[at-l] Wind Farm Proposed at DeHart Dam

[sloetoe at yahoo.com (Sloetoe)]

--- John Soboleski <johns12312@snet.net> wrote:
> camojack@comcast.net wrote:
> >So, alternative energy is good...but not if we have
> to see it being produced.
> >
> Exactly, that is the problem. The energy can be
> produced (probably) where it is being consumed
### No. Google something like ["Wind energy" map EIA]
and you will see there is a relatively small region
(with North Dakota being described as the "OPEC of
domestic wind potential") with sustained winds of
sufficient power to productively turn a turbine. Small
islands exist, including east coast mountain tops, and
possibly DeHart Dam (I haven't checked). But if you
have to match sustained winds with populations, you
aren't going to get anywhere.

> but people in the cities, burbs or along the 
> coast do not want to see the turbines.
### That works for Cape Cod, but not anywhere else.
Bad generalization.

> There is also a huge loss of power as it is being
transmitted,
### Wrong. As it stands, transmission power losses
range from 3% to 6%, with the average more dependent
on local system load and line construction, not
distance.

> the closer to the consumer the more efficient the
power system.
### Really wrong. It costs much more to transport fuel
than power, so power plants are built closer to fuel
sources (whether coal mines or ports or navigable
rivers).

> The only people that will defend the wilderness are
> the ones that appreciate it.
### Ain't that the truth, though.

Spatior! Nitor! Nitor! Tempero!
   Pro Pondera Et Meliora.