[sverige]

When you do the research, you discover that wind is not the panacea it has been portrayed to be. Building and placing turbines is not carbon neutral, the cleanup costs of decommissioned turbines are completely ignored because they are 40 years out, and they are not very profitable without subsidies. There are better alternatives that are less destructive to the environment.

This also ignores the other part of my original comment, which was to build turbines nearer to population centers. Why aren't the hills east of Oakland and southwest of SV filled with wind turbines?

[frank2]

Those hills funnel the wind through the Livermore pass, where there have been wind turbines for decades

[sverige]

So all the available land suitable for wind turbines has been used? There's no more capacity?

[Robotbeat]

We need to fire on all cylinders, here, to fight climate change.

And as far as non-wind clean energy, there are literally zero options that are immune to NIMBYism like you're engaged in here. Not hydro, not geothermal, not even solar... And SURE as heck not nuclear.

[Robotbeat]

Svierge: I don't own the land yet (parents are still alive) and no one has approached us, but I absolutely would put wind turbines on it if there was an opportunity. My father and I have regularly discussed putting solar and wind and possibly some form of microhydro on the land at our own expense. We have planted trees on it.

[sverige]

Have you invited the wind farmers to put a turbine on your acreage?