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.
Location: North of the Cow Pasture and South of the Wind Turbines
856 posts, read 2,921,747 times
Reputation: 2280
Advertisements
I would like to reply to all of your great questions because it is an important issue. It is such a political topic that I would like to keep people informed not to say they are good or bad, only because then it would fall into another discussion. Certainly more coal and nukes blah blah not for that it either. Just if you want to live in Upstate and you don't want a (or32a) wind turbines in your dream home then I am telling people where they are and where they are going. Make your own decision. Some people want to move near them to fell like they are contributing to a greener America. It is still pretty green until you pave and concrete it.
I will say this - I have no problem with alternative energy Solar wind cow poo its all good it is a matter of no one cares about green - non nonpolluting, self sustainable energy for all individuals, be nice for all of us - but uh who is promoting this out gov officials? Thats why people are having fun in their boats and Hummers this weekend.... Cant power that with a wind turbine...
Maybe one less trip to the mall a week would help.
I think people should have a choice by being informed about issues that may affect their life and livelihood and have a part in making a decision and not having one made for them.
Last edited by BovinaCowHateWindTurbines; 07-21-2007 at 06:35 PM..
Jason_Els,you are obviously a well-respected poster as evidenced by your reputation status, but it isn't up to us to solve or closely examine complicated energy issues, as you seem to suggest. We aren't policy wonks working it all out in D.C. or in NYC. That's what I think people like you miss when pointing the NIMBY finger - people just don't want to get into specifics. A couple who have bought land long ago for their retirement and who are now displaced by turbines really doesn't give a damn about energy policy issues or having a greener America. Yes, people are selfish, and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's human nature, and we shouldn't be put down for it. That's the big problem with the "greens" - they are very self-righteous, harsh, critical and judgemental. Jason, you asked where these turbines are being installed that are working out well. The answer is that many are in places that are not populated, at least in my state of CA. They are located on uninhabited mountain ranges, and in the desert. They are freakish things to see en masse. They may be doing some good, but how come we here in Cali never hear about any of the energy they produce or if they have replaced any of the traditional fossil-fuel burning energy producers? I think the tendency is to want to do things cause they sound good, not because they actually are working, or are a realistic alternative.
Having just visited upstate NY a few weeks ago, I saw that a lot of this area is still pristine farm land much as it was a century or more ago. To introduce something like this into the landscape for a pay off or because it might be of some benefit is not sufficient justification, IMO.
Jason_Els,you are obviously a well-respected poster as evidenced by your reputation status, but it isn't up to us to solve or closely examine complicated energy issues, as you seem to suggest. We aren't policy wonks working it all out in D.C. or in NYC. That's what I think people like you miss when pointing the NIMBY finger - people just don't want to get into specifics.
If it isn't up to us, then we have no basis to complain about the wind turbines. By that reasoning we're supposed to shut-up and let decisions be made for us by the government because they allegedly know better? That's tyranny, not democracy and I defer to the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson:
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
... whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.
We The People have to watch everything the government does and use the powers of speech, petition, and the voting booth to see that our government keeps in line. If the township governments approved these outdated and noisy turbines then the electorate of the town is to blame for doing precisely what you suggest, letting government decide what is best.
Quote:
A couple who have bought land long ago for their retirement and who are now displaced by turbines really doesn't give a damn about energy policy issues or having a greener America. Yes, people are selfish, and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's human nature, and we shouldn't be put down for it. That's the big problem with the "greens" - they are very self-righteous, harsh, critical and judgemental.
Who is being displaced? Is land being taken under eminent domain for these projects? When and where did that happen?
Being selfish may be human nature but it does not answer as a legitimate justification when the greater good of the country is at stake. Energy policy is the single greatest factor in our involvement in the middle east and throughout the world. Our foreign policy is largely influenced by energy. Many Americans are convinced that our involvement in Iraq is entirely due to securing energy sources and there is evidence to support this claim. Is our selfishness worth the lives that have been given-up for that policy?
I don't believe it is. We The People need to find answers and tell our elected officials how to implement them. The information is out there. It's up to us to educate ourselves, learn from the experience of others, weigh the arguments of experts, and form our own opinions. We all may arrive at different conclusions as to what course is best, but I believe we all agree that we cannot continue the current paradigm indefinitely.
Painting, "greens," with broad generalizations is as unfair as saying all Republicans are elitist, sexually-repressed, closet Fascists. As with any issue, there are people at extreme ends and a whole lot more people in the middle. The bell curve still rules in normative statistics.
Quote:
Jason, you asked where these turbines are being installed that are working out well. The answer is that many are in places that are not populated, at least in my state of CA. They are located on uninhabited mountain ranges, and in the desert. They are freakish things to see en masse. They may be doing some good, but how come we here in Cali never hear about any of the energy they produce or if they have replaced any of the traditional fossil-fuel burning energy producers? I think the tendency is to want to do things cause they sound good, not because they actually are working, or are a realistic alternative.
They are working elsewhere at least. Denmark produces 18% of its total electrical needs via wind. Germany produces up to 20,600 megawatts which is about 6% of national need. Spain expects to produce 15% of its electrical consumption via wind by 2010 and produces a little over 11,000 megawatts now.
The designs manufactured by the Danes and the Spaniards have greatly reduced noise levels by tuning the blades to reduce the whooshing sound, and moving mechanical electrical generation components to the base of the unit and then noise proofing the bases.
Quote:
In the year 2004, wind energy in California produced 4,258 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, about 1.5 percent of the state's total electricity. That's more than enough to light a city the size of San Francisco. -California Energy Commission
A medium size nuclear plant produces about 5,000 kilowatt hours.
As to the aesthetics of wind turbines, I like them compared to coal smokestacks, nuclear cooling towers, or dams. I also think I would rather live near wind turbines more than any of the other three. In terms of environmental impact, it certainly appears wind turbines have the least concerns attached to them when compared to any fossil fuel or hydroelectric.
Quote:
Having just visited upstate NY a few weeks ago, I saw that a lot of this area is still pristine farm land much as it was a century or more ago. To introduce something like this into the landscape for a pay off or because it might be of some benefit is not sufficient justification, IMO.
Pretty views are not nearly as important to me as risking our national security or continuing to depend on fossil fuels which pollute on a vastly greater scale. Perhaps you also the dead lakes and mountain ridges of the Adirondacks being poisoned by acid rain from coal fired electrical generating facilities in the midwest? Millions of acres every species of animal and plant on them are affected directly by the acid rain. If building turbines means we're not erecting more coal plants, then I'm all for it. Would you rather we dam the Hudson? Put a nuclear power plant on Lake Champlain? The energy has to come from somewhere and in this case, wind seems to be the lesser of many evils.
Maybe geothermal or fusion, or hydrogen, or cheaper and super-efficient solar, or tidal flow turbines, will prove viable in the future. If they do then great, we can pull down the wind turbines and live happily ever after.
Location: North of the Cow Pasture and South of the Wind Turbines
856 posts, read 2,921,747 times
Reputation: 2280
Seems to be getting off topic - people like to turn this issue into "well what do you propose more nuclear". And Jason I think as you state it is your opinion which you have a right to. "We the people" as you say should have the right to democratically make the decision of whether certain types of industrialization is correct for a particular area. All the facts and figures one can Google can be contradicted one way or another, so to spew more numbers at other numbers is pointless, certainly in the context of this thread which is to inform Upstater's where they are and where they are going so people can make their own decision.
In regard to the people who lost their building rights - The town of Cohocton revoked all pending and past approved building permits of its residents, to be able to site the turbines and then make decisions of whether land owners would be in the way of the project. They fired their current Town official in charge of building permits, hired one that was wiling to work with them, then made decisions for many people that they could not build because they would be too close to the wind project. Just like NYC has the best water in the country, why because it's our water! They just came in and took that too.
Now is that fair? All this save the planet garbage which only in recent times has become in vogue and to reduce "our carbon footprint" is rubbish. Heres a number 80% of all CO2 comes from sea water Google that!. How about not going out in your 60ft motor yacht for a pleasure cruise at .5 MPG. People are not willing to give up their petroleum pleasure mobiles, whether, on land, sea, or the air so I guess us poor mountain folk will have to pick up the slack so they can enjoy their toys. So as long as that fact exists all the blah blah about dependence on foreign oil means nothing. ALL the "power" produced by the current and future projects goes to the downstate grid - so if they would light us up maybe people would feel a little differently.
Again I really personally don't care how individuals feel one way or the other, the point is that people should have choice if they want to live in an industrialized community or in a rural community. There is video of the town board meeting where the residents I talked about spoke to the board asking how they could take their building permit away. Somewhere on their site it changes quite a bit.
Jason-
My initial reaction to upstate rejection of wind farms was much the same as yours. That changed when I started digging deeper and following up on some of the claims against industrial wind development, specifically claims made on these boards. Rather than rehash it all (you can find the several threads with a search), I'll just repeat my conclusion....:
I'm against industrial wind development for most of upstate NY- right now it really just looks like a big subsidy scam playing on the hot public marketability and political advantage of anything that can be in the slightest way sold as being 'green' and 'renewable,' and all of the long-term costs will be externalized by the developers (who will no doubt be long gone with full pockets when the biggest costs do become apparent).
Personally I think wind power can and should be a part of our nation's energy 'portfolio,' but the where and how is critical. A look at a wind density map of NY should leave one asking, "Why upstate?" It doesn't look particularly 'dense' or consistent, particularly when compared to coastal areas. True, many turbines don't need a huge amount of wind to produce power, but the more wind (to a point) and the more consistent, the more power produced. Part of the answer to 'why' is that coastal regions are wealthy whereas rural, interior areas are poor- wealthy areas are less easily tempted by the marginal amounts developers promise to the locality, are better equipped to mount a well-funded campaign against development, etc. Not to mention the build out costs are higher, and if you're basically hoping to grab the subsidy and run, you want absolutely minimal outlay. Upstate the developers can easily find a landowner/farmer desperate for cash who will sign an exploitative lease and be confident that the neighbors won't have the money to object.
As to some of your points-
As far as I know land isn't being taken under eminent domain for industrial wind development, yet. (Though as a related issue, it will be for the proposed power line currently being fought by the state against the fed.) If energy & climate change become bigger issues, which it seems pretty obvious to me that they will, eminent domain WILL come into play as a viable 'tool' in a "business/government partnership" to "realize opportunities" for energy development, in the name of 'energy and national security.' All of which means "We're taking your land and community away to give it to a corporation so they can make some money on it."
True it seems that industrial wind farms are providing a modest percentage of power in Europe (though nuclear provides much more). Europeans are far, far ahead of American's in terms of conservation and efficiency and in updating infrastructure. They are also far more community minded (perhaps a legacy of population density, several centuries of war devastation and attendant scarcity and newer and more evolved democratic processes). I fear that massive industrial wind development will simply create the impression that we've added more capacity (and hey, it's 'free!'), so we can keep on consuming and growing as before. Using less really ought to be our first line of action, before a rush to build yet more capacity (from any source), though using less is problematic from a capitalist/growth oriented perspective in that its harder to draw real profit from encouraging people to use less.
All that said, I'm working toward eventually being off the grid on my 'homestead,' and a small windmill (as well as passive solar and micro-hydro) are part of the plan. And I think community/locally owned windfarms providing energy directly to the area in which they are located could be an interesting approach (though not likely to happen in America, smacking as it does with socialism). Giant, outside corporate entities coming into a community, spreading around a bit of pocket change in a targeted manner, pitting community member against community member and disrupting the landscape and ecology so they can essentially mine a resource (whether that actually be viable wind power or simply a tax/subsidy resource) and export the profits....... Seems like a bad thing to me.
And as far as pulling down the turbines if/when a better alternative comes along........ by then the ecological and environmental damage will be done and you can bet that the companies that put them up will be long gone/unaccountable and the costs of dismantling will be born by the local community.
Bravo Honey, Bravo. Twas not long ago we were doing the same dance hugh? You expressed the "overview" and the "underview" wonderfully, as you always do in your posts.
Brings back memories when you and I were back and forth for weeks on end, learning, sharing, etc!
Thanks for taking the time to contribute to this one.n I applaud BovinaCow for starting a non "for or against" post, instead a post of geo. information for people to reference!
If you really want to witness the pros and cons of the windfarms, check out what is going on at the Tug Hill site in Lowville and Martinsburg. ALso..there is quite a debate on it in Cape Vincent up in the 1000 Isles area.
I get in quite a tiff with my fellow New Englanders who claim to be so progressive, yet they like to eliminate that when it comes to aesthetics. The Nantucketers and Ted Kennedy were both protesting the proposed wind farm out there. The core of my issue with New England liberalism...the attitude of "I'm liberal and open minded and do what you want, but dont it let affect me".
If you really want to witness the pros and cons of the windfarms, check out what is going on at the Tug Hill site in Lowville and Martinsburg. ALso..there is quite a debate on it in Cape Vincent up in the 1000 Isles area.
I get in quite a tiff with my fellow New Englanders who claim to be so progressive, yet they like to eliminate that when it comes to aesthetics. The Nantucketers and Ted Kennedy were both protesting the proposed wind farm out there. The core of my issue with New England liberalism...the attitude of "I'm liberal and open minded and do what you want, but dont it let affect me".
Pardon the last paragraph.
I will do that.
I like the aesthetics of these;t here's a spare, modern, graceful, elegance to them, how they arc in a pleasant crescent, the white against the blue sea. If offshore wind farms can look like these, I don't see an aethetic issue.
Offshore farms are problematic from a quick-buck perspective (which is the perspective of Invenergy and other large, corporate energy concerns)- they are much more expensive to build and to maintain, severely cutting into margins, the infrastructure doesn't already exist, waterfront properties are owned by the wealthy who don't like the view disruption and can afford to fight it, offshore waters are sort of like 'public lands,' so any construction there will come under much greater scrutiny than that on leased private land.
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.
