Windmills in our mountains. What's so bad?

[Ehouse]

Wow, you sure can tell from the responses that it's an election year! It's really unfortunate that energy policy, climate change policy, and the need to switch to renewables is such a politically charged partisan issue.

I've stopped to visit several windmill sites in NY and don't have a problem with them. As long as the appropriate setbacks are used, there is no noise issue.

To the guy from Pa., the disturbance cause by windmill development (that can only be located on hilltops) pales in comparison to the disturbance they're causing down there with gas development! Now, that's something to get riled up about. As far as deer go, some breakup of the landscape, actually benefits those critters, giving them more browse (yes, the same could be said of gas well sites once they are left alone). Those overgrown rodents will get used to anything. My daughter lives in Ithaca, where the overpopulation of them go from yard to yard eating ornamentals and gardens. You have to physically shoo them to get them to move.

A recent NREL study had the following key point:

"Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country."

(broken link removed to http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/)

Wind should be a part of that. It's a locally sourced supply of energy around here. That HELPS with line losses.

Another very good energy read is the book "Sustainable Energy- without all the hot air" by David MacKay, which can be read online for free here:

http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

It's an eye opener. The take home message I got from that book is that the US has the potential to supply all of it's electrical needs with renewables. It makes no sense that we don't work toward that goal as quickly as possible. It's a no-brainer, shouldn't be partisan in nature, and needs to be done.

I'm not going to be pushed into a polarized position on this. There's nothing partisan about it . I'm in favor of wind, solar, and hydro energy production. I'm against their cynical, exploitative, and inappropriate implementation. Look at a NY map of wind potential that includes offshore. WTF! Why are we siting them here? The NY area is adjacent to the greatest wind potential in the state, (same goes for the greater Buffalo region). It's the same **** and run formula that works every time. The wind mills will begin to topple and flop and no one will be around to clean up the mess.

Ehouse

 

[raybonz]

If wind is the future, then put it atop all of the skyscrapers in the big cities that are sucking the power anyway.

Someone should invent solar panels that work as windows, then they can put those in all those city buildings instead of the reflective films and DO something instead of flapping their lips about how everyone in rural areas should put up with whatever ugly technology comes along that's "green" so THEY can have their AC and 10,000 little electronic devices and plug in cars.

And that has nothing to do with election year politics.

Nate, we don't have the room for a windmill here, but looked into it when we were looking at a larger property. I agree, they are WAY too expensive. I'd like to add some solar here, eventually. I wish they'd take all the subsidies they give the companies and give them to individuals, I bet more people would have solar (I think Ontario did something like this? I saw a LOT of solar arrays up there along the lakeshore when we drove around the lake a few weeks ago). I would love some of the solar shingles-we don't have enough room for the ground mounted arrays.

Fiber optics would allow for this..

Ray

 

[eclecticcottage]

I'm not going to be pushed into a polarized position on this. There's nothing partisan about it . I'm in favor of wind, solar, and hydro energy production. I'm against their cynical, exploitative, and inappropriate implementation. Look at a NY map of wind potential that includes offshore. WTF! Why are we siting them here? The NY area is adjacent to the greatest wind potential in the state, (same goes for the greater Buffalo region). It's the same **** and run formula that works every time. The wind mills will begin to topple and flop and no one will be around to clean up the mess.

Ehouse

Oh, but think of all the JOBS it will create (rolleyes). I agree. Let those with the demand create the supply in their own backyards for a change.

What's ironic to me is, there used to be windmills along the shore of Lake Erie just below Buffalo years ago. They flopped and after sitting around as rusty hulks for years were torn down. Guess what's back on the shore there?

I know it sounds very much like it's soley because of where we live, but I seriously don't want turbines IN the lakes (off shore). It's like everyone forgot how polluted they were, and are. Remember being told not to eat the fish you caught in Lake Erie or Ontario? Niagara Falls' plants dumped how many tons of chemicals and toxic garbage into the river (CWM in Lewiston still does)? And that's what they admit to. A big lot of the manhattan project work was done here (google artvoice the bomb that fell on niagara falls). Like none of that wound up in Ontario. And that's just on this side-I'm sure Canada contributed as well. Now let's go stir up all that sediment and build in it?! Seriously?!

 

[semipro]

If only that were true. Any piddly amount that the government subsidizes 'Big Oil' is eclipsed by the sheer amount of revenue they pay out to governments through job creation and taxes at multiple levels.

It seems to me that the majority of the money we've spent on "defense" over the last 30-50 years has actually been used to ensure our supply of cheap overseas oil.
I consider that a subsidy.

 

[Monosperma]

Here's the difference: Big Oil and Big Coal could do very well without tax breaks and subsidies. Big Wind, Big Solar, even Big Eco? Not a chance. Don't get me wrong, I am all for better, cleaner, less invasive ways to do what we do as a society. But it has to be sustainable. Economically sustainable. Believe it or not, it is more important to be sustainable on Wall St. (and Bay St.) than anything else.

Big Oil and Big Coal have already had decades of direct and indirect government support, particularly when starting up and growing. (So did hydro, by the way.) Wind and even moreso solar are still in the youth of technological development. To my thinking, you are comparing a kindergarten kid with an NFL linebacker, whom we have supported for decades since he was small, saying the kindergartener cannot compete on his own with the linebacker thus the kindergartener does not merit receiving support.

 

[Realstone]

They are self sustaining and always have been. Both were private enterprises at their inception.
Can you say the same for wind and solar? How long would they last without subsidies?

 

[Realstone]

I'm not going to be pushed into a polarized position on this.

I agree. Rarely are any issues black or white on any topic, and I too dislike defending a polar position. I am not anti-environment, but taking one position in order to state a point of view paints me as such. For that reason, I'm out.

 

[raybonz]

They are self sustaining and always have been. Both were private enterprises at their inception.
Can you say the same for wind and solar? How long would they last without subsidies?

Both are very simple by nature with wind having mechanical aspects that solar doesn't.. Either way both are substantially simpler than ANY conventionally powered prime mover by contrast. I will also add that neither of the above adds ANY pollution whatsoever plus require NO added fuel to create power I would like you to rebut that statement!

Ray

 

[raybonz]

I agree. Rarely are any issues black or white on any topic, and I too dislike defending a polar position. I am not anti-environment, but taking one position in order to state a point of view paints me as such. For that reason, I'm out.

Your opinions inspire thought and invoked my thought process and are welcome here..

Ray

 

[Realstone]

Both are very simple by nature with wind having mechanical aspects that solar doesn't.. Either way both are substantially simpler than ANY conventionally powered prime mover by contrast. I will also add that neither of the above adds ANY pollution whatsoever plus require NO added fuel to create power I would like you to rebut that statement!

Ray

I meant economically viable without subsidy.

 

[raybonz]

I meant economically viable without subsidy.

RS I do value your opinion.. It is important that we all see both sides of the story and I for one have adjusted my thoughts based on your ideas and those of others. Please stick around I think we can all learn from this..

Respectfully,
Ray

 

[Realstone]

Your opinions inspire thought and invoked my thought process and are welcome here..

Ray

Thank you. Did you read/consider what I proposed

 

[raybonz]

Thank you. Did you read/consider what I proposed in this post?

Steve I have considered all you have said as well as what others have said and am weighing it all as I hope you're doing as well.

Ray

 

[raybonz]

Thank you. Did you read/consider what I proposed

BTW that link is not working here..

Ray

 

[Realstone]

Windmills in our mountains. What's so bad?
That works. Couldn't get the text to hyperlink

 

[basod]

Both are very simple by nature with wind having mechanical aspects that solar doesn't.. Either way both are substantially simpler than ANY conventionally powered prime mover by contrast. I will also add that neither of the above adds ANY pollution whatsoever plus require NO added fuel to create power I would like you to rebut that statement!

Ray

Apparently you've pulled a gearbox from 250-300' up tower. Fairly regular occurance on machines with low hours. Lots of moving auxiliaries in those nacelles - yaw motor/gears etc.

Compared with gas turbines I work on that'll run 28-32k hours depending on hardware life cycles. The GT engine may seem more complex(it's auxilliary systems might be the machine is just a big pinwheel) but then I'd have to have ~85 wind turbines or 800+ acres of PV panels to make the power of just one of 4 machines that sit on a combined area of less than 20acres.

 

[raybonz]

Apparently you've pulled a gearbox from 250-300' up tower. Fairly regular occurance on machines with low hours. Lots of moving auxiliaries in those nacelles - yaw motor/gears etc.

Compared with gas turbines I work on that'll run 28-32k hours depending on hardware life cycles. The GT engine may seem more complex(it's auxilliary systems might be the machine is just a big pinwheel) but then I'd have to have ~85 wind turbines or 800+ acres of PV panels to make the power of just one of 4 machines that sit on a combined area of less than 20acres.

Basod there are growing pains with anything new so I expect this with these new technologies too. I did not say they were perfect and in time they will improve like anything else.

Ray

 

[raybonz]

Here is the problem with wind and solar:
Nicely put woodchip. The power from both these sources is sporadic and intermittent; unreliable. Our society highly depends on reliable power, on demand.

But I think there is a solution. The shortcoming of these two power sources is that there is no efficient (read: cost efficient) storage of energy (by the way, it is grossly inefficient to just feed the power they generate into the grid). So, what to do? What we really need is a better battery. A battery is simply a store of potential energy. What I suggest is to use the windmills for their original purpose which was pumping water uphill. Store the water in a large reservoir and use it to create clean hydro electricity on demand. The spent water could also be released to a lower storage pool so that there is little eco damage.

With both wind and solar, it would be useful to generate hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis on site, right at the source of power. The hydrogen could be transported to a more urban location to avoid transmission line loss. This method also has a near zero eco impact.

Good stuff Steve and I have felt for at least 10 yrs. that hydrogen should the gasoline of tomorrow as the only emissions are water and CO2 if I remember correctly! Did you have a chance to read the Mother Earth News story I posted here too? Like I said we need to see the big picture to understand the story.

Ray

 

[raybonz]

Apparently you've pulled a gearbox from 250-300' up tower. Fairly regular occurance on machines with low hours. Lots of moving auxiliaries in those nacelles - yaw motor/gears etc.

Compared with gas turbines I work on that'll run 28-32k hours depending on hardware life cycles. The GT engine may seem more complex(it's auxilliary systems might be the machine is just a big pinwheel) but then I'd have to have ~85 wind turbines or 800+ acres of PV panels to make the power of just one of 4 machines that sit on a combined area of less than 20acres.

Don't forget the systems you mention require fossil fuels as the prime mover...

 

[Realstone]

Good stuff Steve and I have felt for at least 10 yrs. that hydrogen should the gasoline of tomorrow as the only emissions are water and CO2 if I remember correctly! Did you have a chance to read the Mother Earth News story I posted here too? Like I said we need to see the big picture to understand the story.

Ray

I'll check that later Ray. With a power storage system it is possible to take the power the wind or solar generates directly on-line if the reserved power (either hydrogen or head of water) is immediately available as a backup for when the wind stops blowing or it gets dark.

But I am not for it if it is not economically viable without subsidy. Research, prepare now, yes indeed. But don't spend the kids money doing it in the process.

 

[basod]

Don't forget the systems you mention require fossil fuels as the prime mover...

As noted by Realstone the shale gas deposit plays developed in the last 10yrs have enough gas for north america's energy needs plus exportation for the next 100+years.
Gas prices aren't going anywhere in our lifetime - unless we decide to put it at a competitive disadvantage.

Wind turbines and solar panels aren't going to keep your fridge cold, ac huming or power the ever growing number of electronic devices in our lives without taking over 1/3-1/2 of the real estate in america.
I'm all for having a diverse (including green) energy portfolio in america - fossil fuels aren't going away though

 

[Realstone]

Besides, what's so bad about CO2 anyway? It is one of the prime building blocks of life. Where the climate is warmer and wetter, life abounds. Combine this with higher CO2, and you have an even greater abundance of life. Reduce CO2 and make the climate cooler and drier? Prepare for austerity.

 

[eclecticcottage]

Both are very simple by nature with wind having mechanical aspects that solar doesn't.. Either way both are substantially simpler than ANY conventionally powered prime mover by contrast. I will also add that neither of the above adds ANY pollution whatsoever plus require NO added fuel to create power I would like you to rebut that statement!

Ray

NO pollution? Sorry, but no. The manufacturing of them does in fact, create pollution at some level. The mining of the raw materials, the refining, the actual process of creating the end result, the shipping to the location. There is NO zero pollution answer, when all variables are considered.

 

[woodgeek]

Besides, what's so bad about CO2 anyway? It is one of the prime building blocks of life. Where the climate is warmer and wetter, life abounds. Combine this with higher CO2, and you have an even greater abundance of life. Reduce CO2 and make the climate cooler and drier? Prepare for austerity.

Great discussion....but the models suggest that rapid global warming (i.e. faster than centuries) leads to strongly drier climates. Basically, the land warms up faster than the ocean, and that inhibits condensation over land.

That turns wetter only after ocean temps catch up centuries later. IOW, the climate record which shows warmer=wetter is not relevant for the AGW case.

 

[eclecticcottage]

Good stuff Steve and I have felt for at least 10 yrs. that hydrogen should the gasoline of tomorrow as the only emissions are water and CO2 if I remember correctly! Did you have a chance to read the Mother Earth News story I posted here too? Like I said we need to see the big picture to understand the story.

Ray

This has always boggled me a little. Where is the water supposed to come from, to do this? What will happen when hundreds of thousands of vehicles use this technology, releasing water into environments like the desert? Will we be moving water from one location to another, by processing it as a fuel in area a and using it in area b? What happens in areas that are subject to extreme cold-will the vapor freeze before it's exhausted from the engine? Or even in the engine?