Wind Turbines Rethought

Still don't work when there's no wind

The wind is stronger higher up in the air. Plus, if they were all closely spaced and at ground level you'd probably lose a lot of repairmen.

Maxx said:

These are not the same kind of wind turbines. The article suggests the extra energy higher up isn't worth the problmes of getting higher up.

Click to expand...

But staying low has it's own problems, like using up vast amounts of land. The tall ones only use up the land in a small perimeter around the base.

Wind energy, given our current technology and the vagaries of wind, aren't worth it in the first place. It must take at least 30 years to pay off the current wind turbines and that's assuming all money made on the power sold went to paying for the turbine. At 30 years, they're so worn out they have to be replaced anyway. Vast farms of low level turbines aren't going to be any better and they make the land unusable. Wind energy might be a nice supplement once we perfect superconductors, but they're just a feel-good experiment right now.

When I built my house a decade ago, on 1/2 acre overlooking a lake in Texas, energy efficiency was a key consideration. The local utility did an energy audit based on the design and came up with an average, year-round, usage of about 900 kwh/month. At their rate at the time that would be less than $100/month.

I considered a wind turbine. At the time the American Wind Energy Association said the typical wind turbine would have the shaft at 80 feet, they recommended one per 1 1/2 acre of land, and the approximate cost was $32,000. I didn't have a homeowners association to worry about but I'm not sure how the neighbors would have felt about something that size, especially those for whom the turbine would have impacted their view of the lake.

The cost, at $32,000, was going to be about double the utility company's residential rate. It wasn't a smart move.

I now live in downtown Chicago. I am seeing a lot of buildings in town putting up the new type of turbine, the ones that are almost conical in shape. They aren't as tall and, being on the rooftops, don't pose the threat to people on the ground.

Nuclear power still seems like the most practical and affordable source of electric power.