Here's some interesting information I read a couple of weeks ago.
"....For example, the John Amos [coal fired] plant [Winfield, WV] has a nameplate capacity of 2,933 megawatts; assuming 90 percent efficiency, it has an effective capacity of 2,640 megawatts and occupies less than one square mile. Using the calculations of T. Boone Pickens, to obtain the same nameplate capacity in windy North Texas, a wind farm requires an area of 396 square miles. But wind power is only about 25 percent efficient, so the same effective capacity requires 1,584 square miles. "
Would trees need to be cleared from that 1584 sq miles? That's an area about 40 miles x 40 miles. Or if laid out along the higher elevations, for WV that's a heck of a lot of ridgetop real estate. How can wildlife habitats not be eliminated/changed? And if we rush now to put up thousands of inefficient, bird and bat killing turbines, then money sure isn't going to be spent in a few years to tear them down and install improved versions that are more efficient and don't kill bats. Spend the money now on R&D instead.
I'm not promoting coal-fired plants, but sensibility and research when considering to use what are sold as green alternatives.
Cheryl, kind of