Windfarms...good or bad?

[King of the Americas]

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.

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

My questions are many but I'd really like to hear from someone with some direct contact with wind farms and their result on the local economy & people...

Anybody like that here, tody?

[Soapy Sam]

Richardm was involved in an anti WF campaign in his area.
You might PM him.
I just detest the things. Put them offshore.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not off my beach, you don't!

~~ Paul

[King of the Americas]

"NOT in my back yard...!"

That's what everybody says.

I think off shore sites are a great idea, but to not take advantage of terresterial sources, when we are so willing to strip mine acers and acers of land in search of coal, and then burn it releasing lots of CO2...

It is a "renewable" energy source, people.

I thought this site was pretty helpful:

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~abtj/Lab4/Lab4.html

---

In local news, there is a local organization dedicated to the proposition that such things are a horrible idea.

If you feel their plight, I encourage you to lend them your knowledge & support:

http://www.northtexaswindresistance.com

[Crispy Duck]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[Molinaro]

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]

...

Really?

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

[Molinaro]

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.

[Mercutio]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 !

[Mercutio]

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]

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

~~ Paul

[Hazen]

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 !

The alternative is nature?
What?
Hello?
The alternative is this:
http://www.nti.org/images/sellafield3.jpg
Duh

[Crossbow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[kevin]

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.)

[kevin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
Did your friend sign a gag order?

[Diamond]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[King of the Americas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Okay, thanks, new info assimilated. I was parroting an article I read many years ago.

[CFLarsen]

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]

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]

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.)

[Starthinker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[rustytunes]

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]

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]

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]

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.

My point is that their construction produces more greenhouse emissions than the construction of a nuclear power plant. I was asked to provide a cite for that.

[Oldpossum]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)


Did your friend sign a gag order?

[Dcdrac]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...???


Did your friend sign a gag order?

[richardm]

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]

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]

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]

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

[CFLarsen]

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]

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]

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]

Aha.

Things that might have been cleared up earlier.

[King of the Americas]

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]

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]

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

[rustytunes]

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]

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.

[TheChadd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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.

[Diamond]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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 th