how many wind generator farms could the money we've spend on the Iraqi war so far have paid for by now? Wouldn't do much good if the bad guys fly airplanes into them. -ex . ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** Hmm, thousands of windmills - that would take an awful lot of airplanes.

how many wind generator farms could the money we've spend on the Iraqi war so far have paid for by now? Wouldn't do much good if the bad guys fly airplanes into them. -ex . ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** Hmm, thousands of windmills - that would take an awful lot of airplanes. That means more jobs in the aircraft industry! I'm saying all that tongue-in-cheek.  Our (the US) taking over their oil infrastructure, even temporarily, was ostensibility going to pay for the military effort and all the building and rebuilding that was required. Of course we know how that has turned out. In that regard the comment about having spent the money here on windmills instead is only rhetorical.  It may come to that though. Apparently there's enough $$$ in Washington to use for whatever is on the front burner at the moment and I don't think bringing 'democracy' to some other country is as high in comparison as it was 5 years ago. -Bill .. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

years ago how many cars would he have to make before it affected the weather, it would have sounded just as stupid. It's not a stupid question. The question is, how much do windmills affect the pattern and intensity of airflow? My opinion is that we'd need to erect a huge number, far more than needed, but that is sheer speculation.

Here is a better question.  How many wind generators can we put up before we affect the weather?  It sound like a stupid question, but if you had asked Henry Ford a hundred years ago how many cars would he have to make before it affected the weather, it would have sounded just as stupid. Not necessarily a stupid question, but different premises entirely. Windmills interrupt only a tiny fraction of the energy involved, and transfer that energy from wind to electricity. If you want to do the math, just measure the exposed surface area of the blade vs. the surface area they cover, and the volume of air they displace _base_d on pitch and speed. The first two calculations are trivial, the last two are not. But suffice it to say that the amount of energy transferred is very small.  This is not a water-turbine system that (theoretically) interrupts 100% of the flow and removes a very high percent of the potential energy available. Then, very little of the energy becomes heat (at the site, that is). Some is lost in friction, some is lost in generator inefficiencies, some is lost in wire resistance... but small overall. Then, no products of combustion are put into the atmosphere. No CO, no CO2, no NO, no NO2 or NO3, no unburnt fractions. Then, somewhere else, less fuel needs to be burned to make power - less coal, less oil, less natural gas, less nuclear even. Fewer rivers need to be dammed.... So, absolutely YES, the weather will be affected - eventually. Air will become cleaner, fewer pollutants in it, less greenhouse gases... less global warming. Not a stupid or even a silly question at all. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Mpffff.... no, not really. Oil is priced in dollars. Although the relative devaluation of the dollar has a *small* effect, the bigger cause is simple demand. There is NO MORE SURPLUS oil left in the world today. Even 5 years ago, this was not true - there was a (roughly) 3% surplus which served to keep reserves high and crude prices somewhat low. Now, China, India and Eastern Europe have consumed all of that excess *and* any increases since then as well. (Remaining Peter post deleted in the interest of bandwidth) I'm going to have to take you to task on this one Peter.  Your logic just does not fly.  Yes, oil is priced in dollars, when we Americans buy it.  When other counties buy oil, they use their currency and pay an amount dictated by exchange rates.  Let's say that we are talking the purchase of one barrel of oil.  The current cost is roughly $140 a barrel.  So, we compete with the rest of the world at that price. Subsequently, the value of the dollar gets cut in half (compared to the Euro, or any other currency you wish to choose).  As TwoMuttHeads pointed out, not long ago it took $.82 (82 cents) to buy a Euro. Now it takes $1.57 to buy a Euro.  Assuming a barrel of oil still costs $140, the Europeans half to spend roughly half of what we do to get that barrel of oil.  Of course, by that time, the cost of a barrel of oil will be much more than $140.  The Europeans will have to spend the same amount in their currency.  We will have to pay much more because our dollar has been devalued.  The devaluation of the dollor has much more than a small effect.