Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 1Old Pro
Wind power now produces energy at lower cost than fossil fuels. Additionally, the supply is forever and, therefore, when the cost of a turbine is amortized, the kilowatt hour cost drops even more. Interestingly, in higher winds (gusts especially) a turbine's output increases exponentially.
The Vestas model located in Hull Massachusetts costs roughly $700K and can provide power to at least 250 homes, the larger ones can go upwards of $2 million. Constructing a new energy plant costs millions just as a windfarm does, however, the conventional plant requires the purchase of whatever fuel it needs to burn. A windfarm never needs fuel. Maintenance costs are lower as there are fewer moving parts, far fewer safety concerns, and a much smaller workforce required.
Some noise does exist (a whoosh, whoosh in the very immediate area) but is a moot point in an offshore configuration.
They provide an elegant and compelling solution to our energy needs as every wind turbine represents less hard currency going abroad.
63 posted on 11/08/2004 9:02:04 AM PST by Plumed Serpent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: Plumed Serpent
You are not correct. Wind power is heavily subsidized by the US Government and there is still a premium paid for the power. Turbines can operate in a fix window of wind speeds between 15-55 mph. Too high and they shut down. If any town becomes dependent on wind for its main source of power, it requires a backup, fossil-fuel based source to account for times when wind does not blow.

And they make a low-frequency noise that is highly penetrating.

Before anyone buys into the Wind industry's propaganda, it is important to know why so many people oppose the boondoggle.
66 posted on 11/08/2004 9:32:33 AM PST by LisaS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: Plumed Serpent
I'm no expert, but we definately should consider alternate energy sources especially more efficient sources. Hydro-electric, from the little I know, seems to have provided an escellent alternative. I'd definately consider wind if viable.

But I also think nuclear is an alternative if the red tape costs could be eliminated.

79 posted on 11/08/2004 10:28:25 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson