Talk:Wind energy

message: wind energy
Was going through sorting stubs. I was wondering if the stub tag could be taken off this. Anyone involved with this article have an opinion? Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 21:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Opposition to the use of wind power is growing slowly, and results in research into possible negative impacts of its use. For example, one study by an anti-wind group in the (pro-industry!) USA foresaw a significant impact on climate because of the reduced wind speed due to wind turbines." Gosh, i can't believe someone can raise such an excuse? Really, lets get serious here, this excuse is lame. I also hate when they say government are subsiding the wind energy industry. Someone should clue them on what British govenment is doing in Iraq, because they kind of have missed it. 
The excuse isn't necessarily lame, but the way this is worded is.  It wasn't an anti-wind group that did this study, it was a group of geophysicists at Princeton. See the New Scientist article on the study.  This is a good example of why the article needs to be fixed up, perhaps to add in some good external links and additional fact checking (see my comment above). --Cyrie 20:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do people raise such lame excuses without a second thought? 

message: Despite reading all the linked FAQ pages on wind energy the answer to this question still eludes me. Can someone explain this in straightforward terms. To a non-engineer it is not clear why 4 blades, for example,  will not produce more torque than three.
:Check out this web site, it explains all: http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/design/concepts.htm
:Sendervictorius 09:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do Wind turbines mostly have three blades? 

message: There are already good articles on 'wind power' and 'wind turbine'. This article could be merged with them. Dv82matt 17:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Wind energy' should redirect to 'wind power'. 

message: Since power is totally not energy, then redirect is a silly waste of human communications. Wind energy in itself is exactly not wind power. Redirect is an injustice to readers and poor service by Wikipedia. 
Be brave and develop an article that faces wind energy in itself; it is very important matter for the health of earth to have correct notions about wind.  68.126.250.207 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wind energy" doesn't need it's own article. It's already covered across Wind and Wind power.. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wind energy is so very distinct from wind or wind power that it deserves attention; noteworthy is the energy in wind. The energy in minor and major winds, winds inside machines, relative wind, winds affecting various kinds of objects and turbines is a topic of itself separate from generalize wind. Scientifically and in engineering also, the energy involved in wind is a specific topic. Wind has other apects; glossing over the energy in wind is tantamount to ignoring a huge body of noteworthy attention just on the energy of wind itself. Confusing readers by the gloss and easy redirect is to teach a false landscape which is not the business of a good encyclopedia.  You are asked to help build an article on wind energy itself, of course note that the rate of doing work by use of wind energy, that is, the rate called wind power, is a branch of wind studies that is also important.  68.126.250.207 (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that wind power is power captured from wind energy. That still doesn't mean we need a separate article for it.  The actual "energy" part is already covered in Wind, and could be expanded on a bit, while practical applications of it are covered in Wind power. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, "wind power" is not "captured" from "wind energy." Wind power is a distinct measure of the rate at which work is done. Wind energy is absolutely not the same object as "wind power" and the confusion is not universal and the confusion about the energy and power leads to costly errors. In noteworthy attention on "wind energy" there are matters that simply are distinct from what occurs with "wind power." The wind article and the wind power article are not arranged to give attention to noteworthy aspects of "wind energy."  Only a whisper about wind energy is in the other two articles. Why hide what is so very strongly noteworthy about such important matters?  Energy is looked at for itself in noteworthy places. Who is to measure the need for a distinct article? You, me, who else? Anyone else in the conversation?  To help the world from making further errors, why not put up valid information referenced by noteworthy and credible sources. I hope Wikipedia editors do not want to participate in teaching the false notion that about energy and power.  68.126.250.207 (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wind energy is the accumulation of wind power, but that's not enough to hang a whole article on as distinct from wind power and wind.GliderMaven (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

text: To help see this, consider that we could, without any major problems, rename the current wind power article to wind energy, and really nothing else of importance in the article would need to change. They're the same topic area, even though they're not exactly the same thing, the wind power article covers both.GliderMaven (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

text: It would be like having an article on "wind temperature" - it's unlikely someone searching for the phrase "wind energy" is looking for abstract physics properties, but is most likely looking for the application of wind energy to practical uses. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support an article on wind energy itself