BigWind must cover US land size of 2x Cali? Politicians Duped

Cover 12% of the USA with BigWind? Cover more with solar panels? And add how many tens of thousands of batteries? No thanks.  And, replace fossil fuels? NOT TRUE.  MORE fossil fuels are required for each BigWind site that sprouts…to back up their intermittent nature. Thanks are due, however, to the Oklahoman editorial board.  They read Robert Bryce’s assessment and followed the logic of it!  Unfortunately, many politicians arent’s are open minded, or intelligent.  When was the last time you wrote a thoughtful letter to your politician? We must educate our legislators, about the truth, b/c the BigWind lobby won’t!

WISHING something is so doesn’t make it possible, and nowhere in politics is the gap between aspiration and reality larger than in the push to quickly eliminate fossil fuel use.

Some politicians and environmental activists want to require that all U.S. electricity be generated from renewable sources by the 2030s. That would mean replacing an overwhelming majority of current production, which is generated by coal- or natural gas-fired power plants.

What would such a transition look like? Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes that “deploying renewable energy at the scale required to fuel the U.S. economy would require covering state-sized territories with nothing but wind turbines and solar panels. It would also require stringing tens of thousands of miles of new high-voltage transmission lines.”

When Harvard physics professor David Keith and postdoctoral fellow Lee Miller examined 2016 energy production data, Bryce notes, they concluded meeting present-day U.S. electricity consumption with renewables “would require 12 percent of the continental U.S. land area for wind.” That translates into 350,000 square miles. Thus, Bryce says, meeting the nation’s current electricity needs with wind “would require an area more than twice the size of California.”…


Put simply, the push to use nothing but renewables requires disruption or destruction of thousands of miles of natural habitat. Resistance to such measures is growing nationwide, including in the country’s most left-leaning locales. Counties in California have banned or restricted wind projects. In the 2018 Vermont governor’s race, both candidates opposed new wind-energy development. Opposition to wind turbine installation is increasing elsewhere across the country.


Like most, we support using a variety of energy sources — so long as they are economically viable and logistically feasible. Suggesting that green energy use can increase without addressing the latter two factors is wishful thinking, not serious policymaking.

Editorial letter