Talk of Waco

By jim

July 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

For all the space that these ugly windmills take up and all the money being spent (including tax dollars in the form of subsidies) we can only hope for around 5 to 7% of our energy needs being met. I know most everyone has jumped on the green band wagon but go out to West Texas and decide for yourself if 5 - 7% is worth the eyesore. By the year 2030 our energy needs are expected to increase by 48%. The two nuclear plants in Texas produce 13% of our energy which is roughly twice that of the highest that could be expected from wind. I’m all for “cleaner” solutions to our energy needs if it makes sense but wind energy just doesn’t make sense. If we want to steer clear of fossil fuels the only option (in my humble opinion) is to start building nuclear reactors. The U.S. has developed safe disposal methods for the spent fuel and the only other by-product is steam.

By Isaac

July 16, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

Jim, Windmills are no more an “eyesore” than coal/gas power plants or nuclear reactors.

By jim

July 16, 2008 6:01 PM | Link to this

Isaac,

How can you compare the eye sore of ONE power plant covering a few acres to hundreds of windmills covering hundreds of acres. Yes the windmills are more of an eyesore than a power plant. Drive out to West Texas there are acres and acres and acres and acres of ugly windmills taken up valuable farmland and wildlife habitat from Lingleville then Abilene, Sweetwater, and Roscoe. And for what? Maybe 5-7% of our energy needs. I know it makes you feel better but these useless windmills are not the answer.

By BDDH

July 16, 2008 11:31 PM | Link to this

Ugly? My acquaintances and I all think the windmills are beautiful. When you drive from Winters to Sweetwater, you see the windmills surrounded by farmland (in production)and grazing cattle. The crops grow right up near the base of each windmill. The windfarm looks clean and futuristic.

Now compare to the acres and acres of pump jacks in oil fields. Yes, I know we need the oil, but they certainly are not as clean and beautiful as the windmills turning in the wind.

What I find ugly are the huge towers of electric lines taking the energy to where it’s needed. I hope planners will bury those lines in conduits similar to the cables that are under the ocean. If piplines carrying petroleum can be buried, why can’t power lines also be buried?

By James

July 17, 2008 12:45 AM | Link to this

I’ve lived by West Texas windmills. I like how they look.

Nuclear is more heavily subsidized than wind and new nuclear is more expensive than wind. We could reliably replace 20% of our energy use with wind power and that percentage could grow to 35% with new technology in the pipeline. Sure, go all out on Nuclear too, but that alone will delay energy independence for decades.

Go look at www.pickensplan.com and then ask yourself if we can afford NOT to support wind farm. The bonus is great for America and fantastic for Texas. We should do it right and go full speed ahead.

By jim

July 17, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but my parents place is surrounded by windmills and myself and they would trade them for one power plant in a heartbeat. I hope I’m wrong but I believe within 10 years (when the subsidies end) wind power will begin fadeing away and we will be stuck with these enormous eyesores that won’t even be producing energy. I have lived in Texas all my life and many of my family and friends are in the oil business. So with that said everyone should use extreme caution when listening to Mr. Pickens. My bet is he will make his money while the getting is good and then bail along with the rest of these “alternative” energy corporations.