Jump to content

Windmills


Recommended Posts

Stuck in KS

Fine, put them in your vast expanses of land.  It's just I've never read about the high steppes, tallgrass prairie, or sage country of Vermont.  :D   Leave our tallgrass prairie alone.

I can already see the perfect storm brewing...in a clash between green energy proponents and prairie chicken conservationists both parties raise money in direct competition with eachother, lobbying the same lawmakers, contributing to both campaigns, and ultimately not accomplishing anything (when in actuality they're probably not that different from eachother).

EDIT:  Ironically, living with a coal-plant in my backyard is a sacrifice I'm willing to make in the name of conservation.  I wonder how many of you are willing to do the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuck in KS

    12

  • bosco mctavitch

    10

  • Rex Hoppie

    6

Almost Heaven GSP's
There are plenty of places to put coal-fired plants that wouldn't bother anyone (from an aesthetics POV).  Older/retired military facilities are a great example.

EDIT:  The number of places that could hold a coal-fired plant vs enough windmills to make as much power are starkly different.

Only problem with that theory is that they tend to put coal fired plants close to a source of abundant and cheap coal, as well as an abundant and readily available water source. Shipping and labor cost figure into the power generating companies bottom line when they look at the tonnage cost of the coal and getting it to their doorstep. Kinda centralizes where the coal fired plants end up, who's back yard they're in and how much the landscape around them change to feed them.

Also consider that even with the clean burning technology we have available today, toxins exist in the exhaust and where the toxins will precipitate and come back down out of the air stream......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuck in KS

Okay, so how many people are living in close proximity to our vast expanses of land?  Compare the density of people east and west of the Mississippi, very different.  It costs money to distribute electricity no matter how it's generated.  So, you have to take into consideration where the people are located as well.  But prairie chickens and people do not typically go together.  However, I do hunt them sometimes within view of a coal power plant.  I also know that if those hills had, in place of the coal plant, windmills, I could not hunt them.

If this were purely based on economics, then remove the subsidies and see where the market takes us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't want to live next to a large wind farm if accurate weather forecasts were a concern.

Growing concern (with evidence to back it up) that they mess up weather radar.  Under some circumstances they project an appearance on weather radar that is similar to a developing storm.  

The military has come out with info that bolsters their position --they want nothing to do with wind farms near their radar locations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bosco mctavitch

Stuck, and others--Kansas has lots of open flat land, Vermont has long open ridgelines, the west coast already has a number of large wind farms and they have great wind (with the fetch of the entire pacific ocean!!) plus large river valleys that funnel the wind, The rockies have great weather and consistent sunshine, and there's usually wind offshore...if we can put oil rigs there, why not wind turbines, solar panels, etc?  This is not just a midwestern plains thing by any means.

I'm NOT trying to make the case that wind is perfect--far from it.  I defend the wind power here not because I'm 100% wedded to it (though I do think it should be a part of our power generation), but  because others are writing it off in favor of things that I see as far more damaging.  I simply cannot fathom how someone can make the argument that wind is somehow less "green" than a coal fired power plant.  Perhaps coal doesn't affect YOU, but it affects everyone downwind of you--there are literally hundreds of lakes in the Adirondacks where I grew up that are DEAD, devoid of life, because of coal fired power plants hundreds of miles to the west.  All I hear when people defend coal, hydro, nuclear, etc power generation is "we'll develop the technology", or "it's not perfect but it's the best option"...and in the same breath totally writing off other newer options for the same type of reasons with hardly an effort to make them better!  I, however, am sick and tired of having my backyard polluted by distant coal-fired power plants because someone doesn't like the LOOK of a bunch of windmills--for me the function FAR outweighs the aesthetics.  Pretty is as pretty does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuck in KS
Would you welcome wind turbines with open arms if, because of their installation, you couldn't hunt grouse within 5 hours of home?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you welcome wind turbines with open arms if, because of their installation, you couldn't hunt grouse within 5 hours of home?

Would you still welcome using oil and gas if drilling for it was destroying critical sage grouse habitat in western Wyoming? Because that's what's been happening.

Would you welcome using hydropower from the Snake and Columbia rivers even though it is leading to the extinction of what were the largest salmon runs in the U.S? Because that is also happening.

No one here is arguing that wind is perfect, as Bosco already made clear. There are issues with any type of energy production that we know of. But you clearly have a very selective memory when it comes to the extensive environmental damage that the coal industry has caused. And spare me the "clean coal" spiel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bosco mctavitch
Would you welcome wind turbines with open arms if, because of their installation, you couldn't hunt grouse within 5 hours of home?

I can drive a long way in 5 hours...luckily the terrain near me precludes having to make that choice, there is little enough area viable for large-scale wind energy generation that it is simply not a choice I will ever have to make.  Besides, Vermont and Northern NY already have reasonably-sized wind farms, and even multiplying that by a hundred-fold wouldn't even begin to make the "5-hour grouse commute" a reality.  

Besides, I don't think anyone is proposing to replace 100% of our power generation with wind--that would be foolish and impractical I think, given the storage implications and other issues.  For this reason I don't think the footprint required to gain a far larger % of our energy from wind than we do would require you or anyone to drive 5 hours around it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuck in KS
Would you welcome wind turbines with open arms if, because of their installation, you couldn't hunt grouse within 5 hours of home?

I can drive a long way in 5 hours...luckily the terrain near me precludes having to make that choice, there is little enough area viable for large-scale wind energy generation that it is simply not a choice I will ever have to make.  Besides, Vermont and Northern NY already have reasonably-sized wind farms, and even multiplying that by a hundred-fold wouldn't even begin to make the "5-hour grouse commute" a reality.  

Besides, I don't think anyone is proposing to replace 100% of our power generation with wind--that would be foolish and impractical I think, given the storage implications and other issues.  For this reason I don't think the footprint required to gain a far larger % of our energy from wind than we do would require you or anyone to drive 5 hours around it.

So is that a "no?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stuck in KS
Would you welcome wind turbines with open arms if, because of their installation, you couldn't hunt grouse within 5 hours of home?

Would you still welcome using oil and gas if drilling for it was destroying critical sage grouse habitat in western Wyoming? Because that's what's been happening.

Would you welcome using hydropower from the Snake and Columbia rivers even though it is leading to the extinction of what were the largest salmon runs in the U.S? Because that is also happening.

No one here is arguing that wind is perfect, as Bosco already made clear. There are issues with any type of energy production that we know of. But you clearly have a very selective memory when it comes to the extensive environmental damage that the coal industry has caused. And spare me the "clean coal" spiel.

First question, yes.  Plenty of places to hunt sage grouse.

Second question, absolutely.  Fish passage systems, when implemented, work very well.  We just need to spend the money to get it done.

Clearly you are willing to repeat the same mistakes we've made in the name of energy development.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bosco mctavitch
Stuck, it is NOT A NO because it doesn't need to be a no.  Neither you nor I have to make that decision...it is not black and white, either/or.  Even if it were that simple (it's not), at the end of the day our ability to HUNT is less important than having clean, sustainable energy.  You and I might not like that in the short term, but I have a hard time believing that even you would argue otherwise...but we don't have to make that choice.
Link to post
Share on other sites

First question, yes.  Plenty of places to hunt sage grouse.

Second question, absolutely.  Fish passage systems, when implemented, work very well.  We just need to spend the money to get it done.

Clearly you are willing to repeat the same mistakes we've made in the name of energy development.

As someone who's been championing coal as the solution throughout this discussion, I wouldn't exactly say you're coming from a higher ground on the subject of energy impact. I've also previously said that, at least for now, I think some coal production continues to have a role in our big-picture energy matrix. I also never said that wind power is the solution to our energy woes - I've said I think it can be part of it.

Regardless, if you'd paid attention to my last post, I said that all energy production creates impacts. I think that what we need to do is minimize those impacts as much as possible, and I think that if we have available sources that are both minimal in their impact (by comparison to more damaging means of energy production) and that are renewable sources, that's where I would cast my vote. That's all. Not sure exactly what your objection to that POV is, unless you work in the coal industry....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...