Where do Wind Farms belong?

[DougPaul]

Can anyone read this and continue with the "step in the right direction" idea and really support more wind factories? I don't get it from folks who consider clear-cutting forests to be undesirable, especially high-elevation forest.

Do the math. More wind power requires more land to be stripped. No proponants of wind predict that a single tower might be able to produce real amounts of power one day. They just say we need more of them. Does anyone really beleive that technology will magically change this?

Actually there are places where the additional impact of wind turbines would be fairly small. Existing farms, for instance. Any trees have already been cut and farming or ranching can proceed below the turbines.

Solar power may be equally feeble, but it doesn't require stripping beautiful forests. The sun shines almost everywhere. Why not put more effort into developing solar? It's actually not harmful to the environment, as wind factories are, and it makes us feel just as good about ourselves.

Actually, solar is damaging to many environments--solar panels block the sun. Whatever lives or grows in shaded areas will be affected. Thus solar panels on top of buildings may have minimal environmental damage but solar farms would cause significant damage.

Let's be serious. Nuclear power is actually capable of producing real amounts of electricity. Nuclear plants can be located anywhere.

Nuclear plants produce massive amounts of heat and have radioactive leakeage and wastes. If the heat is dissipated in a local body of water or river, it can have massive effects on the aquatic plants and animals. If it is dissipated in the air, it requires a ~500 foot high cooling tower.

Why not put our energies into R&D of making nuclear as safe as we can. If the French can produce 90% of their juice with nuclear, then the technological masters of the world can do even better.

I have read that the French also suffer from a significant amount of radioactively contaminated territory as a result. (The source was reliable, an IEEE publication, IIRC.) Needless to say, the damage is not publicized as much as the 80-90%...

Current proposed (and existing) nuclear reactors in the US are largely based upon the technology first used in Navy shipboard reactors. These designs have serious weak points, but it appears that little research is being done into safer designs... (There have been some studies which have suggested safer designs.)


At this point in time, wind is economical in some locations, solar is economical only in limited situations, and nuclear has unresolved safety problems. Of course, coal results in mining damage, CO2, and chemical pollution. Oil results in drilling damage, pipelines, spills, CO2, and chemical pollution. Natural gas results in drilling damage, pipelines, and CO2. Hydropower results in damage to aquatic animals. All forms of electricity require powerlines and lack of adequate powerline capacity is a significant stumbling block to some schemes for electric power generation. (I'm sure this list is incomplete and I haven't even mentioned energy for transportation.) In other words, there is no magic solution.

Doug

 

[brianW]

Just a side note on nuclear. The US is the world leader in electricity production from nuclear. It is just not our biggest source of power like the French. Also it was approved today (3/17) to let Georgia Power to build 2 new reactors at Plant Volga. This will be the first reactors in the US in 30 years.

http://www.wjbf.com/jbf/news/state_...ks_2_new_nuclear_reactors_near_augusta/11906/

There is also a lot of talk on the radio (Augusta, GA) about building a new type of nuclear reactor for power at the Savanah River Site (place used to make nuclear warheads)

 

[Andrew]

It seems it would make much more sense to stop looking at developing large generation facilities, especially "green" ones that create so much undesireable impact. How about spreading out small to medium sized micro-hydro, wind, and solar on buildings and in developed areas.

Instead of billions of stimulus $ going into large scale facilities that benefit corporations, give that out to citizens to install in this fashion if they are willing to site and maintain them. People save money and spend it, thus stimulating multiple aspects of the economy. Electric generation is spread and alleviates the need for massive transmission line development. Could this lessen large scale outages from localized failures? Seems like the same concept as for dealing with the waste from unlocalized food and other resource dependance.

I'm not saying that large scale facilities and large distance transport for energy (& food) are not needed to sustain the lifestyles we enjoy, but couldn't this add enough to create a cushion to improve existing large scale facilities by rotation?

This whole thread was inspired from a discussion about the Philipps Brook Wind Farm, and I'm sorry but it is just unacceptable to see that area despoiled by this monstrosity. This has nothing to do with NIMBY as I would not even care if I laid eyes on that area, but do care to know that critical unique essential habitat is utilized in a lower impact way.

 

[brianW]

Small scale instead of large scale wind farms (at least on land) is what Emagazine article that I mentioned recommends. Less strain on the environment and the grid.

 

[forestgnome]

At this point in time, wind is economical in some locations, solar is economical only in limited situations, and nuclear has unresolved safety problems. Of course, coal results in mining damage, CO2, and chemical pollution. Oil results in drilling damage, pipelines, spills, CO2, and chemical pollution. Natural gas results in drilling damage, pipelines, and CO2. Hydropower results in damage to aquatic animals. All forms of electricity require powerlines and lack of adequate powerline capacity is a significant stumbling block to some schemes for electric power generation. (I'm sure this list is incomplete and I haven't even mentioned energy for transportation.) In other words, there is no magic solution.

Doug

Hmmm....point well made.

There are negatives with all forms of fuel/power manufacture. Even corn fuel has resulting negatives ( high corn prices in poor countries and deforestation of rain forests to farm corn).

The challanges for nuclear seem the most acheivable, and it has a realistic potential for generating meaningful amounts of energy.

To answer the OP's question, wind factories do not belong on presently forested ridges and mountains. Let's not squander treasure on a trinket.

 

[DougPaul]

Even corn fuel has resulting negatives ( high corn prices in poor countries and deforestation of rain forests to farm corn).

Actually ethanol from corn (kernels) is a pretty poor fuel. The amount of energy in the ethanol is only slightly greater than the energy required to produce it. And as you noted, there are collateral costs. Ethanol is not inherently bad--ethanol from sugar cane (as is currently being done in Brazil) is effective or ethanol from waste biomass (the technology is not currently viable) could be effective.

Ethanol contains less energy per volume than does gasoline, so the higher the percentage of ethanol, the lower the mileage. In terms of tailpipe pollution, ethanol is probably not very different from gasoline.

Doug

 

[SilentCal]

News of a potential wind farm on Mount Tom in Massachusetts.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/holyoke_gas_electric_to_buy_27.html

 

[Craig]

....
Nuclear plants produce massive amounts of heat and have radioactive leakeage and wastes. If the heat is dissipated in a local body of water or river, it can have massive effects on the aquatic plants and animals. If it is dissipated in the air, it requires a ~500 foot high cooling tower.
...
Doug

Arguably the biggest issue with nuclear power is what to do with the spent waste. Some may remember the GNEP in 2006.
The hope was that we (the US) would buy all the spent fuel from member nations from around the world, reprocess it and sell it back to member nation at a profit. This would dramatically reduce the quantity of spent fuel that would need to be disposed of. It would also put us in control of the worlds supply of refined nuclear material.

I think if this concept/technology can be implemented the world would quickly move to nuclear power for it's energy needs.

 

[Craig]

There goes the neighborhood.

The following is a picture of the newly completed photovoltaic system installed on the Atlantic City Convention Center roof. Note the wind turbines in the background, their easy to miss.

One would assume they are trying to harvest the coastal winds to drive those beauties.

GE has recently announced a new wind turbine that will provide more power at lower wind speeds.
The only problem with this model is it has 300' diameter blades. Thats the length of a football field.

Now picture that beast in downtown USA or in the median of your commuter turnpike.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but this stuff kills me.

 

[forestgnome]

Now picture that beast in downtown USA or in the median of your commuter turnpike.

...or on one of the few remaining currently forested high-elevation ridges where Bicknell's Thrushes mate and breed, where Canada Lynxes live, where the Pine Martens live....

What an immense sacrifice for such an insignificant return...

 

[andrewb]

I'll be honest with you, I think that in Atlantic City, the windmills improve the landscape. Plus the area's heavily developed already.

However, industrializing a forested ridge is not right. Given the rare habitat up there, I'd imagine the Endangered Species Act would protect the Bicknell's Thrush ... of course the previous administration had 8 years to gut the ESA, so I am not sure if this law has any bite left - but in theory, this windfarm by law could be halted....

 

[forestgnome]

However, industrializing a forested ridge is not right. Given the rare habitat up there, I'd imagine the Endangered Species Act would protect the Bicknell's Thrush ... of course the previous administration had 8 years to gut the ESA, so I am not sure if this law has any bite left - but in theory, this windfarm by law could be halted....

Please be more specific with the condemnation of the "previous administration". How has the ESA been gutted?

I certainly agree that industrializing one of the few remaining forested high-elevation ridges is sad, but you're putting the blame for the destruction of this ridge on the wrong side of the fence. Support for clear-cutting and building on this ridge comes from "environmentalists".

 

[andrewb]

you know, looking back I think every single administration has sold out our future since the environmental movement started. I will not go into specifics since this would be too political a discussion. Basically, though, my argument is that the federal government has under-funded the EPA to the point that it cannot possibly perform its functions. Furthermore, the environmental laws congress passes are actually interpreted into regulations which the EPA enforces. These laws are re-interpreted on a regular basis so when politicians appoint chiefs and other high ranking persons in the EPA, they are effectively influencing how the new regulations will look .. circumventing existing and still applicable laws.

I cannot comment on who is in support of the windfarm, because I have not yet met anyone who is... although at first I was not against it. Now that I have thought more about it I am wholeheartedly opposed to it.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

you know, looking back I think every single administration has sold out our future since the environmental movement started. I will not go into specifics since this would be too political a discussion. Basically, though, my argument is that the federal government has under-funded the EPA to the point that it cannot possibly perform its functions.

But yet you take a sniper shot at a specific administration, and then say specifics would constitute politics? And you make a sweeping statement about the feds under-funding and selling out the EPA which is far from specific about any administration?

It's a political cheap shot.

Tim

 

[brianW]

The problem about taking aim at an administration is that the President does NOT write laws/legislation, the Congress does. He only sign or vetos what comes across his desk. He may suggest or try to steer things in a direction but that is not a given.

 

[Chip]

A WSJ article re how large scale Greening clashes with local environmentalists.

 

[peakbagger]

Sheffield Heights

While we were talking about the NH project the Sheffield VT project appears to be getting closer to a real project.

http://www.sheffieldwind.com/sheffield/

Very similiar characteristics as the NH project, but a bit more "out of sight and out of mind" There is small vocal local opposition to the project but they recently lost an appeal to the permit. They will be on a ridge to the East of I 91 where the watershed switches from flowing south to north.

 

[Craig]

For your pontification.

LEWISTON—New York Power Authority (NYPA) President and Chief Executive Officer Richard M. Kessel announced today the release of a request for proposals (RFP) for the development of offshore wind power projects in the New York State waters of Lake Erie and/or Lake Ontario. Not only will this represent the first initiative in the Great Lakes, it will be the first wind power development of any kind in a fresh water body in the nation.

Might be good for the overpopulation of Canadian Geese though.

 

[injektilo]

Where do wind farms belong?

http://updates.pressherald.mainetoday.com/updates/test-sites-chosen-for-offshore-wind-power

It's a step in the right direction.

 

[brianW]

Hopefully it will not be slowed down like Cape Wind.