12 Minnesota cities are installing wind turbines, hoping to provide...

I am very surprised that Duluth (the city with the hills and the big wind chills) aren't looking into this???

Again, no mention of the cities doing a feasibility study to see what the payback if any would be in the future. How much energy could the city have bought for the millions they have spent on this toy?

I suspect this will be like the solar panels installed in some metro cities....the payback IF they last that long was 50 to 100 years.

I am all for green stuff, but please make it a worth while expenditure like the private sector would have to do. Let's not spend millions to save a few dollars over the life of this fan.

Tired of it all wrote:

Again, no mention of the cities doing a feasibility study to see what the payback if any would be in the future. How much energy could the city have bought for the millions they have spent on this toy?
I suspect this will be like the solar panels installed in some metro cities....the payback IF they last that long was 50 to 100 years.
I am all for green stuff, but please make it a worth while expenditure like the private sector would have to do. Let's not spend millions to save a few dollars over the life of this fan.

Exactly. Also, how many birds must die and how many pedestrians must be murdered by LRT before there is widespread public outrage against the greenies? Drill here, drill now pump as much oil as we can as fast as we can!

Keep it up; we need initiatives like this

The bottom line is that the debate about renewables, and investment in them, is as much about ideology and political belief as about economics and environmental issues. When the real cost of wind power as a major player in our future power needs is assessed, the answer won’t be found just “blowin’ in the wind.”

They're so ugly. I would hate to see Duluth's landscape ruined by a wind turbine.

Keep em out in the fields and away from the scenic views. We have one out here in Maple Grove and I can't stand looking at that thing. All you see when you drive past is a giant windmill. Would be awesome if it looked like the ones in Holland...it doesn't.

It was kinda windy the past few days. Guess what wasn't spinning around to capture that energy?

We're going to ruin all of our natural landscapes by creating wind farms. Wouldn't it great to see the grand canyon...with 100's of turbines surrounding it?

We need to focus efforts on preserving energy and creating energy we can't see.

Put a solar panel on everyone's roof. Keep the wind turbines out of my backyard.

3.6 million in bonds plus interest / 110 homes =$32,727 per home.

At 4% interest with a 30year payback the cost buy the windmill is 171,187/month / 110 homes =$156.25/home payment to break even.

These figures do not cover the maintainence cost.

The electric rates will not go up because we are charging all the homeowners on their property tax. Really great reasoning their. Now everone in N. St. Paul has to subsidize those who use more electricity.

I had a typo on my prior post ( probably more than one).

$17,187/month/110 homes = 156.25 /home to break even, is what it should have said.

Tom wrote:

Put a solar panel on everyone's roof. Keep the wind turbines out of my backyard.

You don't like the turbines because you think their ugly. What if I think solar panels are ugly.

Put a turbine in everyone's yard, keep the solar panels off my roof.

That argument is no less valid than yours but I'm guessing you're not going to like it. You're gonna have to base an argument on more than "because I like it that way".

Down here in the big city, we call the wind turbines politicians!

IF you cannot see the difference between roof mounted solar panels and 300 foot tall wind turbines I guess you havn't seen both.

Not to mention the millions of birds that are killed by windmills.

==========

kecker wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't like the turbines because you think their ugly. What if I think solar panels are ugly.
Put a turbine in everyone's yard, keep the solar panels off my roof.
That argument is no less valid than yours but I'm guessing you're not going to like it. You're gonna have to base an argument on more than "because I like it that way".

If cities would loosen up their zoning laws, more people could erect smaller windmills to help with their own electrical needs. Funny, for such a liberal state there are few if any places within a city where a citizen could put one up. Of course, then we would be more self sufficient and the state would lose out on their cut of taxes on energy.

I wonder how much output the wind turbine in Anoka has during one day when it is running and there is wind. Monticello's nuclear plant puts out 572 megawatts of electricity running at less than capacity in a day. I have read that best and largest wind turbine built could only manage 7 megawatts in a year at over $20 million dollars per turbine. Somehow the numbers do not crunch to be a viable benefit for alternative power. Not to mention the large ice chunks that will be flying off it this winter. And similar, the public works department in Medina putting up a $900,000, ,minus maintenance expense, solar panels on the roof of their building for a $15,000 dollar per year electricity savings. I am all for finding energy alternatives but spending taxpayer money for little return I see no benefit in that as far as energy sources. The goal should be finding an energy source more clean and less expensive than fossil fuels like nuclear.

IF it seems like the Anoka windmill is turning with low or little wind be aware the windmill generator is nothing more than a motor and I'll bet IF there were power put to it the thing could be spun with nuke/coal generated electricity, you know just to make the sheepie feel good..

==========

Charlie Holcomb wrote:

I wonder how much output the wind turbine in Anoka has during one day when it is running and there is wind. Monticello's nuclear plant puts out 572 megawatts of electricity running at less than capacity in a day. I have read that best and largest wind turbine built could only manage 7 megawatts in a year at over $20 million dollars per turbine. Somehow the numbers do not crunch to be a viable benefit for alternative power. Not to mention the large ice chunks that will be flying off it this winter. And similar, the public works department in Medina putting up a $900,000,,minus maintenance expense, solar panels on the roof of their building for a $15,000 dollar per year electricity savings. I am all for finding energy alternatives but spending taxpayer money for little return I see no benefit in that as far as energy sources. The goal should be finding an energy source more clean and less expensive than fossil fuels like nuclear.

I grew up on a farm in Iowa. When they built wind turbines all around us, we noticed that the breeze that we used to cool our home instead of using air conditioning stopped. The big wind turbines dramatically slow the wind on the other side of the turbine. So now we are using MORE energy to air condition our house so the electric companies can sell "green" energy to naive sity folks.

By the way, that solar panel project on the roof of the Medina public works, it will take 60 years to recover the cost of the initial construction. By Dave McNary, they will have to pay an inspector who will inspect the array and inverters 720 over the course of the 60 years if the panels last that long. And in addition per Dave McNary of Hennipen County, the originator of the project, the filters have to be replaced and the panels cleaned every six months by a maintenance team. Which based on the 60 year timeframe will be 1440 times before they are able to recover the cost of the project based on the $15,000 savings it produces. They must be using new math if they think solar panels have some benefit.

Tom wrote:

They're so ugly. I would hate to see Duluth's landscape ruined by a wind turbine.
Keep em out in the fields and away from the scenic views. We have one out here in Maple Grove and I can't stand looking at that thing. All you see when you drive past is a giant windmill. Would be awesome if it looked like the ones in Holland...it doesn't.

Duluth has some attractive features, but if it erected wind generators, they would likely be on the top of the bluff. You may think they are an eyesore, but I'm not sure Duluth's giant telefarm of radio and TV towers is beautiful to most people. I assume the Holland windmills you refer to are the old style like on an Old Dutch potato chip bag. Modern wind generators in Holland look as they do here. It is simply the most efficient design.
While I admire a city's attempt at generating power from renewable sources, many cities, including those in the metro, do not have ideal wind speeds for a cost effective generator. They may be better off purchasing a generator in a more suitable location outside of the city, or simply agree to buy power from an existing wind farm.

North St. Paul's windmill is a friggin' joke. The downtown area is void of personality, but now it has a butt-ugly landmark you can see as you zoom past the city on Highway 36. Nice job city planners!

In 60 years, they'll say the building will need to be replaced.

Charlie Holcomb wrote:

By the way, that solar panel project on the roof of the Medina public works, it will take 60 years to recover the cost of the initial construction. By Dave McNary, they will have to pay an inspector who will inspect the array and inverters 720 over the course of the 60 years if the panels last that long. And in addition per Dave McNary of Hennipen County, the originator of the project, the filters have to be replaced and the panels cleaned every six months by a maintenance team. Which based on the 60 year timeframe will be 1440 times before they are able to recover the cost of the project based on the $15,000 savings it produces. They must be using new math if they think solar panels have some benefit.

yeah sure wrote:

If cities would loosen up their zoning laws, more people could erect smaller windmills to help with their own electrical needs.

Are you really this stupid?