Windfarms...good or bad? [Archive]

Crispy Duck

23rd June 2006, 08:16 AM

I live in East Kent in the UK. There's a fairly large offshore windfarm off the North Kent coast at Herne Bay, and there are quite a few turbines in northern France, along the route from Calais to Le Touquet, which I have driven along several times. There's also a mid-sized (100ft tall-ish) disused turbine at Richborough Power Station, just north of Sandwich.

I suspect that the contribution of wind turbines to the growing global energy crisis is almost entirely symbolic, but I think they're, like, totally cool, dude. I went on a boat trip out to the Herne Bay windfarm, and have stood almost directly below one of the French ones, and I find them extremely impressive and elegant.

One strange observation of the Herne Bay windfarm is that, on any given day, no more than half of the turbines seem to be turning. I don't know if this is normal, or if it reflects some fragility in the mechanism somewhere?

I know a lot of people find them ugly, but I don't.

Terry

23rd June 2006, 08:40 AM

There are a lot of wind turbines in the I-10 coridor north of palm springs, where I live. I often ride my bicycle past them. Personally I have no issue with the appearance of them. As for noise, which is an oft-cited worry, the wind itself is much louder in my experience. However, there is an issue with the mechanisms failing. According to the fire department, at least once a year they have to go put out a small fire under a turbine which has a seized gearbox. In our desert environment, that actually seems pretty serious to me. We already have a problem with wildfires.

King of the Americas

23rd June 2006, 08:52 AM

a possible 'hazard', not otherwise mentioned.

Here in North Texas, we are now under a burn ban. Sparks flying off a 400 foot tower don't sound too appealing.

Molinaro

23rd June 2006, 08:53 AM

As usual, the people adjacent to these "monsterous fans", are opposed to the notion for obvious personal reasons.

I can't think of any obvious reasons.. care to name some?

King of the Americas

23rd June 2006, 09:02 AM

Well for starters, THEY have to look at them, and THEIR land will depreciate.

Sorry, I thought that was fairly 'obvious'...

Molinaro

23rd June 2006, 09:03 AM

Not to me. I can't imagine why looking at them would bother anyone. Or why they would feel the land is less valuable with a wind farm next door.

King of the Americas

23rd June 2006, 09:11 AM

...

Really?

Do YOU live near any of them, or do you know someone personally who does?

Molinaro

23rd June 2006, 09:19 AM

Mercutio

23rd June 2006, 09:22 AM

There's only 1 wind powered turbine here in Toronto, by the waterfront. I can't see it from my house, but it certainly wouldn't bother me if I could. I just don't understand why seeing them would bother anyone.
Isn't it obvious? They are simply bad feng shui; those lousy eggbeaters chop up the chi, and the acupuncture bills for everyone in the area just skyrocket.

CFLarsen

23rd June 2006, 09:23 AM

I say secret because they first ask that land owners sign some kind of gag order, before they will speak with them.

If it is so secret, how come you know about it?

fishbob

23rd June 2006, 09:25 AM

a possible 'hazard', not otherwise mentioned.

Here in North Texas, we are now under a burn ban. Sparks flying off a 400 foot tower don't sound too appealing.
There used to be 3 of them just north of the freeway between DFW Airport and Dallas. Next to the road, nobody could hear the things. Sparks falling on the highway should be no big deal - cig butt fires and dying cars cause fires there all the time anyway. Easy access for the fire trucks and the crews know exactly what to do.
Next to billboarded highways, nobody could rationally complain about aesthetics or ruined property values.

King of the Americas

23rd June 2006, 09:29 AM

Because I am ALL knowing!!! MOO-WHOO-HAAA-HAAA (rubbing my hands together)...

A friend of mine works for the local media, and he went to cover a local land holders meeting, where he was denied a quote from anyone who attended. Knowledge of meeting was public, but the contents therein were not.

The Don

23rd June 2006, 09:31 AM

Mercutio

23rd June 2006, 09:39 AM

In the UK the approach appears to be to blight some previously unspoilt part of the countryside with the things. They are an eyesore when the alternative is nature (same goes for any small industrial unit).

Let's all work on wave/tidal power instead !
Spoken as a true island-dweller! :D

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd June 2006, 10:33 AM

"NOT in my back yard...!"
You got it.

~~ Paul

Hazen

23rd June 2006, 10:54 AM

Crossbow

23rd June 2006, 11:35 AM

Wow!

I was wondering if KOA was still about since I had not heard much from him since he ran for mayor and got of all 11 votes.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=37292&highlight=mayor

By the way KOA, you might want to tell your reporter friend that he does not need permission from anyone to quote someone when that someone makes a public statement that is newsworthy (as in case of the public meeting you referred to).

Thing

23rd June 2006, 11:59 AM

I too find them very impressive to look at. I don't live near one but I drove my family to the nearest one for a day out at Easter.

kevin

23rd June 2006, 12:08 PM

Might give this is a listen. It's been a while since I heard it, but I belive they talked to people that have them on their property and people that oppose them.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5260426

Soapy Sam

23rd June 2006, 01:08 PM

One source of objection in the UK is that they tend to be put in open country. Reasonable enough.
But open country attracts tourists, whose money is important to the local people. If the wind farm is an eyesore which discourages tourism, the locals lose in every way, while not benefitting.
One solution is to subsidise small local groups to buy one or two turbines, use it to supply their own power and sell any excess to the grid. This at least gives locals a cash incentive.

Another objection is noise. I have not been close enough to an operating windfarm to know how loud this is, myself.

The main concern seems to be that wind is an unreliable power source. On days with no wind, we need traditional power stations as back up, so they can't be decommissioned, but must be maintained at less than peak efficiency.
Tidal / wave power should be more reliable, but seems a lot more complex to build.
As for the NIMBY thing- I live in a town. It used to be heavily industrial. As far as I'm concerned they can put the things all over here and I wouldn't care. I DO care that they put them in rural areas of great scenic beauty.

Dragonrock

23rd June 2006, 01:34 PM

Wind turbines are especially noisy if they are the direct use type. Direct use turbines are geared so that the blades must spin at an exact rate to generate a 60 hz cycle. To keep the blades from turning too fast here are automatic brakes that slow the blades if the wind is too strong. These generally make a hissing, whining, or grinding noise depending on how old the brake pads are.

The other type generate fluctuating dc that varies in power based on the speed of the wind. They generate more power than the direct use type, but their output must be normalized to 110v 60hz ac before being introduced to the power grid. They are also almost completely silent.

Art Vandelay

23rd June 2006, 06:58 PM

Wind turbines are especially noisy if they are the direct use type. Direct use turbines are geared so that the blades must spin at an exact rate to generate a 60 hz cycle. To keep the blades from turning too fast here are automatic brakes that slow the blades if the wind is too strong. These generally make a hissing, whining, or grinding noise depending on how old the brake pads are.Have ther been any attempts at making continuously variable transmissions?

By the way KOA, you might want to tell your reporter friend that he does not need permission from anyone to quote someone when that someone makes a public statement that is newsworthy (as in case of the public meeting you referred to).It sounds like his friend is trying to get them to make such a public statement.

rustytunes

23rd June 2006, 07:30 PM

kevin

23rd June 2006, 07:49 PM

kevin

23rd June 2006, 07:56 PM

Have ther been any attempts at making continuously variable transmissions?

Not sure if anyone is doing it in windfarms yet, but they are trying:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/wind/2000/00000024/00000003/art00002;jsessionid=k48csaf449e3.alice

And I assume your question only pertains to windfarms as my Prius has a CVT so there have been successful "attempts" outside of windfarms....

rustytunes

23rd June 2006, 08:11 PM

can you provide a cite for that? I worked at a nuclear power plant it takes a lot of energy to build one.
Yes I can, but I won't have the book back until Monday. I knew that if I lent it, I'd need it.

pchams

23rd June 2006, 08:25 PM

Direct use turbines are geared so that the blades must spin at an exact rate to generate a 60 hz cycle.
Direct use..I guess...Feeding energy into the grid?
To keep the blades from turning too fast here are automatic brakes that slow the blades if the wind is too strong.
This could be done electrically. Motor controllers do this in industry every day.

davefoc

23rd June 2006, 09:30 PM

Direct use..I guess...Feeding energy into the grid?

This could be done electrically. Motor controllers do this in industry every day.This is not exactly my area so perhaps somebody will respond that knows more.

I think direct use referred being able to use the power directly from the generators driven by the windmill. If one does this it is necessary to match the frequency and voltage of the local power standards fairly closely so as to be able to feed the grid with power from the windmill.

There are two ways to do this:
mechanically, that is make the windmill spin at the right rate to produce the voltage and frequency required.
electrically, that is let the windmill spin at the rate determined by the wind conditions so as to produce the most power possible and convert the power produced by the windmill to match the required voltage and frequency parameters required for local useage.

CFLarsen

24th June 2006, 12:10 AM

Diamond

24th June 2006, 12:49 AM

I oppose wind farms on the simple grounds that a) they are not a useful stable source of energy b) in order to maintain stability of supply an equivalent amount of fossil-fuel based power plant must be kept "spun up" (ie running without actually being connected to the grid so there's c) if the wind is too low there's no power d) if the wind is too high there's no power because the dynamos will overheat so they're shut down d) down wind they cause infrasound e) they chop up birds with frightening regularity usually the slower moving birds f)if there's too much wind supply compared to demand then the extra energy cannot be stored (in Denmark's case they dump it into Germany and Scandinavia, which is called passing the problem to someone else's supply) g) this variable, evanescent source of energy is much more expensive than other sources and must be heavily subsidized.

So wind power is the worst of all possible scenarios for electricity generation - but they make people feel warm and fuzzy. After all, what could possibly be wrong with it?

rjh01

24th June 2006, 01:14 AM

The BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5108666.stm)
Wind farm turbine blades are killing a key population of Europe's largest bird of prey, UK wildlife campaigners warn.

rjh01

24th June 2006, 01:16 AM

On The other hand (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4072756.stm)
Migrating birds are unlikely to be seriously affected by offshore wind farms, according to a study.
Scientists found that birds simply fly around the farm, or between the turbines; less than 1% are in danger of colliding with the giant structures.

Pidge

24th June 2006, 04:48 AM

The larger wind turbines is, the slower it spins. There has been a trend to bigger turbines, as the bigger turbines spin slower, allowing the poor wee birdies a chance to see and avoid a collision, to reduce the bird-kill problem

A article on this can be found at Here at, erm, www.treehugger.com (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php) (Found by Google Stumbling)

Wind farms have problems with fluctuating output. This is generally mitigated by picking sites with consistant wind, and also recognising that WT is best useds as a secondary source of power to supplement another generation method which provides an adjustable baseline. e.g. Thermo (Gas, Coal, Geothermal, Nuclear) or Hydro, rather than the only power source.

If it is used as the only power source, it should be used as part of a glorified UPS (Un-interuptable Power Supply), with the WT charging the batteries/pumping water back up hill when the demand is below supply, and the battries/hydro turbine used to make up the shortfall when demand exceeds the WTs output.

King of the Americas

24th June 2006, 11:42 AM

Thank you, Diamond. That is exactly the kind of information I am looking for.

I have not yet developed an opinion on the validity of choosing this exact location. I'd like to see test results on the abount of energy that could be produced from this site, moreover I believe that should be the ONLY deciding factor.

People's personal opinions about how they will affect their lives is really the last criteria that should be considered. I mean when we built the transcontinential railroad, how would it have EVER been created if we allowed property owners to stop it because it would be ugly to look, or that it would make too much noise around their house?

People personal views should be exempt, when making public policy decisions.

I am going to do some direct research, by visiting one of the wind farm that FPL built near Abilene Texas.

Yuri Nalyssus

24th June 2006, 02:37 PM

I don't live near one but I drove my family to the nearest one for a day out at Easter.
Wow, you certainly know how to have a good time!:D

Personally I find wind turbines aesthetically pleasing, sort of like impassive giants or techno-trees. That aside however, the main feeling they produce in me is one of delicious shadenfreude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude) as I behold the annoying tree hugging eco-warrior, alternative-energy types from 20 or 30 years ago now as staid, propertied, middle class home owners performing fantastic mental acrobatics in order to convince themselves and others that the wind-turbines they campaigned long and hard for in their youth should not be built in their back gardens (for sound ecological and environmental reasons of course - nothing so sordid as property prices).

Yuri

andyandy

24th June 2006, 03:46 PM

Personally I find wind turbines aesthetically pleasing, sort of like impassive giants or techno-trees. That aside however, the main feeling they produce in me is one of delicious shadenfreude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude) as I behold the annoying tree hugging eco-warrior, alternative-energy types from 20 or 30 years ago now as staid, propertied, middle class home owners performing fantastic mental acrobatics in order to convince themselves and others that the wind-turbines they campaigned long and hard for in their youth should not be built in their back gardens (for sound ecological and environmental reasons of course - nothing so sordid as property prices).

Yuri
as perfect a post as possible :D

Foster Zygote

24th June 2006, 07:01 PM

Dragonrock, I don't believe that the noise is from a braking mechanism. My wife works for GE Wind Energy and she says that most of the noise is from the gearbox. She isn't aware of any medium to large turbines that use a friction braking system to control RPM as the heat generated by this system would be tremendous and it would destroy itself in short order. It would be a bit like driving your car with the throttle wide open and relying on the brakes to regulate your speed. The system actually used on wind turbines is a variable pitch system nearly identical to those used on propeller aircraft. A wind speed sensor will adjust the rotor pitch to maintain the proper RPM up to the point at which the wind speed becomes too great and the rotor is then feathered (or turned leading edge directly into the airflow). There is a friction braking system on the rotor but it is only used to immobilize the whole turbine when the wind speed is too slow/great or technicians must enter the nacelle for service.

Steven

Hawkeye

25th June 2006, 03:33 AM

Diamond, I disagree with you almost completely.

a) they are not a useful stable source of energy
They aren’t useful? Tell that to Denmark, they use wind energy to supply about 20% of their electricity.
Worldwide, it’s something like 60,000 MW and 1% of total electricity.

c) if the wind is too low there's no power
Please. So then do you think we shouldn't bother with solar power because it doesn't work at night?

e) they chop up birds with frightening regularity usually the slower moving birds

Worried about birds? Me too, that’s why I want clean and renewable energy sources. If you really cared about ecology, you'd be more worried about the loss of biodiversity due to pollution, habitat loss, and global warming. The environmental benefits of decreasing our fossil fuel usage far outweigh the cost of a few martyr birds' lives.

g) this variable, evanescent source of energy is much more expensive than other sources and must be heavily subsidized.
Oh really? I don't know where you're from, but in the U.S. its the oil/gas companies that are heavily subsidized. Money given to develop wind power been sporadic at best, and has always been chump change compared to the investments in Big Oil. Finally, wind energy IS competitive in most cases, especially as costs continue to decrease due to research and development.

You do bring up valid points about the problems with windmill intermittency. I'm not an expert in this area, but I do know that multiple farms spread over a wide area and linked together can produce power fairly consistently and predictably. When there are especially un-windy days, obviously you'll need some nuclear or coal plants around to pick up the slack. I also concede that some may find wind turbines aesthetically unpleasant. On the other hand I must point out that they replace fossil fuel burning plants, which I personally find to be much less appealing.

In conclusion, Windfarms are good.
Please build them in my backyard.

CFLarsen

25th June 2006, 04:28 AM

They aren’t useful? Tell that to Denmark, they use wind energy to supply about 20% of their electricity. Worldwide, it’s something like 60,000 MW and 1% of total electricity.

You bet. The facts prove Diamond wrong.

Today, 20% of Denmark's electricity comes from windmills. By 2008, it will be 25%, and we aim for 50% by 2025. We'll get there, no worries.

Denmark is also - by far - the world's largest exporter of windmills. Vestas, our biggest exporter, has tripled production since 2001, with 30,000 windmills in 50 countries worldwide.

Please. So then do you think we shouldn't bother with solar power because it doesn't work at night?

The good thing about wind power is that the wind also blows during night... :)

The big factor is that we won't run out of either wind or sunlight. While the solar panels are rather slowly becoming more efficient, wind power has taken huge leaps forward in the past decade or so.

Worried about birds? Me too, that’s why I want clean and renewable energy sources. If you really cared about ecology, you'd be more worried about the loss of biodiversity due to pollution, habitat loss, and global warming. The environmental benefits of decreasing our fossil fuel usage far outweigh the cost of a few martyr birds' lives.

Birds learn quickly to avoid the wind mills.

Oh really? I don't know where you're from, but in the U.S. its the oil/gas companies that are heavily subsidized. Money given to develop wind power been sporadic at best, and has always been chump change compared to the investments in Big Oil. Finally, wind energy IS competitive in most cases, especially as costs continue to decrease due to research and development.

Again, the good thing is, wind and sunlight is that it's everywhere, it doesn't pollute, and it's free. We can't fight wars over it, it never runs out and it doesn't take away from other things.

You do bring up valid points about the problems with windmill intermittency. I'm not an expert in this area, but I do know that multiple farms spread over a wide area and linked together can produce power fairly consistently and predictably. When there are especially un-windy days, obviously you'll need some nuclear or coal plants around to pick up the slack. I also concede that some may find wind turbines aesthetically unpleasant. On the other hand I must point out that they replace fossil fuel burning plants, which I personally find to be much less appealing.

In conclusion, Windfarms are good.
Please build them in my backyard.

If you want to be independent, and you live enough distance from other people, go ahead. But the trend is to move from smaller windmills to huge ones, and place them out on the ocean, far away from everything. We have produced ocean windmills for some time now that are far bigger than possible on land, and reduces the noise factor to zilch. That way, we also avoid lesser windy days.

Is wind and solar power the ultimate "free energy" source? Perhaps not from a strict scientific sense (the 2nd law of thermodynamics is still in effect), but for all practical purposes, it sure looks like it.

Not that we should give up on oil and gas. I don't think we will get cars driven by either electricity or solar power any day soon, but we can sure save a bundle on the oil that goes today into electricity production.

Once solar panels become more effective, cover the bloody Sahara with them. Right now, there's nothing preventing us from putting up 100 million windmills in Antarctica and Siberia.

Turn on all your lights, TVs, computers, etc. once in your life, gentlemen. Never turn them off again.

Godmode

25th June 2006, 04:36 AM

When I lived in NOrway there was a wind farm not very far from us. Personally, I found the sound they made to be very relaxing, in fact I miss it sometimes. It's like the ocean sounds, quiet and mellow. Very soothing.
Also, I don't share the opinion that they're ugly. Plus, when you think of how nice they are for the environment, they just get total thumbs up from me.

That's my opinion.

Bikewer

25th June 2006, 05:48 AM

I was watching a Discovery channel special last night on "Addiction to Oil", where Thomas Friedman discussed various plans (and non-plans) for energy and conservation.

In the segment on wind, he talked to several folks (admittedly promoters) who claim that wind could easily furnish 25% of the power requirements of the US, with essentially no pollution.
However, considerable investment in infrastructure would be needed, and at present that's not coming.
Although oil and coal are the reciepients of large and steady subsidy and tax breaks, any such subsidy to wind (or other alternatives) has been minimal and sporadic, according to the show.

rjh01

25th June 2006, 06:12 AM

Wind power sounds wonderful. How do I power my car or truck on it? What about during peaks in demand for electricity?

Same questions but for nuclear power and solar power.

CFLarsen

25th June 2006, 06:28 AM

Wind power sounds wonderful. How do I power my car or truck on it? What about during peaks in demand for electricity?

Same questions but for nuclear power and solar power.
Who said anything about swapping completely?

Raphael

25th June 2006, 07:02 AM

Wind power sounds wonderful. How do I power my car or truck on it? What about during peaks in demand for electricity?

Same questions but for nuclear power and solar power.

Windpower creates electricity that is one more source for the grid. If you have an electric car you plug into the grid. If there are many sources of wind and solar, more fossil fuel is available for other uses like cars.

Sherman Bay

25th June 2006, 07:28 AM

Wind power sounds wonderful. How do I power my car or truck on it? Easy. First you get up to speed, then you turn on the wind turbine...

Sherman Bay

25th June 2006, 07:42 AM

RE: property values

I would imagine a farm with income-producing turbines straddling, and having very little effect on, crops below, would be a more valuable pice of land than one without. So property values would go UP.

RE: bird kill

Never mind the estimates of what birds do or don't do. Why don't you walk out to a turbine farm and count the number of dead birds per square mile, then contrast that to nearby areas without turbines?

There is a wind farm not far from me. I don't think dead bird disposal is a major expense and neighbors report there is no shortage of birds.

BillC

25th June 2006, 11:04 AM

The majority of noise from a wind turbine comes from turbulence at the blade edge. Wind power causes several headaches for an electrical grid -- it's unreliable, lacks transparency (meaning central despatch has little idea of what it is doing) and generally unpredictable.

Plant is not kept spun up, but disconnected to make up any potential shortfall(*), but reserve and response are carried on synchronised plant. In the UK at least, though, the amount currently carried for other reasons exceeds any that might be carried for making up windpower shortfall by several orders of magnitude.

(*) The amount of plant that can do this is very small, and is kept in this mode for a different reason.

lenny

25th June 2006, 11:07 AM

diamond, i am surpised you posted this, was it naive or intentionally misleading?

if you think there is evidence for your claims i am happy to consider it; i am neither "for" nor "against" wind power, but simplistic claims cloud the real issue. in short:

(a) is false unless you hide behind an irrelevant defn of "stable",
(b) is a wellknown falsehood, not to mention that need for spinning reserve effects all plant, esp on small grids like the UK,
(c) is true. and an important design constraint on when and where wind power makes sense, but not a show stopper for the majority of proposals,
(d), (e) and should be noted in the context of non CO2 impacts of alternative energy
(f) is a fact of life for electricity, but your parenthetical is at best misleading (not to mention silly in face of your claim (b)),
(g) might contain a good point, but the conclusion is unsupported: how would you argue wind compares, say, the nuclear?

the value of wind power depends a great deal on the geophysics of the location, the economics of the local energy market, and the infrastructure of the local grid. to argue that it is useless is as silly as to argue that it could supply most of our electricity needs.

WARNING: in fairness, i note i work with but not in the energy sector, i do not feel that this biases my opinion; nevertheless bits of my research related weather forecasting are relevant for the use of wind energy.

I oppose wind farms on the simple grounds that a) they are not a useful stable source of energy b) in order to maintain stability of supply an equivalent amount of fossil-fuel based power plant must be kept "spun up" (ie running without actually being connected to the grid so there's c) if the wind is too low there's no power d) if the wind is too high there's no power because the dynamos will overheat so they're shut down d) down wind they cause infrasound e) they chop up birds with frightening regularity usually the slower moving birds f)if there's too much wind supply compared to demand then the extra energy cannot be stored (in Denmark's case they dump it into Germany and Scandinavia, which is called passing the problem to someone else's supply) g) this variable, evanescent source of energy is much more expensive than other sources and must be heavily subsidized.

lenny

25th June 2006, 11:29 AM

You bet. The facts prove Diamond wrong.

Today, 20% of Denmark's electricity comes from windmills. By 2008, it will be 25%, and we aim for 50% by 2025. We'll get there, no worries.
There are real challenges to using wind as a majority source; Denmark is lucky to have neighbours with flexible hydro-power it can depend on. It is also claimed that due to leading the way, Denmark is the most at risk to carbon trading losses in Europe: it seems a unfair! (but a loss of available hydro power due, say, to a few dry winters would force Denmark to import fossil-fuelled electricity, no?)

Is wind and solar power the ultimate "free energy" source? Perhaps not from a strict scientific sense (the 2nd law of thermodynamics is still in effect), but for all practical purposes, it sure looks like it.
where does your 2nd law worry come from? conservation of angular momentum (the earth's rotation) and gravity (via nuclear reactions deep in the sun) will keep the wind blowing until the sun swells up and vapourises the planet. no reason on Earth to worry about the second law that i can see...
Not that we should give up on oil and gas. I don't think we will get cars driven by either electricity or solar power any day soon, but we can sure save a bundle on the oil that goes today into electricity production.
and that is the key point. every cubic meter of gas that is not burned is that much less CO2 produced, not to mention making rather hard to replace petrochemicals available for other uses (once we've accounted to the cost of building the mills).

davefoc

25th June 2006, 11:44 AM

diamond,
Add me to the list of people that thought your criticism of wind power was strangely inaccurate. It went well beyond any criticism of wind power that I had seen including the criticism that is listed on the con side in the wikipedia wind power discussion.

From whence it came? Do you intend to provide evidence for any of it?

Art Vandelay

25th June 2006, 12:03 PM

People's personal opinions about how they will affect their lives is really the last criteria that should be considered. Whnat about objective facts about how it will affect their lives?

Worried about birds? Me too, that’s why I want clean and renewable energy sources. If you really cared about ecology, you'd be more worried about the loss of biodiversity due to pollution, habitat loss, and global warming. I don't see why we should assume that global warming will result in loss of biodiversity.

You bet. The facts prove Diamond wrong.

Today, 20% of Denmark's electricity comes from windmills. By 2008, it will be 25%, and we aim for 50% by 2025. We'll get there, no worries.Really? So how do you explain the evolution of bonobos?

Again, the good thing is, wind and sunlight is that it's everywhere, it doesn't pollute, and it's free.Oil is just as free.

We can't fight wars over it, it never runs out and it doesn't take away from other things.There's a finite amount of solar energy. And building windfarms takes resources from other things.

where does your 2nd law worry come from? conservation of angular momentum (the earth's rotation) and gravity (via nuclear reactions deep in the sun) Uh... gravity doesn't come from nuclear reactions.

and that is the key point. every cubic meter of gas that is not burned is that much less CO2 produced, not to mention making rather hard to replace petrochemicals available for other uses (once we've accounted to the cost of building the mills).I think that would be clearer if you said "not to mention making rather-hard-to-replace petrochemicals available for other uses".

lenny

25th June 2006, 12:58 PM

Uh... gravity doesn't come from nuclear reactions. no, but the nuclear reactions "come from" gravity; regret not being more clear! my (intended) point was that gravity drives the wind via (gravity induced) nuclear reactions in the sun, suggesting that the second law is no worry on any relevant time scale if we stay on the planet.
I think that would be clearer if you said "not to mention making rather-hard-to-replace petrochemicals available for other uses".agreed. thx!

Hawkeye

26th June 2006, 02:02 AM

I don't see why we should assume that global warming will result in loss of biodiversity.

Well, this is a subject for debate in another thread. Let me briefly just summarize my point. Unprecedented global warming has been occurring for the past century or so. There is no doubt among scientists that humans have played a pivotal role in this. The greenhouse effect is melting ice, changing weather patterns, and wreaking havoc on fragile ecosystems. Humans may be smart enough to deal with it, but many species simply can't adapt fast enough. It's no coincidence that the rate of species extinction is greater now than at any time in human history. Much of this is probably from destruction of rainforests and other senseless human practices. At any rate, it’s not from the windmills! :czlaugh:

Also, I must comment on two other things you said.

Oil is just as free.
Oil isn’t everywhere, it does pollute, and it’s hardly free. The U.S. hit its peak oil production in 1971. Today, we consume over 7.5 billion barrels of oil per year versus around 3 billion produced domestically. The balance we must import (and fight wars for) at great expense to the American people. Don't you think it’s a better idea to be self sufficient in our energy consumption? Why not has a massive New Deal-esque windmill building public works project? It could provide millions of jobs and create a new infrastructure of green, sustainable, homegrown energy. The same could be said for solar power.

There's a finite amount of solar energy.
It what sense? Sure, we’ll run out of solar energy once the sun uses up all its fuel, but that won't happen for another 5 billion years. And when it does, we’ll have bigger fish to fry, because the sun will have engulfed the Earth! Perhaps you mean that our solar energy production is limited by how many panels are operating. But that’s precisely why solar is so much better than oil! If you need more electricity you can always build more solar panels, but you can only pump oil out of the ground so fast. Once an oil field is working at maximum capacity, it cannot increase production no matter how great the demand. Surely you don’t mean solar energy is finite in terms of how much reaches the earth each day. If we covered the Sahara alone with solar panels, we could produce around 35x more power than the entire world consumes.

Solar and wind are RENEWABLE energy sources, oil is not

richardm

26th June 2006, 05:20 AM

Richardm was involved in an anti WF campaign in his area.
You might PM him.

I did indeed! A bit more info (http://www.fairwind.org.uk/) is here - these are really the people who have the good ideas about PR and activism, so I'd suggest you get in touch direct with Ken if you want help and advice.

In the UK the approach appears to be to blight some previously unspoilt part of the countryside with the things. They are an eyesore when the alternative is nature (same goes for any small industrial unit).
Right. In fact I have nothing against small community turbines providing power locally, which is (I believe) the Danish model. The problem is that in the UK there is a tendency to want to build hundreds of large ones in one place. In the case of the wind farm I helped to campaign against this was because it was in a place which is a long way from the nearest large city and needed X number of turbines producing Y amount of power to justify the investment in new cables and pylons to take the power away from where it was being generated to where it was needed. In this case X was up to 500 100 metre tall turbines.

Considering that this is an area in which the largest Loch alone has eleven Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), two National Nature Reserves, two National Scenic Areas, a European Special Area of Conservation and an RSPB reserve and relies on these areas for the majority of its income, it didn't really seem like the ideal spot to do this. This link (http://www.fairwind.org.uk/) (same as the one above) gives more info about what was going on (and is going on - it hasn't gone away for sure yet).

Furthermore, their construction produces more greenhouse emisions than the constuction of a nuclear power plant.
I'm not sure about that, but their construction certainly does release plenty of greenhouse gases, because it involves laying a huge block of concrete for foundations. When this cures it releases more Carbon Dioxide than the turbine will save throughout it's life, or so I'm told.

I would imagine a farm with income-producing turbines straddling, and having very little effect on, crops below, would be a more valuable pice of land than one without. So property values would go UP.

UP for the people who own the land that the turbines are on and who get that extra income. DOWN for the people whose properties overlook the turbines, and whose house prices have been high because people are prepared to pay a premium for nice views. There are some people around Ardnamurchan who are hoping that the wind farm will go ahead, because they anticipate that demand for holiday homes will collapse and bring prices down to levels locals can more easily afford.

Irish Murdoch

26th June 2006, 06:10 AM

Not to me. I can't imagine why looking at them would bother anyone. Or why they would feel the land is less valuable with a wind farm next door.

Quite. I regularly pass wind turbines in Cumbria, UK, and I think they're stunningly beautiful. But maybe I'm weird ...

King of the Americas

26th June 2006, 07:29 AM

I'd like to thank everyone for their insights. I have learned a lot, bt I still haven't developed a staunch stance on the matter.

I think that the only criteria that should be considered is the effects it will have on the region, where it will be placed. I am talking about ALL of the people within the area, of course. A 'how will We be effected' notion, rather than a 'how will 'I' be effected by this' concept.

Basically I think it is okay for someONE to suffer a little, so that We all benefit.

To me, windmills mean more energy being produced for the grid (on good days), and that means lower energy costs for EVERYONE. Some people think they are nice to look at, while some disagree, but I think that is the issue that matters the least within the debate.

IF I were to interject a personal opinion upon this matter, I would say that "I'd rather see a windmill than an oil pumpjack, with spilt oil laying all over the place, and no living plant within 50 yards of it." (This area has oil pumps all over the place, one for every 2 square miles, at least.)

varwoche

26th June 2006, 07:38 AM

Thank you, Diamond. That is exactly the kind of information I am looking for. False information?

King of the Americas

26th June 2006, 07:50 AM

No... It's 'opinions' I am looking for.

People's personal feelings on the matter.

I am going to attend a town 'hearing' on this matter tonight, where I will likely hear 'fact', opinions, ramblings, half-truths, and probably even whole lies. Hearing or reading things like that from Diamond, only better prepare me to listen for the right things tonight.

varwoche:

Have you developed a conclusion upon this matter? Should people try to resist windfarming?

richardm

26th June 2006, 07:55 AM

Should people try to resist windfarming?

I think that each farm proposition should be taken on its merits, really. A site such as you propose, which is already heavily industrialised, may be more appropriate than some others. Smaller installations may be acceptable in areas where larger ones might not be.

King of the Americas

26th June 2006, 08:01 AM

WIth ONLY this site to guide you, http://www.northtexaswindresistance.com/

What conclusion do you draw?

Hopefully, tonight's hearing will provide more specific information on the matter.

Almo

26th June 2006, 08:49 AM

I think they're ace. I'd much rather see wind farms than smog. Not that wind farms can necessarily stop smog, but I think you know what I mean.

richardm

26th June 2006, 09:02 AM

I'd much rather see wind farms than smog. Not that wind farms can necessarily stop smog, but I think you know what I mean.
It's not an either/or situation, you know! And apart from anything else, since you live in Montreal (http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2002/081502/news4.html) much of your smog is caused by:

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx); the latter occur whenever fossil fuels are burned, primarily by cars, trucks, trains, boats and planes.

(emphasis mine). So unless you're going to move to electric-powered versions of the above, wind farms ain't going to help you much. They'll help a bit, because you are then left with just the industrial causes. But as I say, it's not an either/or.

Almo

26th June 2006, 09:05 AM

It's not an either/or situation, you know! And apart from anything else, since you live in Montreal (http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2002/081502/news4.html) much of your smog is caused by:

(emphasis mine). So unless you're going to move to electric-powered versions of the above, wind farms ain't going to help you much. They'll help a bit, because you are then left with just the industrial causes. But as I say, it's not an either/or.

I know it isn't either or, and I'm not just talking about Montréal. I mean in general, I'd rather see windfarms and solar farms cluttering up the landscape than all that goes with petroleum use.

Dragonrock

26th June 2006, 09:12 AM

CFLarsen

26th June 2006, 10:43 AM

There are real challenges to using wind as a majority source; Denmark is lucky to have neighbours with flexible hydro-power it can depend on. It is also claimed that due to leading the way, Denmark is the most at risk to carbon trading losses in Europe: it seems a unfair! (but a loss of available hydro power due, say, to a few dry winters would force Denmark to import fossil-fuelled electricity, no?)

Nope. We got more than plenty of natural gas.

where does your 2nd law worry come from? conservation of angular momentum (the earth's rotation) and gravity (via nuclear reactions deep in the sun) will keep the wind blowing until the sun swells up and vapourises the planet. no reason on Earth to worry about the second law that i can see...

I don't worry about the 2nd law.

and that is the key point. every cubic meter of gas that is not burned is that much less CO2 produced, not to mention making rather hard to replace petrochemicals available for other uses (once we've accounted to the cost of building the mills).

Hey, it took a lot of money to build the oil-dependent energy sector, too. What we should do for now is diversify.

roger

26th June 2006, 10:57 AM

I kind of like the looks of wind farms - I like the one out on I-10 in CA. Certainly no more ugly than houses, office buildings, interstates, cell towers, or all the other stuff we currently place on our landscape. We don't get up in arms when somebody develops a new housing complex, why get upset about wind farms? 'Specially if it is out in Kansas where I don't have to look at it? :D

Terry

26th June 2006, 11:36 AM

I-10 windmill farm detail here (http://stevesphotos.org/2003_08_31/pages/image174.htm). Lots more shots you can navigate to from that page. (Taken by DoubtingStephen.)

SphereGuy

26th June 2006, 12:09 PM

Here in Iowa wind turbines are everywhere and they add more all the time. They are freakin huge. I've been at the base of several during normal to high winds and they don't make much noise at all. And yes, there were dead birds here and there so they must run into them with some frequency. As far as looking at them, it's no different than seeing telephone poles, water towers, or radio towers. It's just part of the landscape.

Bikewer

26th June 2006, 01:44 PM

Dumb birds will get whacked by windmill blades. Smart birds will avoid same. Eventually, only clever, windmill-avoiding birds will be in evidence. Natural selection at work.

Is someone actually proposing that enough windmill farms might eventually slow the rotation of the planet....???? Good trick, that. Last time I checked, winds do not obligingly blow counter to the rotational plane of the Earth.

Thing

26th June 2006, 04:23 PM

The problem is that in the UK there is a tendency to want to build hundreds of large ones in one place. In the case of the wind farm I helped to campaign against this was because it was in a place which is a long way from the nearest large city and needed X number of turbines producing Y amount of power to justify the investment in new cables and pylons to take the power away from where it was being generated to where it was needed. In this case X was up to 500 100 metre tall turbines.
That would have been a seriously big farm for the UK. According to this site (http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/operational.asp) the largest currently in operation has 103 turbines, and the next largest has 56. There may be a tendency to want to build hundreds in one place but if this list is accurate those wants aren't currently being satisfied.

Fengirl

26th June 2006, 06:37 PM

Quite. I regularly pass wind turbines in Cumbria, UK, and I think they're stunningly beautiful. But maybe I'm weird ...

You are not alone in your weirdness. :)

I live within a mile or so of the Glassmoor wind farm here in the Fens, which consists of 8 wind turbines, each around 65m tall.

I find them quite beautiful.

2308

RandFan

26th June 2006, 07:15 PM

No... It's 'opinions' I am looking for.

People's personal feelings on the matter.He didn't say opinion, he said "false" information. Yeah, I guess you could go that route.

RandFan

26th June 2006, 07:18 PM

You are not alone in your weirdness. :)

I live within a mile or so of the Glassmoor wind farm here in the Fens, which consists of 8 wind turbines, each around 65m tall.

I find them quite beautiful.

2308 When I first saw a wind farm I thought it was a blight. I now see them Regularly traveling to Bakersfield CA in Tahachepin and I think that they are beautiful.

Polaris

26th June 2006, 08:06 PM

Stick them all in Oklahoma. Because really, it's just Oklahoma.

rustytunes

26th June 2006, 10:01 PM

My understanding is that wind farms are very uneconomical, and not an efficient source of power generation. Furthermore, their construction produces more greenhouse emisions than the constuction of a nuclear power plant.

can you provide a cite for that? I worked at a nuclear power plant it takes a lot of energy to build one.

But more importantly would be the emissions it takes to maintain either. Construction is a one time deal, maintainence is ongoing. If wind farms lasted longer than a nuke plant then the emissions from construction might even out (assuming your statement is true.)

Ok, the source of my post is from the book "Nuclear Energy Fallacies" by Colin Keay. I have transcribed the relative section as best I could:

From Nuclear Energy Fallacies by Colin Keay, PhD, DSc.

For a given delivery of electrical energy, the energy construction costs of a nuclear power plant are much less than for an equivalent wind farm. This has been vigorously contested by activists who claim that the construction of a nuclear power station causes massive greenhouse gas emissions through the manufacture of the required steel and concrete. It is a myth worth busting.

Let us look at the characteristics of a Danish Vestas V47-660 kilowatt wind turbine…

The number of 660 kilowatt wind turbines needed to promote the same energy output as a 1 gigawatt nuclear power plant, assuming a generous 25% capacity factor, is roughly 6000. The amount of steel in the nacelle and 65 metre high tower is 93 tonnes ( we wont count a further 7 tonnes of other materials, particularly in the massive rotor). The amount of concrete in the massive base needed to anchor the structure in high winds ranges from 130 to 260 tonnes depending on the nature of the terrain.
So for the 6000 wind turbines we are considering, a total of more than half a million tones of steel and around a million tones of concrete are required.

The size of wind turbine does not make much difference – the bigger the turbine, the fewer will be required. So the totals stay much the same. Now look at nuclear power generation. The 1974 paper “Estimated Quantities of Materials Contained in a 1,000 MWe PWR Power Plant” by R Bryan and I Dudley of the Oak Ridge National Library presented the following figures (for a Pressurised Water Reactor plant including the turbo-alternators and connection to the grid): 35,000 tonnes of steel and 200,000 tonnes of concrete.

Thus we find that the wind farm producing as much energy as a nuclear power station requires around fourteen times as much steel and five times as much concrete. It is inescapable that constructing a wind farm is much more demanding on materials – and hence greenhouse gas contribution from their manufacture - than a nuclear installation of equal output. And this difference will to a large degree be reflected in their overall costs.

Colin Keay is a retired physicist and astronomer who, as an associate professor at the University of Newcastle for 24 years, taught nuclear and reactor physics to senior classes. These duties induced a deep suspicion of unsubstanciated claims on nuclear matters by persons and organizations promoting anti-nuclear agendas. He has no present connection with the nuclear industry.

Here are the only link I can find -

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s482251.htm

Art Vandelay

26th June 2006, 11:21 PM

Unprecedented global warming has been occurring for the past century or so. Define.

There is no doubt among scientists that humans have played a pivotal role in this. Wrong.

Oil isn’t everywhere, it does pollute, and it’s hardly free.
it's just as free.

The balance we must import (and fight wars for) at great expense to the American people.Leftist claptrap.

Don't you think it’s a better idea to be self sufficient in our energy consumption?Not in and of itself.

Why not has a massive New Deal-esque windmill building public works project? It could provide millions of jobs and create a new infrastructure of green, sustainable, homegrown energy. [/quoteAnd waste lots of money.

[quote]But that’s precisely why solar is so much better than oil! If you need more electricity you can always build more solar panels,Not exactly a very flexible paradigm.

If we covered the Sahara alone with solar panels, we could produce around 35x more power than the entire world consumes. Obviously there are practical issues.

Solar and wind are RENEWABLE energy sources, oil is notI prefer the term "nondurable".

I think that the only criteria that should be considered is the effects it will have on the region, where it will be placed. I am talking about ALL of the people within the area, of course. A 'how will We be [affected]' notion, rather than a 'how will 'I' be [affected] by this' concept. Shouldn't the people who suffer because of it be compensated?

davefoc

26th June 2006, 11:33 PM

rustytunes,
I am not quite sure what your point was. If it was that there is a lot more material per effective kilowatt generation in a windmill than in a nuclear power plant, then I don't know the facts but the numbers you presented seem plausible.

If your point was that a kilowatt of nuclear power generation capacity is in net cheaper than an effective kilowatt of windmill power generation capacity then I am not sure that you are right.

Nuclear power plants have huge, very difficult to assess costs that would need to be taken into consideration before one could say that nuclear power is cheaper than wind power.

Amongst some of the costs associated with nuclear power plants that would need to be looked at before deciding that nuclear power is cheaper than windmill power:

1. The huge security costs associated with nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants post 9/11 have very large security contingents that are on duty 24/7.

2. The huge decomissioning costs for a nuclear power plant when it is at the end of its useful life.

3. The very difficult to assess cost of a major disaster.

4. The increased risk to society caused by the shipment of potentially hugely dangerous radioactive materials.

5. The risk to society of the consequences of a military or terrorist strike against a nuclear power plant.

6. The environmental damage from the distribution of the heated water into the environment.

7. The cost of storage and transfer of the expended nuclear waste.

That is not to say that wind power does not have its issues, especially if windpower made up a large enough percentage of the overall capacity that some form of energy storage would be required.

But comparing the cost of nuclear power with the cost of wind power by looking at the amount of material required per effective kilowatt cf capacity seems to exclude so many important considerations that I am not sure what the point of such a comparison is.

rustytunes

26th June 2006, 11:59 PM

Oldpossum

27th June 2006, 01:35 AM

I'm not sure about that, but their construction certainly does release plenty of greenhouse gases, because it involves laying a huge block of concrete for foundations. When this cures it releases more Carbon Dioxide than the turbine will save throughout it's life, or so I'm told.

Actually, Concrete absorbs CO2 as it cures.

IIRC Concrete, overall, is Greenhouse gas neutral, as the CO2 prduced in it's manufacture, will be taken back up by the curing concrete, over a period of years.

richardm

27th June 2006, 02:33 AM

Actually, Concrete absorbs CO2 as it cures.

IIRC Concrete, overall, is Greenhouse gas neutral, as the CO2 prduced in it's manufacture, will be taken back up by the curing concrete, over a period of years.

You're right - it does. Most of the CO2 is produced during the manufacture of cement, and it is mostly reabsorbed during curing. There is a bit more to it than that though (he said, trying to figure out where he'd read about this).

There something here (http://www.concretethinker.com/Papers.aspx?DocId=312) about it :

A recent study indicates that in countries with the most favorable recycling practices, it is realistic to assume that approximately 86% of the concrete is carbonated after 100 years. During this time, the concrete will absorb approximately 57% of the CO2 emitted during the original calcination. About 50% of the CO2 is absorbed within a short time after concrete is crushed during recycling operations. (Nordic Innovation Centre Project 03018).

So without recycling, only 7% would appear to be absorbed. There is apparently much work being done on finding alternatives to Portland cement which would make concrete completely carbon neutral.

rustytunes

27th June 2006, 02:36 AM

IIRC Concrete, overall, is Greenhouse gas neutral, as the CO2 prduced in it's manufacture, will be taken back up by the curing concrete, over a period of years.

Interesting. Do you have a supporting reference?

How many years for the example windfarm?

King of the Americas

27th June 2006, 07:54 AM

I went to the townhall 'hearing' last night. I found it only slightly informative, somewhat funny, and kinda sad.

I heard some compare the 'unspoilt' *cough*bullsht*cough* land north of town (where they want to place the windmills) to the Grand Canyon and Niagra Falls. I guess someone forgot to tell those people who have already sey up oil pump jacks, 7 foot high game fences, and trailor houses that seem to dot the countryside.

There were about 75 people there, most of which were there to stand up and say, "Not in my back yard..." Afterwhich, each such admission received the requisite applause.

No one was willing to stand up and be counted as being 'with' FP&L, although I did speak with several who thought the idea had merit, though none of them would say so outloud for fear of being booed, hissed or worse.

I thought that FP&L did a really poor job making their case. It was almost as if they knew they would convience no one, and they were just going through the motions.

I am pretty sure I am in favor of windmills, even in my backyard...

---

Should adjacent land owners be compensated?

ONLY if they offered no resistance to the project, and instead 'helped' the project to gain public support.

Otherwise why would they deserve recompensation? Being ignorant of a public need, resistant to progress, and selfish beyond reason is NOT behavior I want to reward.

---

The largest selling point for me was that these windmills would generate some 35-45 million dollars in property tax revenues, giving local leaders the option of lowering taxes! (or finding new public works projects that we need)

Psiload

27th June 2006, 08:20 AM

On a related note...

How funny are the "camo" cell phone towers that they're putting up?

http://orlando.metblogs.com/grenz/microwave.jpg

Who do they think they're fooling?

Art Vandelay

27th June 2006, 01:29 PM

Should adjacent land owners be compensated?

ONLY if they offered no resistance to the project, and instead 'helped' the project to gain public support.

Otherwise why would they deserve recompensation? Being ignorant of a public need, resistant to progress, and selfish beyond reason is NOT behavior I want to reward.So you'rte going to blackmail people into supporting you, and punish those that disagree with you? Compensating people is not a "reward".

CFLarsen

27th June 2006, 01:49 PM

Dcdrac

27th June 2006, 01:54 PM

Could someone tell how graphite fisson reactors are cleaner than the usual type?

If they are then whaey lets get going and build some.

Serenity

27th June 2006, 02:56 PM

I’m a tepid windmill fan; as more are erected the less enthusiastic I become. They will lose their asthetic appeal as the popularity increases. I suppose the first few smokestacks were beautiful, too, until they became popular. I imagine it will be the same for wind power except I don’t see them going much beyond filling a niche market. They are only part of the solution, but an important one. It is remarkable the way Denmark has utilized them to such an extent. Personally, I’m hoping solar cell technology gains the upper-hand since they can be integrated with roofing material as a low-key, unobtrusive approach. Further advancements in deep-cycle batteries would really help out both industries. Next generation nuclear plants and clean coal-short term might be the way to go large-scale to decrease our dependency on foreign oil and aid the environment. Also, hybrid cars are a great intermediary step to 100% electric in the future. I hear some UPS trucks are being outfitted. They should really benefit with all the stop and go driving which utilizes the electric motors to a greater extent.

Psiload – You’re Camo cell phone tower could double as a horizontal plane windmill with a few major adjustments. I hear the camo feature is a great stress reliever for the birds. :D We have one of those same towers where I live. I chuckle nearly every time I drive by it.

PopeTom

27th June 2006, 03:08 PM

On a related note...

How funny are the "camo" cell phone towers that they're putting up?

http://orlando.metblogs.com/grenz/microwave.jpg

Who do they think they're fooling?

What cell phone tower?

-P:)peT:)m

senorpogo

27th June 2006, 03:11 PM

I remember seeing an article on some study about the adverse effects to the enivornment down wind of large windfarms. I really don't recall what, if any conclusions, were arrived at nor do I know the biases of those conducting the study. I'll have to see if I can find it.

mommyrex

27th June 2006, 11:25 PM

Our tiny western Kansas town is watching as 66 windmills are being constructed right across the highway. The wind farm will dominate the town ... Main Street will be anchored by a (now dwarfed) church on the one end, and a massive wind turbine just past the other end. Personally, we feel like we won the lottery getting a wind farm so close to home.

We'll be able to see them from our farm, but only from select spots. It was like Christmas when 5 completed windmills came into view on our way to town this very morning (we live about 5 miles out, as the crow flies). My husband can't drive to town without an informal tour of the sites. Today we watched a crane moving the third, 115-ft blade onto a hub the size of a large motorhome, which would then be lifted to the top of a pillar, which I estimate at 300 feet tall. Visually, they're not on a human scale ... it's really stunning.

The site was chosen for wind quality, existing substation and grid infrastructure (Kansas City Power and Light is buying the output, and KC is 350 miles from here), and impact on the environment (migration patterns were considered and the report was favorable). The alternate (and prior) use is farming/pasture, and there are only farms and small towns nearby, which probably made a difference, too. Our town is right across the highway from the closest windmills, but I have not heard a negative opinion about the windmills yet.

Of course, that may be because money is scarce out here, and a lot is coming in. Several farmers are getting more than the small patch of dirt could otherwise produce for them. The county is getting an annual payment, and our tiny local school district is getting a large annual "grant", I think they call it.

We have visited a wind farm about an hour away, and in the miles of arid or irrigated farmland, the wind farm does give you something different to look at (and talk about) for a few miles. Here's an aerial of the Gray County Wind Farm (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&sll=38.349375,-97.165865&sspn=4.324764,7.404785&q=gray+county+wind+farm&ie=UTF8&ll=37.589683,-100.386715&spn=0.034142,0.05785&t=k&om=1). [Zoom in and you'll see just a white spot for each tower, but a black shadow that shows the shape. Neat way of looking at them.] They're not spoiling the visual environment ... they're definitely enhancing it, IMHO.

And I agree about preferring the windmills to oil wells. Oil wells are ugly, stinky, and clanking - they are all about grime. Windmills are sleek and simple, soothingly whooshing, and they are all about air. I wouldn't mind having them on my farm.

[edited to add the zoom in suggestion and fix parentheticals]

Oldpossum

28th June 2006, 12:18 AM

Interesting. Do you have a supporting reference?

How many years for the example windfarm?

I did say IIRC (If I Recall Correctly), and apparently, if you read the post previous to your own, I did not..

So, no I don't, I was going by my (obviously in this case, faulty) Memory of what I had read years ago.

King of the Americas

28th June 2006, 08:17 AM

I fear that I was not clear in my 'compensation' response.

If and when thees windmills are erected, EVERYONE in Cooke and Montague County will benefit with increased tax revenues and lower energy prices.

In order to benefit moreso, from this system you must have the foresight to see that resisting progress is NOT a good thing. If you were an adjacent land owner, and you wanted a piece of the pie, then you have to show up where the food is. Standing outside the restaraunt holding signs saying, "Close Down This Eatery" will insure that I see you starve.

Being able to hold differing opinions is what makes us Americans, being able to distinguish bewteen fact and opinion, and reach a common ground understanding of what is best for us all, is what makes us the assention species on this planet. YOU are not an island unto yourself. This is not that State of Nature. Like it or not YOU exist within a Union, and within this Union We decide what is best for 'all of us'. IF you chose to stop what is best for all of us, and instead choose to do what is best for YOU, why should you be compensated...???

Hawkeye

29th June 2006, 01:23 AM

Dear Art,

Unprecedented global warming has been occurring for the past century or so.

Define.

There is no doubt among scientists that humans have played a pivotal role in this.

Wrong.

Let's save it for the GW thread, I won't push it further here.

Oil isn’t everywhere, it does pollute, and it’s hardly free.

it's just as free.

I don't know how to make this point any clearer. No one owns the wind, the tides, or the sun's rays. If we have the technology to harness this energy, and we do, then it is free for us to use. Much of the world's oil, on the other hand, is buried under the ground of other countries. If we want to use this oil, and we are indeed addicted to it, then we must buy it from them.
Maybe you can clarify your position for me.

If we covered the Sahara alone with solar panels, we could produce around 35x more power than the entire world consumes.

Obviously there are practical issues.
Of course there are. I merely wanted to point out how a (relatively) small geographical area like a desert receives far more energy from the sun than what is needed to meet all our electricity needs. Which reminds me, in what way is there a “finite” amount of solar energy again?

P.S.
Psiload, that’s one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.
It’s like a fat man trying to hide behind a bush not nearly big enough to conceal him.

CFLarsen

29th June 2006, 01:31 AM

richardm

29th June 2006, 03:04 AM

IF you chose to stop what is best for all of us, and instead choose to do what is best for YOU, why should you be compensated...???
What are you, some sort of Communist? :mad:

Seriously, I think you're wrong here. If you are - for sake of an argument - going to deprive somebody of something, it's not unreasonable for them to ask you not to do it. If you continue to deprive them anyway, it's not unreasonable for you to offer them something in return?

Edited to add: Or if not wrong then certainly unfair. Now, you may think that fairness doesn't come into it but bear in mind that companies who are pushing wind energy are coming up against an unexpected amount of opposition, as you're finding out. So from the industry's PR point of view alone it's probably a good idea to be as nice to people as possible.

Yuri Nalyssus

29th June 2006, 05:38 AM

Did your friend sign a gag order?
For goodness sake King of the Americas will you puleeeese tell CFLarsen whether or not your friend signed a gag order!? I'm sure a simple yes or no would suffice.

Yuri

King of the Americas

29th June 2006, 08:31 AM

To CFLarsen:

My friend is a reporter, who owns no land in the proposed project area.

The ONLY people signing non-disclosure statements are those who HAVE already agreed to lease their property to FP&L.

If you'll go back and read the thread, you'll see that I have already said this once.

How many reporters would sign a non-disclosure statement on a story they were covering???

---

In short, "No, he did NOT sign the order, nor was he asked to."

Yuri Nalyssus

29th June 2006, 03:02 PM

In short, "No, he did NOT sign the order, nor was he asked to.":Banane35:

CFLarsen

29th June 2006, 03:06 PM

I live in North Central Texas, and recently it seems that the wind herders have heard about our kite flying parties, because they want to construct over a hundred 400 foot high wind turbines.

"Florida Power and Light" are now doing 'secret' consulting with several land owners. I say secret because they first ask that land owners sign some kind of gag order, before they will speak with them.

And yet:

To CFLarsen:

My friend is a reporter, who owns no land in the proposed project area.

The ONLY people signing non-disclosure statements are those who HAVE already agreed to lease their property to FP&L.

That's not what you said first.

If you'll go back and read the thread, you'll see that I have already said this once.

How many reporters would sign a non-disclosure statement on a story they were covering???

---

In short, "No, he did NOT sign the order, nor was he asked to."

OK.

Can you explain why the press is allowed to report from this meeting, but the land owners have to sign some kind of gag order?

Yuri Nalyssus

29th June 2006, 03:41 PM

Can you explain why the press is allowed to report from this meeting, but the land owners have to sign some kind of gag order?
:eusa_doh:

King of the Americas

29th June 2006, 04:01 PM

GUYS... I just re-read this thread.

On page one I wrote:

23rd June 2006, 03:29 PM
King of the Americas
Muse

"Because I am ALL knowing!!! MOO-WHOO-HAAA-HAAA (rubbing my hands together)...

A friend of mine works for the local media, and he went to cover a local land holders meeting, where he was denied a quote from anyone who attended. Knowledge of meeting was public, but the contents therein were not."

---

My friend went TO, but never got 'INTO' said meeting, moreover he was denied comment or quote from those holding and those attending said meeting, BECAUSE all of them HAD signed the non-disclosure agreement.

I do apologise for my not being completely clear.

CFLarsen

29th June 2006, 04:04 PM

Aha.

Things that might have been cleared up earlier.

King of the Americas

29th June 2006, 04:13 PM

To richardm:

Unless someone has done something to YOUR land, what have you lost?

If someone moves in next door, and theylike to sunbathe in a speedo, should you get compensated for his lifestyle ruining your scenic view???

These adjacent landowners are attempting to STOP this project from going forward, insuring high taxes and high energy prices, for the rest of us. If they succeed, should the People of this Cooke & Montague County then sue them or require that they recompensate us for our loss, year after year???

I am not communistic, but I am progressive.

I fail to see how or why someone should be recompensated for attempting to hinder progress, because they 'feel' they have been personally slighted.

Fairness...?

The world is not 'fair', but 'We' try to do what is in the best interest for 'most' people. But make no mistake about it, We ARE a "WE", not a bunch of "I's." When the 'I's take over, 'We' are all screwed.

Tony

29th June 2006, 04:16 PM

Well for starters, THEY have to look at them, and THEIR land will depreciate.

Why? It's not like the things are ugly.

King of the Americas

29th June 2006, 04:45 PM

Some think they are ugly, while others find them aesthetically pleasing.

rustytunes

30th June 2006, 04:35 AM

Very topical editorial from today's The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19631574-7583,00.html)national newspaper:

What price virtue?
False premises and promises underlie environmental politics

WHEN federal Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran declared this week that wind farms are a "complete fraud" that "only exist on taxpayer subsidies", he injected the first dose of sanity seen in the renewable energy debate for a long time. Wind power fulfils just 2 per cent of the country's electricity needs, is unreliable even on the gustiest of days and is emblematic of everything wrong with the quest for so-called sustainability. Greens love wind farms for symbolic reasons, as does federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell – so long as no turbines are sited in a marginal Liberal seat within cooee of a protected parrot. But, so far, the only ones who do well off wind farms are the companies that own them – and not even they dispute their poor economics. Wind farmers get huge subsidies and a guaranteed market share and return.

It is not just on wind farms where politics and feelings are allowed to trump economic reality. Senator Campbell and his ilk like to be seen on the "right" side of the environment. Meanwhile, so-called progressives try to shut down debate over global warming even though the science is far from settled. When The Philippines' Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it threw out vast amounts of ozone-depleting greenhouse gases. But the particles it cast skyward also lowered temperatures. Scaremongering polemics such as The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery (who is a paleontologist, not a climatologist, by training) have been shown to be riddled with errors. The Kyoto Protocol is far too flawed an instrument to reduce pollution. Australia needs to apply cost-benefit analyses to environmental issues, not sentiment or politics.

Seen in this light, Australia's environmental policy is all over the shop. It is not just wind power that fails the cost-benefit test. Plastic shopping bags are set to be phased out by 2008 at a cost of $840 million simply because inner-city voters don't like them, despite Productivity Commission data showing the bags to be only a minor threat. Water policy is driven by Greens, farmers and politicians, each with an interest in making city-dwellers feel guilty over every flush. Yet capital city residents consume less than 10 per cent of Australia's water; the real waste occurs in agriculture, particularly in the cultivation of cotton and rice. In Queensland, the Greens are doing their best to hold up a dam that will supply water for the fastest-growing region of the country. Recycling plants dump toxic chemicals and salt into rivers – including the Murray. Nor do "sustainable" policies create sustainable jobs. Victoria spends between $599,565 and $999,782 in subsidies per job, per year, in the renewable energy sector. And creating jobs sorting glass is hardly the stuff of a knowledge nation. Even in a world where carbon use is constrained, technologies such as clean coal and geosequestration make more sense for coal-rich Australia than wind power (or nuclear, for that matter). Feelgood environmentalism may win votes. But not only does it fail to pay the bills – it also doesn't save the planet.

CFLarsen

30th June 2006, 04:55 AM

TheChadd

30th June 2006, 05:04 AM

It works, mate.

Unfortunately it would only work for a nation that has cities close to high-wind areas, such as on the coast...

....

....

CFLarsen

30th June 2006, 05:22 AM

Unfortunately it would only work for a nation that has cities close to high-wind areas, such as on the coast...

....

....

The main reasons for setting up windmills at sea is that they can be bigger and that they cause less problems for people who live nearby (which means none, since precious few people live out on the oceans).

Landlocked Afghanistan has the option of putting windmills in the mountains. Lots of space, not a lot of people there.

Mongolia? A big empty place. Sahara? Go for solar energy, perhaps. Antarctica? Fill 'er up with windmills.

How many places on this planet has so little wind that it doesn't pay to put up a few windmills?

Geckko

30th June 2006, 05:55 AM

Gigantic windmill park to replace Swedish nuclear power plant

128 windmills will be placed 3 nautical miles from the coast of Sweden. They will produce 2 teraW electricity a year, which is half the production of Reactor 2 at the Swedish nuclear power plant Barsebäck, just opposite Copenhagen.

It will be a doubling of Sweden's production of wind energy.

Full story (in Danish) (http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3818628/)

It works, mate.

The phrase "They will produce...". Output obviously varies from windmills depending on the strength of the wind. This projeect for example might still need significant back-up cover from the stated reactor - so it might not in fact "replace" anything at all.

What is really needed is a description of the estimated distribution of output. What is really important is being able to say something like "there is a 90% (say) chance that these windmills could produce XkW (daily equivalent) at any given time"

CFLarsen

30th June 2006, 05:58 AM

The phrase "They will produce...". Output obviously varies from windmills depending on the strength of the wind. This projeect for example might still need significant back-up cover from the stated reactor - so it might not in fact "replace" anything at all.

What is really needed is a description of the estimated distribution of output. What is really important is being able to say something like "there is a 90% (say) chance that these windmills could produce XkW (daily equivalent) at any given time"

Who said anything about this being their sole source of energy?

Of course they will have backups from other sources. That's the whole idea: To diversify as much as possible. Not depend on one source alone.

rustytunes

30th June 2006, 06:24 AM

How many places on this planet has so little wind that it doesn't pay to put up a few windmills?

Windfarms are still expensive and inefficient, and they will never provide more than a small fraction of the world's energy. But a few here and there if it makes people feel good, can't be such a bad thing.

TheChadd

30th June 2006, 06:37 AM

The main reasons for setting up windmills at sea is that they can be bigger and that they cause less problems for people who live nearby (which means none, since precious few people live out on the oceans).

Sorry I guess you didn't get my little joke there. Australia is a country with 85% of its entire population living on the eastern coastline.

CFLarsen

30th June 2006, 08:27 AM

Windfarms are still expensive and inefficient, and they will never provide more than a small fraction of the world's energy. But a few here and there if it makes people feel good, can't be such a bad thing.
If Denmark can do it, and be so successful with exporting the technology, what is the problem?

CFLarsen

30th June 2006, 08:28 AM

Sorry I guess you didn't get my little joke there. Australia is a country with 85% of its entire population living on the eastern coastline.
Oz humor. As palatable as your beer... :p

Geckko

30th June 2006, 10:14 AM

Who said anything about this being their sole source of energy?

Of course they will have backups from other sources. That's the whole idea: To diversify as much as possible. Not depend on one source alone.

I agree nobody, including me, said anything about it being their sole source. However, your post did state:

Gigantic windmill park to replace Swedish nuclear power plant

And the issue of backups is non-trivial. You just don't turn large scale generation on and off like a switch.

CFLarsen

30th June 2006, 10:54 AM

I agree nobody, including me, said anything about it being their sole source. However, your post did state:

And the issue of backups is non-trivial. You just don't turn large scale generation on and off like a switch.

Technically, it wasn't me, but from the article. :)

Sweden has other sources of energy than nuclear power plants.

Geckko

30th June 2006, 12:30 PM

Technically, it wasn't me, but from the article. :)

Sweden has other sources of energy than nuclear power plants.

That is the other thing that puzzles me. Surely you would want to use wind capacity to reduce reliance on carbon based generation, not nuclear.

CFLarsen

30th June 2006, 12:36 PM

That is the other thing that puzzles me. Surely you would want to use wind capacity to reduce reliance on carbon based generation, not nuclear.
They have hydroelectric power.

Sweden Plans to Be World's First Oil-Free Economy (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0208-05.htm)

davefoc

30th June 2006, 12:43 PM

I spent a bit of time looking around the web for real numbers about the cost of electricity generated by wind.

There are a large number of sites that portray windmill electricty in nearly as negative way as Diamond did. Unfortunately most of thes sites provide about the same amount of information to back up their claims as diamond's rant did. That is to say none.

But this site does attempt to provide some data about the real costs of windmill gnerated power.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/windpower_schleede_costs_of_electricity.htm

There appear to be considerably more subsidies for windmill generated electricity than I realized. It appears that the long term viability of windmill generated power is less certain than I had realized.

On the positive side, windmill costs per kwh have been reduced enormously over time. If this kind of trend continued then perhaps windmills power might compete on a more even basis with other sources of power.

If the trend didn't continue, I wouldn't be surprised if Denmark's windmill industry ended up being seriously harmed as other countries gradually withdraw their subsidies of the technology.

69dodge

30th June 2006, 01:24 PM

Gigantic windmill park to replace Swedish nuclear power plant

128 windmills will be placed 3 nautical miles from the coast of Sweden. They will produce 2 teraW electricity a year, which is half the production of Reactor 2 at the Swedish nuclear power plant Barsebäck, just opposite Copenhagen.

It will be a doubling of Sweden's production of wind energy.

Full story (in Danish) (http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3818628/)I don't understand Danish. Does the story really say "2 terrawatts per year"? That doesn't make sense. A watt is a unit of power, i.e. energy per time, so the time is already included. Power plants are rated in watts, not watts per year. I don't think "watts per year" even means anything.

davefoc

30th June 2006, 01:42 PM

I wondered about that also.

I think that they may have meant 2 terawall hours.

365 * 24 * 128 * (1.8 megawatts per windmill) ~ 2 terawatt hours

A bit of a strange way of describing the power output.

If this is right it is still bogus in the sense that it seems like windmills are rated based on max possible production and a more realistic number seems to be around .33 although I have seen .25 also for the average production whereas conventional power plants produce a much higher percentage of their max power output for their average power output.

CFLarsen

30th June 2006, 01:44 PM

I don't understand Danish. Does the story really say "2 terrawatts per year"? That doesn't make sense. A watt is a unit of power, i.e. energy per time, so the time is already included. Power plants are rated in watts, not watts per year. I don't think "watts per year" even means anything.
Sorry, my bad: terawatt hours.

lenny

1st July 2006, 04:33 PM

It is also claimed that due to leading the way, Denmark is the most at risk to carbon trading losses in Europe: it seems a unfair! (but a loss of available hydro power due, say, to a few dry winters would force Denmark to import fossil-fuelled electricity, no?)
Nope. We got more than plenty of natural gas.the point was that you do not have the carbon credits to burn that gas, since you were already shifting to wind in the period when the quota's were computed.

lenny

1st July 2006, 04:47 PM

Surely you would want to use wind capacity to reduce reliance on carbon based generation, not nuclear.not if your aim is to decrease nuclear; given the age of its plant, the UK will have to make this decision "soon".

regardless, your argument does not go through: hydro for instance, can be stored, varies seasonally AND provides flexible backup for wind (which nukes cannot); using wind to smooth the use of hydro in sweden makes sense, even with no CO2 producing plant in site.

Esperdome

1st July 2006, 06:14 PM

Twelve years ago you could drive south from Odessa,TX to IH-10 and the only windmills you would see were largely non-functional sitting on an old water well. Now, the huge windmills are everywhere. I thought it quite ironic to see an old oilwell up on a mesa completely dwarfed by the shiny new windmills.

Has this destroyed the panorama of this area? For some it has I'm sure, but in this pragmatic energy producing area, I heard not a discouraging word.

If you live in the country you might consider erecting your own windmill. I saw a TV fluff piece on a family that did this in East Texas, and they claimed it would pay for itself in 7-9 years. When it made more power than they used, their power meter actually spins backwards.

A smaller scale alternative would be to use a DC generating windmill, (typically 24 volts), in combination with solar panels, (which can be ganged for 24 volts also), into a lead-acid battery storage system. You then utilize a 24 volt secondary grid in your home to reduce grid purchases.

This may be cost prohibitive now, but my last electric bill was 50% higher than any before. It won't take long for alternative energy to make good sense.

Blue Bubble

2nd July 2006, 01:39 AM

Diamond

2nd July 2006, 02:34 AM

Diamond, I disagree with you almost completely.

Unfortunately I don't care. It doesn't change the facts. I note that you only quoted less than half the points I made.

They aren’t useful? Tell that to Denmark, they use wind energy to supply about 20% of their electricity.

Denmark heavily subsidizes the wind power industry in Denmark because the electricity is high cost and not tailored to demand (indeed it cannot be). Slowly the Danish government is waking up to the costs versus the benefits.

Please. So then do you think we shouldn't bother with solar power because it doesn't work at night?

No, but unless you want to go cold and have no electricity at night, or having regular blackouts because its cloudy, then you'll need a set of baseload stations using either fossil fuels or nuclear. The occasion blackout may be inconvenient to you during the summer, but in winter, and if you're poor, sick, in hospital or old then it can be fatal. Fortunately for you, that's somebody else.

Worried about birds? Me too, that’s why I want clean and renewable energy sources. If you really cared about ecology, you'd be more worried about the loss of biodiversity due to pollution, habitat loss, and global warming. The environmental benefits of decreasing our fossil fuel usage far outweigh the cost of a few martyr birds' lives.

You're not making any sense. Whether using fossil fuels or nuclear or wind power or solar, none of them have anything to do with pollution, habitat loss or global warming. How brave of you to accept a few bird's lives in payment to loss of supply for no benefit!

Oh really? I don't know where you're from, but in the U.S. its the oil/gas companies that are heavily subsidized. Money given to develop wind power been sporadic at best, and has always been chump change compared to the investments in Big Oil. Finally, wind energy IS competitive in most cases, especially as costs continue to decrease due to research and development.

Nope. And it never will supply anything more than a fraction of the energy needs of any modern society.

You do bring up valid points about the problems with windmill intermittency. I'm not an expert in this area, but I do know that multiple farms spread over a wide area and linked together can produce power fairly consistently and predictably. When there are especially un-windy days, obviously you'll need some nuclear or coal plants around to pick up the slack. I also concede that some may find wind turbines aesthetically unpleasant. On the other hand I must point out that they replace fossil fuel burning plants, which I personally find to be much less appealing.

You're not an expert in the area. But your knee is jerking. That must count for something.

Because wind power is evanscent and unreliable and unless you want sporadic blackouts at homes, businesses, transportation, hospitals and everything else, then the reality is that you'll need those fossil fuel or nuclear plants providing the baseload and others spun-up ready to go to meet demand which strangely has little in common with the supply of wind. Wind farms may give you a warm fuzzy feeling, but that feeling is based on ignorance, not economic reality.

In conclusion, Windfarms are good.
Please build them in my backyard.

Of course. But then cut yourself off from the grid supply and see how much fun it is.

lenny

2nd July 2006, 03:33 AM

Unfortunately I don't care. It doesn't change the
facts.

no it does not change the facts: your gloom and doom remains off target,
misleading and surprising.

diamond, you are attacking a strawman, insulting individuals who
question your (unsupported and i fear misleading) arguments, and failing to respond with
evidence for your claims. requested here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1726141&postcount=52)

not your usual tactics(???)... but until you provide evidence to discuss, i see
no way to engage constructively.

Diamond

2nd July 2006, 03:46 AM

no it does not change the facts: your gloom and doom remains off target,
misleading and surprising.

diamond, you are attacking a strawman, insulting individuals who
question your (unsupported and i fear misleading) arguments, and failing to respond with
evidence for your claims. requested here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1726141&postcount=52)

not your usual tactics(???)... but until you provide evidence to discuss, i see
no way to engage constructively.

That's a shame. I was answering another poster. And not you. I won't be replying to your demands. You could try whistling for them. That will help.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2006, 06:02 AM

Denmark heavily subsidizes the wind power industry in Denmark because the electricity is high cost and not tailored to demand (indeed it cannot be). Slowly the Danish government is waking up to the costs versus the benefits.

In what way? You can use Danish sources, I can read that, too.

How do you explain the massive success of Danish exports?

No, but unless you want to go cold and have no electricity at night, or having regular blackouts because its cloudy, then you'll need a set of baseload stations using either fossil fuels or nuclear. The occasion blackout may be inconvenient to you during the summer, but in winter, and if you're poor, sick, in hospital or old then it can be fatal. Fortunately for you, that's somebody else.

Apparently, you have no idea how power grids work.

Has anyone at all advocated that only wind power be used?

You're not making any sense. Whether using fossil fuels or nuclear or wind power or solar, none of them have anything to do with pollution, habitat loss or global warming. How brave of you to accept a few bird's lives in payment to loss of supply for no benefit!

Fossil fuels has nothing to do with pollution?

Nope. And it never will supply anything more than a fraction of the energy needs of any modern society.

You call 20% a "fraction"?

You're not an expert in the area.

....are you?

Because wind power is evanscent and unreliable and unless you want sporadic blackouts at homes, businesses, transportation, hospitals and everything else, then the reality is that you'll need those fossil fuel or nuclear plants providing the baseload and others spun-up ready to go to meet demand which strangely has little in common with the supply of wind. Wind farms may give you a warm fuzzy feeling, but that feeling is based on ignorance, not economic reality.

We've been at this for many years now, and while Denmark isn't even a particularly windy country, we still manage nicely.

Of course. But then cut yourself off from the grid supply and see how much fun it is.

Who said anything about cutting themselves off from the grid?

CriticalThanking

2nd July 2006, 10:12 AM

(At least) this country (UK) is already festooned with large constructions scattered over the landscape - namely electricity pylons. There must be several hundred thousand of these; just wondering, would it be possible to attach a relatively small wind turbine to the top of each of them, and what sort of power might that possibly generate.

I'm sure other countries must be similar.
You could certainly add a very small blade to generate some local power - water pumps etc. For the setup to be worth adding to the grid and/or be economical on a large scale the tower must be free to rotate a large blade facing the wind. Wires near the top of the pylons make that difficult.

CT

Art Vandelay

2nd July 2006, 06:30 PM

YOU are not an island unto yourself. Neither are you. Is an individual concerned out their own interests unacceptable, but several people concerned about their own interests perfectly fine?

IF you chose to stop what is best for all of us, and instead choose to do what is best for YOU, why should you be compensated...???For the sake of fariness.

I don't know how to make this point any clearer. No one owns the wind, the tides, or the sun's rays. One owns the wind above one's land just as much as one owns the oil beneath it.

If we have the technology to harness this energy, and we do, then it is free for us to use.I was unaware of this. It does seem odd that there is anyone paying the electric company for their power, rather than getting it for free. So, where do I go to get these free photoelectric cells?

If we want to use this oil, and we are indeed addicted to it, then we must buy it from them.And the owners of windmills are giving their energy away for free?

Which reminds me, in what way is there a “finite” amount of solar energy again?In the sense that there exists an amount M such that the amount of solar energy is less than M.

Unless someone has done something to YOUR land, what have you lost?Quiet. A nice view. Etc.

If someone moves in next door, and theylike to sunbathe in a speedo, should you get compensated for his lifestyle ruining your scenic view???Should the issue of whether you immediately acquiesed to his sunbathing in a speedo be the determative issue?

If they succeed, should the People of this Cooke & Montague County then sue them or require that they recompensate us for our loss, year after year???There's a difference between taking something away, and failing to give it.

I fail to see how or why someone should be recompensated for attempting to hinder progress, because they 'feel' they have been personally slighted.They aren't being compensated for attempting to hinder progress.

The world is not 'fair', but 'We' try to do what is in the best interest for 'most' people. The fact that the world isn't fair doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it fair.

But make no mistake about it, We ARE a "WE", not a bunch of "I's." When the 'I's take over, 'We' are all screwed.No, "we" are a bunch of "I's". It's just that once enough "I's" get together, and they all agree about what each "I" wants, then they start thinking about their "I" wants as "we" wants. It's one thing to make sacrifices for the greater good, another to force other people tomake sacrifices for the greater good. As the saying goes, democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what they should have for dinner.

If this is really such a great idea, what's wrong with distributing the benefit according to who gave up the most? If "we" decide on a course of action that costs "we" nothing, but costs "I" something, why should "we" reap the benefits of the benefits of that decision, and "I" get squat? You say that you are not communist, but you are ignoring a basic principle of capitalism. If "we" can buy lower energy rates, and send the bill to "I", then there is no incentive for "we" to make sure that the benefit that "we" receive is actually greater than what "I" lose. If, however, "we" have to compensate "I" for everything that "I" lose before taking "our" share, then "we" will be very careful to make sure that the total benefit outweighs the total cost.

richardm

3rd July 2006, 03:59 AM

You call 20% a "fraction"?

Isn't it, then? ;)

Diamond

3rd July 2006, 04:27 AM

You could certainly add a very small blade to generate some local power - water pumps etc. For the setup to be worth adding to the grid and/or be economical on a large scale the tower must be free to rotate a large blade facing the wind. Wires near the top of the pylons make that difficult.

CT

That would be a really stupid idea. You would be adding a big heavy weight to the top of the structure and something akin to a sail. Depending on the wind direction the pylon would simply twist and collapse.

Why not just dynamite them and have done with it?

CFLarsen

3rd July 2006, 04:53 AM

Isn't it, then? ;)
Well, true, but....that's a pretty large "fraction", if you ask me.

richardm

3rd July 2006, 05:16 AM

Well, true, but....that's a pretty large "fraction", if you ask me.

Yes, but still...

:D

Diamond

3rd July 2006, 06:18 AM

A poster writes to me in a PM for some reason:

I don't know you well enough to know if you are being sarcastic, obtuse, or.... "special." I also can't quite tell if perhaps you were replying to Blue Bubble or me. I will go under the assumption you were talking to me. If not, the next paragraph is irrelevant in addition to pedantic.

The hint is in the text as to whom I am replying to. This is automatically generated by the software.

There is a class of power generation called "microgeneration." One of the most common applications is to run small water pumps. We are talking generation for use by an individual - not enough to power a house or add to the grid. The size of turbine required for such an application is insufficient to create the torque requred to "twist and collapse" the pylon. Calculations available upon request.

If you were replying to Blue Bubble, may I humbly suggest you could have replied with the impractical areas pointed out (such as the blade intersecting with the wires :) ) without the epithet and sarcasm? While he asked a question whose answer could be classified as obvious, calling him stupid is less than civil. Yes, yes - you called the idea stupid, and not him/her personally, but the net effect is often close enough to be indistinguishable.

YMMV,

CT

Why would you put microgenerators on pylons? Can you work out how much low voltage power would actually reach any useful purpose versus how much would simply be dissipated as heat? There is a reason why pylons carry very high voltages.

I repeat: If you put a turbine on a pylon then you will generate a linear stress and/or a torque that the pylons were not designed to withstand. First sign of high winds and down they'll come.

CFLarsen

3rd July 2006, 06:58 AM

A poster writes to me in a PM for some reason:

WTF are you doing? Don't post other people's PMs to you.

King of the Americas

3rd July 2006, 08:21 AM

I just got back from my trip to the latest FP&L wind farm project near Abilene Texas. Seeing the project, I was reminded of previous energy 'boom' days, captured here at this site in several images:

http://www.texasescapes.com/EastTexasTowns/Kilgore-Texas.htm

The wind turbines definately 'stick out', and are noticable upon the land scape, but 'I' personally didn't find them aestically displeasing. Instead I found their slow 'silent' turns mellowing...

One of the reporters along for the ride stood directly underneath one, and noted tha tthe sound it made was overshadowed whenever a car passed on the highway about 100 yards away.

Our group of 3 were turned away by a security guard when we tried to drive onto the windfarm itself, so we had to do a little chase & evade, hopping a barbed wire fence and then running from a sherrif, who was called after we lingered a bit too long at the gates of the place after we were turned away.

But we did manage to get some great pictures, from a hands-on-perspective.

We also talked to many people living in the area, only one of which was displeased with them. However, I will add that she HAD relatives who lived within eyeshot of them turbines, and she reported to us that they were none too happy about their placement. She also reported that the windlife in the area had diminished in number and varity.

---

To the Architech:

Your "I" & "We" response was a chore to read AND understand.

I think to reach a common ground of understanding, your "I's" MUST realize that they are indeed part of "We", wether they like it or not.

And because they are, any benefit "We" get from said project, your "I's" will get too.

The speedo man, was really not a good comparison. However, I think the point that I made with it still stands. You don't get to tell someone what to do on or with THEIR land, as a 'singular' neighbor. If you don't like the view that your neighbors have produced or constructed, then build a tall fence.

Not giving vs. Taking away...?

Well, I could just as easily make the point that you are "taking away" my ability to gather the resources on my landby hindering my windfarm project production. I guess it is all about perspective here.

My final thought on your stance is that, I find error in thinking of 'yourself' and your own private desires BEFORE considering the greater good, when deciding 'public policy'. Moreover, that when you 'act' to hinder the greater good, because of your pursuit of a private desire, that you do NOT deserve to be rewarded or compensated. This may not be a fair or strong point that you can agree with, but it is my case nonetheless.

Acting on YOUR behalf, while ignoring the needs and wants of the greater common good is NOT something 'I' personally (an aspiring politician) would reward. Please take this into consideration, if ever you have the opprotunity to vote for me. I promise to make decisions based upon what is best for ALL of us, rather than what 'I' want personally.

I believe that is one of the things that makes me a 'good' choice for a leadership position...

Walter Wayne

3rd July 2006, 08:32 AM

varwoche

3rd July 2006, 09:04 AM

no it does not change the facts: your gloom and doom remains off target, misleading and surprising.

diamond, you are attacking a strawman, insulting individuals who
question your (unsupported and i fear misleading) arguments, and failing to respond with evidence for your claims. requested here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1726141&postcount=52)

...i see no way to engage constructively. Familiar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1631761#post1631761).
Very familiar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1632351#post1632351).
All too familiar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1566038#post1566038).

CFLarsen

3rd July 2006, 09:32 AM

When nuclear plants were built there were subsidies involved as well, IIRC. Subsidies can serve several purposes such as making an interest group happy, or somehow moving the cost to where the benefit is (a cleaner environment is a benefit to the population, but with no subsidies only the investors and companies share the cost of building the farm).

The problem is figuring out what the subsidies are doing here. Are they helping a good technology through its infancy, or just a placebo? The fact that it is heavily subsidized doesn't necessarily show it to be useless.

Again, it must be stressed that the energy source is free and never runs out. It's simply a matter of scientific progress and advanced technology, before wind power really kicks in.

I am on the fence with respect to windmill power at the moment. Still sounds like the "energy production density" is a bit low.

Want to time travel a century or two back and see how the oil industry was going then?

Give it time. All energy sources always started slowly.

Walter Wayne

3rd July 2006, 09:57 AM

Again, it must be stressed that the energy source is free and never runs out. It's simply a matter of scientific progress and advanced technology, before wind power really kicks in.
The energy source may be free, but it isn't free to get into electrical power. Maintenance costs are there (probably cheap though). Also the continued use of large pieces of real estate is another cost.

And while the energy source doesn't run out, there are glitches in the supply(calm days, or excessively windy days) but it is renewable as mentioned (weather goes back to normal)
Want to time travel a century or two back and see how the oil industry was going then?

Give it time. All energy sources always started slowly.
That was precisely my point with the nuclear subsidies. Most nuclear plants benefitted from such, but they are producing a good chuck of the power in many nations, though now the trend is reversing.

CriticalThanking

3rd July 2006, 10:41 AM

Why would you put microgenerators on pylons? Can you work out how much low voltage power would actually reach any useful purpose versus how much would simply be dissipated as heat? There is a reason why pylons carry very high voltages.I agree - long distance transmission of power is not appropriate for a small turbine. I never intended to suggest otherwise. I was not suggesting that the microgeneration turbine be attached to the electrical grid, simply to the tower/pylon, and not necessarily at the top. There are areas where there is insufficient wind at ground level, but more than enough for micro applications at heights afforded by the pylons. The power only need go down the tower and straight to a nearby application.

I repeat: If you put a turbine on a pylon then you will generate a linear stress and/or a torque that the pylons were not designed to withstand. First sign of high winds and down they'll come.You can repeat it as often as makes you happy. It makes it no more or less true. Take a look at this link for a discussion of tower height vs power produced (http://www.homepower.com/files/towereconomicsseries.pdf). Indeed, the forces acting on a system grow with blade size (area swept). The article carefully goes through the formulas for for power generated and has nice graphs for various issues surrounding wind and power generated at various altitudes. It presents several sample systems, including the materials needed to support a small turbine at 100' off the ground. I will have to dig through my backissues - I know they have better articles on foundation design for large towers.

In short - are towers/pylons built with sufficient design tolerances to permit addition of a turbine with a blade radius of 100'? Probably not, but I have not found the design specs for them. Do they have the tolerance to permit a fixed/partially movable turbine with blade radius of a few feet partway up the tower? I would claim they would have to. If not, then even a dozen plastic bags caught at the top of the tower (which I have seen) or a 10' x 5' sign (guesstimating size, and I have also seen them on towers but not single pole pylons) would bring them down. (Now that's an awkward sentence. :( )

None of this is particularly relevant to the OP. It simply had to do with Blue Bubble's honest question. I will gladly discuss microgeneration in another thread.

A poster writes to me in a PM for some reason:
I chose a PM because in general I prefer to praise in public and (potentially) criticize in private. I indicated I was not clear on the intent of your post, so rather than publicly flame while having insufficient information, I chose to try to address you directly. I now know this is not your preferred approach. The PM title had the word "civility" in the title. If you prefer to discuss your behaviour (intended and/or perceived) in public, you are welcome to go back to your earlier productive echanges with Fowlsound.

CT

CFLarsen

3rd July 2006, 11:06 AM

The energy source may be free, but it isn't free to get into electrical power. Maintenance costs are there (probably cheap though). Also the continued use of large pieces of real estate is another cost.

Also a reason why wind mills are built on the ocean.

And while the energy source doesn't run out, there are glitches in the supply(calm days, or excessively windy days) but it is renewable as mentioned (weather goes back to normal)

That goes for any energy source that isn't widespread. The solution is to have many wind power plants spread over as big an area as possible.

Diamond

3rd July 2006, 11:35 AM

Familiar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1631761#post1631761).
Very familiar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1632351#post1632351).
All too familiar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1566038#post1566038).

Reported.

Diamond

3rd July 2006, 11:52 AM

I agree - long distance transmission of power is not appropriate for a small turbine. I never intended to suggest otherwise. I was not suggesting that the microgeneration turbine be attached to the electrical grid, simply to the tower/pylon, and not necessarily at the top. There are areas where there is insufficient wind at ground level, but more than enough for micro applications at heights afforded by the pylons. The power only need go down the tower and straight to a nearby application.

It doesn't matter. What you're doing is introducing an extra wind-dependent stress on the pylon. The higher you put the turbine, the greater the twisting torque put upon the structure. Pylons are made to be as small a wind profile as possible , which is why they are built the way that they are. As you go higher, the resistance to wind stress is reduced which is why they are so much skinnier at the top.

Also, by having a turbine up there, you're creating turbulence which can cause cable failure. For all of these reasons (and a few more) putting any sort of turbine on a pylon is a bad idea.

You can repeat it as often as makes you happy. It makes it no more or less true. Take a look at this link for a discussion of tower height vs power produced (http://www.homepower.com/files/towereconomicsseries.pdf). Indeed, the forces acting on a system grow with blade size (area swept). The article carefully goes through the formulas for for power generated and has nice graphs for various issues surrounding wind and power generated at various altitudes. It presents several sample systems, including the materials needed to support a small turbine at 100' off the ground. I will have to dig through my backissues - I know they have better articles on foundation design for large towers.

But the towers themselves are massive structures, designed to bear the weight and resist the torque. Even so they can come down

http://www.protectpendleton.com/photos/5junk_lichtenau.jpg

In short - are towers/pylons built with sufficient design tolerances to permit addition of a turbine with a blade radius of 100'? Probably not, but I have not found the design specs for them. Do they have the tolerance to permit a fixed/partially movable turbine with blade radius of a few feet partway up the tower? I would claim they would have to. If not, then even a dozen plastic bags caught at the top of the tower (which I have seen) or a 10' x 5' sign (guesstimating size, and I have also seen them on towers but not single pole pylons) would bring them down. (Now that's an awkward sentence. :( )

Turbines can also catch fire if the gearbox fails. Also another reason not to put them on pylons.

CFLarsen

3rd July 2006, 12:00 PM

Reported.
....for violation of what rule?

You want it to be forbidden to link to posts??

Art Vandelay

3rd July 2006, 12:42 PM

Our group of 3 were turned away by a security guard when we tried to drive onto the windfarm itself, so we had to do a little chase & evade, hopping a barbed wire fence and then running from a sherrif, who was called after we lingered a bit too long at the gates of the place after we were turned away.So apparently "we" are allowed to violate other people's property rights at will.

I think to reach a common ground of understanding, your "I's" MUST realize that they are indeed part of "We", wether they like it or not. If they are part of the "we", then "we" do not fully agree with the windfarm idea.

And because they are, any benefit "We" get from said project, your "I's" will get too. No, because there are more of "we". And "I" have costs that "we" do not.

You don't get to tell someone what to do on or with THEIR land, as a 'singular' neighbor. So if my neighbor decides to build an airport onhis land, that's none of my business?

Well, I could just as easily make the point that you are "taking away" my ability to gather the resources on my landby hindering my windfarm project production. And putting bars on your windows "takes away" my ability to steal your electronics. Just to remind you, your position is

I think that the only [criterion] that should be considered is the effects it will have on the region, where it will be placed. I am talking about ALL of the people within the area, of course. A 'how will We be [affected]' notion, rather than a 'how will 'I' be [affected] by this' concept.
You are not basing your position merely on the claim that other property owners have no legitimate beef with the windmills, but that REGARDLESS of the effects, the only thing that matters is the "public good". Reading your post literally, if the place that the community decides is the best for a windmill is currently occupied by someone's house, you would have no problem with the house being bulldozed to make way, and if the owner doesn't STFU and take it up the ass, you think that he shouldn't be compensated for his house.

My final thought on your stance is that, I find error in thinking of 'yourself' and your own private desires BEFORE considering the greater good, when deciding 'public policy'.I see no error in making sure that one's rights are protected. Protecting prtivate property IS for the public good.

Moreover, that when you 'act' to hinder the greater good, because of your pursuit of a private desire, that you do NOT deserve to be rewarded or compensated. We are not talking about reward. And punishing people for asserting their rights is just wrong.

BillC

3rd July 2006, 12:57 PM

In short - are towers/pylons built with sufficient design tolerances to permit addition of a turbine with a blade radius of 100'? Probably not, but I have not found the design specs for them. Do they have the tolerance to permit a fixed/partially movable turbine with blade radius of a few feet partway up the tower? I would claim they would have to.

CTIn general, no, towers do not have the clearance (I'm assuming this is what you meant by 'design tolerance') to accommodate even a small turbine mid-way up. You would infringe the clearance between the phase conductors and the earthed tower. You would also run the risk of the turbine shedding a blade into the conductors.

As for the plastic bags, objects ranging from balloons to hang-gliders have been caught on HV transmission lines in the UK. I'm not aware of any such instance bringing down a tower. Transmission towers are built strongly, and rarely fall. They are however designed to carefully determined stress tolerances. Adding extra weight and forces by mounting wind turbines on them doesn't sound like a good idea.

I doubt that turbulence caused by a blade would result in failure of the conductor by parting, it seems more likely to be that the risk would be of causing 'gallop' on the lines and causing the phases to clash, tripping the circuit.

Wavicle

3rd July 2006, 03:27 PM

I support windfarms because a) They are a useful source of supplemental energy. b) They reduce the total amount of fossil fuels which must be burned in order to keep a stable energy supply. c) If there is too much wind, newer models can adjust the angle of their blades so as to spin more slowly preventing their bearings from overheating. d) Wind turbine designs post-1980 with the turbines upwind of the generator housing produce far less low frequency sound and there is no good research suggesting any that is produced poses a health risk. e) Turbines are ecologically friendly, despite the yammerings of eco-nuts who would do better protesting high rise buildings which kill far more birds, but still an insignificant percentage. f) If there is too much energy, the surplus may be sold to other countries to reduce the amount of fossil fuels they must burn for a stable supply.

Sounds like an excellent way to supplement current energy solutions.

Esperdome

3rd July 2006, 03:28 PM

As far as putting wind turbines on power transmission towers, I wouldn't make a blanket statement either way without engineering data to back it up.

Some towers may have a factor of safety to enable it, some may not.

Around these parts, (Houston, TX), they commonly retrofit towers as cell phone antennas. I doubt the power companies would allow it if it weren't safe. I also witnessed the power company extending in height two towers on the ship channel by fifty feet, adding only additional structure at the top. These towers were over two hundred feet tall to start with, and carrying dozens of conductors coming straight from a power plant.

And I can't see why an engineer couldn't separate the generator from the structure sufficiently to prevent fire damage.

King of the Americas

6th July 2006, 02:43 PM

To the architect:

Firstly, I did't say it was "okay" that we tresspassed. I said one of us did so, but only because we believe it served the common good.

If your neighbor decided to build an airport, a swimming pool, or a minature golf course, you could show up at the zoning meeting and voice your 'personal displeasure', but the council may or may not agree with you and your personal stance, nor should that be their deciding factor as to wether or not the project gets their approval. Unless you are ON the council, indeed yo should have no 'say' in wether or not anything is built next door to you. Moreover, if you DID use your personal belief/displeasure with an airport next to your home, as the deciding factor to disallow an airport to be built next toy our home, then I would suggest and hold 'with great enthusiasm & fervor' that you deserve to be removed from the board or council.

These windfarms are collecting a resource available on THAT land. If you found oil under YOUR land, do you think a neighbor should be able to stop you from drilling for said oil, on YOUR property??? Wind is just as much a resource as oil, except that it isn't finite. Why should YOU or anyone else be able to stop someone from collecting a resource on their land, especially if it can be collected in a safe, clean, and effecient manner???

Indeed, I AM suggesting that personal tastes about how something might look or sound, next to your land is THE LAST criterion that need be addressed, if at all, when deciding what is good public policy. Basically, you are correct in my willingness to bulldoze someone's house, IF it was to provide for a public 'need', such as a lake for drinking water or a highway or railway for the transportation of goods and services.

Given that energy prices are high, I deem it okay to infringe upon someone else's scenic views to provide the public good of lower energy prices for all. Especially, when there are differing views about what is and is not aestically displeasing.

I never said that someone deserved to be punished for asserting their rights. What I said was if you want food, you show up to where the food is and wait in line for your serving. Standing outside the eatery carrying a sign that says "close this place down" will only insure you starve.

These wind farms WILL be built, regardless of what adjacent land owners think about them. Resisting them, and arguing against them with 'personal beliefs', rather than hard facts, will only insure that you are ignored and left outside the restaraunt.

"I don't like the way they look, and I don't want them anywhere near my land." is NOT an argument 'I' would personally consider as a councilman. Now if you could provide an unbiased report suggesting that such things decreased property tax values, and or represented a sincere danger to wildlife and or community members, then you've got something I would actually use in making a decision.

Art Vandelay

7th July 2006, 12:04 AM

If you found oil under YOUR land, do you think a neighbor should be able to stop you from drilling for said oil, on YOUR property??? Quite possibly.

Wind is just as much a resource as oil, except that it isn't finite. Why should YOU or anyone else be able to stop someone from collecting a resource on their land, especially if it can be collected in a safe, clean, and effecient manner???It doesn't matter, becausae you've already said that you won't listen to any reasons.

I never said that someone deserved to be punished for asserting their rights. That's what your position would result in.

What I said was if you want food, you show up to where the food is and wait in line for your serving. Standing outside the eatery carrying a sign that says "close this place down" will only insure you starve.Speaking in metaphors isn't a counterargument. And a better anology would not be carrying a sign, but trying to keep the restaurant from raiding your garden.

[quoute]These wind farms WILL be built, regardless of what adjacent land owners think about them. Resisting them, and arguing against them with 'personal beliefs', rather than hard facts, will only insure that you are ignored and left outside the restaraunt. [/quote]IOW, people will be punished for asserting their rights.

69dodge

7th July 2006, 12:30 AM

IOW, [King of the Americas believes it's ok that] people will be punished for asserting their rights.Probably a more accurate characterization of his position is that he disagrees with you about what people's rights are.

davefoc

8th July 2006, 05:01 PM

This is a link to a site that lists the amount and forms of subsidies to the fossil fuel producers in the US. According to this site the US provides about 5 billion dollars of subsidies (direct and subsidies resulting from tax breaks) to the US fossil fuel producers a year.

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/fuelsubfact.htm

Seems like when one is trying to compare the cost of a killowatt hour developed by a wind farm to a killowatt hour developed by a coal plant it would be necessary to take this subsidy into account.

BillC

8th July 2006, 05:36 PM

All fuels and all means of electricity generation are subject to some form of government 'interference' in the form of taxes or subsidies. It is very difficult to establish what the 'true' cost of generation really is.

King of the Americas

10th July 2006, 10:16 AM

To the Architect:

Public policy, should be decided upon what is best for ALL of us.

Private property owners DO get to voice any 'personal' displeasure they have with a public policy decision, but that protest doesn't or won't carry any weight with policy deciders UNLESS they can back up their claims with 'facts'.

Saying, "I think windmills are ugly, and I believe they will diminish my propery values." are NOT arguments that 'I' would take into consideration as an elected official.

My stance wouldn't and doesn't 'punish' people for voicing their opinion. Say for example there are 4 land owners. The one in the middle wants to build a windfarm, while two on either side want no such thing near their property, while the 3rd doesn't care one way or the other. The city council gives permission to build the wind farm, BECAUSE they feel it will provide increased tax revenue along with lower energy costs for the town. Wanting desparately to stop the project, the 2 opposing land owners hold town hall meetings write letters to the editors of every local paper for each edition. In spite of all their efforts, the windmills go up.

Now what did they lose, moreso than did the guy who didn't care if they were built or not? What punishment did they receive that the 3rd silent land owner, did not???

No one is suggesting that people don't have the right not to say what they feel, but one should also be aware that some concerns will not be heard, because they originate from a 'personal belief'.

I a affraid your restaraunt 'raiding your garden' metaphore is misplaced...UNLESS 'you' had a wind resource upon your land, and your neighbor's overplacement diminished your ability to collect resources on YOUR land... Say for example your neighbor puts a lot of windmills right on the fenceline, and as a result the wind that WAS present on your land is reduced to an uncolectalbe level... Then I think you have a case for the restaraunt raiding your garden.

I am sorry sir, but I don't think you have a good grasp of how public policy decisions 'should' be made. At the risk of repeating myself, "Private concerns and personal beliefs should be the LAST criteria consulted when making public policy decisions."

---

So long as people like Art Vandelay stay OUT of public office, the republic should be safe and progressive.

Art Vandelay

10th July 2006, 12:59 PM

Probably a more accurate characterization of his position is that he disagrees with you about what people's rights are.If KotA believes that the First Amendment is flawed in asserting a "right to petition the government for redress of grievances", then that is even more disturbing.

This is a link to a site that lists the amount and forms of subsidies to the fossil fuel producers in the US. According to this site the US provides about 5 billion dollars of subsidies (direct and subsidies resulting from tax breaks) to the US fossil fuel producers a year.Does it includes the taxes levied on fossil fuels? $5 billion works out to less than $20/person. Surely the average American pays more than that on gasoline taxes?

Seems like when one is trying to compare the cost of a killowatt hour developed by a wind farm to a killowatt hour developed by a coal plant it would be necessary to take this subsidy into account.There's no reason to think that a eneral list of subsidies would be applicable to such a specific situation. And seeing as how it's built within a fossil fuel economy, the windfarm itself benefits from gasoline subsidies. How much would it cost to build a windfarm, if it were not for all the infrastructure that depends on fossil fuels?

Public policy, should be decided upon what is best for ALL of us.And alllowing a Tyrrany of the Majority is not good for any of us.

Now what did they lose, moreso than did the guy who didn't care if they were built or not? What punishment did they receive that the 3rd silent land owner, did not???You implied that you would consider compensating the 3rd land owner for losses that he suffers, but not the other two.

I a affraid your restaraunt 'raiding your garden' metaphore is misplaced...UNLESS 'you' had a wind resource upon your land, and your neighbor's overplacement diminished your ability to collect resources on YOUR land...I am discussing a general principle, and you keep jumping between the general principle and a specific application. You've said that you're willing to let my neighbor bulldoze my house so that he can build a windfarm. I don't see the "raiding my garden" metaphor is at all out of place.

I am sorry sir, but I don't think you have a good grasp of how public policy decisions 'should' be made. Having an opinion that is different from yours and being ignorant are two completely different things, and conflating them smacks of condescension.

At the risk of repeating myself, "Private concerns and personal beliefs should be the LAST criteria consulted when making public policy decisions." If there is a difference between that and "The government should be free do to do whatever it wants, without any regard for the rights of its citizens", I'm not seeing it.

So long as people like Art Vandelay stay OUT of public office, the republic should be safe and progressive.Safe? Definitely not. Progressive? I suppose so. But not progressing to any place good.

King of the Americas

10th July 2006, 02:19 PM

Your misquoting me won't strengthen your argument.

I said that I would bulldoze your home to build a lake for drinking water, a highway and or a railway.

I don't need to bulldoze your home to drill for oil, or put up a windmill, ON MY PROPERTY!!!

Morever, I said if you wanted to 'benefit' from said wind farm that you should jump on the bandwagon, and help move the project forward, rather than trying to stop progress...

Government should be free to do what is in the best interest of the People. Allowing private individuals to stop public works projects that will positively affect everyone's lives, simply because they don't like the way they 'look'...is folly.

Art Vandelay

10th July 2006, 03:03 PM

Your responding with evasive answers, then accussing me of misquoting you won't strengthen your argument. As I said, I'm trying to discuss a general principle, and you keep shifting the focus to specific instances, such as a windmill, drilling for oil, highways, etc.

Hawkeye

10th July 2006, 10:41 PM

Hey Art,

I think I finally see you point about how oil is just as free as wind. It seems like we were looking at the question from different perspectives. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you approached it from an individualistic point of view. To you, the consumer, it doesn’t really matter where the energy itself comes from. You’ll have to pay the electric bill no matter what. Hence, after I said that wind/solar power are “free” you said:

I was unaware of this. It does seem odd that there is anyone paying the electric company for their power, rather than getting it for free. So, where do I go to get these free photoelectric cells? And

And the owners of windmills are giving their energy away for free?
To this I reply that I was considering the issue from a broader scale, at the level of an entire county. From this point of view, there is a big difference in the relative “freeness” of oil and wind. To get oil you have to explore for it, find it, get it out of the ground, transport it in barrels and pipelines, and (in the case of the U.S.) pay to import it. To get wind or sunlight, you have to do nothing. Windmills are by no means free, but the wind itself is.

My point, to be concise, is that one advantage of wind power is that the cost of the “fuel” is zero. If you want power from uranium, coal, or oil, you have to dig it up and refine it first.

Of course, for each source you must have some sort of equipment to convert the fuel to useful energy. Thus, you build wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear/coal power plants. Individuals (such as yourself) then pay the power companies for their services.

The question then, is about the total cost of each energy source. The fact of the matter, I freely admit, may very well be that the price of electricity per kwh is substantially lower for coal/nuclear than it is for wind/solar. Does this mean that we shouldn’t bother building windmills or solar panels? By God, I hope not. There are other elements of the equation which should be weighed. Consider the environmental impact of each energy source. Consider aesthetics. Consider pollution. Consider the very grim reality that fossil fuels will not last forever, and we MUST sooner or later adopt sustainable energy sources, lest our civilization as we know it collapse.

Which reminds me, in what way is there a “finite” amount of solar energy again?
In the sense that there exists an amount M such that the amount of solar energy is less than M.

And as I pointed out earlier, the totally amount of energy that the world consumes (lets call it T) is much less than the total amount of collectable solar energy (you call it M).
If M>>T, your point is moot.

Hawkeye

10th July 2006, 11:03 PM

To Mr. Diamond,

Unfortunately I don't care. It doesn't change the facts. I note that you only quoted less than half the points I made. I reserve the right to pick and choose my quotes. If everyone quoted every single point made by everyone else, we would have a pretty messy quote orgy. Although I do disagree with most things you say, some deal with issues I’m not really qualified to argue against. I don’t claim to know all “the facts.”

No, but unless you want to go cold and have no electricity at night, or having regular blackouts because its cloudy, then you'll need a set of baseload stations using either fossil fuels or nuclear.
Because wind power is evanscent and unreliable and unless you want sporadic blackouts at homes, businesses, transportation, hospitals and everything else, then the reality is that you'll need those fossil fuel or nuclear plants providing the baseload and others spun-up ready to go to meet demand which strangely has little in common with the supply of wind.
Where did I advocate a grid based solely on wind power?
Where did I deny that a fossil fuels/nuclear power would still be necessary?
Ah yes, to quote my self,
When there are especially un-windy days, obviously you'll need some nuclear or coal plants around to pick up the slack.
Oops! Looks like I openly acknowledged that intermittency is a problem with wind power. Do you have anything new to contribute?

It may surprise you that, although I am a progressive green, I am strongly in favor of nuclear power. Furthermore, I am also enough of a realist to admit that fossil fuels will play a large role in our lives for a long time. Finally, I am optimistic (and perhaps naïve) enough to believe that we are smart enough now to foresee the energy crises of the future, and to begin a transition now before it is too late.

You're not making any sense. Whether using fossil fuels or nuclear or wind power or solar, none of them have anything to do with pollution, habitat loss or global warming. How brave of you to accept a few bird's lives in payment to loss of supply for no benefit! I can’t decide whether to label this delusional insanity or just plain ignorance. If you don’t want to accept global warming, that’s fine. Wait 20 years and get back to me. But come on now. Surely you can admit that burning coal is worse for the environment than windmills are. Nuclear is another story. Like I said, I am a proponent of nuclear power and consider it to be “green.” If you seriously think that there is no connection between pollution and burning fossil fuels, you’re the one who isn’t making any sense.

Art Vandelay

11th July 2006, 12:22 AM

To this I reply that I was considering the issue from a broader scale, at the level of an entire county. From this point of view, there is a big difference in the relative “freeness” of oil and wind. To get oil you have to explore for it, find it, get it out of the ground, transport it in barrels and pipelines, and (in the case of the U.S.) pay to import it. To get wind or sunlight, you have to do nothing. Windmills are by no means free, but the wind itself is. You're comparing apples and oranges. Wind is free, but so is oil. Exploring for, extracting, transporting, etc. oil is not free. But then, neither are windmills. That is what I meant by just as free. If you look at them on the same level, then they are either both free, or neither is. I'm not actually saying the oil is free. That's why I'm emphasizing the phrase "just as". This is a somewhat subtle point of economics, so it's not surprising that you're not quite getting it (or, from your perspective, I'm not clearly explaining it). Price is set by supply and demand. There's a temptation to think of there being some objective sense of "cost" which is separate from the market. In particular, people often think of the price that someone pays for something as being this “cost”. So if someone doesn’t have to pay anything for wind, then it’s “free”. But opportunity cost is just as real as original cost. If the market sets the price of wind power higher than that of oil power, then it’s somewhat presumptuous to say that it’s “wrong”, and that wind is in fact free.

And you talk about looking at a wider perspective. What if we look at a really wide scale? What if we look at it from a worldwide perspective? Yes, this country has to pay other countries for oil, but other countries get paid for it.

My point, to be concise, is that one advantage of wind power is that the cost of the “fuel” is zero. If you want power from uranium, coal, or oil, you have to dig it up and refine it first. For both wind and oil, the fuel itself is free. For both wind and oil, the "refinement" is not free.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t bother building windmills or solar panels? By God, I hope not. There are other elements of the equation which should be weighed.Depends on what you mean by “we”. If you mean that corporate executives should be denying their shareholders profit opportunities for the greater good, then I disagree. If you’re saying that the government should be looking at ways to create a situation where serving the greater good doesn’t cost profits, then I agree.

Consider the very grim reality that fossil fuels will not last forever, and we MUST sooner or later adopt sustainable energy sources, lest our civilization as we know it collapse.Well, first of all, fossil fuels will last forever. The issue is whether cheap fossil fuels will last forever. And there is good evidence that they will, at the very least, last the rest our lifetimes. And the idea that we should abandon fossil fuels now because we’ll have to do it sooner or later is a bit questionable. I don’t see that argument being applied to other things very much. Should we not mine copper because the supply of it is finite? Should we not drink vintage wines, because they are irreplaceable?

And as I pointed out earlier, the totally amount of energy that the world consumes (lets call it T) is much less than the total amount of collectable solar energy (you call it M).
If M>>T, your point is moot.If collecting M is significantly more difficult than collecting the amount that is currently being collected, then my point is not moot. As an analogy, if the amount of oil consumed by the world is T, and there is M oil available, and M>>T, then you would claim that the amount of oil effectively infinite. But if most of the oil is on Pluto, then we need to look at how much oil is on Earth. There aren’t many solar collectors in the Sahara. Presumably, there are valid reasons for that. Unless you can show that those reasons aren’t important, then the issue isn’t how much energy can be collected in the Sahara, the issue is how much can be feasibly collected.

rustytunes

11th July 2006, 01:00 AM

It may surprise you that, although I am a progressive green, I am strongly in favor of nuclear power. Furthermore, I am also enough of a realist to admit that fossil fuels will play a large role in our lives for a long time. Finally, I am optimistic (and perhaps naïve) enough to believe that we are smart enough now to foresee the energy crises of the future, and to begin a transition now before it is too late.
Excellent.

rjh01

11th July 2006, 01:01 AM

You're comparing apples and oranges. Wind is free, but so is oil. [snip] I'm not actually saying the oil is free. That's why I'm emphasizing the phrase "just as". [snip]So if someone doesn’t have to pay anything for wind, then it’s “free”. But opportunity cost is just as real as original cost. If the market sets the price of wind power higher than that of oil power, then it’s somewhat presumptuous to say that it’s “wrong”, and that wind is in fact free.
[snip]

Once you extract and use some oil you cannot extract and use that oil again. However wind power is renewable. That is you can put a wind mill on a windy spot and it will produce power until the windmill wears out and then you can replace it.

That is what I understand is opportunity cost is which you mention but do not discuss, so I thought I would do it for you.:D

andyandy

11th July 2006, 02:03 AM

Well, first of all, fossil fuels will last forever. The issue is whether cheap fossil fuels will last forever. And there is good evidence that they will, at the very least, last the rest our lifetimes. And the idea that we should abandon fossil fuels now because we’ll have to do it sooner or later is a bit questionable. I don’t see that argument being applied to other things very much. Should we not mine copper because the supply of it is finite? Should we not drink vintage wines, because they are irreplaceable?

fossil fuels will last forever? They're a finite resource being used up far faster than they're being created from all those decayed animal and vegetable remains.....seeing as the process takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years and seeing how, for example we use 3 billion gallons of oil a day, your claim looks a bit silly.....:)
I don't think anyone's suggesting that fossil fuels should be "abandoned" just because they're a finite resource. But we should be looking to reduce our dependency on them - both for long term supply and environmental considerations.....

Hawkeye

11th July 2006, 03:53 AM

fossil fuels will last forever? They're a finite resource being used up far faster than they're being created from all those decayed animal and vegetable remains.....seeing as the process takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years and seeing how, for example we use 3 billion gallons of oil a day, your claim looks a bit silly.....

I’m still preparing the rest of my reply, but he’s actually quite right about this.

I'm willing to bet the farm that he’s not one of those “abiogenic theory” kooks who thinks the Earth is brewing up new oil as fast as we can consume it. (For the record, it takes millions of years of high pressure, high temperature, and specific geological conditions to convert decaying organic matter into oil.)

What he’s saying is this: the problem isn’t that were going to run out of oil soon, it’s that we may run out of cheap oil soon. At some point, it becomes so hard to get the darn stuff out of the ground than it just isn’t worth the energy and effort investment anymore. When a well is no longer profitable, it gets shut off and leaves a lot of oil behind. Even today, we can only get something like 40-50% of the oil out of a reservoir. The hard to get fossil fuels will indeed last forever, in the sense that they are technologically and economically unfeasible to reach.

Economists can tell you that oil will last forever because as the supply decreases (while demand is constant or increasing), the price of oil will rise. Eventually the price will be so high that no one will be willing to pay for it anymore. When coal gets expensive, windmills and solar panels will start seeming like a better idea too. (But that won’t happen for a several hundred years)

Yet, I think if we dictate our energy policies by economics alone, and just hope the “invisible hand” will save us, we may get ourselves into trouble.

More to come later...

andyandy

11th July 2006, 04:54 AM

I’m still preparing the rest of my reply, but he’s actually quite right about this.

I'm willing to bet the farm that he’s not one of those “abiogenic theory” kooks who thinks the Earth is brewing up new oil as fast as we can consume it. (For the record, it takes millions of years of high pressure, high temperature, and specific geological conditions to convert decaying organic matter into oil.)

What he’s saying is this: the problem isn’t that were going to run out of oil soon, it’s that we may run out of cheap oil soon. At some point, it becomes so hard to get the darn stuff out of the ground than it just isn’t worth the energy and effort investment anymore. When a well is no longer profitable, it gets shut off and leaves a lot of oil behind. Even today, we can only get something like 40-50% of the oil out of a reservoir. The hard to get fossil fuels will indeed last forever, in the sense that they are technologically and economically unfeasible to reach.

Economists can tell you that oil will last forever because as the supply decreases (while demand is constant or increasing), the price of oil will rise. Eventually the price will be so high that no one will be willing to pay for it anymore. When coal gets expensive, windmills and solar panels will start seeming like a better idea too. (But that won’t happen for a several hundred years)

Yet, I think if we dictate our energy policies by economics alone, and just hope the “invisible hand” will save us, we may get ourselves into trouble.

More to come later...

Sure, I take your point - economics factors will limit the feasibility of fossil fuels in the future....but the finite fossil fuel resources can only "last forever" by stopping consumption, or slowing consumption to below the level at which it's produced....hardly an encouraging prospect....

I agree that it's likely that we won't hit any energy crunch in the foreseeable future (50-100yrs...) but beyond that it's really just conjecture as to how long fossil fuels will remain feasible....

it would seem prudent to start to look at transfering dependency from a finite energy source, to one which is not....

however the long term supply of fossil fuels would be very much a secondary consideration with regards to wind-farms....
more important in the short term is the reduction in carbon emissions...(although to be honest a few windfarms here and there aren't really going to make a huge difference to that....but a start's a start....)

andyandy

11th July 2006, 05:24 AM

For the record, it takes millions of years of high pressure, high temperature, and specific geological conditions to convert decaying organic matter into oil.
.

just a nit-pick back.....

How it works

In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.

Left alone, the kerogen molecules eventually crack, breaking up into shorter and lighter molecules composed almost solely of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Depending on how liquid or gaseous this mixture is, it will turn into either petroleum or natural gas.

So how long does this process take?

Scientists aren't really sure, but they figure it's probably on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.

"It's certainly not an instantaneous process," Thomas told LiveScience. "The rate at which petroleum is forming is not going to be the solution to our petroleum supplies."
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051011_oil_origins.html

Art Vandelay

11th July 2006, 02:18 PM

Once you extract and use some oil you cannot extract and use that oil again. However wind power is renewable. That is you can put a wind mill on a windy spot and it will produce power until the windmill wears out and then you can replace it. Once you use up some wind, you cannot use that wind again. You have to use different wind.

The opportunity cost is what you can sell it for. If the going rate for wind power is $100, and I have a special windmill that can produce wind power for just $10, I'd be a fool to sell it for $10 just because that's how much it costs me. And if oil power is selling for $50, it would be rather inaccurate to say that my wind power costs less than oil. It costs $100, because I'm not going to sell it for anything less.

As for the creation of fossil fuels, my understanding is that although natural processes create them slowly, synthetic version can be created rather quickly. Natural gas (which is just another name for methane) is quite easy to make. The issue is that it's not cost-effective (after all, you have to put in more energy than you'll get out of the fuel). Natural gas is so cheap that in some places, oil companies just burn it off because it the cost of getting it to customers is more than they can charge for it.

King of the Americas

13th July 2006, 04:16 PM

Art Vandelay

13th July 2006, 07:07 PM

Mr. Vandelay:

You are trying to discuss 'general principle', but choose not to listen to applying it in specific examples...?

I don't get it.

What you actually did was misquote me in general principle, and then you ignored entirely my arguments when I applied it to specific examples.
I accurately quoted you on general principles. You complained that I applied that general principle to the specific case that we are discussing, then you complained that I "choose" not to listen to applying it in specific examples. Your "arguments" for general principles are completely invalid when you make them in terms of particular specific instances. For instance, you say that the impact of a project on neighbors shouldn't be considered, and then you give arguments for why the impact on neighbors of windmills isn't important, and challenge me to give reasons why the impact on neighbors of windmills should be considered, ignoring the fact that even if this is a specific instance in which impact on neighbors shouldn't be considered, that doesn't support your general principle.

You've been rather evasive in your answers, and saying that I "choose" not to listen is rather rude. It's not surprising that your political career isn't going very well.

King of the Americas

15th July 2006, 01:39 PM

Mr. Vandelay:

Sir, you are in error.

You MISQUOTED me in general principle arguments, AND in specific example cases.

NEVER have I said that the 1st Amendment shouldn't exist, nor did I say that land owners should be 'punished' for voicing their opposition.

You claimed that I would bulldoze someone's home, in order to put up a windfarm. You claimed that I wanted to recompensate the 3rd landowner for not voicing any objection, which was also a misrepresentation of my stance.

You have IGNORED and or mischaracterized the position I hold, and in turn have refused to tell me WHAT criteria should be considered when deciding on such a project.

In specific example or general priciple, you have dodged my questions or mischaracterized me stance.

For the record (AGAIN), private landowners concerns about how a project will 'look' would be the last and least concerning criteria I would address as an elected leader, trying to decide what is best for our community. I would NOT force someone off their land to build a windfarm upon it. I would allow zoning for a windfarm somewhere IF it would benefit those taxpayers living and or around the area. Moreover, the 2 biggest factors I would use in this decision are increased property tax revenue and decreased energy costs for all those living in said area.

At the risk of going unanswered (again), as an elected official, what criteria would YOU use to decide wether or not such a project should be built???

Dustin Kesselberg

15th July 2006, 04:00 PM

King of the Americas

18th July 2006, 08:01 AM

I am SHOCKED to see that Mr. Vandelay remains silent...

Not really, though. ;)

Art Vandelay

19th July 2006, 01:30 PM

You MISQUOTED me in general principle arguments, AND in specific example cases.No, the general principle is that you're willing to bulldoze people's homes. Whether this general principle applies to windfarms is an issue of a specific example.

Furthermore, I never presented my response as a quote, so I did not "misquote" you.

NEVER have I said that the 1st Amendment shouldn't exist, I never said that you did.

nor did I say that land owners should be 'punished' for voicing their opposition. You implied it, and you evaded my efforts to get you to clarify.

You claimed that I wanted to recompensate the 3rd landowner for not voicing any objection, No, I didn't.

You have IGNORED and or mischaracterized the position I hold,I've done the best I can with the slivers you've given me. It's not my fault you're going out of your way to be enigmatic.

and in turn have refused to tell me WHAT criteria should be considered when deciding on such a project.That's an absurdly open ended question.

In specific example or general priciple, you have dodged my questions or mischaracterized me stance.Not are incorrect about me dodging your questions, you have yourself dodged my questions.

King of the Americas

20th July 2006, 09:58 AM

MR. VANDELAY:

"At the risk of going unanswered (again), as an elected official, what criteria would YOU use to decide wether or not such a project should be built???"

Art Vandelay

20th July 2006, 02:28 PM

I see you have enrolled in the Claus school of debate: latch onto a stupid question, and keep asking it as if the fact that the other person refuses to answer ever stupid question you come up with is some sort of failing.

King of the Americas

20th July 2006, 05:35 PM

Sir,

This is the ONLY question I have asked you to answer...

It is the ONLY question that you need to answer in order to solve the debate between the two of us.

Is the question offensive to you?

You said it was a 'stupid' question...???

Well...I think that's all on you. The question needs to be answered to continue with this exchange.

mommyrex

25th July 2006, 10:56 PM

For those of you still interested in wind farms, NPR's Talk of the Nation : Science Friday ran a segment on wind power (http://tinyurl.com/qebr7) last week.

Geckko

25th July 2006, 11:47 PM

I've seen windfarms and they are very picturesque. They blend right into the environment. The ones i've seen have very sleek designs and almost look like part of the landscape. If situated on places like farmland or places like that, I find it hard to imagine they would bother anyone. Situated just offshore seems like a good idea too.

I can't think I would ever describe a windfarm on an otherwise undeveloped environment as "picturesque". They have an extremely large footprint, covering a lot of area, there are extremely tall and they move, most of the time.

I think windfarms in the right places make sense and and do have a certain "je ne sais quoi" at times on passing. However, those that I see on a regular basis, as opposed to just pass I find more obtrusive and irritating over time. I am amazed at some of the blatent hypocracy among environmental groups about this and other energy issues:

A single well designed building on an undeveloped coastline would be opposed by most environmental groups because it is a "man made structure despoiling an otherwise natural environment"

Energy production using fossil fuels is the single largest problem faced by the planet, but nuclear power generation should never ever be considered.

It is easy to loose patience with apparent windfarm boosters who seem to hold to both these views

King of the Americas

27th July 2006, 09:47 AM

The local papers have all been filled up with Letters to the Editor, upon this topic.

It frightens me at the amount of false, misleading, and outright incorrect information being bantered about by the naysayers.

"You can see these things from 60 miles away."

"Stray voltage can kill cows and livestock over 100 yards away."

"Low frenquency noise causes cancer."

"Wind farms are not efficient."

"Wind turbines destroy farms, ranch and recreational property values."

"Wind turbines will bid goodbye to our landscape, tourism, recreational activities, wildlife, bird survival, property values, inspiration, relaxation, health, and quality of life, saying hello to soil erosion, more fires, disruption of wildlife habitats, flashing strobe lights instead of stars, the buzz of voltage, and the list goes on."

Say falsehoods enough, and people start to believe them.

Most people around the area are against the notion of a wind farm in this area, and thus most of the editoral letters have been against them. All of the letters are the same, uttering the same falsehoods over and over again.

Far too often people believe what they want, based upon their own desires. When confronted with evidence that contradicts what they want, they simply ignore it and go on about their day.

Mob rule is, in my humble opinion, the most uninformed, ignorant, self serving rule of all.

Geckko

28th July 2006, 06:23 AM

burrahobbit

30th July 2006, 04:28 AM

I'm surprised to find such a long thread on wind power. Unfortunately i missed it earlier.

Bias warning

I am deeply involved with wind power in India. My company manufactures and installs turbines.

End warning

Some comments

1. With regard to the "evanescence" of wind power, there seem to be a lot of misconceptions. Wind power generation is definitely, variable. However, the variability is quite predictable. In our wind farms, we KNOW that we will generate at around 70% PLF in certain months, and at < 10% in other months. This depends on the weather patterns in the area. This of course means that the grid authority can predict WHEN the wind power will kick in and plan on that basis.

2. Any grid needs a large reserve capacity for peaking demands. Variation between peak and off peak demand could be of the order of 20%. If wind produces 10% of the Grid power (which is a high value), the impact of a loss of wind power would be less than the normal variation. The "peaking " power stations could easily take up the slack.

3. Denmark is blessed with wind which is fairly Year round so can plan on a higher percentage of power from wind.

4. In high wind zones wind power is now quite competitive with thermal power in a number of locations. In India for example, Wind power is cheaper (even factoring the subsidies) than power from LNG. The competitiveness is improving with the newer and more efficient turbines.

5. Wind power in most cases be limited to around 10% of the generation. Maybe in 10 years, solar technology will improve to the extent that it can provide another 10%. We can look at options like biomass for another 10%. Every fraction from renewables is one fraction less from fossil fuels.

6. With regard to putting microturbines on transmission towers, the loads (both static and dynamic) would be too high. Also, the nature of the load is different from a static load such as a wireless transmitter. Most towers are designed with some margin to provide for additional loads such as from additional conductors.

King of the Americas

30th July 2006, 10:08 AM

To burrahobit:

Many times people opposed to the notion of windfarms have said, "When the wind is too low, these turbines actually have to suck energy FROM the grid to keep them turning."

Is this true, and if so WHY is there a need to keep the turbines turning??? I mean I thought these things were collecting available wind energy... Why would you need to 'keep' them turning, if their purpose is to produce energy???

Also, I am concerned about their impact on wildlife. How many dead birds or bats do you find at the base of these structures how often, and have you seen evidence of stray voltage strikes killing cows or other livestock?

Moreover, have you any evidence of these low frenquency noises causing illnesses?

I am preparing to submit a 'letter to the editor' of my own, and in doing so I'd like to address ALL of the negative statements made toward the wind industry, sans the loss of scenery argument. *Scenic views are a matter of opinion, one man's beauty is another man's beast. While I have seen up close and personal, 400 ft high wind turbines, and found them to be aestically pleasing, I wouldn't begrudge anyone from finding the opposite to be true, in THEIR opinion.

In any case, as a wind industry "expert", what rebuttles do you present when you are confronted with the above concerns?

davefoc

30th July 2006, 11:18 AM

Thanks to burrahobbit for the most informative post in this thread and to King of the Americas for asking some questions that I was interested in also.

I saw the issue of windmills using power come up in some of the sites that I looked at as a result of participating in this thread. It seemed like, maybe what they were talking about was that some windmill generators drew power from the grid for their field coils. I think the claim I saw was something along the lines that windmills weren't paying for this energy.

My assumption is that a modern windmill might draw current from the grid to provide a startup current for its field coils much like the situation where a car alternator needs at least some current from the battery before it can begin to generate electricity (I think there may be some car alternators for which this isn't true) but that once the windmill generator has begun to generate electricity it would also generate the electricity for its field coils. Is this right?

It seems like the idea that a windmill would draw significant current from the grid when it is inactive is just flat out false. But perhaps there is a point where the windmill is active but not spinning fast enough to generate enough electicity for its own field coils and at that point it uses more energy than it produces. Is there anything to this at all?

burrahobbit

30th July 2006, 10:37 PM

Thanks davefoc for the kind words

Wind turbines do draw some power from the grid at startup. In India, they pay for this power at a the same price as the sale price of generated power. The older turbines used to draw some power at low loads also. This is eliminated with modern machines. The new Permanent Magnet generators also do away with the need for excitation power for startup but these are not yet common. The modern machines are very efficient at generating power at low wind speeds.

With regard to dead birds, we have not seen any unusual numbers around our farms (Much to the regret of the operations guys!). Most of the farms are in somewhat remote locations and in dry "wastelands" so we dont see too many cows either. In any case, we do not have any increased risk of electrocution since the transformers and switchgear are fenced off.

We have not had any fires started by wind turbines. The fire risk is not all that great. The major issue is lightning strike (which damages the machine far more than the environment)

burrahobbit

30th July 2006, 10:48 PM

The issue of "negative power" at low wind speeds is an issue with the older turbines. These also had problems with maintaining a decent power factor at low generation resulting in problems for the grid. This was then penalised by the Grid authorities. The problems were solved in the smaller machines by over sized capacitor banks to adjust the power factor. Newer and larger turbines have sophisticated power electronics that allow them to operate at a PF of 1.0

We generally do not have issues with people complaining about bird hits etc. Fortunately for us, the more scenic parts of India do not have good wind potential !

The craziest problem I heard was a wind farm in Maharashtra (western India) where the farmers in the neighbouring area blamed the turbines for "blowing away" the rain in a year the monsoon was not so good. The farms actually had to shut down for a few weeks until the farmers could be convinced that the turbines were not responsible !

King of the Americas

31st July 2006, 09:48 AM

THANK YOU, burrahobbit!

Your insight is greatly appreciated.

Have you seen any illnesses assosicated with "low frenquency noises", if indeed there are any produced?

Also, there have been concerns raised about the maintance and upkeep of these machines when Florida Power & Light's lease runs out. Basically, there are fears that FP&L will eventually abandon these structures when they are no longer efficient (some think this will happen in 5-15 years). How difficult are these thing to dismantle, and or repair to complete fuctionality, if and when FP&L abandons the project?

I think that pretty much covers most of the legitamate concerns.

Do you know of a book title that would offer answers to the concerns I have raised here?

davefoc

31st July 2006, 11:32 AM

burrahobbit,
Thank you for your replies.

I had just a few more questions on the electircal side. I hope I'm not waring out my welcome here.

In the earliest systems, was the field coil used to control the speed of the windmill so that as there was more wind, there was more field coil current so that the windmill spun at a constant rate to produce a constant frequency voltage source?

In the newest, permanent magnet system are sophisticated electronics used to fully condition the power so that a particular propeller speed is not required to generate a particular frequency?

Do the permanent magnet genrators have the ability to adjust their output the way a generator can that has a field coil the can be energized with different current levels?

burrahobbit

2nd August 2006, 05:42 AM

With regard to low frequency noise, as I had indicated, most of our machines are located where the population density is pretty low so we have not had any complaints. Also, to be frank, the general tolerance to noise in India seems to be much higher than Europe or the US. We have not had any unusual health issues with the O&M staff on the farms.

With regard to maintenance, the predicted life of the turbines is around 20 years. After that they could be reconditioned but the issue could be availability of spares. It would probably make sense to scrap them and "repower" the farms with newer, more efficient machines. This is being done in Europe even with machines that have not outlived their useful life since sites with high wind are at a premium.

With regard to the electrical questions

The older Fixed speed machines used power from the grid for speed control as you have outlined. Modern machines "variable speed" machines use two systems.

1. One family uses a "double fed" generator coupled with a AC-DC-AC power converter with sophisticated electronics to enable the machine to operate at variable speed and still export power at the grid frequency.

2. The second family (the gearless models) use a multi pole generator operating at low speeds (as low as 20 rpm) connected to a full power AC-DC-AC converter which converts the power to the voltage and frequency required by the grid.

The PMG machines are basically a variant of both types.

I hope I have been able to clarify things somewhat.