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.
I wonder what wacko environmental group found this forum?
It seems like a couple of posters in this thread joined City Data about the same time (Aug 2013), started off slow, kinda got established, and now are in full swing with their agenda's propaganda...
I also don't think that the support that they envisioned they would find here, ever materialized.
It has been mentioned that the majority of wind turbines seen in the gorge are located on the Washington side.
But, when I go over to the Washington forums, I have trouble finding any posts about wind farms.
Why is that, do you think?
Is it another back room pocket lining political conspiracy?
Also, regarding tourism dollars, almost every single friend and relative of mine who has visited from out of state, upon seeing a wind farm for the first time, has told me that they were awesome (in a technologically majestic sort of way), and asked if it was possible to drive up and get a closer look.
Every time that has happened, it has resulted in a local lunch, dinner, or the spending of more than a few dollars at a local establishment.
Last edited by pdxMIKEpdx; 08-26-2013 at 03:04 PM..
Wind can't compete with nuclear for energy density
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Pickering
Wind or Nuclear? Your Choice.
It's not a "choice" - because wind power simply doesn't have the ability to run civilization on a large scale, even with a ton of backup generation (which ties it to other sources by default).
The number of wind turbines that would make a significant dent in electricity consumption is several million, worldwide. That scenario would industrialize far too much scenery from various vantage points, which is the obvious problem with wind turbines (and the problem most ignored by their zealous promoters).
Climate scientist James Hansen understands that nuclear will be critical:
A friend from The Dalles and I drove out I-84 to Boardman this week. She was talking up a storm about the 338 wind turbines at the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm near Arlington. Residents complain about the noise. Environmentalists complain because coal produced electricity is used to start the wind turbines when wind is slack. Most everyone says they look like crap and are destroying the scenic gorge. Washington state wants to build a wind farm opposite Hood River.
Shepherds Flat’s 835 megawatts will all be going to Southern California Edison to help the utility meet a new 33 percent renewable power by 2020 mandate. The Shepherds Flat Wind Farm is a 845 megawatt (MW) wind farm in the U.S. state of Oregon. The facility is located in Eastern Oregon in both Morrow and Gilliam counties, near Arlington. Approved in 2008 by state regulators, groundbreaking came in 2009. The wind farm was built by Caithness Energy using General Electric (GE) 2.5 MW wind turbines, and it supplies electricity to Southern California Edison. The wind farm is estimated to have an economic impact of $16 million annually for Oregon. It is one of the largest land-based wind farms in the world. It officially opened in September 2012.
Who Paid For It?
Are renewable energy tax credits and subsidies to blame for the renewable energy crunch? Shepherds Flat has been criticized for “double dipping” into federal and state subsidies and claiming tax money beyond the value of the carbon reductions the project offers. The Oregonian found a White House memo that cited $1.2 billion in federal, state and local subsidies for the project – or 65 percent of the $1.9 billion cost.
It creates jobs
The project's ongoing operation will bring 35 permanent jobs into a moribund employment market.
We need the power
Oregon is already on the verge of having more wind energy than the grid can handle.
Wind is a cheap renewable source
the cost per job is enormous: $34 million per permanent position when all federal and state subsidies are tallied. Moreover, it's not clear that those jobs have any link to the $30 million in proposed tax credits from the state of Oregon.
Simulated view from Hood River if Whistling River Wind Farm is approved:
Partial actual view of Shepherds Flat Wind Farm from Arlington
Many of us find wind power to be an obscene, inefficient, unacceptable electricity source. It was only green when there weren't so many turbines all over the place. The scale of those projects is causing more visual desecration than anything I can think of. Pollution isn't just about carbon. They could at least respect the mountains and stop capping them with those monsters, as if to say Man rules the view.
Don't drink the Suzuki kool-aid (see the reactions to his worship of those machines). Too many supposed environmentalists are showing that they really aren't
Your photos pretty much hamstring your whine. There is nothing scenic in any of those pictures. It varies from bare dirt to what appears to be wheat crops, not unexpected on the south edge of the Palouse. The wind turbines don't obstruct any view of anything.
I like your "would have" panic about wind farm siting that didn't happen. If they were truly visible from the scenic corridor, the project would never have got off the ground. That's apparently what happened. A quick look at the company's web site reveals that First Wind has no projects in Oregon. It's tough to whine about something that doesn't exist, isn't it?
Your figures for siting leases are also very inflated. Currently, a landowner can collect $2000 to $4000 a year, depending on how good the site is. We can assume the Washington sites are some of the better ones. As for crop subsidies, you apparently aren't aware that only 3 crops are subsidized: wheat, corn and soybeans. At $25 per acre, a farmer would need 40,000 acres in the program to receive a million a year in subsidies. The subsidies are probably going to be extinct soon anyway. Now that food stamps have been split out of the farm bill, the old coalition that kept the subsidies in place is gone. Most farmers aren't in favor of the subsidies anyway, simply because they don't grow any of the subsidized crops.
I also find it ironic that you want to dictate what happens on private land while decrying government subsidies. Make up your mind.
If you want to know what a national power grid would look like, here's a picture for you:
You think wind turbines are only visible directly on the land they're placed on? Even if random areas aren't desecrated (in your opinion) there are plenty of others that are. You can't hide machines that are usually over 400 feet tall now. Some are in the 600-700 foot range and that's the trend to reach higher level winds. Some wind turbines can be seen at over 30 miles, depending on the vantage point.
There are a quarter million of these things on Earth already. The people who want to see more and more of them are not environmentalists in any context I understand. They are somewhat tolerable in certain agricultural settings, but not if they impede views of nice scenery behind them, which can be impossible to avoid and involves many vantage points.
Typical desecration of a mountain scene, the most arrogant place to put them.
Size comparison, for those who think they're quaint like the old windmills.
I wonder what wacko environmental group found this forum?
It seems like a couple of posters in this thread joined City Data about the same time (Aug 2013), started off slow, kinda got established, and now are in full swing with their agenda's propaganda...
I also don't think that the support that they envisioned they would find here, ever materialized.
It has been mentioned that the majority of wind turbines seen in the gorge are located on the Washington side.
But, when I go over to the Washington forums, I have trouble finding any posts about wind farms.
Why is that, do you think?
Is it another back room pocket lining political conspiracy?
Also, regarding tourism dollars, almost every single friend and relative of mine who has visited from out of state, upon seeing a wind farm for the first time, has told me that they were awesome (in a technologically majestic sort of way), and asked if it was possible to drive up and get a closer look.
Every time that has happened, it has resulted in a local lunch, dinner, or the spending of more than a few dollars at a local establishment.
Your post is very interesting, since wind turbines are usually pitched as pro-environment, which I've always known is nonsense. It's good to see someone admitting that they could care less about the landscapes nature made and would rather see gigantic machines that they describe as "beautiful" or "awesome" (with landowner payments often coloring their view). Odds are high that you're making money off these eyesores and spinning it to your liking.
Turbines are being proposed (and heavily fought) in an undeniably scenic part of the Gorge near White Salmon. Many people don't like it, even if you don't care to know their opinions. Learn about the Whistling Ridge Energy Project.
Simulation of Whistling Ridge landscape killers. Initial plan was for 50 turbines, cut down to 35, but they'd be 430 feet tall.
1. Most of the wind turbines are in Washington.
2. They are beautiful to look at, one of the most poetic of functional machines. Could you imagine Holland without windmills?
3. If the USA ever gets off its duff and builds a national power grid, wind power can provide a major portion of our energy needs. The wind is always blowing somewhere. It's going to have to be a national effort. Dinky little regional power utilities will never get it done.
4. The current boom in natural gas production has made wind power less economically feasible, but only a fool thinks that's going to last forever. 20 years from now we will be running out of natural gas again, but the wind will still be blowing. It's time for America to quit stumbling from crisis to crisis and to do some serious energy planning.
Show me photos of what you think is "beautiful to look at." Wind turbines either alter or ruin what they're built on from a natural/rural aesthetics angle. So, to call them "beautiful" is extremely subjective and insults whatever scenery they displaced. They'd be OK with more people on city skylines, but they usually end up far from cities, creating a new form of urban sprawl with many negatives. When you put them on mountains it's especially disrespectful.
I'd also suggest a physics lesson if you think fossil fuels can be replaced by machines that need fossil fuels to even exist! Get a clue from climatologist James Hansen. Wind power is the most space-inefficient way to generate electricity. It takes over huge scenic areas and is also subject to wind's variability or complete absence, which means other power sources must always back it up.
This is a tiny fraction of the machines you call "beautiful." I call them bone ugly in 90% of cases. Too tall, noisy and out of context with their surroundings.
You surely realize that much of the power generated by dams on the Columbia is "wheeled" to California.
Quite a lot of power generated on the Columbia goes to California. It's why they built the high voltage intertie. Wind power is an excellent adjunct to hydro, because it allows retention of water behind the dams that can be used to pick up the load when the wind dies. Wind will be a big part of our future energy, with the added benefit that the wind turbines are picturesque additions to the landscape.
Show me photos of what you think is "beautiful to look at." Wind turbines either alter or ruin what they're built on from a natural/rural aesthetics angle. So, to call them "beautiful" is extremely subjective and insults whatever scenery they displaced. They'd be OK with more people on city skylines, but they usually end up far from cities, creating a new form of urban sprawl with many negatives. When you put them on mountains it's especially disrespectful.
I'd also suggest a physics lesson if you think fossil fuels can be replaced by machines that need fossil fuels to even exist! Get a clue from climatologist James Hansen. Wind power is the most space-inefficient way to generate electricity. It takes over huge scenic areas and is also subject to wind's variability or complete absence, which means other power sources must always back it up.
This is a tiny fraction of the machines you call "beautiful." I call them bone ugly in 90% of cases. Too tall, noisy and out of context with their surroundings.
Beautiful.
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.
Wind can't compete with nuclear for energy density
