Wind 3

The US has ample oil and gas waiting to be drilled for both on and off shore, and nuclear power plants could be built, but the governing Democrats will have none of that and prefer to provide the nation with energy from wind. 

James Delingpole writes in the Telegraph about wind turbines in Britain:

They don’t work when there’s no wind.

They don’t work when it’s too windy.

They produce so little power – and so unreliably and erratically – that even if you put one on every hill top in Britain you’d still need to rely on nuclear, coal and gas-generated electricity for your main source of energy.

They chew up flying wildlife and scare horses.

They produce a subsonic hum which drives you mad if you’re downwind of them.

They turn pristine landscape into Teletubby-style horror visions.

They destroy property values.

They steal light.

They’re visible for miles around so that just when you’re thinking you’ve got away from it all you’re reminded of man’s grim presence by the whirling white shapes on the horizon.

They’re environmentally damaging: their massive concrete bases alone requiring enough concrete to fill two Olympic-size swimming pools; then there’s the access roads that have to be built through the unspoilt landscape to put them up in the first place.

They’re twice as expensive as conventionally-produced electricity.

They make you feel a bit queasy, especially the three-bladed ones whose asymmetry is disturbing.

To supply the equivalent output of one nuclear power station you’d need a wind farm the size of Greater Manchester.

Posted under Commentary, Energy, Environmentalism, United Kingdom, United States by Jillian Becker on Thursday, July 16, 2009

Tagged with , , ,

This post has 3 comments.

  • roger in florida

    You are a little off in your size of wind farm needed, 200 square miles is a box with sides of a little over 14 miles. I think you mean 40,000 square miles (200 miles square), and it doesn’t work even then, if the wind isn’t blowing (or is blowing too much) it doesn’t matter how big the “wind farm” is.
    Wind and solar are the energy options of the “star Trek” generation. Scientifically and technically illiterate; theirs is the science of the world on the other side of the looking glass.
    Actually McCain would have been no better on the nuclear issue, he now opposes Yucca Mt. (Of course he was all for it while $10Bn was spent in AZ and NV to build the place).
    Nuclear is the only practical option to produce the amount of electrical energy an advanced society needs, safe, reliable, clean and cheap.
    We have a great deal of pain to go through before sense is restored, if it ever is.

  • thermonuclearman

    The Greater Manchester quote reminded me of the following (from ‘Power to Save the World’ by Gwyneth Cravens): “A nuclear plant producing 1,000 megawatts takes up a third of a square mile. A wind farm would have to cover 200 square miles to obtain the same result”.

    Renewable energy is an absolute joke, I’m afraid. Coal or nuclear – take your pick.

    Obama is anti-nuke, the fool – an excellent reason to have voted McCain.

  • pencil

    The sad reality is that everything the gongress does is recklessly destroying the economy.
    Taxes and over printing inflate the dollar.
    Sending business over seas reduces business here in America.
    And now this lower quality energy is just going to destroy even more jobs.

    Its like they want to kill the economy. In fact, I think they really do.