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.
My guess is that this company has been given a big govt. grant to build these. I've read and believe also that these things are not economically viable without huge subsidies. Here's a vote that says it will never be built. Others have been planned and died also.
They should make more windfarms, in every state and run the country on the hot air politicians blow at us when they travel through our states the only time in their lives.
You'll see lots of them in West Texas, but it may surprise you that there are also some wind farms in South Texas. That's right. I spotted some turbines north of Corpus Christi and, again, lining up east of Raymondville and stretching down to just north of Harlingen. They're all quite a sight to see.
Hmm... I guess I won't say anything since this isn't the politics and controversies thread.
I hope everyone will keep that in mind, and not drag this thread I started, about a specific large development in the Texas panhandle, off into partisan wrangling about other issues and other projects in other places. Please feel free to start your own thread on Politics and Other Controversies if you wish to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford
The awarness of danger to Avian life has halted at least one wind project....
Was this issue part of the public debate about the siting of that project? Yes. And it got national attention because bald eagles were considered to be at risk. Was that the reason the project was shut down? I don't believe so. As I understand it the financing for the project was contingent on the contract to sell the power to a utility, but due to multiple project delays the contract was lost and the deal came apart. "Correlation does not imply causality."
Quote:
Originally Posted by arleigh
If thats the case, then big buildings should be taken down too and cars and every other thing birds run into .how stupid.
I had a house in California once with a big glass patio window. At least once a year a bird flew headlong into that window and killed itself, despite various measures I took to try to prevent that from happening. Should I have torn the house down? I don't believe the scale of the problem justified that drastic a response. For one thing, my neighbor's cat killed far more birds than my entire house did.
Every action mankind takes has the potential for unintended consequences. It is important that we remain sensitive to the downsides, and mitigate those risks appropriately. It's also important that we weigh all the available information together, and make informed judgments about the actions we take.
If solar energy was the whole, entire, and complete answer to our energy needs, I'd say "Yay, let's go for it!" But as much a fan of solar energy as I am, I recognize that it is not a complete solution. For one thing, it doesn't work when the sun isn't shining, or when it's blocked by weather.
On the other hand there's a very well situated wind farm near me that has been producing clean, totally renewable power on nearly a continuous 24/7 basis for more than 23 years, with very few bird losses, and it's a perfect complement to all the solar power generation that has been added since it first came on line.
My guess is that this company has been given a big govt. grant to build these. I've read and believe also that these things are not economically viable without huge subsidies. Here's a vote that says it will never be built. Others have been planned and died also.
A lot of people say a lot of things about a lot of things, whether or not they have any relationship to reality. If we could capture all of THAT wasted energy we might be able to close all the pollution causing fossil fuel burning power plants.
The simple fact is that this project is joining already successful operating wind farms in that area. What makes this project worthy of comment is 1) the size of it, and 2) its unique financing plan.
Are early subsidies an important part of bringing forth new technologies with broad impact such as wind energy? Absolutely, just as they have in the past when steamboats, canals, railroads, telephones, and even commercial air travel were each vying for a place in the marketplace against entrenched older and cheaper technologies.
But in every one of these historical cases, and I believe in the case of each of the major renewable energy sources being explored today, the technologies either fully emerged over time and became viable on their own merit, or they fell by the wayside. We have not yet reached that point with renewable energy. What I see becoming the big driver is the rising commitment to eliminate airborne pollutants.
I missed these news reports out of Texas until I tripped over them today while looking for something else. To tell the truth, I thought wind energy was kind of dead since T Boone Pickens dropped his projects a couple of years ago, when natural gas prices dropped. But here's a new wave of interest and investment. A BIG wave!
Yeah, great news for anyone who doesn't care about massive industrialization of dwindling open spaces. I see a very shady color of green when these mechanical monsters take over priceless landscapes around the world.
Note that I'm anything but a global warming denier, or someone who thinks Peak Oil is mythical. I am just against the constant eradication of wilderness and scenic views.
...The simple fact is that this project is joining already successful operating wind farms in that area. What makes this project worthy of comment is 1) the size of it, and 2) its unique financing plan....
Therein (my bold) lies the whole problem with wind turbines. They take up huge tracts of land, ruin natural views, and are very inefficient in terms of output per acre.
I am weary of those who ignore all the land being grabbed by these contraptions and claim they'd much rather see a vast network of 400 foot skyscrapers than a standard power plant of much shorter stature on a fraction of the acreage. How zealous can they get? It's green blindness. The visibility of wind turbines on the horizon greatly exceeds the visual disruption of other power plants, and turbines end up in areas that most of us thought would remain untrammeled. It really is a tragedy unfolding. As bad as fracking scars in many ways.
Anyone who doesn't understand the growing scale of this problem should spend time at Wind-Watch and similar sites. There is a breed of people who claim to be environmentalists but are blinded by gizmo-worship and think all that matters is "clean" electricity no matter how dirty it makes the landscape.
I once signed up at the Democratic Underground site to make a few negative comments about wind turbines, and my account was banned within a day, and I think the posts got deleted. No less radical than AGW denial, IMO.
Yeah, great news for anyone who doesn't care about massive industrialization of dwindling open spaces. I see a very shady color of green when these mechanical monsters take over priceless landscapes around the world.
Strip away the emotionalism and bias and what's left? You don't like them. I get it, but that's not a viable argument in the quest for clean energy.
The fact is, if you think about it, that these towers are more aesthetic and less intrusive than the oil wells they will hopefully someday replace. Did you ever get close to a producing oil field, or a strip mine? Neither is suitable for anything else, for any other use, even after they are out of production. But wind towers can not only coexist with agriculture or farming, but they can also be removed from service and the land restored fairly simply, because there is no toxic pollution to deal with.
I'd say that's a mischaracterization. Under the latest siting regulations, new wind turbines are not being permitted in areas where there are known migratory bird paths, or substantial eagle activity. And because the newer Gen II turbine blades move much more slowly than Gen I designs, they are not only quieter but less dangerous to birds. And there are various avoidance measures being implemented, including live observers and radar systems that shut down the turbines when flocks of birds approach. Still, some birds are inadvertently killed. The "permits" are simply a way to document what the administration considers to be reasonable limits for birdkills at existing installations.
What you pointed to is a political manifesto, basically, from 1998, which is designed to shut down renewable energy, and to force greater use of coal, which Germany has a lot of. It's something which I'd say the US is already past considering.
Quote:
Note that I'm anything but a global warming denier, or someone who thinks Peak Oil is mythical. I am just against the constant eradication of wilderness and scenic views.
I agree that we need wilderness areas that are preserved for their wildness. That's what park systems like NPS are for. But in this case, none of the above applies. These are private property owners, who are using their property in a way they see fit. Unless you can figure out a way to monetize the scenic view so they are appropriately compensated for their loss of income, there's no way to stop them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north
Therein (my bold) lies the whole problem with wind turbines. They take up huge tracts of land, ruin natural views, and are very inefficient in terms of output per acre.
Really? A 2.5 MW tower occupies about an acre and a half of air space, but most of the ground underneath can be used for growing crops, raising livestock, or... what a concept!... placing solar panels!
Quote:
I am weary of those who ignore all the land being grabbed by these contraptions and claim they'd much rather see a vast network of 400 foot skyscrapers than a standard power plant of much shorter stature on a fraction of the acreage.
What kind of zero emissions power plant are you suggesting?
Quote:
Anyone who doesn't understand the growing scale of this problem should spend time at Wind-Watch and similar sites. There is a breed of people who claim to be environmentalists but are blinded by gizmo-worship and think all that matters is "clean" electricity no matter how dirty it makes the landscape.
Again, that's biased language. ANY kind of development changes the way things look. The area where these wind farms are going in, outside Lubbock, is pretty desolate and scrubby, but there are fences and roads and telephone poles and power lines and ranch buildings and silos and buildings and signs and all kinds of things that were not there when it was all in its virgin prairie state. All you're doing is setting an arbitrary limit on what you find acceptable. But how are you going to pay for that limitation of people's property rights? Seriously! Because unless you can solve that equation, preserving the "view" is very hard to justify except in designated public lands like Yosemite or The Grand Canyon.
Texas not being interconnected with the other grids is a limitation, not a benefit.
Guess again, ERCOT is actually connected to the grid in 4 places...............If one reviews the wind overlay you will see that much of the Eastern wind farms are Nationel grid tied as well......apVisualizing The U.S. Electric Grid : NPR
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.
They are only green in theory
