Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Power News

Texas Tells Cape Wind "You're Not First Yet" 374

Posted by kdawson
from the y'all-come dept.
longacre writes "Cape Wind is making headlines for being the first offshore wind farm to earn federal approval, but it still has plenty of legal hoops to jump through before groundbreaking. Texas, on the other hand, requires no review — state, federal, or otherwise — to build wind farms off its shore. Texas energy expert and Popular Mechanics senior editor Jennifer Bogo talks to Texan energy leaders who are confident they will beat Cape Wind to the punch for the distinction of having the first functional US offshore wind farm. 'I was about to write a press release to congratulate Cape Wind for getting their approval,' says Jim Suydam, press secretary of the Texas General Land Office, 'and let them know when they're done jumping through hoops up there they can come build off the Texas Coast.' Despite its reputation as an oil-addicted, non-environmentally-friendly, conservative state, Texas's existing land-based wind farms actually produce four times more electricity than California's."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Texas Tells Cape Wind "You're Not First Yet"

Comments Filter:
  • Whoever... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alfredos (1694270) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @05:24AM (#32082722)
    I'm not American but it's good to see public administrations (a) competing, and (b) trying to beat one another to be in the first line of renewables.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Firethorn (177587)

      The problem comes when the goal of 'economic' becomes secondary to the goal of 'being first'.

      You have to be careful with 'green' or 'renewable', because there's a certain amount of FUD out there.

      Recycling programs that don't actually recycle. Recycling programs that create more pollution than they prevent. Lost a bit of my innocence when I found that out.

      Same deal with carbon credits, not ALL 'green' power sources are actually green, especially when you look at some of the specific implimentations out the

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SydShamino (547793)

        There's nothing wrong with a "race" to be "first" if it yields demonstrable benefit. The Apollo program was like that.

  • There is a picture of a mechanical engineer working on renewables which will cause some Slashdot readers suddenly to want a career change.
  • Smart move (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mabbo (1337229) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @05:49AM (#32082820)
    Texas understands a simple principle: oil isn't forever. They have the money now, and can invest in wind, and other alternatives, so that when it runs out, they have another source of income, and a backup energy supply. Dubai is trying for a similar move, building what they hope is the Middle East's Singapore, but may have overdone it a tad.

    Living in the UK for the last year, I've seen a lots of investment in wind here. On the horizon here in Edinburgh, there's a pretty substantial wind farm. Flying back home I noticed there's another large one in the waters between Ireland and Wales.

    • Re:Smart move (Score:5, Informative)

      by couchslug (175151) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @06:06AM (#32082874)

      Wind farms have another endearing quality:

      They don't explode. burn, and piss hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean.

      The NIMBY folks who snivel about wind turbines are welcome to a deep draught of "Deepwater Horizon" (or Exxon Valdez, or to go way back, Torrey Canyon) to go with their oily fish dinner.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mystik (38627)

        They can, however, fail in fairly spectacular ways:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o [youtube.com]

        • by couchslug (175151)

          Not messy though. Disconnect from grid, torch it off at the base, remove scrap, press on.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Well, speaking from the ancient engineer's viewpoint, I would be willing to bet that turbines design was killed not by the designing engineers stupidity, but by some bean counter that removed the feather-able blades feature to control its ultimate rpms. Since that is a fairly complex mechanism, they were 40% cheaper to build that way.

          And of course all the engineers were fired when the design was done, so the bean counters were free to do as they damned well pleased, which was to screw up what was probably a

      • by wjousts (1529427)
        Pah, never heard of a wind spill?
      • by plopez (54068)

        You forgot "explode and scatter the crispy bacon bit like remains of the workers all over the place".

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by twisteddk (201366)

      Knowing how windmills (and in particular windfarms) work, I wonder how Texans have solved the issue of overproduction ? I mean any sucker can buy a few hundred windmills from Vestas. But this type of energy is not "on demand" capable, like nuclear, coal og oil based electrical production is. Even hydropower can be scaled and "stored" up to a point.
      When you get a huge terrawatt windfarm, you NEED to be able to harness (and use) all of that energy, even at night, and that means either inefficient storage, or

      • Pumped-storage [wikipedia.org]?

      • by jeff4747 (256583)

        Considering the energy will be "wasted" otherwise, the fact that your storage is inefficient really doesn't matter.

        • by Firethorn (177587)

          Considering the energy will be "wasted" otherwise, the fact that your storage is inefficient really doesn't matter.

          It does effect the 'break even' point for a energy generation solution though.

          Building the storage solution costs money, after all. A more efficient storage system would be able to transfer more power from the wasted peak generation points during demand valleys to deman peaks - resulting in you needing less generation capability in the first place. That's where the money is saved in order to make the storage system worth it.

          If you amortize the cost of a wind turbine/solar panel and come up with X cents/kw

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Temkin (112574)

        Texas has a fully deregulated electric grid. Not unlike what California tried to do, but with safeguards against the kind of shenanigans Enron pulled. Add to this, it's almost completely isolated from the rest of the country. Last I heard there were three interconnects. They're building a fourth superconducting DC interconnect up near Amarillo, specifically to export panhandle wind energy to NM and the western US grid.

        All this wind power has had some interesting side effects. A couple months ago I was

      • Windfarms produce during day and night. While they may have more power at certain times than others windfarms across the country networked together could meet our total production needs. While yes, they would be producing more energy than necessary, there is nothing dangerous about disconnecting a group of windfarms if we are producing too much power. Or you could use the extra energy to produce hydrogen for use in various fuelcell applications.

      • by plopez (54068)

        Even dams take turbines off line while spilling water. But the problem is the same with nukes, coal power plants, and gas fired power plants. AC electricity doesn't store, you have to convert it to DC. So basically you take units offline or switch power from one region to another. Power switching can be tricky, you need well designed grids and heads up operators. In any case, you usually end up with units off line "wasting" the power generation potential.

    • As well in MA the spot where a lot of "rich family" democrats live. In essence the people who give democrats a bad name. They are opposed to these windmill as it is effecting their views of the cape. They are ok with alternative energy just as long as it is in poor peoples areas. The Texians have more of a independant personality. If you do it on your land it is your issue. If I can see your land then I am too close to you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by hcpxvi (773888)
      I noticed there's another large one in the waters between Ireland and Wales
      That would be North Hoyle [wikipedia.org] and Rhyl flats. The UK has an advantage when it comes to building these things: the seas around it are shallow. Texas may have a similar advantage actually, I'm not sure how deep the Gulf is. California is less lucky: the Pacific gets quite deep quite quickly as you head away from the shore.
    • Funny this comes up, NJ is also competing for the title of "first US offshore wind farm". http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/05/preparation_for_first_us_wind.html [nj.com]
  • Yeeeeeehaw! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg (306625) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @06:13AM (#32082886) Homepage

    In Texas, because we don't care about the environment, we're actually able to do things that are good for the environment [..] It's the most ironic, preposterous situation. If you want to build a wind farm, you just build it.

    You know, it's easy to mock Texans (from a safe distance) but there's a fully fledged bastard of a good point here. Regulation doesn't produce things. Government doesn't make anything. By and large, government just means worthless expense, and pointless obstruction.

    Given the choice between trusting The People, or trusting that small subset of The People who live by taxing the rest of us and telling us what's good for us, I think I'm going to have to call it for The People.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by MichaelSmith (789609)

      In Texas, because we don't care about the environment, we're actually able to do things that are good for the environment [..] It's the most ironic, preposterous situation. If you want to build a wind farm, you just build it.

      You know, it's easy to mock Texans (from a safe distance) but there's a fully fledged bastard of a good point here. Regulation doesn't produce things. Government doesn't make anything. By and large, government just means worthless expense, and pointless obstruction.

      Given the choice between trusting The People, or trusting that small subset of The People who live by taxing the rest of us and telling us what's good for us, I think I'm going to have to call it for The People.

      Okay lets put the next wind farm beside your house.

      • That wouldn't happen because of zoning [wikipedia.org].

        • That wouldn't happen because of zoning [wikipedia.org].

          But GGP says If you want to build a wind farm, you just build it. Doesn't say anything about zoning.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Jaysyn (203771)

            No, that is just common sense that any given state in the US has zoning laws for urban & suburban areas.

            • by jeff4747 (256583)

              Which would be regulation. You know, "evil" regulation derided upthread.

              • by Firethorn (177587)

                I think what was derided was 'stupid' amounts of regulation.

                Unlike the parent, I might have a wind turbine set up 'next' to my house as I live in a very small town, but Texas has the advantage over California in that they have both a lot fewer regulations outside of urban areas and a lot of available range/farmland. Where you'd logically place a wind farm, after all. I don't see a lot of regulations needed to keep wind turbines out of cities. You still have lots of basic safety rules - and most municipal

        • Re:Yeeeeeehaw! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Thanshin (1188877) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @06:42AM (#32082980)

          That wouldn't happen because of zoning.

          Nope, zoning can't be useful, as it's done by "that small subset of The People who live by taxing the rest of us and telling us what's good for us".

        • But zoning *is* regulation.

          • by Restil (31903)

            Exactly.. an example of regulation that actually DOES work, as opposed to many examples of regulation that do not.

            What needs to be done... anywhere... is to define the specific zones in which wind farms would be acceptable, and be sure enough of those zones exist to make the operation feasible. Obviously, nobody is going to put a windfarm in a residential area, but there is a lot of farmland and empty space out there which would be perfectly acceptable and won't really bother anyone.

            Where we run into the p

            • by drinkypoo (153816)

              Two differences in Texas are that A> what's left undeveloped is mostly desert or its close equivalent and B> Texans don't give a shit about endangered animals. If you bring 'em up in conversation you're likely to be told "Stop Talking Californian". My lady and I both have [separate] experience with this particular phenomenon. Persistence is likely to be met with the old three-people-in-a-balloon joke, except it's three people in the bar, and the Texan shoots the Mexican and the Californian. In Califor

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Temkin (112574)

                Actually, a lot of the Texas wind potential is up around Lubbock & Amarillo. Not exactly desert, but not far from it. It's actually the one of the biggest cotton producing regions in the US. The farmers are used to the concept of leasing out the "energy rights" of their land, and providing access to contractors to perform work, etc... Driving a tractor around a jack pump and a windmill is pretty the same thing.

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by ArcherB (796902)

                Texans don't give a shit about endangered animals

                That's not necessarily true. It really depends on how they taste when thrown on the grill with a nice, spicy, Serrano infused barbecue sauce and dressed with some fresh cilantro.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by adavies42 (746183)
        • by ArcherB (796902)

          That wouldn't happen because of zoning [wikipedia.org].

          Much of Texas is not limited by zoning regulations. Take Houston [businessweek.com] for example. Outside the cities, who cares? In smaller towns, the mayor and city council members are your neighbors and really don't care to bother you unless someone else complains about something. Even then, you probably know who the busy body is so there's not a whole hell of a lot of that going on. No zoning works in Houston because no one is going to build a wind farm in a big city because land is too expensive. People build houses

      • by Zedrick (764028)
        > Okay lets put the next wind farm beside your house.

        I heard the same thing when wind power came here about 10-15 years ago, and I still say: I'd rather have a wind farm next to my house than a nuclear power plant, an oil power plant or a coal power plant.
        • I'd rather have the nuclear plant, personally. Yay Jobs!!! Followed up by the wind farm. Oil/Coal? I'd probably end up moving.

          Hmm... How to put it: For a power plant/farm of the same capacity, much less production, a whole lot more people are going to be living 'next'(IE in sight of) to the wind farm as they would to the nuclear plant.

          Add in that a modern nuclear plant might actually be safer - toss up enough wind towers to replace the power a nuke plant produces and you're getting into statistical pos

      • Okay lets put the next wind farm beside your house.

        Sure, why not? It needs to go somewhere. Where do I sign up?

      • Okay lets put the next wind farm beside your house.

        Sure. Go right ahead. Wouldn't bother me at all.

      • by couchslug (175151)

        "Okay lets put the next wind farm beside your house."

        FUCK him, put it next to MY house! :)

        Throw in a cell phone tower too, preferably ON my land with the usual lease. Set up the construction compound nearby (we need the jobs and have a decent workforce). Our community college can do workforce training (WIA 4 teh win!) to support any business. I'll get with the local development board, the mayor, and anyone else who might be useful. I shit you not, bring it on.

        Self and county would be tickled as a pedo at Sc

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Rogerborg (306625)

        Okay lets put the next wind farm beside your house.

        Sorry, there's no room, since I already live within spitting distance of the largest onshore wind farm in Europe [wikipedia.org]. And I love it. There's no noise from the turbines - unless you physically stand under them - and I think they're elegant and quite beautiful. How can you hate something with a "nacelle" on it?

        Oh, sorry, did I spoil your tiny pig-ignorant point? Go on, try again.

    • Re:Yeeeeeehaw! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dnwq (910646) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @06:18AM (#32082900)
      Regulation means that those alternatives to wind farms with large, hidden costs borne actually pay those costs. So your clean wind farm actually turns a profit.
    • Re:Yeeeeeehaw! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by quokkaZ (1780340) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @06:53AM (#32083034)

      Talk about jumping to wild conclusions based on next to no evidence, but firmly ensconced in ideological clap trap.

      There are innumerable examples of governments "making things". As we are talking about electricity generation I will point out the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Scheme in Australia, built by the Australian government and operated to this day by a wholly government owned corporation. It is the largest engineering project ever undertaken in Australia and frequently cited as an example of civil engineering excellence.

      In scope and difficulty, putting up some wind turbines is just not in the same league.

      So what is it you were saying about governments?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme#cite_note-ASCE-6 [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by OzPeter (195038)

      Regulation doesn't produce things. Government doesn't make anything. By and large, government just means worthless expense, and pointless obstruction.

      Ah yes . the myth of the "Free Market is best" argument. Simplistic, naive and dangerous.

      A totally free and unregulated market gives you the Thalidomide, the Ford Pinto, lead paint in children's toys, contaminated pet food and (the latest one) contaminated Chinese dry wall. Why should the government regulate things, as after all the market will sort things out eventually.

      Who cares about the damage done to the consumer between the the time a company enters a market and the time people realise that somet

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      You know, it's easy to mock Texans (from a safe distance)

      ooh, texans are so tough! you have to stand far away to make fun of them! they're all cowboys and have true grit(tm) and eat raw meat and grab bulls by the ballsack just for fun.

      jesus, i love texans and their 'tough guy' facade.

    • by AceJohnny (253840)

      By and large, government just means worthless expense, and pointless obstruction.

      So how's that broadband market going for you? How about health care?

      (and that's just off the top of my head.)

      this post written from Europe.

      • So how's that broadband market going for you? How about health care?

        In general, mine are both fine, even though I'm still paying bills for my cancer treatments.

        And both are heavily regulated at State and/or Local levels. Your point was?

    • Re:Yeeeeeehaw! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chryana (708485) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @07:39AM (#32083238)

      Regulation may not produce things, but it helps prevent The People as you like to call them from getting Ripped Off, such as during the California electricity crisis [wikipedia.org]. Your point about "worthless expense and pointless obstruction" caused by regulations sounds particularly stupid in the light of the current events going on in the Gulf of Mexico. I think I'd rather trust people who are accountable to the population than some faceless multinational to look for my interests, thank you very much.

      • Regulation may not produce things, but it helps prevent The People as you like to call them from getting Ripped Off, such as during the California electricity crisis.

        Bad example. The Wikipedia article you linked to explains what happened:

        The major flaw of the deregulation scheme was that it was an incomplete deregulation--that is, "middleman" utility distributors continued to be regulated and forced to charge fixed prices, and continued to have limited choice in terms of electricity providers. Other, less catastrophic energy deregulation schemes, such as Pennsylvania's, have generally deregulated utilities but kept the providers regulated, or deregulated both.

        The California electricity crisis is an example of the chaos that partial deregulation creates. Total regulation may be better, but you still get the socialist calculation problem [wikipedia.org]. In other words, without prices, bureaucrats will make arbitrary decisions that create an un

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rogerborg (306625)

        Oh, drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is unregulated? Sorry, I thought that it happened despite regulation. I guess that totally invalidates my point about regulation being an expensive waste of time. You win two Internets!

    • Government can do two thing with regulation and taxes

      They can discourage people from doing things that are bad but would be profitable to do

      They can encourage people to do things that are good but are not profitable (in the short term) to do

      Unfortunately they often add so much bureaucracy that it discourages people anyway ....and the people who can afford to pay people to work around the bureaucracy are the ones who need stopping from going for the bad short term gain ....

    • Re:Yeeeeeehaw! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jeff4747 (256583) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @08:17AM (#32083466)

      Blatantly ripping this off from other people on the Internet:

      This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

      At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory. I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to send via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

      After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

      I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

    • by wjousts (1529427)

      Given the choice between trusting The People, or trusting that small subset of The People who live by taxing the rest of us and telling us what's good for us, I think I'm going to have to call it for The People.

      And by "The People" you mean large corporations with substantial amounts of cash.

    • Regulation doesn't produce things.

      Yep, screw drinking water regulations, the FDA, nuclear power plant safety standards, hospital hygiene standards, civil engineering regulations etc. It's just holding back those good old free-market guys who want to sell people dirty water, poisonous food (eg. milk with melamine in it), dangerous power plants, dirty hospitals and structurally unsound buildings. After all, they didn't have to buy it! Never give a sucker an even break, right?

      Government doesn't make anything. By and large, government just means worthless expense, and pointless obstruction.

      I don't want to see you calling the cops next time you get robbed or

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TapeCutter (624760) *
      "Regulation doesn't produce things".

      Not directly, but without it you have anarchy which ensures NOBODY produces anything. Try looking outside your navel, can you find ANY country with a weak goverment that is not a poverty stricken shit hole?

      The problem in the US is not over-regulation, it's corruption. The cape project basically had to wait for a powerfull NIMBY politician to die, and when he did, hey presto the SAME regulations are no longer a barrier. That one person should have the power to distor
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Lakitu (136170)

      Government doesn't make anything.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_dam [wikipedia.org]

  • by OzPeter (195038) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @07:13AM (#32083106)
    I missed posting this in the last Cape Wind Farm story. I read this book a couple of years ago and its description of nimby politics is chilling.

    Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics, and the Battle for Our Energy Future on Nantucket Sound [amazon.com]
    • by couchslug (175151)

      It doesn't "chill" me. I want the Blue states to regulate themselves into a corner and push business and development elsewhere.

      They get precisely what they vote for (NIMBY), and I get more industry moving to the Sun belt.

      What's not to like? States Rights let each live according to their preference. Position yourself to benefit from those choices.

      • by OzPeter (195038)

        It doesn't "chill" me. I want the Blue states to regulate themselves into a corner and push business and development elsewhere.

        Except the book isn't about states rights. Its about people abusing the rights of others in order to further their nimby desires. This is not a red/blue states issues and I suggest you actually read the book

  • Hopefully their fight about who's first should blow over soon.

  • That could really take the wind out of their sails.

    Try the fish.

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @08:23AM (#32083510) Homepage

    OMG! People doing things without permission! Unregulated activity!

    Oh. Wait. It's "Green". That makes it ok. Only climate denialists ever oppose anything Green. But does Texas subsidize these wind farms? If not they are still evil. It's Texas,after all. We have to find something evil in everything they do.

    I know. I bet Texas wind farms kill birds (California ones don't, of course: they are properly regulated).

  • I'm interested to see what slashdotters have to say about this report [consumerenergyreport.com], which says wind energy makes coal plants have to run intermittently rather than at steady state, which causes more pollution than just getting all the power from coal in the first place.
    • by careysub (976506) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @09:37AM (#32084130)

      I'd say, first of all this is pitch by the natural gas industry to build many more gas-fired power plants. And this is not an accusation, or an inference, or a suspicion, if you read the TFA this is exactly what the report is and claims to be.

      That being the case, their methods of analysis could use some critical outside examination.

      Second, the daily power load already has a 30% day night variation that is largely handled by coal plant throttling already, and coal plants spend about 6% of their time in unplanned outages (planned outages are extra). Wind power won't contribute any additional significant variation over a grid that already has to adapt to fluctuating supply and demand until it exceeds the 10% level. Since this already routine, and independent of wind power, I suspect that this coal throttling issue is already well understood and likely to minimized with further plant improvements

      Third, the gas industries suggestion is actually a good one. Bringing more gas peaking plants online would be a good way of improving grid load handling, if they displace coal (it also somewhat less carbon intensive).

      Fourth, this is actually an example of a repsonsible criticism to wind power, even if the claim is exaggerated or wrong. It points out a potential problem, and proposes a viable solution. This is how potential problems are dealt with - you identify them and you plan to address them.

      And fifth - all of FUD I seen thrown at wind power (and most of what I see thrown at solar, or electric cars) is based on the absurd proposition that their will be no other changes -- to the distribution grid, to power balancing, etc. - to accommodate the introduction of wind. This is basically taking the first half of point four, and pretending nothing can be done to fix it. It is certain that there will be many changes in the national power system going on in the years ahead.

  • We're talking about a state that used the wrong glue on the big dig to deadly results. Hell, when they were painting the lines for RT 24 they used the wrong paint. (They managed to find a paint that eats asphalt. You should see it, all these gouges up a couple miles of highway everywhere there used to be a white line. I wonder how much that cost to fix.) Yeah, against that I figure Texas has a really good shot at having the first working offshore wind plant. (Yes, I live in Massachusetts.)
  • 'I was about to write a press release to congratulate Cape Wind for getting their approval,' says Jim Suydam, press secretary of the Texas General Land Office, 'and let them know when they're done jumping through hoops up there they can come build off the Texas Coast.'

    Is this really the best time [dallasnews.com] to be bragging about lax regulation of offshore energy production in Texas?

  • by plopez (54068) on Tuesday May 04, 2010 @09:06AM (#32083802) Journal

    Not only do they have a fair amount of wind, it tends to be consistent and no extreme.

    Other places have higher winds, but they can damage the turbines. Other places have steady winds but they are interspersed with calm periods.

    I went to W. Texas a few years ago and there seemed to be a steady stream of trucks carrying turbine parts down the roads. I heard of land owners forming associations (a "Wind Union" so to speak) to negotiate with the power generation companies for better leases.

  • First wind farm!!

1 Dog Pound = 16 oz. of Alpo

Working...