Wind uses 50,000 acres / 0.30 = 166,667 acres for 1,000 MW

166,667 acres = 260 sq mi for 1,000 MW

8,558 MW/1,000 MW = 8.558

8.558 x 260 sq mi = 2,225 sq mi

8.558 x 166,667 acres = 1,426,336 acres

I HOPE this is based on offshore with tidal energy complements… because that land use would be nearly TWICE the size of Yosemite National Park 1189 square miles or just about the size of Delaware.

Based on the same public wind study maps and viable locations they would be installed within an endless eye shot of each other.

Is my math off? Or are our expectations.

Goals are healthy and wind is good… but if we plan our future around unobtainable goals both will fail.

Thus back to coal, oil and nuke following four decades of the same mistakes.

Balance is key. If we just throw money at one renewable sector we could sacrifice the others.

The cash for junkers was a prime example moving funding away for solar and other renewables just to ‘stimulate’ cars no one will want or can afford to drive by 2020.

It sounds like a long way away. But the majority of cars on the road are over 10 years old…

Had this money gone to a few urban sustainable energy programs (or even wind) it would have equaled REMOVING a millions of cars and not adding a million NEW ones to the problem.

Math is hard because it is reality based. We need to keep our numbers and expectations solid for a prosperous future.

I do believe there are a few brilliant people at the DOE that understand the achilles heels of wind being ‘storage’ and ‘peak use demand loads’. I also feel these same people see the same solutions to those problems that I and other experts do. Then the 42% is NOT unobtainable and becomes realistic.

Yet all of the renewable projects being proposed for these billions have the same problems that have plagued them since the 70’s.

And with the cost of nuclear going up 4 fold in a decade with NO future disposal or sustainable uranium fuel answers wind, geothermal and tidal should be kicking it’s butt.

But they are not. The large overly optimistic and misrepresented renewable goals being proposed have the obvious achilles heels written in and are pushing nearly everyone in ‘power’ to say we need to go nuke.

History, learn from it or become it

– Haase

Wind uses 50,000 acres / 0.30 = 166,667 acres for 1,000 MW

166,667 acres = 260 sq mi for 1,000 MW

8,558 MW/1,000 MW = 8.558

8.558 x 260 sq mi = 2,225 sq mi

8.558 x 166,667 acres = 1,426,336 acres

I HOPE this is based on offshore with tidal energy complements… because that land use would be nearly TWICE the size of Yosemite National Park 1189 square miles or just about the size of Delaware.

Based on the same public wind study maps and viable locations they would be installed within an endless eye shot of each other.

Is my math off? Or are our expectations.

Goals are healthy and wind is good… but if we plan our future around unobtainable goals both will fail.

Thus back to coal, oil and nuke following four decades of the same mistakes.

Balance is key. If we just throw money at one renewable sector we could sacrifice the others.

The cash for junkers was a prime example moving funding away for solar and other renewables just to ‘stimulate’ cars no one will want or can afford to drive by 2020.

It sounds like a long way away. But the majority of cars on the road are over 10 years old…

Had this money gone to a few urban sustainable energy programs (or even wind) it would have equaled REMOVING a millions of cars and not adding a million NEW ones to the problem.

Math is hard because it is reality based. We need to keep our numbers and expectations solid for a prosperous future.

I do believe there are a few brilliant people at the DOE that understand the achilles heels of wind being ‘storage’ and ‘peak use demand loads’. I also feel these same people see the same solutions to those problems that I and other experts do. Then the 42% is NOT unobtainable and becomes realistic.

Yet all of the renewable projects being proposed for these billions have the same problems that have plagued them since the 70’s.

And with the cost of nuclear going up 4 fold in a decade with NO future disposal or sustainable uranium fuel answers wind, geothermal and tidal should be kicking it’s butt.

But they are not. The large overly optimistic and misrepresented renewable goals being proposed have the obvious achilles heels written in and are pushing nearly everyone in ‘power’ to say we need to go nuke.

History, learn from it or become it

– Haase