comments to previous article

Greengle: A green capitalist from America.
Like this Reply to this comment by typeA911 May 3, 2010 1:56 PM PDT

I'm from Calif. where we have thousands of these things and lot of people here hate them because they have replaced beautiful pristine landscapes on Hills and deserts. At first U look at them and go,"hey, how neat" but after awhile U start to realize what U have lost inplace of these mechanical machines. Wind generators are the most expensive way of producing electricity, the cheapest beings nuclear power. The first generation nuclear plants built on 1950-60's technology. We've come a long way since then. We need to start building new generation nuclear power plants.
Like this Reply to this comment 7 people like this comment
by myles taylor May 3, 2010 2:55 PM PDT
(holds back personal attack) All your claims are based in ignorance.

For one thing, nuclear power plants cost a fortune to build. Most of the cost of the power comes from initial construction cost. Sure it will pay off eventually but in the meantime, you have to come up with the money up-front. There are supply of nuclear material and you have to get rid of the nuclear waste. For all it's benefits, I would much rather go with wind energy than nuclear. It's clean, already available and just needs to be tapped. I don't think putting up giant wind farms is the way to go necessarily though. The answer is a lot of smaller turbines.

As far as the landscape goes, I can't help but think of what a selfish attitude that is. "Oh those wind farms are so ugly. Let's instead get our energy from mines and other non-renewable sources. Out of sight and out of mind." Wind energy is almost limitless. We just have find a good way of collecting it.
Like this 7 people like this comment

by DavidEyerly May 3, 2010 5:51 PM PDT

The least expensive form of electrical production is Hydroelectric ($.012 per kw/h), followed by Nuclear ($.025), coal ($.04), wind ($.045), natural gas ($.05), diesel ($.18) and solar ($.60). Several other experimental technologies are more expensive. (Wind is NOT the most expensive--by far!) Wind turbines built in the 1980's were NOT economically viable, and are slowly being replaced by the more efficent--and significantly larger--modern turbines. Turbines are built large because they become economical only as the square of the area swept by the blades becomes large enough. Small turbines (with short blades) are therefore inefficient. Wind turbines build on lattice towers kill raptors (because the raptors roost on the lattice work.) Modern wind turbines provide no roost for raptors, and therefore rarely kill them. What is driving the modern push to these huge turbines throughout the midwestern US (like Google is buying) is the fact that they ARE economically viable. They make electricity, they make it cleanly, and they make it pretty competively. Blade flicker becomes a non-issue when built 1000 feet from an existing structure. Noise is eliminated only when they operate properly. If they make money, they'll be operated efficiently. If they are not money making (like the older designs in California) they aren't efficient, and often aren't properly maintained--they are only maintained for the California tax deductions. They produce no CO2, and some people think that is important. Finally, a wind turbine is 93% efficient (some other posted that they were relatively inefficient, which is silly--they wouldn't be built if that were the case!) Wind energy must be augmented by base-line energy, because any single wind tubine can turn off (or on) in an instant. However, when used in large wind farms, that risk is reduced. The goal of the US Department of Energy is that we produce 30% of our power from wind energy by the year 2030. That's about the maximum that wind should supply to any one electric grid. (More than that, and it is possible to "blow a fuse," as it were, on a grid--the consequences of which would not be good. However 30% wind is very manageable.) Finally, these huge turbines ARE industrial machines, and should not be considered anything else. They make power efficiently, cleanly, and inexpensively; but, they are industrial equipment, and should be seen as such.
Like this 4 people like this comment
by chris_d May 4, 2010 9:12 AM PDT
Nuclear wouldn't even exist without massive subsidies. The TOTAL cost is probably higher than everything else once you account for insurance and eventual waste storage/disposal.

Utilities' liability is limited by the Price-Anderson Act. The government covers the rest in the case of an accident.
Like this 1 person likes this comment
by soldar1 May 5, 2010 1:14 PM PDT

This is to DavidEyerly, I was wondering where you got your price for kw/h stats. Back in the 80's wind generated electricity was profitable when seling via a Standard Offer 4 to SCE and PGE. Generation cost were .03 kw/h. Nuclear generation was .18 kw/h without government supplements. BTW the note that raptors roost on lattice work and that other guys statement that bats lungs burst is hillarious.
Like this 1 person likes this comment
by May 3, 2010 2:42 PM PDT
I'm in California too but I like the look. It's a constant reminder to us all that power doesn't magically appear out of nothing.
Like this Reply to this comment 5 people like this comment
by Maddog4u May 3, 2010 3:07 PM PDT
YOU have missed the point. They do not produce CO2 free power. They are only 15 to 20% efficient. They are environmental disasters. In fact in your state, the windmills have killed an estimated 3,700 raptors since 1970 , that MAY is not a good thing. If they tell you they have solved the bird problem, its a lie, you are just running out of birds. So be reminded now how many raptors they have killed for no good reason. Bats are killed every night by these things, because of the low pressure wave on the trailing edge of the blade the bats pass through and their lungs burst. They die. Not good MAY. I also suggest you do a little more research and find out how many wind turbines in your valleys are broken and abandoned. They may be spinning but estimates are approximately 10% are not in working order, they are broken but still spinning, and you MAY would not know the difference. I also suggest you find out about how many people are being affected by the shadow flicker, and constant low frequency noises. I agree with TypeA911 , nuclear power is the solution for the world. No CO2. Unlimited power. Constant Power. Cheaper power.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by Shinespark May 3, 2010 7:28 PM PDT
There is less than a century's worth of proven uranium reserves at current usage.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by myles taylor May 3, 2010 2:46 PM PDT
That's great. The Wind resources of North and South Dakota could alone power the US if harnessed.
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by Maddog4u May 3, 2010 3:30 PM PDT
(dosnt hold back personal attack) Sorry Myles you are dead wrong.

Wind energy is a variant energy source that is unreliable and can never support the worlds needs. To power all of the USA you will need to cover an area 200 times larger than North and South Dakota with a density of one per 1/4 acre and even then you would not be assured the wind will blow every day. Do the math , 17% efficiency of a 2.5 MWt wind turbine = .0425 MWt now divide that by the current usage of the USA ( which is 925000 MWt last summer) and you will have how many 500 foot tall turbines you have to plant in the ground. The answer 2,176,470 -- I will spell it out for you ,,,, it is 2 million 176 thousand and 4 hundred and seventy. Again typeA911 is correct. [CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
Like this 5 people like this comment
by Maddog4u May 3, 2010 2:54 PM PDT
The problem is that "GREEN" energy is not always correctly labelled and understood. The CO2 frenzy is triggering very reactive, panic driven, poor policy decisions in the governance. Since wind energy is reliant on the variance of wind being present, a backup system is required. That back up system is usually natural gas powered steam turbine power plants to maintain consistent power. So lets think about it,,, to reduce CO2 producing electrical utilities, you are building Wind Turbines which in turn are supported by CO2 producing natural gas driven steam turbine electrical power plants for when the wind does not BLOW. These Natural Gas plants boil water 24 hours a day 7 days a week to keep the water boiling to make steam, to make electricity, just in case. In a nut shell, large industrial wind turbine power is expensive, intrusive, unreliable, with NO net benefit to reduce CO2. In Europe, governments there are starting to see the error in their way. Britain just completed a study of their wind turbine assets, showing the output is only 17% efficient. Britain is now wondering why have they destroyed their beautiful countryside with little to no CO2 offset. The Spanish have concluded that for every wind job they created through subsidies, they lost 2.2 jobs. Germany is building 25 more coal fired stations because wind is proving to be unreliable. The only thing green about wind power is the green you pay for increased electricity and increased taxes for subsidies your government is paying the Wind companies . Visit www.wind-watch.org and get educated.
Like this Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by FixWix May 3, 2010 3:04 PM PDT
hmmmm ...... http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=84733.0
Like this Reply to this comment by May 3, 2010 3:34 PM PDT
Here's the real issue:

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/01/13/234187/google-defends-search-energy-use-after-newspaper-claims.htm
Like this Reply to this comment by baruchz May 3, 2010 4:53 PM PDT

The point is not that wind is the solution. The point is that wind is A solution, among several, which can produce greener electricity. None of them are perfect. If you really want electricity with no environmental impact you'd have to harness lightening and live very simply. The fact is that modern technological human societies are "taker" societies as opposed to "leaver" societies (read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael for the reference) and so we all take more than our fair share.
Like this Reply to this comment 4 people like this comment
by noesbueno May 4, 2010 7:07 AM PDT
manbearpig it is.
Like this Reply to this comment by biffhenerson May 4, 2010 3:17 PM PDT

Must be nice to have enough money to flush some down the toilet.
Like this Reply to this comment by kennedy200 May 5, 2010 3:47 PM PDT

Whether the windmills are good, bad, ugly, not efficient or super efficient ? I am very encouraged to see a non-energy company that cares enough about the environment to dish out some of their profits in any effort to improve it. Most companies of Google?s stature would have just built another energy hogging building with the money. Congratulations to Google and thank you Mr. LaMonica for recognizing them.
Like this Reply to this comment by Maddog4u May 9, 2010 7:47 PM PDT

It would be more appropriate for them to invest in improving conservation and efficiency of use around the world. Such as eliminating standby power in all our TVs, upgrading the transmission grid to avoid stray voltage loss. I have an idea that if we turned off every street light in very urban setting from 2:00am to 5:00am (when your supposed to be asleep) you will accomplish all the CO2 savings, and fossil fuel savings that Wind pretends to deliver. By investing in misleading technologies such as wind, only directs money towards a dead end cause and away areas that could actually make a difference.