Introduction

As you learned in my presentation, wind power depends upon the ability of moving air to drive blades on a turbine that in turn produces electricity.  It is renewable in the sense that we will never run out of moving air.  Also, wind power produces essentially no carbon emissions.  As noted, wind power is one of the oldest sources of energy, providing the means to grind grain and pump water for centuries.  At the same time, he noted that wind is one of the most rapidly growing sources of alternative energy, spurred largely by rapid evolution in the development of turbines, blades, and towers.  New windfarms are being planned thoughout many regions of the United States and other countries, both on land and offshore. Many people believe that wind holds great promise as a viable source of alternative energy, and believe that it can be a central component of efforts to sharply reduce use of fossil fuels.  They envision extensive build-out of windfarms - especially in areas like the midwest, off the Atlantic coastline, and in mountainous areas of the northeastern United States. Some people even talk about wind as being a primary transportation energy, powering electric trains and cars runnning on rechargable batteries.  Many states provide subsidies and have developed other policies to promote wind development.  Likewise, many energy companies that once focused on fossil fuels are now turning to wind.

Task

Process

• Wikipedia article on wind power
• Wikipedia article on wind profile power law
  
• How wind power works
  
• US DOE Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program
• Energy Information Administration Wind website
  
• Renewable Energy Access website on wind
  
• American Wind Energy Association
• Danish Wind Energy Association
• British Wind Energy Association
  
• Wind Power monthly
  
• Windpower 2014
• Darvill article on wind
• Union of Concerned Scientists windpower site
• Pennsylvania Wind Working Group
• Pennsylvania Wind Map
• Pennsylvania Wind Farms and Wildlife Collaborative
• Audubon Society Wind Power page
  
• National Wind Watch
• Industrial Wind Action Group
• Stop Ill Wind
• Industrial Wind Energy Opposition
• Highland County, VA Industrial windfarm activist website
• TVA's Buffalo Mountain Wind Power Plant activist website
  
• Cape Cod Times Windfarm Page
• Article by Charles Komanoff
• Discussion about this article
  
• Article by Yuriko Saito
  
• Response by Jon Boone
• Rebuttal by Yuriko Saito
• Article by Brad Johnson
• Article by Ananth Baliga
• Article by Melissa Anders
  

Evaluation

Item	5	3	1
Introduction	First one-two minutes clearly understandable, audience led into the objectives of the talk	First one-two minutes mostly understandable, audience should be partly prepared for objectives of the talk	First one-two minutes generally not understanable, audience not really prepared for objectives of the talk
Objectives	Clearly outlined	Presented in a general way, but one or more details confusing	Not clearly indicated
Number of bullet points addressed	4-5	3	1-2
Bullet 1	Discussion provided substantial insight into online resources, accurate presentation of information in articles, clear synthesis that goes well beyond rehashing posted information.	Discussion provided acceptable insight into online resources, presentation of information in articles generally accurate, some synthesis beyond rehashing posted information	Discussion provided superficial insight into online resources, evident inaccuracies in way that presentation of information in articles was presented, little synthesis beyond rehashing posted information
Bullet 2	See above	See above	See above
Bullet 3	See above	See above	See above
Bullet 4	See above	See above	See above
Citations	Consistently and accurately provided	Mostly provided, or some inaccuracies	Generally not provided, or grossly inaccurate
Powerpoint text	Clearly legible	Mostly legible	Poorly legible
Images	All clear and appropriate	A few unclear or not appropriate	Many unclear or not appropriate
Integration of Powerpoint between speakers	Well integrated	Partly integrated	Not integrated
Conclusion	Clearly executed, excellent summary of main points and synthesis	Generally well executed with acceptable summary of main points and synthesis	None or poorly executed, with unclear summary and / or no real synthesis
Length	18-21 minutes	16-18 minutes	<16, >21 minute

 

Item	5	3	1
Level of contribution to overall team effort	Clearly an integral part of overall effort	Secondary level of contribution to overall effort	Minor level of contribution to overall effort
Level of knowledge about topic	Clearly excellent grasp	Generally good grasp, some minor uncertainty	Clear level of uncertainty about topic
Attitude	Upbeat, professional demeanor	Some unprofessional comments / mannerisms at times	Significant unprofessional demeanor
Audibility	Excellent	Good (minor reading or a bit too much focus on screen)	Poor (too much reading or excessive focus on screen)
Rate of information delivery	Excellent	Slightly too fast or too slow	Significantly too fast or too slow
Eye contact with audience	Excellent	Good	None
Diction	Excellent	Some sluring or mispronunciation of a few words	Significant sluring or mispronunciations throughout presentation

---

Return to Homepage for BIO/EES 105

This page posted and maintained by Kenneth M. Klemow, Ph.D., Biology Department, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18766. (570) 408-4758, kklemow@wilkes.edu.