|
SC Sask | I have a problem with large scale wind farms.
First of all is efficiency, we have a 200 MW project being built locally that will only supply 80 MW nominally as wind power only reliably supplies 40% of its specified power output. In order to get this nominal power output they are putting in like 90-100 turbines about 1/2 mile apart each, it covers a very large area, and it will affect a lot of people. A 100 MW gas turbine will produce 100 MW everyday without fail and it will be about the size of a large shop; is much cheaper to install and run, much more efficient. The only difference between these two systems is that 1 produces CO2 and the other dose not.
I cant tell you if CO2 is bad, actually I can tell you that it is good for plant life, but its effect on the larger climate to me is not a settled science. Right now, ANY paper or theory that is brought forward that is contrary to the current "catastrophe scenario" is shouted down by those internal and external to the scientific community, which to me has led to bad science. In order for the "CO2 = bad" theory to be proved right, it must first be proven that it cannot be wrong. however, right now everyone who is trying to research anything except what the current narrative is spewing is dismissed and shamed.
Even Einstein after 100 years and with such an elegant and seemingly perfect description of modern physics is tested relentlessly to see if there is somewhere that his was wrong.
Please flame away, you will be proving my point | |
|
Wind Farm thoughts to those that have them
