Of course wind farms shouldn't be located here. I did like the comment about putting a wind farm on Ayres Rock ... Australia allows uranium mining in Kakadu National Park and has just approved the largest coal mine in Australia to be constructed on the door step of the Great Barrier Reef, so Ayres Rock having a wind farm might not be that far stretched.
I concur with the author that a forested hilltop is not, in my opinion, a suitable site for wind turbines. I don’t think that any forested site should be.
Windfarms should be sited out of the way where they’re not going to cause a visual intrusion. Seemingly this isn’t always politically acceptable.
What I’d like to know is why the page title of the article you linked to claims some 85,000,000,000 square metres of forest are to be cleared. This is wrong by a factor of 100.000.
The page heading doesn’t even make sense, apparently it’s some “850,000 square mega” that’s going to be cleared. The author claims to be an engineer, if he is he should be in no doubt that M means mega.
Perhaps he wants people to think it’s 850,000 square miles, which would be just as stupid considering this is six times the size of the entire country of Germany, let alone one single hilltop.
The reality is that 850,000 square metres are to be cleared, which is what the author says later in the article. This works out at just less than a third of a square mile – but I guess that doesn’t make a good headline.
My experience with notrickszone is that it has a tendency to make utterly false claims and/or to inflate claims. This 'article' is no exception. The fact that in it's title it is claimed that 850,000 square kilometers are to be chopped yet the original Die Welt article speaks of 850,000 square meters shows what a sloppy skeptic Pierre Gosselin is.
On top of that there is the not unimportant detail that the only source for the 850,000 square meter claim is a local businessman opposed to windmills.
PS 850,000 square meter sounds like an awful lot but is actually less than 1 square kilometer.
Probably not. There are enough disturbed areas, and flat-out urban areas, where we can site turbines. Frankly, I think skyscrapers would be a good place for wind turbines. They're already up high, they're already not pretty/a hazard to birds, and they generally actually use energy, so there will be less lost in transmission.
What in the world would make you think that there's more wind in the virgin fore.....
OH. Conservative. That explains it.
No. Go measure where the wind blows most consistently strong enough.
That's where to put up the wind turbines.
NO, Man Made Climate Change is against nature. NO LIFE IN AND ON PLANET EARTH forever. Mike
http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/27/developers-to-clear-85000-sq-km-of-virgin-forests-on-unesco-nature-reserve-to-make-way-for-700-foot-turbines/
http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/28/engineering-magazine-underestimated-danger-every-month-ten-wind-turbines-destroyed-by-fire/
