Because oil is like gold and as long as it exists, George Bush will keep shoving it down our throats. Don't forget, George is an oil man and any moves into his territory will be eliminated.

Actually, I live in PA and about a year and a half ago construction completed on a Wind Turbine production facility, and then last November they started putting windmills (40 when the project is completed) on the mountain in the township of my town. I like living in the shadow of giants.

Not just Bush. The oil lobby is HUGE. Same for tobacco lobby. The only way the US will see alternative energy like this is if the consumer base stops buying oil. And the only way for that to happen is if oil prices spike (which they are).

Face it. The average US consumer couldn't give a rat's @ss about living green. Money talks louder than the enviroment sadly...

Because people like constant reliable energy, which wind is not.

there's an entire energy company, "Green Mountain Energy", that does wind and water exclusively.

And those things are actually pretty cool, not an eyesore. There's a 2 or 3 farms (that i know of) of them around Texas, you know, oil country.

Wow, I can't believe a comment like that would come from someone with KENNEDY in their commenter name. Oil dependence has been around a lot longer than Bush. It's great that you found a scapegoat so you can point fingers and whine rather than try and fix the problem.

Back on topic, I'd be curious about the build and maintenance cost of one of these. Probably worth it for the environmental benefits, but... I'm still curious. Also, what kind of wind activity do you need to power 4000 homes? Is this in a very windy area?

You also have to consider the environmental lobbyists against wind farms and the Federal Endangered and Threatened Species List concerns. The folks behind this are really concerned about their little buddies getting chopped to a million tasty, easily fried and enjoyed, chunks. There is no winning for anyone who is working on energy solutions in the USA - they will always have someone hounding them.

they have a crap load of these in california its amazing to see. some are small and others are just plain huge

Sometimes, forgeting about aesthetics is not such a bad idea.

Wind power is amazing, except for lame people who complain about views being ruined, or lame people who think clean energy is less important then birds.

Yup, it's a heartless opinion, but it's practical, and practical opinions should outweigh lame ones always.

I actually live in PA - Jovix, I'm not sure if you mean the ones by Williamsport off of 80? - Anyway, I live up on a hill and the wind is pretty much constant. I'm waiting for a consumer grade wind turbine that can stand about 10-15 feet off the ground (instead of the recommended 30 feet). Anyone have suggestions?

Wind is not a viable solution to our energy problems.

I am from a small town in West Texas. Close to Mr. Bush's hometown of Midland. There is a MASSIVE wind turbine farm that has been expanding rapidly since the late 1990s. This is in the county as the largest inland oil refinery in the country. Big oil and George W have shown nothing but support for this project.
The biggest foe in the production and construction of the turbines was the environmentalists saying that the turbines would effect wildlife in the area.... perhaps they didn't look around and see all the cattle and cactus plants?

Are the turbines no longer noisy? I wouldn't mind looking at a wind farm at all, but living next to one that sounds like an airplane taking off 24 hours a day would kinda suck.

The assumption in the question is wrong. The fact is wind power is growing in the United States. A simple Google search yields results.

http://www.awea.org/news/news050512sta.html

Simple_thinking: If the oil lobby is as "huge" as the tobacco lobby then I guess we'll soon see a ban on oil use anywhere but in your own home.

Take a look at Vestas, they're a Danish company that sold 8,660 wind turbines to the US for a total of 3,576.81MW.

Vesta's largest turbine does 3MW, Enercon's E112 looks like its 4MW, which is huge, but I can't find product info on their website.

I wouldnt mind looking in my backyard and seeing one of those, it looks pretty sweet. Plus it looks better than those other powerlines. Sure you'll have to keep alot of power lines for cable, but still I wouldnt mind having one of those in my backyard.

I kind of like the look of them, with the caveat that the owners keep the looks of them up. Maybe a review every 2 years for touch-ups of paint, etc...?

@bdkennedy1: Here's a dollar, buy a clue.

I agree that the 'environmentalists' are one of the roadblocks facing wind power (specifically, wind power placement). These are the same folks (some of you included) that are so quick to rush into areas like CFL bulbs - which will become much more harmful to the environment than creating electricity ever could be.

Also - what ever happened to the plan to build 'windmill' like power up in the atmosphere where the currents are much stronger and constant?

@mredraider, turbines apparently to quite a number on birds and especially bats...I hear that you can find a lot of carcases at the bases.

Wow, thanks for lumping me into a specific group bobman1235, ignoring the fact that am like 1000 times removed from the original Kennedy's or that it could have just been a random user name (bobman1235 must mean your name is Bob, you're a man and your 1235 years old). Very mature.

"Why aren't we seeing more use of wind power here in the States?"

Because neighborhood associations and town councils soil themselves in rage at the mention of putting cellphone towers in their backyard. They'd probably think these behemoths are the tools of satan.

energy production is only as effective as a means in delivering it to the intended party. Wind is a great way to supply people in/near that facility taking them off the grid to take the load off for ones that are far from wind and are required to use a power-plant... making it less poluting. It's not a solution for all but using in it conjunction with other "green" efforts and using the land's natural geography is a great way to essentially subsidize power. Wind, thermal, solar, etc... bring 'em on!

Jovix : where in pa? I live in pa too. I would be interested in seeing them

Wind power in the US should be much bigger and better-located. Two reasons it isn't: it's subsidised through the tax system, probably the most stupid and convoluted way it could be, and US utilities have very few incentives to hook up wind farms to their networks and buy their power. This is changing very slowly.

And isn't Ted Kennedy leading the charge AGAINST wind farms off Martha's Vineyard? Physician, heal thyself.

@bvicarious, thanks for your solution.

@Jovix: You live near 76? I see the turbines on the mountains just off the turnpike. They look impressive.
Then again, I'd rather look a turbines than towers with steam (from TMI, and other nuke plants).
There is a Spanish company building these at the old USS Steel facility. I see trucks hauling the sections off...much bigger up close.
Now, if PECO would quit the Green con game and give us a discount...

@bdkennedy1: Get your facts straight. Bush's family has always profited from war, not just oil. GW wasn't very good at oil either.

Walt_Mink, the concerns about wind farms and endangered species (especially birds) are certainly an issue. And bigTrue, you're right, there has to be some balance point. But that is the case with every energy source, you could make the same "greater good" argument in favor of nuclear power, but that doesn't change the fact that there are real issues with each of them that have yet to be resolved.

But the thing I'm not hearing here is any mention of improved efficiency. WHY are we so obsessed with making MORE energy, when we don't use our existing resources efficiently? We do not need more electricity, we need more planned efficiency. Look at Google's call for more efficient PC power supplies. Look at the movement towards sustainable communities and green building standards. I know many of us are engineering type people and we like to see impressive new toys, but isn't there is a lot more practical value in increased efficiency of existing systems than there is in diving head first into making more energy with systems who's long range environmental impact has not been sufficiently addressed?

I'll go ahead and weigh in on this debate. I have a little knowledge on the subject, being the Vice President of development for a wind energy company in California.

First, state and federal guidelines require all energy producers in the US to "green" up their production profiles by 2012 and 2017. This means that a minimum percent of all energy generated by a single energy company must be from renewable resources. This could mean solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc. You can complain all you want about the president or congress, but this was passed during this administration and forces energy companies to look beyond the easy route of coal and oil.

Watt_Mink said it correctly - no matter what kind of energy project you are developing, some group will be unhappy with it. Geothermal has it's naysayers, wind energy has the bird lovers and viewshed preservationists, hydoelectric has its problems with the environment, solar has its own NIMBYs, etc. You're going to face opposition anywhere you try to develop, regardless of how green it is.

Jeff McAwesome - while wind energy does have its drawbacks with wind speed and direction variance, wind farms are built in areas that have years of recorded data for wind resources, where winds can be counted upon to be fairly consistent. That said, wind will never replace existing power sources, but is a good clean supplement to existing power sources. One 200-foot tall turbine tower with a 300-foot turbine span can produce 2.5 megawatts of continuous energy. A typical project has around 100 turbines, so the numbers do add up.

I urge anyone interested in more data about wind energy production in the United States to visit the website of the American Wind Energy Association, www.awea.org for more information about how wind energy helps reduce the load of environment polluting power sources.

Wind turbines are beautiful. I want one outside my window right away!

We saw a wind farm out in north-western PA. on our honeymoon along Rt.6 last year.
It's fairly rural out there so it came as a surprise to us.

I think I could adjust as long as they weren't noisy or our home was in the debris field in case of a major failure.

Funny comment coming from "kennedy" given that Senator Teddy was one of those blocking the construction of a windmill farm off the eastern seaboard. Or consider that in California, San Diego wants to contruct a major solar/wind energy powerplant in the desert to the east. However, environmentalists are blocking it because of the necessary power transmission lines. You know, those things that actually bring the power from the plant to the city.

It's easy to attack Bush, but a recent survey found that his home is far more "green" than The Goreacle's.

Hey, you mean they can convert wind into energy?

Crazy!

What will they think of next?

Would the "wind is not reliable" camp please cite some sources??

It's white and shiny, they should call it "iTurbine" and up the price so 80% of incoming college freshmen would buy them.

Wind Energy is not a good answer. First off, its not reliable, so we would need a large battery system. So large, in fact, that there aren't enough raw materials in the world for it. Second, there is the cost on install / noise / lack of location. These are all major factors.

Where would we install a new one? The location has to be well chosen or the entire system produces far less than the cost.

How efficient is the turbine? The more efficient, the more money up front.

What about the noise? Last time I checked, these things were loud and dangerous to flying vehicles / animals.

How about the long term effects on the environment? Leaving out what the batteries would cost us (plenty, environmentally speaking) studies have shown that wind power significantly changes weather patterns in an area. Large use would wreak havoc on the worlds weather. We need wind for many things, not just this.

I would instead suggest switching to more nuclear and high efficiency solar cells. Solar cells are reliable and, when used in conjunction with a stable power source, completely impact free on the environment. Hell, just use them to help pre-heat your water, that would save tons of money / energy. We have an irrational fear of nuclear power due to old stereotypes and Soviet morons. Its causing more problems than anything. Current breeder reactors are a wonderful solution until we can get more solar / hybrid fusion. Also, as a bonus more use of nuclear power would increase fusion research, leading to faster, cheaper power.

Fast reactors and solar are the two only REAL viable solutions. I read a stat that said, if we took a ten suqare mile of land in Arizona and converted it into a solar power farm, we could meet ALL of the power requirements of the us (during the day LOL!).

Reactors. Think underground. Only footprint will be the steam vent. Everything elses is built completely underground. Solar takes space, but can reflect sunlight (lowering the earths temperature). Reactors produce heat which is bad in general.

Hard to say which is ideal. But, I'm veering to solar because it means getting rid of ALL nuclear fuel production and removes ANYONES excuse for making bombs.

FrakenPC:

Fusion would have no heavy materials to create bombs, hence my choice as best long term primary / stable power, with solar helping it along as it were.

At least, if nothing else, that is another 4,000 homes that don't need to rely on oil. Every little step away from oil is a step in the right direction, good work Germany.

@Nick_M, you're welcome

From up close personal experience with the farm near Buffalo Mountain, TN, the turbines are very quiet (a whoosh sound is made, but only if you are very close to the turbine) and the turbine is on a wind direction control pivotal mount so that the turbine is always 'facing' into the wind.

See pictures I took in 2005 here (follow the links at the top of my blog pages to see more then just this first one.)

http://andy.the-broyles.com/blogsphere.nsf/Pictures/SADR-6...

I think nuclear will be a big part of the future, but the fact remains that the US is the Saudia Arabia of coal - there's plenty of it, it's cheap and we don't have to be nice to a bunch of Jihadis to get it - so we better start looking at ways to burn in cheaper and sequester the carbon output. Also, the Chinese are in the same boat regarding coal as the US, and the way their economy is growing, they'll be burning even more in the future. If the US can develop cleaner coal technology, we can help clean up not only our own house, but also reduce pollution from what will soon be the world's bigget polluting country.

When the cost to install and maintain Solar or Wind equipment gets to the point were average American households can afford it, you will see it more.

I would install Solar panels on my roof today if I could afford it.

But as it becomes more popular the gov't will regulate and tax it appropriately....

Station - I'm not even sure where to begin.

Wind energy projects do not "store" their energy in batteries. Energy produced by the turbines is converted to kilowatts by on-site transformer stations and that power is fed into the existing power grid system. There is no "storage."

Your discussion about efficiency - You may want to research the theory of mass production - the greater a quantity of thing is manufactured, the cheaper the cost gets for each unit. You may also want to note how a computer in 1980 that couldn't exceed the processing power of a modern TI calculator cost $10,000, while a modern laptop that costs less than $800 has more processing power than the computers onboard the original space shuttles. Turbines are becoming more efficient AND cheaper at the same time.

As far as having a climatic effect on the environment, I have not seen any data or studies that show wind projects in the US have an effect on climate or weather, other than in the very immediate proximity to the turbine itself, if at all. Wreaking havoc on the world's weather? You're getting into Dr. Evil territory here. Please, show me your information.

Whew. I'm exhausted.

I agree that we need to move toward a more reliable and effecient source of energy especially one that we can use for space exploration but here on earth and to get to that point of discovery we need energy in the meantime so turbines are a good choice. Danger to animals? so are tree's. Danger to aircraft? so are tree's. dunno about noise but I seriously doubt you are going to build a house right under a turbine I mean you have to build a pool so many feet away from your house and property line I am sure there would be a certain distance away that you would have to be so you could build a house so noise wouldn't really be an issue

EBone,
I think station was saying that we'd need "batteries" for when the turbines are not spinning and producing electricity. i haven't watched the things that closely -- i think they spin all the time, even in low winds, but i don't know.

but the rest of your comments are spot on.

Nay-sayers: ummm...wind energy does not require a battery system so large that the world couldn't build it. That's ridiculous. Why? Because if that was the problem, then you'd build a back-up plant to turn on (solar, nuclear, whatever) when the wind wasn't available. Yes, this means higher cost initially...(except, well, there are already enough regular power plants...so you'd really just tie each one as back-up to a wind farm).

Likewise, solar "isn't reliable" -- every single day, night time comes around and ruins it. And then there's cloudy days. The solution? Well, for people with solar plants on their homes, they do have some batteries in the house, but they also buy power from the electric company when needed (and sell solar power to the local electrical service when they produce more than they can deal with). This is not an unsolvable problem. *Most* of the energy is still green. So if you're going to build a solar farm, you might as well put some wind turbines in too so that when one isn't generating power for you, the other might.

"How efficient is the turbine? The more efficient, the more money up front."

Umm...that can be said about EVERYTHING. I could build lousy solar cells or a horribly inefficient nuclear plant, or a worthless gas generator for pretty cheap...better ones are more expensive.

Environmental cost of taking wind out of the atmosphere? You could say the same thing about solar cells -- much of that energy was supposed to heat the surface of the planet, what happens if its captured by solar cells instead? Yes, it's worth looking into...but it doesn't make the technology useless. Just because the current environmental concern is global warming doesn't mean that you can assume decreasing the heat from the sun is a good thing...

And switching to Nuclear power would eventually have us in the same situation as using oil -- we're still going to have waste to deal with (nobody wants the stigma of having nuclear waste near their home), and, eventually, supplies of uranium/plutonium will run low and we'll end up fighting wars over it. Great. So what if that's several hundred years from now? If you're going to plan ahead, do it right.

Nobody know