[TonyM]

I asked this question a long time ago. I guess someone finally took it seiously.

[libertylover]

I asked this question a long time ago. I guess someone finally took it seiously.

Me too. If you put up enough windmills to generate a significant amount of electricity, you WILL change the climate, and change it faster than burning oil.

Same goes for battery powered cars being nonpolluting. WRONG! You just concentrate the pollution at the power plants instead of having it distributed around.

[N3WBI3]

FUD! And FUD that was conviently edited to look bad in the post. "But the researchers found that in the predawn hours, when the atmosphere is less turbulent, a large windmill array could influence the local climate, raising temperatures by about 2 degrees Celsius (about 4 Fahrenheit) for several hours." Notice there is no definition of 'local' and no mention if it being 2 degrees warmer from 0400-0600 followed by normal temps from 0600->0400 if at the edge of 'local' or right where the turbine sits.. If local is say a square mile around the turbine it has a smaller effect on local temperature than a supermarket and its parking lot! "The rotating blades could also redirect high-speed winds down to the Earth's surface, boosting evaporation of soil moisture." This could be troublesome, can they demonstrate this or is this akin to so much of the eco junk science pushed out there today.. "Electricity can't be stored: it must be produced on demand" What a load of crap it can be stored just was hydro energy is stored via a transfer to kinetic.

[Publius6961]

I asked this question a long time ago. I guess someone finally took it seiously.

I've been asking the question for at least ten years.
When energy is involved, and it's being added to or deleted from the natural state of things over a large enough area, something has to be affected.