Talk:Wind turbine

Free Texas Wind

I am considering removing that paragraph. It's nothing more than a gimmick. How about paying a little bit for daytime electricity and a little bit for nighttime electricity that costs the same as higher priced daytime and free nightime?--Jpatt (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2015 (EST)

I agree with removing that silly section. Texas has much less demands for energy at night, so charging more during the day and less at night is not helpful.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2015 (EST)

Instead of removing factual information, how about inserting references for dubious assertions? Tiered electrical rates have been in use for decades, this is not a gimmick. Encouraging customers to use electricity during the night when demand is lower is not helpful? Care to explain your reasoning? Why criticize something that helps everyone? --RobinBast (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I agree with Robin here. It's not a gimmick; it's just the law of supply and demand, which is an important part of the (not-government mandated) free enterprise system. I see prices change under free-market pressures all the time, and not necessarily to my personal convenience. I'd like restaurants to have lower prices when I want to eat there, but often it isn't so.

If the Texas company TXU has lower costs at night for meteorological reasons, it's reasonable, though perhaps not convenient for all customers, for it to charge less. If people can arrange for their heavy consumption to be during off-peak hours like that, everyone wins. SamHB (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2015 (EST)

References

I have tried and failed to find references for some of the dubious assertions in the article. Could someone assist? If quality references can't be found I'll remove anything that can't be verified.--RobinBast (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Deleted

This page nolonger contains content on Texas power, congresscritter support and the addition of fact tags. Frankly, there wasn't any educational value in taxpayer subsidized wind company payment plans or in glowing reviews from a Congressman. Feel free to start a page in support of wind turbines. This page will remain a counterpoint to wind energy.--Jpatt (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2015 (EST)

As a conservative, I think factual information is a huge requirement for education. Deleting factual information simply because you disagree with the reality around you is rather disturbing. This is an article about wind turbines, or at least it is titled as such. I’d like to think the pros and cons of alternative energy can be discussed in a single article, such a concept seems to upset your delicate sensibilities. Even though I’m allowed to edit the article mercilessly, I’ll pass. Please feel free to view your world through Jpatt coloured glasses. --RobinBast (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2015 (EST)

Oh Robin, so sensitive. I specialize in fact-free articles, void of reality. LOL, Nice try. Coloured, would that be British Conservative spelling? --Jpatt (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2015 (EST)

Before I left work today, I was playfully mocked by my colleagues. The liberals couldn’t understand why I, a reasonable conservative, was even reading Conservapedia. And the conservatives by asking me why I’m wasting my time with a nonsense blog. I told them I was a sucker for punishment. One of my friends told me about your edit. I was embarrassed, so was she. Why use a reference from a fringe website that is over five years old? Your American Thinker article even mentioned the 14,000 broken turbines myth. Pathetic. I thought references should be of at least minimal quality. Funny how you can notice my occasional UK spelling, I’m well traveled my good sir, but then somehow miss the crappy content of your reference. Please notice I accused you of deleting factual information, not writing fact-free articles. That being said, your ‘facts’ leave a lot to be desired. --RobinBast (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2015 (EST)