This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
When designing a wind "farm" are the developers required to model the local and distant effects of disrupting natural airflow?
It occurs to me that if one can generate electricity from wobbling "sticks" then surely one could generate electricity from waving tree branches. Somewhat unpredictable of course but we must be used to that by now.
So the mechanism (the tree) is also a carbon sink, a pollutant scrubber and air purifier and at some future point a source of bio-mass.
It supports wildlife too. Much better than killing it with a turbine or simply offering no support at all, so far as one can see, with a stick.
There you go. Planet saved.
This is based on a misconception that turns up every few years, that you can use resonant systems as a means of efficiently transferring energy. What the enginasters ignore is the fact that withdrawing energy from a resonant system destroys the Q factor of the system, so that it eventually ceases to become resonant. Even the giant brains at MIT fell into this trap (see Trivial Pursuit, Numberwatch, June 2007).
What you never see is the subsequent announcement that it did not work.
We don't see the subsequent announcements of success either.
Or we see premature announcements of success..... whatever happened to Steorn?...... still going strong it seems.
I liked the expression "perpetual Commotion" in one blog reporting on the "ORBO Power cube"