Should We Harvest a Natural Resource - Wind Power?

In today's economy, with increasing use of electricity and natural resources, the possibility of a low-cost, inexhaustible and dependable energy source is seen by consumers as a breath of fresh air in a stale environment. That's where wind power cost comes in. According to the Department of Energy, contemporary wind power turbines can convert winds in most U. S. states and coastal waters into certain, clean electricity. While wind today supplies only a small percentage of our national electricity demands, it is a tremendous energy resource and is the fastest-growing energy supply technology available.
There are solutions to the worlds power problems that can be simply employed and evolved to their fullest and most efficient for future use. Solar power is beginning to make excellent headway in technology and application as are other alternative renewable energy solutions. One of these choices is wind power turbine energy, a source of uninterrupted clean energy that is actually making great advancement in cutting coal power demand where it is being utilized. The only negative here is the 24 hour need for wind flow.
The basics of electricity production through wind farms is pretty simple. Highly efficient wind power turbines are situated in positions where they will receive the maximum amount of wind energy. Regardless, the wind turns the blades as it passes, which turns a generator within the wind power turbine. The turning motion converts the wind energy into electricity when the generator cranks, and this power is then fed into a utility company power grid.
A wind power turbine used for making electrical energy is not all that difficult a thing to handle. It is very much like the water wheels that past generations used to grind their grain to produce flour. The only difference is that instead of using water to turn the water wheel wind power is used. The wind makes the blades of the wheel turn which; with the help of some gears, magnets and resistance creates electricity. As the speed of the wind turning the wind power turbines increases the amount of power the turbine produces increases as well. Unfortunately, at this point the energy generated from the wind power turbine is difficult to store in batteries, so there is a need for back-up systems but, for the most part, it is a fairly efficient system.
Location.
Wind energy is the fastest growing source of power of any of the inexhaustible energy sources and technologies. In areas where winds are strong, inexhaustible wind power cost is low and therefore is a smart choice for providing residential wind power to homes and businesses. The point about not being able to store the generated energy in batteries for later use puts quite a bit of emphasis on where the wind power turbines are situated. Since the energy that is generated demands to be input into the power grid and used right away, the turbines need to be based in a place where the wind is always blowing and wind power costs will be low. One might think, well that shouldn't be that difficult. The turbine needs to be situated where there is a constant and steady wind most of the time, but it also demands to be based in a place where quite a few wind power turbines can be located. The goal is to find locations where wind exists as frequently as possible to keep wind power costs low.
Put in realistic terms, ideal spots are in areas where ground variation occurs as wind is produced when different surface areas heat up at different rates. As each surface heats up, the air rises and cooler air rushed in to replace it. Thus, we have wind. Given this situation, ideal positions for wind power turbines are often along shorelines or in valleys funneling winds from the shore.
The current issue is that one turbine generates quite a bit of energy, but not enough energy to make wind power cost acceptable. A considerable number of wind powered turbines need to be in place to make this happen. There are many places around the world where this is possible, but the overall concept is regional in nature. In other words, the power made in an area, stays in that area to some degree. This is not generally a bad thing since the area gets some benefit as an offset to the trouble of hosting the turbines and putting up with endless wind. Localities can derive a nice chunk of their power from the wind powered turbines which diminish the need to use coal ,oil or gas power as in other places.
On an individual basis, even if you don't live in a windy area, you can still supplement your current electricity supply by employing inexhaustible wind energy. The best part is by using do-it-yourself guides; even the least skilled handymen can build their own windmills and start using inexhaustible wind energy to lower their electricity bills each month. However, if you do live in an especially windy area you can feasibly generate an abundance of electricity from renewable wind energy systems.
Smaller wind systems are being used to generate on-site power and provide additional power to local utilities, and the market is expanding at over 20 percent annually. However, wind powered turbines represents more than just competitive electricity. It offers: rural economic profits from project development; a hedge against changeable natural gas prices and planned use of imported liquid natural gas; cost-effective clean air compliance option for businesses and communities; strong future partner for other domestic power industries including coal and nuclear; and an inexhaustible option for producing hydrogen for transportation fuels. Wind energy is a homegrown energy source that can contribute to national energy security by shrinking a countries dependence on oil and natural gas, most of which are imported from other countries. In addition, unlike most other electricity sources, wind power turbines don't consume water.
Construct It But Not Near Me
The unique problem of people not desiring to look up at or listen to wind power turbines all day every day has become a bit of an issue. Where the issue is likely to be decided is in more urban areas where the use of wind turbines is just commencing to creep in. As vocal suburbanites hear about suggested turbine wind farms, they all-of-a-sudden decide they are fine with wind power cost but don't want to look at multiple turbines within their sight on a mountain top, coastal shoreline or in their virtual back yard.
People may become vocal about not desiring to see or hear wind power turbines on a daily basis, but they need to picture that alternative power sources are here to stay. They had better think hard about their needs and how they are going to come to terms with the issue on a personal basis. Power up with solar, wind, water or nuclear because preferring a source sooner rather than later may be the best way to go. It is definitely worthwhile to learn more about inexhaustible wind power costs. By building your own wind powered turbines you can add needed dollars to your pocket and help the environment at the same time. Inexhaustible wind energy. Free power from the wind. The future for our planet and our economy.

Noel is an experienced economist, with an interest in renewable and solar energy and the environment He contributes regular articles to the popular Blog. Home Solar System Guide.Com [http://homesolarsystemguide.com]

 

Hurricane Wind Power and Presto Wind are not affiliated

A note to  our consumers "Hurricane Wind Power" and "Presto Wind" have no  affiliation. No connection should be implied or assumed.

http://www.ziki.com/en/hurricanewindpower+429725

Political Tide Turning Against Large Scale Wind Power ?

he wind energy industry has been having a hard time. The taxpayer funding that has kept it alive for the last twenty years is coming to an end, and those promoting the industry are panicking.

Perhaps this current wave started when one of wind energy’s most noted supporters, T. Boone Pickens, “Mr. Wind,” in an April 12 interview on MSNBC said, “I’m in the wind business…I lost my ass in the business.”

The industry’s fortunes didn’t get any better when on May 4, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) wrote an editorial titled, “Gouged by the wind”, in which they stated: “With natural gases not far from $2 per million BTU, the competitiveness of wind power is highly suspect.” Citing a study on renewable energy mandates, the WSJ says: “The states with mandates paid 31.9% more for electricity than states without them.”

Then, last week the Financial Times did a comprehensive story: “US Renewables boom could turn into a bust” in which they predict the “enthusiasm for renewables” … “could fizzle out.” The article says: “US industry is stalling and may be about to go into reverse. …Governments all over the world have been curbing support for renewable energy.”

Michael Liebreich of the research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance says: “With a financially stressed electorate, it’s really hard to go to them and say: ‘Gas is cheap, but we’ve decided to build wind farms for no good reason that we can articulate.’” Christopher Blansett, who is a top analyst in the alternative-energy sector in the Best on the Street survey, says, “People want cheap energy. They don't necessarily want clean energy.”

It all boils down to a production tax credit (PTC) that is set to expire at the end 2012. Four attempts to get it extended have already been beaten back so far this year—and we are only in the fifth month. The Financial Times reports: “Time-limited subsidy programmes…face an uphill battle. The biggest to expire this year is the production tax credit for onshore wind power, the most important factor behind the fourfold expansion of US wind generation since 2006. Recent attempts in Congress to extend it have failed.”

According to the WSJ, “The industry is launching into a lobbying blitz.” The “2012 Strategy” from the American Wind Energy Association includes:

• “To maximize WindPAC’s in?uence, WindPAC will increase the number of fundraisers we hold for Members of Congress.”


• “Continue the Iowa caucus program to ensure the successful implanting of a pro-wind message into the Republican presidential primary campaign.”


• “Respond quickly to unfavorable articles by posting comments online, using the AWEA blog and twitter, and putting out press releases.”


• “Continue to advocate for long term extension of PTC and ITC option for offshore wind.”


• “AWEA requested a funding level of $144.2 million for FY 2012 for the Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Program, an increase of $17.3 million above the President’s Congressional budget request.”

A wind turbine manufacturer quoted in the Financial Times article says, “If the PTC just disappears, then the industry will collapse.” Regarding United Technologies plans to sell its wind turbine business, chief financial officer Greg Hayes admitted: “We all make mistakes.”

Despite twenty years of taxpayer funding, according to the Financial Times, “Most of these technologies are unable to stand on their own commercially, particularly in competition with a resurgent natural gas industry that has created a supply glut and driven prices to 10-year lows.” The WSJ opines: “the tax subsidy has sustained the industry on a scale that wouldn’t have been possible if they had to follow the same rules as everyone else.” A level playing field would mean that wind developers would lose the exemptions from environmental and economic laws.

It is the fear of having to play by “the same rules as everyone else”—like the free market does— that must have propelled the anti-fossil fuel Checks and Balances Project to dig deep to unearth a “confidential” document. The brainstorming document was designed to trigger conversation during an initial meeting of grassroots folks with a common goal—the document’s author didn’t even join us and his ideas received little attention. The meeting was February 1 and 2. I was there. But suddenly, on May 8, our little meeting is in the news.

Many of us who were at the meeting received calls from a variety of publications including The National Journal, The Washington Times and Bloomberg News—none of whom ran with the story (after talking to a number of us, the Bloomberg reporter concluded “I don't think we're writing a story about this”)—and The Guardian who did. The Guardian story was picked up and expanded on in Environment & Energy (the reporter did talk to several of us), HuffPost, Tree Hugger, Think Progress’ Climate Progress, and others. (Note: Climate Progress and Tree Hugger remove any comment in opposition to wind energy as soon as it is posted.) From there, some form of the story is all over the Internet.

The wind energy industry panic explains the sudden interest, but why our little group?

Washington Examiner columnist, Timothy Carney, provides the answer: “AWEA plans ‘continued deployment of opposition research through third parties to cause critics to have to respond,’ the battle plan states. In other words: When people attack AWEA's subsidies, AWEA might feed an unflattering story on that person to some ideological or partisan media outlet or activist group.” We are the people who have attacked the subsidies and AWEA has, through a “third party” fed “an unflattering story” to a “partisan media outlet.” Our collaborative actions have helped block the PTC extension efforts.

A common thread in the news stories is that we are really an oil-and-gas funded entity. They’ve tied us to the Koch Brothers. We all wish. Apparently they can’t believe that individuals and local groups can think for themselves and impact public policy without a puppet master telling us what to do and say.

In fact, the group has no funding. As we began to email back and forth over the sudden reporter interest, one meeting attendee quipped: “My trip was funded, in part, by MY brother, Paul, who donated frequent flyer miles for my trip. I can assure you that my brother is not part of the Koch family. I paid for the rest of the trip out of my own pocket.” Yet, the reporters seemed determined to find a funding link. I told the Bloomberg reporter that we each paid our own way, that the meeting was held in a budget hotel outside of DC (unlike the AWEA meeting held at the prestigious La Costa Resort & Spa in Carlsbad, CA), and that we each had to pay for our own transportation, food, and lodging. My comments never made it into print. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the executive director of companion organizations that do receive funding from oil and gas companies and individual donors. But I, like the others, was invited as an individual, not as a member of any organization.

Additionally, we are not even a formal group. We met to consider forming a group. The “leaked” memo, addresses finding a group that might absorb us, affiliate with us, or align with us.

Attendees brought their individual issues, observations, and successes. Each had valid insights to contribute. Some viewed health impacts as the most important ammunition. Others, economics. Some, setbacks or bird deaths or land use. Others, including the meeting’s organizer, John Droz, believe that the science—or lack thereof, is the best weapon. There are so many reasons to oppose wind that come down to government use of taxpayer money to support something that raises electricity prices based on the failed concept of man-made global warming. As a result of the meeting, we now know we are not alone, and we can call on one another for insight and advice.

We owe a debt of gratitude to Gabe Elsner, a co-director of the Checks and Balances Project. Without his discovery and subsequent exposure of the “document,” we’d still be just loosely affiliated individuals and small citizens’ groups. The attack has emboldened us and helped others find us! A representative from the Blue Mountain Alliance sent Droz an email stating: “I probably need to send them a thank you note for leading me to you and your efforts.”

After the murmurings became known, one of the meeting attendees, Paul Driessen, wrote a detailed and data-filled column, “Why we need to terminate Big Wind subsidies,” which has garnered more than 700 Facebook “likes” on Townhall.com. (To give perspective, I am pleased if I get 50 “likes.” Each “like” generally represents thousands of readers.) In just a few days, his column is all over the Internet.

Wind energy has more opposition than most people realize, and Elsner, who has served as the “third party” in the AWEA strategy, has allowed us to find one another. While a few attendees at the DC meeting were concerned about all the publicity, attorney Brad Tupi, who has represented citizens victimized by wind energy projects, responded: “I would plead guilty to participating in a meeting of concerned citizens opposed to wasteful, unproven, inefficient wind energy. I would agree that we are interested in coordinating with other reputable organizations, and I personally would be honored to work with Heartland Institute and others.”

If you do not support industrial, tax-payer-funded, wind-energy projects that are promoted based on ideology and emotion rather than facts and sound science, you can benefit from our affiliation. Droz has a wonderful presentation full of helpful information. A few of the websites from the meeting attendees include: Illinois Wind Watch, Coalition for Sensible Siting, Energy Integrity Project, and Citizen Power Alliance.

The lesson to be learned from the attack on these hard-working citizens is that the little people can make a difference! We’ve got the subsidy-seeking, wind-energy supporters running scared—along with the crony capitalism that accompanies them. Remember, “If the PTC just disappears”—meaning if we do not keep giving them taxpayer dollars—“then the industry will collapse.” Your phone call or email to a Senator or Congressman, such as Steve King or Dave Reichert who recently came out in support of the PTC, can make a difference. Tell them, as the WSJ said, “If the party is serious about tax reform…it will vote to take wind power off the taxpayer dole.”

It is time for the AWEA and the politicians who support the PTC to explain why higher electricity costs, human health impacts, substantial loss of property values in rural communities, dead bats and birds, and increased national debt are good for America and her taxpayers!

Trying to kill renewables?

Part of Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign focuses on slowing global climate change through clean energy support.
At a time when the climate is expected to rise more than 2ºC this century, renewable energy is getting a fair share of attention in the hopes of combating that change.
But several conservative organizations, including the think tank American Tradition Institute (ATI) are starting a war on renewable energy.
They call themselves “wind warriors.”  And at a Washington DC convention last year, they discussed a proposal to combat the campaign for solar and wind power.
Senior ATI fellow John Droz Jr. claims to have organized the proposal and convention on his own, though Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have been involved in fighting the energy campaign as well, and the groups could be working together.
Peter Kelley of the American Wind Energy Association believes it is a cooperative effort:

“We do see evidence of co-ordination.  The same rhetoric pops up all over the place.  Things that are disproven, that are demonstrably untrue, continually get repeated.”

The groups have acted in buying up billboards to post anti-wind messages, looking to spend as much as $6 million on advertising, and they want to overturn renewable energy requirements at utilities.
They’ve spread word that the technology, particularly for wind energy, is not yet viable.  Many of the groups, coincidentally, are tied to fossil fuel companies.
But is it really a matter of the climate issues, or is it the presidential race? Kert Davies of Greenpeace thinks it’s mainly against Obama:

“They are going back to the states to create the space for an anti-Obama, anti-green energy thing.  It is really a political attack.  What the right wing wants to perpetuate is that this is a type of energy that never works and requires massive government handouts.”

It really comes down to cost and what we are able to use.  Marita Noon, who attended the DC conference, thinks that “to use more and pay less” is “the American way.”  That’s how it should be, and that’s what she’s fighting for.
But that’s what’s hurting the climate in the first place and what renewable energy companies are fighting against.

https://secure.caplinked.com/company/hurricane-wind-power

http://about.me/hurricanewindpower