Windmills, NIMBY?

[Bodo]

I came across this article today. With all the talk about wind power lately, would you want one of these turbines on your or on your neighbor's land?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/17/bitter.wind.ap/index.html

Story Highlights
Maple Ridge wind project, New York state's largest, has brought area money, jobs

But project has pitted "neighbor against neighbor, father against son," resident says

Project includes 195 turbines at 400 feet high with 130-foot-long blades

Residents disagree over turbine noise and size, developer deals, effect on wildlife

[JPK1NH]

I came across this article today. With all the talk about wind power lately, would you want one of these turbines on your or on your neighbor's land?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/08/17/bitter.wind.ap/index.html

Bothered that NIMBY wacko Sen Kennedy from Mass so badly that he had a NIMBY Meltdown even though the proposed location was so far off the Mass shoreline that they were beyond the horizon and not visible from shore....

Liberal Hypocrits.

[sqkcrk]

This article was in our local paper today. The Tug Hill Plateau is about 75 miles south of where I live. It has been interesting to see the Wind Turbines as they grew in numbers over the last few years.

There is another Wind Farm to the east of us, about 40 miles which has quite a few Turbines also. And then another that is growing about 20 miles east of that one, near Plattsburg sorta.

And then another is in the works near the St. Lawrence Seaway, close to Clayton, NY.

If this keeps up NY will lead the nation in wind turbines per acre, maybe.

I don't know if I'd want to live under one or near one or not. I think I'd rather have a Cell Phone Tower. I think they pay better.

[Barry Digman]

When I was young, the skies here were about as clear as anywhere on earth. Then they built a 2,040 megawatt coal-fired power plant. Then they added an 1,800 megawatt coal-fired plant. Now they're permitting a 1,500 megawatt coal fired plant. Now, anyone who understands what a megawatt is knows that's a lot of electricity being generated and exported out of our little berg to other places. The downside is that the pollution doesn't get exported along with the power.

[Bodo]

The downside is that the pollution doesn't get exported along with the power.

I hear ya. I'm from Western NC and the pollution IS getting exported. The levels of Mercury and haze from the Coal-fireds in TN and KY is really bad.

I'm not soo sure about the wind power thing though. It sounds like a great idea, but I don't think i could put tower in if my neighbors weren't along for the ride...

[sqkcrk]

The downside is that the pollution doesn't get exported along with the power.

Maybe a forest of Wind Mills would help. They could run off of the coalfired plants and blow the pollution away. :)

[Sundance]

Most folks get concerned about most anything intruding
into their "turf".

The beauty of wind power is it usually is best farmed in
areas where very few people live.

[Galaxy]

The beauty of wind power is it usually is best farmed in
areas where very few people live.I would not call that beauty. The fact is, to produce the equivalent amount of power as one typical nuclear plant, that takes a site of about 1 square mile, you must desecrate thousands of square miles of land with the turbines to produce the same amount of electricity from wind. It's no wonder that Ted Kennedy opposed them. He may be smarter than some of us give him credit for. :(

Where's the Sierra Club when we need them? I thought those guys oppose the desecration of wide open spaces.

[BjornBee]

Build a few nuc power plants and you don't need any windmills.... ;)

Putting windmills into the grid does little to change the grid. The grid must be maintained at certain levels, and wind power is unreliable, even with some ill-conceived notion of huge power storage units. It will be good for some rather large companies and a few who will benefit from grants and government handouts to satisfy a few radical groups that someone is doing something. But don't expect a whole bunch of coal power plants to close up shop due to some windmill parks. The other thing that will do that is reliable, clean, nuc power plants that produce cheap power.

I like the fact that its clean. But these mega wind mills are expensive to place, expensive to maintain, and electric costs will be some of the highest paid. Its but a small piece of what needs to be done. Unfortunately, some are being sold on some fantasy that wind power is some viable solution to our growing energy needs. It is not.

Funny thing is, that I heard Paris Hilton's funny little commercial concerning the issue while blasting OBama and McCain.....and it made more sense than anything that has come out of government in years. ;)

[BjornBee]

Ok Galaxy..either type slower, or type more content... ;)

[Galaxy]

Yes, nuclear construction should proceed on an accelerated schedule. It is the "green" alternative. Unfortunately,many environmentalist do not want a clean, cheap, abundant source of energy as the bold quote of Lovins below illustrates.

NUCLEAR IS GREENER
Beyond economics, if you take seriously the issue of greenhouse gases — whether as a climate alarmist or as someone with an open mind who believes in a degree of prudence — then the case for nuclear power is unassailable. James Lovelock, famous as the father of the “Gaia Hypothesis,” has said nuclear power represents humanity’s only hope to escape runaway global warming. Yet most environmental groups refuse to recognize the impracticality of opposing both greenhouse-gas emissions and our most effective way of reducing them. For those groups, the problem isn’t “dirty” energy, but energy itself. They presumably agree with one of their sages, Amory Lovins, who told Playboy in 1977, “It’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we might do with it.”

For the rest of us, what we might do with it is the whole point — we might increase human prosperity and welfare. If we’re determined to price coal out of the energy market, then nuclear is it. If we’re determined to cure our “addiction to oil,” then we will need nuclear facilities to power our plug-in hybrid electric cars or to make the hydrogen for our fuel cells. This is not a green pipe dream. In fact, given the way automotive technology is developing, it is plausible that a majority of vehicles sold in the U.S. by 2020 will use electric power trains, increasing our need for electricity. We might not even need to close our coal mines, since we can get more energy from the uranium found in coal than from burning the coal itself.

Those denizens of Seaton Carew had it right. Nuclear power is clean. In a sense it is still new. Thirty years after their radical predecessors took nuclear energy away from the people of the world, environmentalists might have inadvertently given it back. Atomkraft? Ja, bitte! Nuclear power? Yes, please!

[George Fergusson]

I came across this article today. With all the talk about wind power lately, would you want one of these turbines on your or on your neighbor's land?

Thanks for posting that Bodo. I was sorry to read about the divisive impact this has had on the families in the area. I tend to side with the 90 year old man who did what he thought was the right thing to assure the legacy of his family property. You just know that old man worked hard to get where he is today.

Here in Maine there has been flap over proposed wind farms. The arguments opposed that I remember involved birds getting killed by the blades. I wonder if that is really a big problem? They get killed by cars all the time but I don't see these people complaining about cars? In any case, I'd imagine that bird populations would some how survive.

I expect I could live with a wind farm in my area. I certainly don't put much stock in NIMBYs. Got no use for `em.

Nuclear power? Yes, please!

Wrong thread Galaxy, this is about wind farms :)

[JPK1NH]

Wrong thread Galaxy, this is about wind farms :)

His point I think is that a single nuclear plant can generate power 24x7x365, fits in well with our existing power transmission infrastructure, takes up much less space than thousands of windmills not to mention not spoiling the scenic value of large vista's.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do Windmills but like BjornBee says they have their limitations, are very expensive per kwh and spoil large portions of our landscape.

[Sundance]

The addition of any new major grid inputs is going to
require miles of new transmission lines. Some of the
very towers will be on a similar scale to most
wind turbines.

Upgrading the grid is a must do regardless of input
generators. Of which, wind turbines should be a
major player.

George is right........ the thread is about Wind generators
and the objection based on aesthetics and possible
environmental impact.

[JPK1NH]

The addition of any new major grid inputs is going to
require miles of new transmission lines. Some of the
very towers will be on a similar scale to most
wind turbines.

Upgrading the grid is a must do regardless of input
generators. Of which, wind turbines should be a
major player.


Improvements to the grid are a must and this has been a known issue for 3+ decades.

The difference between Nuclear and Wind is that Wind is not dependable, is spikey in nature and we have no means for storing that electricity and don't in the foreseeable future.

Nuclear dovetails right into our existing infrastructure by being a 24x7x365 resource that can largely use existing power transmission lines and additionally eliminate existing dirty coal facilities while producing enourmous amounts of electricity.

[Sundance]

Improvements to the grid are a must and this has been a known issue for 3+ decades.

The difference between Nuclear and Wind is that Wind is not dependable...

Wind is totally dependable, just inconvenient. ;) Every report
I've read says it can supplement other sources of generation
by over 50%.

There are some extremely promising methods of storing wind
energy to allow it's use to feed the grid around the clock.
Pumping is one.

But the bottom line.......... it's not the single answer. But neither
is nuclear. Uranium is a finite resource. As the globe turns to it
in almost geometric consumption rates, it will be gone. Some
say 50 year.......... Regardless, it's finite. Wind is forever.

As is geothermal, solar, and tidal.

[JPK1NH]

Wind is totally dependable, just inconvenient. ;) Every report
I've read says it can supplement other sources of generation
by over 50%.

There are some extremely promising methods of storing wind
energy to allow it's use to feed the grid around the clock.
Pumping is one.

But the bottom line.......... it's not the single answer. But neither
is nuclear. Uranium is a finite resource. As the globe turns to it
in almost geometric consumption rates, it will be gone. Some
say 50 year.......... Regardless, it's finite. Wind is forever.

As is geothermal, solar, and tidal.

I totally agree that diversification is a good and necessary thing but Wind VERY expensive and doesn't work when there is insufficient wind.....which is highly variable from day to day, season to season and year to year.

I'd like to hear more from you about how exactly the energy from Wind is to be stored, particularly if your plan is to do it with Water as a source of PE.

[Bodo]

Uranium is a finite resource. As the globe turns to it
in almost geometric consumption rates, it will be gone. Some
say 50 year.......... Regardless, it's finite.

Not trying to aid in the OT stuff, but I felt compelled to respond to this.

Only ~98% of the fuel is used in today's reactors. It can be 'recycled' in a breeder reactor and reused. Fissile material can be created in a properly made reactor.
Uranium is but one fuel available for power production and can be 'created' at will.


Back to windmills. My wife and I have looked into a small scale windmill along with PV. They'd be useful for cutting our power bill and providing emergency power after a hurricane. Initial investment is pretty steep though.

I wonder if that isn't a possible solution? More decentralized, small scale power production?

[Hobie]

I dunno, I've been WANTING to put one of those in my backyard for years, but the stupid government has taken away any available grants or tax breaks or other support, and I can't afford it. Mine would have been a tad smaller, but I live in a place where 30 mph wind is an common event, and losing power in winter on a windy day is a death sentence to my hot (fast becoming cold) water heating system.

Sign me up. The sooner I can thumb my nose at corporations who sell me energy at ever-increasing costs (both dollar and environmental), the better.

[Sundance]

I dunno, I've been WANTING to put one of those in my backyard for years, but the stupid government has taken away any available grants or tax breaks or other support, and I can't afford it. Mine would have been a tad smaller, but I live in a place where 30 mph wind is an common event, and losing power in winter on a windy day is a death sentence to my hot (fast becoming cold) water heating system.

Sign me up. The sooner I can thumb my nose at corporations who sell me energy at ever-increasing costs (both dollar and environmental), the better.

Exactly Hobie.........

I have long thought of a plan like this...........

Target Consumer

*Small farms and ranches in the "wind belt"

1. The subject currently uses $300 per month in electric

2. A zero interest loan is given to install a wind turbine
capable of providing 200% of subject's electric needs.

3. Systems are all grid tied with reverse metering.

4. Subject repays the loan at previous average monthly
electric use. Or $300 per month in this case.

5. Excess energy is sold back to the utility. A percentage
of this goes in escrow for maintenance. The rest further
retires the loan.

Every one is happy............
*

[sqkcrk]

His point I think is that a single nuclear plant can generate power 24x7x365, fits in well with our existing power transmission infrastructure, takes up much less space than thousands of windmills not to mention not spoiling the scenic value of large vista's.


But the question was whether you would want one in your back yard or your neighbors back yard. You've made two posts to this thread and not yet answered the question. So, what's your answer?

Make that five.

[iddee]

Sundance >>>>4. Subject repays the loan at previous average monthly
electric use. Or $300 per month in this case.<<<<



From the article <<<<Though the wind itself is free, companies have enormous startup costs: A single industrial wind turbine costs about $3 million.>>>>

Great idea...It should only take him 10,000 months to repay the loan.
Even Obama would know that wouldn't work...........Welllllll, Maybe!!! :rolleyes: ;)

[Sundance]

LOL iddee you slay me sometimes......

A small 30 KW turbine runs about $40,000. That's
less than 10 years. (134 months with no excess
energy being sold back).

[Sundance]

Here's a 20KW unit on ebay!! Wild.

Tower is too short and it needs a inverter for grid
tying. And it's Chinese :(

http://cgi.ebay.com/CE-HS20K-20kw-wind-turbine-with-tower-off-grid-inverter_W0QQitemZ360079664016QQihZ023QQcategoryZ1 21837QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Galaxy]

The Real Cost of Wind Power

Here’s a letter from Richard Allison (a professional engineer) recently printed in the Sante Fe New Mexican (http:///)
July 13, 2008 in The Santa Fe New Mexican
I stayed close to home for the Fourth of July weekend. My wife and I spent a
very enjoyable weekend camping near Mills Canyon in Harding County. We did
it to save gasoline, as many others did. My thoughts, like those of many
others, centered on how we are going to get out of this high priced
crude-oil mess we have gotten ourselves into. I still want to travel and
visit family.

Most of my friends are sold on alternative energy supply as the key to
reducing our dependence on oil. These folks are no dummies, as they include
other engineers like me, teachers and researchers at the labs. Consistently,
they all say solar and wind power are the tickets to energy independence.

This seems to be the party line, as our governor and other leading
politicians in New Mexico are against any other form of power generation,
such as nuclear or coal. But what these excellent politicians are failing to
tell us is the whole truth.
I polled at least 10 friends last week, and only one had the right answer as
to the cost of wind generation, which is the power- generation alternative
of choice in New Mexico.

None of our politicians want to talk about the cost of wind- power
generation. Wind-power generation is one of the most expensive forms of
electric-power generation.
I am in favor of varied sources of power generation, but only after everyone
realizes what it is going to cost. The fact is that wind power is between 20
percent and 30 percent more costly than conventional power production. PNM
is right in the middle at a 25 percent premium. If you don’t believe me,
just look at the much- touted PNM Sky Blue program on its Web site.
The additional cost for signing up for this program is $.0169 per kilowatt
hour, or $1.69 per hundred kilowatt hours. This is 25 percent more than
their base rate. I am really not up to paying 25 percent more on my electric
bill because my ‘97 Honda still needs to be fed gasoline to get to work. My
energy dollar only goes so far.

The politicians are not telling us that wind power can never be used to base
load a power generation system. What happens when the wind does not blow,
which frequently happens for days at a time even in our windy New Mexico?
The base load generation must pick up the slack and this happens a lot.

So, unless we are willing, which I am not, to turn off the lights when the
wind does not blow, the base load generation must keep expanding. This is
where the cost gets exorbitant. For every dollar invested in a megawatt of
wind power generation, PNM must also have in reserve or under construction a
megawatt of base load capacity. In other words, PNM must spend the money to
build two power stations rather than one: the wind farm and coal/nuclear
base load plant. Both the wind power farms and base load generation must be
maintained, which again doubles the maintenance cost. PNM is also entitled
to a return on its investment, as it is a publicly held company that must
return a profit to the investors. If it were not for the tax incentives both
the state and federal governments give to wind generation, power companies
including PNM simply could not afford to build wind farms.
In the PNM system, the cheapest electrical generation is from the Palo Verde
Nuclear Plant in Arizona at a cost of $.0129 per kilowatt hour with more
than 90 percent availability, followed by the coal- fired plants in New
Mexico.

Based on the cost of generation, common sense leads us to more nuclear
plants as a way of keeping electrical costs low and a means of providing a
benefit of no emissions for those who are members of the climate
change/carbon reduction faith. If electric car technology comes on line in
the next 10 years, this could be our best choice for fueling our cars.

So the next time some of your friends or politicians start touting the
benefits of wind-power generation, ask them why they are in favor of such an
expensive power source. I am ready for more diverse power generation,
including nuclear and next-generation, clean-coal technology.

Richard Allison is a registered professional engineer currently working for
the New Mexico Department of Transportation. He lives in Santa Fe. http://eatmorecookies.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/the-real-cost-of-wind-power/ This necessary doubling of generation capacity is true with both commercial and consumer owned windmills, unless the consumer is not at all connected to the grid.

[iddee]

I only quoted what was posted here, Sundance. I'm not an energy engineer, or whatever they are called.

Remember, all the hot air blows west of the Mississippi, or in New England. Ain't that right, Barry D. and George?
No wind power possible in the south east. :p :D :D

[dragonfly]

Remember, all the hot air blows west of the Mississippi, or in New England.

Only because there are too many big trees blocking it. ;)

[dragonfly]

In any case, I'd imagine that bird populations would some how survive.



In an evolutionary sense, you're right. The smart birds wouldn't fly into wind turbine blades.;) I must admit I don't understand why they would in the first place, unless they think they are flying toward big funny looking trees. I would be interested in how many birds really are killed by them.

[Sundance]

In an evolutionary sense, you're right. The smart birds wouldn't fly into wind turbine blades.;) I must admit I don't understand why they would in the first place, unless they think they are flying toward big funny looking trees. I would be interested in how many birds really are killed by them.

Very, very few from what I have read. Large turbine blades
spin very slowly.

Tall buildings are more dangerous to birds that wind turbines
will ever be.

And Gal...... look up the "true" cost of nuclear. Including
realistic decommissioning of the reactor and core.

[Scrapfe]

I wonder now many bee swarms will be killed by windmills? If a bee can’t avoid flying into the beak of a bird how can a bird avoid flying into a prop on a wind mill? A bird flew into the top of my wife’s car yesterday, I know he could not think the car was something good to eat, nor could he have though it was somewhere to perch because he was already perched in a small tree beside the road when he began his fatal swoop.

[Hobie]

I'm voting for Sundance for President.

I'm wondering what the bats would do with a wind turbine. When one gets in my house (a bat, not a wind turbine) it flies around and around the ceiling fan...

Scrafpe - your bird was probably a robin or other bird that was nesting. During this time, they fly low and don't look for huge metal boxes careening at them at 40 mph.

[Bodo]

I found this today:

Windmills making bat's lungs explode

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-turbines-make-bat-lungs-explode.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14593

I wonder what else we don't know about the effects they have on wildlife? Just something else to consider I guess.

[dragonfly]

Bodo, just don't let PETA get wind of it. They will have us living in mud huts before it's all over.;)

[carbide]

Well if a 30Kw wind turbine cost $40,000 and my HIGHest electric bill for the last 12 months was $67. It should only take me 49.75 years to pay off the original investment (not counting maintenance or improvements over the years).

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Yeah right!

[dragonfly]

It should only take me 49.75 years to pay off the original investment (not counting maintenance or improvements over the years).

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Yeah right!

:D
That's the reason I won't put up solar at this stage of the game. If (God forbid) I live for another 50 years, I likely won't be in my current house to enjoy those low bills.;)

[Sundance]

Well if a 30Kw wind turbine cost $40,000 and my HIGHest electric bill for the last 12 months was $67. It should only take me 49.75 years to pay off the original investment (not counting maintenance or improvements over the years).

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Yeah right!

Obviously....... a $40,000 turbine is not for you. Although you'd
get quite a check from the power company.

There are turbines that start at the sub $5000 mark that would
make sense. Or build your own...... A 5 Kw can be built for under
$3000.

[Hobie]

All this discussion ignores the fact that electric rates are not a constant, and the majority of electricity is coming from non-renewable petroleum-based sources. Many people are willing to pay a premium to do the right thing, environmentally. Your $67 bill could jump to $167 and you wouldn't be able to do a darn thing about it.

Plus there's the peace of mind of a redundant power source. My home is old (read: "no insulation") and rather remote, and when (not "if") the power goes out on a cold, windy winter night, I have only a matter of hours before my old cast iron radiators freeze. Would be awfully nice to use the nearly perpetual wind. And I'm too old to chop wood, before someone goes down that path.

[sqkcrk]

There are turbines that start at the sub $5000 mark that would
make sense. Or build your own...... A 5 Kw can be built for under
$3000.

How much for the storage batteries?

Some friends of mine used a water pumping windmill to charge their batteries, when it wasn't being used to pump water. After 20 some years they had to replace the batteries again. They figured, taking into account the price Niagra mohawkof electricity at the time, that for the cost of replacing the batteries they could afford to buy electricity and use more of it for the next 20 years. So they switched.

[Sundance]

How much for the storage batteries?

The system I am eventually going to build and install will
be grid tied. I too lazy to maintain batteries, and they
are dangerous. The voltage may be low but those amps
can flat out kill you.

Here's one of my favorite designs I've seen. And they are
working on a 10 KW model. They use induction motors to
generate the juice.

http://www.prairieturbines.com/

[Sundance]

The induction motor is the single most expensive part
of a homebuilt wind turbine. In the Breezy they can
run $1800.

But if you shop you can find them cheap. Like here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Industrial-Induction-Motor_W0QQitemZ220272230592QQihZ012QQcategoryZ4292 2QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The holy grail is the Nord gear reduction motor.

I have put my turbine on hold....... waiting for the 10 KW
plans and more $$$.

[beegee]

Gee, when they discovered oil in PA a hundred-or-so years ago, they didn't know what to do with it. Whale oil was the major oil source. Can you imagine a countryside dotted with oil derricks? Ooops...I guess they decided that derricks were more efficient and cost-effective than whaling ships. First time I saw a windmill farm was in California in 1985. I couldn't believe it. I see nothing wrong with windmills. They can't be any worse than cell-phone towers.

[Eaglerock]

Gee, when they discovered oil in PA a hundred-or-so years ago, they didn't know what to do with it. Whale oil was the major oil source. .

Actually they knew what to do with Oil because they were digging for it for years before Col. Edwin Drake was brought down from MASS to see if it could be drilled for and some how put it in barrels. (I have a house in Titusville where the first Oil Well was drilled by Drake.) But before that they would dig oil pits and skim the oil in buckets. They knew what to do with it otherwise they wouldn’t have dug down for it. Many lost their lives digging, by drowning, cave-ins, etc. The big start was from a Lawyer thinking he could make money.

Fact is that oil was being used by Indians before anyone else. The only change, is that we have changed what we use it for. We no longer need it for lighting in lamps, BOY am I glad about that…lol

The first oilmen
For hundreds of years, people had known about these seeps in western Pennsylvania. In fact, there is strong evidence that Native Americans, at least as far back as 1410 AD, had been harvesting the oil for medicinal purposes by digging small pits around active seeps and lining them with wood. European settlers had for years been skimming the oil from the seeps and using the petroleum as a source of lamp fuel and machinery lubrication.

Is there money in this?
In the early 1850's, George Bissell, a New York lawyer, conceived a plan to try and produce this oil commercially. Benjamin Silliman Jr, a chemist at Yale University, and one of America's leading chemists, was hired to analyze the properties of the "Seneca Oil" as an illuminant. He determined that the oil could be distilled into several fractions, one of which was a very high quality illuminant. With this positive information, Bissell was able to get together some financial backers, including James Townsend, president of a bank in New Haven, Connecticut, and formed the "Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company".
http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/history/pennsylvania/pennsylvania.html

But others did drill for water and hit oil and didn’t know what to do with it and thought it a nuisance and left the well. SO I guess in a way you are right, but for the most part they did know it was useful otherwise why would they have spent the money on Drake, and before that, lives- digging for it.

Also last Sunday we had my grandsons Birthday Party (1st) at Drake Well, it is really nice there, and I took my Son-In-Law (from Arizonia) around and showed him where some of the Oil Pits could still be seen. They are sunken in a little like a grave would. They are quite large like a 8X8 or a 10X10 room size only they went really deep, - that is why many lives were lost.