Scientists drastically underestimated the amount of land that would be required to make wind-energy-production a viable alternative fuel option, according to the latest studies by Harvard scientists and researchers. It would take up to a hundred times more land and an incalculable number of additional giant fans, which would cause more global warming for a century.

Wind farms are an unsightly blight

In 2008, my wife Leigh and I embarked on a cross-country tour in our recreational vehicle. While we witnessed some of the most beautiful of God’s creations, including the Grand Canyon, Lake Tahoe, the Painted Desert, and Death Valley, we also observed some of the most hideous, man-made structures in the country.

Among the worst, were tens of thousands of acres that were polluted by bird-killing, wind machines touted as tomorrow’s Renewable Energy by esteemed environmental activists of yesteryear.

Because wind-energy-production, like solar energy production, is all but a religion to some left-wing environmentalists, skeptics of the Harvard press releases are busy explaining that wind energy wouldn't cause global climate change because it would only heat the air surrounding individual turbines as the behemoth fans pull warmer air down. For example, science-writer Michael Marshall, in a Forbes Magazine article published Oct. 5, would have us believe the Harvard guys didn't really mean what they wrote. He posits that warming would only occur over the U.S., not the entire Earth's surface because it would take far more energy to warm Earth's surface to 0.24°C.

His commentary seems to ignore the notion that the land required for substantial wind-energy-production has been drastically underestimated and would produce the same effect anywhere on Earth. perhaps this is why his and similar posts, unlike the Harvard studies, are published as opinions.

It turns out, according to the recent twin Harvard University studies published in the Harvard Gazette, these giant propellers of ecological travesty are not just ugly, but they would require many times more land than previously thought to become a viable source of energy.

Furthermore, if enough humongous wind farms were erected to transition to wind and solar power across the country, it would instantly increase global warming over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius. The alarming environmental news is freshly published in the journals Environmental Research Letters and Joule.

Wind would beat coal energy - in about a century

David Keith, the Gordon McKay Prof. of Applied Physics at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, put it like this: “Wind beats coal by any environmental measure, but that doesn’t mean that its impacts are negligible.” The study’s senior author added, “We must quickly transition away from fossil fuels to stop carbon emissions. In doing so, we must make choices between various low-carbon technologies, all of which have some social and environmental impacts.”

The study claims wind energy’s global warming trends would cease in about a century. Okay, but if we can’t build nuclear plants or burn coal and environmentalists want to do away with fossil fuels, it follows that building enough wind farms to provide energy to U.S.

homes and industries might raise global temperatures to those of a summer day on Mars in the meantime. In addition to $6,000 electric bills, would each of us have a 1.5-megawatt propeller with 116-ft blades mounted on a 212-ft tower for a total height of 328 feet practically in our backyards?

Wind plant conversion would quickly exacerbate global warming

In prior studies, Keith and his colleagues found that realistic wind-power-generation was grossly exaggerated due to inaccurate estimates about the interactions between turbines in the atmosphere.

But we want to shut down coal-fired plants?

While yours truly is not a certified environmental scientist or engineer, isn’t that kind of like excusing a tire company for high-speed blowouts because it failed to accurately estimate interactions between its tires and roads?

In the interest of common sense and logic, it is important that our country’s environmental leaders do not present toxic, illogical energy solutions that “instantly” exacerbate environmental concerns.

In what could be construed as a halfhearted defense of wind energy, Keith says “the direct climate impacts of wind power are instant, while the benefits of reduced emissions accumulate slowly.”

That’s kind of like a politician raising your taxes and saying you won’t notice the benefits in your lifetime.