On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:46:33 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Of course. Even the most cursory web search would answer that question.
Wind farms are evaluated for their impact on birds and animals, on their
effects on groundwater, on secondary effects from the transport of
power, on their true efficiency based on the energy cost of building and
maintaining the turbines, and more.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Like this, I guess:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2...ng_weather.htm

That isn't a response to what I asked for. However, the article is
interesting. But it doesn't say a lot. Really big wind farms _might_
have a _small_ effect on _local_ weather conditions. Of course, there
are a lot of ifs, and nothing at all to suggest this is even a problem.
I find it amusing that you seem to place a lot of confidence in a
single, model-based study (which appears to be quite preliminary), while
at the same time arguing that much more sophisticated and well supported
models, which show a significant man-made contribution to global climate
change, are somehow worthless.

Of course, this is typical of bad science these days (AKA Bush science).
Base your views or policy on a narrowly selected subset of the
literature, not the body of evidence as a whole.


And, of course, huge backup generators ( powered by ??? ) would still
be required because wind has a nasty tendency to be variable to say
the least. You do understand how ac current works I assume. Load??

I don't really understand why we are talking about wind generators at
all. I never made them the subject of discussion, and I haven't taken
any real stand either for or against them as being useful or desirable
for large scale power generation.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com