From: EvMick@aol.com
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 13:37:07 MST
In a message dated 01/31/2003 10:58:10 AM Central Standard Time,
Spudboy100@aol.com writes:
> <<Moreover, wind farms are incredibly land intensive. Three newly proposed
> wind farms in West Virginia would occupy 30 to 40 square miles but would
> produce slightly less electricity than a new 265 MW gas-fired
> combined-cycle generating plant, which would occupy a few acres.
This is misleading.
True....wind farms can take up vast areas. However...think of a wind farm as
analogous to a multi-canopy jungle. For example...the King Mountain Wind
Ranch in West Texas. One canopy (or tier) might be the wind
turbines....which extract energy from several hundred feet above the plateau.
At ground level is the cattle ranch which continues unchanged...unaffected
by the metal towers....the cattle just wander between them...unimpressed (In
Kansas and Iowa the farmers steer their tractors around them....they ARE
impressed however...by the lease revenues....which in some cases DOUBLES
their per/acre income. And finally there is the subterranean income....the
King Mountain wind ranch also has it's own oil and gas production.
So we have three levels....none interfering with the other....all generating
revenue for the land owner.
Not bad for what was once considered useless desert
This cannot be said for a conventional power plant.....Like the one near Gila
Bend Arizona. Or of a nuke like the one near tonopah Az. All that acerage
is of exclusive use.
EvMick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 11 2003 - 13:39:50 MST