Minnesota wind turbines won’t work in cold weather

posted at 12:00 pm on January 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Minnesota invested itself in alternative energy sources years ago, and so the revelation that the state spent $3.3 million on eleven wind turbines hardly qualifies as news. However, the fact that they don’t work in cold weather does. KSTP reports that none of the wind turbines work, prompting the Twin Cities ABC affiliate to dub them “no-spin zones.”

Special hydraulic fluid designed for colder temperatures was used in the turbines, but it’s not working, so neither are the turbines.

There is a plan to heat the fluid, but officials must find a contractor to do the work.

How will the heaters work? They’ll have to use either electricity or natural gas at each turbine to keep the mechanism lubricated. That will drastically reduce the net energy gain from each turbine, depending on how much heating the turbine fluid needs to stop congealing in the winter. Since cold weather here lasts anywhere from 4-6 months, that makes it mighty inefficient as an energy resource.

In this case, though, the state may not be entirely at fault. The manufacturer certified these turbines to work during the harsh winters of Minnesota, and the state took them at their word. KSTP reports that the state may sue the manufacturer for either failure to perform or perhaps misrepresentation, so we could get at least some of our money back. However, the state also could have mitigated the issue by purchasing just one or two and monitoring their performance through a winter before buying the rest.

Wind power makes a lot of sense as a secondary or tertiary power source, a way to harness extra power without necessarily relying on it as a consistent source. I have no problem with its deployment under that kind of strategy, but as this shows, it’s simply not reliable enough as a primary energy resource replacing coal- or natural gas-generated electricity.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I wanted to have a little one installed on my property so I could use it to power my house when the wind blows and then use the power company when it doesn’t. I hope this is not an implication on all wind turbines.

Mirimichi on January 30, 2010 at 6:49 PM

I wanted to have a little one installed on my property so I could use it to power my house when the wind blows and then use the power company when it doesn’t. I hope this is not an implication on all wind turbines.

Mirimichi on January 30, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Hummmm….! LOL

whbates on January 30, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Nuclear, on the other hand, is most definitely economically viable. I only hope Obama was serious about spurring more nuke plants. If so, that puts him a step ahead of the previous POTUS — I never heard Bush say one word on the subject.

Splashman on January 30, 2010 at 1:04 PM

The Bush energy plan had lots of coal, nuclear, gas and off shore drilling. Why do you think that there are 22 pending licenses or applications for new nuclear plants (Bush had 12 Billion in loan supports in the FY2005 Budget). It wasn’t Bush it was the same people that have been the problem for 30 years stopping it. The current POTUS might say anything, but under this group of clowns none of thoes ideas are going anywhere. Your information about Bush is totally wrong.

whbates on January 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM

According to the report, each turbine can power 35 homes. When it’s spinning of course, and only at full speed. If that’s the case, it seems that the investment will never pay for itself. A typical home incurs about $2,000 in electric bills per year, so even if the turbine spins 50% of the time annually at full speed (very doubtful), the $1,000 saved per home (not including maintenance costs) translates to $35,000 per year ’saved.’ It would initially appear that it will pay for itself in about 10 years, but that always assumes that the initial investment remains static. If it were say invested in a bank cd at a 4% annual rate of return over 10 years, that $300k becomes $444,000. Thus the payback period is far longer assuming the turbine works as planned and has no maintenance costs. That is turning out not to be the case because of situations like this one. Factor in maintenance, unforeseen circumstances, and the fact that even when the turbine spins it’s power varies greatly with wind speed, it’s highly doubtful that small-scale industrial turbines such as these are economically feasible.

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/01/real-no-spin-zone-wind-turbines-in.html

theblogprof on January 30, 2010 at 6:11 PM

The funny thing is those people that want wind power have to pay 2¢ / KWH extra for the wind generated electricity.

Dasher on January 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM

So wind turbines can’t run without gas?

I knew they couldn’t operate without a 25% tax credit…and someone else to pay for their power lines and network controls.

In the real world, where wind only blows sometimes and there is no government “green fairy” showering cash upon their owners, windmills used for generation of electricity NEVER pay back their original cost.

And would YOU want to be hospitalized in a facility which relied exclusively upon wind for power?

landlines on January 30, 2010 at 7:33 PM

And would YOU want to be hospitalized in a facility which relied exclusively upon wind for power?

landlines on January 30, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Er-r-r-r… doesn’t that described Congress?

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 7:37 PM

There is a plan to heat the fluid, but officials must find a contractor to do the work.

Reminds me of the Washington Metro system that was modeled after the BART in San Francisco. First year of operation the machines to purchase a ticket (cutting edge at the time) froze up because they were not designed for Washington winters. The ultimate solution was to install a lightbulb inside the machine.

That situation and this are similar. Minn. winters are not a secret. It is absurd that this wasn’t thought of when the thousands of dollars were spent to erect these public eyesores.

highhopes on January 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM

As Emperor, I will have liberals generate electricity by running on huge hamster wheels.

justltl on January 30, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Or burning them for fuel.
Whichever.

justltl on January 30, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Re ObaMao’s committment to nuclear, Jonah Goldberg posts an email from a reader that demonstrates how shallow and deceitful The One’s speech was in the SOYU:

Re: Obama’s Commmitment to Nukes [Jonah Goldberg]

From a reader (who identifies himself as my Nuclear-Weapons Guy, I will need to search my files to confirm that designation):

A way to understand the sincerity of Obama’s statements about nuclear power is to look at how he has staffed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

He has replaced Bush’s NRC Chairman (a strong pro-nuclear guy) with a former Harry Reid anti-nuclear Senate staffer. He has also left two (of the five Commission positions) vacant. There are now three commissioners with two vacancies. There would be a third vacancy except the former chairman has remained “temporarily” on the Commission in order to have at least three Commissioners present for the conduct of business. Doesn’t sound like a strong commitment to nuclear power to me . . .

Also, at the “Planet Gore” blog at NRO, there is an intriguing thread about how ObaMao’s 2011 budget plans include huge revenues for the next ten years from Cap and Trade. Rust never sleeps with this gang of schemers.

onlineanalyst on January 30, 2010 at 8:46 PM

As Emperor, I will have liberals generate electricity by running on huge hamster wheels.

justltl on January 30, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Word has it that many of them are “into” gerbils.

onlineanalyst on January 30, 2010 at 8:49 PM

onlineanalyst on January 30, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Indeed.
“Save the gerbils!”

“Let’s pick up the pace there, Algore, or you’re next on the alternative fuel list.”

justltl on January 30, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Er-r-r-r… doesn’t that described Congress?

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 7:37 PM

True, but congress provides the world most reliable source of wind.

JusDreamin on January 30, 2010 at 9:00 PM

True, but congress provides the world most reliable source of wind.

JusDreamin on January 30, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Alllllrighty then, I do beleive we have a thread winner!

Archimedes on January 30, 2010 at 9:03 PM

“Let’s pick up the pace there, Algore, or you’re next on the alternative fuel list.”

justltl on January 30, 2010 at 8:54 PM

With the intense radiance we have been blessed with lately, emanating from all the narcissism, it’s difficult to believe we need to search for alternative power sources.

Yoop on January 30, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Someone asked about geothermal. The news there is not great either, 2 large facilities were just shut down due to the potential of causing earthquakes. One in California, the other in Germany.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/science/earth/12quake.html

http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N35/earthquake.html

As it stands today given the current state of the art, there are NO viable alternative energy sources that can replace fossil fuels. No point in deluding ourselves.

echosyst on January 30, 2010 at 9:23 PM

The Bush energy plan had lots of coal, nuclear, gas and off shore drilling. Why do you think that there are 22 pending licenses or applications for new nuclear plants (Bush had 12 Billion in loan supports in the FY2005 Budget). It wasn’t Bush it was the same people that have been the problem for 30 years stopping it. The current POTUS might say anything, but under this group of clowns none of thoes ideas are going anywhere. Your information about Bush is totally wrong.

whbates on January 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM

Speaking of bad policies what do you think these enviro-nazis at the EPA will do in reference to the heallth hazard that nuclear energy ptoduction creates when accidents occur? What I’m getting at is if the EPA can declare a common harmless gas a danger than what are they going to say about something that could seriously stunt your growth?
Anybody want to hyppothesize that?

larvcom on January 30, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Why isn’t the Minnesota government looking at heating with ethanol? I hear the market for it has dried up with the economy so why not double down with another tax subsidized energy source and give the tax payers all of their money’s worth.

chickasaw42 on January 30, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Don’t you luve it. The petrol lube is too cold and stiff. Why don’t they recycle grease from frenchfries? Go to organic vegie oil?
The greenie weenies get all ballistic using petrol products.
Take a 1.5 meg turbine. The tower weighs 200 tons. It takes 4 tons of coal to make each ton of steel. There are no less than 800 tons of coal in the tower. Plus the tons in the rebar for the base. Then the natural gas to make cement for concrete.

James hansen and Joe Romm are having panic attacks especially on this news.

seven on January 31, 2010 at 12:54 AM

The really weired thing about Obama energy ie all green stuff is that it must have a complete normal fuel electrical system in place because all alternative forms of green energy are not constant or dependable. This means that if you add turbines or solar to a commercial grid you will get some benifit towards the total electricty used but it is not reliable power and most likely available only during the day time. That means that all of the mantainence and labor cost for the conventional equipment will be the same whether you buy the expensive green equipment or not. It looks like it will take eons before the green power makes sense on a per kilowatt hour basis. It’s like all of the alternative energy sources, wind, solar or new batteries have to be subsidized or they are too expensive to compete with gas and coal. Some day we will have a septic type system that uses our bodily and house hold waste to create the energy we need for each home. But man is the upkeep on that thing going to be high.

inspectorudy on January 31, 2010 at 3:47 AM

This is poetic.

Cylor on January 31, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Don’t seem to have that problem in Alaska. But, then Alaska contracted with a different company.

BDU-33 on January 31, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Wind power makes a lot of sense as a secondary or tertiary power source,

Your being way to generous.

MarkTheGreat on January 31, 2010 at 6:40 PM

I would like to see drilling where there is oil, mining where there is coal, wind where the wind blows all the time, geothermal where it is available….natural gas, solar where someone (not the gov) wants to spend the money

If you look at private equity and venture capital, you’ll see that it’s flowing into green energy. Investors are pouring cash into thermal solar plants planned for construction in Nevada. Even based on today’s technology, thermal solar covering 1% of Nevada will provide enough electricity for the entire USA.

The problem is that unlike the software and internet industries, new sectors which have driven job growth and productivity gains over the past couple decades, green energy needs considerable government support. The capital costs of energy projects are very high and major infrastructure upgrades to the power grid are necessary to enable the growth of solar and wind power.

As for the viability of solar tech, most people would have called advances made by the tech sector (think Moore’s Law) unbelievable just 15 years ago. Keep in mind that Intel predicts that its R&D projects here in the states will yield solar systems that can compete with fossil energy within 3 years. This isn’t wishful thinking of ‘liberals’; it’s coming from the worldwide leader in silicon technology. Betting against Intel’s technical vision may not be the best move.

The US needs to get its act together. The venture capitalists investing hundreds of millions in solar energy are watching in disbelief as China has started to outmaneuver the US, delivering more advanced technology that’s driven by a clear national agenda. Moreover, the Chinese government is heavily subsidizing clean tech, a growing global industry that will easily create hundreds of thousands of new jobs around the world over the next 2 decades. Although the US economy is increasingly services-based, it should be American R&D and manufacturing expertise, not Chinese, that leads the world into a post-oil future. Software and internet companies have been great for software engineers, but green energy has the most promise for restoring broken Midwestern cities and restoring skilled labor jobs that are being shed across other manufacturing sectors.

bayam on January 31, 2010 at 7:06 PM

unlike the software and internet industries, new sectors which have driven job growth and productivity gains over the past couple decades, green energy needs considerable government support.

Then its a loser.

Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2010 at 8:16 PM

I recall reading “The Gulag Archipelago” and “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and then “MIG Pilot” by Viktor Belenko. It never failed to amaze me how they recounted time and time again the failed government programs and projects that were doomed from the start but were funded and refunded and pushed until literally; Russia military had to intervene to rescue the outcome (to include taking military divisions to harvest an inferior crop of wheat). I always thought that with that mentality on their side, there was no way we could ever lose to these people. Our government would never push project after failed project on us…..

OH DAMN!!!

hawkdriver on January 31, 2010 at 8:35 PM

I just drove I-80 through Wyoming not long ago… 7000 feet altitude, sub-freezing temps, lots of wind. I saw dozens, if not hundreds of those turbines turning just fine. Beautiful.

Methinks it’s Minnesota retardation. There’s only so far you can go before you plummet. You’re toast, guys.

Signed,
Senator Franken

wccawa on January 31, 2010 at 11:36 PM

I lived in FREEZEYOURDICKOFF Michigan for many years. What I cant comprehend is that anyone with an IQ that would qualify as a freezing tempreture or above, could possibly concieve of the idea of driving a battery driven lightweight vehicle in a snow heavy enviornment like one of the lake effect areas in the northwest. ARE YOU Fing CRAZY?? Not only would the batteries freeze but they wouldn’t have enough vehicle power and weight to push through the snow. What are they thinking?

Bikerken on January 31, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Southern Alberta has had wind turbines since 1993. Now they have truckloads of these things trampling all over the scenery. Winter temperatures there are bracing but the turbines don’t freeze up. What does happen though is when it’s cold, wind turbines generate hardly any electricity because the wind don’t blow when it’s cold.

Same thing happened to the Brits this winter.

westerncanadian on February 1, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Anything can be fixed. They can use stadium lighting so solar can create electric at night. They can also buy large fans to blow when the wind dies down.

How about the tree huggers going ballistic over using petrol for lubricants instead of organic free trade vegie oil?

seven on February 1, 2010 at 12:39 AM

But it’s so noble to freeze to death and die for Gaia than it is to try and heat your home!

englishqueen01 on February 1, 2010 at 7:41 AM

Try using vodka to lubricate the big fans. If it does not work, who would care anyway?

MSGTAS on February 1, 2010 at 8:30 AM

A buddy of mine is into wind turbines. We have a spirited discussion every time it comes up. My point is like one of the previous posters mention- cost effectiveness. How much does it cost from the ground up to make, install, maintenance, and hook up to a grid for each turbine? Then how much will it create in energy over a year?

As for forgiving the state for not testing the turbines, that is on them. It could be argued the manufacturer didn’t understand the brutal nature of Minnesota’s winter. My wife spent two years up there twenty years ago and she STILL talks about how cold it got! She mentioned eighty below with windchill at one point in the winter. EIGHTY!!! Now she could have been exaggerating, or not. But anything that goes ten below zero is far too cold for me and most of humanity.

Minnesota’s people in the state should have known to check out the claim first.

archer52 on February 1, 2010 at 8:54 AM

Mirimichi on January 30, 2010 at 6:49 PM
.
Just be sure to research the issue thorouoghly if you are looking to not spend more money than you can receive in wind power benefits. I looked into this for my location SE Wisconsin along the Lake Michigan wind corridor and the technology for the home owner isn’t quite there yet.
This site has linksto gov maps of potential wind generation areas. You need a level 3 or better in order to really consider wind power as efficient.
.
http://www.awea.org/smallwind/toolbox2/INSTALL/evaluate.html
.
Wisconsin specific wind map
http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap3/3-19m.html
.
My research into this showed that even with the subsidies for installing wind turbines, you would be lucky to break even at about 15-20 years of operation. This is also to time frame in which most turbines need to be replaced or have a major overhaul($$$).
.
Solar has pretty much the same issue and geothermal is fairly promising, but expensive and you need a significant lot size to use it.

Good Luck.

Simonsez on February 1, 2010 at 9:01 AM

The big problem with these particular 11 turbines, the cities went on the cheap… they bought used wind turbines. Low power ones at that. Evidently did not do there homework.
.
It seems when you go on the cheap you get… cheap, and unreliable.
.
I think there next stage will be to install motors in them so they turn, and will put out zero power, but it will look like good intentions.

Dasher on February 1, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Wind power makes a lot of sense as a secondary or tertiary power source,

A PC CYA, all in one sentence.

It does not make sense…factor in the costs, the energy to produce, the energy to maintain, the usable effective life of the turbines, and you have at best a big zero…add to that another layer of gov. to monitor, and it doesn’t take much to understand that wind power is a spectacular, awesome, inspiring, feel good exercise that reduces energy, not creates energy…but it sounds like you care.

right2bright on February 1, 2010 at 9:43 AM

As it stands today given the current state of the art, there are NO viable alternative energy sources that can replace fossil fuels. No point in deluding ourselves.

echosyst on January 30, 2010 at 9:23 PM

There is something called nuclear, ever hear of it?

right2bright on February 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Why couldn’t they use 5W-30 motor oil to lubricate the turbine bearings–the kind that lets cars start when it’s 20 below? Once the wind blows, the lube oil should heat up from the turbine turning!

Oh, that’s right! The Greenies don’t want to buy anything made by those EEEEEEEEVIL Big Oil Companies! You know, the ones that have been designing lube oil for decades–can’t listen to THEM, can we?

Steve Z on February 1, 2010 at 10:42 AM

Reminds me about stories on the new LED street lights. The energy-saving stoplights freeze over and cause accidents.

hawksruleva on February 1, 2010 at 10:44 AM

There is something called nuclear, ever hear of it?

right2bright on February 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM

We used to support nuclear, but then everyone died after 3 Mile Island, remember?

I’m sure the EPA will be quick to grant some licenses for nuclear facilities after the SOTU speech. Unless the Prez was just trying to score points, and isn’t really interested in nuclear energy…

hawksruleva on February 1, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Use what I did on my kitchen sink’s pipes. Hairdryer. Of course use a solar powered one.

shick on February 1, 2010 at 11:01 AM

You’re missing the point. The issue isn’t whether or not they work….the issue is that the turbines make the people of Minnesota feel better about themselves, and that they got lots and lots of carbon credits.

Another example of the lack of self-esteem of Minnesotans. Building useless “green” turbines and electing idiot celebreties to the Senate makes them feel important! Hey, we’re not just a bunch of hayseeds living between Iowa and Canada, doncha know!

olesparkie on February 1, 2010 at 11:04 AM

There is something called nuclear, ever hear of it?

right2bright on February 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM

I doubt we will have nuclear powered autos, 18 Wheelers or trains anytime soon. Electricity, from any source loses over 50% of the power via the tranmission lines. Petrol (diesel, gasoline, natural gas) is the ONLY current way to get enough power to the end point for transportation.

I would drive a battery car today if:
1) I could go at least 100 miles before charging
2) The batteries could be recharged in < 30 minutes
3) The cost were comparable to a Petrol based vehicle.

But:
1) The batteries out there go ~ 40 miles per charge
2) The batteries can take up to 4 hours to recharge
3) The cost exceeds petrol based cars AND the batteries have to be replaced increasing the cost even with Govermnent subsidies

barnone on February 1, 2010 at 11:18 AM

green energy has the most promise for restoring broken Midwestern cities and restoring skilled labor jobs that are being shed across other manufacturing sectors.

bayam on January 31, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Nothing in the rest of your stupid post backs this up, and just saying it ain’t gonna make it come true. The MOST promise is NOT in something that requires the govt to make it work, which is to say you contradicted yourself.

runawayyyy on February 1, 2010 at 11:21 AM

China is bringing online 2 coal fired plants a week. They are cranking out 2 solar/wind turbine press releases a day.
Balance?

seven on February 1, 2010 at 1:22 PM

The greenies are both ignorant and stupid. Set up some wind turbine decoys and install a 64MW nuclear underground for reliable power.

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

The G H W Bush aircraft carriert was commissioned 12 months ago. It is safe and reliable. It can light 10′s of thousands of homes.

seven on February 1, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I find this so freaking hilarious.
This is such a fine testament to the usefulness of fossil fuels.
Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket, MN.
Morons.

Badger40 on February 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Will they install giant electric fans to make wind enough for the wind turbines to turn?

petefrt on January 30, 2010 at 12:16 PM

OMG I just LOVE that idea! ROTFLMAO!

Badger40 on February 1, 2010 at 1:49 PM

How viable is geothermal?

eanax on January 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM

According to AL Gore, since the Earth’s core is millions of degrees, we can drill thousand of holes straight through to the mantle (using one of the cool ships like in the movie the Core) to use this heat, thereby also dissipating the heat of the Earth to help stop global warming.
According to Al, I believe he reasoned we will have like 35,000 yrs of energy that way, until of course the Earth will by then be a giant ice ball with perhaps no gravitational field.
I love hearing the theories of non-scientists.
It amuses me so much!

Badger40 on February 1, 2010 at 1:51 PM

SOrry if someone else posted this already, but Duh!! Once global warming hits, you won’t need to have special hydraulic fluid!!

exhelodrvr on February 1, 2010 at 1:58 PM

You could probably get a significant amount of power — by turning Yellow stone Park into a geothermal plant. Who’s with me?

Count to 10 on January 30, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Check out Iceland.
They have been doing it successfully.
And someone here I believe mentioned that geothermal drilling can cause earthquakes is sadly mistaken-that has not been proven, & though it is theoretically possible, our tiny pin pricking of the earth’s crust is not going to cause any major instability in the mantle or any mantle plume around.

Badger40 on February 1, 2010 at 2:45 PM

This is hilarious. SNL-skit worthy. But we all know they won’t touch energy efficience messes like this one.

There’s one near my in-laws; now that I read this I want to check out if that one is spinning or frozen up.

ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Put a field of solar cells next to the turbines to power the heaters for the turbine fluid.

When the solar cells get covered with snow and can´t collect sun energy, then build a coal-fired plant next to them to power the heater to melt the snow on the field of of solar cells which then collects the sun to power the heater for the wind turbine.

albill on January 30, 2010 at 12:05 PM

This just cracks me up! ROFL!

ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2010 at 4:10 PM

barnone on February 1, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Did I say nuclear powered cars…how many wind turbine cars have you seen?
My point being, never mind, I don’t think you would understand.

right2bright on February 1, 2010 at 4:12 PM

This just cracks me up! ROFL!

ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2010 at 4:10 PM

What wsa the name of that cartoonist that used to draw the highly complicated devices to do something simple like turning a pancake?
That is what that post brought to image…

right2bright on February 1, 2010 at 4:13 PM

The G H W Bush aircraft carrier was commissioned 12 months ago. It is safe and reliable. It can light 10’s of thousands of homes.

seven on February 1, 2010 at 1:39 PM

We have had nuclear submarines for decades, and not a viable incident of contamination or failure.
Tens of thousands of hours of use…
I believe there is a Japanese company that makes individual nuclear power plants…

right2bright on February 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Recently a local Indian Reservation had to have ALL of the blades replaced on their 22 turbines after they were damaged during a high wind storm. ALL were down at the same time. As you pointed out, it works as a secondary source, not a PRIMARY source. Now if we could only get the sun to shine 24/7.

GarandFan on January 30, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Wow…if those suckers break off that could be one deadly weapon/sarc?

ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2010 at 4:20 PM

LOL. The winnah!

For a good time, watch a wind turbine explode.

petefrt on January 30, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Well, I guess I was right when I wrote that they could be a dangerous weapon!

ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2010 at 4:38 PM

Another suggestion:

Since the Land Of The Won is nicknamed, “The Windy City”, then I bet Chicago CAN power 1/4 of the US.

Somebody convince Obama to pitch this one, see what happens. Snort!

ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Why couldn’t they use 5W-30 motor oil to lubricate the turbine bearings–the kind that lets cars start when it’s 20 below? Once the wind blows, the lube oil should heat up from the turbine turning!

Oh, that’s right! The Greenies don’t want to buy anything made by those EEEEEEEEVIL Big Oil Companies! You know, the ones that have been designing lube oil for decades–can’t listen to THEM, can we?

Steve Z on February 1, 2010 at 10:42 AM

I tune up my sewing machine with 3-In-1 Oil. That should work.

ProudPalinFan on February 1, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3