6 ms·

Unfortunately that's not the only blunder in that sentence. Are we talking "on average" or are we talking "at full capacity?" Not to mention the stylistic blu

Unfortunately that's not the only blunder in that sentence. Are we talking "on average" or are we talking "at full capacity?" Not to mention the stylistic blunder by which a mathematical average, or a bunch of energy (or hey possibly even a turbine), is said to be "working at full capacity." I guess this is a dangling clause? Not sure if that's the right term for it. Shave off all the fur and you're left with a pretty good sentence: The turbine will produce about three megawatts of energy on average, which is enough to power 2,400 U.S. homes. (Assuming that figure is right.) It's shorter too.

rdiddly 8y ago
Speaking of this kind of skepticism, 57 truckloads of concrete for one wind turbine seemed like an awful lot, so I did some rough math. Turns out 57 truckloads is probably right. Jesus. I assumed a pad-and-pedestal foundation where the pad is a cylinder 60'|18.3m dia. and 4'|1.2m thick, and the pedestal is also a cylinder but 20'|6m dia. and 4'|1.2m high. Total volume of both is about 465 yd³|355m³. Since the typical truck holds about 8 yd³|6m³, that's about 58 truckloads, which is surprisingly close to the 57 they stated. Each wind farm has a substation too, which will use some quantity of concrete for equipment pads. And some wind farms built in remote areas have to have their own transmission infrastructure built -- towers, with their own foundations, and switching substations, with again more equipment foundations. You could say concrete is the foundation of our economy... chortle chortle... groan... EDIT: added SI units for our rest-of-the-world pals
- EADGBE 8y ago
  I never try to get too much into the math, but the amount of concrete required for X is staggering in general, even at small scale. Recently built a foundation for my deck, what was estimated on the concrete tube for pillars was nowhere near what was actually needed.
ScottBurson 8y ago
Almost right: the turbine will produce about three megawatts of power. The confusion between power and energy is precisely the problem.

rdiddly 8y ago

Speaking of this kind of skepticism, 57 truckloads of concrete for one wind turbine seemed like an awful lot, so I did some rough math. Turns out 57 truckloads is probably right. Jesus. I assumed a pad-and-pedestal foundation where the pad is a cylinder 60'|18.3m dia. and 4'|1.2m thick, and the pedestal is also a cylinder but 20'|6m dia. and 4'|1.2m high. Total volume of both is about 465 yd³|355m³. Since the typical truck holds about 8 yd³|6m³, that's about 58 truckloads, which is surprisingly close to the 57 they stated. Each wind farm has a substation too, which will use some quantity of concrete for equipment pads. And some wind farms built in remote areas have to have their own transmission infrastructure built -- towers, with their own foundations, and switching substations, with again more equipment foundations. You could say concrete is the foundation of our economy... chortle chortle... groan... EDIT: added SI units for our rest-of-the-world pals

EADGBE 8y ago
I never try to get too much into the math, but the amount of concrete required for X is staggering in general, even at small scale. Recently built a foundation for my deck, what was estimated on the concrete tube for pillars was nowhere near what was actually needed.

ScottBurson 8y ago

Almost right: the turbine will produce about three megawatts of power. The confusion between power and energy is precisely the problem.