Blowin' in the Wind

No, if you stick enough of these up, weather patterns will change due to changes in wind speeds. Combination of things are necessary to address our energy needs with nuclear plants front and center.

It's not the holy grail...something is out there...as with wind...the answer lies within physics...

I have only read the abstract but it seems there are some missing pieces in this article. How many wind turbines must there be in this network? How many acres of land will they cover? Since the land must be ice free, there is only a limited area where they can be located. Also the land must be nonforested. Are they going to clear cut the trees to make way for these turbines? It must also be nonurban, so it looks like the country (i.e. non city) dwellers will take the hit again. Also Teddy Kennedy has already vetoed any wind mills in the ocean near his home(s), so where will we find oceanfront property?

this is pure bunk. CALTECH physicists say wind can only provide 8% of the energy needs if you put a windmill everyplace possible. These windmills are having huge technical problems and failing gearboxes at $250K per, Companies who were making these things are going out of business because of the failures. go check out the CALTECH's Dr. Nate Lewis website for a real technical analysis. He was the guy who debunked cold fusion.

brian wrote: "this is pure bunk. CALTECH physicists say wind can only provide 8% of the energy needs if you put a windmill everyplace possible... go check out the CALTECH's Dr. Nate Lewis website for a real technical analysis..."

Please check your info. A Caltech chemist, NOT physicist, who's an expert on surface chemistry and photo chemistry, not wind, makes the unsubstantiated guess that 3 terawatts could be PRACTICALLY generated, NOT "if you put a windmill everyplace possible.." And even that would be 3/28 of the energy needed, nearly 11%, NOT 8%.

Lewis is a CHEMIST, not a physicist, and is an expert in surface chemistry and photochemistry, NOT wind energy. He has a vested interest in grant money for solar cells and doesn't want to see wind get a piece of it. I am also a chemist and am an expert in physical organic chemistry. I'm not a wind expert either. So it's not clear what the answer is from Caltech's info.

Huh above is on to something. Although it is more complicated than that. Wind is Nature's attempt to correct an imbalance in pressure between areas/regions. The Earth is constantly trying to balance the differences between the energy surplus and the energy deficit regions of the globe. Its success in doing this makes our planet habitable. Cyclones, cold & warm fronts, ocean currents and wind patterns are the mechanisms through which this is accomplished. By intercepting this energy before it accomplishes its objective, we deprive Nature of part of its corrective mechanisms, and nothing good can come of that. The real solution is for humanity to limit its numbers and energy consumption. By "harnessing" the wind, we would only compound the problem.

if you want the "magic bullet" it should be in fusion, more research into this field is needed. For those who say "this cant be done its not feasable" look at the frekin sun thats all the proof you need that fusion works. Europe is already way ahead of us with the construction of the ITER facility and its purpose will give more "light" into the world of fusion. We should do the same.

As a forecaster for several windfarms my employer (an energy company)owns/operates, I have learned the following... In the Central Plains, the months of highest production are Nov, Dec, and March which are not the months in which there is a high demand for electricity. The existing infrastructure for transmission of electricity from these wind turbines in the non-urban areas to populated areas is insufficient. The countries that invest heavily in the windfarms are socialist countries that don't have to make economically sound decisions.

Wind power is good but has a lot of downfalls. First they must be set where winds are consistent. Technology is improving to make them more efficient in other words provide more power with less wind. Another problem is how to deliver the power, the greater the distance more power is lost on the way. They still have a lot to come along before being classified as valuable, Another downfalls are the noise they produce and the threat they pose to wildlife such as migratory birds.

Fussion is the key to power but still some long ways to become a reality. Nuclear power plants operate by fission. Still pretty safe and useful and a better alternative than wind and fossil fuels

Wind energy is clean. Nature is trying to correct imbalances due to temperature rise. In a way, global warming fuels wind energy. Windmills are an interesting way to take some of the temperature rise and convert it into useful energy, while at the same time removing some of the harmful generation of greenhouse gases. Fusion and other ideas are great for far off in the very distant future, but wind energy is here now, and needed now.

Everyone knows it's windy.

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind...

One 2.5 MW wind turbine can supply enough electricity for about 10,000 homes with a constant wind speed of about 6 to 8 miles per hour. You need to space these turbines about 1000 to 1500 ft apart. These wind farms can be built in less than 6 months. The total costs per turbine ranges from about 2.5 to 3.5 million each installed. They have a payback period of about 7 years, designed to last about 20 to 25 years. While coal and oil based electricity costs sky rocket... wind energy costs will remain steady or trail just below them and make them even more profitable.

Just the facts. I don't know why we have GOP decent on these. I guess it is because Big oil buys them off. That is too sad. It creates alot of new high paying jobs.

a gal,

You are incorrect about the noise they produce. I work with wind turbines every day. They turn really slow and when the wind is blowing pretty hard... it is very difficult to hear them. As for them killing birds... more birds are killed by flying into glass and buildings or your outside house cat. They certainly don't get chopped up as people would think... they die because they run into the darn blades or towers. dumb birds. most fly around them.

A gal,

Wow... "The socialist countries that use wind turbines don't make sound economic decisions." WHAT???

We build wind turbines all over the mid west and there are alot of big money going into them... Mostly from Europe... American companies, expect for FPL Energy (Nextera now). American companies are missing the boat... instead of energy independence... we are just switching form the middle east to europe because of simple minds as yourself.

REALLY. Who the heck do you work for? You don't know much. Try talking to Garrad Hassan, Renewable Resource Consultants.

Brian,

Companies going out of business??? GE??? I don't see them on any list. Gamesa? I don't see them on any list. Siemens? I don't see them on any list. Maybe crappy turbines like Dewind... yes... but certainly not the 1st tier manufacturers. Get your facts straight.

Wind is it. Any fool that doesn't think so has never been to the midwest. We should have done this on a giant scale years ago.

One of our neighbors has a huge windmill on his property. It sits idle most of the time because of inadequate wind. It's also quite ugly and a blemish on the New England landscape. This is the frozen, snowbound Northeast, not the windy plains or the sun filled skies of Arizona. It has rained here 6 out of the last 7 days.

Put one up next to Obama since he is blowing a lot of hot air all the time.