Solar home owners oppose wind farm

[Dogmudgeon]

You can't make this stuff up -- because irony is an infinitely renewable resource.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/Solar-home-owners-oppose-wind-farm">Solar home owners oppose wind farm

TAOS — Living off the grid doesn't necessarily mean you want to live next to a wind farm, even if it is designed to generate electrical power from a renewable energy source.

A well-known Taos attorney's proposal to develop a wind farm has angered some residents near the site, including people in the Cielito Lindo subdivision, where homes rely primarily on solar energy.

...

Residents in the off-the-grid subdivision near the proposed Taos Wind Farm site began resisting it the minute they learned of the project. They are concerned about health impacts of noise and low-frequency vibrations from wind turbines, flashing strobe lights changing the night sky, turbine blades killing birds and giant structures forever changing the open plateau's landscape.

Members of the group started a Web site — www.talkingwind.com — to post their latest findings on the impacts of wind farms.

Several of the residents, including Pamela Rosenberg, an officer in the subdivision's homeowners association, chipped in money to hire a noise specialist and other experts to review the Taos Wind Power proposals. Among them was Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician trained at John Hopkins School of Medicine, whose book about the health impacts of wind turbine noise is due out early next year.

...

There's just no way to top that.

--p!

[eyesroll]

1. Why?

I wouldn't mind solar panels on top of my house. I don't want a wind turbine on top of my house. They're different animals entirely.

[tabatha]

2. Solar is less destructive than wind.

It is quiet as well.

[w4rma]

3. I think wind farms are nice looking. A heck of a lot nicer than a bunch of buildings. (nt)

[silverojo]

5. This isn't about how they LOOK, but how they SOUND

If the sounds can harm people, wind farms should be located farther away.

[Laelth]

7. They don't work.

They're being abandoned in Europe. Please, click the link in the OP and find out for yourself.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[jpak]

20. What horseshit - EU wind power capacity grew 18% in 2007 with new additions of 8554 MW

Total wind power capacity in the EU is now 56,535 MW - more than half the world's total wind turbine capacity of 100,000+ MW.

Dream on...

[Laelth]

37. The TRUTH

Find it here: http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html

Excerpted from the link above:

Wind Energy is a Failed Technology – evidence from around the world

* Germany (size of Montana ) is the world's largest user of wind technology. Over the last 20 years, Germany has erected 18,000 wind turbines that have only been able to generate 6% of the country's total electricity supply.

* In Feb. 2005, the German Government's energy agency released a report that concluded that wind plants were an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy and also had serious environmental effects.

* This same report suggested reduction of greenhouse gases could be more effectively and cheaply reduced by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants.

* Denmark has 6000 wind turbines; in 2003 that country's greenhouse gas emissions increased 7.3% over 2002 levels.

* Despite being blanketed with wind turbines, Denmark has not been able to shut down one single conventional power plant.

* Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. The Government has canceled plans for three offshore wind plants for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies for existing sites.

* The California Energy Commission reported that the state's 14,000 turbines produced half of one percent of their electricity in 2002. Extrapolating this record to the U.S. as a whole, it would take over 100,000 wind turbines spread over 10 million acres of land (costing $150-300 billion) to produce 5% of the country's electricity.

* Kansas politician Frank Miller was quoted in a press release stating wind plants in Kansas were only expected to supply 1% of the energy used in the state.

* The Wind Industry is meeting much public resistance in Europe, especially in Germany and Denmark , the inefficiency has become apparent and people are angry at the cost of wasted resources. The industry is searching for a bigger market in the U.S. to replace lost sales in Europe.

Wind Energy – Inefficient and Unreliable

* Because of its inherent technical limitations and the fluctuating nature of its power source, no other type of industrial power generation has such poor performance.

* Wind Developers often dwell on wind turbines' installed capacity ; they provide facts and figures based on what the turbines can produce at 100% capacity.

* Because of the fluctuating nature of wind, the amount of energy produced by wind plants is expressed as an average annual output called capacity factor. Research proves that average annual capacity for wind plants is only 15-30% of their installed capacity.

* Due to the intermittency of wind power, all wind turbine plants must have stand-by generators that are powered by fossil fuels. These backup generators must idle 24 hrs a day (emitting considerable amounts of greenhouse gases for nothing) in order to be ready to generate electricity when the wind turbines aren't functioning – wind energy is not clean.

* In a 2003 study, the California Energy Commission studied 3 wind plants and estimated that they had an average capacity credit of 23.9%. The estimated capacity credit for wind energy in the state will be 5%.

* Evidence available from California, Texas, and Ontario suggests that many wind facilities sited on land will achieve capacity credits averaging only in the single digit range.

* A study in Germany proved that for more than half the days in 2004, the sum of wind plant output to the grid was lower than 11% of its capacity.

* In the U.K. 1,010 wind turbines produced 0.1% of their electricity in 2002.

* It would take over 2000 large wind turbines (with a generous capacity factor of 30%) spread over hundreds of miles to equal the power of one 1600 MW conventional power plant situated on a few acres.

* Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. They don't produce power until wind speed reaches 8 mph; reach rated capacity around 33 mph, and shut down at 55 mph because of possible damage to the blades. Their output is intermittent, volatile, and unpredictable.

* This unpredictability causes “grid instability”. Electricity grids must be kept in balance (supply & demand, voltage, frequency) which is why wind power must have back up generators to ramp up and down to balance the unreliable output from wind turbines.

* Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind generated power they buy because of the grid instability they cause.

* For the same reason, in Dec. 2003, Ireland halted all new wind power connections to the national grid and have plans to end state supported subsidies.

* In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections and in 2006 Spain ended all subsidies.

* In 2004, Australia reduced the amount of wind power that utilities are required to buy bringing wind projects to an almost stand still.

* Switzerland is also cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit from wind power.

* It must also be noted that months of peak demand for electricity (summer months) coincide with months of low or no wind.

The Winners & The Losers – huge tax breaks for the Wind Industry while the taxpayers and electric customers pick up the tab.

* On a per kilowatt basis, no other form of industrial energy has recently received higher public subsidy than wind.

* Wind plants are now being built primarily for tax avoidance purposes, not because of their environmental, energy, or economic benefits.

* The tax breaks and subsidies have more value to wind plant owners than the revenue from the sale of the small amount of electricity they produce.

* The big winners are the Wind Industry, the Wind Developer, and a few landowners who lease their land. Electric customers and taxpayers are the big losers.

* Many states have approved Renewable Portfolio standards (RPS) that force utility companies to purchase electricity from wind plants at extremely high prices – this cost is passed on to the consumer.

* Publicly funded tax schemes (production tax credits and double-declining depreciation) reimburse as much as 75% of the wind plant owner's capital cost for each of the $1.65 million wind turbines. You, the taxpayer, are practically paying for the wind plants and will also be paying higher prices for the expensive, small amount of electricity wind turbines produce.

* According to Citizens for Tax Justice, Florida Power and Light Group, (FLP) (largest owner of wind capacity in the U.S. ) paid NO federal income taxes in 2002 and 2003 while reporting net income of more than $2 billion. Those were the years that FLP invested heavily in wind plants. They took more than $1.2 billion in depreciation in those years.

* The Wind Industry has powerful lobbyists in Washington , D.C. placing intense pressure on our politicians. In the not so distant future, if the Wind Industry and Wind Developers are successful, hundreds of thousands of massive turbines will dominate our landscapes while doing virtually nothing to solve the problems of fossil fuel dependency. Subsidies given to industrial wind technology diverts money that could be used in research for other more reliable forms of alternative energy.

* Despite the facts, its unclear if legislators, local government officials, and regulators will temper enthusiasm for wind energy, since so many have accepted the false claims and inaccurate information distributed by the wind industry and advocates. Also, they are well aware of wind industry lobbying power and campaign contributions.

* Wind Developers claim that they increase the local tax base. Research proves those gains are more than offset by the loss of open land, loss of tourism, the decrease in property values, and the taxes and fees consumers must pay to subsidize the industry.

* A survey of property assessors in the UK found that a nearby wind facility lowers property values by up to 15% per year for 2 years.

* In the discussion of property values, it must be remembered that in most places values increase steadily. So any slowing down of that normal rise because of wind power facilities is in fact a loss of value.

* The Wind Industry also claims to create many jobs - a typical wind plant requires one low paid maintenance worker.

Collateral Damage – wind energy is NO FRIEND to the environment

* Ordinary citizens are beginning to realize that wind plants are not environmentally benign. Instead, wind energy has high economic, environmental, ecological, scenic and property value costs.

* Wind plants cause considerable environmental damage to the surrounding countryside. Each wind turbine requires the clear-cutting of at least 4 - 6 acres and another 35 - 75 acres for infrastructure support, i.e. access roads, tensions lines, substations, pool-size irremovable concrete bases, etc.

* Often it is necessary to blast through bedrock, potentially disrupting water flow to existing wells downhill.

* Adverse impacts include erosion, destruction of wildlife habitat, interference with bird migration paths, massive bird kills, destruction of scenic vistas, noise, lowering of property values, distracting blade flicker and aircraft warning lights.

* We must take into consideration the greenhouse gases that are produced by the construction and installation of wind plants: the manufacture of steel, the concrete bases, asphalt for roads, the fuel burned by earth-moving equipment, production of tension lines, pylons, substations, and back-up generators – all for a technology that performs at 15 -30% capacity. It's clear that no real savings will be achieved in greenhouse gas emissions.

* At the Buffalo Mountain wind plant in Tennessee , each turbine foundation is 30 ft deep and contains approx. 3,500 cubic yards of concrete. Concrete production is one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions.

* It has been estimated that a wind plant must be in production for seven years to offset the carbon emissions created in the manufacture of just the concrete needed for their placement.

* A wind plant stands to be seen from at least 20 miles around, meaning it has the potential of degrading the scenery of 1,256 square miles. Western N.C. economies are dependent on the vacation home business and tourists that are attracted to the area for its scenic views, and natural undisturbed environment.

* Then there is the bird problem. The California Energy Commission reported that in 1989 the wind turbines in Altamont Pass killed 60 golden eagles and 300 redtail hawks, not to mention smaller birds.

* Norway researchers Winkleman and Karlsson counted 49 birds killed by a single turbine during one night of migration.

* The U.S Fish and Wildlife Services estimate that European wind power kills 37 birds per turbine per year. Extrapolating that figure to 50 turbines equals the potential for a small wind plant to kill almost 20,000 birds over a 10 year period.

* At least 2000 bats were killed on Backbone Mountain in West Virginia in just 2 months during their 2003 fall migration.

* A 2002 study in Spain estimated that 11,200 birds of prey, 350,000 bats, and 3,000,000 small birds are killed each year by wind turbines and their power lines.

Enter at Your Own Risk - Noise, Fire, and Health Hazards

* The Wind Industry typically plays down the noise problem but it is widely known that in the leases between land owners and developers there is a “noise easement” to protect the wind company from liability. Any complaints or lawsuits would be against the land owner.

* The noise problem is well documented – in Oct. 2005, Germany hosted the First International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise and discussed perspectives for noise control.

* The European Union published results of a 5 year investigation into wind power and found noise complaints to be valid, and that noise levels could not be predicted before developing a site.

* A Meyersdale, Pa resident, Bob Laravee, who lives 3000 ft. from a wind plant, documented noise levels over a 48 hr. period. The results showed an average reading of 75 decibels. According to the EPA, 45 decibels disturb sleep.

* It is difficult to predict noise levels in mountainous terrain. Only a “swishing” may be heard directly underneath a turbine, but farther away the resulting sound of several turbines together has been described to be as loud as a motorcycle or a jet engine.

* In March 2006, Dr Nina Pierpont testified before the N.Y. State Legislature Committee about “Wind Turbine Syndrome” which affects many people living in the vicinity of wind turbines, This syndrome includes chronic sleep problems, severe headaches, dizziness, concentration problems, inner ear problems, etc. People with a history of car sickness, migraines, and inner ear problems are more susceptible.

* Dr. Pierpont also reported that some people feel disturbing pulsations in their chests and ears even when they can't see or hear the wind turbines. Sensitivity to low frequency vibration is highly variable in people and poorly understood. The strobe effect of turbines can also provoke seizures in people with epilepsy.

* An interesting note – the Nazis used low-frequency noise as a form of torture.

* Wind turbines are subject to metal fatigue and the effects of ice and wind, parts and whole blades have torn off because of malfunction, flying as far as 8 kilometers and through the window of a home in one case. Whole towers have collapsed in Germany (as recently as 2002) and the U.S.
(e.g. Oklahoma, May 2005).

* California reports 35 turbine generated fires per year due to short circuiting and lightning. A single turbine may contain up to 200 gallons of oil; the transformer at the base of each turbine may contain another 500 gallons of oil. In rural areas even a spark can easily develop into a large fire before discovery is made and fire fighting can begin.

* There are currently many lawsuits around the world due to wind plant noise, lowered property values, and negative health effects. Communities are angry at being forced to become live-in power plants.

The above was posted so that readers of DU could read an alternative opinion to wind industry propaganda. Again, I invite you all to research the mater for yourselves.

:dem:

-Laelth

[jpak]

47. The Horseshit

from the nutcase website you posted...

[NobleCynic]

59. Wait a sec... did you just pull a godwin on wind energy?

* An interesting note – the Nazis used low-frequency noise as a form of torture.

Truth of the effects of low frequency noise aside, was godwinning really necessary? Are we next to hear about the wind energy advocates are kind of like the gestapo because, don't you know, the Nazis also implemented alternative energy sources to crude oil?

[Laelth]

61. I didn't intend to "pull" anything.

All the material cited above comes from the "Keepers of the Blue Ridge" in North Carolina.

I think their point was that it's horrible to live near a wind farm. For some, it's like a form of torture. That the Nazi's used a similar kind of torture merely proves that it probably has real effects on real people.

My assumption is that the wind industry is just a business like any other (greedy and heartless, but not sadistic).

-Laelth

[NobleCynic]

64. Fair enough, you're quoting the source not stating so yourself

But Nazi references hardly ever contribute to a reasonable conversation, they are usually intended to destroy it outright. It lessens the credibility of any argument made simply by virtue that it functions as a declaration that whatever counter point someone may have, you won't listen because obviously they're fascist.

My assumption is that the wind industry is just a business like any other (greedy and heartless, but not sadistic).

Absoultely right. We have to vigilant against even green causes. The embezzlement that happened with Spain and they solar power investments is a perfect example. Ever bad business practice we see in non green industries will eventually surface somewhere in green industries as well.

[MrModerate]

4. Folks, if one wants to stop the heat death of the planet . . .

We're going to have to broaden our focus on renewable resources. And just as you can't site a coal-fired plant anywhere you want, you can't site a wind farm wherever you like. That having been said, I haven't heard any serious arguments against wind farms outside of the aesthetic (and bird kills, which I consider completely phony).

Maybe there's something in the doctor's upcoming book, but I have my doubts. The significant objection is "giant structures forever changing the open plateau's landscape."

NIMBYism, plain and simple.

[Laelth]

8. They simply do not work.

For every kW of expected power from wind turbines a gas-powered power plant has to be sitting in "spinning reserve" (emitting CO2 the whole time) just to be ready in case the wind stops blowing to replace the power produced by the wind turbines when the wind was blowing. Wind power is expensive and our power grid can't sustain fluctuations in output without idle power plants sitting by ready to pick up the slack when the wind stops blowing.

Please, click the link in the OP. Countries that built a lot of wind turbines (Germany and Denmark) have stopped building them and are regretting their investment in wind power. Lots of people here in the US have gotten rich off of wind power, and "we the people" paid the bill for it, but wind power can not meet our electricity needs (not now and probably never).

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kristopher]

10. Good going!!!

You are promoting information originally provided by the Heritage Foundation as a service to their friends in the fossil fuel, minerals mining, and coal power generating business.

When do you start spouting their "climate change isn't caused by man" rhetoric?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x178807

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=177849&mesg_id=177849

Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security

Mark Z. Jacobson Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,

Energy Environ. Sci., 2008, doi:10.1039/b809990C In press, October 30, 2008

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-E85 and cellulosic E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. ...

Summary
This paper evaluated nine electric power sources (solar-PV, CSP, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with CCS) and two liquid fuel options (corn E85, cellulosic E85) in combination with three vehicle technologies (BEVs, HFCVs, and E85 vehicles) with respect to their effects on global-warming-relevant emissions, air pollution mortality, and several other factors.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type were considered in all. Among these, the highest-ranked (Tier 1 technologies) were wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.

Tier 2 technologies were CSP-BEVs, Geo-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.

Tier 3 technologies were hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.

Tier 4 technologies were corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs performed best in six out of 11 categories, including mortality, climate-relevant emissions, footprint, water consumption, effects on wildlife, thermal pollution, and water chemical pollution. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 5.5-6 orders of magnitude less than that for E85 regardless of its source, 4 orders of magnitude less than those of CSP-BEVs or solar-BEVs, 3 orders of magnitude less than those of nuclear- or coal-BEVs, and 2-2.5 orders of magnitude less than those of geothermal, tidal, or wave BEVs.

The intermittency of wind, solar, and wave power can be reduced in several ways:
(1) interconnecting geographically-disperse intermittent sources through the transmission system,
(2) combining different intermittent sources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and wave) to smooth out loads, using hydro to provide peaking and load balancing,
(3) using smart meters to provide electric power to electric vehicles at optimal times,
(4) storing wind energy in hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydroelectric power, compressed air, or a thermal storage medium, and
(5) forecasting weather to improve grid planning.

Although HFCVs are less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs still provide a 39
greater benefit than any other vehicle technology aside from wind-BEVs. Wind-HFCVs are also the most reliable combination due to the low downtime of wind turbines, the distributed nature of turbines, and the ability of wind’s energy to be stored in hydrogen over time.

The Tier 2 combinations all provide outstanding benefits with respect to climate
and mortality. Among Tier 2 combinations, CSP-BEVs result in the lowest CO2e
emissions and mortality. Geothermal-BEVs requires the lowest array spacing among all options. Although PV-BEV result in slightly less climate benefit than CSP-BEVs, the resource for PVs is the largest among all technologies considered. Further, much of it can be implemented unobtrusively on rooftops. Underwater tidal powering BEVs is the least likely to be disrupted by terrorism or severe weather.

The Tier 3 technologies are less beneficial than the others. However,
hydroelectricity is an excellent load-balancer and cleaner than coal-CCS or nuclear with respect to CO2e and air pollution. As such, hydroelectricity is recommended ahead of these other Tier-3 power sources.

The Tier-4 technologies (cellulosic- and corn-E85) are not only the lowest in terms of ranking, but may worsen climate and air pollution problems. They also require significant land relative to other technologies Cellulosic-E85 may have a larger land footprint and higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Mainly for this reason, it scored lower overall than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality among all technologies, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-estimate risk of mortality due to the risk of nuclear attacks resulting from the spread of nuclear energy facilities that allows for the production of nuclear weapons. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest consumers are wind-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.

In sum, the use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, solar, wave, and hydroelectric to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs result in the most benefit and least impact among the options considered. Coal-CCS and nuclear provide less benefit with greater negative impacts. The biofuel options provide no certain benefit and result in significant negative impacts. Because sufficient clean natural resources (e.g., wind, sunlight, hot water, ocean energy, gravitational energy) exists to power all energy for the world, the results here suggest that the diversion of attention to the less efficient or non-efficient options would represent an opportunity cost that will delay solutions to climate and air pollution health problems.

The relative ranking of each electricity-BEV option also applies to the electricity source when used to provide electricity for general purposes. The implementation of the recommended electricity options for providing vehicle and building electricity requires organization. Ideally, good locations of energy resources would be sited in advance and developed simultaneously with an interconnected transmission system. This requires cooperation at multiple levels of government. ...
http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=EE&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b809990c&Iss=Advance_Article

[Laelth]

14. Good going!

You're promoting information that was used to enrich ENRON and Ken Lay, but that electrical engineers almost universally agree, provided no public benefit at great cost to taxpayers.

Wind power does not work. It's loud, destroys property values, endangers human health, and is terribly unreliable. Rich Republicans love it because it's heavily subsidized, but it can never meet America's energy needs.

See the North Texas Wind Resistance Alliance: http://www.nortexwind.org/index.htm

or

Keepers of the Blue Ridge: http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html

I feel like a complete sucker for ever having supported wind energy. Our progressive and ecologically-friendly desire for renewable sources of energy was used against against us with wind to enrich the already-wealthy at the public trough. There's a reason France built 58 nuclear power plants instead. Germany and Denmark are both regretting investing so much money into wind power. It was a mistake.

Wind power is a bad idea.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Dead_Parrot]

12. They do - up to a point

A couple of thoughts: Firstly, hydro makes a very good backup for wind - modern plants can fire up in a few seconds, and are the cleanest energy we've got (in terms of emissions, anyway). Obviously not going to be much scope for that in NM, but in general they're a good combo.

The other thing to consider is whether they're using gas anyway - And in NM's case, yes they are: 30% of their capacity, or a shade over 2GW, is produced by NG already, so by adding the same in wind they'd cut their NG use by 33% (or whatever the average wind loading is there): That's a 10% cut in fossil generation without breaking into a sweat. Taos Wind are only looking at 120MW in NM, so it's hardly going to go to waste.

Yes, countries with a high percentage of wind do run into problems, but that's a long way down the line for this area.

[Laelth]

15. Major, major problems.

Human health problems, especially, are significant with wind power. It's terribly inefficient and expensive. For every wind plant a gas-fired plant has to sit in idle reserve just in case the wind stops blowing. Net CO2 emission reductions are zero with wind power.

It's a bad idea.

-Laelth

[Nihil]

18. You are talking bollocks.

> Human health problems, especially, are significant with wind power.

This is simply bollocks when compared to any alternative method
of generating electricity.

That line alone nearly made me alert on you for trolling/flamebait as
it is so untrue. Still, giving you the benefit of the doubt ...


> It's terribly inefficient and expensive.

It can be. It doesn't have to be. Nothing in the OP article suggests
that this is one of the "inefficient & expensive" cases.


> For every wind plant a gas-fired plant has to sit in idle reserve
> just in case the wind stops blowing.

Not in every case, just when the power contribution gets above a certain
threshold (not applicable here). In any event, the consumption of NG when
"idle reserve" is far smaller than in active use so there is an obvious
saving here.


In every technology used to generate power, there will be some cases
around the world where it goes wrong, either through bad design or
simple human failings.

e.g.,
Solar generation in Spain - corruption (greed).
Nuclear power in America - corruption & inefficiency (greed & politics).
Hydroelectric in Egypt - trashing ancient history for money (politics).
Wind power in Altamont - poster child for bird blenders (stupidity/naivety).
Chernobyl - poster child for anti-nukes (stupidity).
Banqiao - most devastating dam disaster ever (stupidity/politics).

On the other hand, there are more examples of well-implemented and
beneficial projects in each arena.

You might have a gripe with wind power for personal reasons. That's fine.
There are many anti-nuclear power people with a similar approach ... :P

The point is that, in the right place and when properly managed, there is
nothing inherently wrong with wind generation. When it "goes wrong", it is
due to the same things that cause/allow things to "go wrong" with anything
else.

[Laelth]

19. Save your snark and alert away, if you must.

I'd be O.K. with wind energy if it weren't so noisy (and dangerously so--to human health), if it were efficient and cost-effective (which it isn't), if it were constant and reliable (which it isn't), if it weren't an environmental nightmare (which it is), and if it weren't a great scam to enrich powerful individuals with taxpayer dollars (which it is).

Here's a link to the study showing the harmful health effects: http://www.nortexwind.org/Nina%20Pierpont%20Wind_turbine_syndrome,_NYS_Energy_Committee_3-7-06.pdf


From the study, here are some of the adverse health effects:

1. Sleep problems, due to noise or sensations of pulsation or pressure, making it difficult to go to sleep and causing frequent awakening.

2. Headaches, which are increased in both frequency and duration.

3. Dizziness, unsteadiness, and nausea.

4. Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, and depression.

5. Problems with concentration and learning.

6. Tinnitus, a ringing in the ears.

Dr. Pierpont also reports that Vibroacoustic Disease (VAD) results from long term exposure to low-frequency noise, below the range of hearing, and is characterized by fibrous thickening in the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems, and seizures and cognitive changes in the brain. Air pressure (sound) waves, resonating inside the chest and skull, set up vibrations to which the body responds by reinforcing its softer tissues with extra collagen, causing thickening of the pericardium (membrane surrounding the heart) and cardiac valves, fibrosis of the lungs, and the proliferation of glial (supporting) cells in the brain. This condition was first studied in pilots, flight attendants, and aviation technicians, but is found in other industrial and community settings. Medical researchers have found that the low-frequency noise intensities in the vicinity of wind turbines are in the range which can cause VAD, particularly with prolonged in-home and overnight exposures.

Wind power is a bad idea.

:dem:

-Laelth

[jpak]

31. Human health problems?? Got a peer reviewed medical study to back that up?

Nope

None exist.

"For every wind plant a gas-fired plant has to sit in idle reserve just in case the wind stops blowing."

More horseshit

In Denmark and the Pacific Northwest hydroelectricity is used to balance wind loads.

Here in Maine, we have 2000 MW of wind power capacity that will go on-line in the next 10 years - and will build a 1000 MW underground pumped storage hydroelectric plant to balance variable wind loads.

No gas required

[Strelnikov_]

17. Lots of potential for pump back hydro in this area

Upper Rio Grande runs through a canyon, lots of static potential. Good base flow, probably no need for re-reg dams on river. Need to obtain water rights due to evaporation potential could be an issue if reservoir is not located in canyon-side ravines to limit surface area.

[XemaSab]

35. I'm not a fan of hydro

It's terrible for the fish, bad for the rivers, and living downriver from a HUGH dam scares me.

Any "solution" that involves building more hydro is not cool by me.

[Dead_Parrot]

49. Yeah, I know

But at least we only fuck up a small bits of the planet rather than the whole thing, and it's the only on-demand renewable we have. Besides, I suspect there's still quite a few places where we can drop in pumped storage without stuffing a river.

[XemaSab]

50. I dunno how things are down there in NZ

but here in Cali and the rest of the west, the rivers are a source of massive, massive biodiversity in an often fairly uniform landscape.

Here in the north Valley, it's oaks, chaparral, grasslands, and the rivers and creeks.

[Dead_Parrot]

52. Well, we're spoilt for choice here

Large chunks of the country consist of rain and mountains, so finding suitable valleys has been fairly easy. They're also getting inventive with run-of river schemes: There's one about to start near Blenhiem (a dry area) where they'll replace a section of riverbed with porous rock, allowing them to take a chunk of water without any sort of dam - It should be invisible, in fact. If they've got the sums right, it should be quite groovy: And then there's the barge-mounted turbines Jpak mentioned recently as another alternative.

But yeah, there are limited options in the drier patches of the US, and whilst I'm a fan of hydro I wouldn't want to see any island ecologies flooded out. There are better (if unmentionable) alternatives for those areas...

Plus pumped hydro if you can spare the water to keep it topped up, of course. Might also be a good use of waste water, if you can site it near a city.

[XemaSab]

53. We've got all kinds of action going on here

Pumped hydro sounds good, but I'm concerned about the impact to rivers from such projects.

Here the problem is not only hydro power, but water for agriculture.

We've got a lot of dams, a lot of rivers diverted into other basins, some off-channel storage... there are very few natural, free-flowing rivers here.

[Dead_Parrot]

54. Well it depends how well it's done...

...there's always scope for a cheap-ass cock-up: Every case is different, so it's difficult to generalise.

I remember the first time I discovered those floodways in LA were technically a river:



Now that's fucked up.

[jpak]

22. More horseshit

Total EU wind power capacity installed by the end of 2007 will avoid about 90 million tonnes of CO2 annually and produce 119 Terawatt hours in an average wind year.

Denmark to Increase Wind Power to 50% by 2025, Mostly Offshore

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/infocus/story?id=46749

Our future energy supply faces numerous challenges and has become subject to unstable international conditions. To meet these challenges, offshore wind has a key role to play. Offshore windpower can contribute significantly to achieving the EU goals of a 21 percent share of renewable electricity by 2010, halting global warming and reducing our dependence on coal, oil and gas.

We have come a long way since the 1980s, when most electricity production was based on coal and when the acidification of forests and lakes by acid rain was the predominant theme in the environmental debate. Today wind power provides 20% of Danish electricity consumption.

Within a few years, the wind power industry has grown to become a significant industrial sector providing huge benefits for exports and employment. We are now talking about windpower generation plants rather than single turbines, and the Danish wind power industry is at the leading edge in an ever more competitive global market.

In the energy strategy for 2025 the Government expects to see a significant increase in the use of renewable energy in the years to come. The market-based expansion of this sector will be brought about through incentive schemes and investment in physical infrastructure as well as research-, development- and demonstration.

<more>

[Laelth]

23. Nice link to a 2006 article (pure horseshit).

Denmark has changed its mind about wind power. They don't want any more. Canada said the same thing in 2006.

Article here: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=7235a029-e0cb-479d-aeb6-ef19c4fc32f5&p=1

Wind power is a bad idea.

Do you sell wind turbines for a living or work for a company that does? Why's your tone so aggressive?

:shrug:

-Laelth

[jpak]

24. It's horseshit - a RW op-ed in the National Post??

:rofl:

Canada becomes 12th country in the world to surpass 2,000 MW of installed wind energy capacity

http://www.canwea.ca/media/release/release_e.php?newsId=51

Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) today announced Canada has officially become the 12th country in the world to surpass 2,000 MW of installed wind energy capacity. Wind currently supplies about 1 per cent of Canada’s electricity demand, with 85 wind farms representing approximately 2,246 MW of generating capacity producing enough power to meet the needs of 671,000 homes.

Global leaders in installed wind energy capacity include Germany at 23,300 MW; the U.S. at 20,413 MW; Spain at 15,900 MW; China at 9,000 MW; and India at 8,757 MW. Over the past ten years, global wind energy capacity has continued to grow at an average cumulative rate of over 32 per cent. Between now and 2020, close to $1 trillion (US) in global investment is projected to bring global installed capacity to well over 500,000 MW.

“Surpassing the 2,000 MW mark represents a significant milestone for the wind energy industry in Canada. We believe, however, that we have only scratched the surface in terms of the role wind energy can and must play in Canada’s clean energy future,” said Robert Hornung, President of CanWEA. “Achieving our industry goal of meeting 20 per cent of the country’s electricity needs with wind energy by the year 2025 will generate $79 billion (CDN) in new investments, create more than 52,000 new jobs, and provide economic development opportunities for rural communities throughout Canada.”
Wind Vision 2025 – Powering Canada’s Future, argues that Canada has the potential to make wind energy one of Canada’s next great economic opportunities, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing other environmental concerns.

<snip>

Ontario is the current provincial leader with installed wind energy capacity at 781 MW. Quebec follows at 531 MW; Alberta at 524 MW; Saskatchewan at 171 MW; Manitoba at 103 MW; Prince Edward Island at 72 MW; and Nova Scotia at 61 MW. Over the coming year it is anticipated that every province will be generating some electrical power from wind – and there is a clear consensus at all levels of government on the need to move towards a more sustainable electricity future.

<more>

But wait,,,there's more!

CanWEA applauds announcement of Canada’s largest wind farm

http://canwea.ca/media/release/release_e.php?newsId=50

The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) today congratulated Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Government on news of the acceptance of a proposal by St. Joseph Wind Farm Inc. to develop Canada’s largest single wind farm near Letellier in southern Manitoba. The wind farm, which is expected to begin operating as early as 2011, will feature 130 turbines producing 300 MW of electricity.

“This announcement confirms what we have been advocating for some time – that wind energy is competitively priced and able to make a major contribution to both the economic and environmental portfolios,” said Robert Hornung, CanWEA President. “CanWEA and its members look forward to working with the government and Manitoba Hydro to develop even more clean power as the province aims to reach its goal of developing 1,000 MW of wind energy by 2016. We are hopeful the government and Manitoba Hydro will shortly announce the timelines for processes to procure the remaining 700 MW of wind.”

The St. Joseph Wind Farm project will deliver significant economic benefits to rural Manitoba, including $300 million in operational expenditures, $70 million in local landholder payments, and $198 million in provincial and municipal revenues over the life of the project. In terms of environmental benefits, the wind farm will displace 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year, the equivalent of taking 145,000 cars off the road.

This reflects the economic and environmental opportunity that wind represents across Canada, said Hornung. Canada’s wind industry goal of meeting 20 per cent of the country’s electricity needs with wind energy by the year 2025 will generate $79 billion (CDN) in new investments and create more than 52,000 new jobs, mostly in rural areas. Wind Vision 2025 – Powering Canada’s Future, argues that Canada has the potential to make wind energy the country’s next great economic and environmental opportunity.

<more>

[Laelth]

25. Thanks for the links.

I like this quote from the second piece:

"Wind currently supplies about 1 per cent of Canada’s electricity demand, with 85 wind farms representing approximately 2,500 MW of generating capacity to be in place by the end of this year."

Not worth the cost or the blight if you ask me (which you didn't). I was unaware that the "National Post" was a right-wing publication. Compared to American media, it seems quite sane to me. The point was pretty clear, though, without any political bias. The grid has trouble handling the fluctuations in power created by wind. That causes serious problems, regardless of your politics.

I also like this site's stories from Danish people (not the govt., obviously) who react to the NIMBY factor of wind farm noise pollution: http://www.wind-watch.org/news/category/locations/europe/denmark/page/2/

It's tragic. Vestas is making billions and doing very little good for the world in the process.

:dem:

-Laelth

[jpak]

27. Wind generated electricity is cheaper than nuclear and gas-electricity and competitive with coal

and I have lived and worked in Denmark.

There were three 50 kW Vestas turbines less than 100 m from my apartment.

They did not make any noise and operated even under very low wind conditions and I never saw any dead birds.

Vestas has sold over 35,000 wind turbines world-wide that produce 60 million MWh every year – enough electricity to supply every household in a country the size of Spain.

"doing very little good for the world in the process" indeed.

BTW wind-watch.org IS a NIMBY outfit...

[Laelth]

32. Does Vestas pay well?

Wish I had time to discuss this with you further, but I am not a lobbyist. I am merely a citizen who's interested in intelligent energy policy. I am not paid to promote the wind industry's interests. Now I have to get back to work.

Peace.

-Laelth

[jpak]

33. Does Massey Energy pay well??? Exxon-Mobil???

:evilgrin:

[Laelth]

38. Sorry. I am an attorney in a state with little or no wind resources.

I have no dog in this fight except that I hate to see American taxpayers robbed.

:dem:

-Laelth

[jpak]

43. How are they being robbed??? - clue: they are not

And you live in a state that has offshore wind resources - Ga Tech has done the research - it is economically and technically viable.

And Saxby and Little Johnny will oppose a national renewable portfolio standard even though Georgia lots of sunshine to power PV arrays and solar hot water sytems.

[Nihil]

56. Your only dog in this fight is professional courtesy ...

... the only winners in the NIMBY actions of the OP are the lawyers
and other legal parties - not the taxpayers, not the NIMBY residents,
not the state and not the environment.

Your "liberal" spreading of FUD across this thread makes me wonder
if you are as unconnected to the issue as you claim.

[kristopher]

28. I'm going to presume you are uninformed.

As I wrote before, these sites you are parroting are a product of the same campaign that is waged against climate science by owners of resources that will be adversely affected by the transition to renewables. Your "health expert" for example, conducted a handful of interviews using a methodology that failed to control for cause and effect. The most logical interpretation of her "results" (which are contradicted by a pretty large number of academic studies that show no such problem) is that people who intensely disliked the turbines were suffering from the stress. This is the same reaction you'd find if someone stressed out because they are opposed to the building of a convenience store across the road.

At this point in timewWind is the primary renewable resource that can replace coal - and the owners of coal and coal generating resources stand to lose huge sums of money. To that end they have started a misinformation campaign that seeks to exacerbate and exploit the fear/dislike of change a normal percentage of people ALWAYS feel when changes are proposed for their area.

The "FACTS" you are trotting out are ALL FALSE. From the health issues to the grid integration issues, they are FALSE.

Here is a short reading list for you. Your "2 hour" self study routine of right wing instigated sites has let you down.


Agre, Philip E., “Cyberspace as American Culture” Science as Culture 11(2), 2002 pages 171-189

Brewer, Joe., Lakoff, George., “Comparing Climate Proposals: A Case Study in Cognitive Policy” available online at http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org

Chong, Dennis., and Druckman, James N., “A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments”. Journal of Communication (2007), 57 (1), 99–118.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x

DeFilippis, James “Alternatives to the “New Urban Politics”: finding locality and autonomy in local economic development”. Political Geography 18 (1999) 973–990
www.elsevier.com/locate/polgeo

Devine-Wright, Patrick., “Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy”. Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University, Queen's Building, The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Digital Object Identifier (DOI)10.1002/we.124

Devine-Wright, Patrick and Lyons, Evanthia., “REMEMBERING PASTS AND REPRESENTING PLACES:THE CONSTRUCTION OF NATIONAL IDENTITIES IN IRELAND”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 17, Issue 1, March 1997, Pages 33-45. ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WJ8-45KV14B-3/2/52e0e0082e873a2a7d7644f8eb3324c7 )

Dixon, John., Durrheim, Kevin., “Displacing place-identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other” British Journal of Social Psychology, (2000), 39, 27-44

Douglas, Mary., and Wildavsky, Aaron., “How Can We Know the Risks We Face? Why Risk Selection Is a Social Process”
Risk Analysis (1982) 2 (2), 49–58.
doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01365.x

Granovskii, Mikhail., Dincer, Ibrahim., and Rosen, Marc A., “Economic and environmental comparison of conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles”. Journal of Power Sources, Volume 159, Issue 2, 22 September 2006, Pages 1186-1193.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TH1-4J2M1S8-2/2/ecd82072151b9c00f4017436e05b6276)

Haggett, Claire., Toke, David., “Crossing the Great Divide - Using Multi-method Analysis to Understand Opposition to Windfarms”. Public Administration (2006) 84 (1), 103–120. doi:10.1111/j.0033-3298.2006.00495.x

Hamilton, Roger., “Can We Harness the Wind?” National Geographic, 148:6 Dec. 1975

Hansen, James, E., “Scientific reticence and sea level rise” Environ. Res. Lett. 2 (2007) 024002 (6pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA
http://www.stacks.iop.org/ERL/2/024002


Jacques, Peter., “The Rearguard of Modernity: Environmental Skepticism as a Struggle
Of Citizenship” Global Environmental Politics 6:1, February2006

Jacques, Peter, J., Dunlap, riley, E., Freeman, Mark., The Organisation of Denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism”. Environmental Politics, 17:3, 349-385

Jayadev, J., "Harnessing the wind". Spectrum, IEEE , vol.32, no.11, pp.78-83, Nov 1995

Johansson, Maria., and Laike, Thorbjˆrn., “Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual perception”. Wind Energy 2007 DOI: 10.1002/we.232 US: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/we.232

Kahn, Robert D., “Siting Struggles: The Unique Challenge of Permitting Renewable Energy Power Plants”. The Electricity Journal, Volume 13, Issue 2, March 2000, Pages 21-33. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VSS-3YWXK90-6/2/84e66d7379541101e914bd365d164510)

Katz, James Everett., “US energy policy Impact of the Reagan Administration” Energy Policy, Vol. 12, 2, 135-145, 1984/6 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4903GX2-5P/1/45d37b483c5ab2c267e065b98c12b11f

Kempton, Willett., Firestone, Jeremy., Lilley, Jonathan., Rouleau, Tracy., Whitaker, Phillip., The Offshore Wind Power Debate: Views from Cape Cod” Coastal Management, 33:119-149, 2005

Krohn, Soren., and Damborg, Steffen., “On public attitudes towards wind power”. Renewable Energy, Volume 16, Issues 1-4, Renewable Energy Energy Efficiency, Policy and the Environment, January-April 1999, Pages 954-960.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V4S-3V3YWDV-6F/2/a10b7d3f8cbfa4c048667a99010fb76b)

Lakoff, George., “Framing the Dems: How conservatives control political debate and how progressives can take it back”. 22 Sept. 2003 www.prospect.org

Lakoff, George., “Thinking Points: Communicating our American Values and Vision” 8/23/06 online at http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org

Laverack, Glenn. and Wallerstein, Nina. “Measuring Community Empowerment”. Health Promotion International, Volume 16:2, 2001, Pages 179-185.

Lord, John and Peggy Hutchison, “The Process of Empowerment: Implications for Theory and Practice”. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health 12:1, Spring 1993, Pages 5-22.

Manzo, Lynne C., and Perkins, Douglas D., “Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning”. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 20, No. 4, 335-350 (2006) DOI: 10.1177/0885412205286160

Michaels, David. “Doubt is Their Product”. Scientific American, June 2005, 96-101

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011702837_pf.html

Mufson, Steven., “Coal Industry Plugs Into the Campaign” Washington Post Friday, January 18, 2008; D01

Mufson, Steven., “Rebuffing the Rockefellers” Washington Post Friday, May 29, 2008; D01

Narum, David., “A troublesome legacy : The Reagan Administration's conservation and renewable energy policy”. Energy Policy Vol. 20, 1, 40-53 1992/1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-48XVKJJ-3H/1/907e6cc02f8879f510bfd3df5676bd57

Nichols, Shaun., and Mallon, Ron., “Moral dilemmas and moral rules, Cognition, Volume 100, Issue 3, July 2006, Pages 530-542.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T24-4H39366-2/2/540dc506ea13c1bddd4e5b898260e20b)

Oliver, Pamela E., and Johnston, Hank, “What a Good Idea! Frames and Ideologies in Social Movement Research” Mobilization International Journal, 2000,

Oreskes, Naomi., “Science and Public Policy”. Environmental Science and Policy, 363, 1-15 2004

Oreskes, Naomi., “Anti-Realism in Government” Science 2005 VOL 310, 56

Oreskes, Naomi., Testimony before Congress, December 6, 2006

Pasqualetti, Martin J., Review author: “Living with Risk: The Geography of Technological Hazards. Susan L. Cutter, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 86, No. 1. (Mar., 1996), pp. 156-157.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-5608%28199603%2986%3A1%3C156%3ALWRTGO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Pasqualetti, Martin J., “Morality, Space, and the Power of Wind-Energy Landscapes
Geographical Review, Vol. 90, No. 3. (Jul., 2000), pp. 381-394.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-7428%28200007%2990%3A3%3C381%3AMSATPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
Powell, Lewes, F. Jr., “Attack of American Free Enterprise System” Confidential Memorandum to Eugene B. Syndor Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 23 August 1971

Shackley, Simon., Mandera, Sarah., and Alexander Reichea. “Public perceptions of underground coal gasification in the United Kingdom” Energy Policy, Volume 34, Issue 18, December 2006, Pages 3423-3433
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.07.010

Shulman, Seth., “Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How ExxonMobile Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science”. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007. http://www.usc.org

Smits, Martijntje., “Taming monsters: The cultural domestication of new technology”. Technology in Society, Volume 28, Issue 4, November 2006, Pages 489-504.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V80-4MBBYW9-1/2/33a15511c16c1ade209ff3e65353ee5a)


Social problems : divergent perspectives
by Thomas J Sullivan; ; et al
New York : Wiley, ©1980.

Tempalski, Barbara., Friedman, Risa., Keem, Marie., Cooper, Hannah., Friedman, Samuel R. “NIMBY localism and national inequitable exclusion alliances:
The case of syringe exchange programs in the United States”
www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum Geoforum xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

Wolsink, Maarten., Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (2006) 31 (1), 85–91. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00191.x

Wolsink, Maarten., Wind Power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support” Renewable Energy 21, (2000) 49-64

Wolsink, Maarten., Wind Power Implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of “backyard motives”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 6 August 2007 Pages 1188-1207

van der Horst, Dan., “NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies”. Energy Policy, Volume 35, Issue 5, May 2007, Pages 2705-2714.
( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4MVN0B0-1/2/b325383637fdff6f428731d437a08dda )


Driesen, David M., "Renewable Energy under the Kyoto Protocol: The Case for Mixing Instruments". A GLOBALLY INTEGRATED CLIMATE POLICY FOR CANADA, Steven Bernstein et al. eds., University of Toronto Press, 2007 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1030018

[Laelth]

30. I am going to presume you work for the wind power industry.

:)

-Laelth

[kristopher]

34. You presume wrong.

I just care about the facts and want to see action on climate change.

Why are you so determined to present false information? There is plenty of well sourced factual data available, so why are you peddling trash?

In my first response to you I provided a good peer reviewed study comparing the externalities of energy sources; a study that addresses several of your false claims. You ignored it and went to an obviously biased website instead.

Your bio says you are an attorney, so I know that you understand the import of the sourcing for the information you are using. Why are you doing it?

[Laelth]

39. The TRUTH (not false information at all)

Find it here: http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html

Excerpted from the link above:

Wind Energy is a Failed Technology – evidence from around the world

* Germany (size of Montana ) is the world's largest user of wind technology. Over the last 20 years, Germany has erected 18,000 wind turbines that have only been able to generate 6% of the country's total electricity supply.

* In Feb. 2005, the German Government's energy agency released a report that concluded that wind plants were an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy and also had serious environmental effects.

* This same report suggested reduction of greenhouse gases could be more effectively and cheaply reduced by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants.

* Denmark has 6000 wind turbines; in 2003 that country's greenhouse gas emissions increased 7.3% over 2002 levels.

* Despite being blanketed with wind turbines, Denmark has not been able to shut down one single conventional power plant.

* Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. The Government has canceled plans for three offshore wind plants for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies for existing sites.

* The California Energy Commission reported that the state's 14,000 turbines produced half of one percent of their electricity in 2002. Extrapolating this record to the U.S. as a whole, it would take over 100,000 wind turbines spread over 10 million acres of land (costing $150-300 billion) to produce 5% of the country's electricity.

* Kansas politician Frank Miller was quoted in a press release stating wind plants in Kansas were only expected to supply 1% of the energy used in the state.

* The Wind Industry is meeting much public resistance in Europe, especially in Germany and Denmark , the inefficiency has become apparent and people are angry at the cost of wasted resources. The industry is searching for a bigger market in the U.S. to replace lost sales in Europe.

Wind Energy – Inefficient and Unreliable

* Because of its inherent technical limitations and the fluctuating nature of its power source, no other type of industrial power generation has such poor performance.

* Wind Developers often dwell on wind turbines' installed capacity ; they provide facts and figures based on what the turbines can produce at 100% capacity.

* Because of the fluctuating nature of wind, the amount of energy produced by wind plants is expressed as an average annual output called capacity factor. Research proves that average annual capacity for wind plants is only 15-30% of their installed capacity.

* Due to the intermittency of wind power, all wind turbine plants must have stand-by generators that are powered by fossil fuels. These backup generators must idle 24 hrs a day (emitting considerable amounts of greenhouse gases for nothing) in order to be ready to generate electricity when the wind turbines aren't functioning – wind energy is not clean.

* In a 2003 study, the California Energy Commission studied 3 wind plants and estimated that they had an average capacity credit of 23.9%. The estimated capacity credit for wind energy in the state will be 5%.

* Evidence available from California, Texas, and Ontario suggests that many wind facilities sited on land will achieve capacity credits averaging only in the single digit range.

* A study in Germany proved that for more than half the days in 2004, the sum of wind plant output to the grid was lower than 11% of its capacity.

* In the U.K. 1,010 wind turbines produced 0.1% of their electricity in 2002.

* It would take over 2000 large wind turbines (with a generous capacity factor of 30%) spread over hundreds of miles to equal the power of one 1600 MW conventional power plant situated on a few acres.

* Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. They don't produce power until wind speed reaches 8 mph; reach rated capacity around 33 mph, and shut down at 55 mph because of possible damage to the blades. Their output is intermittent, volatile, and unpredictable.

* This unpredictability causes “grid instability”. Electricity grids must be kept in balance (supply & demand, voltage, frequency) which is why wind power must have back up generators to ramp up and down to balance the unreliable output from wind turbines.

* Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind generated power they buy because of the grid instability they cause.

* For the same reason, in Dec. 2003, Ireland halted all new wind power connections to the national grid and have plans to end state supported subsidies.

* In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections and in 2006 Spain ended all subsidies.

* In 2004, Australia reduced the amount of wind power that utilities are required to buy bringing wind projects to an almost stand still.

* Switzerland is also cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit from wind power.

* It must also be noted that months of peak demand for electricity (summer months) coincide with months of low or no wind.

The Winners & The Losers – huge tax breaks for the Wind Industry while the taxpayers and electric customers pick up the tab.

* On a per kilowatt basis, no other form of industrial energy has recently received higher public subsidy than wind.

* Wind plants are now being built primarily for tax avoidance purposes, not because of their environmental, energy, or economic benefits.

* The tax breaks and subsidies have more value to wind plant owners than the revenue from the sale of the small amount of electricity they produce.

* The big winners are the Wind Industry, the Wind Developer, and a few landowners who lease their land. Electric customers and taxpayers are the big losers.

* Many states have approved Renewable Portfolio standards (RPS) that force utility companies to purchase electricity from wind plants at extremely high prices – this cost is passed on to the consumer.

* Publicly funded tax schemes (production tax credits and double-declining depreciation) reimburse as much as 75% of the wind plant owner's capital cost for each of the $1.65 million wind turbines. You, the taxpayer, are practically paying for the wind plants and will also be paying higher prices for the expensive, small amount of electricity wind turbines produce.

* According to Citizens for Tax Justice, Florida Power and Light Group, (FLP) (largest owner of wind capacity in the U.S. ) paid NO federal income taxes in 2002 and 2003 while reporting net income of more than $2 billion. Those were the years that FLP invested heavily in wind plants. They took more than $1.2 billion in depreciation in those years.

* The Wind Industry has powerful lobbyists in Washington , D.C. placing intense pressure on our politicians. In the not so distant future, if the Wind Industry and Wind Developers are successful, hundreds of thousands of massive turbines will dominate our landscapes while doing virtually nothing to solve the problems of fossil fuel dependency. Subsidies given to industrial wind technology diverts money that could be used in research for other more reliable forms of alternative energy.

* Despite the facts, its unclear if legislators, local government officials, and regulators will temper enthusiasm for wind energy, since so many have accepted the false claims and inaccurate information distributed by the wind industry and advocates. Also, they are well aware of wind industry lobbying power and campaign contributions.

* Wind Developers claim that they increase the local tax base. Research proves those gains are more than offset by the loss of open land, loss of tourism, the decrease in property values, and the taxes and fees consumers must pay to subsidize the industry.

* A survey of property assessors in the UK found that a nearby wind facility lowers property values by up to 15% per year for 2 years.

* In the discussion of property values, it must be remembered that in most places values increase steadily. So any slowing down of that normal rise because of wind power facilities is in fact a loss of value.

* The Wind Industry also claims to create many jobs - a typical wind plant requires one low paid maintenance worker.

Collateral Damage – wind energy is NO FRIEND to the environment

* Ordinary citizens are beginning to realize that wind plants are not environmentally benign. Instead, wind energy has high economic, environmental, ecological, scenic and property value costs.

* Wind plants cause considerable environmental damage to the surrounding countryside. Each wind turbine requires the clear-cutting of at least 4 - 6 acres and another 35 - 75 acres for infrastructure support, i.e. access roads, tensions lines, substations, pool-size irremovable concrete bases, etc.

* Often it is necessary to blast through bedrock, potentially disrupting water flow to existing wells downhill.

* Adverse impacts include erosion, destruction of wildlife habitat, interference with bird migration paths, massive bird kills, destruction of scenic vistas, noise, lowering of property values, distracting blade flicker and aircraft warning lights.

* We must take into consideration the greenhouse gases that are produced by the construction and installation of wind plants: the manufacture of steel, the concrete bases, asphalt for roads, the fuel burned by earth-moving equipment, production of tension lines, pylons, substations, and back-up generators – all for a technology that performs at 15 -30% capacity. It's clear that no real savings will be achieved in greenhouse gas emissions.

* At the Buffalo Mountain wind plant in Tennessee , each turbine foundation is 30 ft deep and contains approx. 3,500 cubic yards of concrete. Concrete production is one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions.

* It has been estimated that a wind plant must be in production for seven years to offset the carbon emissions created in the manufacture of just the concrete needed for their placement.

* A wind plant stands to be seen from at least 20 miles around, meaning it has the potential of degrading the scenery of 1,256 square miles. Western N.C. economies are dependent on the vacation home business and tourists that are attracted to the area for its scenic views, and natural undisturbed environment.

* Then there is the bird problem. The California Energy Commission reported that in 1989 the wind turbines in Altamont Pass killed 60 golden eagles and 300 redtail hawks, not to mention smaller birds.

* Norway researchers Winkleman and Karlsson counted 49 birds killed by a single turbine during one night of migration.

* The U.S Fish and Wildlife Services estimate that European wind power kills 37 birds per turbine per year. Extrapolating that figure to 50 turbines equals the potential for a small wind plant to kill almost 20,000 birds over a 10 year period.

* At least 2000 bats were killed on Backbone Mountain in West Virginia in just 2 months during their 2003 fall migration.

* A 2002 study in Spain estimated that 11,200 birds of prey, 350,000 bats, and 3,000,000 small birds are killed each year by wind turbines and their power lines.

Enter at Your Own Risk - Noise, Fire, and Health Hazards

* The Wind Industry typically plays down the noise problem but it is widely known that in the leases between land owners and developers there is a “noise easement” to protect the wind company from liability. Any complaints or lawsuits would be against the land owner.

* The noise problem is well documented – in Oct. 2005, Germany hosted the First International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise and discussed perspectives for noise control.

* The European Union published results of a 5 year investigation into wind power and found noise complaints to be valid, and that noise levels could not be predicted before developing a site.

* A Meyersdale, Pa resident, Bob Laravee, who lives 3000 ft. from a wind plant, documented noise levels over a 48 hr. period. The results showed an average reading of 75 decibels. According to the EPA, 45 decibels disturb sleep.

* It is difficult to predict noise levels in mountainous terrain. Only a “swishing” may be heard directly underneath a turbine, but farther away the resulting sound of several turbines together has been described to be as loud as a motorcycle or a jet engine.

* In March 2006, Dr Nina Pierpont testified before the N.Y. State Legislature Committee about “Wind Turbine Syndrome” which affects many people living in the vicinity of wind turbines, This syndrome includes chronic sleep problems, severe headaches, dizziness, concentration problems, inner ear problems, etc. People with a history of car sickness, migraines, and inner ear problems are more susceptible.

* Dr. Pierpont also reported that some people feel disturbing pulsations in their chests and ears even when they can't see or hear the wind turbines. Sensitivity to low frequency vibration is highly variable in people and poorly understood. The strobe effect of turbines can also provoke seizures in people with epilepsy.

* An interesting note – the Nazis used low-frequency noise as a form of torture.

* Wind turbines are subject to metal fatigue and the effects of ice and wind, parts and whole blades have torn off because of malfunction, flying as far as 8 kilometers and through the window of a home in one case. Whole towers have collapsed in Germany (as recently as 2002) and the U.S.
(e.g. Oklahoma, May 2005).

* California reports 35 turbine generated fires per year due to short circuiting and lightning. A single turbine may contain up to 200 gallons of oil; the transformer at the base of each turbine may contain another 500 gallons of oil. In rural areas even a spark can easily develop into a large fire before discovery is made and fire fighting can begin.

* There are currently many lawsuits around the world due to wind plant noise, lowered property values, and negative health effects. Communities are angry at being forced to become live-in power plants.

The above was posted so that readers of DU could read an alternative opinion to wind industry propaganda. Again, I invite you all to research the mater for yourselves.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kristopher]

40. All you're providing is propaganda from the fossil fuel industry.

Go to HeritageFoundation.org, the premier wingnut think tank, and you'll find all of your inaccurate and out of context information gathered for dissemination through groups like the one you are shilling for.

Show us this type of information from peer reviewed sources and you might have an argument. You won't be able to do that, however, because it is bullshit that can't get past peer review.

[Laelth]

42. And the fact that wind power does NOTHING to reduce our need for fossil fuels means nothing to you?

:shrug:

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[jpak]

44. The "Fact" - you have no facts

sorry...

Wind Energy Could Reduce CO2 Emissions 10B Tons by 2020

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/infocus/story?id=54085

The "Global Wind Energy Outlook 2008", published by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) and Greenpeace International, looks at the global potential of wind power up to 2050 and found that it could play a key part in achieving a decline in emissions by 2020. By 2020, wind power could save as much as 1.5 billion tons of CO2 every year, which would add up to over 10 billion tonnes in this timeframe.

The report also explains how wind energy can provide up to 30% of the word’s electricity by the middle of the century. More importantly, wind power could save as much as 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 every year by 2020.

GWEO 2008 explores three different scenarios for wind power:

A reference scenario based on figures from the International Energy Agency (IEA)
A moderate version which assumes that current targets for renewable energy are successful
An advanced scenario which assumes that all policy options in favour of renewables have been adopted
These are then set against two demand projections for global energy demand.

<more>

[kristopher]

48. Go to your source website and find out who is responsible for the information

The only source you'll find is another website called "Industrial Wind Action Group". Who are they? It doesn't say. Are they qualified to examine the issue and evaluate the evidence to produce the conclusions they provide you with? We don't know because we don't know who is behind it.

Why do they maintain secrecy?

These are "astroturf" groups that are putting out false information. You are helping them.

Why?

[Dogmudgeon]

57. IWAG is far from secret

From the organization name you provided, I was able to find quite a bit of information about them inside of about ten minutes, including their names, their history, leads for references, several transcripts of testimony and statements they have given opposing a number of wind projects, and various local groups they worked with.

They don't maintain secrecy at all.

And I'm not even particularly supportive of them.

There is a common conceit in politics: that The Opposition is utterly corrupt and immoral, and their every act is malign. It's "The Devil Theory" of public affairs. And it's not particularly persuasive.

You may not agree with them, but that doesn't make them wrong, evil, subversive, or un-American. Just opposed to wind energy projects.

--p!

[kristopher]

65. Perhaps you would share the information then.

[kristopher]

67. I've done another check and I don't see the transparency you claim

I say it isn't there but I'd be very interested if you can demonstrate differently.

[jpak]

45. Your link has an anti-wind power rant by REPUBLICAN congressman Frank Miller of Kansas

Your slip is showing

[Laelth]

62. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Wind turbines, on the other hand, are wrong all day, all the time.

Wind Power BLOWS

:hi:

-Laelth

[jpak]

66. Republican anti-wind assholes blow

:hi:

[LeftyMom]

21. If she had anything significant, it'd go in a format subject to peer review.

:shrug:

[Laelth]

6. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Inspired by the piece, I spent about 2 hours researching wind energy. 2 hours ago I would have told you that it was a good idea. Now I see, as Europe and Canada are now discovering, wind power is a complete disaster--a powerful tool for looting national treasuries, not environmentally friendly, a serious health hazard, an environmental hazard, and a public nuisance. In fact, I am astounded by how badly it performs. It simply can not begin to meet a fraction of our energy needs, and it is a waste of precious national resources.

I encourage all Duers who think wind energy is a good idea (as I did a couple of hours ago) to do some cursory research and find out for yourselves. Your desire to do good and produce clean power is being exploited by evil people who want tax subsidies but who know that wind power does not work.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--it's late, and I am tired. :)

[Sheri]

9. wind power stinks!

it's a waste of valuable tax money. it produces very little power and it's not even reliable. it's not environmentally friendly, either.

how come i've seen three threads touting wind energy on this site just tonight? is the wind power industry seeking another hand-out from the american taxpayer?

[Dogmudgeon]

11. I wouldn't go quite that far ...

It isn't perfect, and it does have some limitations; and badly-planned wind turbines and farms can be a real disaster. But wind energy can certainly help supplement our base energy supply in many locations. It's fairly cheap, too, even if we decide to get a lot stricter siting and construction.

The subsidy issue is an entire area to itself. I don't oppose them, but there are plenty of greedheads in any energy regime. Spain and Germany have started investigating their wind and solar industries to rout out fraud, and it's certain that Obama will do the same in a few months. There is too much at stake to permit corruption to get established. Sadly, it comes with the territory (the territory being Capitalism).

Anyway, I posted the story because it was wacky, not particularly serious. It IS serious to the people involved, but I'm sure they will work things out.

There are a number of "cheerleaders" in this forum, and some of them get quite ... intense. There are also usually a lot more than just three uncritical pro-wind threads active. Critical analysis is not a popular on-line pursuit. It comes with the territory (the territory being the Internet).

And, before I forget, Welcome to DU!

:hi:

--p!

[MrModerate]

13. Every other fat-cat is getting handouts . . .

why should power producers be any different?

But seriously, you'd better gird your loins for "handouts" to alternative energy producers in the very new future, because for the first time ever there's going to be an administration genuinely interested in developing alternative sources big-time.

[jpak]

26. You will be sorely disappointed with Obama's Energy Plan

:evilgrin:

[tinrobot]

29. Natural gas stinks

Wind power blows.

[XemaSab]

36. Oil wells suck.

Hydro's all wet.

[Laelth]

41. Wind power blows (and it's worse than any form of power generation previously listed)

See "The TRUTH" above.

:)

:dem:

-Laelth

[jpak]

46. Horseshit

:)

[diane in sf]

51. More dirty energy trolls, Nnukey must be recruiting

[Nihil]

55. Oi!

As one who has regularly (albeit inaccurately) been called
a "pro-nuke troll", I'd like to point out that several of the
other pro-nuclear people here are also slagging off this total
heap of crap that is masquerading as a side-thread as it is
not just largely fact-free but totally factually WRONG.

This isn't one of the usual "pro-N vs anti-N" pissing matches but
an unrelated heap of "unprocessed biofuel" that has been dropped
into the thread!

I now return you to the usual bickering ... :hi:

[conscious evolution]

58. More like a freeper

defending the status quo.

[phantom power]

16. Awesome.

[hunter]

60. Wind Towers will be our civilization's Great Stone Heads.

They'll be stripped of their copper-rich generators and aluminum power lines and be left to litter the landscape as the mysterious obelisks of a vanished people.

Eventually I'd like to build a vacation house on one. The view would be great, and the exercise climbing up and down would be good for me.

[Laelth]

63. California already has lots of abandoned wind turbines just like that.

Nobody's even willing to pay to tear them down. They're just rusty and dangerous blights on the landscape.

It's sad, really.

:shrug:

-Laelth