A windmill, and windfarm, takes energy out of the wind and converts it to electricity. Over time, and after lots of years of windfarms, we could have taken enough energy out the wind that winds would slow down around the planet. What do you think will happen?

(NOTE: back in the 1800's they thought there was infinite coal and oil and never imagined environmental issues with burning it, so this question may be a real problem).

Pickens' plan would divert natural gas usage from power generation to vehicle fuel, reducing reliance on oil.

Cars could run on natural gas. Yes. That makes sense.

Pickens' plan would increase wind power generation. Wind is an underutilized generating source. That makes sense.

But wind is a baseload power source and is not reliable enough to use for peak power.

Natural gas plants can be turned off and on more easily than other plants, and natural gas is expensive, thus it is used primarily for peak power - power generation during high-demand times, when you need a reliable source.

Thus, you can't replace gas with wind, even though they're both power generating sources, because they meet different market segments.

Yes we should build more wind capacity for baseload generation, but doing that won't enable us to divert natural gas from peak power generation to use as a vehicle fuel.

More wind power would enable us to increase exports of coal, which is great, though the green-types don't want to hear that.

But it doesn't solve the issue of dependence on foreign oil - other than a de facto coal-for-oil program.

Why don't more people see this?

Know-it-all, the cost to store wind-generated power would make it much more expensive, which kind of defeats the purpose - - at that rate why not just use nuclear?
Blackcat - wind can be use for power generation only if it is windy.

I'm thinking that they help conserve coal.

What else?

There are many utilities in the USA that now offer you the option to buy clean, renewable energy from Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Biomass instead of the normal Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Hydro and Petroleum. If you had this option, would you choose it? Why or why not? And how much is to much of an increase for it?

I was curious how profitable a wind farm may actually be in comparison to coal. What is the pay back period, maintenance costs, etc. Assume ideal wind conditions, 30 year life, and industrial size turbines. Also, what is the most efficient spacing? I read somewhere it's 1km.

Thanks

What kind of energy that is harmful to the environment can be replaced by the energy from turbines?
Energy from coal? petrol? natural gas?
thanks

Which of the following is a renewable energy source?

A.Coal
B.Natural gas
C.Petroleum
D.None of the above
2.Which of the following is the most abundant fossil fuel in the world?

A.Coal
B.Petroleum
C.Crude oil
D.Uranium

3.Nuclear fission is a nonrenewable energy source because __________.

A.it can be repeated infinitely in the future without recourse
B.the process requires the use of a limited resource, uranium
C.Both a and b
D.the world will never run out of uranium

For example we have enough wind power in the United States to replace all of the fossil fuel and nuclear power sources in the United States.

Athough wind does not always blow when you need it, it would seem that in a power grid you will always have wind blowing somewhere to put electricity into the grid.

The cost of wind power at 4 cents per kilowatt hour is competitive with the cost of electricity generated by coal and nuclear energy and less than the cost of generating electricity using natural gas.

What is preventing us from replacing our fossil fuel power plants and our nuclear power plants with electricity from renewable non carbon sources?

I've heard that most wind farms would be far away from heavily populated areas, and that peak seasons for electricty are the worst times of the year for wind.

I've also heard that it's cheaper to produce electricity with coal than wind?

This IS a political issue!