click here to return to the Calico Cat homepage
Freedom Tower: lose the stupid wind turbines please
The cornerstone of the Freedom Tower was laid yesterday. The Freedom Tower is the replacement for the old World Trade Center towers that were destroyed by Islamic terrorists. It was a symbolic gesture to officially begin construction on July 4th, although I don’t think that any real construction is going to begin for another month or two.
For the first time yesterday I actually looked at the plans for the Freedom Tower, and I was horribly surprised to discover that the plans call for erecting electricity producing wind turbines at the top of the tower.
The story about the Freedom Tower being the world’s tallest building is actually a big lie. There will be 70 stories reaching a height of about 1100 feet (according to the CNN article), which is tall, but certainly not the world’s tallest building. The old Empire State Building, completed in 1931, has 102 stories and is 1250 feet tall. So it’s pretty pathetic that the so called new “world’s tallest building” isn’t really as tall as a building that dates back 73 years. Furthermore, the Empire State Building was completed in just two years, while the new Freedom Tower will take five years to complete. Assuming it’s completed on time.
One should also point out that the Empire State Building, despite being old, is constructed damn well. In 1945 a B-25 bomber crashed into the Building and nothing happened to it, unlike the World Trade Center towers that collapsed when planes hit them.
So instead of the world’s tallest building, we actually have a building that doesn’t even come close, but that’s topped off with a “lacy system of steel cables” that will house the wind turbines. The LMDC Freedom Tower site says that “[w]ind-harvesting turbines are being proposed to provide 20% of the building's energy in the form of clean, renewable energy.” The steel cables will rise to 1500 feet, and then reaching another 276 feet above the steel cables, a spire will reach a height of 1,776 feet.
If putting wind turbines at the top of buildings made any kind of sense, we’d already be doing it. From what I know about wind turbines, electricity from wind turbines costs several times more money than electricity from other sources. And that’s for wind turbines built at a sensible altitude. I have no idea how much extra money it costs to place the wind turbines 1100 to 1500 feet above a crowded city, but I’m sure it’s a lot of money.
Some commentators have mentioned that the turbines symbolize us sticking it to the Arabs (who control a lot of the world’s oil reserves). Commentators who said that have no idea where electricity in the United States comes from. Only a tiny amount of domestic electricity comes from oil. Coal, nuclear, hydro, and natural gas are how we get our electricity, and none of it comes from the Middle East. Although our current policy of building natural gas fired power plants is quite stupid given that we are rapidly using up our domestic natural gas reserves. A much more sensible way to make a statement about our energy future would be to build a new air pollution-free nuclear power plant that could produce electricity for an entire city, rather than some wind turbines that only produce enough electricity to power a fifth of a single office building.
And what about the practical problems of having these wind turbines in a densely populated city? Wind turbines are noisy. How noisy? I’m not sure, but pro-wind websites claim that at 650 feet away form a wind farm, it’s only as noisy as a kitchen refrigerator. My kitchen refrigerator is loud enough to be annoying. People working at the top stories of the Freedom Tower, as well as at the top stories of nearby building, will be closer than 650 feet to the turbines, and thus they will surely be able to hear the annoying whirring sounds of the turbines.
Wind turbines kill a lot of birds. Now, if a bunch of birds have to die in the name of powering our office buildings, maybe it’s not that big of a deal. But the problem here is that the birds will be getting killed over a crowded city. Will mangled bird carcasses constantly be raining down on the streets around the Freedom Tower?
The wind turbines at the top of the Freedom Tower are not a practical way to conserve energy—they will cost a lot more money to build and maintain than the cost of the electricity they will save. They have nothing to do with remembering the events of 9/11. They create environmental problems due to the noise and dead birds. Construction hasn’t started yet, so it’s not too late for us to lose the stupid wind turbines.
posted Monday, July 05, 2004
Previous Posts
8 Comments:
By Alicia:
I wish more people would educate themselves and not be afraid of nuclear power. It is safe, highly economical, and the cleanest way to go.
posted at 7/05/2004 6:36 PM
By Rob:
The argument against these wind turbines is uneducated and ignorant.
"If putting wind turbines at the top of buildings made any kind of sense, we’d already be doing it. From what I know about wind turbines, electricity from wind turbines costs several times more money than electricity from other sources. And that’s for wind turbines built at a sensible altitude. I have no idea how much extra money it costs to place the wind turbines 1100 to 1500 feet above a crowded city, but I’m sure it’s a lot of money."
The reason wind turbines aren't often found on the top of buildings is simple- the turbulance created by neighboring buildings would make them useless. Well, that's true for buildings neighbored by similarly tall structures. In the Feedom Tower's case, it stands relatively alone. As for the cost... Let's take an example from Hull, MA. They installed a wind turbine to supplement their power needs. It paid for itself in 4 years running at about the same utilization.
As for the argument about the B-25 vs. the aircraft that hit the WTC- the B-25 was at the end of its journey, carrying far less aircraft fuel (of a grade inferior to today's) and weighed 15,984 lbs (almost 25,000 lbs with bombs, which it obviously wasn't carrying). A typically laden passenger liner weighs well over 200,000 lbs. You do the math.
posted at 9/03/2004 12:53 PM
By Rob:
I apologize- I failed to address the rest of the comments. Unfortunately, due to time constraints here at work, I won't take the effort, but the arguments can be similarly dismissed. Killing birds? Please. Noise? No louder than traffic. They'll pay for themselves very quickly, and then will be saving money and fossil fuel in the process.
posted at 9/03/2004 12:56 PM
By persia:
The real world's tallest buling is being constructed in Dubai as we speak 800 metres (2,640 feet) tall. It's called the Burj Tower.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4081885.stm
posted at 2/21/2005 4:09 PM
By Tim:
wind turbines don't kill a lot of birds - each one kills 2-3 a year. the average skyscraper kills hundreds. they're not expensive anymore - cheaper than nuclear. they're being built by the hundreds in north america. they don't make much noise either. i'd like to think the tower would have good enough sound insulation that workers wouldn't be disturbed.
that said, i don't think libeskind's freedom tower design was that great. but the new design is worse.
posted at 7/13/2005 3:30 PM
By Nate bourell:
I agree compleatly with Rob. You shouldn't argue agiantst something unless you know what you are talking about. Wind costs on average about $.055/kWh, which is slightly more expensive than coal and natural gas (coal= about$.05/kWh, and gas= about $.0525/kWh), but it is cheaper than nuclear (about $.0625/kWh). What you said about how building wind turbines on top of buildings not makng sence is also totally wrong. One of the bigest parts of the cost of building wind turbines is building a tower that is tall enough to get the full benefit of the wind at heigher altitudes where the wind is fastest. The reason that they are not already building wind turbines on top of old buildings (aside from what Rob said) is because the buildings were not designed to take the extra stres from the wind turbines. It is too costly to retrofit an old building to take the stres of a wind turbine, but it is not too costly to design a new building to be able to take the stress of a wind turbine. I would think that a wind turbine at the top of a building would produce power that was less expensive per kWh than an average turbine. Also, I still think that the use of any renewable energy is sticking it to the arabs. Oil still acounts for about 3% of our electricity, and we do get some of our natural gas from the middle east as well as oil. Also, the less coal and natural gas we burn for energy, the more compressed natural gas (CNG) and hydrogen (which can be made from coal and gas) we can use to replace oil in our vehicles. Although I am educated about nuclear, I think it would be a terrable idea to use it to power NY. My general oppinion on nuclear is that we should close old plants because although it produces waste and has the slight potential to cause a disaster, it does not pollute like coal or natural gas. However, I don't think we should open new plants because it is more expensive than wind, and not as good. I also think that it definitely should not be used to power a densely populated place like NYC because even though there has never been a dissaster in a privatly owned plant, there is a first time for everything. Immagine how many peope would have died in the Chornobyl meltdown if it had occured in NYC instead of Siberia.
In summary, you were talking out of your rear-end, and should have checked your facts. Wind >Nuclear
posted at 10/17/2005 1:37 AM
By leigh:
Whats wrong with harnessing wind power? Do you really think that we have enough non-renewable resources to not begin considering new options for power. Wind turbines on top of tall buildings...what a wonderfully refreshing idea. Rather then wasting your time writing about something you clearly haven't researched, why don't you either go to the library, or better yet, go and visit a wind farm. They are beautiful places to be.
posted at 3/10/2006 5:16 PM
By dan:
On Earth day (April 22nd) our Aerotecture wind turbines are to be hoisted to the top of the Daley Center. We believe that they will be the tallest in the world. Because of their unique design, they are virtually silent. When they spin, they do not become invisible to birds and bats. Unlike conventional turbines, Aerotecture turbines are self regulating - they have a terminal velocity. They do not have to be locked down during high winds. These machines are designed for buildings and structures to take advantage of the turbulating winds that swirl around the corners of man-made structures. You will be seeing these wind turbines in your neighborhoods in the not too distant future.
posted at 3/31/2006 9:35 AM
Post a Comment