SO I HERD U VOET RUDDKIPS

[Svirin Kerath]

As for wind, yeah, there are a lot of windy places. But it would require a lot of towers to actually use enough of it to be effective, which costs a lot of money, and they're pretty delicate, so maintainance would be a feck, which is more money.

As supplemental sources of energy, sure, they don't hurt, but they don't generate nearly enough as oil as cost-effectively. thus, not too practical at the moment.

As for compressed air, "Compressed Air: Take the combustion out of the internal combustion engine." sounds like a political slogan, not a scientific explanation. Like, "we only use 10% of our brains."

The Soldat Forums is a place for elaborate, sophisticated scientific discussion. if you're going to bring up some weird new technology, the burden of proof is on you, explain it, link it, don't be a lazy ass and expect us to.

The combustion engine uses pressure from the explosion inside to push pistons, instead of that, you use compressed air to do the same thing.

Also you are still an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about. Wind energy is one of the cheapest energy sources to produce. Cheaper than coal.

I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. Wind is free, I know that much. Coal costs more to mine and refine than wind, which turns turbines for free. I'm talking about maintainence and production of the towers themselves, not wind. You would need a veritable fleet of them to harness and produce enough energy. The source is boundless and cheap, it's the mechanical considerations I'm taking. With that fleet of thousands you now multiply points of failure in machines that, when cheaply built, require little to cause a malfunction. If they're not cheap, they still require maintainance, and again, multiply that by thousands. That costs a lot of money.

Compressed air looks good, but like many of the other things, requires more time and investment before it'll take off. 50 mile range isn't very good though, if you're dependent on a recharge afterwards. But again, time may see it become more practical.

[a-4-year-old]

As for wind, yeah, there are a lot of windy places. But it would require a lot of towers to actually use enough of it to be effective, which costs a lot of money, and they're pretty delicate, so maintainance would be a feck, which is more money.

As supplemental sources of energy, sure, they don't hurt, but they don't generate nearly enough as oil as cost-effectively. thus, not too practical at the moment.

As for compressed air, "Compressed Air: Take the combustion out of the internal combustion engine." sounds like a political slogan, not a scientific explanation. Like, "we only use 10% of our brains."

The Soldat Forums is a place for elaborate, sophisticated scientific discussion. if you're going to bring up some weird new technology, the burden of proof is on you, explain it, link it, don't be a lazy ass and expect us to.

The combustion engine uses pressure from the explosion inside to push pistons, instead of that, you use compressed air to do the same thing.

Also you are still an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about. Wind energy is one of the cheapest energy sources to produce. Cheaper than coal.

I don't think you really understand what I'm saying. Wind is free, I know that much. Coal costs more to mine and refine than wind, which turns turbines for free. I'm talking about maintainence and production of the towers themselves, not wind. You would need a veritable fleet of them to harness and produce enough energy. The source is boundless and cheap, it's the mechanical considerations I'm taking. With that fleet of thousands you now multiply points of failure in machines that, when cheaply built, require little to cause a malfunction. If they're not cheap, they still require maintainance, and again, multiply that by thousands. That costs a lot of money.

Compressed air looks good, but like many of the other things, requires more time and investment before it'll take off. 50 mile range isn't very good though, if you're dependent on a recharge afterwards. But again, time may see it become more practical.

I know. Including maintenance. And building. Wind is one of the cheapest energy resources available.

Edit: Cars today suck ass in terms of efficiency. Right now cars are big and heavy when they don't need to be. also turning that drivetrain wastes a lot of gas. Using electric motors rather than a huge engine and a drivetrain, a lot less power is wasted.

The ford model A Is an extremely light and maneuverable car; a car the industry should model their cars after from now on. You could drive through a ditch and through snow with those big tires with no problem, without Four wheel drive. The only problem there ever was with that car was that it had awful breaks, it didn't use hydrolics so it was as hard as you could press on that petal to slow it down.

Point is, way back then they had the right idea, don't waste engine power on moving a big hunk of steel. Especially now that we have carbon fiber, Plexiglases and very strong light composite materials that can be safe.

[Svirin Kerath]

I know. Including maintenance. And building. Wind is one of the cheapest energy resources available.

Edit: Cars today suck ass in terms of efficiency. Right now cars are big and heavy when they don't need to be. also turning that drivetrain wastes a lot of gas. Using electric motors rather than a huge engine and a drivetrain, a lot less power is wasted.

The ford model A Is an extremely light and maneuverable car; a car the industry should model their cars after from now on. You could drive through a ditch and through snow with those big tires with no problem, without Four wheel drive. The only problem there ever was with that car was that it had awful breaks, it didn't use hydrolics so it was as hard as you could press on that petal to slow it down.

Point is, way back then they had the right idea, don't waste engine power on moving a big hunk of steel. Especially now that we have carbon fiber, Plexiglases and very strong light composite materials that can be safe.

I agree that smaller, lighter cars are definitely better than big heavy ones, not only are they much more efficient (using any fuel), but most importantly,  they actually fit in 'compact car' parking spaces.

The big heavy car thing is a fad, which is becoming less popular as gas prices rise. The problem is really if there are still big heavy cars on the road when you're in a small, light one, and one of those big, heavy ones crashes into you.

As for wind mills, I bring in the almighty link

Highlighted for your convenience.

"A certain amount of unscheduled maintenance must be anticipated with any project. Commercial
wind turbines contain a variety of complex systems that must all function correctly for the
turbine to perform; rarely are redundant components or systems incorporated. Failure or
malfunction of a minor component will frequently shut down the turbine and require the
attention of maintenance personnel. "

Much more simple: http://library.thinkquest.org/20331/types/wind/advant.html

[Kszchroink]

The Soldat Forums is a place for elaborate, sophisticated scientific discussion.

Are you serious?

[a-4-year-old]

From the book I read, Wind power can cost just over 7 cents per kWh. While geothermal is the cheapest, Wind is very cheap, cheaper than nuclear, solar, natural gas, hydro and biomass.

Secondly Turbines employ more people than other fuel sources. More jobs is a great incentive. It costs far less than gas wood oil and waste.

That source was possibly the most biased piece of shit ever. Wind energy is plentiful enough for it to be a dominate source. Any country with a coast can utilize wind energy. That site is so full of bias that it is unusable as a source.

[Svirin Kerath]

The Soldat Forums is a place for elaborate, sophisticated scientific discussion.

Are you serious?

What do you mean? Why wouldn't I be? I'm assuming we all have PhDs here, after all.

From the book I read, Wind power can cost just over 7 cents per kWh. While geothermal is the cheapest, Wind is very cheap, cheaper than nuclear, solar, natural gas, hydro and biomass.

Secondly Turbines employ more people than other fuel sources. More jobs is a great incentive. It costs far less than gas wood oil and waste.

That source was possibly the most biased piece of feck ever. Wind energy is plentiful enough for it to be a dominate source. Any country with a coast can utilize wind energy. That site is so full of bias that it is unusable as a source.

...Most..biased?

From the introduction: "Together, fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas, and their derivatives) provide more than 85% of the energy used by mankind today. Unfortunately, the reserves of those fuels are not infinite. Scientists predict that within the next two centuries we will run out of those valuable energy sources. Clearly, something must be done. But what? ...But this site will help educate its visitors about the energy crisis so that at least we will be informed."

Clearly, they are trying to say that fossil fuels are superior and will last forever and that all alternatives are useless.

I don't think you're understanding me yet. I am repeating now that yes, wind is cheap, but all the examples of cheapness you've provided do not take maintenance costs into account, only general collection data. And then you contradict yourself by saying more turbines employ more people. Why would they employ so many people?

There's a line between where employing a lot of people generates money and employing a lot of people drains money, and such a high volume of towers, all each with their own problems, would drain money over time. The cost of labor would be more than the cost of the energy, which is not cost effective, it is a waste.

[a-4-year-old]

We have these people called engineers who make things so that they don't fuck up. If anyone tells you that a wind tower takes a lot of maintenance they are full of shit. Just ask the people who have residential units.

What I am trying to tell you is that the sources you point to have no idea what they are saying. Those people don't know shit about Nuclear advantages and Disadvantages, or wind or solar.

[Svirin Kerath]

We have these people called engineers who make things so that they don't feck up. If anyone tells you that a wind tower takes a lot of maintenance they are full of feck. Just ask the people who have residential units.

What I am trying to tell you is that the sources you point to have no idea what they are saying. Those people don't know feck about Nuclear advantages and Disadvantages, or wind or solar.

That's not "biased." And they're just working on basic, easily available information about history and energy sources, like most science sites geared towards children. I'd like you to refute any of the general advantages/disadvantages they provide.

The other link I provided was from a report by Sandia Labs about wind turbines and their tendency to fail, mechanically, and bringing to light how such costs need to be brought down. You conveniently haven't said anything about it.

Engineers aren't magicians, they can't "Make things so they don't feck up," not with energy generation machines, because for something to mechanically tend towards not failing, it needs to have high tolerances (think the AK-47) while towers themselves have low tolerances, they are mechanically complex (anything that relies on kinetic energy to move many parts to generate electricity will be). However, the energy generated per tower is little, so many towers are needed to generate a lot of energy, and then you not only multiply the tolerances per each individual tower, but in necessary numbers, by hundreds and thousands.

[a-4-year-old]

I have read 3 separate books. In one, the man set up his own wind turbine, had it for years, all he ever does is knock the ice off of it in the winter. Zero problems, much like everyone who has ever commented on the subject has said. Engineers build things to be efficient, they wouldn't be sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars if they fall apart. One building program estimated that the wind turbines would last 30 years before needing major restoration.

Your report is full of lies.

Now lets pull apart the oversimplified advantage vs disadvantage crap:
Fossil Fuels

Advantages

    * Depending on fuel, good availability
    * Simple combustion process can directly heat or generate electricity (like most other fuel sources)
    * Inexpensive (buahahahahahaha)
    * Easily distributed

Disadvantages

    * Probable contributor to global warming (probable?)
    * Questionable availibility of some fuels...major price swings based on politics of oil regions
    * Cause of acid rain

Oh yeah, major contributor to global warming is a huge disadvantage but it is downplayed by this site. lets move on.
Fission:
Advantages

    * Relatively little fuel is needed and the fuel is relatively inexpensive and available in trace amounts around the world.
    * Fission is not believed to contribute to global warming or other pollution effects associated with fossil fuel combustion (actually proven that it does not contribute to global warming)

Disadvantages

    * Possibility of nuclear meltdown from uncontrolled reaction--leads to nuclear fallout with potentially harmful effects on civilians (Due to safety equipment, a nuclear meltdown would not lead to nuclear fallout, because we don't live in soviet russia during the 70's)
    * Waste products can be used to manufacture weapons (and armor, for tanks and all sorts of wonderful things also used for other purposes since depleted uranium is super dense)
    * High initial cost because plant requires containment safeguards (that make sure it doesn't lead to nuclear fallout, pick your disadvantage)

lets move on;
Advantages

    * Inexhaustible fuel source
    * Minimal environmental impact
    * Viable source--relatively useful levels of energy production
    * Can be used throughout the world

Disadvantages

    * Smaller models depend on availability of fast flowing streams or rivers
    * Run-of-the-River plants can impact the mobility of fish and other riverlife. NOTE: Building a fish ladder can lessen this negative aspect of hydroelectric power
Forgot that the price of hydroelectric is way more than even nuclear, which they say has high initial costs.

Biomass
Advantages

    * Theoretically inexhaustible fuel source
    * When direct combustion of plant mass is not used to generate energy (i.e. fermentation, pyrolysis, etc. are used instead), there is minimal environmental impact
    * Alcohols and other fuels produced by biomass are efficient, viable, and relatively clean-burning
    * Available throughout the world

Disadvantages

    * Could contribute a great deal to global warming and particulate pollution if directly burned
    * Still an expensive source, both in terms of producing the biomass and converting it to alcohols
    * On a small scale there is most likely a net loss of energy--energy must be put in to grow the plant mass
ACTUALLY ACCURATE?!?!

Advantages

    * Inexhaustible fuel source
    * No pollution
    * Often an excellent supplement to other renewable sources
    * Versatile--is used for powering items as diverse as solar cars and satellites

Disadvantages

    * Very diffuse source means low energy production--large numbers of solar panels (and thus large land areas) are required to produce useful amounts of heat or electricity
    * Only areas of the world with lots of sunlight are suitable for solar power generation (just false, panels work well even in cloudy weather.)

Also they don't mention another form of solar, which creates molten sand to power a turbine.

I'll do more later.

[Svirin Kerath]

I have read 3 separate books. In one, the man set up his own wind turbine, had it for years, all he ever does is knock the ice off of it in the winter. Zero problems, much like everyone who has ever commented on the subject has said. Engineers build things to be efficient, they wouldn't be sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars if they fall apart. One building program estimated that the wind turbines would last 30 years before needing major restoration.

Your report is full of lies.

Alright, first of all, let's establish how unscientific that first argument is.

Let's say you're testing a pharmaceutical. A miracle pill. You give one pill to one man. And it works, with no side effects.

Clearly this means that none of the millions of people who will take the pill, if you sell it, will experience any side effects, and it will always work for all of them. Right?

Wrong.

You need examples on a realistic scale, which would be thousands. Not just one. Any scientist provided with such "proof" would laugh in your face.

The study was conducted by a laboratory backed by Lockheed Martin. We're not talking a bunch of people who build windmills in their garage. It's funny that you're so quick to dismiss my evidence when it holds a lot more scientific credability than your own unspecified "comments on the subject."

Now, let us define 'major restoration.'


This car needs expensive maintenance.


This car needs a major restoration.

Most cars, if minimally maintained, can last virtually forever. there are still cars buzzing around here from the early 1900's. So 30 years before major restoration isn't really anything to brag about.

And major restoration does not say anything about critical maintenance.

See above post

OIL:

Actually, it's hard to pinpoint the cause of any one thing as a contributor to global warming. "Probable" is a good scientific term to use, and given the other disadvantages they have, they are certainly not downplaying anything, unless you choose to see it as such. As for expense, it is cheap, it's the greedy oil companies that raise prices.

Nuclear Fission:

They say 'not believed.' Is that not good enough for you? It's not like they were all "lol it cozes globale werming!1!!!1'. they siad, essentially, that it doesn't.

"Due to safety equipment, a nuclear meltdown would not lead to nuclear fallout, because we don't live in soviet russia during the 70's"

Would not? They just said "possibility," not "definite outcome." And there will always be a possibility due to the nature of the process. Read more carefully, you seem to be seeing things that aren't being said. Failures can happen despite high costs of safeguards. Having safeguards does not make failure an impossibility. They are being consistent.

Armor kind of goes hand in hand with weapons, and their safety has always been controversial.

Hydro:

"Forgot that the price of hydroelectric is way more than even nuclear, which they say has high initial costs."

That's not an inaccuracy or bias, unless you can prove that they knew that and neglected to say so.

Biomass:

You didn't really disagree with anything.

Solar:

Panels will work in cloudy weather, but they are not nearly as effective. They are most efficient where there is a lot of light. If you don't believe me, I can e-mail a director of the Cassini Space Program, working for JPL, who was my professor in a class about space flight, a class in which we talked a lot about solar energy, and its advantages and disadvantages.

"Also they don't mention another form of solar, which creates molten sand to power a turbine."

Again, not inaccuracy or bias, unless you can prove deliberate omission.

[frogboy]

Also they don't mention another form of solar, which creates molten sand to power a turbine.

This is sand. It is made primarily of silicon dioxide. Silicon dioxide melts at 1650C.

In short, I call bs.

[xurich]

I like the addition of the picture. It really helps to connect the idea.

Anyway, isn't Kevin Rudd anti-monarchy?! Bring back John Howard and his support for the establishment!

[Pie]

Also they don't mention another form of solar, which creates molten sand to power a turbine.

This is sand. It is made primarily of silicon dioxide. Silicon dioxide melts at 1650C.

In short, I call bs.

Sand ftw.

I've always had the impression that Geothermal was cheap and plentiful.
I always thought that a hole was drilled deep into the earth and then they add a cooling substances which creates rapid expansion of gases which powers a turbine which equals energy, that seems pretty effective to me, it's almost like nuclear in the way that, the general ideology consists of the same processes. Use this to heat this then rapidly cool it to create gas which compresses and is released to spin a turbine.

Am i even close at being right?

[Dairy]

Nuclear
We've had this for a while, it's not quite safe, and creates a ton of dangerous waste.

Im sorry If Im off topic but this is such a bullshit... I mean, the Nuclear plants are pretty safe...maybe not 100% safe but aint too dangerous. More ppl died from obesity,cancer and car accidents in US than in Chernobil [and whole EU] after explosion in Chernobil nuclear plant.

[Svirin Kerath]

Nuclear
We've had this for a while, it's not quite safe, and creates a ton of dangerous waste.

Im sorry If Im off topic but this is such a bullfeck... I mean, the Nuclear plants are pretty safe...maybe not 100% safe but aint too dangerous. More ppl died from obesity,cancer and car accidents in US than in Chernobil [and whole EU] after explosion in Chernobil nuclear plant.

I said wasn't "quite safe," which is very similar to "not 100% safe."

Read what I am actually saying before accusing me of making gross inaccurate statements. And are you arguing that it doesn't create a lot of dangerous waste? Because I'm pretty sure highly radioactive stuff that will be deadly for a hundred years or more is pretty dangerous.

And also, that is a really arbitrary statistic.

[a-4-year-old]

Warning: superpost.

Also they don't mention another form of solar, which creates molten sand to power a turbine.

This is sand. It is made primarily of silicon dioxide. Silicon dioxide melts at 1650C.

In short, I call bs.

I stand corrected. They melt salt, not sand.

Lots of mirrors pointed at a tower magnifies the sun's energy which is what generates heat that powers the turbine; it is called solar thermal.

Oh and Svirin, I call your one report laughable because I have seen so many people and so many books say that it is low cost and low maintenance. http://www.mge.com/environment/wind/ wind turbines said to last 30 years, these turbines will outlive most of the appliances they run.

Svirin, When they say "possible" I could use the same word to say that violating the laws of physics is also "possible" There is a failsafe that stops any meltdown before it can become out of control, it is incorporated into the design of every nuclear power plant in the US. Also there is a program for treating the waste that would mean that civilians are not in danger of coming in contact with nuclear radiation.


"That's not an inaccuracy or bias, unless you can prove that they knew that and neglected to say so."
It would be either a bias, or a proof that they don't know what they are talking about. If they had the information and failed to note it, then it is a bias, if they never had the information, then their entire research is flawed.

"Panels will work in cloudy weather, but they are not nearly as effective." How much is not nearly as effective, because I seem to remember that they still collect a lot of energy. Still solar power can be used around the world.

Small scale Geothermal can be used anywhere where the ground temperature is about the same all year round and not a tundra, by pumping water through the ground, you can use the ground to heat up the water and then a heater to heat it up to the desired temperature, but after installation (which is mainly in newly constructed buildings) it is essentially free energy with no pollution.

Lets talk about more inaccuracies.

Wind:
Advantages

    * Inexhaustible fuel source
    * No pollution
    * Often an excellent supplement to other renewable sources (this is not just a supplement, wind is plentiful enough to power the world by itself if we built the towers. see lower)

Disadvantages

    * Very diffuse source means low energy production--large numbers of wind generators (and thus large land areas) are required to produce useful amounts of heat or electricity (Some of this is true, but they fail to point out that even though wind farms take up a lot of land, towers themselves are not actually taking up much of that land, what happened at one site was that the tower was built on a person's farm, and they were paid for a portion the amount of wind the turbine produced This setup means that everyone wins, since wind energy is so cheap, consumers win as well)
    * Only areas of the world with lots of wind are suitable for wind power generation (not true, some generators are designed to run best in high wind, but some are for very low wind, such as a VAWT type turbine, many subtypes run in low wind which makes it ideal for any location, except they cannot interfere with bird migration. Also offshore and near shore are very effective, from the statement, you can infer that this is somehow a problem, but since there is so much land that is suitable for wind energy, in reality it is not a significant disadvantage.)
    * Relatively expensive to maintain (as stated numerous times; wrong. Wind energy is one of the cheapest available, the money spent on building and maintaining a wind turbine is very little compared to building a dam for hydro, or the tedious process of getting through the red tape and treating waste products Note: not that it is unsafe, but it does cost a lot more than wind power)

Next: Geothermal

Advantages

    * Theoretically inexhaustible energy source
    * No pollution
    * Often an excellent supplement to other renewable sources (in some areas of the world it can be the dominate fuel source for the area see: greenland)
    * Does not require structures such as solar panels or windmills to collect the energy--can be directly used to heat or produce electricity (thus very cheap) (Geothermal is a cheap source, but this infers that wind is not a cheap source, which is a fallacy)

Disadvantages

    * Not available in many locations (true but as before, it can be used effectively as the main source of power in the locations that it is used)
    * Not much power per vent

Fusion has not had a breakthrough yet, I won't comment on it until it is actually used a source of energy.

[Svirin Kerath]

*sigh*

Warning: superpost.

Also they don't mention another form of solar, which creates molten sand to power a turbine.

This is sand. It is made primarily of silicon dioxide. Silicon dioxide melts at 1650C.

In short, I call bs.

I stand corrected. They melt salt, not sand.

Lots of mirrors pointed at a tower magnifies the sun's energy which is what generates heat that powers the turbine; it is called solar thermal.

Oh and Svirin, I call your one report laughable because I have seen so many people and so many books say that it is low cost and low maintenance. http://www.mge.com/environment/wind/ wind turbines said to last 30 years, these turbines will outlive most of the appliances they run.

Then go ahead and list these paragons of knowledge and tomes of wind study. You have so far presented a vague reference to one book about one man working on one turbine.

Also, please specify where the site talks about low maintenance costs.

I did find this: "Why does wind power cost more?
Wind power plants do not generate as much electricity per dollar as conventional plants. So the price of electricity must be higher to recover the investment. The extra money participants pay every month covers the extra cost of wind power equipment."

Extra cost of wind power equipment? This may have been a poor choice of links.

Svirin, When they say "possible" I could use the same word to say that violating the laws of physics is also "possible" There is a failsafe that stops any meltdown before it can become out of control, it is incorporated into the design of every nuclear power plant in the US. Also there is a program for treating the waste that would mean that civilians are not in danger of coming in contact with nuclear radiation.

I think this is just an issue of semantics now.

Let's compare Nuclear Fission to solar power (solar panels), or even wind power.

Which is much more likely to result in dramatic negative effects due to a failure or anomaly of the power generation process?

Fission, of course.

And so, it is not astronomically improbable to then add, when talking about fission power, that "hey, when compared to other sources of energy, it is possible to have greater negative consequences."

I'm beginning to get tired of your bringing this up repeatedly. It's just vocabulary. They're not saying x = y when y = t, and you can prove them wrong, these are simple differences in reading language.


As for waste, you aren't really answering me. Is it dangerous or not? Would you lick it with your tongue?

"That's not an inaccuracy or bias, unless you can prove that they knew that and neglected to say so."
It would be either a bias, or a proof that they don't know what they are talking about. If they had the information and failed to note it, then it is a bias, if they never had the information, then their entire research is flawed.

That's actually a fallacy of thought. Galileo didn't know everything about the solar system when came up with a concept for how it worked. I guess that means his research was fundamentally flawed and we should accuse him of being an overrated dunce and tear apart the great historical reputation he has.

"Panels will work in cloudy weather, but they are not nearly as effective." How much is not nearly as effective, because I seem to remember that they still collect a lot of energy. Still solar power can be used around the world.

"A lot of energy" is debatable, but yes, they can be used around the world, especially now with technology that has just come out, a method of mass producing cheap solar panels, esp. for use on roofs.

Small scale Geothermal can be used anywhere where the ground temperature is about the same all year round and not a tundra, by pumping water through the ground, you can use the ground to heat up the water and then a heater to heat it up to the desired temperature, but after installation (which is mainly in newly constructed buildings) it is essentially free energy with no pollution.

You're basically explaining how it works, I have no argument with that.

Lets talk about more inaccuracies.

Wind:
Advantages

    * Inexhaustible fuel source
    * No pollution
    * Often an excellent supplement to other renewable sources (this is not just a supplement, wind is plentiful enough to power the world by itself if we built the towers. see lower)

Disadvantages

    * Very diffuse source means low energy production--large numbers of wind generators (and thus large land areas) are required to produce useful amounts of heat or electricity (Some of this is true, but they fail to point out that even though wind farms take up a lot of land, towers themselves are not actually taking up much of that land, what happened at one site was that the tower was built on a person's farm, and they were paid for a portion the amount of wind the turbine produced This setup means that everyone wins, since wind energy is so cheap, consumers win as well)
    * Only areas of the world with lots of wind are suitable for wind power generation (not true, some generators are designed to run best in high wind, but some are for very low wind, such as a VAWT type turbine, many subtypes run in low wind which makes it ideal for any location, except they cannot interfere with bird migration. Also offshore and near shore are very effective, from the statement, you can infer that this is somehow a problem, but since there is so much land that is suitable for wind energy, in reality it is not a significant disadvantage.)
    * Relatively expensive to maintain (as stated numerous times; wrong. Wind energy is one of the cheapest available, the money spent on building and maintaining a wind turbine is very little compared to building a dam for hydro, or the tedious process of getting through the red tape and treating waste products Note: not that it is unsafe, but it does cost a lot more than wind power)

You sort of answered your second point with your first one. The availability of land for wind power will ultimately be dictated by governments. On-shore and off-shore will probably be off limits, because most states will consider that land to be much more valuable for housing and tourism (and whether it's true or not, towers of any kind, including cell phone, phone line, and radio, in natural areas are considered eyesores that keep people with money away). Such bureaucratic conditions significantly minimize the potential land to be used for wind power, and that will probably remain until we become either more desperate or incentives get much better.

As for varying wind requirements, I'm gonna look into that, but for now I shall continue.

Next: Geothermal

Advantages

    * Theoretically inexhaustible energy source
    * No pollution
    * Often an excellent supplement to other renewable sources (in some areas of the world it can be the dominate fuel source for the area see: greenland)
    * Does not require structures such as solar panels or windmills to collect the energy--can be directly used to heat or produce electricity (thus very cheap) (Geothermal is a cheap source, but this infers that wind is not a cheap source, which is a fallacy)

More semantics. And as I illustrated above, the site you presented does in fact show wind as being expensive.

Disadvantages

    * Not available in many locations (true but as before, it can be used effectively as the main source of power in the locations that it is used)
    * Not much power per vent

You didn't really argue there.

Fusion has not had a breakthrough yet, I won't comment on it until it is actually used a source of energy.

Sadly, no. It may be a pipe dream, but all the sci-fi I have read makes me overly optimistic. Who knows if it'll be possible in 50 years?

For a good source of info on possible fusion in the future, check out ITER

[a-4-year-old]

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html

note the 5 cents per kWatt

I have no idea where you found that quote. Five cents is vastly cheaper than it's polluting counterparts.

http://fcgov.com/utilities/wind-faq.php

one cent per kWh

http://www.fplenergy.com/renewable/contents/faqs_wind.shtml#sources

What's this? another source? no... can't be.

"Wind turbines generally require preventative maintenance checkups two to three times per year."

also note price 4-7 cents per kilowatt

[Svirin Kerath]

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html

note the 5 cents per kWatt

I have no idea where you found that quote. Five cents is vastly cheaper than it's polluting counterparts.

http://fcgov.com/utilities/wind-faq.php

one cent per kWh

http://www.fplenergy.com/renewable/contents/faqs_wind.shtml#sources

What's this? another source? no... can't be.

"Wind turbines generally require preventative maintenance checkups two to three times per year."

also note price 4-7 cents per kilowatt

Not hard to find. http://www.mge.com/environment/wind/cost.htm
I just looked for something about "cost."

It also shows solar as being vastly more expensive. And it shows wind as being only 2.68 cents per kWh, but still more expensive.

And from the sites you yourself provided, in order of your linking them:

" Why does the cost of wind energy vary from place to place?

The most important factors in determining the cost of wind-generated electricity from a wind farm are: (1) the size of the wind farm; (2) the wind speed at the site; and (3) the cost of installing the turbines. Each of these factors can have a major impact. Generally speaking:

    * The larger the wind farm, all other factors being equal, the lower the cost of energy;
    * The higher the wind speed, the lower the cost of energy;
    * The less expensive construction costs are, the lower the cost of energy.

On New England ridgelines, for example, wind farms are likely to be smaller, to experience lower wind speeds, and to cost more to install than in the flat terrain of northern Plains states. While wind power may cost less than 5 cents/kWh in the northern Plains, it may cost 6-7 cents/kWh in New England.

In the case of offshore wind farms, the distance that power must be transmitted to shore is a fourth potentially significant cost element.....    If my utility uses more wind energy, will that make my electric rates go up my electric rates go up?

Yes, probably, but not much. Let's say that wind energy costs 2 cents more per kilowatt-hour (2 cents/kWh) than the rest of the electricity your utility is generating or buying—a conservative estimate."

"How much will I pay for wind energy?

The average household in Fort Collins uses 700 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity each month and will pay about $7 more if they subscribe to the Wind Power Program."

 "The cost to develop and build a wind energy facility is approximately $1.3 million to $1.7 million per megawatt, compared to a cost for gas-fired energy generation of $700,000 per megawatt."

Even 4 cents is pushing expense over traditional alternatives. What are you reading? Also, you haven't provided any info on examples of masses of towers and their maintenance costs to support what you're saying. That sight merely gave a prediction, and "preventative maintenance" is a very vague term, much like "major restoration."

[a-4-year-old]

"Wind is the least expensive renewable technology we can develop on a large scale in Wisconsin."
What the hell do you want me to do? should I send you the books I got at the library?

The fact is that wind energy isn't nearly as expensive as you had said it was.

And as for preventative maintenace, that is just any maintenance needed to keep it from falling apart, like changing the oil in your car.