Quote:
Originally Posted by PointSpecial
And though Chicago is the Windy City, it really is the 21st windiest city in the country. And besides... cities are not the best places for wind farms. heck, there is more wind out in Lake Michigan... a wind farm there would have much more potential power AND it would not take away from the aesthetics of the lakefront.
http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-f...-windiest-city
So, basically, the wind proposal is just fluff. It won't make nearly the impact that a (likely much larger) wind installation in Lake Michigan... only having such a small amount of turbines in a relatively small area will be a waste. Again, this is ONE BILLION DOLLARS. And wind turbines cost about $750k. If you take out the 100 turbines, you decrease the cost by $750 MILLION DOLLARS!?! If the want to do some land reclamation, then I say look for a cost effective way to do this... and elimination the turbines will do this the best way possible.
And finally...
Why cant Chicago's natural beauty stay natural? |
Well I don't want to get too deep into this since I don't really take much issue with what you posted, however it should be noted - in regards to Chicago's /average/ wind speed - that the temperature inversion in conjunction with the predominate high rise nature of buildings along the lakefront make for windier-than-average conditions and it would seem to be an optimal place to put these. . . er. . . things. . .
And regarding Chicago's "natural" beauty? I don't really know what you'd be referring to since most of the lakefront is "man-made". . .
. . .