BS: Wind power

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Jim Martin
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 07:40 AM

http://irishplanningnews.ie/high-court-quashes-an-bord-pleanala-decision-to-permit-windfarm-in-roscommon/

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Jim Martin
Date: 07 Aug 14 - 07:39 AM

An interesting development - the windfarm developers aren't getting it all their own way (thank God)!:

http://irishplanningnews.ie/high-court-quashes-an-bord-pleanala-decision-to-permit-windfarm-in-roscommon/

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 07:54 AM

Confirmation today that my turbine was stopped because of lightning damage. The rectifier was fried and hence the turbine stopped itself to avoid damaging anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 13 Sep 10 - 12:28 AM

The other side of the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: open mike
Date: 12 Sep 10 - 01:01 PM

AltamontPass was the first installation-now over 4000 turbines are here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass_Wind_Farm

In the year 2004, wind energy in California produced 4,258 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, about 1.5 percent of the state's total electricity. That's more than enough to light a city the size of San Francisco.

the other two main sites in CA are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehachapi_Pass_Wind_Farm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Gorgonio_Pass_Wind_Farm

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: GUEST,eric the viking
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 07:18 PM

"Sadly the Scottish landscape is being ruined by wind monstrosities." Surely Bill that depends on your point of view. There are large areas of Yorkshire, i.e. the Halifax area, and areas of Cornwall to name but a few where wind turbine farms have been placed. Longley Farm yogurts outside Holmfirth had a huge windmill there thirty years ago, so they are not new on the landscape. On Orkney we have several and most communities are trying to get their own. If you fly along the Fylde coast you will see a huge wind farm out to sea. The Scottish landscape is in some places ideal as we have a reasonable supply of wind. I do not deny for one moment it is the most stunning and beautiful part of Britain, unique in so many diverse ways. I do agree that it often seems a bit one sided in that those in the South do not seem to have as many as we do up here, however it is a "needs must," as far as I can see.

Not excusing the past but huge areas of Yorkshire and Wales were blighted by the mining of coal as were areas of Scotland, Midlands and Kent. Given that, surely it is more appealing to the eye, more environmentally and ecologically friendly to have wind farms all over the place? The Orkney area has several different approaches. We have wind and wave technologies some experimental. Of course there are the NIMBY's reluctant to change or accept that we can play a part toward the benefit of future generations.

The problem with wind farms is their efficiency. They do not work continuously; sometimes the wind is too strong, sometimes too weak. We are dependent on external energy supplies and it would be good for the islands to be independent.

The Netherlands has huge areas of with wind farms and farmers work the land underneath. I have stood underneath working wind turbines; they are less noisy than a huge truck going past or the hi-fi in some cars.

What worries me is the huge subsidy that is attached to wind power. They use a lot on materials to build, the carbon footprint for each wind turbine is quite large, and they sell electricity back to the national grid at a higher price than we pay for it. Some people are making a lot of money from their spare capacity. The subsidy far outweighs the profit so each individual pays to have wind farms via green taxes. The problem is that the cost of production and maintenance far outweighs the energy produced.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: bubblyrat
Date: 11 Sep 10 - 04:25 PM

Of course, there is always the perfectly viable,if not very popular,alternative of using FAR LESS energy !! The house in which I was born,and in which I lived until aged 21, had the following electrical "appliances" ; 1 X gramophone ..1 X TV set... 7 X light bulbs (lamps). There were none,repeat NONE, of the following ;
Hoover..Washing-machine..dishwasher...electric iron..electric kettle..toaster...microwave ( yet to be invented !! ) ditto computer(s)....refrigerator....freezer...hair-dryer...towel -rail...central heating...Ice-cream maker...bread-maker...coffee percolater...electric carving-knife...electric can-opener...vibrator ( we had other methods !!)...curling-tongs....electric razor...Insect -zapper...battery re-charger...Burglar-alarm...high-powered anti-intruder floodlights...garden lighting...boot-warmer..."Hostess" trolley...power-tools...tyre (tire)-inflator...the list goes on , but I'm stuck right now ! So, how DID we manage ?? Fuck knows, but our electricity bills were VERY small !!

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 06:15 PM

I would think with that huge desert across the vcenter of the country that solar thermal-driven STerling engine generators would get you a lot more juice for the buck.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Joybell
Date: 10 Sep 10 - 05:54 PM

Thanks, bubblrat. Personal experience relating to the noise close up is very welcome.
There are people here who oppose the wind farm, proposed for us, who have done the calculations as to the cost of building and maintainance. I don't have the figures in my head but I understand that these costs may well outweigh the benefits.
I can't get past the idea that here in Australia we have so much power available from the sun that solar power needs to be considered as a viable alternate option.
On a related subject -- the desalination plant being built here has had its income garanteed -- the bill paid by us -- whether or not the water is needed.
There's big money to be had just by building these projects.
Power from wind, sun and sea might well appear to be free but harnessing it is most surely not.
Cheers, Joy

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: bubblyrat
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 10:11 AM

A few weeks ago,we stayed in a yurt at a remote farm near Llanidloes in Powys, Wales. Some of the farm was on mains electricity ( I refuse point blank to call it "Electric" !!) , but the main house obtained its supply from a wind turbine ,which was situated on a hill next to the yurt in which we slept.It made a HUGE amount of noise,kept us awake at night,and sounded rather like a steam train endlessly approaching us.It only managed to deliver about 6 Kw, and was often completely motionless,when,naturally, it produced absolutely bugger all. So ,obviously,when there is no wind,there aint no electricity ! ( Nukes don't have this problem !).
             Curiously, the 30 or so giant commercial "wind farm" type turbines that we could see across the valley,on the horizon,had ,we felt,a certain strange beauty,juxtaposed as they were with the rugged and hilly Welsh landscape ; we quite like them !!

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 08 Sep 10 - 07:35 AM

Not happy with my turbine today as it has stopped after a probable lightning strike!

There is no visible damage but the brake has gone on and won't come off.

The phone line was obviously hit as the master socket has exploded. I'm left with a black square of previously white plastic and small fragments all over the room. On the blackened pieces of circuit board all the soldered connections are bright, presumably as they re-melted! The curtains are scorched but luckily did not catch fire.

Outside in the garden the suport post to a tree has been hit and the top foot or so has been blasted apart, I found one piece about 40 feet away. This strike has travelled into the tree roots on one side and blasted the turf away over an area about 2 feet by 5 feet.

I have a crack in the inner glass of one double glazing sealed unit, presumably from the sound of the blast.

The power circuits tripped out, I'm pretty sure because the phone socket was next to a power socket and this may have stopped the turbine, but it may well have been hit itself. It does have a big lightning conductor on it.

The turbine people will be coming out to investigate now that I have tried the obvious things to get it going again.

I'll post here again when it's resolved fully:)

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:28 PM

This year has had the fewest wind power sales for the last 3 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 05:47 PM

Have any reliable estimates of maintenance costs for wind turbines been established?

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 07:40 AM

In the UK there is a better argument for using photovoltaic (PV) panels as the feed in tariff is much better and the wind is not dependable enough in most places (1100 feet up in the Pennines is OK). Also you can fit them on a roof whereas the turbines need to be 100 feet from a house for a reasonable size one, so most people can't manage that.

The PV panels are set to become more affordable as China swings into production of them.

They are said to perfom better in Cornwall than in the South of France. Apparently the performance drops if they overheat and British weather with its frequent clouds gives them a chance to cool down.

There are firms offering to put panels on your roof and give you the power that they produce in exchange for the feed in tarrif they generate.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 06:17 AM

I wouldn't call them beautiful but not unsightly, pylons are a much uglier blot on the landscape. They do however, remind me of a scene from a Space Odyssey type film, back to religion, if an alien being landed nearby to a station he/she might be mistaken in thinking that they are some kind of mystical gods that we worship.

Most people I have spoken to about them with seem to agree it is a beneficial thing but not in my back garden thank you!

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Bill Woodcock (fraud)
Date: 07 Sep 10 - 06:04 AM

Sadly the Scottish landscape is being ruined by wind monstrosities.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 05:06 PM

The wind turbines at Aachen supply only 10-12% of needs. Fitting solar panels on south-facing roofs would supply up to 55% of needs.
(Google Aachen wind turbines).
Don't know the validity of these estimates.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: MAG
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:58 PM

I too find them beautiful. I love seeing a row of them stretched out on the dry, bare ridges prevalent here. like shimmering spinning sculptures.

Have I posted my song anywhere?

chorus:

no one's laughing at the windmill any more

That once proud symbol of the prairie rises like in days of yore

Sun a d wind will still be there when the earth is all stripped bare

No, no one's laughing at the windmill any more.

You saw it here first.

MA

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:36 PM

J-I-K said, in part:

These are very tall, slender, shiny metal poles with three narrow, shiny metal vanes.

Exactly. I didn't mean the "Dutch windmill" variety. And I find them beautiful, especially a field of them.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 08:02 AM

The vertical axis turbines are better suited to turbulent locations as they respond to wind coming from any direction, not having to turn to face it as horizontal axis ones do. They also appear more solid and that is used as a counter argument to the bird-strike lobby.

One of the problems is that the big ones are designed to rotate at a particular speed and have to be driven to get them up to speed to get them started. This means that if the wind is variable they can actually use more power that they generate if the wind-speed detector settings are not correct.

If we didn't have the feed-in tariffs in the UK it would be hard to make an economic case for having one of your own. It depends upon how much power you need and whether you live where there is enough wind enough of the time. If the wind is strong you will not be able to use all of its energy or you will burn out the turbine, so it adjusts by a number of methods to restrict its output. If the wind is to quiet you will not get the turbine moving fast enough to get onto the power generating part of its specification. If the wind too erratic then you miss out at one end or the other from what the average wind speed says you will get.

I have a 5kw Iskra turbine on a 12m tower and it makes about the same amount of noise as a tree in the same location would, not very different either, just with a bit of a regular flutter in the sound. The tower hums a bit just as the turbine speeds up through the towers natural resonant frequency (about Bb) and that's when it generating about 0.9kw. I can see three other small turbines from our house and know of a couple more in the area so we are in a regular hot-spot for them. We also have Scout Moor on the horizon which has over 20 of the big ones.

If you want a turbine in the UK you will find that you need planning permission and that the permission will only last for a fixed time after which you will have to apply again or else return the land to its original state, removing concrete bases etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 04:24 AM

Our economic sructures are completely addicted to fossil fuels. But more and more evidence is accumulating that the use of fossil fuels is unsustainable. This is inconvenient for Big Business and the politicians who slavishly support it. What they have come up with, to avert our attention away from a variety of looming catastrophes (which are in the 'future' - but BB wants big profits NOW), are wind turbines. These are stupid - but they are highly visible and they do give the impression that BB and their political hand maidens are DOING SOMETHING about the inconvenient fossil fuels problems.

On the 'plus' side though, they do make BIG profitse for wind turbine manufacturers.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 03:59 AM

I love the sight of wind turbines. We often go down to Prestatyn Beach or West Kirkby to watch our electricity being generated. And I remember the thrill of seeing them first on the North German plains. And Aachen services has its own.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 06 Sep 10 - 12:18 AM

To each his own, Dave, but these turbines are not your Netherlandish country-side, charming, creaking windmills. These are very tall, slender, shiny metal poles with three narrow, shiny metal vanes. They are almost otherworldly looking...especially when when they're clustered over several square miles.

As an aside, my next door neighbor recently installed solar panels to mitigate her electrical usage. City will not give her a permit to make them operative. Seems the junction box is about 4" too close to the existing one for the rest of her electric needs. Go figger.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 09:39 PM

"The effect of drying out of the ground under the turbines."

I had not heard of that, Joybell. Why or how would the ground underneath be particularly dried, as compared to the same ground windmill-less?

And John on the Sunset Coast said, inter alia:

Turbines are unsightly...

That is, of course, a personal judgment, but on my part, I find them particularly beautiful.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Joybell
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 06:12 PM

Well it's easy to be for wind farms when you don't have one on your doorstep. I hasten to add that I am not necessarily against them I just want to comment on their effect on those of us who do.

Out here we all have old-style windmills and I can tell you there's no comparison. Not in size, sound , or numbers.

The effect on wildlife is not noticed from afar and it's easy to turn a blind eye to this from a city home.

One point rarely mentioned is the cost compared to the gain. Turbines have a short life-span. They are not a set-and-forget idea. Installing and maintaining them is very expensive.
Cheers, Joy

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 05:54 PM

They should try making just one that is about the size of Rhode Island, mount it on the California coast to catch the Pacific sea breeze, and use it to power everything west of the Rockies. ;-) Someone should tell Ahnold about this!

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 05:30 PM

I've never been close enough to a wind farm (or even a single wind turbine) to comment on noise. But the ones I've passed on the road (e.g. on the way to Palm Springs, or the half-dozen or so you pass on I-76 in PA vaguely near Somerset) I've found mesmerizing. To the point I have to force myself to FOCUS ON THE DAMN ROAD rather than the spinning blades.

Apparently they have small-scale units that only cost $6,500 now. Still high for the average person, but not totally out of the realm of possibility.

-- Gary

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 12:27 PM

Tidal power has been toyed with, but never given the attention it deserves. The artificial atoll idea strikes me as having enormous long-term possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 11:40 AM

Tidal power certainly has been explored and exploited.

Geothermal is exploratory in the US--I don't know of any large-scale installations.

Considering it is a universe of nothing BUT energy, it would be surprising if we couldn't find enough.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Sep 10 - 10:55 AM

"Part" of the solution means many parts -- even coal and nuclear. Tidal power and oceanic thermoclines have never really been explored, much less exploited. Neither has georthermal, in most parts of the world (kudos to Skarpi and Iceland!).

Put together the jigsaw puzzle and you'll be surprised what is found.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Amos
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 03:52 PM

I've known some cattle 'ud be threated by even dead chickens...


Sheeple, too!

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 01:58 PM

I don't think the nuclear industry spends ten seconds worrying about wind energy. They serve different ends and do not really influence each other.

Its like cattle feeling threatened by chickens.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 12:13 PM

umm-hmmmmm.... do they say who gets to refill the containers after evaporation? ;>)

(Shane showed you this, I assume?)

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 11:11 AM

Here, for example, is a scale model of your house...or even your town...surrounded by an encircling array of these revolutionary hydro-generating devices, all delivering a steady supply of FREE power.

Beautify your neighborhood and get FREE hydro too!


Just imagine that's your house in the middle, and you've got the picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 10:56 AM

Raptor, you posted "Why are people against wind turbines and is it true that the anti turbine hype is fueled by those who stand to gain by keeping nuclear power?"

Possibly. But I think there are several more likely explanations. Here's one.

1. People are against wind turbines because they found out that you are for them, and they want to piss you off. ;-) Don't let them get away with it! Start a thread exposing their perfidy.

2. People are against wind turbines, because it will divert funds used to develop Hamster Power. Research has indicated that if the exercise wheels of all the hamsters in North America could be connected to the power grid, it would provide 45% of the power necessary for everything! All that is lacking now is the political will to DO it. With increased hamster breeding programs, Hamster Power could satisfy ALL our power needs into the next century and beyond.

3. People are against wind turbines because they are too complex a solution to the problem. A far simpler solution, and one that would beautify the land, would be to install these instead:

The REAL solution to perpetual hydroelectric power suppy!

All that really needs to be done is to scale them up to a large size, say 10 stories tall, and then erect thousands of these attractive machines all over the nation. They require very little maintenace, are virtually silent, and do not threaten any wildlife.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 07:47 AM

Much the same objections were no doubt raised against windmills.

I am sure that when the last of the old wind turbines are pulled down some day, there will be a lot of people protesting against this as vandalism, and desecration of our cultural heritage.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 04 Sep 10 - 03:30 AM

For more discussion on this from earlier in the year: Onshore Windfarms

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Joybell
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 11:54 PM

We have several wind farms near us. One is proposed just a few kilometers away. It's to be the largest, both in number of turbines and in individual heights of the turbines, in the Southern hemisphere. Our thinking is that we need to ask lots of questions and study all the information available.
A few points for consideration when looking at this type of wind power are:
1. Bird kills. We need to know how the dead birds are counted allowing for predation by other birds and animals. Dead birds last only a few hours in fox country.
2. Butterflies and bats need to be considered.
3. The effect of drying out of the ground under the turbines. Not a good idea in dry country.
4. Lightning strikes are common. How will that be in bushfire prone areas.
5. Noise may not seem a problem if it's compared with other background noise like traffic -- BUT wind farms are typically placed in rural areas where there is now no background noise. We need to listen to people with wind-farms nearby.
Cheers, Joy

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: EBarnacle
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 10:40 PM

While there is a certain lack of "density," many cruising boats use them to keep their batteries up. In one respect, they are are more user friendly that solar cells--they can be repaired if there is a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: olddude
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 09:02 PM

I think they are a great idea myself, especially along this stretch of Lake Erie, wind is always blowing and we have lots of open fields (being used for nothing here at the top of the hill). Pretty much everyone was in favor except for a few power mongers that own everything in town who shot down the wind farm. It would have given us very cheap electric by agreement with the company that wanted to put them in . There reason, everything from bird to unsightly, to noise yada yada. yet the ones I saw along Lake Ontario .. didn't hear them, didn't look bad .. Hell of a lot better then some chemical plant .. go figure

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 08:43 PM

"Wild birds, some of which are endangered, have flown into the blades of turbines."

This one has been overstated - actual data reveals that birds are apparently more intelligent than humans, they can doge the blade, or just avoid them ....

"Recent models have vertically oriented helices around a central shaft"

These are usually designed to have a lower perceived noise level.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Amos
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 02:22 PM

Recent models have vertically oriented helices around a central shaft, Furthermore, there is planety of technology for accomodating sporadic harvesting of energy -- battery arrays and flywheels come immediately to mind. Given these advances there is no reason they cannot be in places where the wind is sporadic or episodic.

If we were to try to anchor our whole economy to wind power it would be problematic but as Bill says they can be a very good part of the overall change needed.

Obviously they do not have the energy density provided by coal or diesel fuel but let's not be spoiled.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 02:19 PM

Areas with strong wind unsuitable for farming except under glass- expensive.
Desert areas suitable, but infrastructure (transmision, etc, expensive).
Large expanses of the towers needed to generate enough power for cities or industrial plants.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: gnu
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 02:18 PM

We only need one in North Amaerica. In Ohio.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 02:05 PM

There are rooftop models being developed now.

more

No one suggests that we have to have seas of them in awkward places. They are nice 'part' of the solution

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 01:44 PM

They're against them in Helsby - spoil the few of the chemical factories.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 01:42 PM

Also, who says the wind turbine blades must the perpendicular to the ground? You could mount lower level horizontal ones among the tall ones. And this technology has long be in place for hydroelectric -- just adjust the flow rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: MarkS
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 12:49 PM

People are only against them if they are slated to be in their backyard or field of view.
I have also heard that the objection that they are hazardous to wild birds ("A Cuisinart for birds of prey." Per one chapter of the Sierra Club), has turned out to be a nonissue now that the installed base has grown enough to allow actual data.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 12:41 PM

Ebbie--I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that farming and poultry husbandry has been conducted beneath high tension transmission lines, so I guess something might maybe be able to work.

While I haven't made a study of wind power, it seems that I've read they are not overall cost effective when considering the space needed, construction costs, and amount of power generated per unit.

What did you find impressive about them?

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 12:35 PM

They must be placed where there is a lot of wind year round

Washington, DC and all the State capitols would be great sites!

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 12:19 PM

John, question: Would it be possible - land owner approving - to plant some thing in the same field/meadow as the wind turbines? I've seen the wind farms in southern California and was impressed by them. However, there is a lot of space below.

Subject: RE: BS: Wind power
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 11:51 AM

Wind turbines have several drawbacks...some come to mind although in no particular order of importance.

It takes a lot of turbines to generate power at effective levels.

Turbine farms are land intensive requiring many, many square miles to accommodate them. There are several in in Southern California, one near Palm Springs, another in the mountains of Tehachapi SE of Bakersfield.

Turbines are unsightly...a reason green energy acolyte Ted Kennedy did not want them in his general vicinity.

Wild birds, some of which are endangered, have flown into the blades of turbines.

Turbines can be extremely noisy, especially when all or most are in operation at the same time.

They must be placed where there is a lot of wind year round, and away from urban areas.

On the plus side, they require no water or fossil fuel to operate to the best of my knowledge.

Further on the plus side, they make great locations for science fiction movies.

Subject: BS: Wind power
From: Raptor
Date: 03 Sep 10 - 11:32 AM

Why are people against wind turbines and is it true that the anti turbine hype is fueled by those who stand to gain by keeping nuclear power?