Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Treehugger also has a post on the NYT stories: New York Times Trashes Wind Power. Twice.

This quote they've taken from the NYT is breathtakingly stupid:

Yet Sweden's gleaming wind park is entering service at a time when wind energy is coming under sharper scrutiny, not just from hostile neighbors, who complain that the towers are a blot on the landscape, but from energy experts who question its reliability as a source of power.

For starters, the wind does not blow all the time. When it does, it does not necessarily do so during periods of high demand for electricity. That makes wind a shaky replacement for more dependable, if polluting, energy sources like oil, coal and natural gas. Moreover, to capture the best breezes, wind farms are often built far from where the demand for electricity is highest. The power they generate must then be carried over long distances on high-voltage lines, which in Germany and other countries are strained and prone to breakdowns.

Stop the presses! The wind does not blow all the time! World exclusive, must credit NYT! Developing...

So wind power requires a bit more investment in the energy grid. Big deal. I seem to remember a few news items here showing that wind power actually led to lower energy prices and that with a better developed grid, could cover most of the energy demand.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 at 09:12:57 AM EST
Aren't there proposals in development to store wind energy by raising weights within the turbine or compressing air?

Anyway, is there anything uglier than a coal-fired or nuclear power station?

by lemonwilmot (lemonwilmot at gmail.com) on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 at 11:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's all a matter of taste. There can be no doubt, however, that roads, especially highways, are the most disruptive interventions we make in the countryside, as a commentator on treehugger noted.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 at 12:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When hiking across the Cévennes I met people opposed to a wind turbine project ; in some rather isolated mountains. One of their points was that indeed, building dozens of 100-meter high wind turbines requires building a road. Which means, along with the destruction of nature this implies, easier access for 4-wheel drive cars later on...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 at 07:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ouch. It's a funny world. Still, the dilemmas of wind power should really be manageable with just a bit of common sense.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 at 09:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To be fair, NYT also included a reason why it matters little that the wind does not blow all the time.

Sweden Turns to a Promising Power Source, With Flaws - New York Times

Of course, Sweden does not need to build wind parks to get wind power. It could simply buy more surplus wind power from Denmark, which it uses, as does Norway, to pump underground water into elevated reservoirs. The water is later released during periods of peak electric demand to drive hydroelectric stations.

In this way, hydro acts as a form of storage for wind energy -- addressing one of wind power's biggest shortcomings. Sweden's strength in hydro makes it a good candidate for greater development of wind power, according to analysts.

And being dependent on high-voltage lines is no news for a country with lots and lots of hydro in a sparsely populated area, i.e. the northern half of Sweden.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 at 11:51:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And there's always

  The Great Battery of Kimberley

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 at 12:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series