DAISY AMES

“wind power can be a great supplement to our energy demand, but so far, it hasn’t demonstrated the ability to be a primary source of power generation, unlike nuclear power. for one thing, the article is deceptive when it states “wind turbines take up much less space than what is required for a single power station,” because it fails to put that estimate in relation to generating capacity. while they do say it provides “lower energy output” they really should put that in context of their claim of “less space is needed”. in reality, wind farms require vastly more space, in terms of surface area, for the equivalent generating capacity, when compared to nuclear or fossil fuels. the roscoe wind farm in texas, the world’s largest and highest capacity wind farm, covers near 100,000 acres to generate 781.k MW, whereas the beaver valley nuclear plant, chosen for the combination of “beaver” and “valley”, covers 1,000 acres to generate 1890 MW. 

furthermore, claims like “wind power could account for 30% of energy production by 2020” often use current energy demand figures and ideas such as blanketing an entire continental shelf to fulfill that claim—both of which are foolish in their thinking. energy demand will always be increasing, but the land area suitable for wind farming is finite. additionally, the noise generated by the turbines tends to be very loud and low frequency, similar to the sounds whales and other marine life make to navigate the oceans, meaning that offshore wind farms (like many of those proposed) will likely have a very negative impact on already endangered species. ultimately, wind power serves as a good, clean “patch” to the problem; a short-term supplement that will have diminished future benefit as energy demand continues to grow at exponential rates.”

- a response by david burch (haptick)