P.S. I just checked, and Douglas Dam has a rated capacity of 165,600 kilowatts. If my arithmetic is not mistaken, at 100MW per 100 wind turbines, that equals about 165 wind turbines*. How many acres of land would 165 wind turbines take up v. Douglas Reservoir?

(*It is late, and I'm tired from driving all day, so I could be confused.)

Plenty of other people have concerns about windmills.

(link...)

(link...)

Windmills can cause significant noise pollution. There are claims the noise level can be a irritant for a mile or two away. Sometimes MIMBY makes sense.

(link...)

(link...)

MIMBY=NIMBY

Neal, Folks,
I recently moved to Kansas, not that far from the Wind Farm you saw. I have relatives (by marrige; my brother's in-laws) that have property that is part of this. They were in danger of losing that land a while back. Now thaty are set for the rest of their lives.
On a recent trip to Manhattan, KS, I took some pix of this wind farm, but yours, Neal, are much better :-)

Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!

SteveMule

If coal prices continue to rise as they have been, wind power will be a more viable alternative.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

How many acres of land would 165 wind turbines take up v. Douglas Reservoir?

Don't know. Can't wait to tie my boat up to a wind mill though. Maybe the crappie are biting between turbine 121 and 128.

Aren't there some serious moving parts on these wind mills that require frequent OILING?

Aren't there some serious moving parts on these wind mills that require frequent OILING?

It's almost negligible, smartass. And yes, to get to them, service personnel even have to drive trucks that burn oil!

Watch out, apparently they explode:
(link...)

I think the solution to varying power is to design power outlets that can be turned on by remote control. That way a cusomer with an electric vehicle could get a break on electricity that is used when KUB or whatever power supplier has excess capacity. Once such a device were invented, it would be easy to retrofit water heaters so that the upper element functions as usual and the lower element is fed by "surplus" power.

____________________________________
"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse."

I must confess I can see how it might be a real issue. We stumbled on our first view of operational wind turbines near Kentland, in western Indiana, back in April.

They do generate a distinct, almost sub-audible, visceral thump...thump...thump, sort of like slow-motion helicopter blades, that could conceivably get old after a while if you had to live with it 24 hours a day.

Truly, truly Great Pictures (you should offer them to KS tourism board) & thanks for noticing KS on your way thru. So many just ignore the "bread basket" of the US or make disparaging comments.
Truth is, KS is not a fabulous place to visit, unless you know people here. But it is a great place to live, to rear and/or have family. Most of our "treasures" are hidden away on secondery & dirt roads.
The wind has powered KS for over a century. First to drive water wells, then to provide rudimentary electricity (generators & batteries) before Rural Electrification Assoc. came into being in the 1930s.
These new monsters utilize a renewable natural resource and require subsidies... to off-set the many existing & pre-existing subsidies provided to oil, NG & coal - and their purveyors, Public/Regulated Utilities.
Modern wind generators are much more efficient supplemental providers that require little maintenance (sealed bearings, central computer controls, and extremely durable construction, e.g. - they're expensive).
I live within 40 miles of your photo location and would welcome them into my backyard any day. There is sound, but it's much like the relatively constant wind itself ...and immeasurably more pleasant than traffic or the neighbors' air conditioners.
Thanks again, and stop back by KS whenever you're on the move. We try hard to be friendly and helpful to all foregners.
Mike

What is the name of the wind farm in question? That is one big project.

I believe it is about 30 miles west of Salida, correct?

As one of many conservatives who also happen to be very much interested in green energy, I was put off by this blog entry's statement "Of course, Republicans in Kansas are opposed to [wind turbines]." This kind of rhetoric is very divisive, even from a "by liberals for liberals" blogger (is that where you're coming from?).

Building coalitions has always been the only effective way to instigate lasting, speedy change--even more so now. If green supporters ever hope to gain consensus from opposition, our collective mindset will have to change from one of "us versus them" to "we're working together to achieve environmentally sustainable, economically sound and globally independent energy policy."

Throwing rocks in the form of broad characterizations and negative assumptions only sets us all back.

I think most folks would agree that the Republican record of the last eight years on energy policy pretty much speaks for itself.

As for "divisive rhetoric," hey, I was just quoting the Republican in Kansas. Did you read his press release?

At any rate, environmentalists and others interested in sustainable energy policies welcome any support from anyone any time, anywhere they can get it.

The last time I checked, windmills do not cause cancer. They might cause global cooling by slowing down the wind. As for bird killin', perhaps we could install bird whistles along each blade (like deer whistles). Oh no, then there would be more noise about which someone would complain. But seriously, how can one complain about a freakin' windmill? It is a less-destructive form of energy than even hydro. Unless, perhaps, you try to project all of the forms of air transportation that will crash into the towers over the next 1000 years. Please, zero-point energy, save us from these irrational activists to whom everything is either too much or too little--but nothing is ever just right.

Don't think this energy is free, don't assume this is even near less expensive than burning coal. Funny how we see something new and think there is the answer, why isn't this everywhere? There is no free in energy.
These are one of the most riskiest jobs on the earth to put up and repair. Actually an AE episode on the worlds toughest fixes were on these windmills and the crews that put them up and repair them. Very, very expensive and risky.
One windmill takes two of the largest crane's built to put the fan blade up. About four men (that are usually near daredevils) are inside the tube and bolt this down. Now, the transformer that is behind the prop does not last forever, they need to be replaced on a regular basis, does not last for the rest of our lives. Where does all that magnetic energy an engine's go (your local recycle bin?). No, you have a large piece of crap that is dangerous and toxic material. You want to talk about an expensive fix, with almost the highest fatality jobs? One gust of wind over 25mph can cause the prop to shift and take bodies and split them in two like breaking a toothpick.
The cost to operate is not cheap, don't think you just put one of these up and you have free energy (which most tree huggers think).
Just like the electric car, there is coal burnt to feed that electricity when that baby is plugged in all night.
Oh, you say Prius, we should all drive those? That nickel battery is one of the most toxic that is known (actually made by panasonic). A Camry from birth to death leaves less a carbon footprint.
The nickel battery is made in Canada, shipped to Japan, then shipped back to the U.S. for sale in your prius. Very expensive to dispose of, and now we have over 1 million of them on the road. Leakage from an accident, your toast! One study had a Hummer H2 with less a total carbon footprint, I think that may be a stretch. Best bet is a cheap Kia or Honda Fit or Chevy Aveo. Just cause it's innovative, doesn't make it less expensive. Dust to Dust for a Prius is way more pollution to our big Rock than a Scion, little Chevy, or Kia. But, we just like to look cool and progressive, like all the hollywood stars (with no better than a high school education) driving up making their "cool" statement how we should live. Then they hop on their jet to go watch the Indy 500. Don't listen to politicians, listen to engineer's!
One has to look at the total equation, that not too many people but engineers really know the truth. A lot of emotional propaganda. Every goes after Hummer H2, only 150,00 have been sold in the last 9 years. 4 Million Land Rovers, what do think is going to leave more pollution? Alternative, yes, actually saving energy and being more efficient for the globe, not even close. Jobs for 400 Americans at American General (not GM) in Indiana, yes. All the trucks, cranes, workers cars and gas that is spent maintaining this field make the difference not too great. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no free energy tree huggers, look at everything involved, these things do not grow out of the fields of Kansas. I will say they are cool looking though, or maybe the first 300 miles west in Kansas brought me to near death for scenery that anything is a wellcome site. This type of engineering is not my field, I am old and retired, but I can tell you this from doing some simple math on a cafe napkin, A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They (OBAMACITES) claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons/year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $375 million dollars at $75/bbl. So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $375 million. Too bad those old cars could not have gone to some poor people to get to a job instead of destroying them. Tour China, South America, we are 5% of the globe, their standards for pollution are zero, China still uses Benzyne.
How good a deal was that cash for clunker? Wait until they serve as your healthcare provider.

(link...)

You're nuts.

Yeah, the wind industry doesn't know what it's doing. Only you and the good people at that Oregon denier website know this stuff.

BTW, Tom Tomorrow wrote a cartoon about you. I don't who the part of Goofus is based on, but I'm envious.

I'm all for wind power. I didn't know you were, given all your disparagement of it. And I'm all for small, local grid producers. Even if these are all they are advertised to be and more, though, you're way out of your league (nothing new there) making blanket statements (who? you?) on the scalability of these types of designs. Why don't you convince the utilities and your friends at GE that they're idiots for using their old designs? I guess they don't want to change because they're in bed with Obama or something.

Good luck in your efforts to advance wind technology. I'm behind ya' on this!

Let me get this straight. So GE invented the conventional HAWT, and they'd really love to use the superior VAWT design but these little home kit market startups have ex post facto cornered the VAWT market. And all the other HAWT mfrs like Vestas can't get a leg up on GE because they are locked into the same deal with the devil (or Obama--but same thing, right?).

I happen to be an engineer, but that doesn't make me a wind turbine expert. Why do you think those three fields qualify anyone to be an automatic expert on anything?

I take it you would be the accountant, always the smartest.

I guaran-damn-tee you that if VAWTs were more efficient and cost effective at producing power (cents/kW) in large scale installations, they would be used. What is your point anyway? Certainly every technology can be improved upon. Should we bitterly oppose anything until it's absolutely perfect? How efficient is a gasoline ICE? (Not damn very.) Should we abandon cars until they're 100% efficient? I certainly don't like the risks to wildlife, for example, with HWATs, but on balance they're MUCH easier on the planet than burning fossil fuels and they're cost effective. I'm for them.

What is YOUR profession and are you for wind power in its present, proven HAWT form? Your turn to lay it on the line.

(link...)

They can throw a blade a mile away. Does that sound safe to you, engineer?

(link...)

Still sold on the old design? Isn't what you really are saying is it is fine for the people of Kansas to suffer for your green guilt?

Poor return on investment. Best quote, "Wind Power runs on taxes".

(link...)

OK, you're against wind power, obviously preferring the risks of oil refinery blasts, mountain removal watershed destruction, constant air pollution, ash storage floods, and the like.

Now answer the other part of the question: What is YOUR profession?

Answer the question: What is YOUR profession?

P.S. There are easy answers to your last post, but they await a response that goes to the heart of your credibility.

Nine: What is YOUR profession?

I just drove from Oklahoma to Washington a few weeks ago and while on I-35 going north toward Wichita I saw hundreds of these windmills, is that the interstate these were taking from? I wanted to google them when I got home to see what the deal was and I found my way here. Great pictures!!

Sir I think you have demonstrated the truth behind the low information voter bit that Rush Limbaugh is always touting.

Wind turbines cannot replace coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants and here is why.

Wind turbines can only operate at a 25% efficiency, sometimes the wind is too calm to generate power and sometimes it is too strong to operate turbines safely, on those days power generation is zero and would require supplementation. Make sense?

A wind turbine requires 7 to 15 blade diameters separation between other turbines requiring huge expanse of land. In fact an 1154 MW Nuclear Power plant requires about 56 acres of land. To generate that kind of power with 2 MW wind turbines it would require 2077 of them. I don't think that is attainable considering that land is needed for farms, homes, industry and they're ugly.

Either way wind is a good supplement to our power needs and could help curb the waste produced by coal, natural gas, and nuclear but it cannot replace it entirely.

Low information voter? I think so.

The Island of El Hierro, population slightly more than 10,000, has announced its upcoming total energy independence through its use of wind power.

There are studies that outline how wind power along with other non-fossil fuel technologies, including hydroelectric but not including nuclear, can completely replace fossil fuel sources of energy. Look up "wind water and sun." Yes, there would be a lot of turbines, but there is plenty of land in this country to build wind turbines that would produce 10,000GW of power at 30% capacity (which is what I believe you are erroneously referring to as efficiency). That's roughly 10,000 nuke plants. You can find these things out at easy to google places like this one.

Incidentally, LAMAR wants to build 1000 nuclear plants. How do you think that would fly, at something like $20 billion each, and in virtually everybody's backyard?

Then you say wind turbines are "ugly." Really? Is that the best you can do? I, along with many people, believe they're attractive and certainly no more ugly then nuclear plants, and far more attractive than any fossil fuel plant.

As to the large number needed, I would echo Reagan's famous line: "Let's get busy."

I suspect you are just a common troll.