Home Power DIY

as long as there in areas with high levels of wind they are effective and efficient that why they usually locate turbines on hills or in valley for higher wind speeds

this machine is fantastic, ENERCON is the best company in the world of windturbines and I think this record is unbelievable, fantastic surprises that we will discover, Aloys’re the best greeting, from Albacete (Spain), Antonio Miguel

yes, but this is a flow term. A wind turbine cannot create 1.21 gigawatts or 1,600,00hp at one time, but with the proper storage, a wind turbine could send him to what ever time he likes.

Youd really want this God-awful mess in your backyard?! Careful what you wish for. We have them sprawled across our once peaceful and beautiful scenic county, and now you cant leave you home or look out your window with out seeing one of these green monsters. Do your research, theyre not as green as the developers would lead you to believe. Dont buy into their nonsense. Its all about profit, and not about energy savings!

Looks a lot better than a coal or nuclear power station, and a lot easier to fuel. 150 of these things can beat a nuclear reactor! True, sometimes it isn’t windy, but that isn’t as much of a problem as you’d think.

150 of these turbines would devastate a huge area of countryside, should be 25+ miles out at sea.
We need to move to micro generation, i.e. subsidies for solar panels on roofs, hot water. Long term, we need nuclear fusion, green fuels and to tame the explosion in human population.

Yeah, this wind turbine crap is a scam
Anyone with more than half a brain can see that

I want one in my back yard (Didcot, Oxfordshire) , to go with the three power station:-))

Could you explain abit more then? guess i use just about 5% of my brain

Would you prefer pollution from a coal plant?

@2:34″You Control Climate Change”

Humans have no control whatsoever over climate change – to control climate we would have to have control over the earth’s orbit, tilt on its axis, distance from the sun and rotation. We can do none of those things. Gore is deluded to believe that the miniscule amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has anything to do with it-now the EPA declared 6 greenhouse gases harmful to humans, even though we’ve been breathing them for millenia. The gov’t is certifiably nuts.

toastyovens-I agree with you – they are definitely not as green as they say. They’re also a health hazard to people with neurological problems like epilepsy, migraines, balance issues -and possibly more.

Arrrrr….ain’t she a beauty?

WTF does Gore have to do with anything? You, sir, are FAIL.

you have probably heard of the Cape Winds project off of Cape Cod, Massachusetts? The nimbys have been fighting it for years. The size of machines is growing pretty fast (roughly doubling every decade) and eventually the project will get built and then the nimbys are going to be looking at much larger machines most likely. Ironic justice.

Trolluser-You obviously have no idea whatsoever the kind of power he wields here.

Gore is nothing more than a public speaker, albeit an influential one. Still he is not a contributor to the science of climate change and none of the things he talks about are based on his own ideas or research. Yet for some reason denialists like to make ad hominem attacks on Gore as some kind of refutation of the science of climate change.

So when you say things like “Gore is deluded to believe” X, it has no bearing on the science at all. Firstly, there are facts around the science of climate change that have nothing to do with “beliefs” – this is science not religion. And secondly, whatever Gore’s opinions are, they don’t affect what scientists and researchers are going on with in their daily work.

Trolluser-science is based on observations, not models or projections based on those models which presume that CO2 is the cause. The facts are that climate has changed before and we had nothing to do with it. CO2 amounts have been higher in the past and they continue to rise, even though temps have stopped rising. The facts are also that the placement of some weather stations also calls into question the use of those measurements due to UHI.

So why then does the contrarian camp not have any kind of theory of climate change that has not been thoroughly debunked by the mainstream?

It’s easy to make claims, but where’s the science to back it up?

Trolluser-The only science we have on climate change is what’s been observed in the past. The rise in CO2 follows the temp increase. It’s also arrogant to think we can control climate when other forces (distance from sun, orbit, rotation of the planet, tilt of the earth on its axis) have such tremendous influence. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of natural causes. For evidence of misplacement of surface stations, see the photos at surfacestationsdotorg

Pretty much all the peer reviewed literature out there would disagree with what you’ve just said. Why is that?

Why would anyone ignore the fact that warming has happened before? Why would anyone ignore the fact that CO2 levels have been higher before? Why would anyone deny basic grade school science about the distance of the planet from the sun the orbit and rotation and tilt on it’s axis are the driving force behind climate?
David Deming a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma was e-mailed by a participant in the IPCC assessments We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”
Why? You tell me.

So, no peer reviewed literature then? I guess the entire global community of climate scientists just don’t have a clue.

CO2 temps have stopped rising lol!
per last 15 years CO2 pollution:

china+150%

india+105%

usa+30%

you are stupid retard idiot anoniab,go into your coal mine and die from your stupidity please