Have they finally developed wind power that makes sense? Massive good news?

This is a pretty game changing development in the area of green energy. Finally an adjunct option to nuclear power that apparently makes sense.

I had GeminiAi do a deeper dive into this (see below) to provide some additional context. The wind project Zeihan speaks of in NM will produce a massive 3.6 Gigawatts of power. For comparison, the average nuclear power plant operating in the US puts out about 1 Gigawatt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUsjzgNx_8Y

Comparing the latest generation of ultra-tall wind turbines (approaching or exceeding 1,000 feet) to the conventional variety (historically around 100–300 feet) reveals a "bigger is better" shift in the industry.

While 100-foot turbines are now largely relegated to residential or small-scale farming, the 1,000-foot giants (such as the Vestas V236-15.0 MW or GE Haliade-X) represent the frontier of utility-scale power.

1. Power Generation per Tower

The disparity in output is exponential rather than linear because power increases with the cube of the wind speed and the square of the blade length.

• Conventional (100–300 ft): These towers typically house generators in the 100 kW to 1 MW range. A 100-foot turbine might produce enough power for roughly 20–50 homes annually.

• Newest Gen (~1,000 ft): Modern offshore giants have capacities of 15 MW to 18 MW. A single 1,000-foot turbine can generate enough electricity to power 20,000 average homes.

• The Ratio: It would take roughly 15 to 20 conventional industrial towers to match the output of just one 1,000-foot tower.

2. Ability to Generate Power "All the Time" (Capacity Factor)

Wind is stronger and more consistent at higher altitudes. This makes the 1,000-foot towers much more reliable as a "baseload-style" power source.

• Conventional (100 ft): Often located in turbulent "surface" winds. They typically have a capacity factor of 20% to 30% (meaning they produce their maximum output only about a quarter of the time).

• Newest Gen (1,000 ft): By reaching into the "jet effect" of higher altitudes and offshore environments, these turbines achieve capacity factors of 60% or more.

• Reliability: Because the wind at 1,000 feet almost never stops completely, these turbines generate power significantly more of the time, reducing the need for massive battery backup systems compared to smaller units.

3. Cost Comparison

Larger turbines have higher sticker prices but much lower "unit costs" for the energy they produce.

Metric	Conventional (~100–300 ft)	Newest Gen (~1,000 ft)
Installed Cost per Tower	$1 million – $4 million	$15 million – $25 million
Cost per Megawatt (MW)	~$1.3 million	~$1.1 million (and falling)
Levelized Cost (LCOE)	$40 – $80 per MWh	$30 – $50 per MWh

• Economies of Scale: While a 1,000-foot turbine is vastly more expensive to build, you only need one foundation, one permit, and one cable connection to the grid for every 15 MW produced.

• Logistics: The main "cost" of the 1,000-foot towers is the specialized infrastructure required to move them. Blades for these turbines are over 350 feet long—longer than a football field—requiring specialized ships and cranes that do not exist in most standard ports.

Summary Assessment

Feature	100-ft Conventional	1,000-ft Newest Gen
Efficiency	Lower (hit by ground friction)	Superior (accesses steady high-altitude wind)
Land Use	High (needs many towers)	Low (one tower does the work of many)
Intermittency	High (frequent "dead" air)	Low (consistent wind profiles)
Best Use	Distributed / Rural local use	Utility-Scale / Offshore grids

In short, the 1,000-foot turbines are winning the economic race because they solve wind's biggest problem: inconsistency. By going higher, they act more like traditional power plants than "weather-dependent" machines.