patio87 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Why don't aren't we just filling up the american plains with these things?!?!

eltechno (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

That $2 million is an old figure, remember--ask your local Vestas dealer for more current info.The St. Olaf figures come straight from the head of plant services at the school. The school had built their own power plant in the 1930s and had installed a 440v 3-phase loop they could now hook into their windmill. So St. Olaf never sells its power--they substitute it for power they would otherwise buy. And that's where they get their figures.St. Olaf LOVES its wind turbine.

timmunozlasvegas (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I was amazed as to the scale of the turbine. It's huge! I just have a question, seems $2,000,000.00 is not a lot for a project of this size, but are you sure that it actually saved the school $300,000.00 the first year? If that's the case, then this is a gold mine. Also, in comparison, what is the ratio of homes powered by this one turbine (if you know) I'm very interested in this due to the potential of property I have in California that's been preposed for such use. I thank you.

Regalcourt101 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Thanks for posting. I enjoyed your video. They sure look huge when up close like that. Looks like it was a very long day!

eltechno (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The blade do flex a bit. That is why the nacelle has a nose-up attitude. But mostly it is optics fooling us.This Vestas v82 cost about $2 million when it was erected. This includes the parts of the construction I captured on video plus the foundation (a BIG project) and the hook-up to the grid. To give you an idea of why everyone now wants to build wind turbines, this Vestas saved St. Olaf College over $300,000 the first year.

marginallymental (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I agree-he's exhausted. Two questions: are those blades actually flexing a little, or is that an optical illusion? And how much does one of these behemoths COST?? I suppose that's relative to local energy prices, but I'm curious.

eltechno (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Well, the primary goal is to capture the energy of the wind. Those other goals may be wonderful, but if the wind turbines such thinking produces don't work very well, all those other goals fail too.As for these turbines killing birds--that lie has been discredited LONG ago. (In fact, the big turbines are MUCH less dangerous to birds because they turn so slowly.) I am sorry you still believe it.If you think that little wind turbines are better--please build one that actually works.

circusboy90210 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

well the cost of them is. what is the ecnomically feasible size (which one will kill less of the avian species) which cost less to erect to maintain etc. so yess there is a better size. you have to take all the variables into effect. keeping in mind that you also whant people to be able to work on them inherintly putting more people in share of the power structure, & creating need for schools & workers to spread the economic power.

eltechno (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The size of a good wind turbine is not arbitrary. The wind doesn't get clean and reliable until about 100' (30 meters) into the air. The size of the blades is determined by how much energy it requires to run the generator. Blades are about 40 meters long (131 ') so the mast must be about 70 meters (230') high. So this is not about big vs little. There is a optimum size--which is why most good wind turbines are about the same physical size (between 2 and 5 megawatts.)

circusboy90210 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

what's better one large one or thousands of smaller ones???