On Nov 28, 7:31*am, David wrote:
Quote: "In 2004, David Keith of the University of Calgary and his
colleagues estimated the drag from wind farms if they covered 10
percent of the Earth's land surface. They concluded that global
cooling would occur in polar regions and global warming would result
in temperate regions such as North America at about 30 degrees North
I wonder if turbines at the leeward side of very large
"farms" (complexes is a better word) are affected by ones up front?
They are usually intercepting wind at the same elevation. The ability
to steer storms seems at least probable. We've only seen these
eyesores on a relatively sparse scale so far. They are a classic case
of fixing one problem by engineering a different one. The _scale_ of
human activity should be questioned more than anything.
If wind farms cover even 1% of the land surface, a lot of great
scenery will be trashed. Why are "Greens" so passive about that
growing blight? These are industrial landscapes, not ecological boons.
Their intermittent carbon-free power has a steep aesthetic price tag.
There must be a better way, like well-controlled nuclear power that
uses far less acreage.
The wisest way to curb energy demand is to limit the total human
population size, so we aren't always chasing growth. It will be a sign
of progress when a President finally brings that up in a campaign and
voters understand that he wants to _reduce_ the pressure for genocide,
not condone it.
(enlightened sarcasm: "Nobody Ever Dies
Genesis 1:28 update: Go forth and overpopulate and pillage the Earth,
and call it economic growth.