-
x

Meet New Friends!

Recommended friends are based on your interests. Make sure they are up to date.

Friends
Kidzworld Logo

Wind Energy

Wind isn't just some uncontrollable part of nature that messes up our hair or sucks up Dorothy, Toto and anything else in its way. It can't be trained but it can be put to work. The kinetic energy of wind can be changed into other forms of energy. When a boat uses a sail to push it, that is one form of wind energy at work. Farmers have been using wind energy for years to pump water from wells and turn large stones to grind wheat or corn - just like a water wheel.

Wind is also used to make electricity. Blowing wind spins the blades on a wind turbine - just like when you blow on a toy pinwheel. When the blades turn, the turbine is operating and electricity is generated. The turbine has a brake, so if the wind blows too hard, the brake can stop the blades from being damaged. Some wind turbines are up to 10 stories high and have blades as long as 50 feet. Wind turbines don't create any pollution but they can be pretty noisy.

Wind has to blow at speeds of 12 to 14 miles per hour to turn the turbines fast enough to create electricity. The turbines usually produce about 50 to 300 kilowatts of electricity each. Kilo means 1,000, so a kilowatt is 1,000 watts. You can light ten 100 watt light bulbs with 1,000 watts. This means a 300 kilowatt wind turbine could light up 3,000 light bulbs that are 100 watts.

Wind turbines are grouped together in what are called wind farms. About 30 percent of the world's electricity is made from wind in California. They have three large wind farms that create enough electricity to supply a city the size of San Francisco with power. Two countries that use a lot of wind energy are Denmark and Germany.

The world's largest wind machine is on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The windmill has two blades, 400 feet long, on the top of a tower which is 20 stories high.

Do you have any windy day stories? Comment below if you do!

Related Stories:
12 Comments

Related Stories

Micro_a mic
Besides the fact that Nuclear Power plants can make a little fish grow a 3rd eyeball… what else d...
If you think eating carbohydrates will only make you pack on the pounds, then you're wrong. Carbs...
Micro_hydroelectricity-micro
It's hard to imagine that water can be used to create electricity. The two are a dangerous combin...
Micro_solar-power-micro
Will we be forced to start writing with a pen and paper when the world's fossil fuel deposits ru...
F1087233792843

Fave Electrical Gadget?

  • It's all about my GameBoy.
  • I couldn't live without my cell phone.
  • I like to keep minty fresh with my electric toothbrush.
  • I love my retro Easy Bake Oven.

Random In The Forums

Black_Rose_19
Black_Rose_19 posted in Debating:
I originally got this story from a source that most people wouldn't exactly call credible , a comedy/politics TV show, but after checking their sources, I believe I have a strong case with decently strong sources. You are incorrect when you said you'd only have to pay for labor and materials, as several other factors come into play. Also, where I said 1000 feet, I very much apologize, more like 1000 miles. It should cost about 10 billion for the concrete panels, and although concrete is cheap, it's not dirt cheap, and 1000 miles of concrete will add up to a pretty good amount. Next it should cost 5-6 billion dollars for steel columns to hold the panels, including labor.  Add another billion for concrete footing and foundations, and that's sixteen billion dollars. But, transport is required to inaccessible areas. It will cost about another 2 billion dollars to build roads that will allow 20 ton trucks to carry materials to the wall. We also need engineering, design, and management, which brings us up to the magic number of 25 billion dollars, on average considering all factors. The Congressional Budget office also says that wall management costs will exceed the original cost to build the wall in as little as seven years. With the Mexico paying for it part, as John Oliver, the host of this show, says, "People don't exactly love it when you make them pay for [expletive] they don't want." The current Mexican treasury secretary states, "Mexico, under no circumstance, is going to pay for the wall that Mr. Trump is proposing." 2 former Mexican presidents that only recently left office also say, in a nutshell, that Mexico will never pay for the wall. 
reply 9 minutes
Black_Rose_19
Black_Rose_19 posted in Debating:
I'll have to dig into that a little more, I only had about 2 sources to go off of, one of them being a private party. I am aware that scientific or economic articles aren't always correct, so I'll have to fact check this myself before I can properly reply to you.
reply 39 minutes
AlphaT
AlphaT posted in Debating:
I'd say it's a good idea, but I don't think the economist is correct. Firstly, even if he were correct, the price of the wall only comes to about half the annual trade deficit that we have with Mexico. If Mexico is making 58 billion off of us every year, then they have 25 billion to spare to pay for the wall.  But more to the point, I don't think it'll cost that much. What you'll need is money to pay for two things:  1. Materials 2. Labor You need 1.5 billion pounds worth of pre-made concrete slabs installed to create the entire wall. Concrete is ridiculously cheap, and you'd only be out three billion on concrete. Then you need steel connections between each slab, so let's add another five billion for that. Let's also add a billion dollar safe fund, in case some parts of the wall need a little something extra.  That leaves you with eleven billion dollars worth of labor before you get anywhere near the price that this economist came up with. Which is why I think he's very mistaken. 
reply about 1 hour
Black_Rose_19
Black_Rose_19 posted in Debating:
Before we start this, I have two requests. 1. Be civil to each other, rebuttal other people's statements with facts, not just random insults. I have seen debates where people are just mindlessly bullying each other, and I would hate for this to turn up like that. 2. Don't go against Donald Trump on this topic just because you think he's a racist or something. Focus on the topic at hand, please. So, we've all heard about the infamous wall. However, I have one reason that the wall might not be such a wonderful idea. Donald Trump has said that the wall will be at mimimum 35 feet tall, and again, at minimum,  1000 feet long.  Now, an economist estimated that this will cost 25 billion dollars, including costs to transport supplies, the materials, and labor, along with several other costs. This exceeds what Donald Trump says the wall would cost by 13 to 21 billion dollars. Do you still think the wall is a good idea, and remember the two requests, or no, I'd rather call them rules, I listed about a paragraph ago. 
reply about 1 hour
AlphaT
AlphaT posted in Debating:
"donteatcarrots" wrote: in the end though, a gun shoots someone. and they could die from it. usa need better laws though smh A knife stabs someone. An arrow shoots through someone. A piece of rope strangles someone. A large bite of steak chokes someone. A grocery bag suffocates someone. Just because someone can die from something, is that a reason to restrict it? 
reply about 2 hours