2006-10-03 17:29:48 · 7 answers · asked by Math geek 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Engineering
There are some multi story buildings with turbines. They are not the propeller type you may see along coastlines.
Most are placed in service levels mid height. These levels are designed to allow air flows to go through for cooling and to reduce wind loads on the building face. They look like exhaust fans in a ring.
The other type are very small when placed on the top of buildings. This is due to high wind gusts that may cause damage and vortex air currents as air comes over the roof edge from the building face.
I have also seen a proposal for those exhaust like fans to be mounted around the corners of buildings (low down, 3rd floor per se) but you would have to find a client willing to have ugly fans on his new multimillion dollar building.
Keep thinking outside the box.
2006-10-03 23:52:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why don't we? Physically the structure of most buildings are to hold the building, so if the turbine was to go on top of a building it would have to be on a new one designed to accommodate the additional load. I believe the reasoning as well is that there would be too much turbulence from all of the buildings around the skyscraper. Likely the wind speed running through an open field tends to be more constant as there is no obstructions to the wind flow. Also, if the building permit department ever got hold of plans they would likely veto. One mans opinion, however
2006-10-04 04:07:48 · answer #2 · answered by phjamo2021 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's awkward enough to maintain wind turbines atop their usual towers, but imagine trying to replace or repair the blades 60 stories up. Typical blades are longer than the height of an elevator car, so there are logistical problems.
Moreover, imagine what might happen if the the blades break or fall off and wind up crashing into the traffic below.
Finally, birds have a tendency to get clobbered by turbine blades, so imagine having to cross the street with dead birds falling from the sky on a regular basis.
2006-10-03 17:37:27 · answer #3 · answered by arbiter007 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Cuz a turbine would take up the whole top of the building. Then you gotta wire it to an electric plant...etc...etc...it would not be cost effective to do that.
Ask Senator Kennedy why he's against putting turbines off of Martha's Vineyard even though scientific fact points out that it's one of the best places in America for them because of the constant winds. I'm sure it has nothing to do with his home being there. He just thinks the hills of West Virginia are a better location.
2006-10-03 17:33:57 · answer #4 · answered by shogun_316 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i do no longer think of the air could be too skinny. Planes journey greater turbulance while they're greater up, so i could think of that a turbine could carry out greater appropriate while that is up greater. i think of the mixture or photograph voltaic and land up on good of those homes could help out a lot, yet i don't comprehend why that is no longer being achieved greater, if in any respect.
2016-12-26 08:59:31 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aesthetics. Also they would be more expensive to maintain, and there might be zoning restrictions as to where they can put windmills that generate electricity.
2006-10-03 17:32:20 · answer #6 · answered by scrotumchewingmonster 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It helps generate power and relives there electric bill
2006-10-03 17:37:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋