Wind Energy is Growing Fast
Posted on
Wind is the fastest growing energy source in the world. Here in the US wind farms have popped up in more than 30 states, producing enough energy to power an estimated 2.5 million homes a day. Thanks to growing concerns over natural gas prices, a desire for energy independence and incentives for renewable energy production, it's expected this trend will continue. Interviews with Eric Silagy, FPL Energy and Mike Revak, Siemens Power Generation. Footage of Horse Hollow wind farm. www.powergeneration.siemens.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5
DIY Energy
![](<a href="http://bondy07.solardiy.hop.clickbank.net"> <img src="http://greendiyenergy.com/affiliates/images/house-120x600.gif"> </a> "wind2")
January 13th, 2012 - 22:48
The worlds largest market for renewables today is Germany, and the Germans have just decided to become 100% self-sufficient with renewables by 2050.
Latest studies have shown that it is possible.
January 13th, 2012 - 23:44
@scbrah That is a ridiculous statement and it was also used for those plants that were built in the past to make nuclear power more palatable. It wasn’t true then and it will not hold true in the future. It is based on man being inherently honest, but that fallacy is of epidemic proportions. Lobbying (bribing) Congress and the safety departments by greedy companies will always be a factor.
Of the 440+ reactors, 90 are in seismically unstable areas. 23 MOX reactors in America alone on faultlines
January 14th, 2012 - 00:14
@scbrah I would be interested in seeing your statistics, can you please send me a link. My notes state that the USA produces 41 GW of air energy per year (3rd in the world – even above Denmark and Spain which have a huge national wind energy production – Denmark at 20%) – California produces the 3rd most in the US at 3 GW. Please send your sources.
January 14th, 2012 - 00:54
@scbrah Yes, I am fully aware of what biodiversity means. It is, according to the Websters Dictionary – “Diversity among and withinplant and animal species in an environment – key word here “environment” – not world. And no, it has nothing to do with a species being extinc – if a hgabitat cannot support a species, the the species will either emigrate or die off in the area. The does not mean that a species will die off all over the world which is what “extinct” assumes.
January 14th, 2012 - 01:18
@9914tricky Benthic sediment buildup will only cause ecological damage in front of the dam. And “reduces aquatic biodiversity”? are you suggesting that animals will go extinct because of sediment buildup in front of 1 dam? or do you just not know what “biodiversity” means? and also there are alternative options that the chinese government could take to support shangahis sedimentary plain. i.e. artificial sediment, rip rap etc…
January 14th, 2012 - 02:07
@9914tricky no. the statistic is based on overall “clean”energy, biodeisel and fossil fuels not included
January 14th, 2012 - 02:14
@scbrah (part 3, dam) The city of Shanghai, more than 1,000 miles (1,600 km) away, rests on a massive sedimentary plain. The “arriving silt strengthens the bed on which Shanghai is built… the less the tonnage of arriving sediment the more vulnerable is this biggest of Chinese cities to inundation…
Benthic sediment buildup causes biological damage and reduces aquatic biodiversity.
January 14th, 2012 - 02:32
@scbrah (part 2 to post on dam) Because the flow is slower above the dam, much of this sediment will now settle there instead of flowing downstream, and there will be less sediment downstream.The absence of silt downstream has three effects: Some hydrologists expect downstream riverbanks to become more vulnerable to flooding.
January 14th, 2012 - 02:39
@scbrah Like wind energy, all other forms have their donwsides too. While it is true the Yangtze river dam is very efficient, it is causing massive ecological problems, far more severe than bird deaths: Two hazards are uniquely identified with the dam. One is that sedimentation projections are not agreed upon, and the other is that the dam sits on a seismic fault.
January 14th, 2012 - 02:46
@scbrah Turbines operate, on average at about 30% – 40% efficiency. LIke anything else, they are becoming more efficient with technological innovations. Threefold hydroelectric dams operate at about 50%, and hoover dam (due to its size) operates at about 80% (due to innovation). Fish canals may be present, but there are still copious amounts of silt congested in dams… WIth this silt build up it will clog the dam which will still kill vast amounts of marine life in the long run.
January 14th, 2012 - 03:45
@scbrah Again, the 2% efficiency statistic you gave is based off the ratio of wind to other sources in California. Proportionally, there may be 98% combined solar, nuclear, and fossil fuels energy that overshadow wind energy, which would not be surprising. I do not live in California, but I have researched the issue, and there are only 3 notable windfarms in all of California. Considering California is by far the largest state in the U.S, 3 windfarms is rather small, even for 20.000 turbines.
January 14th, 2012 - 04:00
@9914tricky While nuclear power plants have melted down in the past, with the future technology and safety precautions, they will certainly happen less frequently. According to you, only 2 or 3 reactors have melted down, out of a total of 442 worldwide. The chances that a reactor will meltdown is very low, and will be getting lower in the future.
January 14th, 2012 - 04:43
@9914tricky In the Yangtze river, home to the three gorges dam, a rivulet was created on the side of the dam to allow fish to continue with their natural behavior/migration. It was very successful, and while at first the fish populations decreased, they have been making a remarkable comeback, so if the dam constructors take the right precausions, they can be very eco-friendly. Hydro power is also very efficient. The three gorges dam produces the same amount of power as 14 nuclear power plants
January 14th, 2012 - 04:49
@9914tricky I dont know if you actully live in California or not, but I do. Driving from San Fransisco south to Death Valley, I passed 2 of the 3 major ares where wind energy is produced (Altamot pass, Tehachapi). The entire mountain ranges have been completely renovated and dominated by wind turbines. There are well over 20,000 wind turbines in california, yet only 1.5% of the total energy in California was produced by wind. They are not efficient if you look at the amount of room they take up,
January 14th, 2012 - 05:15
@scbrah In your argument about California – only 2% is produced becuase there is an imensely small proportion of wind power sources as compared to alternates… However, the US Department of Energy is estimating that by 2030 (so in 20 years) over 20% of the US’s energy will depend solely on wind energy; making it perceivably increadibly efficient.
January 14th, 2012 - 05:53
@scbrah Research will actually show that wind turbines are increadibly efficient. They are economically cheap in the long run. The only reason it is considered expensive today is becuase they cost money to install (like anything else) while other forms of energy already have a sound infrastructure. Once a turbine is in place, it basically runs itself with very low maintainance costs. Also, the source of energy in this case is constant and free unlike uranium needed in nuclear plants, or oil
January 14th, 2012 - 06:45
@scbrah Also, look at the environmental issues presented in hydro and nuclear energy. By placing a dam in a river, you are effectively altering the river flow and ecosystem. This has resulted in tramendous deaths of fish and aquaatic plants…. WIth nuclear energy, just look at the trajedy happening in Japan, and Chernobyl. An entire massive area of Russia is under severe amounts of radiation even today!
January 14th, 2012 - 06:55
@scbrah I think it does matter. The argument you present (avian life) is based over two different time time periods. Back when cars were invented there could have been people advocating for avian life due to traffic deaths…. Same with skyscrapers – cars could move slower, buildings could be flatter and wider; but they are not because they would be too inefficient. If wind turbines had been common for centuries like cars and skyscrapers, then would you have the same argument?
January 14th, 2012 - 07:19
@9914tricky Also, Wind energy is incredibly innefficient. Only 2% of Californias renewable energy is made by wind energy, While it costs by far the most, takes up most space, and is also in my opinion the ugliest. The fact that birds die because of it is icing on the cake
January 14th, 2012 - 08:01
@9914tricky The fact that the amount of birds being killed by wind turbines doesnt even come close to the amount of other human activities doesnt matter. Birds re still dieing. Do you have a solution to solve bird deaths becuse of traffic, or skyscrapers, or power lines that are cost efficient? No. But wind energy does have alternate solutions. Use solar, hydro, nuclear or any other type of “renewable” energy.
January 14th, 2012 - 08:29
@9914tricky Noise readings may seem low, but the low frequency of the sound waves are felt within a person, not heard by them. “Wind Turbine Syndrome” is a condition frequently complained about by those living near wind turbines. People have reported headaches, nausia, and many other symptoms due to the CONSTANT noise, so the information that says wind turbines are quiet is corrupt.
January 14th, 2012 - 09:01
@scbrah also, the noise argument you bring up is also arguable… For example, in December 2006, a Texas jury denied a noise pollution suit against FPL Energy, after the company demonstrated that noise readings were not excessive. The highest reading was 44 decibels, which was characterized as about the same level as a 10 mile/hour (16 km/hr) wind
January 14th, 2012 - 09:07
@scbrah I don’t agree with your argument that wind energy is a bad idea simply due to avian death. Studies show that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is negligible compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities such as traffic, hunting, power lines and high-rise buildings and especially the environmental impacts of using non-clean power sources.
January 14th, 2012 - 09:23
Wind energ is a bad idea. Its all about solar and hydro energy. Windmills have been responsible to hundreds of thousands of bird deaths each year. The guy saying that they have little environmental impact is lying. Also, each time a trubine spins around, in causes a low-frequency sound as it reaches top speed. No one can live next to the windmills because the concussion from the sound makes it impossible for people to sleep. Thats why you dont see any houses near the windmills. Solar & Hydro.
January 14th, 2012 - 09:46
@Hb35Jazz YES ! GO DENMARK ! AND GO SPAIN ! IN SPAIN, 42% OF POWER IS FROM RENEWABLE ENERGY ! THE UNITED STATES IS ALL ABOUT $ $ $ ! THE OIL COMPANIES AND CAR COMPANIES LOVE HUSH MONEY…….THEY WILL BUY OUT THEIR OWN MOTHERS ! !
CRIMINAL BASTARDS ! ! ! PETROLEROS HIJOS DE LA GRAN PUTA ! ! !