Talk:Wind turbine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-biggest-wind-turbines-4154395/

  Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Most produced model of wind turbine?

I tried improving the article by adding the following section but it has been reverted numerous times by another editor, who seems to believe that it is a revertable offense on Wikipedia to ever add any material with "requires expansion" tags for some reason. I think we can all agree that whichever wind turbine model/design does hold the record for highest production/manufacture run, it is worthy of inclusion in the "records" section. I've tried looking it up with my favorite search engine to no avail.

Much like the record for most-produced aircraft, it should be here in the records section.

Most produced model

• You have been reverted because you first added just an empty subsection, and then after being reverted repeatedly added a claim with a reference that didn't in any way support your claim. Either do it right, providing a solid source that explicitly supports your claim, or don't do it at all. We don't guess/speculate, we report facts. Thomas.W ^talk 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in the rules of wikipedia that states you can't add a section, leave it completely empty and tag it as "requires expansion", as long as the section heading is relevant. The above was the first edit of mine you reverted, the latter edit was on incorrect guidance by you in the edit history of the article to provide something, anything, and to not leave the section completely blank?

Unless you can cite me a rule in support of the rationale you used in the edit history when you first reverted my semi-blank "most produced model" edit, then should my 1st edit not be included the article, in the hopes that the article can be improved by readers who happen to know a reference for the most produced model. This is, after all, how wikipedia works, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.141.109 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

31.200.141.109 (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect guidance? I said you should add something to the subsection when creating it, not just a header and an expand-template, I did not say that you could add whatever wild unsourced guess you wanted to it. That's not how things are done here on WP. So stop trying to blame others for what you did, and read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability before adding anything again. Thomas.W ^talk 21:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You said to add something, when leaving it just as it was as - requires expansion - is well within the rules of wikipedia. I really don't want to add anything, just want to know the most produced model, friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.141.109 (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Show me where it says that you can add an empty section/subsection header and more or less demand that others add material there. The normal way to do it is to make a suggestion on the talk page of the article. Thomas.W ^talk 21:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the crux of the matter here is, does a verifiable source exist that states the most produced model of wind turbine? If one does, that's excellent, and the info should be included. If not, then we probably shouldn't have an empty section. It doesn't look good, and there's no guarantee a verifiable source will materialize. I think the sentiment for trying to include to info is very much in good faith, and I appreciate the IP's attempt the improve the article. Without a verifiable source though, I don't think there's much else to be done. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Skyraider1 for your input and realization that my edit was very much in good faith. However I am sure such a reference does exist, if we include the -requires expansion tag- someone who does have the reference at hand will add it and then the article will be improved. If however the section is absent in the records section then it is unlikely this someone will feel compelled to add the data. That is, after all how I've come to learn how wikipedia improves itself, does it not. Simply not wanting it there because it "doesn't look good" is a bad excuse in my opinion.

Anyone working at this "World Wind Energy agency", would have to know right? - http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php

So I shot off an email to the above organization, I'd imagine if the section was now actually in the article and had its -requires expansion- tag glaring at them, they'd be more likely to help us out than the present scenario were they will arrive and won't see a need for supplying a reference to the most produced model of industrial wind turbine. Fingers crossed I suppose.

02:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.141.109 (talk)

Getting an email from them won't help you, it has to be a published source. Follow the links I gave you on your user talk page, and read about reliable sources and verifiability. Thomas.W ^talk 02:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that, and it actually will help, as I asked them for a published source, and even if they don't respond with a source, the name of the model itself would be a more than half the battle in searching for a WP:RS myself. Seen as you don't seem to care about finding out.

31.200.141.109 (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Images

The image in the "Types" section with the caption title "A turbine blade convoy passing through Edenfield, UK" does not seem relevant to the text. I suggest that it should either be removed, or a new section should be written discussing how wind turbine blades are very large components that are assembled in a factory and have special needs for transport logistics. The section can then refer to the image, or the image can at least be in the section. Of course, the section would also not contain original work like I have just done here, be verifiable and follow other Wikipedia editing guidelines. Jray310 (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sleep deprivation from low frequency noise

No mention of this problem in the article. But wind turbines constructed near residential communities cause sleep deprivation. Families have abandoned their homes due to this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.215.193 (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Source?AnalogWeapon (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wind Optimization through Rotor Rotation

General Electric is now advertising their software solutions to reposition the wind turbine's rotor to capture the largest amount of wind for producing electricity. GE's wind optimization solution This could be a massive contribution to the industry. MaynardClark (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything on that GE page about optimization, rotor rotation, or repositioning. There's some advertising, and a big form to harvest people's personal details. Is this just spam? --Nigelj (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Materials and duration" section

This newly added section seems to contain some useful content, but reads like a garbled machine translation. It also needs wikilinking and more citations. Would someone with knowledge in this field care to attempt a rewrite?: Noyster (talk), 11:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Wind turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080203053651/http://www.mysanantonio.com:80/news/weather/weatherwise/stories/MYSA092407.01A.State_windmills.3430a27.html to http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/weather/weatherwise/stories/MYSA092407.01A.State_windmills.3430a27.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080607001802/http://www.windpower.org:80/en/tour/wtrb/comp/index.htm to http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wtrb/comp/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050403101826/http://www.awea.org:80/faq/vawt.html to http://www.awea.org/faq/vawt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715103033/http://www.pomeroyiowa.com/windflyer.pdf to http://www.pomeroyiowa.com/windflyer.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Vortexis (VAWT) legitimate?

References 34 and 35 aren't independent and I couldn't find much information that proves their legitimacy.
"[...]referred to in Special Operations as "Black Swan." [34][35]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by CedricEveleigh (talk • contribs) 22:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Energy

The kinetic energy of the air, density d, which crosses area A at speed v in unit time is half the mass, dAv times v-squared. Therefore the maximum efficiency is just half that given in the text.Bukovets (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Not clear where or what you are talking about - wind and water are volumetric flows, so mass per second increases linearly with speed. Thus the energy maximum increases with speed to the third exponent. TGCP (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course the maximum power is proportional to the area, the density and the third power of the velocity (or rather the component of the velocity perpendicular to the area.) Write A for the area, v for the velocity, d for the density the maximum power is kAdv^3. ("^" means "to the power"). k here is a constant whioh we can see is dimensionless. The article says k = 16/27 but that cannot be right. The mass which crosses area A in unit time is dAv. The kinetic energy is 1/2 X mass X v^2 so the kinetic energy crossing the turbine per unit time is 1/2 X A X d X v^3. However Benz tell us that we can only capture 16/27 of this so k is 8/27. Bukovets (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. You wrote "v-squared", that confused me. Betz agrees about Pmax=0.593*½*rho*A*v^3 , so I suggest you copy the reference from Betz and correct this article. Rotor wake could also be included. However, it would not be appropriate to write 8/27 as that hides the physics and the point you were trying to make. Also, the 80% effeciency is probably outdated. TGCP (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wind turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110516022444/http://www.enercon.de:80/p/downloads/EN_Productoverview_0710.pdf to http://www.enercon.de/p/downloads/EN_Productoverview_0710.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Energy conversion

wind turbines and their connected network generally work well in converting kinetic energy of wind into electrical energy thus improving the power efficiency of that particular plant or zone . (by 122.161.170.30 )

(moved as style) Please use the "New section" button when adding text. Not sure what you are suggesting here. Any energy conversion has losses, and Betz law shows some of the limits. TGCP (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Betz law only works and always assumes that the wind turbine blades are shaped as close to 100% efficiency as possible using the Thermodyne KT blade as the example of a perfect blade shape and working down from that point. Say for example a wind turbine blade was only built to extract 50% of the potential energy from the wind to facilitate "Low-Wind" power extraction and not "High-Wind" power extraction. This is called "Blade-Pitch-Specialization" In this case Betz law does not apply or must be adjusted 50% lower in the instance of a blade not designed to extract the maximum amount of energy from the wind. {user:Ed Hubble, 9 July 2016} (please click on ~~~~ in edit window to add your username when adding text)

Betz law always applies, as it only concerns the theoretical maximum of energy and energy extraction in wind regardless of extraction method. If a turbine blade is optimized for a different wind speed than it is seeing, it merely extracts less energy at that point. It does not change Betz law. Either way, that particular topic is more suitable in the Betz's law or Wind turbine design articles, and it certainly needs valid sources. However, the section "Efficiency" could use a sentence about the high efficiency in converting rotor power to electrical power. This source says 10% loss in each of mechanical and electrical transmissions (20% total), but that seems too high for modern systems - all that heat would require immense coolers. TGCP (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2016

The efficiency formula is missing a 1/2 multiplication (see the "Betz's law" page for confirmation). Please change the formula to the following: P=0.59\frac{1}{2}\rho v^3 A

108.171.134.160 (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Done -- MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 23:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

10x efficiency improvement from arrays of vertical axis turbines

I have not and will not edit this into the main article. Someone please do it for me. Thanks.

Researchers at Caltech are studying arrays of vertical axis turbines, claimed to have 10x efficiency advantage over conventional horizontal axis turbines, and claimed to be able to co-exist with horizontal axis turbines. Find out more at www.caltech.edu and search on topic wind turbine, plenty of references. This research has been ongoing for several years.13:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)173.117.52.28 (talk)

Unclear - wind devices (of any kind) are already around 75% of Betz's law, so 10x power is physically impossible for single turbines. However, closer spacing could increase power per ground area, but $/kWh is nearly always the determining factor. Short explanation here, publications list here. TGCP (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

moving turbines around

Hello, sorry this is not about the article, but I figured one of you may know this... If wind patterns can change over time, is it possible that at some point some wind farm would have to be moved because it ceased to generate enough electricity due to a wind slowdown? Would moving these things be so expensive as to make the entire ordeal unprofitable? You will note in my contribution history that I asked about wind currents recently (wp:ref). Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wind turbines with flexible blades found to be 35% more efficient

News that someone might find useful for this article.

http://www.technothirst.com/wind-turbines-with-flexible-blades-found-to-be-35-more-efficient-they-also-work-over-a-wider-range-of-wind-conditions-than-standard-turbines-new-study-finds/

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Kite-System Wind Turbines

Some editors may resolve the article missing this sector of wind turbines: kite-system based wind turbines. Generators are either flown or based in ground stations. Energy-kite system wind turbines mine upper stronger and steadier and thicker sectors of the wind gradient. 68.123.232.27 (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The article mainly covers production turbines, with some allowance for experimental ones. Kite turbines are experimental, and covered in Airborne wind turbine and others, and partially in Unconventional wind turbines, linked from this article. As new types become common, we can include them in proportion to their notability. TGCP (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly merge with windmill?

I don't see much difference between a windmill and wind turbine. Am I missing anything? Could we possibly merge windmill with wind turbine? Llightex (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Windmill is the parent article, of which Wind turbine is a subsection. Each article is well defined, well referenced, with plenty of content, but little overlap, as suggested by wp:Split. Compare with Napoleon Bonaparte and Joséphine de Beauharnais which also have overlap and diverse content. Or Engine and internal combustion engine and four-stroke engine and W16 engine, or... TGCP (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the historical context of the two terms is very clear, and coincident with their function. Windmills worked machinery beneath them, wind turbines generated electricity for use elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as currently defined the wind turbine generates electrical power, so it's a type of windmill.GliderMaven (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

wind turbines and their problems

I am disgusted that Wikipedia cannot tell the truth about wind turbines. They are NOT green Genie 81au (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Be Bold. Cite it and write it. If you have reliable sources, please add whatever additional environmental impacts you can describe. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

How do wind turbines concentrate energy?

This sounds a lot like pseudoscience babble to me. Can someone expand on this, maybe? If not, this sentence should just be deleted. I don't have access to the source, so if anyone does, please share! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.41.247 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

They don't. I don't have access to the source, either, but there's really no way to make that statement make sense. Wind turbines extract energy from the fluid (air) flow naturally passing through, they don't concentrate it or otherwise manipulate the energy other than that; if anything, because the flow leaving the turbine is now more spread out, they arguably serve to diffuse the remaining wind energy. siafu (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Efficiency

Just went on a tour of the local wind farm. Can someone expand on the efficiency section how the wind turbine generates power at varying wind speeds. The gearbox is apparently a fixed ratio, and power can only be generated when the blades turn at 16 rpm. It takes a minimum of 4 m/sec wind to turn the blades, but maximum power isn't until 13 m/s. Across this range of windspeeds, I assume the blades are feathered to maintain 16 rpm. At wind speeds above 13 m/s, I was told the turbine wastes excess wind. And why not have a variable gear ratio or transmission to allow a constant generator speed across a wide variety of wind speeds? Surely the stator electromagnet is variable, and can be increased to increase power output when the wind increases. At windspeeds above 25 m/s the turbine is stopped to prevent damage. What? Why can't there blades be feathered more at higher wind speeds to maintain 16 rpm and continue generating power? What an I missing here? I hope someone knowledgeable can expand this page to better explain efficiency across varying wind speeds. Tom Elwood Tomelwood (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This should be explained in the article, but the problem is variable ratio gearboxes are costly. It seems likely to me that the value of any extra energy collected wouldn't pay for the extra cost. Some variable-speed turbines use power electronics to convert varying generator frequency to the utility frequency, but these are rare, again, I suspect, because of cost. Lots of economics drivers for wind turbine operation, but then this is true of any installation, just more visible when you put it on a stick 100 metres in the air! --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree the section on efficiency is to non-technical. I am not an expert, but need to know why the number of blades as a variable is not maximized. I would submit an airspeed of 20 mph as the full power design criteria. Variables of effective angle of attack and apparent wind direction need inclusion. I tend to believe that Piper Cub airplane like wing airfoils appear most suited. The concept of a variable airfoil section with diameter needs inclusion in theory. Also, the further from the center, the higher the apparent wind speed. Maybe add a chart of blade design for various manufacturers.96.255.210.54 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wind turbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908061207/http://www.windpower.org/en/pictures/brush.htm to http://www.windpower.org/en/pictures/brush.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121126131037/http://www.leonardo-energy.org/ask-expert to http://www.leonardo-energy.org/ask-expert
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425064111/http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=63a5438a-ae99-4b76-9629-b7b59d238932 to http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=63a5438a-ae99-4b76-9629-b7b59d238932
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100501055224/http://www.eolecapchat.com/e_1b-grande.html to http://www.eolecapchat.com/e_1b-grande.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 1931 WIMA D-30.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Style

This article reads like a personal essay or magazine article for Reader's Digest. It lacks all the purely objective reporting of an encyclopedic article. It needs a massive clean up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

In 2001, commercial utility-connected turbines deliver 75% to 80% of the Betz limit of power extractable from the wind, at rated operating speed.[17][18][needs update] Additionally, changes to the design of vertical turbines can increase their energy yield. If the tower height is increased by 1 meter, this will increase the energy yield by 1%. Doubling the rotor diameter will quadruple the total energy yield produced by the wind turbine (). Efficiency can decrease slightly over time, one of the main reasons being dust and insect carcasses on the blades which alters the aerodynamic profile and essentially reduces the lift to drag ratio of the airfoil.

change Comparison with fossil-fuel turbines to The Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Turbines

Being environmentally friendly and green is a large advantage of wind turbines. Wind turbines take up minimal space until certain power plants. Furthermore, the area underneath wind turbines can be used for farming. Additionally, wind turbines can be placed in remote areas without the need of electricity cords().  

Wind turbines can be very large, reaching over 140 metres (460 ft) tall and with blades 55 metres (60 yd) long,[77] and people have often complained about their visual impact. Although it is dependent on their overall size, but some wind turbines can be seen from 30 km away. Some people argue that wind turbines remove the solidarity that certain communities have with their land (). Energy harnessed by wind turbines is intermittent, and is not a "dispatchable" source of power; its availability is based on whether the wind is blowing, not whether electricity is needed. Wind turbines can only be placed in certain types of landscapes (coastal land, tops of hills, and valleys) to get maximum amounts of energy ().

• add to the end of disadvantages

Human Health Side Effects The constant whooshing sound caused by the wind turbines lead to some health problems if someone were to live close to a wind turbine for a long time. Wind turbine syndrome is a conditions where the sounds of the wind turbines cause someone to have some mental illnesses. Some symptoms include: sleep deprivation, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, irritability, and poor concentration and memory. Usually these health problems only occur if you live within 1-2 km of a wind turbine and these issue resolve once someone moves away from the source. Other issues not included with wind turbine syndrome is increased stress and heart rate. The noise and shadow flickering caused by the wind turbines tend to bring up annoyance with those who live near wind farms (source 2). This is one of the major setbacks with living near wind turbines because the blades create constant noise which can ruin the peace and quiet commonly enjoyed in some rural areas. (). Mrollinger24 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It is hard for me to decipher your request because of the formatting. — MRD2014 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Some of the sources provided do not seem reliable, and should probably be compared with more recent sources : TGCP (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

The statement in the Vertical axis wind turbines section, "The key disadvantages include ... the inherently lower power coefficient" is not true. A basic look in the current research of VAWT will show equal or ever higher power coefficients for the same size wind turbines (vertical vs horizontal). As a researcher in the field for the last 4-5 years, the saying that VAWT is less efficient than HAWT is just a common misconception. Dkeisar (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

practical small wind turbines - if you normalize for the same area and height, the power output is almost the same+-15%: https://commons.clarku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=idce_masters_papers

Big VAWT's at ground level, still gained large power coefficients (0.35-0.45+), comparable to HAWT located at the same height operating at the same Re numbers - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118308153 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkeisar (talk • contribs) 10:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2022

Can the following be added to the section Wind turbine#Demolition and recycling:

Used wind turbine blades have been recycled by incorporating them as part of the support structures within pedestrian bridges in Poland and Ireland.

-- 108.71.214.235 (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Doing now. Since I The Verge uses CompositesWorld when sourcing the Poland bridge it's probably reliable. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Technology / Costs

In this section, it should read out “As of 2020, installing a wind turbine may cost around $1.11 million per megawatt of installed capacity.”

This both updates the latest year cited in the source article as well as fixes the incorrect notion that a single megawatt of energy produced costs $1 million. The existing sentence seems to confuse energy production and instantaneous power 71.183.72.35 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Please change "and, the most favorable" (last sentence of first paragraph of article) to "and . . . the most favourable".

Reason: The ungrammatical comma after "and" is also a misquotation. The quoted source reads, "lowest relative greenhouse gas emissions, the least water consumption demands and with the most favourable social impacts" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032108000555). Substituting ellipsis for "with" preserves both grammar and accuracy. 72.95.95.49 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Of the universe (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Efficience to weight ratio

2MW weighs 220Tons of molten metals, 12MW weighs 660 Tonnes, that's a 200% effieciency rise. The 12MW HaliadeX can melt 660 tons of metal in 8 days. Over its 8000 day (25yr) lifetime, it can make 1000 other turbines of green steel. If the base is reused 50 to 100 years, that efficience can quadruple. 2A02:8440:531A:1425:B9FD:1AF8:1EFE:4D10 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wind turbine

Enjoy 119.73.122.7 (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the Operability > Maintenance section, "gasoline-powered-helicopters" seems like an "awkwardly worded phrase"; obviously a sort of gotcha attempt pointing out that "green" energy makes use of fossil fuels in its maintenance. Also, the sentence ends with a comma instead of a period. 162.199.146.128 (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Rare-earth metals

The “Material supply” section incorrectly referred to Nd, Pr, Tb, and Dy as “rare metals.” These elements are properly called “rare-earth metals,” and despite the somewhat misleading name, they are not especially rare. For example, Nb is about as common as cobalt, nickel, or copper, and Pr is “not particularly rare” - see the respective Wikipedia articles. The text has been corrected. As mentioned in the following paragraph of this section, the supply issue for these metals is mainly that the ores are very unevenly distributed over the earth’s surface. This means that geopolitical tensions may affect their availability to any given manufacturer. Piperh (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2023

please add a link in Design and Construction, to DIY with low-cost material, inspired by William Kamkwamba, who made a windmill, to help people in poverty learn a way to produce energy http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/act-1-william-kamkwamba-the https://kurioso.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/grafico.jpg

and a way to use car battery to store energy Rslgp (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We don't link to blogs or other self-published sites. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wind turbine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Please reply to each item with a brief textual comment like "Done" so I can see how we're progressing.

Comments

• There are several citations needed tags in the text.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• If the box of 3 portals is needed at all then it should go in External links. At the moment it's interrupting the column format of the References.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 19:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• The Airborne and Floating wind turbines are subtypes; they should be removed from "See also" and covered very briefly, linked, and cited in the main text.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Some refs such as [39] Inwind, [40] Inwind, [73] De Vries, [79] Riviera, [126] Guinness need a date. Please check all the refs to ensure they have dates and publishers/websites.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the authors are cited in "John R. Doe" format, others in "Doe, John R." I suggest we format all of the refs in "Doe, John R." for consistency and readability.
  • Would you mind giving the specific ones that aren't cited in Doe, John R. format? I don't see what you mean. Thanks. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 01:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Eh? for instance [7], [28], [29], [34], [37], [46], [48], [49], [92], [94]. So, [46] says "Michael Barnard" when it should say "Barnard, Michael". And so on. The easiest and best way to sort this out is to use "|last=Barnard |first=Michael" and the citation template will automatically format the thing for you.
      • By the way, I will not be available this weekend to work on the comments. Would you be able to give me extra time? I can definitely have it done by June 10. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 02:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
        • No problem.
          • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• The section of text named "References" should be renamed to "Wind power density" or similar; the name "References" is already in use (section 14) as in a million other articles for the list of inline refs.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• The Records section is a mass of headings and very short paragraphs. Suggest it would work better as a table with columns for Record, Description, Location, and perhaps Constructor or Manufacturer.
  • (Done)Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 13:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• The section "Comparison with fossil-fuel turbines" is misnamed as the alternatives named include nuclear. The discussion of birds killed by cats and buildings is also nothing to do with fossil-fuel turbines. Some renaming or restructuring is needed.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 13:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Knowledgegatherer23 (Not Done) Um, I wasn't asking you to suppress the (correct and appropriate) mention of nuclear, which remains a low-carbon alternative, no matter how unpopular; it's also fully dispatchable, which wind isn't. Please put it back, and as this thread suggested, rename the section to match the contents.
      • Sorry for the misunderstanding, all fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgegatherer23 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
        • Thanks, certainly an improvement. I'd suggest also comparing wind's overall carbon output (from manufacturing, etc.) with nuclear as it's relevant and in a way quite a key point.

• In "Demolition and recycling", the advertisement for Casper, Wyoming is both uncited and out of place - no recycling is involved, and the result is long-lived waste in a landfill, not exactly something Wikipedia should be advocating.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 19:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [15] Wyatt needs page number(s).
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 21:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [17] Vermont Business Magazine is a dead link. You may be able to retrieve it at archive.org or similar.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [51] needs publisher and date.
  • (Done) Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [53] Singh needs ISBN and should be formatted using the Cite book template.
  • I think this is done... Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [58] NREL should name and wikilink the publisher (|publisher= ...).
  • Same here. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Ref [72] Composites World needs author, date, and publisher (Wood, Karen; 31 May 2012; Composites World).
  • I couldn't find this source. I think it was replaced. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• "However, many of the elements in the blade can be extracted and repurposed." Really? How? At what cost and with what waste products? Who says so, and with what evidence? Who disagrees? Wikipedia should not be accepting commercial arguments like this, especially not in Wikipedia's voice. An energy company is not a neutral and objective source: in fact, we should not be treating energy companies like www.midamericanenergy.com (101) as Reliable Sources at all, so we should treat anything they say as advertising (i.e. unusable) except for bare facts about themselves (they are based in Iowa...).
  • I found opposition from more reliable sources so I removed the quoted info. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think we had better check all the sources for reliability. The following appear (prima facie) to be unsuitable for Wikipedia: 1, 3, 6, 86, 101, 108, 125. Some are borderline: 99, American Wind Energy Association, is the manufacturers' club so its "fact-checking" may not be entirely neutral, for example. 108 "Clean Energy Ideas" looks like a partisan website, and while it sounds good there is no evidence it's independent and reliable.
  • What do you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgegatherer23 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    • We've been through most of them by now. I think [108] is just about acceptable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.