What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- geogeer, on 11/26/2008, -9/+33Nothing is free
- paradigmx, on 11/27/2008, -13/+7I just want to say, WTF!
We can't use coal because it's running out and is dirty, we can't use oil for the same reasons, we can't use Nuclear energy because people falsely believe it will lead to radiated water and food, we can't use wind because it changes the weather, we can't use geothermal because it cools the earth(supposedly), we can't use solar because it's cost prohibitive.
WHAT THE ***** PEOPLE, what the hell are we supposed to use, happiness and love? I'm sure a little love will get me to work in the morning, smiles and kisses will keep my house warm and happy thoughts will keep my lights on.
Stop telling me about the problems with all these ways of producing energy and start figuring out something that wont piss off the environmentalists, ***** people are worse than religious types i ***** swear.
At least christians admit they worship god, environmentalists wont admit they worship the damn chunk of rock we live on, they just get pissed off when you do something that might possibly cause a little harm to it- paradigmx, on 11/27/2008, -1/+2yup, digg me down, of course, i AM saying something you don't want to hear
- kmand, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1Heh, it's really not about what types of energy we use, it's about how much we use. If we were consuming only 1% of what we consume today, even a no-regulations strip-mining economy or only burning coal for energy wouldn't really have a noticeable effect on the overall health of the environment. However, if we were consuming 1000% of what we do today, even if we were using only today's solar panel technology for energy, there would still be environmental problems far greater than the ones we have now.
The main problem is and will be our wasteful and self-centered way of life, and no renewable technologies will help us overcome that. However, it is very difficult to make people change their way of lives, so all we can do is try to ease the situation a bit with those fancy renewable resource programs until the whole system falls down and we with it.
- yuutokun, on 11/27/2008, -2/+7Freedom isn't free
- shadowspawn, on 11/27/2008, -1/+6There's this thing about laws of thermodynamics I remember someone mentioning when I was around 8 or so.
Just because the earth is big, doesn't mean that notice isn't taken when chunks of energy are moved from one place to another... no matter how small.
So you learn to become more efficient rather than pillage other sources. Didn't a man or two write about the biggest waste of energy in a fireplace is going right up the chimney? Or why your hot water heater is heating water when it's not needed? Or why the concept of regenerative braking is only appearing now on commuter cars, when on trains it's been around for quite some time?
Patterns, people. Patterns. Windmills, geothermal (dead sea project), you name it. It comes from somewhere and affects something.
Like dipping your finger in a small pond. Eventually the ripples go somewhere, especially when everyone's doing it.
- paradigmx, on 11/27/2008, -13/+7I just want to say, WTF!
- stutimandal, on 11/26/2008, -15/+6A wind farm is like a load which consumes energy from the winds. So it will affect the climate as well. Anyone who thinks energy is "green" and "coming out of nothing" is only capable enough of writing "humans in wonderland."
- Zera, on 11/27/2008, -1/+14Yes, wind turbines consume energy out of the wind, but there is SO MUCH energy there, the idea that we could build enough wind turbines to see any significant slow down in wind speed is proven false by the current existence of the trillions of trees on the planet that have always existed, and are doing their best to slow down the wind and yet the wind still exists, and is not influenced at all above the tree tops.
This is a ridiculous alarmist article based on misinformation.- Headinawheel, on 11/27/2008, -0/+4No man. We should chop down all the trees so we could build the wind farms. We need to maintain the same amount of energy removed from the wind as we start with, that way we won't harm Nature!
/s (in case it wasn't apparent enough) - partsguy74, on 11/27/2008, -11/+3Wow.. Replace "wind" with the word "oil" and you have the proof that global warming is alarmist *****.
- tamman2000, on 11/27/2008, -2/+4"This is a ridiculous alarmist article based on misinformation."
No, it isn't...
It's based on a simulation of what would happen if we built a wind farm larger than we would ever need. As stated in the article. I don't think anyone who wrote the article or contributed data was being alarmist or misinformative. Now, of course some people are taking it that way, but the article was not written that way... - Zera, on 11/27/2008, -1/+2tamman, i disagree.
This is alarmist no matter how you look at it. Even in the most ridiculous possible application, wind turbines EVERYWHERE literally as close as you can put them together without hitting tip to tip. Now imagine the wind going through this area. You have a 40 story tall, 10 or 15 foot wide pole every 500 or so feet apart, and three wind turbine blades a few feet wide. 99+% of the wind is going to pass through this and never come in contact with anything.
You simply cannot build wind turbines dense enough to have even a fraction of the effect that trees have. Remember, trees restrict nearly all of the wind passing through them, as opposed to a turbine that restricts almost none.
And lets revisit the most ridiculous scenario, and imagine for a moment that wind turbines built EVERYWHERE as close together as possible could somehow hinder the wind.... well what about the wind above those 40 story turbines? That is where most of the "weather" occurs anyways, clouds, storms, jet streams, etc.
And they aren't just hypothesizing, they're actually saying that if we were to build a LOT of wind turbines that this would happen: FTA: "The result of such an unlikely installation: a real serious Butterfly Effect" yes, he said the installation would be serious, but that the results would be "REAL SERIOUS" - tamman2000, on 11/27/2008, -0/+11) I am not surprised by their results, and I am not just some schmuck on the internet, I am a gas turbine computational fluid dynamicist (basically I do what these people did in their sim, but I do it on jets instead of wind mills). The fan of a modern jet engine is mostly empty space, but one that is 6 ft in diameter moves tons of air/second. 99% of the air would be uncontacted, but not unaffected by the blades, pressure waves propagate very far, and they are the physical mechanism for energy extraction in subsonic turbines.
2) We do these kind of outside of the realm of reality simulations all the time to determine if there is an effect at all, and then later try to figure out what the effects of realistic situations would be.
3). They ARE being hypothetical. That is what you call it when you discuss a ridiculous scenario like covering more than half the land area of the US with turbines. The effect of their hypothetical ("unlikely installation") would be serious. They never said that the installation was serious, it is hypothetical...
In summary they aren't being alarmist, you are. They are upfront about how unrealistic their scenario is, you are the one alarming yourself. Those of us who know about how science and engineering work, are not alarmed, because we understand (as stated in the article) that there is no way the scenario they used as a input to their sim would ever occur. - Zera, on 11/28/2008, -0/+1I am an engineer, btw. Computer Engineer, but still.
I'm not saying there would be absolutely no effect. I'm suggesting that it is so microscopic an effect that it would not only never be measurable or noticeable, but that it is massively overshadowed by things that already slow down the wind in far greater proportions, the best example being trees.
You can suggest that this article wasn't alarmist, but then explain the choice of title? Also explain why they suggest that this is not a theory, but that in fact if this many wind turbines were built that we would have "a real serious Butterfly Effect" on our hands. You can suggest that they are saying their conclusion is mythical, but if they thought it was, then they wouldn't have called it "very serious".
In addition, YES inside a jet engine you get many varying pressures. That's a given. But its one thing to be pressurized by thousands of blades per cubic meter, its another to have a 20-30 mph breeze slowed by three blades every cubic mile or so(including the full height of the atmosphere, at least up to the jet streams)
- Headinawheel, on 11/27/2008, -0/+4No man. We should chop down all the trees so we could build the wind farms. We need to maintain the same amount of energy removed from the wind as we start with, that way we won't harm Nature!
- dave11980, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2These types of things (wind farms, wave farms, etc.) take large amounts of energy out of even larger complex systems. Even minuscule changes can have dramatic affects years later. Just like how a .7 degree change over 100 years is considered big a .1 MPH change in wind speed or ocean current speed could have the potential to wreak havoc on the global climate.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't build wind farms, or wave farms, or solar panel fields, or nuclear power plants. It means we need to diversify our energy sources as much as possible while reducing the current load on the system. More people powering their own homes with small turbines, solar panels, etc. would also be good.
The bottom line is this, there is only so much energy introduced daily from the Sun and there is a certain amount of that energy that is required to maintain the status quo of things (life, climate, etc.). If you use more than the surplus of that energy you will cause problems.
- Zera, on 11/27/2008, -1/+14Yes, wind turbines consume energy out of the wind, but there is SO MUCH energy there, the idea that we could build enough wind turbines to see any significant slow down in wind speed is proven false by the current existence of the trillions of trees on the planet that have always existed, and are doing their best to slow down the wind and yet the wind still exists, and is not influenced at all above the tree tops.
- Bukowsky, on 11/26/2008, -6/+12but if we don't build these, and continue to put CO2 into the air, then the weather will be altered from that direction.... Either way, we're *****.
- ab9003, on 11/27/2008, -8/+12
- MysticKatDaddy, on 11/27/2008, -1/+8umm.. Carbon dioxide isn't poison. We breathe it out constantly. The best thing you can do to stop your carbon emissions is to stop breathing
- user500, on 11/27/2008, -1/+1plants need co2 to live so your anti plants?
I eat meat because plants have the right to live too. ;)
- ab9003, on 11/27/2008, -8/+12
- Zera, on 11/27/2008, -7/+66This is ridiculous. Do the billions of trees on the planet slow down storms? The answer is yes, but only under or immediately next to those trees. The wind still whips just as fast above the trees. Trees of course, do a far better job of slowing down wind than an air turbine does, as they have so many leaves. 99% of the air goes RIGHT PAST a wind turbine.
This is nonsense, and spreading this misinformation is a VERY bad thing right now, with Wind being our best hope, or most reliable form of renewable energy into the future.- ScottishMcDuff, on 11/27/2008, -8/+2Except for the fact that trees don't have massive turbines and aren't in prairies and plains.
- Zera, on 11/27/2008, -0/+9Yes, but the leaves flutter, causing tremendous amounts of friction (taking energy out of the "wind")
- york2600, on 11/27/2008, -0/+3A lot of those fields where the wind farms are going were once forests then settlers chopped down the trees and planted crops. There's probably less drag on a large agricultural field full of wind turbines than the small forest that once existed.
- onClipEvent, on 11/27/2008, -3/+2"99% of the air goes RIGHT PAST a wind turbine"
...and the last 1% doesn't?- Zera, on 11/27/2008, -2/+2the 1% is slowed slightly before going past :P That's what I meant. The 99% goes past without being hindered.
- qwertyxuiop, on 11/27/2008, -0/+10couldn't one make an argument that building windmills will have about the same amount of effect on the weather as building skyscrapers or cutting down trees... I think that it is negligible and this article is hokum
- jmnormand, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1actually i think it would reverse the effect of cutting down trees (least as far as wind is concerned) so its a good thing right?
- Myrth, on 11/27/2008, -1/+3Right on, total BS.
It probably wouldn't balance out even 1% of the deforestation climate change wind aspect. - Gurubanks, on 11/27/2008, -0/+3I think we're just witnessing some raw hypothesizing. It might not prove accurate, it might be true. That's why we...you know... study things.
- BlatheringIdiot, on 11/27/2008, -1/+3Wind power is dangerous. Drill Offshore.
Oilll is ourrr friennnd. - Jenga, on 11/27/2008, -1/+3"You're an idiot!"
-Newton
Wold energy demand is on the order of 10% of the kinetic energy of the jet stream. If we were to somehow extract that much energy, it would have undeniably significant consequences.- Zera, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1The jet streams are so far above, (not to mention usually flowing in different directions than wind on any given day) that they are irrelevant to this discussion. In addition the jet streams are created (powered) by different phenomena than wind near the ground, and so we're talking two different things here.
- chaos7, on 11/27/2008, -1/+2don't make posts like that until you understand the butterfly effect
- Zera, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1The butterfly effect is a simple concept. The problem with projecting a future butterfly effect with what this article has suggested is that it is a baseless charge. Sure you can say that a small amount of wind restriction could have significant impact, but that is cast massively into doubt when you consider that we currently have an estimated 400 Billion trees on the planet, all slowing down and restricting the wind far more than a single turbine ever could.
I suggest that the "butterfly effect" is irrelevant in this discussion, given the minuscule effect wind turbines have, when compared to existing things that have massive effects, like trees.
- Zera, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1The butterfly effect is a simple concept. The problem with projecting a future butterfly effect with what this article has suggested is that it is a baseless charge. Sure you can say that a small amount of wind restriction could have significant impact, but that is cast massively into doubt when you consider that we currently have an estimated 400 Billion trees on the planet, all slowing down and restricting the wind far more than a single turbine ever could.
- ScottishMcDuff, on 11/27/2008, -8/+2Except for the fact that trees don't have massive turbines and aren't in prairies and plains.
- ufia, on 11/27/2008, -3/+55Wind farms could propel the planet Earth out of orbit.
- temptingmama, on 11/27/2008, -8/+3That is just about the BEST comment I've ever seen! LMFAO!
- ruski1985, on 11/27/2008, -1/+3Easy fix there. We put rockets on the other side of the Earth. Level things out. Pres O. get some men on it.
- chaoswings, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2well it would help with the global warming issue if we were pushed further away from the sun...
- BlatheringIdiot, on 11/27/2008, -0/+4...all the way to Uranus...
- MysticKatDaddy, on 11/27/2008, -0/+6If everyone in China jumped at the same time it would accomplish the same thing. I remember doing my part in the 80's to counteract this evil plot.
- OGKHAX, on 11/27/2008, -5/+6They should make a movie about this.
- cowsgonemadd3, on 11/27/2008, -1/+2And we will call it "Wind".
- D5010, on 11/27/2008, -3/+17WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY! /Morbo
- mlvassallo, on 11/27/2008, -2/+1Ach! Beat me to it!
- MasterGrief, on 11/27/2008, -0/+3*cheerful news anchor Linda laugh*
- Emachine, on 11/27/2008, -3/+18So it does this by slowing the "wind speeds by 5 or 6 mph", but so does everything else that sticks out of the ground...
- karlyguy, on 11/27/2008, -1/+10i bet cities with their many building would do more effect than a huge field of wind farms
- qwertyxuiop, on 11/27/2008, -1/+5cutting down trees would also have a similar but opposite effect
- cowsgonemadd3, on 11/27/2008, -0/+6Chop down new york.
- karlyguy, on 11/27/2008, -1/+10i bet cities with their many building would do more effect than a huge field of wind farms
- AgmLauncher, on 11/27/2008, -4/+11You just can't win. Someone will always find a way to make you feel guilty about using electricity.
- Superman7507, on 11/27/2008, -3/+4Im not 100% up to date on all "green" thinking, but i can see the flaws in them. The only one i actually use would be solar. The sun is always there (and dont argue that "it could be a cloudy day" crap) and it will be there the next day. Scientists have even devised a "solar ink" to print onto rolls of plastic that doesn't cost an arm and a leg to produce nor needs to be pointed directly at the sun to get its benefits, but yet, we as a nation cling to our old ways
For those that don't believe me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZOyhnlY0Hs- Headinawheel, on 11/27/2008, -1/+6You kidding me? Solar removes heat that we need to survive! If we use widespread solar power, we'll end up cooling the planet and bringing about a new ice age!
- qwertyxuiop, on 11/27/2008, -3/+1I do not understand how this is true...
solar wouldn't remove heat, it would harness it
it would have no more effect than building black buildings
silly argument is silly - york2600, on 11/27/2008, -1/+3I'm not going to go as far as crazy man above me, but solar panels block IR waves from hitting the ground and warming the earth. There are plenty of things that are doing the same thing every day, but solar is far from 0 impact. In fact there is nothing that, on a grand scale, has no impact. If you want to have 0 impact. Go drown yourself.
- Whackly, on 11/27/2008, -1/+5I don't think he was serious. I think he was just taking the "wind turbines affect weather by sucking the energy out of wind" logic and applying it to solar. How does a wind turbine affect the wind any more than say... a tree? All those branches and leaves moving suck all kinds of energy out of the wind. If the problem was anywhere near as plausible as the headline above would make you believe we should all be living in windswept wastelands where nothing can prosper since we cut down the mighty wind reducing trees to plant corn. Plus.. there's always tidal power. All that water moving in and out is some serious torque. The moon's doing that. "Wait! OMG.... if we do that then maybe the moon will crash into the earth! OMG". Just because there is an effect doesn't mean it's significant.
- Headinawheel, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2God damn. I really have to stop forgetting to use /s on Digg.
- qwertyxuiop, on 11/27/2008, -3/+1I do not understand how this is true...
- WorldLeader, on 11/27/2008, -1/+3The problem with solar power is that it uses tons of silver in the actual components. We currently don't have enough silver to build enough solar plants to meet our energy demands. It kinda sucks, but that's how things go.
I would instead invest in building the "smart grid" - essentially a power grid 2.0. It can actually reduce our total energy consumption by being more efficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid - jmnormand, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2the distortion of the sun light and reflections cause massive problems with bird migration. which inturn disrupt the food balance of the northern eco systems and would cause the extinction of the canadian wolf and black bears.
ok i just made all that up but it does sound about as legit the arguement that building windmills will cause disruptions in weather paterns. most of the damned fields they are building these in were deforested centuries ago for agriculture.... - user500, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1so what do you do at night?
- Headinawheel, on 11/27/2008, -1/+6You kidding me? Solar removes heat that we need to survive! If we use widespread solar power, we'll end up cooling the planet and bringing about a new ice age!
- JHW539, on 11/27/2008, -3/+5Not a "sky is falling" article, just an interesting little study. Nothing to get excited about, and nothing shocking either - we know that cities do a number on weather, as do forests or rivers. Of course massive (and this paper assumed an absurdly massive number of wind turbines) structures will impact weather.
- scoottie, on 11/27/2008, -4/+3/nelson muntz voice
"HA HA" - brandita, on 11/27/2008, -3/+10Or we could all die by intensified storms caused by global warming. You choose.
- thefarouk, on 11/27/2008, -3/+4That blows...
- karlyguy, on 11/27/2008, -3/+13Zera & Ufia got it right, this is bogus. read the article - not the headline!
the article says its a hypothetical unrealistic situation. the headline is for those conservative people to feel good about their wrong ideas, while ignoring the details of the article, sticking only with the one-liner headline
"if all the land from Texas to central Canada, and from the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains, were covered in one massive wind farm" ONLY THEN you get the possibility of the "Butterfly Effect" - which is still not a direct correlation, its like slippery slope fallacies. - merky1, on 11/27/2008, -1/+5I'm so glad that articles like this weren't around when cities like New york, Boston, LA, etc. were built. Those projects completely altered the environments, and we are all still here.
Also, scientists can predict massive changes, but a 5 day forecast is out of reach?- JrtD, on 11/27/2008, -1/+1I had the same thought. Skyscrapers and large areas of asphalt alter the weather.
And so do coal plants, steam clouds from nuclear plants and even dams that produce electricity (large bodies of water affect weather locally). Bring on the windmills. At least they aren't adding pollution the same way coal plants do. Don't let the big oil and coal companies convince you that their products are better for us environmentally than windmills are. - Jenga, on 11/27/2008, -1/+1They're talking about *covering* north america with windmills -- more construction, they say, than mankind is likely able to accomplish. Cities and other places with large structures, by comparison, occupy a very small fraction of the land.
- JrtD, on 11/27/2008, -1/+1I had the same thought. Skyscrapers and large areas of asphalt alter the weather.
- Bandito, on 11/27/2008, -2/+3I call BS. Have you ever seen these wind farms? I just recently passed a bunch of them on the I-10 heading from CA to AZ. It was windy as hell and these windmills were just barely moving. They're so big w/ thin blades that they don't need much to get going and generate energy, yet don't move quick enough to kick up more wind.
My $$ is that the other energy companies are behind these studies.... all it comes down to the money- SuperCujo, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2"yet don't move quick enough to kick up more wind."
*Facepalm* - roijen, on 11/27/2008, -0/+3I recommend a conversation on the conservation of energy in order to clear up your 'wind generated by big spinny thing being spun by the wind' ideas.
Other than that there is just enough science behind this idea to make it seem plausible to the uninitiated. However the suggestion that turbines are dangerous because they capture wind energy is stupid. Wind is generated by the sun's influence, so they might have something if they can prove that turbines could affect the energy coming in from the sun.
- SuperCujo, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2"yet don't move quick enough to kick up more wind."
- Target91, on 11/27/2008, -3/+2Can we get some good news for once?
- apologeticus, on 11/27/2008, -2/+10when I sneeze it "changes" the weather. Therefore all sneezing should be banned.
- JDReasor, on 11/27/2008, -1/+4I think the bigger problem is....they could change the distance of the Earth from the Sun!!!! Come on, worry about real problems and stop making up crap.
- MWeather, on 11/27/2008, -2/+4Couldn't cities do the same thing?
- danswim393, on 11/27/2008, -3/+1well, same ole same ole
- andyb747, on 11/27/2008, -4/+13Massive wind farms "could" change weather
Massive oil consumption "has" changed weather - diggydougie, on 11/27/2008, -2/+6And trees don't?
- roijen, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1no silly, those are natural
- xxlexluthorxx, on 11/27/2008, -5/+5No *****. When will people realise that any species can't exist in large numbers without serious impact on its environment. The only real option would be to limit the number human beings on the planet to a manageable/sustainable level - and that is not likely to happen - although nature may make that hard decision for us.
- epadafunk, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1he's right you know
- Thuban, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2Most of Earth's problem come from overpopulation. The answer is not population control. It's the same answer now as in Europe in the 1800s. It's colonization, we need to get off this rock. Some of us anyway.
Sing it with me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twFs9Vk6F0A
About 2:30 is what I'm talking about.
But seriously, think of the earth problems that the technology from the program would help here.
Alternative energy
Food production/management
waste disposal/recycling etc., and probably more I can't think of at the moment.
It's time
- thecoolestguy, on 11/27/2008, -4/+6Can we just stop worry about global warming? No matter what humans do, the world will be affected. If we want to live and expand, we have to accept the fact that we'll change the world.
- sogr, on 11/27/2008, -1/+2But we dont have to destroy it.
- protodon, on 11/27/2008, -2/+4Wind turbines aren't efficient enough to suck THAT much energy out of the air.I mean I wonder how much power there really is in a gust of wind or some cubic volume of it. I bet it's quite a bit.
- Whackly, on 11/27/2008, -0/+4Huge massive amounts of energy that wouldn't even be lightly scratched by wind turbines even if we got all of our electricity from them.. The article itself says it's an improbable outcome based on an un-attainable hypothetical situation. The effect is real, no doubt. It's simple physics. It's impact in proportion to the whole, however, is immeasurably small. The interpretations of the headline in some of these comments is just stupid. Desperate naysayers will latch on to anything without first rtfa.
- RoboCafaz, on 11/27/2008, -1/+2You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't.
- economicbob, on 11/27/2008, -2/+1i say nothing else. http://solarnc.net has a good solution. lease your power now. and save for tomarrow. wind is bunk go with solar.
- mlvassallo, on 11/27/2008, -3/+1Somebody beat me to the Morbo quote. :(
- DeFex, on 11/27/2008, -2/+1How many trees have they cut down in the last century. a lot more wind resistance has been lost than will be gained back by a few wind turbines.
it would be funny if they could be powered up though. "hurricane coming full reverse thrust!" - sogr, on 11/27/2008, -3/+1SHHHHHH
Stop exposing our plans >_ - threat42, on 11/27/2008, -2/+7Wind farming is a MYTH! It's just a scheme set up by BIG WIND to make money off of what occurs naturally!
- alfsborg, on 11/27/2008, -3/+3I would like to see who funded the research. In Minnesota it will take 600+ years to get a new wind farm built. You can build a new coal power plant in 4 years. Follow the money.
- Jareth86, on 11/27/2008, -2/+3Windmills do not work that way! Good night!
- ErickStevenson, on 11/27/2008, -2/+2I guess we better stop making bigger buildings then. Skyscrapers are the cause of global warming?
- CDRaff, on 11/27/2008, -2/+2The thing that worries me more about wind farms is the massive ecological effect on the surrounding area. For example: Birds like the prairie falcon and the red-tailed hawk will lose their habitats due to massive wind farms. The decline in these hunter species will cause a raise in jack rabbits and prairie dogs two species that are known to carry disease. There is also the bat issue(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-t ... and with out them diseases like West-Nile will raise surprisingly quickly.
I think as Americans we need to get acquainted with modern nuclear power, and take a serious long look at its benefits. We have been using nuclear reactors on Navy ships for a while, with very little incident. With an abundant power source like that suddenly full electric cars become easier to implement with out the same long term effects on our planet. - m0n0kr0m3, on 11/27/2008, -2/+2Cities and highways also change weather patterns. Is this really a legit reason to not build wind farms?
- kronzdigg, on 11/27/2008, -1/+1I don't think I can sleep tonight.
- krnldmp, on 11/27/2008, -1/+1Face it. We ain't nowhere near "massive wind farms". Until then you have lots of time to cover your roof in solar panels.
- monoa, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2It looks like only 2 or 3 people in ~70 comments read the article. Those who didn't: idiots.
> The scientists, Daniel Barrie and Daniel Kirk-Davidoff of the University of Maryland, calculated "what might happen if all the land from Texas to central Canada, and from the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains, were covered in one massive wind farm,"...
and
> The researchers "acknowledged the hypothetical wind farm was far larger than anything humans are likely to build,"
It's a, seemingly, pointless *hypothetical* exercise that just distracts from the serious conversation that's needed. - cryofan, on 11/27/2008, -1/+1something else to make the fake-Lefties online screech and get their panties in a twist over....
- robarahz, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2The vast majority of weather isn't even close to the surface of the Earth. It's in the mid to upper levels of the atmosphere. This is just a bunch of hooey, but fun to discuss.
- absurdist, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2"what might happen if all the land from Texas to central Canada, and from the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains, were covered in one massive wind farm,"
Right. And if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle. But she doesn't. And we're not going to cover the US Breadbasket with wind turbines. Pointless speculation. - roho76, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2This is *****. This is a huge planet and it will ***** on a wind farm. This sounds like FUD from the Fossil fuel companies.
- Jareth86, on 11/27/2008, -0/+2I also heard that butterflies flapping their wings can cause hurricanes. Should we declare war on butterflies, and their butterfly effect agendas?
- LucifersDad, on 11/27/2008, -0/+1From now on all people should crawl on there backs as people standing up will take away our wind.
This is wind terrorism we must stop it now.
Free the wind. - connis, on 11/28/2008, -0/+1Riiight. I'm sure paving over acres of land, building cement and metal edifices hasn't contributed to the change in weather? Try being in the wind tunnels in Chicago during the winter. You literally can be blown to the ground from draughts created by the wind being channeled around buildings.
- slapthemonkey, on 11/28/2008, -0/+1If this is true it can be dangerous
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is