While windmills may evoke quaint images of yesteryear, they're sparking growing debate, particularly as the first offshore projects are proposed in popular tourist areas, such as Cape Cod, Long Island, N.Y., and the New Jersey shore. Critics, including a member of the influential Kennedy family, worry that some projects could harm national treasures.
"All of a sudden you're transferring an asset used by 5 million people into the hands of private industrial speculators," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmentalist who has objected to the Cape Cod proposal.
I wonder how long it will be before some congresscritter tries to make a law.
Insufficient. Non-OPEC oil production will level out in ten years, and OPEC production will decline substantially by 2026 or 2030. Nukes is the only cost-effective way to go, or relax the constraints on coal plants.
Put some of those Windmills in D.C.plenty of blow hards there
If the enviro-fascists weren't such hypocrites they might find themselves in bit of a pickle with these windmills.
Oil - Too icky
Coal - Too dirty
Nuclear - Don't even think about it
Wind - Kills birds and lowers the Kennedy's property values
Hydroelectric - Snail Darter
Wood - Tree killer
"From the mountains, to the prairies, to the oceans, white with foam. No one wants to see a windmill from their home!"
It's obvious we are out of room and resources.
It's time to stabilize America's runaway population growth from legal immigration.
We must preserve what's left of our resources and natural spaces for the future of America's children.
China and Europe are well ahead of us in bringing nuclear power plants on line. The answer to higher energy costs is nuclear not wind or solar. When the iron curtain collapsed the socialists rallied around environmental causes. The environmentalists contineue to hamper our progress.
Oh hell....Windex has killed more birds than these windmills will ever kill.....and cats like birdies, too.
Mag-Wind Co. L.L.C. in February will install one of its first five pre-production models -- possibly the one nicknamed "Toto" by its inventor -- atop the developer's (Ross Perot Jr.) Victory office building in downtown Dallas.
On the roof of a home this turbine, which costs $10,000 installed will run the average home. Thus with a $250 per month electric bill it will pay for itself in 4 years. Right now they claim that the turbine will last 10 years.
PS - they are building a new plant in the Dallas area for all of their production. American jobs from a Canadian start up founded 13 years ago. The founders say in the story - "In Texas, you present an idea and they just roll up their sleeves and get to work," he said. "That's why we're here and not in Ontario."
Muleteam1
In my travels on I-80 this fall I can say that the number of wind powered generation sets headed East was well into the doublt digits and each was big as a small house.
One hypothesis on local climate effects:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041016/fob7.asp
My heating bill is in excess of $300 this month and yes, this is in spite of my family and I using more blankets and sweaters, cutting down the thermostat when we're not home, and getting our furnace tuned up. It is time to build nuclear power plants, drill for oil in ANWAR and off the coasts, and cut a deal with Alberta for natural gas. Any politician who does not offer a sensible energy program and call the envirowackos what they are should be shown the door in 2006!
Ah...so since private industry is now using windmills, the 'environmentalists' are going to oppose them? Just further proof the 'environmental movement' isn't about the environment at all - but simply anti-capitalist.
I spent much of last year in Germany for business reasons. I was AMAZED at how many windmills dot the countryside, across significant parts of the country. You'll be running along down the Autobahn, and suddenly run across half a dozen or more huge windmills turning on a hill side. They don't wreck the view in my opinion, but then again, they aren't building them around tourist areas, either.
I was curious, and did some digging into what the German experience has been. Simply stated, they are generating about 5% of their current power via wind (latest 2005 figures that I can find). Per current figures, it costs them more than double for wind generated power versus nuke or conventional power. (some sources claim it's more like 3% percentage of power generated, and costs as high as triple versus other power sources - pick your data points, and make your own judgement.)
Another problem that they've run into is that areas with lots of wind energy don't necessarily have the distribution network to support putting power back into the system (high-power transmission lines). This is a big deal, as it's costing them a fortune to tie this in to the national power structure. This cost is generally NOT included in the expense of developing wind power...
Die Gruenen (the Greenies) have passed a law that mandates them shutting down their nuke power plants in 20 years. Since nuke represents about 35% of their current power (out of 19 plants), I'm curious how they intend to replace this energy source. I'm pretty confident that this will go out the window, eventually, but-?? /shrug.
Inquiring minds would love to know how this will work out... I like the idea of getting something (power) for nothing, but by the time you finance the thing, build it, pull maintenance on it, connect it to the power grid.. it ain't exactly free. Oh yeah, you also can't depend on it 24x7, 365, since the wind doesn't offer any guarantees.
cheers
Texas and Oklahoma should be making a fortune on wind power, just as they have with their oil. The only problem is that wind gusts of 60-70 mph are a bit rough on the machinery.