Wind Power A New Texas Stadium Feature

Just makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

<em class='bbc'>The installation will involve three “community-scale” wind turbines that are intended for use in small scale install. They are relatively quiet (50 decibels at 131 feet) and designed to function well in low-wind conditions, since the North Texas  region has a 12 MPH wind average. Each turbine is rated at 100 kilowatts and is expected to offset the energy consumption of the “Mean Green Village” section of campus by about  6 percent and eliminate 323 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually</em>

<a href='http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/04/wind-power-a-new-texas-stadium-feature/' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.earthtech...tadium-feature/</a>

Click here to view the article

Hell, they should double it and make 6. I don't see any negative here.

The negative I see is that the State of Texas is spending over $2 million on these turbines. I can't remember the exact number, but a while back I took the total investment number and divided it by the expected savings, and the RETURN OF INVESTMENT would take something like 45 years. I'm all for being green, and conserving, but if something takes 45 years just to get your money back, it isn't a good investment.

I'm not upset that they are going to be there anymore (I was worried about the noise), but the investment itself just baffles me.

Don't you think part of this is as an experiment to see how turbines work, how loud they are, and if they are compatible in an urban setting. I've seen lots of turbines out in the middle of nowhere, but never in a neighborhood. I think this is to bring out in the country technology into the city. Hmmm

Umm. I'm pretty sue the whole green initiative in general isn't about making/saving some green. I think some folks would argue that it's an investment in the planet's future. Just sayin'.

"The negative I see is that the State of Texas is spending over $2 million on these turbines. I can't remember the exact number, but a while back I took the total investment number and divided it by the expected savings, and the RETURN OF INVESTMENT would take something like 45 years. I'm all for being green, and conserving, but if something takes 45 years just to get your money back, it isn't a good investment.

I'm not upset that they are going to be there anymore (I was worried about the noise), but the investment itself just baffles me."

45 years? Ha! Factor in the breakdowns, ongoing maintenance, and possible replacements......bad investment.

Umm. I'm pretty sue the whole green initiative in general isn't about making/saving some green. I think some folks would argue that it's an investment in the planet's future. Just sayin'.

That is pretty much the problem with the whole green initiative. I am all for conservation, recycling, renewable energy, heck, I even looked at electric cars the other day. The problem is that we live under the constraint of money, and something that does not pay for itself for almost 50 years (if absolutely nothing goes wrong with it) is a bad investment.

I'm not factoring in the good publicity it will get us, but regardless, this just proves the current utter infeasibility of the green movement, and it will continue to be that way until costs can be lowered. I would NEVER, NEVER, invest in something that I know I won't get my money back on until I'm either dead, or close. My (approximate) 45 year calculation did not even include inflation, which would make it much, much worse. Plus, keep in mind that is just the return of investment, not the return on investment.

With all of the talk about teachers losing jobs, and education budget cuts, you would think Texas could find a better way to spend that $2 million dollars. I don't have a beef with the turbines themselves, just with the financial aspect.

At least is will pay for itself. You can not get your money back form the power co. after 50 years of paying them.

That is pretty much the problem with the whole green initiative. I am all for conservation, recycling, renewable energy, heck, I even looked at electric cars the other day. The problem is that we live under the constraint of money, and something that does not pay for itself for almost 50 years (if absolutely nothing goes wrong with it) is a bad investment.

I'm not factoring in the good publicity it will get us, but regardless, this just proves the current utter infeasibility of the green movement, and it will continue to be that way until costs can be lowered. I would NEVER, NEVER, invest in something that I know I won't get my money back on until I'm either dead, or close. My (approximate) 45 year calculation did not even include inflation, which would make it much, much worse. Plus, keep in mind that is just the return of investment, not the return on investment.

With all of the talk about teachers losing jobs, and education budget cuts, you would think Texas could find a better way to spend that $2 million dollars. I don't have a beef with the turbines themselves, just with the financial aspect.

Maybe this is over simplifying here, but this is my take on "investments" in the green movement.

Take something like planting a tree. If I plant a tree today (I'm 52 now), I will likely not be around to enjoy its shade, breathe its oxygen, or eat its fruit (if it bears fruit). What I'm doing though is investing in my children's and grandchildren's future by planting something that will benefit them and future generations. In other words, it is a poor investment for me but a wonderful investment for my descendents. If in some small way, building these turbines will help make a cleaner, more sustainable world for the next generations of Mean Green students, I'm willing to foot a little of the bill today.

Lefty is right

I'm all for a clean earth for the sake of my children, grand children, and future generations. I just don't like three wind turbines in the backyard of my new stadium when there were other, less intrusive sites nearby.

I'm all for a clean earth for the sake of my children, grand children, and future generations. I just don't like three wind turbines in the backyard of my new stadium when there were other, less intrusive sites nearby.

But then they wouldn't be a visible reminder to ourselves about how much we care and how big a difference we are making.

Nevermind that fact that we really aren't making a difference, it only matters how we feel.

Put them across Bonnie Brae either between those facilities and the RR tracks or between the RR tracks and I35W.

Put them across Bonnie Brae either between those facilities and the RR tracks or between the RR tracks and I35W.

...or we could just bulldoze Denia and build a whole windmill farm on top of it.

Just sayin'

The negative I see is that the State of Texas is spending over $2 million on these turbines. I can't remember the exact number, but a while back I took the total investment number and divided it by the expected savings, and the RETURN OF INVESTMENT would take something like 45 years. I'm all for being green, and conserving, but if something takes 45 years just to get your money back, it isn't a good investment.

I'm not upset that they are going to be there anymore (I was worried about the noise), but the investment itself just baffles me.

The article states that we got a 2 million dollar grant for the project. A project that will be used in the class room as well. I spent a very short time in my life pricing a couple of wind projects. They were not right for me and i moved on, but I can tell you that three 100kw turbines do not cost 2 million dollars installed. These a very small turbines folks that are not really deserving of all the vitriol that is being thrown at them.

Edited April 25, 2011 by HoustonEagle

Maybe this is over simplifying here, but this is my take on "investments" in the green movement.

Take something like planting a tree. If I plant a tree today (I'm 52 now), I will likely not be around to enjoy its shade, breathe its oxygen, or eat its fruit (if it bears fruit). What I'm doing though is investing in my children's and grandchildren's future by planting something that will benefit them and future generations. In other words, it is a poor investment for me but a wonderful investment for my descendents. If in some small way, building these turbines will help make a cleaner, more sustainable world for the next generations of Mean Green students, I'm willing to foot a little of the bill today.

You know what else would be a good investment? How about repairing or replacing bridges, dams and water infrastructure. Those will also be around for future generations and unlike these stupid windmills will provide a quality of life boost now and into the future.

You know what else would be a good investment? How about repairing or replacing bridges, dams and water infrastructure. Those will also be around for future generations and unlike these stupid windmills will provide a quality of life boost now and into the future.

I agree.

Wrong forum, but wasn't that what Obama's "stimulus money" suppose to be for? Guess his union buddies and auto bailouts came first.

Stimulus Projects

Enter your zip code and you can see what stimulus money was spent near you. A third of it was tax cuts.

Edited April 25, 2011 by HoustonEagle

Umm. I'm pretty sue the whole green initiative in general isn't about making/saving some green. I think some folks would argue that it's an investment in the planet's investor's future. Just sayin'.

Fixed it.

Stimulus Projects

Enter your zip code and you can see what stimulus money was spent near you. A third of it was tax cuts.

Pretty cool website, but am I reading this correct? I put in Denton's zip, 76021. Say's this area recieved $53 Million, which produced 8.24 jobs?

Rick