On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:24:18 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Check out this leading sentence on their "learn about nuclear plants"
page (boo!) but then look at the next to last paragraph, where the NRC
says that 34 new nuke plants will have apps in by 2010! That's good
news. (Caution: this is a heavily biased, alarmist site)
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php...3&Item id=296

They have not announced what they propose to replace coal & nuclear
energy, so how can they be credible ?. Maybe if all the nuts do not
use any electricity or coal/oil derived products, then they could be
believed as being sincere. Even then, they still have not announced
any practical power replacement method.

We also have the idiots here in Oz, nuclear power is outlawed by the
Federal Govt. and all the nuts are whinging about pollution from coal
fired power plants and they also have no practical solution to the
problem.

Oz is the driest continent, yet millions of cubic metres of water
are going to waste in the north but a pipeline has been rejected and a
desalination plant built, using heaps of coal & gas fired energy to
produce water, with a second plant proposed.
Western Oz is so flat that a pipeline from the Ord river or similar
would be downhill just about all the way to Perth.

Alan

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:36:36 +0900, the infamous
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:24:18 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Check out this leading sentence on their "learn about nuclear plants"
page (boo!) but then look at the next to last paragraph, where the NRC
says that 34 new nuke plants will have apps in by 2010! That's good
news. (Caution: this is a heavily biased, alarmist site)
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php...3&Item id=296

They have not announced what they propose to replace coal & nuclear
energy, so how can they be credible ?. Maybe if all the nuts do not
use any electricity or coal/oil derived products, then they could be
believed as being sincere. Even then, they still have not announced
any practical power replacement method.

Unfortunately, these idiots don't have to be credible to abuse our
system.


We also have the idiots here in Oz, nuclear power is outlawed by the
Federal Govt. and all the nuts are whinging about pollution from coal
fired power plants and they also have no practical solution to the
problem.

Ah, your system, too? Condolences.


Oz is the driest continent, yet millions of cubic metres of water
are going to waste in the north but a pipeline has been rejected and a
desalination plant built, using heaps of coal & gas fired energy to
produce water, with a second plant proposed.

It's amazing how stupid civilizations can be, isn't it? sigh


Western Oz is so flat that a pipeline from the Ord river or similar
would be downhill just about all the way to Perth.

There are limits as to how much water you can safely suck out of the
rivers, but that discussion is for someone who knows WTF they're
talking about. I've merely heard of some bad news on the Colorado.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

John, that's why I posted both the ratings and the actual, annual outputs.
That's what the terawatt-hours numbers a actual annual output, in
Watt-hours. If you looked at the numbers you noticed that, contrary to what
you said, the actual Watt-hour output of the wind generators in the US is
2-1/2 times that of the PPL Susquehanna plant. If you didn't look at the
numbers, you're not getting it.

The annual energy output relative to the power rating for wind, and for
solar, are much lower than for a coal-fired plant or a nuke. But that isn't
what I was comparing with the TWh. Are we on the same page here?


The big problem with these altenate energy sources is that they are not
reliable and most times put out energy when its not needed. At one time
they were diverting the energy into big water pumping stations and
filling resivoirs at night and then using the elevated water to turn
water turbines during the day. Now the main backup systems run on
natural gas powered turbines because of their quick startup times.






I go buy some windmills about twice a week and they arent always turning.


I guess that means the wind isn't blowing, huh? g

The nuke plant is always putting steam out of its cooling towers. That
sucker nets about 1 million a day. I did a job a couple of months ago
that was going to a nuke plant in Florida.

That's not to say that wind power is going to replace nukes -- we need a
lot more nukes, IMO -- but, even now, with wind power still in its
infancy, it replaces 2-1/2 decent-sized nukes in the US. That's not a bad
thing.


There would have been windmills up a long time ago if they were
profitable.


They weren't profitable until fairly recently. Now, many of them are.


A little bailout money always helps. It looks like GE is the one that is
getting the bailout dollars.


"It looks like"? Does that mean you have actual data?


Nah, I let you look up all the data and get the numbers, and old
technique I was exposed to by some prof.




They are now in the process of building another plant so Ed can keep his
lights on in NJ.


I don't think we get any power from PPL. We do, however, have our own
nuke at Oyster Creek, which, my utility tells me, supplies 28% of my
power.

You better tell that to PPL since they are getting the permits and right
of ways to run a major power line into NJ. It is ****ing off a lot of
local people in the Poconos that are forced to grant easements to PPL.


The power isn't for NJ. I checked it out: it's running across NJ and into
the NYC grid.

PPL and PSE&G are part of the 13-state Eastern interconnection grid that
runs all the way out to Illinois. The connection to the NYC grid is one that
the DOE identified as a major congestion area in 2006. PPL wants to send
power to the grid but the butthead governments in the Poconos, and in 15
butthead towns in north Jersey, are blocking it.


Wheb Marcy soutn was built they cut up a lot of property in NY state. I
knew one guy that had his property cut in half for no good reason. That
line is as crooked as a voting district border.


This is what Wes, Larry, and I were talking about. Every pipsqueek town in
most states, with a town council of ignorant buttheads, can stop or
seriously delay a transmission line. As long as that goes on there is no way
the US can have an efficient electical network with long-distance
transmission. On top of the butthead towns, there are the butthead states.
g

The line should be run down an existing right of way like the center
median of an interstate or along a railroad track. I guess if they do
that though the politicans couldn't prebuy up the property and resell
it at a substantial profit like they did with the Delaware Tocks Island
national park or the PA turnpike extension.


Local government is stupid government, and the more local, the more stupid
they are. BTW, I knew the mayor of Berwick, which is the town closest to the
PPL nuke -- Lou Biachii. His big accomplishment was teaching the junior-high
football team how to chew tobacco. After that, he ran out of intellectual
steam. Lou could be the poster boy for stupid local government.


I wondered why all the people in Berwick chewed.


Now if Berwick didnt get a good piece of the action like the towns in
Jersey that have power plants in their town do, I coulc see why he would
oppose it. In PA the local towns dont get much tax benefit from the plant.



The thing I like about it is that you can catch fluke (summer flounder)
in their cooling stream until the end of October. And the crabs they grow
there...well...let's just say you wouldn't want to meet one in a dark
alley. d8-)

The proposed offshore wind farm in NJ is getting $19 million of state
money, which is a drop in the bucket. It's just over $2 per person in the
state. Its capacity will be 346 MW, which is more than 50% the size of
our Oyster Creek nuke. Not bad for a start.

The federal goverment has all types of tax incentives for wind farms. I
wonder how long the windmills will hold up in the sal****er enviorment and
gale coditions the frequently occur. Maintanece will be a big cost.


If you can come up with some specifics relating to the offshore systems
planned for NJ, and now for NY, we're all ears.


Here is an article that discusses the maintenance problems with wind
turbines. It seems that they are already having problems with the gear
boxes. They have not developed a failure history on the rest of the
elements. On the ocean all the problems of maintance are increased.


http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_art...ines-Spinning/


Maybe the fishing around the windmills in the ocean will be good. Fish
like to line up along the magnetic field the transmission lines will
generate. Maybe it gets them off. Just dont set your hook into one
of the lines.

John

Here is another tidbit on percent of use, output and
longevity.




http://www.alliantenergy.com/docs/gr...b/p015392.hcsp

20 year life cycle,


What is a typical capacity factor for a wind turbine?
Because the wind does not blow steadily all the time, a capacity factor
of 25 to 40 percent is not uncommon for a wind turbine. For the Cedar
Ridge site, capacity factor is estimated to be approximately 30 to 35
percent.


Does wind power cost more than power from a fossil-fuel power plant? Why?
Even though wind is free, wind power typically costs more than power
from a fossil-fuel power plant. The additional costs are in the
investment, construction, and maintenance of the wind turbines. read
boonedoggle.

John

I don't know how much energy is consumed manufacturing wind mills

The windmills being installed in Iowa and Minnesota;
$1 billion per 62 qty.
9-11 years payback
every 5 years a major overhaul.

I got this info from a nephew who works for the former NSP (northern
states power).

I don't know how this cost jives with any others, post in this thread.


On Jan 17, 7:01 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...



Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into
making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering how
long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind
corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology has
changed
drastically.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback in
6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,

wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:24:18 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Check out this leading sentence on their "learn about nuclear plants"
page (boo!) but then look at the next to last paragraph, where the NRC
says that 34 new nuke plants will have apps in by 2010! That's good
news. (Caution: this is a heavily biased, alarmist site)
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php...3&Item id=296


They have not announced what they propose to replace coal & nuclear
energy, so how can they be credible ?. Maybe if all the nuts do not
use any electricity or coal/oil derived products, then they could be
believed as being sincere. Even then, they still have not announced
any practical power replacement method.

We also have the idiots here in Oz, nuclear power is outlawed by the
Federal Govt. and all the nuts are whinging about pollution from coal
fired power plants and they also have no practical solution to the
problem.

Oz is the driest continent, yet millions of cubic metres of water
are going to waste in the north but a pipeline has been rejected and a
desalination plant built, using heaps of coal & gas fired energy to
produce water, with a second plant proposed.
Western Oz is so flat that a pipeline from the Ord river or similar
would be downhill just about all the way to Perth.

Alan


Thats what you get for hanging upside down on the bottom of the earth.

John

"john" wrote in message
news



John, that's why I posted both the ratings and the actual, annual
outputs. That's what the terawatt-hours numbers a actual annual
output, in Watt-hours. If you looked at the numbers you noticed that,
contrary to what you said, the actual Watt-hour output of the wind
generators in the US is 2-1/2 times that of the PPL Susquehanna plant. If
you didn't look at the numbers, you're not getting it.

The annual energy output relative to the power rating for wind, and for
solar, are much lower than for a coal-fired plant or a nuke. But that
isn't what I was comparing with the TWh. Are we on the same page here?


The big problem with these altenate energy sources is that they are not
reliable and most times put out energy when its not needed. At one time
they were diverting the energy into big water pumping stations and filling
resivoirs at night and then using the elevated water to turn water
turbines during the day. Now the main backup systems run on natural gas
powered turbines because of their quick startup times.

The pumped-water storage is still the preferred way to do it, and there are
several projects that include a pumped-water load-leveling system.

I read further on this and I see that Denmark is not having any problem with
load-leveling. They sell the excess power to Norway, and buy back when
they're low. The "smart grid" proposals for the US Midwest are expected to
operate well with geographic dispersal and with wind supplying up to 50% of
total system capacity -- not that they're likely to be built up to that
level.

I'm getting the feeling that the naysayers are twisting the facts a bit.


I go buy some windmills about twice a week and they arent always turning.


I guess that means the wind isn't blowing, huh? g

The nuke plant is always putting steam out of its cooling towers. That
sucker nets about 1 million a day. I did a job a couple of months ago
that was going to a nuke plant in Florida.

That's not to say that wind power is going to replace nukes -- we need a
lot more nukes, IMO -- but, even now, with wind power still in its
infancy, it replaces 2-1/2 decent-sized nukes in the US. That's not a
bad thing.


There would have been windmills up a long time ago if they were
profitable.


They weren't profitable until fairly recently. Now, many of them are.


A little bailout money always helps. It looks like GE is the one that is
getting the bailout dollars.


"It looks like"? Does that mean you have actual data?


Nah, I let you look up all the data and get the numbers, and old
technique I was exposed to by some prof.




They are now in the process of building another plant so Ed can keep
his lights on in NJ.


I don't think we get any power from PPL. We do, however, have our own
nuke at Oyster Creek, which, my utility tells me, supplies 28% of my
power.

You better tell that to PPL since they are getting the permits and right
of ways to run a major power line into NJ. It is ****ing off a lot of
local people in the Poconos that are forced to grant easements to PPL.


The power isn't for NJ. I checked it out: it's running across NJ and into
the NYC grid.

PPL and PSE&G are part of the 13-state Eastern interconnection grid that
runs all the way out to Illinois. The connection to the NYC grid is one
that the DOE identified as a major congestion area in 2006. PPL wants to
send power to the grid but the butthead governments in the Poconos, and
in 15 butthead towns in north Jersey, are blocking it.


Wheb Marcy soutn was built they cut up a lot of property in NY state. I
knew one guy that had his property cut in half for no good reason. That
line is as crooked as a voting district border.


This is what Wes, Larry, and I were talking about. Every pipsqueek town
in most states, with a town council of ignorant buttheads, can stop or
seriously delay a transmission line. As long as that goes on there is no
way the US can have an efficient electical network with long-distance
transmission. On top of the butthead towns, there are the butthead
states. g

The line should be run down an existing right of way like the center
median of an interstate or along a railroad track.

PSE&G already owns the rights of way in NJ -- 80 miles of the them. The
towns are objecting to them using their own right-of-way. And if the local
governments prevail, it just means it will be re-routed through still more
towns, which will raise their own objections, and so on, and so on, and so
on...

I guess if they do that though the politicans couldn't prebuy up the
property and resell it at a substantial profit like they did with the
Delaware Tocks Island national park or the PA turnpike extension.

A lot of people got screwed over Tocks Island, including some of the
speculators. My dad worked for one of them, years after the event, and the
guy had lost a ton. And my aunt owned a summer home there that she sold
directly to the feds. The problem was that the feds offered so little money
that most landowners made more by selling to the speculators. Wm. O. Douglas
got involved, trying to straighten out the fed policy, but the prices were
never what they should have been.

It'a nice park, anyway. d8-)



Local government is stupid government, and the more local, the more
stupid they are. BTW, I knew the mayor of Berwick, which is the town
closest to the PPL nuke -- Lou Biachii. His big accomplishment was
teaching the junior-high football team how to chew tobacco. After that,
he ran out of intellectual steam. Lou could be the poster boy for stupid
local government.


I wondered why all the people in Berwick chewed.

Lou is a semi-literate who looks, talks, and walks like a mafia leg-breaker.
He was my phys-ed teacher. That job taxed his intellectual abilities to the
limit.



Now if Berwick didnt get a good piece of the action like the towns in
Jersey that have power plants in their town do, I coulc see why he would
oppose it. In PA the local towns dont get much tax benefit from the
plant.

I don't know his position about or his relation to the Susquehanna nuke
plant. I just know about his general behavior. And Berwick, in my jaundiced
opinion and long-ago experience, is not a place that you would expect to
handle such a thing very well.



The thing I like about it is that you can catch fluke (summer flounder)
in their cooling stream until the end of October. And the crabs they
grow there...well...let's just say you wouldn't want to meet one in a
dark alley. d8-)

The proposed offshore wind farm in NJ is getting $19 million of state
money, which is a drop in the bucket. It's just over $2 per person in
the state. Its capacity will be 346 MW, which is more than 50% the size
of our Oyster Creek nuke. Not bad for a start.

The federal goverment has all types of tax incentives for wind farms. I
wonder how long the windmills will hold up in the sal****er enviorment
and gale coditions the frequently occur. Maintanece will be a big cost.


If you can come up with some specifics relating to the offshore systems
planned for NJ, and now for NY, we're all ears.


Here is an article that discusses the maintenance problems with wind
turbines. It seems that they are already having problems with the gear
boxes. They have not developed a failure history on the rest of the
elements. On the ocean all the problems of maintance are increased.


http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_art...ines-Spinning/

That's a good one. Thanks, John.

So, regular maintenance for a wind turbine is less than that for other types
of power generation, but unscheduled repairs remain the wild card because
they can be expensive. And the fact that Congress is funding the 1.9
cents/kWh subsidy on a two-year renewal basis is preventing the
establishment of an efficient supply chain, which raises costs and make the
subsidy necessary. There's a chicken-and-egg, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot
situation, eh?

Anyway, the economics look like they're positive enough that our growth rate
in wind power is running around 25%/year. It must be pretty economic
overall, at least with the subsidy.



Maybe the fishing around the windmills in the ocean will be good. Fish
like to line up along the magnetic field the transmission lines will
generate. Maybe it gets them off. Just dont set your hook into one of
the lines.

Eh, I don't fish that far south, anyway. Those turbines, I see, are going to
be sited 16 - 20 miles offshore and it's pretty deep out there. I haven't
seen what the fishermen's associations have said about it but I doubt if
there will any objections. I think the Hudson Canyon runs much farther
offshore down around Atlantic City, and that's where the big action is.

--
Ed Huntress

Eh, I don't fish that far south, anyway. Those turbines, I see, are going to
be sited 16 - 20 miles offshore and it's pretty deep out there. I haven't
seen what the fishermen's associations have said about it but I doubt if
there will any objections. I think the Hudson Canyon runs much farther
offshore down around Atlantic City, and that's where the big action is.

--
Ed Huntress



Most people don't realize how many wrecks are off the NJ shore,
including a number of German subs. Some of the German subs even had s
lot of silver in their batteries. I think some of the wrecks are from
WW 1.

Hudson canyon from what I remember, runs into the Baltimore canyon.
I know it takes about 4 hours to reach the Hudson canyon when we went
there to fish for tuna. I think they want to put the windmils out of
sight of land which would be about 15 miles. The canyon is about 100
miles out. It is much closer to the south shore of Long Island.


http://www.bigjamaica.com/fishingreport.html

I'm temped to go fishing but 18 hrs. on a boat is a bit much. All the
fish in the stores is processed in china and it tastes funny.


John

"john" wrote in message
...



Eh, I don't fish that far south, anyway. Those turbines, I see, are going
to be sited 16 - 20 miles offshore and it's pretty deep out there. I
haven't seen what the fishermen's associations have said about it but I
doubt if there will any objections. I think the Hudson Canyon runs much
farther offshore down around Atlantic City, and that's where the big
action is.

--
Ed Huntress



Most people don't realize how many wrecks are off the NJ shore, including
a number of German subs. Some of the German subs even had s lot of silver
in their batteries. I think some of the wrecks are from WW 1.

When I was a little kid we'd take binoculars to the Jersey shore to look for
German sub periscopes. We didn't realize the war had been over for ten
years. d8-)


Hudson canyon from what I remember, runs into the Baltimore canyon.
I know it takes about 4 hours to reach the Hudson canyon when we went
there to fish for tuna. I think they want to put the windmils out of
sight of land which would be about 15 miles. The canyon is about 100 miles
out. It is much closer to the south shore of Long Island.

I should have said Baltimore Canyon. I think they start to fish around 30
miles out there, but that may just be for bonito. I suspect tuna are farther
out.

We used to fish the Hudson Canyon up here in north Jersey, but that was an
overnight trip and you really have to be into it. My uncle's boat (42') was
designed and built specifically for canyon fishing. I'm glad I didn't have
to pull the 1,200 feet of anchor line. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"john" wrote in message
...



Eh, I don't fish that far south, anyway. Those turbines, I see, are going
to be sited 16 - 20 miles offshore and it's pretty deep out there. I
haven't seen what the fishermen's associations have said about it but I
doubt if there will any objections. I think the Hudson Canyon runs much
farther offshore down around Atlantic City, and that's where the big
action is.

--
Ed Huntress



Most people don't realize how many wrecks are off the NJ shore, including
a number of German subs. Some of the German subs even had s lot of silver
in their batteries. I think some of the wrecks are from WW 1.


When I was a little kid we'd take binoculars to the Jersey shore to look for
German sub periscopes. We didn't realize the war had been over for ten
years. d8-)


Hudson canyon from what I remember, runs into the Baltimore canyon.
I know it takes about 4 hours to reach the Hudson canyon when we went
there to fish for tuna. I think they want to put the windmils out of
sight of land which would be about 15 miles. The canyon is about 100 miles
out. It is much closer to the south shore of Long Island.


I should have said Baltimore Canyon. I think they start to fish around 30
miles out there, but that may just be for bonito. I suspect tuna are farther
out.

We used to fish the Hudson Canyon up here in north Jersey, but that was an
overnight trip and you really have to be into it. My uncle's boat (42') was
designed and built specifically for canyon fishing. I'm glad I didn't have
to pull the 1,200 feet of anchor line. g

--
Ed Huntress


They pull up miles of lobster traps out there on a continious line with
a bouy marking the ends, at 1200 ft. depth now thats a rough job. I
did the overnight tuna trip three or four times, and after its over I
still have a three hour drive home. IT sort of takes a lot of the fun
out of it. While I had my boat on the shore the fishing was real bad. It
got a lot better after I sold it.

John

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:24:49 -0500, Wes wrote:

Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology has changed
drastically.

Thanks,

Wes

Hi Wes,

Being as this is a do-it-yourself kind of newsgroup I checked out
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind.shtml. It has a fair bit of
information on constructing a windmill at home, including some
discussion of a 2 kW unit that should, if one is connected to the
grid, reduce electric bills to roughly zero. Cost of construction is
variable but there will be at least a few hundred dollars in magnets
even if one is able to scrounge most of the other hardware. I'd
probably have had to tuck about $2-3000 into the project to get it
finished.

However... there were two rather large problems for me personally in
carrying out such a project, which is why I didn't go for it.

First, my location in western KY is lousy for wind power.

Second, erecting a 50 foot item in my backyard might get some notice
from the neighbors.

Third, that tower would be the tallest object for at least several
hundred yards around. Lightning is not your friend when it's close
by...

Anyway, my two cents on the topic. I'd love to give it a shot if we
lived someplace where wind was a viable option.

Best -- Terry

"john" wrote in message
...


snip

They pull up miles of lobster traps out there on a continious line with a
bouy marking the ends, at 1200 ft. depth now thats a rough job. I did
the overnight tuna trip three or four times, and after its over I still
have a three hour drive home. IT sort of takes a lot of the fun out of
it. While I had my boat on the shore the fishing was real bad. It got a
lot better after I sold it.

John

That makes an awfully long day, especially after your sea legs have been
working all day long. I don't have a boat now, nor access to anyone else's
except for a friend's Black Watch out at Montauk, and that's too far for a
day trip.

Now I fish for blues and sometimes stripers from the beach and the jetties.
I can get to Keyport in 20 minutes and fish for a while in the early morning
before work, or even wet a line on a long lunch hour. I find it much more
enjoyable these days.

I built a 10', two-handed flyrod to try for those false albacore this year,
if they come back into Raritan Bay.

--
Ed Huntress

Wind power solutions

With the world’s ever-increasing demand of power being more than its
supply, it is about time that we take concrete steps to save power.
Apart from being conscious about the usage of power and water at home,
one can employ pollution-free and cost-effective power solutions at
our homes. Solar power solutions and wind power solutions are the two
of the most efficient solutions that can replace the conventional
power solutions employed at our homes.

These solutions can help you combat power outages, reduce your
electricity bills, and also help the environment.

This article will explore the cost-effective wind power solution that
you can employ at home.

Wind power solutions work best when the following conditions are met:
• You have a house or farmhouse spread over a big area. Typically,
wind power solutions are employed in areas that spread over an acre.
• The average wind speed in your area is around 11 miles per hour. If
you stay in a place that has little wind flow, your system will not
work. Consult an expert before installing the wind power solution at
home.
• You need to draw water from external sources. You can install a wind
power system even when you do not need to draw water from outside.
However, if you need to draw water from outside on a regular basis, a
wind power system offers the best solution.
• Your house needs a lot of uninterrupted power supply. Combating
those power outages is easy with the pollution-free wind power
systems. You need no longer worry about a break in your work because
of a power uncertainty.

A typical wind power system comprises of a tower and five blades to
churn out wind energy. The length of the wind tower varies depending
on the location of your house. You may need a longer tower if you are
in low-wind zone; you can work with a shorter tower if you live by the
beach. Using a wind generator, this wind energy can be converted into
useful electrical energy to be employed at home for running various
electrical appliances. You can even store the power generated for
later use, making wind generators more efficient than convention power
systems.

If you are confused with the wind power jargon, here’s a piece of
information for you. The terms, wind mills, wind turbines, and wind
generators are used to refer to the same machine.

Make power at home with solar and wind energy to eliminate your power
bill. Get our complete guide at http://www.EarthEnergyToday.com

You guys are going about it all wrong.
You are all trying to generate electricity from wind power.
Then use the electricity to drive stuff.
I think that's very ineffective.

Use the wind to drive stuff directly.
Like this...
http://www.travelistic.com/video/sho...Columbia-River

Clean, efficient, environmentally sound.

And the girls dress a lot better!