The technology is available now. . .the wind is waiting to be used and the windmills can be made rapidly because they are not complex.
Huge windparks should be constructed all over the windy areas of the country, using American companies and American workers to build these machines. We need to replace the coal burners, fuel oil burnres, and nukes and create the infrastructure for re-charging electric cars.
I don't believe in putting all our eggs in one basket and strongly support other forms of green energy development such as solar thermal and solar hydrogen.
But this can be done now for the benefit of everyone, with few problems. .
Huge windparks should be constructed all over the windy areas of the country, using American companies and American workers to build these machines. We need to replace the coal burners, fuel oil burnres, and nukes and create the infrastructure for re-charging electric cars.
I don't believe in putting all our eggs in one basket and strongly support other forms of green energy development such as solar thermal and solar hydrogen.
But this can be done now for the benefit of everyone, with few problems. .
posted by:
|
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Sun, April 20, 2008 - 9:51 PMI disagree with this idea.
First off, they aren't cheap, easy to maintain, or feasible in most areas. This is not the quick fix so many proponants would have you believe. In most of the choice wind farm locations you have what? Vast amounts of migratory birds and of course BATS. Wind farms are hideously ugly, cost prohibitive, detrimental to the habitat around them, costly to maintain, and just a salve to ease the pulling of wool over people's eyes.
No, wind farms are not the answer, nor are they are good temporary "quick fix" in any sense of the word. -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Sun, April 20, 2008 - 9:58 PMonly a token amount of effort has been put into developing wind energy, therefore the cost etc problems have gotten attention. choosing the right technology, ramping up mass production and taking care to protect birds can address most of the concerns. -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Sun, April 20, 2008 - 10:11 PMAnd how exactly would you propose to do this, other than saying that it should be done? Are you willing to spend the millions of dollars that it takes to get these research projects completed which deal with migratory birds, migratory routes, and environmental impact assessments? Those don't come cheap. I know, I work in wildlife research. I don't see too many folks screaming for wind farms actually paying my paycheck and buying my equipment. So I ask you in all earnestness: What do you personally propose that we do, other than saying that it should be done? How do you propose to pay for it? Who do you propose to kick off their land to build it? Who do you propose will "own" the farm, how will they pay for it, and how will the energy (which is a pittiance in reality) be doled out? These are questions no one seems to care about answering, yet they are the MOST important ones. -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Sun, April 20, 2008 - 10:26 PMSince you are in wildlife research you are probably most concerned about migratory birds.
A lot of the installed base of wind turbines is an early generation technology. Newer technology moves away from the propeller model and more to an egg beater configuration, with the blades vertical rather than spinning widely.
With this design there should be less mechanical problems and issues regarding our feathered friends should be minimized. . .
This country has a lot of public land and a lot of struggling farmers, finding the land should not be such an issue.
Now, I am a radical so my perspective is probably different from yours, and I DO advocate dramatic action led by the government. . .however, there is one area that we could easily agree on. NONE of the alternative green energy solutions will be cheap. Wind energy is probably the cheapest actually.
Also B, I am firmly convinced that we are rushing headlong into a global ecological crisis that will amount to eco-cide if we don't take swift, firm and decisive action to convert to green technologies away from death technologies.
How to pay for it? If we had not embarked on the Iraq misadventure we could be well on our way to conversion by now. Currently the USA spends more money that ALL the other industrialized nations do on defense. We could do just fine spending as much as China + Russia, I'm sure. Freeing up this wasteful money makes a lot of things possible. Creating green jobs in the economy in manufacturing, research and installation will lift our value of production and increase tax revenues.
But I don't think the government should pay for much more than land acquisition and stimulus to R&D. The oil companies should pay for it and profit from it. I would give them an ultimatum. But then A&B. . . -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Sun, April 20, 2008 - 10:27 PMoops. . .I am a radical and A willing to take dramatic measures. .
-
-
-
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 2:14 PMI'm sorry, but you seem a little misinformed here. The new turbines move at a much slower speed, so that birds and bats are able to detect them without flying into them. They may not be cheap, but no long-term energy solution will be. When you look at the life-cycle (construction, materials, etc.) they are the most efficient energy source available at this point. How do you figure that they are detrimental to the habitat around them? Tearing down forests wouldn't make sense, but in grassland areas, the ecosystem could pretty much carry on... -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 2:21 PMActually, this is not so. There are miles and miles of grassland that will be dug up to bury cables. There will be acres (added together) decimated for gravel roads to access each windmill. If you want these hideous things, then build them on top of the ugly skyscrapers in the big cities. Cities already take (steal?) our water to furnish the growing needs of the mass of humanity living in cities, why must they destroy our homes and habitat as well. No, you fail to see the vast amount of "incidental" issues with these wind farms. Build your solar panals on top of your skyscrapers. Build your windmills on top of your skyscrapers. Just think about all the cable you will save by building these things right where they are actually needed! -
-
Blades aren't the only culprit: Consider habitat loss and Avoidance
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 2:36 PM
-
-
-
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Sun, April 20, 2008 - 10:52 PMI've been thinking about this, too. And while I also disagree that converting farms to wind farms is the best idea, I do like the possibility of converting tall buildings into wind farms.
The biggest issues with solar and wind are the occasional nature of the power (and the up front cost). With wind farms, the only way to justify the up front costs is to put them where wind will be happening regularly. That's why you only see them on mountainsides right now. But we know that very tall buildings create a constant updraft and even post-modifying a few of them could work quite nicely. -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Sun, April 20, 2008 - 11:03 PMi wouldn't think that you would need to convert farms to become wind farms. . .but many farms can spare a strip of land that is revenue generating for the farm. the wind turbines need less space if they the blades are vertical rather than horizontal.
i am not suggesting that we put all our eggs into one basket, in the long term i favor hydrogen production using solar gensets, but we need solutions now. . .and we need to get off the petrochemical addiction cycle as soon as possible. the combustion of hydrocarbons is killing the planet.
if someone disagrees that we are in danger of mass extinction through global climate change then we don't have much to talk about here. . .but i do fear that possibility. right now we are experiencing "global wobble" but we don't know at what point the eco system will begin to collapse.
a mixed system that is regionally oriented is the best approach. another form of energy generation is harnessing the energy of tides. that holds some promise and should be developed where feasible. and of course, boosting conservation is important, by increasing energy efficiency. i am not sure we should even see incandescent bulbs on the market beyond a certain year, except for specialized applications.
sure it is expensive to convert, but we can do it. . .what is the alternative? equal opportunity death for most species? -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Sun, April 20, 2008 - 11:14 PMI guess what I'm saying here is that generally farm land is chosen because it's not that windy. High winds on a constant basis are an antithesis to current farming methods. Similarly, you don't see a lot of Solar potential in the Pacific northwest, where they have rain about 340 days a year. -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Sun, April 20, 2008 - 11:31 PMI get your point. i can't tell you where the windy regions are sited, but i have read that it is possible to generate most of our energy needs by installing a substantial base of windturbines. . .Chicago maybe! Do you know very much about wind tunnels? There might be some potential there, to construct tunnels in windy areas filling them with wind turbines. . -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Mon, April 21, 2008 - 5:50 AMCorrect me if am wrong, but some of the reasons that wind power is so expensive is because:
1.) the wind turbines are manufactured & rented out
2.) the rental companies receive the rent & a subsidy from the government for installing the turbines
3.) the turbines are installed on private land in leasing agreements
So all this is added into the cost of wind power.
One of the people in my office specializes in wind farm consulting and is currently studying the effect on bats, birds, and such.
I see a lot of smaller turbines installed all over the city here, they aren't really that noticeable and no more ugly than say, the smokestacks in the city or aboveground fuel storage tanks.
-
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Mon, April 21, 2008 - 7:00 AMThere is a LOT of farmland in America... and it is highly variable. Tedward says "generally farm land is chosen because it's not that windy."... and maybe that is true.... but there ar a LOT of acres out there and on many of those acres wind turbines ARE feasible. Beyond mainstream farms, another key area where wind is feasible is on Native American reservations. Native Americans manage a LOT of land.. and again... lots of variation in that land... but in many cases, the land was selected and made into a reservation because it was NOT the best land... often too sunny... or too windy. Native Americans are embracing renewable energy in many locations and wind is surely becoming a major part of that mix.
Last Fall, I was on tour with Henry Red Cloud in Europe. As we crossed Germany, we saw many hundreds of wind turbines.. usually in clusters of 10-35 near almost every mid-size and up town. It was truly amazing. Wind turbines are now built that are using much lower wind speeds than they used to and that has greatly expanded the range of where they are possible and practical.
There is also a new generation of smaller wind turbines that are way exciting. Check out the Skystream 3.7 that is made by Southwest Windpower (and NO.. I don't work for them..:>). I did though help install one last year on the Rosebud Reservation... and it is a very impressive unit with both a grid tie and battery option.
Renard -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Mon, April 21, 2008 - 7:27 AM
Farms and wind farms are not incompatible. Farmers can plow, plant and harvest right around the things. Easier than they can a nuclear plant. -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Mon, April 21, 2008 - 8:38 AMWhere have you seen this in practice where it was still profitable for the small farmer? -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Mon, April 21, 2008 - 8:44 AM -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Mon, April 21, 2008 - 9:33 AMI would have liked to see the design plans and contract documents for this project. It looks like the contractor just went in and did whatever he pleased. A good set of contract documents would have held the contractor liable for the mistakes, and he wouldn't have gotten paid unless he corrected his mistakes. Although, it looks like this project was in NY? In my experience, unless you are in the NYC watershed, the regulatory agencies are a lot more lenient with privately owned projects.
I still can't believe the contractor got away with no erosion control measures whatsoever.
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 3:06 AMThat's an interesting study about the agricultural impact, Wendy. I've farmed a good bit, and i think it's being nitpicky about mixing topsoil in with subsoil. The seeding failed not so much because of lack of topsoil, imo, but because it must have been done in a half assed way with no straw or nurse crop and, frankly, a couple of handfuls of concentrated fertilizer would likely go a long way in such circumstances. It didn't even look like they disked it or anything. Establishing alfalfa is difficult under the best of circumstances, around here anyway. It certainly could have been done better. I think it could even be done with above ground lines in conduit across grazing land. I don't see why not anyway.
Around here, much of our farm land is pasture for grazing or hay fields. I think windfarms would very much be compatible with these circumstances if the energy harvest were to be profitable. We get a good bit of wind for about half the year. The ridges are where the most wind and the least farming is, and this pattern is, of course, widespread. The ridges have more wind, less agricultural potential, and a lot more impact on the viewshed. A nearby county, with worse soil and more wind, is putting up a lot of windmills:
johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/
Like others here, i want to know more about the danger to birds and bats before joining the call for a massive build up.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 4:36 AMThe link in my last post is for a site that is fighting against the wind project in highland county va. This short update on the project is very much worth reading:
hamptonroads.com/2007/12/w...tain-range
I'm familiar with highland county from planting trees there. I can tell you for sure damn certain that there is a very very bad rock to dirt ratio. I read people using the word "pristine" over and over to describe it and can only shake my head in wonder. It has no topsoil because it was steep and had fragile soil and when white people got there they cut all the trees and plowed the land up and down the hills and lost all the topsoil in a generation and then proceeded to raise cows until they couldn't and then went to sheep, and between the sheep and the infrequent timbering ( infrequent because of slow growth because of mined out soil) anyway they are carrying on the proud family traditions of extracting the last bit of life from the pristine hills dotted with sheep, and hope that they can make a living out of tourism, which i consider to be close to equivalent with prostitution when applied to land use.
I think that we need to be on the lookout for green seeming propaganda that are overly nitpicky about the ecological impact of wind out of their own personal economic interests.
I still want to know more about the dangers to birds and bats. -
-
Bats in the belfry
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 10:13 AMSo I just talked to one of the bat people in my office. Apparently, not much is known about bats when compared with how much is known about birds. Essentially bat research is about 100 years behind bird research. The instruments in bat research are also not as well developed at those of birds, and the information collected requires a lot of piecing together before conclusions can be drawn. It makes sense, how can you measure what you are studying until you know the best way to measure, which you develop by studying it. An iterative process.
Anyway, she says that long migrant bats are those that are particularly affected by wind turbines. Unfortunately, not much is really known about how these bats migrate. There are about 6 or 7 hypotheses out there right now. Some suggest the bats see the turbines as a nice roosting place, others say that perhaps the turbines are emitting a very high pitched noise that the bats are attracted to through the use of echolocation. These mega wind turbines move pretty slowly in comparison with how fast migrating bats can fly, so it seems like they would be able to avoid the turbines. However, it isn't even known whether migrating bats use echolocation.
One post construction site she surveyed had about 40 dead bats per day PER turbine. BEcause no one really understands how bats migrate, preventative measure usually include preconstruction site assessments to determine bat population characteristics.
As a side note, and I don't know if this is a problem in other areas of the country particularly, but the white nose fungus is affecting remarkable numbers of bats in the north eastern areas. In 2006, one affected cave was found (but no evidence of white nose). In 2007, several affected caves were found (some evidence of white nose). In 2008, 1/2 million affected bats were found (lots of evidence of white nose, but also emaciated & dehydrated bats, beyond the normal for hibernation). All estimates, BTW. Again, no one is really sure about the cause. This is also having an affect on the studying of wind turbine effects on bats.
Any bat people, please elaborate, refute, or question! -
-
Re: Bats in the belfry
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 12:34 PMDid you read any of the articles I posted in here?
Also, go check out the Journal of Wildlife Management as they just published several bat/wind turbine research papers. Of interesting note was those male bats who seem to use the tallest tree in the forest to attract the females from and if the turbine is the tallest, then guess what!? There is so much more they have discovered, such as the higher death toll at clumped turbines than in linear turbines. I am not even going to go into the "avoidance" behaviors that have been noticed amongst upland birds. -
-
Re: Bats in the belfry
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 12:58 PMI read the articles you posted, Wendy. Did you? The studies of bird kills were very low, much much lower than i expected. If you are taking the position that considerably less than half a bird is killed per turbine per year excessive, what in the world do you think about picture windows? -
-
Re: Bats in the belfry
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 3:13 PMGreat question!
I think picture windows are horrific, actually.
Studies showed that by simply placing silhouettes of birds on the windows, birds were able to avoid smacking into them. Picture windows are practically invisible to most birds. Other windows can reflect the bird and send it into a frenzy, but by simply placing a little black shadow on the window, you can greatly reduce the numbers of deaths by collision. Wow, what a concept. Too bad not everyone takes this into consideration. What I have found is that most people will look out for what they want only, and only a few people look out for what is good for everyone, not just a large percentage of humans and screw the effects on non-humans because we need our toaster ovens by golly gum, but EVERYONE.
What is your opinion on the deaths of bats at turbines? Do you simply not care? Kill 'em all? Plenty of passenger pigeons for us to shoot them at whim you know, we aren't making a dent in them at all, are we? Oh yeah, that's right, we killed them all! -
-
Re: Bats in the belfry
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 9:25 PMthe current style of wind turbines should be replaced with a different configuration. it's think outside the box and the industry and governmental planners haven't caught up to it yet.
the predominant form of wind turbine is built like a house fan with no cage around it, thus making it dangerous to flying creatures.
the new form of wind turbine would be constructed more like an egg beater with the blades more vertical and spiraling around the vertical shaft. this could easily be enclosed inside a wire cage to protect bats and birds. the construction and assembly of this configuration is simpler and wear and tear on this form is much less than on the earlier form due to there being two points of each blade joining the shaft.
it is hard to communicate this verbally and i don't have a link. . .but here is a graphic representation using alphanumeric symbols:
(i)
I
where the parenthetical brackets represent the blades with the lower case "i" representing the shaft around which they turn. the "I" undernearth represents the base. . .and of course would be a continuous shaft with the dotted "i" the reason I chose the dotted i is to convey the concept that the blades have a contact point at the top. several blades would be joined around the shaft, not just the two i have shown.
. . . this form of wind turbine would be very simple to construct and using technology that is easily available. huge windfarms could go up quickly, as long as the manufacturing infrastructure was prepped. american auto makers could handle this job, just as they were able to convert for wartime production in 1942. . .
the efficiency is somewhat less than the fan blade style but there are many gains in simplicity of production and installation and transport.
this style can be shipped preassembled without greatly disrupting traffic. -
-
Re: Bats in the belfry
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 9:28 PMalso, the blades can be shaped more like spoons which catch more wind. . .and because the structure is more compact, it could easily be housed inside a cage whereas that would be extremely difficult with the wide spread house fan style bladed windturbine. .l -
-
Re: Bats in the belfry
Sat, May 24, 2008 - 12:50 AMI'm gonna post an image of these. Along with the text from the article where I found this image:
"The alternative to horizontal axis wind turbines are vertical axis wind turbines, or VAWTs. These are rather odd-looking structures that resemble egg beaters. The advantages of VAWTs are that they are easier to maintain and repair because most of the moving parts are near the ground. In some places such as mountains, mesas, and other high places can have winds closer to the ground in which a VAWT can produce more energy than a HAWT, which would be placed higher up. Also, the low height can be useful in avoiding conflict with local ordinances. VAWTs can also be easier and thus less expensive to transport and install because of the low height. They do, however, have many disadvantages. One major one is that most VAWTs produce only 50% as much energy as HAWTs. This is because of extra drag that is created when the blade faces into the wind. Also, most VAWTs must be installed on flat ground, and can’t handle steeper slopes that HAWTs could. Another disadvantage is many VAWTs require energy to start because the starting torque is so low that there is usually not enough wind power to start the turbine." -
-
Re: Bats in the belfry
Sat, May 24, 2008 - 12:57 AMThanks Tedward. . .the lower output of the VAWT's is balanced by the lower cost of production, lower maintenance costs and lower transportation costs. . .therefore allowing for more units to be produced than with the VAWTs. . .and therefore making up the productivity differential.
Something to remember regarding cost of wind energy production vs cost of hydrocarbon fueled energy systems is that COST should be calculated rather than price. Now, the price of petroleum has shot way up, but the price has never included the true cost in terms of devastation to health and the evironment, not to mention the cost of our imperialist foreign policy, which is borne not only by the taxpayers, but also by the "beneficiaries" of that foreign policy in other countries. -
-
Re: Bats in the belfry
Sat, May 24, 2008 - 1:04 AMWell, you might want to read the whole thing. HAWTs can't be placed at sever angles, so they're not for everywhere. And because they need to be powered to get spinning, they may not be best for smaller installations. They seem best for mesa installations where constant high winds can keep them spinning. -
-
Re: Bats in the belfry
Sat, May 24, 2008 - 1:28 AMerrr, that should read VAWTs, not HAWTs...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Mon, April 21, 2008 - 5:06 PMand they can make money, leasing the land to the turbines " power company : -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 11:08 AMAlthough the wind farms near palm springs are interesting, it would be a shame if these megaliths covered the more beautiful parts of California, such as on the coast, I say we need to invest more in wave energy, it seems like it is much more consistent and less maring to our vistas. -
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 2:14 PMI think you will find for every solution to a problem in the world today there are unintended consequences. We live in a world that is much to complex for any easy answer to even seemingly simple problems. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 5:26 PMTo that, I agree.
I am very interested in wave technology as well. I am interested in those tower windmill things for tall buildings in major metropolitan areas (the ones who use all the damn energy in the first place) and myriad other advances. I think everything has to be taken with a grain of salt, and people need to be educated on the plain and simple fact that what works in one area may not work in all areas, and to force the entire nation to adhere to one form only is to destroy everything we have worked for in terms of getting the populace on our side. You can't get anywhere if you piss off the locals. Trust me, we are dealing with the border fence in south Texas and you may see some armed conflict arise out of this fiasco. We may lose the Sabal Palm Audubon Center and the Nature Conservancy in south Texas.
tx.audubon.org/Sabal.html
-
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Thu, May 1, 2008 - 2:18 PMThe problem with wave energy is it's still in development phase. Of course we should keep trying to make it work, but water is so much more dense than air, there's still a real problem with anything that's built getting ripped out by storms. I imagine we'll eventually get around that technical hurdle, but in the meantime, we can build wind turbines that survive major windstorms...
-
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Fri, May 23, 2008 - 10:08 PMThere isn't anything uglier than the old Dutch windmills yet we have all become used to them. Now landscape painters are far more likely to stuggle tp get a nice arrangement of windmills in their scenes than struggle to find a spot with none. In a few more decades how will those viewing the landscapes see our modern windmills? As blights on the landscape or as pintoresque additions beautifying the view? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: A Call for a Massive Build-up of Wind Farms. . .
Sat, May 24, 2008 - 1:08 AMActually, my move to California was the first time i'd seen windmills in person. We hit that big farm outside of Palm Springs, stopped and marveled. Yes, in some ways, it's a blight, but I'd rather see that every day then River Rouge: the Detroit suburb responsible for most East Coast acid rain and every dark future nightmare landscape you've ever seen.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
