Good news but still alarming that 300,000 sq ft of panels only produces 20% of the plant's required power.
Another 1.2 million sq ft needed to fulfill all power needs...and that's on a sunny day.
We still got a ways to go!

Just let them build a small nuclear reactor on-site - the kind that powers an aircraft carrier. Why do we always have to make things so complicated!

ejj: lol ... nukes are so simple because the atoms are so small.

"Just let them build a small nuclear reactor on-site"

Yes, there are two small nuclear reactors operating within 40 miles of that location right now. Both in highly populated areas. One at NIST and the other in College Park. Why not add some more? People afraid of small items such as electrons?

Feeling ill today - can't come up with a decent GM bash.

GM must have not got the memo telling them that they are losing money and will have to close that plant. Kind of a shame since the solar initiative is really a great thing given all that spare roof area on their plants and warehouses.

Why build hybrid SUVs, isn't that kind of an oxymoron, going from 15mpg to 20mpg is pretty weak since many non-hybrid vehicles can get 40mpg.

jc777; That's really lame; I hope you don't consider that quality GM bashing.
Here, listen to this.
Why will they not be operational until late 2009?
I know they are doing this as slowly as they can.
If they had done this years ago, when everyone knew they should, they would not be in the state they are in (um, that’s Maryland I believe).
Why does whole plant need 6 MW.
Those lathes, drill presses and punches need only about 1 hp each and most should be manually operated.
I use dogs and carts for tasks around the yard, hand files in the garage and ice packs not air condioning here in Arizona and need less than 1 kW.
An area of 300,000 square feet should provide at least 3 MW; why don’t they use a concentrating PV system. They are just trying to help big oil create momentum for inefficient PV cells and wastefully over-usage of power. If we let this go it will be unstoppable.
You're right about one thing though, the hybrid SUVs with 30% more mpg are a poor substitute for Yugos, which are all anyone needs.

Toppa,
not sure i follow all of your points but you raise the most important issue... why are they using so much power? they could probably examine how they're consuming power inside the factory and reduce it by 20%, which would be more simple than putting up all thos panels.
better yet, do both.

Some of these car manufacturing plants may be more profitable turning assembly lines to producing wind turbines.
In the same way that carriage building became uneconomical with the introduction of motor cars and bicycle manufactures turned to motorcycles.
The technology and talent and infrastructure is already there.
The economics is the last piece in the puzzle .
Hows this.
A community wind farm in Daylesford Victoria is placing two 2MW turbines at a cost of $4M ea (total cost under $10M.)
This is rated to supply 2,300 homes so the cost per unit between $3,600 and $4,300 per house.( add yearly service component)
We generally see household energy consumption as slightly more than transport.
The cost in this instance is similar to the cost penalties many of us are prepared to pay for fuel efficiency or hybrid benefits.
Turbine blades between 50 meters 850 MW to 92 meters for 3 MW plants.(By memory)
But smaller units should be considered for mass production.

I am not suggesting closing all or any car plant ,
But draw industry attention to the fact that they can be part of the solution, and along with electric car development and production, find unity of purpose and ensure the future and relevance in a changing world.
It seems that all too often conservative protective attitudes preclude the possibility of moving forward in times of adversity.

I'm clueless when it comes to wind turbines - but can someone tell me why the blades need to be so narrow? Seems to me you could double the blade width and maybe get double the power? Or have 4 blades instead of three for more power? Why not two blade & generator assemblies per tower? Or is there is there a risk of higher bird mortality with more blades or wider blades? I'm just trying to figure out why they can't be more efficient and/or more powerful.

"Just let them build a small nuclear reactor on-site - the kind that powers an aircraft carrier."

What would the cost of building such a plant be? The considerations and operating environement for something commercial and something military are two very different things. Closet thing to a small commercial nuke would be the Toshiba-4S and at 5 cents/kWhr for the production cost of electricity is about 2-3 times the production cost of base generated coal or regular nuclear. Who knows what a military design would be where production costs may take a back seat to other considerations.

As for the turbine blades. Other designs have been tried out. This design has become the de-facto general winner out of the past conventional designs. One of the reasons is that as the blades spin, you are trying to minimalize turbulence on the other blades. Larger blades wouldn't let you extract more energy plus they would weigh heavier and therefore be less usefull in lighter winds. Design must be balanced out for multiple operating environments.

I think you're on track when you say more efficient and/or more powerful.
Delivered power equals power extracted x efficiency.
High aspect ratio (longer) and fewer blades is best for efficiency but more blades can extract more energy. Apparently 3 to 5 narrow blades extracts most of the available wind power with acceptable efficiency. Fat blades are not efficient and do not work at different pitch angles.
I have no doubt they have this down to a fine science.
However a recent discovery (claim) is that whale fluke bumps can increase efficiency.

I know too little about how this all works but fat props went out soon after the Wright bros. Something to do with drag.
The very early experimenters cottoned on straight away.
Longer blades have more torque and high tip speed, the power unit wants a constant speed.
The total curvature will also consider wind (and motor) speed as the need is to obtain coupling with the airflow at the desired rpm.
Helicopters with 3 or 4 blades have increased lift with slower speed.
Vertical rotor windmills have slower 'tip' speeds
and are therefore quieter. They are also better in areas where wind direction is erratic for instance near high rise buildings, wind tunnel or flukey' effects.
Reports of bird strikes are high profile, but not credible IMO. Even if a bird were to fly through the swept area, there can only be a very small chance of contact. There should be some high frequency emanation from the tips and large visual signal. Granted that a slow moving object will be surprised at the how fast the tip changes position.
Aesthetics are a real issue some people just find it too much. Yet cities, refineries coal plant and other stacks dont seem to register?

"They are just trying to help big oil create momentum for inefficient PV cells and wastefully over-usage of power. "

Finally, someone who gets it. Big oil quietly invests in strategic PV projects with the sole intent of urging them toward self-destruction. Oil has a unique corner on this approach as they are heavily engaged in their own timely end!

Very impressed with your use of ice in Arizona - I have hooked up a ethanol atomizer to shower under on really hot days. No, AC, just clean evaporation cooling! And in Needles NV!

The money would have reduced far more fuel use and CO2 production if it had been invested in United Technologies combined heat, power and cooling systems with Capstone turbines. They also would have run on cloudy days and at nights. ..HG..

Not from me but makes sense.

"The determination of the number of blades involves design considerations of aerodynamic efficiency, component costs, system reliability, and aesthetics. Noise emissions are affected by the location of the blades upwind or downwind of the tower and the speed of the rotor. Typically one bladed rotors will operate at higher tip speed ratios. Given that the noise emissions vary by the 7th power of blade speed, a small increase in speed can make a big difference.

Wind turbines developed over the last 50 years have almost universally used either two or three blades. Aerodynamic efficiency increases with number of blades but with diminishing return. Increasing the number of blades from one to two yields a six percent increase in aerodynamic efficiency, whereas increasing the blade count from two to three yields only an additional three percent in efficiency. Further increasing the blade count yields minimal improvements in aerodynamic efficiency and sacrifices too much in blade stiffness as the blades become thinner.

Component costs that are affected by blade count are primarily for materials and manufacturing of the turbine rotor and drive train. Generally, the fewer the number of blades, the lower the material and manufacturing costs will be. In addition, the fewer the number of blades, the higher the rotational speed will be. This is because blade stiffness requirements to avoid interference with the tower limit how thin the blades can be. Fewer blades with higher rotational speeds reduce peak torques in the drive train, resulting in lower gearbox and generator costs.

System reliability is affected by blade count primarily through the dynamic loading of the rotor into the drive train and tower systems. While aligning the wind turbine to changes in wind direction (yawing), each blade experiences a cyclic load at its root end depending on blade position. This is true of one, two, three blades or more. However, these cyclic loads when combined together at the drive train shaft are symmetrically balanced for three blades, yielding smoother operation during turbine yaw. Turbines with one or two blades can use a pivoting teetered hub to also nearly eliminate the cyclic loads into the drive shaft and system during yawing.

Finally, aesthetics can be considered a factor in that some people find that the three-bladed rotor is more pleasing to look at than a one- or two-bladed rotor."