Should wind energy be a major component of plans to fight global warming?

  • The more wind power that can be generated into the national energy grid, the better.

    Wind will never be a majority supplier of the energy grid, because of reliability issues. It does not generate electricity when it is not windy. But, the more electricity that can be generated by wind power, the better. It causes almost no pollution and can be a source of revenue for landowners that put up wind turbines on their property. The more wind power, the better.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • I believe that wind energy should be a major component in the fight against global warming, because anything is worth a try.

    Although wind energy could be a major component in the fight against global warming, I'm not sure how much of an impact it will have. It is certainly worth pursuing, but I'm not sure it will be as cost-effective as it could be, or that the energy output will be sufficient. However, it is worth trying.

    Posted by: BrownDustin82
  • Wind energy, as well as other types of renewable energy, should be the major component in our fight against global warming.

    Although generating wind energy is not possible in every location, where it is possible, this form of energy should be harvested. Wind energy, as well as other types of renewable energy, such as solar and water, should be seen as a major component in our fight against global warming, and in our solutions against our energy/oil problems.

    Posted by: SpikyWesley
  • Wind energy supplies enough power, without the draining effects coal or fossil fuels have on our environment.

    Several countries across the globe have utilized this energy source. China, Germany, and the United States possess enough wind power to utilize this technology, in order to support major cities. If this technological innovation continues to be studied, we could have an excellent means of energy to substitute the old brazen ways which harm or ecosystem.

    Posted by: NumberlessClemente63
  • Wind energy produces no CO2, and definitely should be a part of plans to fight global warming.

    Wind energy produces no CO2 or pollution of any kind during operation. It is suitable for installation in many places, including offshore locations. These advantages mean it should certainly be a part of fighting global warming. Wind energy will not do the whole job itself, since the wind is variable and limited. But a combination of techniques will be needed to produce energy, without causing global warming. The energy sources used should certainly include wind, as well as others, like solar and nuclear.

    Posted by: tacomoon
  • I support the use of wind energy, because it is a safe, environmentally responsible source of energy.

    Wind energy is not a magic bullet, but it is an important component of the solution. Wind arrays are quiet, non-polluting, and to some, even beautiful. Located in mountainous areas, plains, or anywhere with a strong breeze, wind arrays provide a safe and environmentally responsible source of energy which, combined with solar and other sources, can help reduce fossil fuel use and slow global warming.

    Posted by: WolfieJarib
  • Yes, wind energy should be part of the United States' plans to fight global warming, because it is effective and inexpensive.

    Wind energy is a good way to generate power without using non-renewable resources that hurt the environment. There will always be wind, and wind is free. While wind farms probably can never generate all our power, they can make a substantial contribution to our energy needs, and thus help fight global warming by reducing carbon emissions.

    Posted by: R3yGoobIe
  • Wind is an untapped natural resource that could be very beneficial in producing energy while helping to fight global warming.

    Since I live in a coastal area, it is windy here almost every day and I believe it is a shame not to use this natural resource for the production energy. If wind could be harnessed and used to replace some of our use of other types of energy, it should certainly have a positive effect on global warming. Using wind energy would be much more environmentally friendly than traditional sources of power.

    Posted by: R0d0Ferdy
  • Wind energy should be a major component of plans to fight global warming.

    The power of the wind is a miraculous thing! Our ability to harness it and use it should not be taken for granted. Mother nature has given us the gift of wind. Instead of using this gift, we are destroying our Earth. Windmills have been used for ages. Why not use them now?

    Posted by: giladren
  • I believe that wind energy is a great substitute for the quickly depleting natural resources leading to global warming.

    Yes certainly wind energy should be a major component of plans to fight global warming. Scarcity of natural resources like oil, coal and natural gas is a huge problem, and we should try new alternatives sources. Wind energy is clean and renewable. With the recent advancements in technology, wind power generation is becoming more affordable and should be a big part of our push against climate change.

    Posted by: WittyRud
  • Wind industry should not be a major component of plans to fight global warming, because it is simply too cost-prohibitive for the minimal results it produces.

    It has been argued that, if we were to devote half of the country's open acreage to wind power, we would still only be able to provide 5% of the energy America needs to run. It would be a sheer waste of money and resources to invest in such an ineffective strategy. With all the oil reserves off our coast lines, we should be relaxing environmental restrictions that prevent us from drilling for oil. Oil is the time-tested fuel that keeps our country running.

    Posted by: SquealingSeymour
  • While wind energy is a useful alternative, its uneven delivery means it can only be a small part of future energy production.

    While wind energy is promising in some ways, the fact that wind is not a reliable, predictable source of power means that backup power or energy storage will be required. Backup power sources that can be turned on-and-off is expensive, as are batteries and other forms of energy storage. A "smart grid" would help, but even if the chances of all the wind power of a country or connected region going completely down is 1-in-a-1000, a 1-in-1000 day happens every 3 years; there's no way an advanced economy can 'weather' that kind of brownout. (Pun not intended...mostly). Wind energy should not be abandoned, as it is a time-tested source of power going back 100s of years, but if a drastic reduction in greenhouse gases is to be had in the near future, nuclear power and carbon sequestration/filtering will have to be the major parts of the solution... Like them or not.

    Posted by: deadlyx
  • Wind energy is incredibly costly and not yet efficient enough to provide feasible benefits.

    First of all, this argument assumes that the premise of theoretical global warming is true when, in fact, Global Warming has not been proven to be a matter of fact. It is a theory. Assuming that it is in fact true, wind energy could theoretically be used to reduce the effects of global warming. However, while its benefits seem to be promising, it is still too early in its evolution to harvest the power created efficiently and cost effectively. Wind turbines cost multiple millions of dollars to build, operate, and maintain. It takes many turbines to create a sustainable effect, meaning that the costs currently outweigh the benefits.

    Posted by: R0m4nticCar
  • when the wind doesn't blow isn't when it's power is needed best

    The wind typically blows hardest in spring and fall. The greatest peak demands for power are during the summer and winter. Thus wind turbines, if used as a sole power source, do not generate energy when they are needed most for heating and cooling. Wind power is also highly variable, with higher output occurring in the morning and evening, while peak demand is mid-day during working hours. This necessitates large battery arrays to store power, causing some loss of this already variable power source. While wind power can be somewhat steady in some locations, such as off shore, the infrastructure to build the windmills and then bring power in from those locations decreases its value compared to power sources built on site (geothermal, solar) that do not have power losses of up to 15% across transmission lines.

    Posted by: Pir4And

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.