Musicat- Well, they the inverse square law will rapidly catch up with the scaling of wind turbines. There isn’t much bigger you can make them with current materials. Of course, if you want to postulate unubtanium, then all kinds of miraculous things could be constructed. Sites that get wind are many, but sites that get steady, reliable wind are few, so you are back to a storage problem. Of course someone making a living toting around charts and graphs has a vested interest in making whatever he is talking about look like the next great thing, and gloss over the many problems.
One of the largest wind farms is out by Palm Springs. They have managed to uglify two entire mountainsides, and apparently they kill a lot of birds including endangered raptors. What does you friend have to say about these major impacts? To make any significant contribution to our energy needs with wind power, we are going to have to cover a lot of mountainsides. And god forbid you put it where Ted Kennedy can see it from his porch. :rolleyes:
Then why the need for government subsidy? Let the market decide. Like I say, this a “soak the eeevil oil companies” measure, that will have almost zero impact on our energy consumption or pollutant emissions, but will set up some of the politico’s chums with sweet deals, and in return will give our incumbent politicians even more contributions to assure their permanent stay in Sacramento.
So, yeah, go ahead and soak the Oil guys (who will just pass it on), but at least spend the money on something sensible. Transit, roads, bridges, our crumbling state infrastructure. Traffic jams caused by inadequate road networks waste more petroleum than anything else you can name, not to mention the value of people’s time and frustration. Put the money there.
Bigger is not the only way to improve them. There can be more efficiency in conversion of wind to electricity. Compared with a typical windmill pumping water on a farm 75 years ago, the new turbines are much improved.
According to my expert, good sites are many. They are often hampered by extreme laws enacted by those who don’t like turbines and prefer coal-fired power plants instead. That may be changing.
Some people think they look beautiful, and the farmers who rent their land out and get $$ in return think they look golden.
According to John, if 2% of our county was covered with turbines, they would supply 100% of our present electrical energy needs. Right now, we get elec primarily from coal, natural gas and nuclear. Surely the pollution from those needs to be taken into account when considering wind sources as alternatives.
The possibility exists of siting turbines offshore where they have even less visual impact, unless you are in a boat.
As far as bird kill, I understand there are studies that show that the rate is minimal; feral cats kill more birds than blades and most birds are able to avoid them. Unfortunately, my knowledge on this topic comes from lectures and personal contacts, so I don’t have any links to provide. The one thing I do know is on a wind farm not far from me, I do not see piles of dead birds at the base of the towers when I pass by.