In the article below I am positive about windmills. I changed my mind about windmills on land. They are instruments for genocide against bats and are bad for the environment. The lungs of bats are sensitive for air-pressure. Large wind-mills cause large fluctuations of air-pressure and tear the lungs of bats. They die from suffocation and internal bleeding. Bats only have one young per year. That is why windmills on the land are extremely bad for bats. They can cause extinction in areas with a number of large windmills.
Besides the bad influence on bats windmills are also bad for people. According to the article Wind Turbine Syndrome What's It All About?:
"What has been demonstrated by those working in the field is that changes do occur in people living even 5km (3 miles) from turbines. A sleep disturbance general physical and mental well-being study by Dr Michael Nissenbaum showed effects on sleep and mood that were present decreasing in proportion to the distance from the wind turbines. It was thought 5km would be a control distance - but it proved to still show changes. "
Suppose all developed countries would place photo-voltaic solar-energy systems and wind-energy systems as much as they can and as fast as they can.
At first glance you might expect troubles with electric energy. One moment there is a huge amount of electricity (because the wind increases), a few hours later there is not enough electric energy because there is not enough wind or clouds block the sunlight. Is it really difficult to manage the irregular output of solar-energy systems and wind-energy systems? There is a practical solution.
Suppose electric companies would install at gas-stations equipment to produce hydrogen from water using electric energy. When there is a surplus of electric energy (from solar-systems or windmills for example) the hydrogen production units start making hydrogen. When there is less electric energy available (because the sun goes down or there is less wind) the hydrogen production units stop. The electric companies would sell this hydrogen directly to the gas-stations.
In theory, it is quite easy to solve many problems at once:
As I wrote, the answers to these problems are easy in THEORY. There are some technical obstacles to overcome.
Problems with high oil-prices and climate-change can not be solved in a month or a year. But in five years time we could achieve much and in ten years time we can solve the problem. If we devote ourselves to it.
Suppose Bush had chosen for "a war against CO2" instead of the war against Iraq and that the money spend on Iraq had been spend on wind-energy and solar-energy. That would have had a major impact on life on earth.
A few years back an installation of photo-voltaic solar cells costed 2 dollars per Watt. If the money spend on Iraq had been spend on solar cells, more than 260,000 MegaWatt had been installed. It would have been more, since the costs per Watt has dropped significantly. And if 528 billion dollars had been spend on solar energy, the costs per Watt had decreased much more. Perhaps more than 500.000 MegaWatt could have been installed for that money.
Note: According to nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home the costs are currently $528 billion. (jun 14th, 2008). If Bush had fought a "war against CO2" and had spend 528 billion dollars on solar-energy and wind-energy, this had been the results:
10/28 2009 nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home calculated the costs of war to be $ 915.1 billion dollars. For that money you can install a lot of windmills and solar cells.
With Light and Love, Andreas Firewolf