(PLEASE NOTE THAT THE GENERATOR, AT THE HUB OF THE PROPELLER, IS NEARLY AS BIG AS MY HOUSE, LIKE A GIANT OVERSIZED AIRSTREAM TRAILER.)
To begin with, here are definitions from Wikipedia:
NIMBY (an acronym of Not In My BackYard or, much less frequently, Not In My Blue Yonder) describes the opposition of residents to the nearby location of something they consider undesirable, even if it is generally considered a benefit for many. Examples include: an incinerator, an ethanol plant, a nuclear-power plant, or a prison.
BANANA (an acronym of Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything or possibly Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) is a term most often used to criticize the ongoing opposition of certain interest groups to land development.
CAVE People (an initialism for Citizens Against Virtually Everything) is a pejorative acronym for citizen activists who regularly oppose any changes within a community. The phenomenon is linked to the so-called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon in which residents oppose a development as being inappropriate for their local area.
Recently, ...yesterday, a friend and neighbor remarked, regarding the proposed Wind turbine project on Bent Mountain:
“Its clean, not a fossil fuel and not dependent on anyone.
If the windmills would work on my land I'd gladly give it for the betterment of the next generation.”
I was compelled to respond:
Clean energy? Images of pristine, sparkling white pinwheels on the distant horizon can be misleading. For those of us who have grown up enjoying the wonders of the natural environment, we have witnessed decades of intrusion on the natural environment on Poor Mountain by communications corporations along Honeysuckle Lane. No honeysuckle up there, probably never has been, just dump piles of old concrete and steel and tower parts and more and more towers, all providing greater access to more people, more construction, clear cutting, wildlife habitat removal. Clean, NO!!!
not a fossil fuel ? True. These behemoth super-industrial scale wind turbines rely on heavy metals in the form of massive batteries to keep the blades moving during periods of no wind. Physically, the energy consumption to provide the torque required to start these giants from stop negates too much of the energy they generate in optimal conditions.
and not dependent on anyone. Except the taxpayer. Federal grants, subsidies and incentives are in the trough for consumption by big corporations including manufacturers, installation developers, power companies, construction companies and a never ending string of monetary beneficiaries.
I feel a little compelled also...
ReplyDeleteMost of my research has said the wind generators do not have to run all the time. They do have batteries for storage for beacon, elevator operation, but when not in the wind, simply do not contribute.
The wind farms, I have visited, have not always had all the wind generators operating. Some on one mountain peak or wind current may be running while others wait for operating conditions. They add to the grid but are not a single source. The real story lies in the research of wind flow and historical data for the area.
I really understand, E. We live in such beauty, we are bathed in it every day here and the idea of trashing yet more of the rapidly-disappearing untouched lands is hard to take. I vote for the turbines to be set up where the consumers are who would actually be getting the power from them-would save a ton of money getting it from Poor Mountain to where it's going. Wait, less money to be made that way. Aye, there's the rub...
ReplyDeleteRoger,
ReplyDeleteThe turbines proposed for Poor Mountain are 2.5 Mw. Most installations in the US are 1.5 Mw and smaller. My research explains that batteries are used in some installation to keep the propellers turning in low or no wind conditions due to the torque required to start the blades. In other installations of these larger size wind turbines, electricity from the grid is used to keep them moving.
The ultimate question is in regard to their feasibility even as just a supplementary source of energy. Invenergy, LLC has reported to this community that they anticipate this project of 15 2.5 Mw turbines to initially cost $100,000,000. Recently, they announced that they have increased the proposed number to 18 turbines, pushing installation cost to $120,000,000.
Europe has been ahead of the US in pursuing the use of wind Power. The Danish and Spanish governments have been subsidizing wind power for years. These two governments are now withdrawing there subsidies because they have not realized the results anticipated.
Certainly, in many locations electricity generation by wind power on a smaller scale is a viable complement to our energy needs.
I think you are providing quite a bit of disinformation. The move toward wind energy is increasing, not decreasing in Europe. UK recently announced a project for a 32 Gw offshore wind farm that potentially could provide 25% of its domestic needs. Wind energy has proved so commercially successful in Denmark that the government has rolled back subsidies.
ReplyDeleteWind may not be the be-all solution some persons like to promote, but it has shown itself to be very effective, particularly in offshore applications where you can erect massive wind turbines up to 7 Mw in size.
I guess I am trying to figure out where you are coming from?
ReplyDeleteIs it "small is beautiful" that you prefer, and are worried about the energy companies producing wind farms on a large scale, or
Have you a particular gripe with wind turbines?
I worry too that the commercialization of sustainable forms of energy like wind, solar and geothermal will create the same consumer dependence we currently have on oil and gas. But, I suppose we should welcome this long overdue shift in thinking, even if it seems to be motivated mostly by state subsidies and profit margins.
I think we should be promoting conservation of resources, reducing our energy use by building better energy-efficient houses and appliances. I'm a big fan of the Lovins and what they are doing at the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Hi Gintaras,
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all opposed to using energy that we can capture from the wind.
I am opposed to on-shore industrial scale wind installations that consume and interfere with more and more of our natural environment while being promoted as "green" and continuing the ruse of cheap and convenient energy that keeps us out of touch with our desperate need for significant conservation of our energy ever-growing consumption.
Hear, Hear! Gintaras is mistaken. The information presented by Eldon is not only correct, it is in fact being presented in a very forgiving manner, which is really surprising given the known grief and economic problems associated with wind farms. These giant turbines should never be lumped into the same group as solar or geothermal energy. Into the same conversation perhaps, but only by way of contrast and providing a bad example. These will cost the locals a huge price. Immediately in taxes as all of these projects are government subsidized. They are so inefficient that they must be subsidized to even be implemented. They do not pay off in return on investment in any but the most extreme of circumstances. The costs are huge and the energy produced is so small and so inconsistent that it is inconceivable that any installations have been built anywhere. There are other forms of renewable energy conversion that are much more efficient, much more environmentally friendly, and much more cost effective. To even entertain the idea of such an installation of this scale is idiocy.
ReplyDelete