Wind energy in west Texas, Wind Turbines

December 19th, 2009 | by ADMIN |

CBS Sunday Morning did a piece on west Texas and their Wind Turbines

Duration : 0:6:54


Technorati Tags: alternative, energy, turbines, Wind

  1. 25 Responses to “Wind energy in west Texas, Wind Turbines”

  2. By adamberg666 on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    they should like, …
    they should like,put solar pannels all over those things like a 2 for 1

  3. By arispe04 on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    ur probably from up …
    ur probably from up north… yeah the town is dry, i wouldnt want it all green, west texas life style is an honor, something ur hybrid driving,recycling wouldnt know about…i can tell u dont know anything about hard work or how to wake up at 5 in the morning knowing ur going to bust ur ass,.. i can tell ur just a city boy..feel sorry for u

  4. By Mactekus on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    West Texas is butt …
    West Texas is butt ugly. Especially around Midland. If I could drive to New Mexico or Colorado without passing through, I would. The windmills are an improvement. The land owner who has a problem with the windmills should sell his land and move somewhere else because I can tell you the windmills are here to stay.

    They are hypnotic at night. All red blinking in unison. I always wonder though about the lone red light that blinks out of sync.

  5. By pacificcresttrans on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Wind energy is the …
    Wind energy is the fastest growing energy sector in the United States…Wind energy represents nearly 5% of the US electrical generation and is targeted to reach 20% in the future. The United States is developing key projects in the wind market. Companies like Pacific Crest Transformers offer custom built transformers for wind energy farms.

  6. By rocketman10owen on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    and then do a ROI, …
    and then do a ROI, to see if it is viable or not.

    Am I argueing with retard.
    you lack of intelligence, and your inability to form a logical arguement against my point of view just blow my mind.

  7. By rocketman10owen on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Are you kidding me …
    Are you kidding me or what.
    It is fruitless having an discussion with you.
    It is so disingenuous to play around with facts like that.
    Your arguement is so weak that it is disgraceful.
    Your arguement is against wind energy is a wind farm that hasn’t been built yet and it is only proposed with a cost you just pulled out of your of 153M.
    You could do a better job that that, it is pathetic.
    If i were you i would weight the return with the cost. What is the real life generating capacity

  8. By Yvessam on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    if you don’t use * …
    if you don’t use *clean natural energie* you’ll have to use combustible and this will contribute to the global warming. That’s why i think we MUST turn to that kind of energie. But it’s true that there are some little bads things reliated to this. but it’s better than the negatives effects of combustible fossile or nuclear .

  9. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Any device …
    Any device whatsoever will require to be MADE – i.e. constructed ? – you dig ? (you get coal !) This is investment, and inevitably also some ammount of polution – Co2 etc. So – if the thing doen’t last long-enuf to provide the energy to make two more, we are just making further mess.

  10. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    It depends what you …
    It depends what you mean by “Wind”.
    If you nean “modern windfarms”, then the biggest “problem” is that they don’t actually provide enuf energy in their entire lives to enable a replacement to be made. They are in fact the governments “fig-leaf” Window dressing.
    returning a small fraction of one percent, p.a. of their cost. Meanwhile 5% p.a. is readily obtainable from a sensible design.
    The problem IS, that they haven’t actually worked-out how to do it – but carry on as tho’ they had.

  11. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    “it is tried and …
    “it is tried and tested” – but the results are ignored
    I.e.
    Public meeting Llandeilo uk July ‘05
    Cost of proposed farm — 153M
    Annual income from energy it would supply ——— 000point2M i.e. 200k
    Why pay 153M pounds (worth of Co2 pollution) in order to obtain
    25 years x 200k pounds-worth of clean energy ? Can you explain rather than change the subject.
    Wind energy USED to work, – it has worked wonders – but if you open your eyes you will see that it was different

  12. By rocketman10owen on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    wind energy has …
    wind energy has been used for thousands of years as a reliable energy source.
    the is tried tested and true.
    denmark holland and germany has developed this technology for years and it has worked wonders.
    the problem is that US havent started to develop this technology.
    then why not start doing it earlier
    it is way logical then doing it later when we are in deep trouble.
    fossil fuel will run out in the near future

  13. By etellurian on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Saddam could have …
    Saddam could have picked up his innovation phone instead he picked up the military phone the rest is history.

    A solution to an energy problem in a desert is using solar and winds to build an efficient energy grid. When there is no wind there is light/sun all day. There are thousand of miles of desert not being used. Solar and wind can offer the desert land more purpose and less consequential issues associated with war.

    Innovation works.

    Peace,

    E-T

  14. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Watts is Power, not …
    Watts is Power, not Energy. Power is rate of transfer of energy. It is pointless trying to talk about these things – much as I agree with the general geist of what you are trying to say – if you don’t know the meanings of words.
    1 watt is 1 Joule per second
    1 Joule is the energy expended by a cleaner pushing a broom with a force of 1 Newton for a distance of 1 Metre. 1 Newton is about a tenth of a kilogramforce.
    Why make statements which are obviously stupid ?

  15. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    No-ooo – they would …
    No-ooo – they would (in principle, some days) “put power-plants on standby” WHILE the wind blows/Cloud-cover is absent !!
    Quite obviously if no-one is using so much power from the grid because their own systems are providing, then the plants burn that much less fuel. I cannot believe that a power-plant burns fuel at the same rate regardless of how much power it is putting down the lines. This is not complex. “Buying less energy does not reduce emissions” is just unthought-about bilge.

  16. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Do yourself – and …
    Do yourself – and the Earth – a favour and email bertdotwindon at gmail, for some serious software weaponry – warning, contains disturbing images !.

  17. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Just using the word …
    Just using the word ? I never realised that.
    Oxycodone is an opioid analgesic medication synthesized from opium-derived thebaine. (Or should that be Thebain-derived Opium ?) It was developed in 1916 in Germany, as one of several new pain-killers.
    We must let all addicts know that when they need their fix, all they need do is say LIBERAL !
    – but research will be required to discover how many times per mgm.

  18. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    You are right, …
    You are right, there is no need to waste the countryside – and then have to transport the (any) energy supplied by building extra “grid”. The only theory that springs to my mind for why the government does this is for the very fact that it IS so visible. It’s their “we are really concerned and “green”" statement. Or to put it the other way their “Energy laundering” deception driven by fossil and nuclear businesses. And “environMental” groups, of course.
    What else could it be ?

  19. By idontcare80 on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Using the word ” …
    Using the word “liberal” makes you sound like an oxycodone addicted douche bag.

  20. By idontcare80 on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    I agree with most …
    I agree with most of your points here. Why people don’t see the benefit of collecting their own energy, on their own property is beyond me.

    Something that should’ve been considered a long time ago are the massive areas of nice flat rooftop available on places like warehouses and grocery stores. With buildings like those I don’t see why it should be necessary to use land for solar farms. Wind farms I’ve never really been a fan of. Personal wind turbines do make sense though, for some people.

  21. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    They had to use the …
    They had to use the coal to build the “Turbines” – if you recollect, steel and concrete needs coal and stuff to make. You will find that “Modern windfarms” are nothing less than an “energy laundering” industry – straightforward deception – if you get to physical facts rather than government and “industry” propaganda.
    Sensible Wind-energy systems pay for themselves in 10 – 20 years, but are hardly visible. Email for picture.

  22. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    6 to 8 months !? …
    6 to 8 months !? 140-odd percent per annum ?!
    Where do I buy one ? Does Northern Rock know about it ? How tragic they wasted all there money in real-estate elswhere. You really must spread this good news. What are your figures based upon ? I was at a public meeting July ‘05 Llandeilo uk where
    Cost of proposed farm 150M
    Annual income 000point.2M
    Haven’t they improved a lot in only 4 years !

  23. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Allthough we may …
    Allthough we may have problems if we have “wind”. We undoubtedly have a very large problem with people who spent vast “government money” on littering the world with machinery that takes several hundred years to supply the energy which went into building it. This is not journalistic exageration, it is physical fact of which not many appear either to be aware, or wish to be made aware-of. Meanwhile a sensible design of wind Turbine-Alternator can pay for itself in 20 years or less.

  24. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Both Sunshine and …
    Both Sunshine and Wind are distributed like consumers (us), so what purpose does it serve to place all the collectors miles away ? I don’t see anything wrong with Finding oneself a job – if it will benefit things – but Making work for oneself, when there is so much necessary work to do, I fail to grasp the benefit of. So “the grid will be enhanced” should this please us, or give us a future ? – or what ?

  25. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    Dead right. I have …
    Dead right. I have tried to explain to “liberals” that current “Wind turbines” are in fact a new growth industry known as “energy laundering”, but sadly this involves numbers and percentages, and “Liberals” work on colours and shapes, it seems.
    It is readily possible to get several whole percent from a sensible design of TAD, but governments prefer the 0.14%-odd of Large spiky rotating things.
    Just keep your head stuck in a bucket and everything’s fine – if you’re “Liberal”.

  26. By bertwindon on Dec 19, 2009 | Reply

    You are trying to …
    You are trying to say that “windfarms” are some kind of early pioneering experiment ? – or what. Please explain. It has been demonstrated in Holland and UK, many years ago, that machinery to get energy from the wind – to do work for us – can be a worthwhile investment. Had it taken several hundred years to build the things to do 25 years worth of work, I think no-one would have bothered. So “got to start somewhere” is pretty lame kind of “reasoning”. Do you “drink”, or what ?

Post a Comment