Comments on: 7 Popular Myths About Wind Power (Debunked)

By: Terence1313

Terence1313 — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 17:13:00 +0000

I’m all for using energy where possible but surely again the science has been rushed in without any thought – although in practise the idea of millions of turbines on land and just off the coast is a good idea for cheap electricity let’s have a look in the wider picture.

1) When I go to the ” sea-side” eg Great Yarmouth and Clacton to name but 2 they look awful against the natural sea scape not pleasing to the eye at all not very nice when you want to relax with a nice view. You would have thought they would have put them a bit further out just beyond the natural horizon – again rushed science

2) The design not very efficient the companies running them claim money when they are not producing and when the wind gets a bit high the speed has to be governed to stop them destroying themselves.
There are more efficient vertical designs which can work in even hurricane force winds, still producing electricity and I believe the start up speed is lower approx 3 M/s.

3) Also the ones at Clacton are stacked in straight lines not very efficient – look at birds when they fly to migrate V formations using every scrap of wind energy passed from one bird to another to maximise energy transfer – perhaps we should think a bit harder.

All in all a good idea with a bodged application typical human nature

By: FSDA

FSDA — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:58:00 +0000

When I saw the title, I expected that one of the popular myths might be that there is anything cost effective about wind energy. For example, some analysis that the the Federal subsidy per megawatt hour of wind energy is $56.29, according to the U.S. Dept of Energy, compared to $0.64 for oil and gas or $0.82 for hydro and $0.64 for coal. But a bargain compared to the federal subsidy for solar of $775.64 per megawatt hour. Wind is such a bargain, such a great use of taxpayer monies, and what a view! I can actually see the energy created! I just love to see the windmill in my backyard, spinning merrily as it slices and dices the local avian population.

By: FSDA

FSDA — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:51:00 +0000

Thanks for the prapa piece.

By: cowcharge

cowcharge — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:45:00 +0000

My point is that fossil fuels have millions of years of heat and pressure energy stored in them, which is why it takes comparatively so little energy input to obtain that energy for end use. Wind energy is so diffuse that the energy input needed to harvest its pitiful output makes it a crappy deal for everyone but those selling the turbines.

By: Anthony Longabard

Anthony Longabard — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:26:00 +0000

And power plants that burn fossil fuels can’t exceed the limitation of the Carnot cycle, what is your point?

By: cowcharge

cowcharge — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 05:56:00 +0000

A national performance of 25% of rated capacity is a failure in my book (although they keep using data plate capacity to sell these things, claiming x number of homes will be powered, all the while knowing there is no chance of reaching those numbers). Economically, wind turbines are also a dismal failure. First Wind’s IPO drew no investors, due to the uncertainty of the permanence of the PTC and subsidies, because without government participation it’s a losing investment. The only reason these giant lawn ornaments get built is because the taxpayers pay for 30% of every project, and without those subsidies there would be no private investment. That is why every time the PTC is threatened, the industry starts up the “losing jobs” guilt trip, even though the vast majority of jobs in the industry are overseas. An industry that can’t survive without being propped up by taxpayers is only a success at lobbying.
We’re not talking about solar or geothermal here, so don’t try to make wind sound like part of some green holy trinity. But if we were talking about solar, it still takes 30 years for a private residential PV system to pay for itself with its “free” electricity. Having been a solar system installer, I know solar. Geothermal is outside my range of experience, so I won’t comment on its economics.Off-grid, private systems are a different matter, although it still takes decades for them to pay for themselves (with wind turbines that means it takes longer then the turbines’ lifespan, talk about a money pit). Those are closed systems using batteries for storage, without the problems of blending into a grid. It’s fine with me if private citizens or groups feel that paying extra is worth it, just as in if you can afford to shop at a mom ‘n’ pop store instead of Walmart, more power to you. But don’t force me to pay more for my bread and milk when I’m already struggling, just to make you feel good for making that “mom ‘n’ pop” rich.

By: Justin Burton

Justin Burton — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:45:00 +0000

Your words have very little in common with reality. If wind farms were such failures, they wouldn’t be built. From a business perspective, no one would ever bother. In reality, the size of wind farm projects and technology in the area is advancing. This doesn’t when there’s no benefit. You’re assumptions are in that there is a plan to replace all forms of power with wind power. You’ve created an all or nothing environment that doesn’t exist in intention or aim of wind power use. There are earthships already in existence that draw from wind/solar/geothermic that are 100% off grid, Why? With such inefficiency, why would such a system work? These systems are scale-able, and intertwined, a weakness from one area doesn’t make the system fail as a whole. Scale-down fossil-fuel power to a per/house system…it won’t work. You’ll have to import the fuel, which costs fuel, defiles landscapes beyond the point of even being able to simply remove a wind turbine, and entire local ecosystems will be disrupted not just birds that might decide to fly through a windmill. Again, if wind power was such a horrible return on investment, power companies wouldn’t be stepping up the scale and frequency of these projects.

By: Alex Vargas

Alex Vargas — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:49:00 +0000

This is indeed an issue. And therefore, some of the info on this article is downright misinformed.
Wind is a good solution provided it is installed in an area that does not interfere with flying beings. There will always be death though, and we cannot rely only only on wind. Germany has already shown us what can be done with solar, something that does not kill or pollute. Something that may turn out to be too effective and clean. I don’t believe for a second that these wind turbines have been installed without respect to bird migration or local wild life. Too much cost involved. A clever mind that wants to hold on to oil sets up failing alternative energy wind farms instead of solar. This way, subsidies are actually placed in favor of the oil industry. The oil industry is a huge machine already in place and with 350 million consumers, it is not going to let go until the last drop is sold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8NAAzBArYdw
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wind-energy-under-attack-for-thousands-of-wildlife-deaths/

By: Alex Vargas

Alex Vargas — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:30:00 +0000

Clear and realistic words.

By: Aly

Aly — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:47:00 +0000

Mmm. Virtually every scrap of ground in existence is a migration route for SOME species of bird. And miles upon miles of them will add up. Also, turbines detectably reduce wind speeds, which will inevitably do something (not yet known) to the weather. The real question is whether this is more harmful than any other energy source.