Display:
Looks like a small, outdated design to me on that London Times picture. I assume the turbines are also photoshopped because their positioning is... stupid. So, lack of imagination on part of the Times.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 at 07:30:26 AM EST
of the article is Da Stupid IMNSHO. Pic included.

But it sure would be nice to hear some expert voice for validation...

by Nomad on Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 at 07:58:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That wouldn't have been 'shopped in-house - it looks like a generic press-release artist's impression.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 at 08:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, for one, they're not spinning.  Far worse, they're 4 rotor diameters apart in the prevailing wind, where tip vortices and other turbulence will destroy the turbines within a few years.  Rule of thumb here is 12 diameters downwind minimum, though developers tend to push it down past 10 for reasons of greed.

Oh, and the blades have no root cuff or twist. The whole shebang looks like something out of mid-90's.

But what are the fly swatters (hiding his ignorance)?

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 at 01:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Presumably the filtration units powered by the windmills.

But there's a far more fundamental flaw here:

If you took those all those nice megawatt produced by those nice windmills (let's pretend that they're put somewhere which actually makes sense...), and used it to run a nice little train instead of all those commuter cars and long- and medium-haul trucks in the picture... you wouldn't need the scrubbers in the first place.

This is a general feature of most of these "carbon capture" schemes that pop up in the press: You could reduce net emissions with far less fuss and bother by simply using existing industrial-scale energy saving technology.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 at 02:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Which also means that THEY. ARE. NEVER. GONNA. HAPPEN. If the state is not willing to invest in those railways, it won't spend even more on these fruitcake projects.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 at 03:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Never underestimate the willingness of politicians to pander to car drivers. If those scrubbers can provide a fig leaf for not encouraging people to switch from cars to trains, the minor matter of a few orders of magnitude higher cost won't matter.

Of course, as long as they are viewed simply as an excuse for not taking serious action (rather than as a minor part of a larger overall campaign), they will never be constructed in any meaningful quantity. Which is almost as "good."

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 at 03:44:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series