Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's pure empty rhetoric. No land is being destroyed. As a matter of fact windfarms are proving to be quite compatible to coexist with agriculture and ranching. And big solar farms in desert areas are taking advantage of land that is useless for anything else.
I must have lived in over 30 homes in my lifetime out west. ONLY TWO had natural gas.
In Washington state the most endangered ecosystem is the shrub-steppe. OVER 140,000 acres of this habitat has been destroyed by windmills. That is almost the size of Mt. Rainier National Park. They do not generate sufficient energy for the environmental damage caused by them and solar panels.
Read this book. A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold.
That's fine if all you are concerned with is having the lowest cost today, regardless of side-effects. But though gas is cleaner than coal or oil, it's still a non-renewable fossil fuel that pollutes the atmosphere.
Promoting technologies that draw on clean, continually renewable energy sources is an investment not only in our grandchildren's lives, but in the lives of their grandchildren.
That's pure empty rhetoric. No land is being destroyed. As a matter of fact windfarms are proving to be quite compatible to coexist with agriculture and ranching. And big solar farms in desert areas are taking advantage of land that is useless for anything else.
Talk to the people living near wind farms. They have lots of rhetoric for ya.
As usual, the people living near them doesn't factor into your understanding of the effect wind farms have because they don't really matter.
Desert is useless land. Haven't heard that before from someone so concerned with the environment.
I must have lived in over 30 homes in my lifetime out west. ONLY TWO had natural gas.
I'm not sure what your point is here. This thread is a discussion about solar PV panels, particularly rooftop residential installations.
Quote:
In Washington state the most endangered ecosystem is the shrub-steppe. OVER 140,000 acres of this habitat has been destroyed by windmills. That is almost the size of Mt. Rainier National Park. They do not generate sufficient energy for the environmental damage caused by them and solar panels.
I'm not sure what your point is here, either. This is a discussion about solar PV panels.
In any case, your figure is unbelievable. As of end of 2012 Washington State had 2,800 MW of wind turbines installed. Just as a very rough estimate, let's say that each tower is 2 MW, that works out to about 1,400 towers, and they don't require 100 acres each, even when figuring in the access roads. 5 acres is a more accurate figure, according to what I've read.
I've stood near a wind turbine this size, while it was in operation, and I noticed that the concrete pad it stood on was only maybe 40' x 40', and the cows placidly grazing nearby were clearly unaffected by either the sight or sound of the moving blades. While the blades might occupy the airspace over 1 - 1.5 acres, the ground underneath is largely free for other uses, such as growing crops and raising livestock. In Ohio they raise corn under the wind turbines; in Texas they raise cattle under them.
Quote:
There is no such thing as useless land. In addition, to teaching people economics and science we really need a land ethic in this country.
Sorry for the overstatement. I was referring to the common definition of a desert as a barren area of land where little precipitation occurs and consequently living conditions are hostile for plant and animal life. There is very little use for desert land that is not destructive of it in some way. So placing solar energy installations on desert land is not displacing any other valid use of that land, and the total quantity of desert land being used this way is a tiny fraction of the whole. Tiny.
It would be nice if we could just have energy magically show up in our homes and businesses without having to devote any physical resources to it, but that only happens in sci-fi stories. And it would be nice to be able to build highways through the mountains without cutting down any trees or moving any rocks, but that has never happened and never will. It is not only reasonable but highly desirable to preserve a portion of the natural world unchanged, as we currently do with The Grand Canyon and other National Parks. On the other hand it is unreasonable to think that all "undeveloped" land should remain that way forever. The only way to have that would be to impose strict population controls everywhere to eliminate all population growth, and clearly that isn't going to happen.
So as long as we have an ever increasing population, we also have an ever increasing need for power, and there are hard choices to make. We can grab the short term fix, burning more and more fossil fuels, but that endangers the future of the planet. The overall changes to the eco-system which have already happened, the loss of habitat, the shifting ranges of flora and fauna, the changes in climate and storm patterns is already observable on a scale that dwarfs the kind of 1,400 towers X 5 acres cleared calculation you're complaining about. All 45.7 million acres of land in Washington State are affected by the switch to renewable green energy sources.
And to circle back to the actual topic of this thread, rooftop solar panels are a valuable part of a broad portfolio of green energy choices which can help us reduce, and hopefully soon replace the burning of fossil fuels of any kind.
The acreage came from the major wind projects in Washington state. I added up the acres from their web pages. I hunt on land covered with windmills. They are industrial areas, closed to public access close to the turbines, but then there are miles of huge roads, power lines, and assorted facilities.
I have a solar house. It uses 10% of the electricity of a grid house. It rents for $250/night. I have had guests staying there that did not realize that it was off-grid. I am not sure what they thought the panels out in the meadow where doing there!!!
My point is conservation should be tried first. I have no power draw at night. Can't afford the drain on the batteries. Why don't people turn off outside lights at night? Why are streetlights on at 2:00 AM IN THE MORNING?? Why are not off-switches that do not draw phantom power mandatory for TV's.
But the big one is using electricity for heating (space, stoves, dryers, etc). It is a waste of electricity for those uses. That's why we need to extend natural gas lines to all-electric homes. We need to make right choices for running an industrial country. You can't do it on solar or wind.
Now I agree with distributed solar with putting panels on peoples homes. But the Obama Administrations policies are BIG SOLAR and WIND with huge tax subsidies to major corporations. We are rapidly becoming a poorer country....we cannot afford to waste money on industrial windmill areas.
I am a professional Forester. I can tell you all about ecosystem change. Trust me on this one. The ecosystem change predicted by global change scientists is LESS than that experienced in the past century. I don't think that was a good move, but most people did not even notice. What we think are healthy ecosystems today are a remnant of what was here 100 years ago.
The acreage came from the major wind projects in Washington state. I added up the acres from their web pages. I hunt on land covered with windmills. They are industrial areas, closed to public access close to the turbines, but then there are miles of huge roads, power lines, and assorted facilities.
Uh huhh. So you just added up every acre of land they own or control and declared it all 100% destroyed. So that's how you arrived at your bogus figure of 100 acres of land use per tower, when the accepted industry figure is more like 5 acres per tower, with most of that being available for secondary uses.
Quote:
I have a solar house. It uses 10% of the electricity of a grid house. It rents for $250/night. I have had guests staying there that did not realize that it was off-grid. I am not sure what they thought the panels out in the meadow where doing there!!!
Sure, when you design a house to be off-grid then conservation of energy is a key design point. Backing out of a grid-connected design and mindset is a bit harder.
Quote:
My point is conservation should be tried first. I have no power draw at night. Can't afford the drain on the batteries. Why don't people turn off outside lights at night? Why are streetlights on at 2:00 AM IN THE MORNING?? Why are not off-switches that do not draw phantom power mandatory for TV's.
Really? No draw at all? What about the refrigerator? Even off-grid my neighbors keep their fridges and freezers powered up. Here in Puna District in Hawai'i County the rest of what you said is pretty normal. Part of that is keeping the night sky dark for the Mauna Kea observatories.
Quote:
But the big one is using electricity for heating (space, stoves, dryers, etc). It is a waste of electricity for those uses. That's why we need to extend natural gas lines to all-electric homes. We need to make right choices for running an industrial country. You can't do it on solar or wind.
It's only wasteful when you are thinking in terms of non-renewable energy sources. Those are limited resources, therefore the idea of using them up or wasting them is tied to the practice of using fossil fuels. But solar power and wind power resources are essentially unlimited, in terms of mankind's needs. The MIT professor I've quoted in other threads here has calculated that the solar energy that falls on the earth every day is 7,000 times the total of every bit of energy from every source combined which we currently utilize. And what is wind power but indirect use of solar energy?
Quote:
Now I agree with distributed solar with putting panels on peoples homes. But the Obama Administrations policies are BIG SOLAR and WIND with huge tax subsidies to major corporations. We are rapidly becoming a poorer country....we cannot afford to waste money on industrial windmill areas.
There's your personal bias at work. Windfarms, in fact have already achieved cost parity with fossil fuels in many areas. And large scale solar installations, which are far more efficient than home installations, are not far behind. And significantly, of course, they do not release any CO2 into the atmosphere in the process.
Quote:
I am a professional Forester. I can tell you all about ecosystem change. Trust me on this one. The ecosystem change predicted by global change scientists is LESS than that experienced in the past century. I don't think that was a good move, but most people did not even notice. What we think are healthy ecosystems today are a remnant of what was here 100 years ago.
I'm not clear what you are trying to say here. Major climate change is already upon us. In the face of that inexorable truth, we can choose actions which seem likely to make a difference, or actions which seem assured to make the problems worse. Clean, renewable energy sources help move us in the right direction, as does conservation.
Wind farms do not disrupt the land. Each turbine encumbers about an acre. Turbines are normally spaced about 2-3 rotor diameters apart so that is about 600-900 feet between turbines.
Wind farms do not disrupt the land. Each turbine encumbers about an acre. Turbines are normally spaced about 2-3 rotor diameters apart so that is about 600-900 feet between turbines.
Come out west.
Go to Altamont Pass in California to see what industrial wind power looks like after 30 years of abuse. Drive around Tehachapi Pass. In Washington state alone, over 140,000 acres in wind farms. That is approaching the size of Mt. Rainier National Park.
The energy generated is primarily in the spring. When the Federal Government buys it....and dumps it without using it because the dams have to run full bore to protect endangered fish. If the wind power never makes into the grid is this good economic policy?? Why do the taxpayers pay for it when they get NO BENEFIT.
Yes, conservation is part of every off-grid design. Why should it not be required of urban residents?? Is conservation a bad idea in your eyes??
Wind and solar is only competitive with massive Federal expenditures through subsidies. Why destroy thousands of acres of public land for nothing?
Go to Altamont Pass in California to see what industrial wind power looks like after 30 years of abuse. Drive around Tehachapi Pass. In Washington state alone, over 140,000 acres in wind farms. That is approaching the size of Mt. Rainier National Park.
The energy generated is primarily in the spring. When the Federal Government buys it....and dumps it without using it because the dams have to run full bore to protect endangered fish. If the wind power never makes into the grid is this good economic policy?? Why do the taxpayers pay for it when they get NO BENEFIT.
Yes, conservation is part of every off-grid design. Why should it not be required of urban residents?? Is conservation a bad idea in your eyes??
Wind and solar is only competitive with massive Federal expenditures through subsidies. Why destroy thousands of acres of public land for nothing?
By the way....the industrial wind farms won their lawsuit. The taxpayers are paying for wind power that they cannot use.
Been there, done that. The turbines in Altamont Pass are ancient. Go look at a wind farm with GE 1.5 MW turbines and come back with some relevant observations.
You don't know what you are talking about with respect to wind availability either. You are a walking talking misinformation machine.
Been there, done that. The turbines in Altamont Pass are ancient. Go look at a wind farm with GE 1.5 MW turbines and come back with some relevant observations.
You don't know what you are talking about with respect to wind availability either. You are a walking talking misinformation machine.
Surely the vast amounts of energy generated and the resultant financial benefits of Altamont and Tehachapi insured maintenance and upgrades to those wind farms was part of the deal right?
Been there and done that. Been where and done what?
Why weren't those "ancient" turbines replaced? Did the wind stop? Nope. Did they not generate enough electricity to make them worthwhile to upgrade or replace? Closer...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
