BRUCE MacKINNON CARTOON: March 26, 2020
WEATHER U: Snowflake formation
P.E.I. woman looking to be next Inked Magazine cover girl
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL DAY: Cindy Day helps people plan their days and ...
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL DAY: For meteorologists like Cindy Day, the proof ...
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL WEEK: What climate change lessons can we learn ...
WORLD METEOROLOGICAL WEEK: Could the Labrador Sea hold secrets to ...
SALLY COLE: A timely tale for P.E.I.
DOUG GALLANT: There and back again
David Cheverie (Wind farm not good for nature, March 3) raises many viable reasons why the government should not build more wind farms in Eastern Kings. I would like to support him with another reason.
In looking at the manufacturer and installation of one large wind turbine, if one considers the carbon emissions that are produced in making the steel tower, the massive concrete footing, the generator, the grid infrastructure, and the large carbon fibre and glass fibre synthetic resin blades, then the carbon footprint is huge.
Some engineers have calculated that the turbine must produce emissions-free power for at least 15 years, depending on the wind site, before it has covered its carbon footprint. As the average life of a turbine is between 15 and 30 years depending on conditions, then it starts to look like a very expensive power source. In addition, back-up generation must be available for low wind days. And we haven't considered the energy cost of dismantling and recycling all that stuff after its short life.
I will keep on hammering away at the current energy stupidity while the climate hysteria grips the population like a lunatic virus in our minds. Politicians, you do not have to take the science as settled. It is faulty. Show some backbone.