1 square mile = 640 acres

So less than a square mile in forests that probably have several hundred square miles. What about the equivalent amount of coal to be mined and burned for those 55,000 houses? Acid rain? Sulfer? Lead? Mercury? And run the comparison for at least 30 years.

The editorial was in response to the news that the government is CONSIDERING the siting idea.  I always thought that newspapers would think considering ideas to be a good thing, rather than, say, expecting decisions to be made without benefit of some consideration.

The point is that nobody can say anything much about this siting decision without a lot more information -- but apparently the state is supposed to REJECT the idea out of hand.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

First of all, Maryland and surrounding states are naturally forested--if there isn't a forest on a piece of land, it's because somebody cleared it. Real estate in Maryland goes pretty high, so I doubt you will find cleared acres sitting around not being used, just waiting for windmills. Nor can you put windmills just anywhere--generally only ridgetops have sufficient wind.
So IS it a trade-off between strip mines and windmills? As long as energy use is growing, of course it is. And windmills use a fair amount of land for "only 55,000 homes" but the land can be used for other things sometimes, and can be reclaimed afterward. A coal-fired power plant feeds a lot more homes without taking up much space--but then there's the need to endlessly bring in more fuel for it. Mountaintop removal coal mines begin by stripping off the forests--some of the most biodiverse in the world, by the way. Generally they just dump these valuable hardwoods, not even bothering to sell them--they bury them under the hundreds of tons of what used to be the mountaintop, along with the creeks that used to be there. These mines often comprise thousands of acres. People who live near these mines feel under siege. They tend to be poor and uneducated. People who live on the ridges to the east tend to be well off and well educated and empowered to fight for their views. Thus those who fight the MTR coal mines end up feeling bitter, feeling that this is a class struggle. Which of course, it is.

Don't look to the stars and bars states to buck the energy status quo.  Even offshore out of sight, the loyal shills for the company store would object to anything except new coal or nuke plants.  A score of nice floating barge mounted Chernobyls, supplied by pooty poot industries (duuhboy's nickname for Putin) is what they really crave.

A vocal wing nut contingent in the belly of the bushed even begs for more nukes.  Do they want to bury the waste under their trailers to supply free heat?  That's my guess.

Never mind that the actual footprint on the ground of this wind farm would not necessitate clearing the 400 acres of trees.  Meanwhile all the trees on every mountain top are at risk from acid rain from coal plants.

Far better sites exist for wind farms though.  Already developed land, actual farms, on the midwestern plains.  Coastal areas should have their wind power out of sight offshore on floating platforms that also incorporate wave power and ocean current power generation.

In water short areas like the California coast, they should also house desalinization equipment.

Placing small to medium wind installations distributed here and there along with solar power on roofs and biogas systems on farms and landfills and sewage plants will be hard enough in the bushwacked southlands.  Large wind farms with huge wind machines need to be located elsewhere, out of sight and mind, and lawsuit range of NIMBYs shilling for their corporate energy monopoly friends.

Remember the anti-Cape Wind crusaders that showed up here?  And that's from a normally progressive region.  Forget large wind farms in the southland.  Texas being the exception, because of the great plains extension down across the northern border of Mordor.  

The source of the bushwacker himself is the leader in wind, the all hat, no cattle, pickup truck cowboy (he's afraid of horses), shaved chimp himself has a new wind machine at his "ranch" in crawdad.  

That's good diversion.  get solar and wind and geothermal heat pumping for your own home, then do all you can as prez to keep anyone else from getting it.  They don't call him "the worst president in history" for nothing.  To put a more positive spin on it, why not call him "the best president from Saudi Arabia" the US has ever had.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

why should wilderness and rural homeowners take this massive hit for the NIMBY gluttons of the cities?  why not just yank out 55,000 homes and put the windmills there?  win/win!

don't believe the greenwashing and hype around wind farms.  they permanently destroy thousands of acres of wilderness that is essential to the ecosystem.  you can't destroy the planet to save it.

aggressive conservation and 100% PV coverage before new destruction is the only answer.  Urban dwellers have no god-given right to consume as much power as they want without paying the true costs and if steeply tiered energy building isn't implemented, those costs must be borne by the planet and rural homeowners/farmers. and that ain't right.

the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.