Talk:Wind power/Archive 3

message: I found this map interesting . Maybe someone who understands German can decide if it is copyrighted? More graphs here . Ultramarine 18:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The USA map should anyway be taken off. This article is not about Wind power in the United States! deeptrivia (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A worldwide wind power map would be good, but would lose a lot of detail.  The US map is the best freely available example I've seen, but I'd be happy to see something better. Iain McClatchie 19:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No copyright notice does not imply no copyright.  Does German law/treaties include copyright upon creation?  (SEWilco 04:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World windpower map

message: Discussions as to whether or not wind power is a net energy producer over its lifecycle.  It was pointed out that energy costs are incorporated into the cost of any product and are generally a relatively small amount of the cost of a product so that it was unlikely that wind power is a net energy sink.  A reference was eventually obtained:
"[] addresses this question. You'll all be relieved to  know that the example wind installations produced between 17 and 39 times as much energy as it took to build and run them.  --Wtshymanski 17:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy Audit of wind turbines. 

message: Discussion took place as to whether consuming wind energy would interfere with heat transport in the atmosphere.
:Per Earth%27s_energy_budget the solar radiation input number you're looking for is 174,000 TW (Terawatts), 70% of which is absorbed, 64% by the atmosphere, so about 111,360 TW is tied up in the atmosphere at any given moment.  For comparison, our Fossil Fuel consumption is about 13TW, all of which is human added waste heat.  We don't require that much electric energy, total global grid consumption is about 1.5 TW (mostly from coal and ng which are included in the FF figure).  So replacing FF derived grid power with renew/systain-ables (wind, etc), and the remaining ineffecient transportation (~20% usefull work done) use of FF with more effecient transportation methods (EV and BEV) would reduce that energy requirement substantially.  This transportation transition may require the doubeling of grid capacity to 3 TW (my rough estimate).  So it might prove to help!  Eliminating 13 TW of excess heat and instead obsorbing 3 TW of said excess energy (though I doubt it would work out so elegantly).  Anyway, that 3 TW represents some 1/37120th or 0.00269% of the energy in the atmosphere. Of course I could be offbase and am no expert myself. --D0li0 22:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the paragraph that claimed the mechanical energy extracted from wind has any effect on global warming - as the above discusion also shows, when you're dealing with order of magnitude of 10^17 watts of insolation, total world electrical demand even at 5000 watts/person is on the order of 10^15 watts - lost in the noise. Also, don't forget that (aside from freaky exceptions like power beamed into space, stray light lost by streetlights, and energy bound up in reducing chemicals electrolytically), generally speaking, a kwh of electricity generated turns into heat in the atmosphere anyway.  The only offset is that wind generated power offsets CO2 accumulation - insofar as that affects climate, that would be the only "global warming" benefit. --Wtshymanski 17:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 10^15?  5,000 watts/person x 6.5 billion people/planet gives about 3x10^13 watts/planet. pstudier 21:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition POV's: Ecological disaster / global warming. 

message: We need some good sources on "shaping," which I understand to mean back-up power for calm wind periods.  I've read that when hydropower is used to shape electric power on a grid, the price increase amounts to 20%.  This seems somewhat at odds with a rule of thumb estimate mentioned that no more than 1/3rd power on a grid should be wind.  What is the actual premium involved in shaping wind power on a large (e.g. North American) grid? 
see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_UK#TriadsEngineman 19:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaping 

message: I've read from the Rocky Mountain News that wind power is the least expensive form of new power, recently dipping below the per-kwh cost of coal.  Does anyone dispute this? --James P.S. 07:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Rocky Mountain News" article is suspect. It says For instance, the construction cost of a conventional coal-fired plant is about $1,000 for every kilowatt-hour of electricity it produces. Cost of a wind power plant is $900 per kilowatt-hour, nuclear is $1,700 per kilowatt-hour while solar thermal is $2,400 per kilowatt-hour. In contrast, the cost is much lower at $400 per kilowatt-hour for a natural gas-fired plant, according to the Energy Information Administration.   Evidently journalists writing about energy don't know the difference between a kilowatthour and a kilowatt. Look at your own electrical bill and work out your cost per kilowatthour and you'll see the problem immediately - these prices are about 4 decimal orders of magnitude too high. Assuming our innumerate source meant that the capital cost is in dollars per kilowatt (not kilowatt-hour), then consider that a wind plant doesn't produce nameplate kw all year - this means the capital cost is more like $2,058 dollars for a kilowatt with the same load factor as a nuclear plant. I've deleted this reference yet again - cost per kw is only one of the costs per kwh. --Wtshymanski 14:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple and obvious typo you are referring to -- using "kwh" for "kw" in the construction cost doesn't disqualify the cost per kwh table at the end of the article, which is in line with other sources. Moreover, the statement that coal is still less expensive is misleading because only the oldest grandfathered-exempt coal plants are. --James S. 01:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a single typo, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the cost of electricity generation - this consistent error makes me doubt the accuracy of the whole article. It's not much help quoting articles that require a subscription to access. I'd like to see an article quoted that  had some internal consistency and credibilty -journalists are notoriously inaccurate at numbers. --Wtshymanski 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, which one takes a subscription?  I can see them all and I don't think I have a sub to anything here. --James S. 03:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Least expensive form of new power 

message: Our new editor (who I reverted, but promised to look into his/her edits) quoted directly from  "Over its life, a small residential wind turbine can offset approximately 1.2 tons of air pollutants and 200 tons of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and other gases which cause climate change)."  So we have notable facts and a reputable source, does this fit into the article? Simesa 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  --Skyemoor 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small residential wind turbine

message: I hope you find the following links useful.
*3D wind power models - Google SketchUp
*Latest Wind power news - Feedburner
*Wind power directory - Energy Planet
*Wind power videos - YouTube —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Ramon (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you added these to 15 or so pages constitutes WP:SPAM.  YouTube and newsy sites are not appropriate anyway.  Cheers Geologyguy 13:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External wind energy resources

message: Does anyone know of a source that could cite the wind energy density of the United States? Estimates are given for other countries in the article, but I didn't see them for the US. All that is stated was that it was possible for the of 3 states to produce enough power for the entire country. Though, reading the source doesn't appear to be cited and doesn't specify whether the study was referring to just electrical or energy total consumption.
Also, I removed the italics from the word "theoretical" in the Theoretical Potential section. It was already made clear that the numbers were estimates through the title of the section/wording, and it was the only place the word was italicized in the article.
130.134.81.16 16:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wing Energy Density of the U.S.

message: In the Turbine placement section, it says that it is important to know wind speed and direction.  The need for wind speed data is obvious, but why is direction so important?  Aren't all turbines able to pivot 360 and weathervane into the wind no matter what direction it's coming from?  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, never mind, I see where it's discussed.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is wind direction important? 

message: If you have wind turbines 1000 miles apart feeding a single grid, are some of the intermittency effects likely to only cause times of low wind at one of the sites at a time?  Obviously the warmest-days-have-low-wind effect may be likely to affect both sites to some extent, but those days are also predictable, and power plant operators can start up coal or nuclear plants for those days.
:There needs to be some background info that needs to go along with any answer to this question.  Any resources, no matter what the fuel type, that are 1000 miles apart will have practically no interaction with each other if both connected to an interconnected power grid with other resources.  Just because they are on a single grid does not mean the will equally serve the same load.  Power can flow long distances over interconnected transmission lines, but there are technical issues to overcome.  First is losses, the longer the power has to travel, the more of the generator output is eaten up in resistive losses in the conductor.  Second is voltage support, the higher the power transfer and the longer the distance, the more reactive support is needed to maintain adequate voltage to transfer the power.  Also, starting up coal and nuclear plants isn't a trivial matter, particularily nuclear plants.  Neither of these types of plants can be started in a couple of hours.  With coal plants you are looking at around a full day if the unit is cold.  Nuclear is 2-3 times that.  Startup costs are also very high, which is why these units are most economical when operating 24/7 at their rated capacity.  There is also a cost with running coal and nuclear plants at less than rated capacity.  The cost per unit energy increases.  I think things could be done to have a very high penetration of wind on the grid (gas turbines, FACTS devices, more transmission) but there is a price.  If people were willing to pay more than double for electricity the technical issues could be worked out...but very few people would be willing to accept this in my opinion.Doublee 03:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intermittency and distributed wind generation 

message: Are there ways individuals can invest directly in for-profit companies that build wind farms?  Is the capital available to such companies a limiting factor in how quickly wind farms are built?  JNW2 18:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investing in wind 

message: Ref is: http://www.ewea-report2006 EWEA 2006 Annual report, Powering change, European Wind Energy Association or EWEA 2006 Annual report, Powering change European Wind Energy Association. The list I added is useful as it shows the development at glance. I was not allowed to add the ref in the article, is this correct?  Watti Renew 11:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wind Power in Europe

message: 74,223 MW? 73,904 MW?  In 2006?  What day/month?  Since new turbines are commissioned perhaps hourly, it's a bit unproductive to twiddle a 5-signifcant-figure entry - "about 74,000 MW" or "more than 74 GW" is quite sufficient for any reasonable purpose. --Wtshymanski 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant figures

message: From the opening section of the article:
"[Wind power] accounts for approximately 20% of electricity use in Denmark, 9% in Spain, and 7% in Germany...
The intermittency of wind seldom creates problems when using wind power at low to moderate penetration levels (though such intermittency has caused problems for grid stability in Denmark and Germany, where penetration is greatest).[3]"
According to the first statement, the order of proportion of electricity generated from wind power runs 1. Denmark, 2. Spain, 3. Germany. The second paragraph states that penetration of wind power is greatest in Denmark and Spain. I assume the two were written by different authors, or they wouldn't contradict each other. WikiReaderer 21:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory 

message: In the 'Impact on Wildlife' section, a statement is made about a wind farm in Norway killing a colony of sea eagles.  The citation link for this is broken, and the failed verification tag was added last month.  Upon searching, I couldn't find an archive of the original article, though I did find this BBC Article.  I don't think this is worthy of replacing the citation, as it is a news article referring to the same broken link which, from what I can gather, was mostly anecdotal and unproven anyways.  Being relatively new to editing, I'm just wondering what action I should take in this instance, if any.  Thanks :-D  Digitiki 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact on Wildlife 

message: This article reeks of pro wind power POV. I'm not going to try to do anything about it, because I admit that I'd be unable to write in an NPOV style about this massive white elephant, but comments such as 
# Newer wind farms have more widely spaced turbines due to the greater power of the individual wind turbines, and to look less cluttered.
# The aesthetics of onshore and near-shore wind turbines have been compared favorably to those of pylons from conventional power stations.
are simply leaping to the defence of wind power, with rather POV reasons. For example, "Look less cluttered" means to me the ugly things are spread out over an even greater area, and the pylon argument is complete nonsense - for one thing, pylons generally don't have as great a visual impact, not being painted white, stuck on or near skylines, and grouped together (as well as not having such a solid-looking construction), and who ever claimed that they weren't ugly eyesores either? This is especially an issue in England, where they tend to get sited in the few areas not already dominated by man-made construction and still retain their beauty. Putting wind turbines on places like that is like using the Mona Lisa to wipe your arse. I can only assume anyone who doesn't have a problem with the former wouldn't with the latter (or if they did, it would only be monetary).
When arguments against the things are raised, they tend to get glossed over rather quickly. - Riedquat 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i concur, i agree there is a WP:NPOV problem with parts of this page, i have been working on cleaning up references, some of which, so far, have proved to be various grades of linkspam; however, this is a volatile subject, a controversial one for many people and a very active page with a lot of editing going on -- multiple edits every day since late September 2007. So everybody can help by pitching in to clean up, wikify etc. -- there's lots of stuff to do. David Woodward (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I would like to do some research about purchasing a reasonably large windmill. 
It would serve two purposes.  1) Electricity  2) it must be aestetically pleasing. 
I would like to see the models to choose from ( this is for a public area not a house ) and some estimates of the electricy / savings it would produce. 
I searched the net but I am not sure where one goes to purchase a windmill. --207.45.240.31 14:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost and Stats 

message: The article has grown by 10 Kbytes in just the past few days.  Much of the material is not directly related to Wind Power and either needs to be moved to sub-articles, or removed completely.  Other sentences obviously violate one or more of the following: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY.  Unfortunately I can't spend the time required to clean it up - I hope someone else can.  —Mrand T-C 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Bobo159 for starting to trim this article back down!  My impression is that the bulleted list in Grid energy storage section really belong in the main article on Grid energy storage, not here in an article about wind power.  Any disagreements?—Mrand T-C 21:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i second that, i've been editing refs in this section, but this stuff should be moved out, all but the intro para, to the linked existing article since there is one. David Woodward (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the time to do just that.  The article is still lacks focus and is burdened with too much detail, but if we all keep slowly chipping away...  —Mrand T-C 20:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits require massive cleanup 

message: I have read somewhere about transparent blades. So, solar panels could be installed in wind farms (they don´t produce shades)--Mac 11:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mac, i guess everybody is pretty busy around here, a lot of Wikipedians do this stuff in their spare time. If you get a chance, do a web search and see if you can get a reference for us, like a web page address or book or magazine details; that way somebody is much more likely to put this stuff in the article, because is it quicker and easier to do. Or you are encouraged to edit yourself, especially with a good reference. David Woodward (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transpared 

message: Here is another U.S. offshore wind project, that does not seem to be mentioned in the Wind Power article, nor have its own WP article like the Cape Wind (Massachusetts) project.  A link to a federal government website with info is http://www.mms.gov/offshore/RenewableEnergy/Projects.htm 
I think it is worth a mention, or an article.  Enjoy, N2e 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Island Offshore Wind Park Project 

message: The page looks good. Have you guys thought about GA status? I'm going through it and doing some copy editing. I've found some potential content errors and have some other suggestions. 
*I think there is something wrong with this sentence: "There is an estimated 50 to 100 times more wind energy than plant biomass energy available on Earth."
I think there's a problem with the source's biomass number. On the solar energy page I put some energy comparisons in but I came up with  a biomass resource of 1.8 ZJ/year using Smil and I cross checked this with data on the biomass page. The numbers agreed with each other if you assume an energy density of about 12 MJ/kg for biomass. I thought that was a reasonable assumption but then I ran into the 50-100 comparison above. 
I also calculated the number using your source and came out with a reasonably close number to the one included in the note but it would be good if the note included its assumption for biomass energy density (MJ/Kg or BTU/lb). I can't blame you for this because I need to double back and put this assumption into the solar energy page calculation.
I looked at the wind reference provided for the 72 TW note. Seems like a good source and the note in the math works out. On the solar energy page I used a DOE reference to come up with 6 ZJ per year. Sort of a problem there but I think the DOE number might include offshore winds. Eventually, I would like the number on the solar page to reflect the total theoretical wind energy in the atmosphere. This is much different than the technically feasible number that should be used on this page. 
I understand what the word "shape" means but it needs some more explanation or a link to where I can read about shape. The Mitchell 2006 reference at the end of the shape sentence probably explained it but this reference is quick formated and there is no proper Mitchell reference. 
I only made it down to the Onshore section. I started making some edits where I thought edits were needed. I don't want to step on any toes here. Please comment on the edits I made and if they are appreciated I'll come back and go through the rest of the page. Be honest, it won't hurt my feelings. I'm not here to stay... just to help out for a bit if I can. Good luck all. Mrshaba 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments from an outsider 

message: Are insufficient on this page.
Image:Wind turbine (xndr).jpg
Image:Wind turbine-1 hg.jpg
Image:Wind turbine-2 hg.jpg
Image:Wind turbine-3 hg.jpg
Image:Wind turbine-4 hg.jpg
Image:Norrbotten main deck.jpg
I will add some of these later. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction images 

message: I was wondering about the relevance of the information contained within this article. I feel that most of the information in this article belongs to the subject of Wind power (electricity generation) or Wind energy (electricity generation). I feel that the main article on Wind power/energy should possibly be restricted to the simple notion of its conversion into other forms of energy but no discussion on its use an alternative energy source. I hope I'm making sense here? Ga2re2t (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NAME "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Most people today think of wind power in terms of its use an alternative energy source, so the current name is appropriate.--agr (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming this article or separating it into two articles

message: In 2004, the IEA estimated that wind produced 0.06% of the world's total energy.  Now it's more than 1%?  — Omegatron 05:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are comparing to world's total energy, not total electricity produced. The IEA does not seem to separate geothermal/wind/solar/other, but states that they combine to produce 2% of the worlds electricity. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, they separate it.  They list wind power alone as 0.06% in 2004.  http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2006/renewable_factsheet.pdf#page=4  The "electricity vs energy" difference is probably the cause of the discrepancy. — Omegatron 21:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total percentage of world capacity 

message: In the section "Potential turbine power", replace the first image, "A Darrieus wind turbine." with :Image:Wind power coeff.jpg with the caption "Wind turbine power coefficient." 199.125.109.134 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see there is no effective equivalent in the article right now, so I added it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disable editprotected template since edit was performed.—Mrand T-C 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency

message: The section on "safety" has gotten out of control and is internally inconsistent. The hydroelectric statistic is 2000 times higher than the fatalities per terawatt-year provided by wind turbines, yet the section entirely over-emphasizes fatalities. I propose to rebalance this section. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See  for a list of fatalities per TW-year for a variety of power sources.  It seems that the number for hydro quoted in the article is verifiable.  And if 0.23 fatalities per TW-hour applies for wind, that would translate to 2014 fatalities per TW-year.  So it makes sense to me, though more conversions in the article could improve it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 15:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is still quite prolix and I think could be under 64K with a little more care and attention.  I've trimmed some of the low hanging fruit in terms of redundant sections, etc. - but we're a long way from brilliant prose. This article needs more deletions than additions right now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the safety section occurs as too long for you, then make a summary and break the rest into another article.  All major energy sources need significant coverage on here of the big issues of which safety is a big one. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The offered reference is sponsored by the nuclear industry and is not directly about energy production fatalities. At 2000 fatals per terawatt-year, we'd be hearing about *hundreds* of wind-related fatalities per year at the current US and Canadian production levels - now, I don't get the paper every day, but surely I'd have heard of some of these. Given the rapid growth of generation capacity, I don't think 1994 statistics are representative of current reality. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gipe's web site now (Jan. 9,2008) gives 0.15 deaths poer terawatt-hour as of end 2000, and is very interesting reading.  Yes, a member of the general public was killed by a wind turbine - a parachutist who jumped onto one. Gipe's web site doesn't give statistics for the number of parachutists killed by regular power lines per year. The Web site also points out the statistics are skewed by the large number of tiny turbines at Altamont Pass and similar '70s-ear installations. Teh database claims 32 accidents total, inlcuding one crop duster who hit a met tower, the parachutist, and one apparent suicide. At 11,600 MW, 33% capacity factor, I'd expect 33.5 terawatthours per year generation in the US and at .15/twh , 5 deaths/year - doesn't seem to be the trend. Gipes says Germany is arond 0.07 fatalties per TWH  I think the present0 section greatly overstates the risks to people from wind power O&M, and to the general public. --Wtshymanski (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by "recently"?  I just edited that article a few days ago, and was looking at his site as I wrote it.  The Caithness data is more comprehensive, and includes his. — Omegatron 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety

message: Does anyone have info on scaring birds/bats away with high pitched
sound emitters mounted on the land-based wind power units ?
The sounds emitted are above human hearing range, but are aversive to
birds and bats.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.128.58 (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever heard of a deer horn? Just drill holes in the blades. Work is being done to research ways of reducing collisions. Birds also collide with all tall towers and buildings. One report simply stated that changes have been made to reduce collisions. 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scaring birds/bats away with sound 

message: I'd like to get something in the article explaining that the nature of the wind power business has changed a lot since the 1970's.  We no longer have hippies turning out clones of '20s-era farm pumps in backyard workshops (or at least, these are no longer the leading edge of the business); to compete in utility-scale turbine construction  requires a major investment in large-scale fabrication facilities.  Making towers alone is a huge business - a 100-metre tubular tower is a whole different order of construction than the 10-metre lattice towers at '70s-era sites.  Foundations, transportation, financing - all big business now, not easy to break in with a small shop. Can anyone find a good discussion of this as a reference? This is precisely the reason turbine costs do not continue to drop - the availability of new firms willing to take the risk of investing in construction of turbines has flattened out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a section on construction would be good, or maybe something covering that economic history.  I don't have any background in this, but I think it would be fun to research. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost trends 

message: At one time, wind power was a very important part of agriculture, particularly in the Midwest.--Landroo (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Midwest" - where do you mean?  Wolverhampton? Hardly agricultural. Hereford? I can find no information. MikesPlant (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: A history section has since been added on 20th January. I have just added a main template to link it to History of wind power and tagged that with Subarticle.-Wikianon (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still No History Section?