A Mighty Wind

DoraLives writes "Fascinating New York Times piece regarding a proposed wind farm for Nantucket Sound. Suddenly, all the environmentally friendly locals are going ballistic over the prospects of seeing an 'industrial energy complex' in their backyard. Walter Cronkite decries it, as do many other local checkbook environmentalists. Greenpeace says 'Jim Gordon (the developer) is the real thing, there aren't many entrepreneurs out there willing to take risks to clean up the environment.' Who's right?"

Comments

local reaction

[iate138]

i live on cape cod, and i am sick of the people who are protesting this. the major arguments against it consist basically of the lessening of aesthetic appeal for beach-goers and boaters. it irks me that the same people who realize the necessity of easing the power demand on the canal power plant (a vile, coal burning smoke belcher) are unwilling to take steps to find alternative energy resources. stupid rich tourists, afraid of seeing a few gulls chopped up in windmills on their way to the islands.

What would they rather have?

[ApharmdB]

Ok, I consider myself an environmentalist and these people who bitch about wind farms really have no business claiming to be so. Their choices are according to my recent utility supplied info are along with my half-assed pissed-off descriptions:

1) Oil - Polluting
2) Coal - Seriously Polluting
3) Natural Gas - Clean compared to other fossil fuels, but still requires us to fight wars for it.
4) Nuclear - Cart toxic waste across country to bury it in Yucca Mountain. Also, BOOOM!
5) Wind - Unsightly, similar in price to fossil fuels.
6) Solar - Still too expensive in cents/kWh.
7) Biomass - Can't really increase the supply unless you want to start collecting cow farts.
8) Hydro - Most rivers that can generate hydro already are.
9) Imported Power - Mysterious Power!
10) Municipal Trash - Burning stuff is not clean.

Now, of the above choices, what should we focus on until something better becomes available? I think wind is the obvious choice. But no, they are unsightly! OMG! Everything has a negative and wind power's is pretty minor compared to the others. The land that wind power is on can also be used for other purposes such as farming or grazing.

I have a feeling that the people who whine would really like all their power to come from number 9, Imported Power. You know, that magical, free power that some poor schlub in another community has to suffer the environmental consequences for. Now, unless they want to whip out their magic fairy-wand and produce energy out of thin air, they have to use something and they should wake the hell up and realize that wind is a very good choice.

If you are interested in costs, check out the California 1996 Energy Technology Status Report Summary. For a summary, it weighs in at 93 pages. Bleah.

Re:What would they rather have?

[gregmac]

The land that wind power is on can also be used for other purposes such as farming or grazing.

Denmark built an off-shore wind farm, which seems like a pretty good idea. The wind currents are stronger over the ocean, and it doesn't take up any land. Includes pictures.

Re:What would they rather have?

[ikeleib]

3) Natural Gas - Clean compared to other fossil fuels, but still requires us to fight wars for it.

Almost all natural gas in the US comes from domestic production.

5) Wind - Unsightly, similar in price to fossil fuels.

Depending on the ownership and financing structure, wind can be cheaper than fossil fuels. If you discount the subsidies that fossil fuel exploiters get, wind is by far the cheapest energy.

7) Biomass - Can't really increase the supply unless you want to start collecting cow farts.

Because, as we all know, every dump in America is currently generating power.

Re:NIMBY

[heli0]

this huge $44Trillion debt that is going to bite us in the ass in the next few years especially with these tax cuts,

The Federal Gov't budget was $2.1 Trillion for 2002. The tax cuts are $35 Billion/yr.

In comparison $75 Billion/yr goes to family farmers who have been obsolete for 40 years now, $344 Billion for defense, $460 Billion for Social Security and $850 Billion for welfare programs.

Here is a good graph showing national debt as % of gdp. We are not any worse off then we were in the '90s or the '60s.

The 2003 Senate Energy Bill (enter S.14 into "bill number") thomas.loc.gov offers loan guarantees for the construction of 7 new nuclear reactors in the US, as well as a new $1.1Billion nuclear plant in Idaho to produce hydrogen. If these are steps you want taken, you should write a letter to your Senators telling them how much your vote depends on their support of this bill.

Renewable Energy Policy Project

[ubiquitin]

REPP has a paper on how wind the top five or so wind farfarm projects have affected housing and property values. See the report in PDF here:
http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/win d_online_final.pdf They refer to "view shed" as a way of indicating how far around the area the wind generaters are visible. Very interesting look at wind energy.

Bulllshit

[Keebler71]

Last I checked, the Koreans, Panamanias, Somalis, Vietnamese, Grenadians (?), Bosians, Croats, and Muslim residents of Kosovo don't have any oil. That pretty much covers every signinficant US military action in the last 50 years leaving the one exception being the collective Gulf Wars. So actually when you think about, the US fighting for oil is the exception, not the rule.

Nice number massaging there.

[Kwil]

According to your own link, Defense gets over 360 billion, and for each of the others you lump together several categories, such as Medical into "welfare programs", meaning that you seem to think HMO regulation costs, hospital insurance costs, government employee health benefits, the cost of funding the FDA and health research, as well as disease control and training all fall under the heading of "welfare programs".

Just a wee bit of bias, perhaps?

Re:Problems with wind power?

[Willard B. Trophy]

Regarding bird kills:

No matter how extensively wind is developed in the future, bird deaths from wind energy are unlikely to ever reach as high as 1% of those from other human-related sources such as hunters, house cats, buildings, and autos. Wind is, quite literally, a drop in the bucket.

-- from the AWEA FAQ, 2002, emphasis mine.

Oil leakage is an old-technology problem,and then only in the case of poor maintenance. New turbines, like the Lagerwey we built in Toronto, don't use hydraulics.

Turbines failing in high winds seldom, if ever, happen. New generator technology allows wind turbines to generate -- small amounts of power, admittedly -- in winds you can barely feel. There's nothing generates bad feeling like a stopped wind turbine.

Re:Go for it anyway...

[gaijin99]

Actually, most wind plants don't kill any birds. The whole "wind power kills birds" came from a single installation done in California. It was, through incredible lack of foresight and foolishness, right in the middle of a migratory path. Birds, bless their hardwired little brains, don't much change their migration paths. As long as we leave the generators out of the migratory paths its really no problem.

The installations in Denmark and Germany, for example, were placed with more care and don't kill birds. Right now Denmark is getting 20% of its power from wind farms.