wrote in message
oups.com...
This morning's local paper has an interesting story about the
viability of wind power in the Buckeye state:

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/pri...560.xml&coll=2

graphic to go with story:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/wi...ind_power.html

Lots of interesting stuff there. What struck me most immediately was, "The
study did not look at the Great Lakes..." The Great Lakes? DOH (aka, how
stupid not to have thought of it)! Lake Erie has a surface area of about
25,700 sq. km. (9,910 sq. mi.). Allowing for a liberal 500 foot spacing,
that would mean roughly 100 wind driven generators per square mile, for a
total of nearly 10,000! At an average depth of 19 meters (62 feet)
construction would be a snap. Unlike sea water, which is highly corrosive,
fresh water is actually more benign than air for many
materials.....reinforced concrete piers would last a LONG time. The
structures would also be highly beneficial for fish. There is nothing to
block the wind out there. Water heats up and cools down at a different rate
than the surrounding land. As a result the air above the two surfaces also
changes temperature differentially. This in turn, causes an air pressure
gradient which results in highly regular winds, which shift from onshore to
offshore.....twice a day.....a lot like tides in some respects, and this is
in addition to larger air masses moving through the area. After the
installation of the first few units, electrical power for additional
construction would be free. Ontario is smaller than Erie (their combined
surface area is less than that of Michigan.....Huron and Superior are larger
still) but still big enough to generate a LOT of power. The big three would
pose engineering challenges (all of them have spots that get to over 700
feet deep) that probably wouldn't be worth the trouble to work around, but
there's still plenty of room for many thousands more generators! The mind
reels at the possibilities!

Well, o.k., that may be a bit more amibitious (and politically
suicidal.....not that that's a bad thing) than we want to get right
away......or need, for that matter.

I can't imagine we'll get to replacing all of the coal furnaces with
wind turbines

I think there's no real technological barier to doing so. Although wind
power is the only demonstrably viable alternative to conventional sources of
electricity (it IS being used extensively, whereas others remain essentially
experimental and unproven, despite a few more or less succesful pilot
projects) there is every reason to believe that the technology will continue
to improve as more of the money that used to be used to fight it is
channelled into development.

(note the statement at the end of the story that says
power companies can't pass on the cost of new facilities to
customers),

A bit of lexical and legalistic legerdemaine there, I think. Consumers pay
for EVERYTHING.

but if even *some* were built, it's gotta be a good thing.

Amen.

Wolfgang