Why doesn't the 'Windy City' use Windmills for energy & get rid of the Com Ed monopoly & the 23% increase

Answer 1

Wind energy in Chicago IL would be a great idea if it were not for three issues.

1. Community issues where housing is concerned. Many do not want large windmills in their community because of the construction needed and the number of wind generators necessary to create enough energy for Chicago.

2. Most of the wind is actually localized in the city areas where there are "wind tunnel" affects at the ground level. The other area of windy affects is near the lakes. For such small localized areas there simply is not enough volume to use the wind flow generated.

3. Cost - land would have to be purcahsed and equipment bought. Land prices due to population are high. Therefore, the cost of capital will not meet the potential profit in building them.

There are a number of electric providers attempting to make wind power "smarter" and more cost affective. OGUE in Oklahoma is one such power industry exploring this. See http://www.oge.com for more information.

I know how you feel though - energy costs are higher nation wide and our leadership stopped listening to the citizen when it became clear that "power" is "money". Unfortunate but true.

To reduce the cost we have to be smarter, and voice our opinions through contacting our government and sticking with it when it comes time to vote.

Good luck.

Brian R Cross.

Answer 2

Could help a little, I suppose, but a cost-effective wind farm takes a LOT of acreage, and the land values around Chicago are sufficiently high to make that an unprofitable proposition.

Also, Chicago is not really a good location for wind generation -- it's fairly flat and less than 600 feet above sea level. Although this is debated, it's likely that the designation "Windy City" has more to do with political windbags than climate.

Answer 3

The term "Windy City" actually refers to the "hot air" coming from Chicago's politicians (it was coined a century ago but still applies today). Those same politicians probably have alot to do with the lack of windmills today, and frankly most of them are just reacting to the NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude of most of the residents of the Chicago metro area.

Even so, Chicago is NOT particularly a windy place from a weather perspective and wind power would not be especially useful there.

Answer 4

It would take thousands of windmills to generate the power used in Chicago. Where are they gonna be constructed? Who is gonna pay for them? What about the birds? How many homes would have to be destroyed to build all those windmills?

That rate increase and all the problems associated with it is the public fault and the politicians. There never should have been a freeze put on electrical rates. You wanna blame someone, blame the politicians.

Answer 5

Why not instead of a large wind farm, but instead invest in mixed use or fuel to reduced the overall dependency on fossil fuel. A mixed use power plant will have smaller wind mills. Also, this will require far less the number of windmills needed to completely replace the energy generated by an old large fossil fuel power plant. In some projects, the use of fossil fuel, wind, hydro, solar, and alternative fuel (i.e. solid waist decomposition) sources have been studied to compliment the overall need for power in the future. For now we should focus on reduction in stead of replacement. At least that will be our first step towards a cleaner and environmental friendlier total energy source.

Answer 6

The effect a windmill would have on wind will be fairly minor reckoning on the flexibility of the wind. One plausible effect that takes position is how a wind turbine would substitute the air pressures round it (similar idea to the drag effect that takes position behind your motorized vehicle at the same time as driving at a short speed). yet another threat will be the resistance of collective turbines probably turning out to be a "channeling" effect. Like I suggested in the previous besides the undeniable fact that, wind is really troublesome to effect-exceptionally through some thing like a windmill (some thing specifically designed to no longer have major wind resistance).

Answer 7

lots of people call them an eyesore, theyed rather pollute the atmosphere than do something that would help everyone, including their kids in the long run. i guess they dont care about that. it takes an 8 mph wind to power a turbine. they are very expensive, the blades alone cost anywhere from 50 to 75k apiece, and it takes 3 of them. they are not totally reliable as the wind doesnt always blow that fast. thats the downside. wind is free, and once they are paid for, the energy cost will go down dramatically. once we get an oilman out of office, you might see alternative energy sources used more. he has done everything he can to retard alternative energy without it looking too obvious. it could have saved a bunch of farmers from losing their land. they could have gotten 2k per terminal per year and could have farmed around it. theres a stretch of land in the midwest going as far as north dokota that would power most of the nation east of that line. there would be no blackouts and energy costs would decrease. wind energy is just a stepping stone to the next phase, but it will be an uphill battle because of the fossil fuel industry. prove me wrong, anyone?

Answer 8

The Windy City Earned its nickname years ago from the politicians not the wind.

Answer 9

It's not really windy there (Buffalo has more wind) and there's no place to put them there. The city's on the wrong side of the lake.

Answer 10

"Steve" is right, most people oppose windmill farms because they look ugly. And wind-power is unreliable, because in most parts of the world, the wind is unpredictable.