We’re with the Marines on this one we need more wind power and its needed right now! The superfund sites just make no sense at all when there are all these abandoned wind farms we could be using.

The abandoned wind sites are among the best places in the united states to harness strong constant winds. They were selected after millions of dollars of research by top experts. Significant infrastructure is already in place to connect with the grid and many supporting company’s are located near by. Plus the local citizens are already used to their presence and extensive ecological studies have been ran on the farms environmental impact for many years.

With the trouble in the middle east and the weakening dollar we don’t have time to waste on “site assessments” at toxic superfund sites! We need to harness as many indigenous renewable resources post haste and wasting time on things like this is very counterproductive.

just google abandoned wind farms and you’ll find 100’s of pictures of rusting machines some operating and some not. why not use these sites?

AWEA details some of wind power’s contributions to the environment, energy production and the economy. These include: |

-Avoiding carbon: In 2009, U.S. wind farms generated 70.8 million megawatt-hours of electricity and avoided over 40 million metric tons of CO2, the equivalent of reducing power sector emissions by nearly 2% or taking over 7 million cars off the road. Using more wind power means using less fossil fuel-generated electricity for a simple economic reason: wind power, a fuel-free source of electricity, backs down the most expensive power source at the margin, which tends to be fossil fuel because of its fuel costs. |

-Improving environmental health with pure, clean energy: On an annual basis, U.S. wind farms operating as of the end of 2009 will avoid 200,000 metric tons of acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide and 80,000 metric tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxides, which would otherwise have been emitted from conventional power plants. Wind power also avoids other power sector pollutants such as mercury, as well as mining and drilling for fuel, and production of hazardous or toxic wastes, ash, or slurry. |

-Saving water: On an annual basis, U.S. wind farms operating |

at the end of 2009 will conserve over 20 billion gallons of

water which would otherwise be withdrawn for steam or cooling in conventional power plants. Wind energy makes it possible to meet our energy needs without further polluting or depleting valuable water resources. |

-Saving money: Investing in wind power rapidly translates into savings for consumers, thanks to lower fuel use for electricity generation and lower energy bills. Several studies from government agencies and independent energy experts continue to show that a national renewable electricity standard (RES) will lower costs to consumers. |

-Saving money, take two: Wind power also saves money by protecting public health. A National Academy of Sciences study released in 2009 found that pollution from fossil fuels cost the U.S. $120 billion a year, including $62 billion from coal plants, in damages to human health. Strikingly, those figures do not include damages from climate change, harm to

ecosystems, or impacts from pollutants such as mercury. The NAS study is a reminder of the enormous hidden cost that energy-related pollution inflicts on our society and of the environmental and economic imperative of using renewable energy. -Creating new jobs and business opportunity: Wind power supports 85,000 jobs in the U.S. today, and the number of wind turbine and wind turbine component manufacturing facilities in the U.S. has blossomed to over 200 facilities across the U.S. today, up from under 100 in 2007. While manufacturing investment levels dropped in 2009 compared to 2008, at least |

39 wind manufacturing plants were expanded, announced or opened last year—suggesting wind power’s huge manufacturing investment and job creation potential given the right policies.

Looking to the future consider this:

U.S. Wind Energy Resource Even Larger than Previously estimated: Government Assessment

Washington, District of Columbia, United States February 18, 2010

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) today issued the following statement from AWEA CEO Denise Bode on a new assessment from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory showing that U.S. wind resources are larger than previously estimated:

“This new analysis confirms that America is blessed with vast wind resources that can energize our economy, create jobs, and avoid carbon for years to come—if we give ourselves the policy tools to do so, including a strong national Renewable Electricity Standard with aggressive, binding near- and long-term targets. A national Renewable Electricity Standard would not only ensure that we tap our nation’s vast wind resources, but create thousands of new American jobs today, manufacturing the 8,000 component parts that go into a modern wind turbine. The wind resource is there, vast and inexhaustible, waiting for us. Meanwhile, the economy can’t wait, job creation can’t wait, and America can’t wait. We need Congress to act now and pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill that includes a strong national Renewable Electricity Standard.”

Highlights of the new analysis include:

* Onshore U.S. wind resources could generate nearly 37,000,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh) annually, more than nine times current total U.S. electricity consumption.

* Put another way, the potential capacity of America’s onshore wind resource is over 10,000 gigawatts (GW). The U.S. is barely tapping this vast resource: current wind installed capacity is 35 GW in the U.S. and 158 GW world-wide.

* These larger estimates are due to improved wind turbine technology, as today’s taller turbines tap better winds at higher elevations (this study measured winds at 80 meters), and to more refined wind measurements. The previous national government survey of U.S. wind resources, carried out by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, estimated U.S. wind potential at 10,777,000 GWh.

Given how wrong Mr. Notsofast is in his claims and how he ignores or is ignorant of all of the accumulated benefits of wind power we have realized to date and can realize in the future, I suggest he rethink his position and change his sign on name to FULL SPEED AHEAD.

As to Notsofast’s concern with the proximity of placing wind farms in or near a community you DO have the option of using solar rather than wind AND you can use smaller wind power units that may address concerns about the proximity of a wind farm to residents: sales of small home-scaled wind turbines increased last year by almost 10,000 units.

Centralia Pennsylvania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

The town has been burning underground since 1962, all those wasted BTUs should be put to work.

Geothermal plants can boil water as well as nuclear plants to run electric generators; they require no cooling towers; and every state in the U.S. has potential sites for geothermal plants, according to Karl Gawell of the GeothermalEnergy Association.

Solar, wind, and geothermal are excellent sources of non-carbon energy, but they all are stationary. We need also a mobile, onboard source of non-carbon energy. That can be accomplished by solar cells recharging batteries in electric vehicles. There is, however, another source of non-carbon energy.

Ironically, hiding in plain sight, oil in the Gulf of Mexico is floating on top of the very answer to our energy independence! Water is our only source of renewable, carbon-free fuel available in the huge quantities needed to supplant gasoline.

Water requires no investment in exploration, drilling, refining, mining, transportation, service stations, or disposal of fly ash or nuclear waste. It is non-flammable; recyclable; and consumes no atmospheric oxygen. Best of all, it is free! It falls from the sky to replenish our streams, lakes and oceans.

Using current technology, water can be split relatively easily into hydrogen and oxygen with any of several available photocatalyts, using sunlight [and LED electric lighting at night], to power the process aboard motor vehicles equipped with hydrogen internal combustion engines, or equipped with fuel cells and electric motors. Larger, stationary fuel cells can generate electricity for individual businesses or homes.

Automobile manufacturers would need little time and monetary investment to make internal combustion engines that are designed to use hydrogen as a fuel. Onboard hydrogen-producing systems would obviate the need for a nationwide system of hydrogen refilling stations, thus saving time and money.

Origo

Another thing, will people stop saying the Gulf spill has anything at all to do with renewable energy. Our country uses 1.12% oil for producing electricity. That’s it! Oil provides gasoline for our cars predominantly, not electricity,

One more: it’s a big one. Wind energy does not reduce CO2 emisions significantly. Because of the constant ramping up and down of the back-up source of energy, very insignificant reductions result. In the meantime, our US electrical energy policy is advocating to spend over a trillion dollars, fill up over 100,000 acres of land/water, cause damage to the environment and the health of citizens, double our electric rates by building windfarms that may reduce our CO2 emisions by 2%. What?!!! Yes, only 2%!

Consider nuclear: wind energy uses 1000 times more land/water area per same energy output as nuclear. This land will never be recovered. How can anyone call wind renewable? It is a failure. Check the facts! Demand evidence with scientific data.

I’ve alway had solar where ever I lived. I would like to start another National Campaign for solar.

I’d call it “One Room at a Time”.

If you move your power to the room you’re in, one room’s worth of power is all you need. And that changes throughout the day

I would be somewhat concerned about a wind turbine without a deep foundation in the ground though. Are there examples of large turbines held in place primarily by supporting wires?