We recently read an article by John Droz Jr. (gro.tenhtron@nhojrpaa) which he revised in 2023 from an article originally written in 2020.
You can find the article at https://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Wind_Other/Wind_&_AGW_Full.pdf
Mr. Droz is a physicist with an impressive CV. Overall, he is a prominent figure in energy policy debates, advocating for science-based approaches and expressing skepticism toward certain renewable energy projects.
You’ll notice I said “science based approaches.” If you read the article, you’ll find all the information you should need to decide that wind power as a replacement for fossil fuels is totally BS.
According to Droz, wind energy projects are not only inefficient, but they are environmentally damaging. So they don’t provide the energy promised and they don’t protect the environment. Yet all manner of enviro-nuts think wind is the be all and end all.
You can find a lot of information on wind and solar energy on his website https://wiseenergy.org/ and we encourage you to take a look.
All this to say that wind energy – and solar to a slightly lesser extent – are not the saving technologies we were told they were. There are certainly niche uses for these technologies, places off grid for example, however these are few and far between compared to the ubiquitous use we were told to expect.
Remember, the main reason for all this alternative energy shtick was reduction of CO2, which wasn’t even considered a problem until 2007 when they found that greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean 
Air Act if they contribute to climate change or endanger the public welfare. It’s all been downhill since then.
To add insult to injury, there is no scientific proof that wind or solar reduce CO2 to any great extent. So adding to the fact that CO2 was declared a greenhouse gas – not harmful – and the EPA was charged with proving it was a problem – which they did.
CO2 is the vehicle the EPA and climate change nuts use to get their way. It’s not true, scientific, or beneficial. And even if the claims for wind and solar were true, there’s another problem.
Because wind (and solar) are not continuous, each must have a backup that is the equivalent of the design output of the primary source. If you create a 10KW wind or solar plant, you’ll need a 10KW backup plant – gas, oil, nuclear, hydro – to replace it when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. This makes the total cost for wind and solar really expensive, and they’re undependable energy sources.
There’s a third problem with wind and solar as primary power sources. They may not put pollutants into the air at the generation site, but just like electric vehicles (EV) the pollution that takes place in mining and manufacturing the devices is horrible for the environment, and the CO2 from the backup generators used when 
needed is never counted in the total burden wind and solar are on the environment.
So even if you believe climate change is a threat and not a natural progression – we believe it’s natural – wind and solar are not good choices. Their use causes environmental problems, producing the devices requires dangerous, polluting metals, and they cannot operate stand-alone.
If the United States was really interested in a solution to fossil fuel, we would be building nuclear plants as quickly as we could. We’d be building the massive regional plants we’re used to seeing, and we’d be looking into the smaller, local plants that are being developed.
Yes, disposal of spent nuclear fuel is an issue, however if there was an effort made to solve it, we could with minimum fuss.
The real problem with nuclear is perception, people believe it’s dangerous when it’s not. Except for a defective Soviet reactor, and a minor problem at 3 Mile Island (which was totally controlled by the technology with no real release of radiation) and a movie (China Syndrome) that depicted nuclear meltdown as only movies can (wrong) there has been no trouble with nuclear.
So read the article, go to the website, take a look at what options are really viable, and make your own decision as to where our energy policy should go.
My personal opinion is commercial wind power should go to hell and take solar with it.
the people in Western North Carolina still need help, it’s cold and wet in the mountains, and it’s too soon for the new administration to make a difference there. We continue to ask that you do whatever you can to assist them. 
We continue to recommend Samaritan’s Purse or Mercury One as already on the ground and doing excellent work. Thank you.
If you like what you see, you can read more at Jack’s Substack
Continuity planning, civilian and military
Never including backup dispatchable power in the 24 hour per day or the 168 hour week carbon analysis for a solar or wind energy system is playing fairy tail science. Then there are those who say solar is less expensive. The less expensive part only works so long as the government subsidies and privileged rate structures don’t run out. Solar is much less expensive and more efficient than it used to be but it is not there yet. Arkansas should be at the forefront of the new nuclear fuel recycling industry. And we should be providing encouragement and support for more nuclear energy in the state. Electric rates should be kept low for the folks and for development.
Absolutely correct. And not only the carbon it takes to create the backups, but the carbon to make the fuel and facilities, just the way the econo-finatics count carbon on coal or oil generating plants. There is no “green” generating capability that can compete without government subsidies. And I agree, nuclear is the way to go, and we should be the leaders.
I have received over 1,500 online signatures and over 800 in person signatures to stop wind farms in Carroll County, Arkansas
Since October 2024, there is ongoing destruction and devastation to 10,000 acres as they make way for 30 turbines at 650′ tall on 2,000′ tall ridgeline for the Nimbus wind farm.
This private project for private gain using public roads has caused road degradation, making some area’s impassable for emergency vehicles or school buses .
Wind company production needs to cease until proper safety measures, decommissioning, and locations for used blades and parts are known .
Pollutant discharge from leading edge erosion, fiberglass shards, forever chemicals are contaminating farm fields and ponds across the US. “Unintended consequences “ need to be addressed before more turbines are built and our valuable rice, crops and cattle grazing lands are condemned by the EPA for having forever chemicals on the land. http://www.StopWindFarmsAR.org
Again, I agree. As with all the “new” green technologies, the unintended consequences sneak up on the left and harm us all. Thanks for the note, and I recommend anyone who wants to know more go to the site in your note.
In Arkansas, House Bill 1198 has been referred to the joint committee on Energy. House Bill 1198 would prohibit wind turbines from exceeding one hundred fifty feet in height. Please support House Bill 1198 and sensibly regulate wind development.
Wind developers are trying to develop the Ozarks. Wind development offers just a very few stakeholders the opportunity to monetize ‘the view’ at the expense of everyone else.
Everybody owns the view. It is a public asset like clean air and clean water.
Proposed wind developments within Arkansas will be the tallest available, and will be placed at the highest elevations. With no restrictions, it is difficult to stop anyone from building a hog farm right next door, but hog farms are not taller than the Seattle Space Needle or the St. Louis Arch.
Scout Clean Energy, the developers of the Nimbus Wind project in Carroll County, near Branson, is trying to rush their project toward construction to bypass sensible restrictions.
Please support House Bill 1198 in Arkansas to sensibly regulate wind development.
Everyone should support HB1198. Call your representatives and senators and let them know you don’t support wind turbines becoming the view. Aside from being butt ugly, wind is not a viable energy alternative to gas, oil, and nuclear. Without subsidies not one commercial wind turbine would ever be built. The same goes for solar. Both require 100% backup for when the wind don’t blow or the sun don’t shine, and the cost of the backup is never, ever figured into the viability of either of these scam technologies.
When wind and solar are mature enough to be viable without subsidies, and don’t ruin the environment (and the view is part of the environment) then we should look at them.
Not Before.