Talk:Wind power/Archive 1

message: Does anyone have some better images?  I like this one which I know is from San Gorgonio Pass, but I'm not sure of its provenance. Nrcprm2026 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I organized the Controversy section into sub-sub headings for what were previously bullets and bullets for what were previously indentations. This makes it a lot easier to see the general area of the claims of opponents/proponents and the different specific claims in those areas. I think we might want to cut down on this section just a tad. This seems to be one of the worst cases of Wikipedia becoming more of a polemic instead of an encyclopedia, as we have every possible argument and counter argument and counter-counter argument. However, we seem to be missing quite a bit of information on the biggest argument of proponents of wind power-- the fact that wind power is renewable (benefit over fossil fuels which are bound to run out) and the fact that it is nonpolluting (another benefit over fossil fuels). Bonus Onus 23:21, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
: I moved in the discussion of energy extraction from the wind turbine article since I thought it made this article flow a lot better. It still needs a section on economics. One limitation to wind use on an interconnected network is the stability of the system; I understand a rule of thumb is that wind capacity should not exceed one-third of the network generation.--Wtshymanski 16:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy reorganization 

message: Can someone write up what wind developers meann by "Class 6", etc. wind areas? This would be useful. --Wtshymanski 15:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Classes of wind resources

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)
thread_title: World windpower map

message: There are now too many anecdotes in the Utilization/Large Scale section.  Is Germany producing 25% or 40% of the world's windpower?  This should all be ripped out and replaced by a table showing current windpower production by country, sorted by megawatt-hours per year, and the portion of that country's power produced thereby.
This would be a good place to say something about any infrastructure changes, if any, either Germany or Denmark has had to make to cope with generation variability.
Iain McClatchie 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Scale 

message: This sentence from (economics) seems to assert that wind requires subsidies in order to compete with traditional energy; however, 97% of subsidies have gone to nuclear energy, while gas and oil get huge subsides in many ways not least of which is the free-ride on the health effects of pollution. 
"* In order to compete with traditional sources of energy, wind power often receives financial incentives. In the United States, wind power receives a tax credit of 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour produced, with a year inflationary adjustment."
So I would propose perhaps changing it:
"Wind power requires far less government economic support than either fossil fuels or nuclear power, and for this reason is the fastest growing form of energy production available today." Benjamin Gatti 21:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Question 

message: Hey, I was interested in how a wind farm compared to land usage vs. strip mining for coal, so I tracked down some data and did the math.
Coal mining:
40,000,000 short tons of coal / 1 mile^2 (USGS data for Montana strip mining area)
1000 mw coal plant = 4 mst coal / year (US DOE)
plant lifespan = 50 years
200 mst coal burned over lifetime
total stripmine area to produce coal = 5 miles^2
94 miles^2 = 1000mw wind plant coverage (AWEA)
only 5% of this is actually occupied by turbines (AWEA), or 4.7 miles^2
Thus the actual turbines for a 1000 mw wind farm would occupy less area than the strip mining required to run an equivalent coal plant for 50 years.  However, the additional "buffer" zone around the turbine would be 20x the strip mining.
Still, it seems pretty good, especially when you calculate the resources in transporting coal and the emissions.
I wasn't sure whether or not to put this in the actual article.
* Interesting figures. It should be noted that the typical expected life of a wind turbine is 20 years (although if a facility proves viable the turbines would be upgraded after that). Also, AWEA's insistence that only 5% of the area of a wind farm is actually "used" is like saying a 747 only occupies only a few square feet of ground space (where its wheels sit). A wind turbine needs clearance around it and its visual and noise or vibrational impact are obviously widespread -- especially when they are erected on prominent ridgelines. Kerberos 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wind Power Land Usage