I suspect Donna Eaton and I do share a common desire to see humans reduce their adverse impacts on our planet, and for organic biodiversity and balance to return (MNW 18 April). Our differences lie in in our mix of perceived solutions.
Donna sees “clean” energy in wind “farms”. I see their embodied toxic waste and expensive futility. I don’t see their end justifying their means.
A disturbing example includes reports that attribute winds’ industrial boom, necessitating massive escalation of Neodymium processing (required in wind turbine manufacture). Consequently, disastrous environmental damage has occurred, in the form of a huge, expanding, toxic, man-made lake, fouling farming land, making residents of Baotou in Northern China ill.
Would wind energy proponents rest comfortably with Baotou’s wind turbine induced, toxic lake in their own back yards, forcing our farmers to nurture toxic produce? I hope not. Why is it OK in China, and not here?
“Wind farm generators are paid “capacity credits” based on an assumption there is a 40 per cent chance they will produce energy at times when demand is highest.” (http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/01/09/state-cuts-payments-to-unreliable-wind-farms/).
WA is revising the rates of remuneration paid to wind farm operators, after they found wind generated energy was not reliable at peak demand – the IMO recommend rates be scaled back to a reliability rate of 26 per cent …. they would not be doing that if wind farms were performing as they claim.
Most people have an ability to “cherry pick” to suit their own agenda or perception.
How much bigger, is the “big picture” really?
There are many solutions that do work, let’s concentrate on those.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding