maybe you'd like a wind farm to look at from the sofa and have to listen to in bed. Why not put them offshore? We have the biggest in the world - half the size of New York - off the Yorkshire coast and another off Essex which was the biggest in Europe before that. The Swedish idea seems to have the capability to be able to soak up more of the wind energy than the mega ones, but we also have one of those onland near the oil, gas and chemical refineries of Avonmouth in Bristol - because it pays the local community who actually built it. As I say, nuances, nuances.

@@JP_TaVeryMuch I'd prefer a wind farm out of my window compared to the exploration for a fracking site happening outside my window right now.

@@tdyerwestfield My sympathies.

@@JP_TaVeryMuch I am a member of a Coop that built and operates a wind turbine in south Wales. Objections can be overcome when local people see the benefit of these projects. Although to be fair I live in Essex, the local council in Wales is also a member and the scheme benefits council run social housing. My membership share cost me £3,200, I'm currently receiving £85pm credit on my electricity bill and the scheme runs for 25 years. I've only got 6 O levels and CSE Maths, but I reckon that's not a bad ROI :)

Imagine that they would have had a week of bad weather and delay the completion. It would have been tallest for minus one day :)) Anyway, how many days H260 kept the crown?

the lack of reliability of the H260 will make it irrelevant

@@johnm948 You have numbers to back that up or is that your imagination?

Seems it‘s everywhere the same (except china) Greetings from Germany

I live in the u.s. you all can have your damn round a bouts!

this gave me idea to put wind turbines in roundabouts

@@altamashparwaiz2097 I hate round a bouts. One idea Europe should have kept as a secret

⁠@@eligebrown8998why tho they massively reduce fatal accidents cost next to nothing to maintain and If properly intruded reduce traffic

​​@@eligebrown8998 It's no different from merging into a highway: scary the first 20 times and then routine. You can stop completely and orient yourself like at a silly old cross road if you like, but after a while you learn to time the entry so you rarely have to brake below 40 km/h 🚀 The saved time, energy and accidents are more than worth the initial discomfort.

What a gift this is...

I really hate cutting glass fibre for v150. It's like the worst process from vestas

2150 metres??!?!?! That's a quarter of the height of Mt. Everest

@@cucumbalover4569 they is two 150 metre high they is a space between the two and the 1 for a reason

do you mean 5:45?

@@alanhat5252 I mean 6:09 , but the animation needs a bit of context from before.

Depending on the depth of the water, yes. But fixed-bottom turbines are still more common

In fact most of the offshore windmills in the north and east sea are built on stable platforms

The installation and operation of them is killing whales.

It's like how cobalt mining has suddenly become an issue because of electric car batteries. But when it was being mined for the oil industry there was never an issue. I do wonder who could be paying these people.

There are now recycling solutions for wind turbine blades. As you say, the volume is minuscule compared to other uses of composites

Turbine, not mill...

who is putting it up there?

@@bastiankruse4312 Not sure who's building the 450m, but Siemens have already built a 271m high windmill at the Østerild klitplantage test site near Thisted.

There is a 300m tall testcenter in Germany that started data gathering in May this year.

Thanks so much!! 🙌

@@TomorrowsBuild you are very welcome. As someone who works alone at home your videos provide a brief companion and educator at the same time 👍

@@TomorrowsBuild Hi. Enjoyed the video... Quick question though; I read an article just a couple weeks ago stating that the "largest" turbine had just been built in China. Now two weeks later I'm watching this video about the "tallest" turbine in Europe. Is that in fact a thing, where they're making a distinction between "largest" and "tallest"? If so, it reminds me of the example of comparing dinosaurs, where the Diplodocus was one of the "largest," and the Brachiosaur was one of the "tallest". And if this is indeed the case, which turbine is the actual "biggest" (mass/weight-wise)? Just trying to get my facts straight. Thanks

Recycle.

Landfill

​@@paulb9769Only in the US. In Europe there are laws forbidding that turbine blades are put in landfills, they have to be recycled or reused. Works perfectly fine. And is much more economical in the long run, once economies of scale kick in

Indeed, also good for establishing energy security for countries without fossil fuel resources.

Glass fibre, carbon fibre and resin mix. Very much NOT recyclable, and generally only last up to ten years.

Sweden (again! Bra jobbat Sverige.) are piloting cheaper sustainable laminated wood towers for theirs. Not the blades yet, but they'll come.

@@_starfiend there are many companies that recycle turbnie blades, usually into resin pellets and fibre strands used to reinforce cement. And the average lifespan is 20-25 years, not 10.

@@licencetoswill 20 to 25 is a theoretical limit, few, if any, have actually reached that age as most are replaced, along with the gearboxes, at about 10 years. The hope/expectation is that they will eventually last as long as 25 years. Recycling the blades into cement reinforcements, and similar, is recycling after a fashion, but when the concrete itself is broken up the glass fibre will escape into the environment. This would very bad for the environment. I'm hoping better materials will come along soon, but glass-fibre is not a good material for recycling. My sister and her husband both work in this area.

I think they're still using glass fibre for the blades even on the V236 turbine shown in this video. Presumably there will come a blade length that will require switching to carbon fibre in order to withstand the loads.

The energy used for building, maintaining and dismantling of the turbine is generated in 6 to 14 months. If one uses only fossil fuels for the windturbine, she saves 16 to 39 as much CO2, if the turbines runs only 20 years. Modern ones can easily run 25, some even 30 years.

Less than glass windows...

Weird how that's suddenly such a concern for wind turbines, but nobody ever cared about the millions of birds killed with cars. Time to tear down all our motorways.

@@_SpamMe Don't give politicians ideas

Almost everyone thinks it's the tower, not the clock.

Over? Ok. Through? Strange what people find amazing...

I agree

Not anymore. Our government enacted a new law last year forcing every state to provide 2% of their area for wind. Starting 2027 if they haven't provided 1.1% every other law that prohibits the building of a Windturbine doesn't count anymore. So if Bavaria doesn't provide those wind areas you can build where every you want. We have a good ministry of economics and they have done plenty of such laws forcing the transition no matter what the state wants. They also changed the legal status of renewables so now the public interest of renewables weights more legally than any other concern

@@lorissupportguidesthat’s not entirely true, you can’t build whether you want, which is why the law in Bavaria was stupid populism to begin with. There is still a permitting process involved that ensures environmental factors such as local wildlife (if there are any protected species that cannot be relocated) or regarding the noise emissions. Those regulations are commonplace and not part of the 10H rule enacted a few years ago. The law from the ministry of economics was still long overdue and will hopefully speed things up a bit

Should be atleast 10 kilometers. Or build it where the people who like it (cities) live. Dont´t destroy the countryside with your absurd "green" stuff.

@@akatheking82how is it destroying anything? How is it „absurd“? And don’t people in the country need energy?

@@akatheking82 Except wind turbines aren't effective in cities due to all the buildings. But I guess reality doesn't matter to people like you.

Recycling.

Dig a hole and bury them

You undo the screws at the button so they spin up into space where they burn out in the sun.

And people go grrrrr

🤔

@@bryonbradshaw5246 🤔

@@lavkmr1🤔

@@A.Gentlemann they do! Without them, there wouldn't be any wind, and the earth would stop rotating.

Bigger machines are more efficient to a degree. The bigger the towers get, the more materials are needed compared to smaller towers.

The main complexity of wind turbines comes from their gearbox (relatively slow rotation of the blades is converted to something conductive to producing electricity). All other things being relatively proportional you'd rather have 1 gearbox for a big windturbine than multiple gearboxes for multiple smaller windturbines. However, there's also direct drive solutions and so on and so forth. In the end, this is a relatively immature technology. Windturbines in fifty years will look very different from what we do today.

A wind turbine twice as big has 4 times the area to collect wind energy from, not to mention that winds are faster and more stable a few hundred metres from the ground.

One can recycle them.

@@old-pete I am told they are not recyclable.

@@irenekronk1961 Blades can be used for cement or ,since recently, be diassembled into their components.

In germany they build a children park with them

@@irenekronk1961 you have been misinformed, they are recyclable. Also they are a small fraction of the total of composite materials used for other purposes e.g. boats

every village and small town should have their own turbine

Don't give citizen Khan any more ideas! It wouldn't happen because he'd see it from his glass palace in the docks.

Pipe down.

Not only the bell inside Elizabeth Tower, but also the whole tower is unofficially called "Big Ben".

​@@skyscraperfanimagine making a massive 2m clockwork masterpiece... only to have the brick stand that holds the clock steal all the credit

@@ch4.hayabusa its worse considering the original big ben broke during construction of the tower, so the bell had to be replaced by a smaller one. got its name stolen twice

6 to 14 months, depending on model and location.

Catastrophic whiplash like snapping above 100mph apparently.

90 m/s, not mph. I thought the limit was set for noise mitigation but there may be more reasons.

One can run them longer and do not need to bury them...

@@old-pete The fact that they can run them longer is, of course good - have they found an effective way to recycle them?

@@brucethomson9923 80 to 90% of a windturbine can be recycled.

@@old-pete Thanks for that -please explain. So - how does one recycle fibreglass? Are you willing to glowingly talk about how this can be recycled into concrete? I'll leave it to you to to sort out the carbon footprint of that. But perhaps you have bought into the idea that these can be made into "bike sheds"... ummm lucky us. Do YOU want to do the math???? I think not. Tell me more about recycling - I'm all ears - BUT - I don't want "this might work!" I want solutions. Solutions. I know - you don't have any. :-)

@@brucethomson9923 Cement production is one solution. It saves energy and material. The new process is to diassrmble the blades into its components, which can be reused or recycled.

Of course you didn't. "Mainstream" industries will let people believe that wind energy is just some failed low tech, and than burning the Earth's crust is the peak of technology.

Wind mills went obsolete for a good reason. Wind has a low energy density and wind power is centuries out of date.

@@johngeier8692 Wind mills were not producing electricity dummy. Also, we are talking about intense research to build the newer turbines with lighter and more efficient materials, but who cares? Let's just pretend it's a low tech steel mill. Cause using the planet's thermodynamic processes is much more low tech than burning its fucking crust in the stake.

@@johngeier8692 The technology of windmills and winturbines are on different levels. And the energy output is quite high, considering that one does not need to burn fuel.

They can be recycled.

Not in a good way though. Unless you can supply a link to how,.

@@shaneoneil9433 Depends on how you define "good way". Some have a second life as being part of a new structure, the majority is used to make cement, new designs can be taken apart and sorted by material, which then can be reused.

It's not a huge quantity of material anyway. So many people turn "perfect" into the enemy of "good".

The breeze they produce cools the land.

Haha, nice!

only 100-150? Considering the UK alone has over 11,000, lets get building.

Could not agree more

One nuclear plant can generate as much energy as hundreds of these turbines, but electricity produced by wind is also cheaper, easier to scale and less controversial. So it makes sense for such a windy country to use it (as long as it has enough alternative sources or neighbours able to supply when wind is not blowing as much)

Wow, that few. That’s very impressive

80 GWh per year for the large turbine was not calculated assuming 100% duty cycle but a realistic yearly average. A reactor lately seems to cost 10 billion to build and take 10+ years. I doubt the turbines cost 100 million each so they seem like the cheaper option. I like nuclear but it has to be competitive, no 110 pound/MWh price guaranties...

I've been laughing about this problem for years. The amount of carbon being expelled to produce all of these city sized arrays of windmills is wild. I doubt the offset in carbon and dead birds will be worth it.

@@DS-lk3tx The carbon emissions are small compared to what is saved. Turbines are cabon negative. The blades can be recycled, not all countries require that.

​@@DS-lk3txyour laughing cuz your uneducated. It takes a windmill 6-12 months to break even on GHG emissions

"Carbon negative." 😆 That's how I know you're full of shit. 😆 🤣

@@DS-lk3txPainting red stripes on the turbines can allow for the blades to be more visible to birds who will see a bright color spinning round and round and will subsequently fly away. Having turbines be plain white may be more dangerous as to birds, the blades may just look like clouds.

You're not supposed to enter the areas of these offshore wind turbine farms. As a matter of fact, there are probably countries, that will fine you, if you enter these areas, as they are critical to their energy supply. It's like if you entered a power plant unattended. There are even stories, about Russian submarines diving around the North Sea, to map critical offshore infrastructure, both for gas pipes, and offshore wind farms. Danish Minister of Justice Peter Hummelgaard, is concidering banning people from entering these areas.

All systems degrade over time. The power output of wind turbines degrade because of increased friction in gears and, more importantly, through blade edge degradation over time.

@@old-pete Well yes of course they do, the turbines and blades need replacement about every 2 decades and they require regular preventive maintenance as well as corrective maintenance when something goes wrong. However as built they largely perform much better and consistently over time than solar cells do for various reasons not the least of which is just the breakdown of solar cells ability to convert the suns energy into electricity which starts and begins to degrade relatively quickly compared to wind turbines. Wind also works better in different types of weather.

Tidal flow will overtake all others. 100% reliable, predictable, and peak output 4 times per day every day. Not only that, but the tide times around fortunate countries like UK and USA mean that there will always be generation somewhere. No need for energy storage is a huge consideration.

@@dougaltolan3017 There will always be a need for energy storage if we go full electric. In addition Tidal flow is 30 years behind Wind and Solar AND it's very corrosive to anything it touches. Anything is possible but it is hard to believe it will outpace anything for decades to come.

@@rd9102 we've had ships in the water longer than we've had wind turbines, "wahh it's CoRoSiVe" was fixed before your granddad was born.

Wind has a low energy density and wind power is centuries out of date. The wind turbines only exist due to massive taxpayer funded subsidies. They make no economic sense. They are a colossal waste of taxpayers money and resources (including coal and oil).

„No one“ as in „companies eagerly want to recycle them to harvest the resources“, right? And anyways, basically every power plant at some stage reaches their end of life. Gas power plants are probably those with the least recycling problems, sure; but then they burn millions of tons of fossil fuels during their life span. Gotta weigh pro and con here.

They're repurposing them. Cutting them down to make public seating among other things. It's called recycling

What would be the purpose of these buildings in the middle of nowhere? There's no reason why power generation and power consumption have to be in the same place.

vibration and noise emitted by these wind turbine is the problem for residents

​@@ModernRedneck13he's referring to tall sky scrappers or buildings

One can already recycle them.

@@old-pete well basically everything can get recycled but it's just so much cheaper to cut them up and dump them or grind it up and mix with cement

Given that manufacturering speed seems to be the bottle neck, you can't really swap to that, but building both could help. There is likely plenty of places where they would be a better fit.

The limitation isn't negated; they are a lot less efficient than horizontal turbines and don't make sense for grid scale. They do have a place though; their characteristics that you mentioned make them more suitable for things like remote locations, rooftop wind, mobile generator, etc. There is a lot of focus on vertical technology for these purposes but vertical will never compete at the same scale as these large horizontal turbines.

They can't achieve the same power rating as a HAWT and result in significant torsional loads and vibration modes on the substructure, meaning the overall cost of the turbine + foundation would be more (more steel in substructure). More units also = more offshore construction cost, subsea cables, maintenance, etc. If they were better, we would be using the already!

@@muliusjalema No, the torsional loads and vibrations are actually less than on standard turbines. I already stated they don't produce quite as much power, but that is more than countered by the fact that you can pack them closer. The most modern ones produce about 10 to 15% less power per turbine, but you can get nearly 30% more turbines in the same space. ATM they are not intended for use at sea, but my sister and her husband, who both work in this technology, believe it's only a matter of time.

I don't think so. Growing taller being the main struggle is a no-brainer.

I think the idea is to make them less visible against the sky. If the turbine is at a similar height to the trees then it's not tall enough as the trees slow down the wind. The main thing is that they all need to be the same, as different colours will absorb light differently and therefore be at a different temperature and cause imbalance. When the blades are made they all come out at slightly different weights so they try to match up the weights as close as possible for each set. Point being you don't know which blades will be together until after they are made. The colour would have to be introduced before that point because if you just painted it on at the end it would wear off too quickly. Having them all be the same colour makes it much easier. You could make them all a different colour but it would have to be a large batch to make it economical.

I believe the reason why wind turbines have not been made brown or green is because in doing so, it would make the turbines look like trees to birds who would fly into the turbines and die. This may or may not be a reason why some countries make red stripes on their turbines, so that birds recognize the structures spinning and fly elsewhere. Hope this helps.

White reflect the sun better, helping to keep the turbines cool, and prolonging their life.. white stands out more from an aerial perspective helping birds and pilots, but stands out less from ground perspective, and lastly for aesthetic reasons, it just looks better ;)

@@ulven6668 True. They’d probably wear out quicker and need expensive maintenance otherwise. I believe people overestimate the amount of birds killed by turbines compared to other reasons such as windows or air pollution.

@@RailFireProductions yes and as you stated, the red stripes they put on the blades, are not only for the birds, but also signifies how far an airport is away, 1 stripe tells them that an airport/airstrip is less than 5 km away, if there are 2 stripes it means no airport/airstrip is within 5 km...

Good we need more renewable energy in Aus

Some countries do. There you cannot place them whereever you want.

6 to 14 months, depending on type and location. The gains are 1/100 of CO2 emissions and less than 1/10 of the waste of coal power plants per produced kwh.

Then you invest your hard earned savings in a fund for nuclear... the most expensive, most delayed type of energy production on the planet. There is a reason why even the USA has been shutting down these plants well before they have to... and investing their money in windfarms and solar.

@@1968Christiaanuhhhh corruption and lobbying?

Maybe cus nuclear currently relies on uranium and plutonium and both are finite resources. Unless we pray that some scientist figure out a way to create a renewable nuclear grade material. The earth could definitively use a couple hundred more reactors, but like solar and wind its not a perfect solution to man made climate change.

Manufacturing isn't 100% efficient. You need to ship more materials to the factory than come out of it as product. Then theres the work force commute to work.... But keep looking. Not every solution has been found.

i doubt it, wind depends on the the temperature contrast of the sky and ground. also the sky is really big

Wind turbines remove only a very small part from a huge amount of kinetic energy in the air. Remember the air moves much faster at higher altitudes (up to 650 kmh, measured over Japan in 1970). And kinetic energy increases with the 2nd power of the velocity.

@@old-pete @parcesfrancis1565 I was just wondering what the effect is. Like if we had them all across the Atlantic. Would there be a measurable slowdown or would it not be detectable? Obviously it’s not a extreme effect or anything but I still find it interesting. Of course if wind speeds are that much higher at higher altitudes I’d expect more energy. But do you know by how much that is offset due to lower air density? But I guess I’ll try to calculate it. By looking at total wind energy and electrical energy from wind turbines and than look at the inefficiency of them to look at the energy taken out and see at what amount there is any change in at least the first decimal digit.

@@Youcanatme It is doubtful we will ever build so many to cover the atlantic. It has been suggested that windfarms covering the coast at regular intervalls could lessen the effect of storms and floods. Depending on the coast, that would already be a huge undertaking.

@@old-pete It's more of a thought experiment.

Yes, but better.

Compared to the energy in our atmosphere, wind turbines are a fart in the wind. The effects are only local.

@@old-pete Quite right, what I was talking about. I recall reading about studies in some California valleys had found diminished speeds at the top. What the effect was I don't remember but it had some significance.

@@ohasis8331 The effect is slighty warmer air at night and slightly cooler air during the day. In areas where it frezes during winter, turbines reduce freezing. The mixing of the air by windturbines can lead to dryer soil, depending on vegetation. The area affected is up to around 2km behind the windturbine.

@@old-pete thanks

And still you can't mention one incorrect statment...

Sounds like you know everyrhing about the industry you work in, especially the part about wind turbines

Give examples mate. No point just saying it's wrong.

@@LinusSandqvist ​ Strange response, but okay. Here are a few of them: The turbines where he says that we may be wondering how they are standing and how deep they go, he states that those turbines are floating. That's not true, those turbines pictured go all the way down to the seabed on monopiles. There are more turbines in that picture than there are floating turbines in the entire world right now. Currently, 34 floating turbines globally, compared to 13,300 turbines which are not floating and are attached to the sea floor. Gives a false representation of where the floating wind industry is. The turbine he said to be the tallest in the world isn't even the 2nd or 3rd tallest right now. You need to go to China for that, where there is a turbine model past the prototyping stage that is being installed at a commercial project right now. The Goldwind 252-16MW is more powerful, taller, and has longer blades than the Vestas turbine mentioned. Even larger turbines by Goldwind, CSSC, and Mingyang are also at the same development stage as the Vestas one mentioned in the video. I'd say the main error though, because it's the whole point of the video. Near the end he says the UK will need to triple the number of wind turbines to meet its 2030 (which is 50GW capacity). But because turbines are getting larger, which is the whole point of the video, we don't even need to double the number of turbines to reach this goal.

@OutsiderLabs Sure, Here are afew: The turbines where he says that we may be wondering how they are standing and how deep they go, he states that those turbines are floating. That's not true, those turbines pictured go all the way down to the seabed on monopiles. There are more turbines in that picture than there are floating turbines in the entire world right now. Currently, 34 floating turbines globally, compared to 13,300 turbines which are not floating and are attached to the sea floor. Gives a false representation of where the floating wind industry is. The turbine he said to be the tallest in the world isn't even the 2nd or 3rd tallest right now. You need to go to China for that, where there is a turbine model past the prototyping stage that is being installed at a commercial project right now. The Goldwind 252-16MW is more powerful, taller, and has longer blades than the Vestas turbine mentioned. Even larger turbines by Goldwind, CSSC, and Mingyang are also at the same development stage as the Vestas one mentioned in the video. I'd say the main error though, because it's the whole point of the video. Near the end he says the UK will need to triple the number of wind turbines to meet its 2030 (which is 50GW capacity). But because turbines are getting larger, which is the whole point of the video, we don't even need to double the number of turbines to reach this goal.

0 miles

I read a study they did here at the Sea Girt Army Base in Sea Girt, New Jersey. It was 11 miles from the windmill. The town voted against it. Now they are building them 10 miles off shore. scum.

@@77huss In case you did not notice, but windpower technicians stand next to a running windturbine without keeling over dead...

@77huss in 1994, i was down in Newbrunswick, and they brought in an expert on low frequency sound, and with his instruments, he found the infrasound 30 miles from the wind farm was above 180 Dessables They shut down the wind farm for 5 years and replaced it. They tried to have the same expert investigate the pollution of the aquifers near Chattom but our federal government will not let him in the country!

@@terenceiutzi4003 180 decibel in 30 miles? Such a BS. 180 decibel would kill you. Considering that sound decreases quadratic with distance, a wind turbine would need to emit hundreds of decibel to reach 180 decibel in 30 miles. The loudest known noises are vulcanic explosions and meteor strikes with around 300 decibel...

They are thinking about power per mw and capacity factors basically making it as cheap and reliable as possible

They benefit everyone by producing less CO2 and less waste. The new ones produce electricity also much cheaper.

I agree it is about making money

A good way to be less dependent on foreign energy ressources.

There are multiple ways. Place them at the right position. Avoid hotspots of birds. Change the colour of the blades. Black paint makes the blades more visible to birds. Using UV absorption or reflection, since birds react to that. But one should be aware that windturbines are only the 8th to 9th highest threat for birds after agriculture, global warming, traffic, windows, cats, hunting, powerlines and the Usutu virus.

The majority of material is concrete and steel, which is easy to recycle. Then come the wind blades, which are harder to recycle since they are made from wood, glass fibre and resin, depending on producer. The smallest parts are the electrical and electronical components, which are also easy to recycle. Lifespan is 20 years for old turbines, 25 for current models and 30 for some models, but no turbine has run that long yet.