Wind Generation in Washington State....what a waste of land!! (insurance, homes)

[leastprime]

the 500,000 acres are for, "breaking wind"

[CarlB328]

The windmills are usually on Marginal land anyways, or in the middle or nowhere, so I don't know how you could conclude it's a waste of land, other than just being biased.

[sll3454]

Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook

I like the idea of using wind... It's free energy, easier to take advantage of than hydro. I don't find the windmills to be ugly. I would like to know what the real bird-strike damage is. I am suspect of most of the reporting around the issue. I fear it's as biased as the reporting about our hydro-electric dams.

The wind itself is free, but harvesting it is not. Those wind turbines aren't made out of "nothin'," and they don't return to "nothin'" when their useful life is done.

Getting struck is not the birds' only danger. Although a couple thousand birds are hit each year, I expect that habitat loss is more significant. While you might think they're pretty, they are also very noisy. Noise is also disruptive to birds; their songs and calls aren't just for entertainment.

The turbines are able to harness a little over half the potential energy in the wind. They also cannot store large amounts of energy.

Then there's this:

Data suggest that, unless the market penetration of rare earth permanent magnets in wind-generation applications greatly exceeds the 20 percent level assumed in this study or unless China, the principal supplier of rare earth elements to the market, should restrict the supply of these materials, the current and proposed production level of rare earth elements may be sufficient to supply the wind turbine industry in the short term until new rare earth production and downstream manufacturing facilities come online. In July 2010, however, China’s Ministry of Commerce reduced China’s export quota for rare earth oxides by 77 percent for the second half of 2010 (Industrial Minerals, 2010). This action reduced the amount of rare earth oxide exports from China below the world consumption level for these materials.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf, p. 16



I like the idea, too, but I don't like the reality.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by sll3454

The wind itself is free, but harvesting it is not....

The turbines are able to harness a little over half the potential energy in the wind. They also cannot store large amounts of energy.

...
I like the idea, too, but I don't like the reality.

We are building 'Batteries' on wind installations in PNW (dams that get filled by pumping when there is surplus wind)

There is very little 'efficient' about wind energy production. There are so many higher payback options that would have a more direct effect on energy needs. (SURPRISE... the USA needs a comprehensive 'Energy Policy'!. like for the last 70 yrs...)

So much opportunity for USA benefit and future needs.

Having grown up in and near Wyoming.... I wonder why we (PNW) bother with wind when we have so many other great options. Incrementally it can help, but anything under 10% would be 'marginal' in the grand scheme of things. Instead we (PNW) could have made another huge impact in the national energy contribution. Strategy (and reason) is seriously lacking with 2-4 yr cycle 'politics'. (Get in, milk the cow, get a lobbying gig, get out, get rich at the expense of sustaining your community and environment. )

SAD

[509]

Originally Posted by Transmition

Where do you get that number from? Are you counting all the land owned for wind farms as destroyed? Isn't most of it still scrubland?

Industrial Wind Areas are no longer "normal" functioning ecosystems.

I grew up in the Bay Area and the filling of the bay, resulted in remnents of the original tidelands. Same for the Industrial Wind Areas, they are no longer normal functioning shrub-steppe ecosystems.

That is my definition of "destroyed".

Drive through a Industrial Wind Area and see what you think.....some are accessible on the fringes from county roads. The really "destroyed' areas are, of course, closed to the public.

[509]

Originally Posted by CarlB328

The windmills are usually on Marginal land anyways, or in the middle or nowhere, so I don't know how you could conclude it's a waste of land, other than just being biased.

Thanks....that is where I LIVE.

What are "marginal" lands??

[sll3454]

Originally Posted by CarlB328

The windmills are usually on Marginal land anyways, or in the middle or nowhere, so I don't know how you could conclude it's a waste of land, other than just being biased.

"Marginal lands" may not have exciting attractions like orcas, or grizzlies, or thousand-year-old trees, but they still provide habitat for animals. So in the name of clean energy and environmental responsibility and caring for the land, we turn it into a wasteland.

[CarlB328]

Wind turbines don't destroy the land, and they are often desert or scrub brush and near highways where no one would use the land anyway.

[CarlB328]

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...act=mrc&uact=8L]

[lighthouse7669]

One thing to remember also. Wind energy at this scale is still relativity new. Its still still a sector that's growing and continuously becoming more efficient. Your trying to compare it to forms of energy that have been used in mass for 50 yrs. So its not yet a fare comparison.