People who complain about wind turbine plans.

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by Grey *
By what right do you get to stand and point fingers at people who will have to live with these towers? You go on about the benefits of alternative power, releasing us (including you) from foreign oil.

Unless you’re trying to draw a connection between the tower’s electricity production and consumption by electric vehicles, they will do essentially nothing towards our dependence on “foreign oil”. As I’ve posted about innumerable times on this Board, sadly, and keep having to.

*Originally posted by World Eater *
So why hasn’t this been looked into?

What do you mean - why hasn’t the cape looked into using hydro power from Quebec? Maybe because for the most part it’s already been sold and accounted for by other cities and regions? Because of the very low production cost, hydro typically sells very quickly, and completely. And you can’t just say “Oh, we want our area to run on hydro from several hundred miles away - problem solved!” The grid and electrical distribution system in the US doesn’t work that way.

*Originally posted by Grey *
China and India from a consumption point of view are worrisome but hardly the end of civilization that we know.

Its’ more than worrisome. Especially considering that developing Asia is expected to just about double its energy use within the next 22 years (EIA International Energy Outlook). And carbon equivalent emissions are expected to increase to 59% of the world total by 2025, a more than doubling to 4.7 billion tonnes.

*Originally posted by Yeticus Rex *
**I had to live, breathe, and play football in 1st, 2nd and 3rd stage smog alerts in Fontana, California back in the 70’s next to Kaiser Steel which burned coal to make the steel. I learned how to “forcibly expel” most of the air in my lungs after practice so I could breathe easier after each practice. Granted we choked on more than just coal burning plants; we have way too many cars and clogged transportation corridors out of the state, too many careless people starting too many forest fires “accidentally” & intentionally, etc.

If the potential for wind energy is there, use it…don’t give in to another coal burning plant 10 or 20 miles away because that too will screw up your view as well plus the health risks involved.**

Are you trying to compare an industrial coking plant with a coal power plant in terms of pollution? And a steel mill, no less? Comparing industrial coal plants to utility ones is an entirely scientifically invalid comparison. Most people I know wouldn’t want to be within 5 miles of a heavy grain producer either. In fact, when I visit sites in Illinois and Iowa that produce grain products, I choke on those fumes, not the coal fumes.

Look at the pollution levels in California, then look up how many coal plants there are - or ever were - in the State. It’s interesting. Then look up the current regulations for utility coal emissions for a new plant, while you’re at it.

Wind is great, even if expensive, and I feel that the people in question in the OP are weenies striving to continue a dangerous precedent. Apparently, the people in Devonshire don’t mind the wind turbines that are going in off their coast, and Devon is a hell of a lot more scenic than Nantucket Sound. I guess could catagorize the complaints as those of “hypocritical limousine liberals”, but I think it’s likely more an American cultural problem than anything else.

(However, having seen plenty of “proponent mock-ups” in my professional careeer, and comparing them to reality ex post facto, I have doubts that the turbines will be nearly as unobtrusive as the linked pictures show. Those low-res images are not giving a clear or accurate impression, IMO.)

And I seriously doubt anyone here can see a “coal burning monstrosity” ( :rolleyes: ) from 10-20 miles away. Shit, I wish I could, then it would make all those plants I visit every few weeks that much easier to find. Some plants I can get within a quarter mile before I see the stack - and if they have a wet scrubber, they don’t need but a stack a couple hundred feet high. Even in flat Arizona you can’t see them from 10-20 miles away - and I say that having been to every single coal plant in Arizona.

[Spiny_Norman]

Unless you’re trying to draw a connection between the tower’s electricity production and consumption by electric vehicles, they will do essentially nothing towards our dependence on “foreign oil”. As I’ve posted about innumerable times on this Board, sadly, and keep having to.

• your “Anthracite climbs up the bell tower with a sniper rifle after reading the words “oil-fired power plant” just once too many” post was a thing of beauty, though. (Actually, I consider your /posts on energy matters examples of what this board should be about.)

Anyhoo: Being from Denmark - where wind energy is taken seriously (our main natural ressources being wind, cold rain and poor soil), I can sum up a few points of my personal experience:
[ul][li]One wind turbine here and there is a losing proposition. To get enough juice, you need a lot - and in order to not have them all over the countryside, grouping them in farms is almost a necessity. Denmark had a load of small-community turbines going up - one here, one there - and yes, there is a visual impact. Most of these early installations are coming to the end of their service life and quite a few are coming down. [/li][li]Wind turbines move (OK, the wings do), and that sometimes generates a flicker that makes them highly noticeable in the countryside. They are more visible than power lines.[/li][li]Turbines can be surprisingly noisy, but the noise abates quickly with distance.[/li][li]The bird-killing effect has often been seriously overstated. It’s not a big problem.[/li][li]Off-shore placement beats inland by a wide margin: Technologically, it’s way better (clean airflow across the flat ocean), and the visual impact is way lower than it is on land.[/ul] [/li]
Heck, I like’m. Link to a major Danish project: http://www.hornsrev.dk/Engelsk/default_ie.htm

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by Rhum Runner *
**Really? I can’t believe that is going to work. What would be the point? If you are in a boat, you need to see the markers. It would be nearly criminal negligence to put these things out in open water and leave them unmarked to mariners. **

Whoops, I was just thinking about the planes.

Good post Anth

[spinky]

*Originally posted by World Eater *
As far as valid arguments, I’m still waiting for something other the them being “butt ugly”. If I’ve missed where you said anything else of merit, please feel free to point it out.

How many valid arguments does someone need? tdn has a valid point: they’re ugly, and the view they’re messing up is critical to his area’s livelihood. You seem to think that because this issue isn’t important to you, then it should simply be ignored. Sure, you can call his position “NIMBYism”, but I’m coining the term HAITBYism for you: “How About In Their Back Yards?” Sounds like you suffer from a variant strain of the very disease you’re complaining about.

And a bit of advice: settle down and try debating rationally. Someone disagreeing with you isn’t an excuse to become a raging fucking asshole. Yeah, sure, it’s the pit, but that doesn’t mean you’re required to be a jackass.

[spinky]

*Originally posted by World Eater *
That’s fine, but just because they don’t share my view doesn’t mean they aren’t a fucking idiot.

Almost forgot to point out this great sig line. You’re right. People can be fucking idiots even without sharing your views.

[Yeticus_Rex]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
Are you trying to compare an industrial coking plant with a coal power plant in terms of pollution? And a steel mill, no less? Comparing industrial coal plants to utility ones is an entirely scientifically invalid comparison. Most people I know wouldn’t want to be within 5 miles of a heavy grain producer either. In fact, when I visit sites in Illinois and Iowa that produce grain products, I choke on those fumes, not the coal fumes.

Different comparison yes, but same polluting outcome when compared to wind or solar energy. The quantity of pollution may be different, but polluting nonetheless. And yes, people were choking from these fumes, not fumes from grain producing mills.

**Look at the pollution levels in California, then look up how many coal plants there are - or ever were - in the State. It’s interesting. Then look up the current regulations for utility coal emissions for a new plant, while you’re at it.

**

I don’t have to look it up; I know things have improved since the 1970’s, and so has the regulations. What you are forgetting is that the greater L.A. area (and Southern California generally) has the geography (valleys of ~1000ft. elevation surrounded by mountains with 8000-11500ft. elevation) that traps and creates inversion layers that keeps smog in place throughout most of the summer months unless a cold front passes through which is extremely rare in the summer. That’s why we rely on imported power, damming the Colorado River, aquaducts and gravity, natural gas plants, and nuclear power. The steel mill I was talking about was built for producing war products during WWII as a necessity for Pacific campaigns, but closed in the early 80’s under pressure of foreign markets. There has not been a third stage smog alert since that plant closed. Second stage alerts dropped dramatically as well and only occur during the summer months with an inversion layer in place. First stage alerts have declined too, but not at the same rate as second stage alerts. Traffic is now our main polluting factor except when a forest fire is raging. Adding a coal burning plant for energy would have much more impact here than it would back east.

Wind is great, even if expensive, and I feel that the people in question in the OP are weenies striving to continue a dangerous precedent. Apparently, the people in Devonshire don’t mind the wind turbines that are going in off their coast, and Devon is a hell of a lot more scenic than Nantucket Sound. I guess could catagorize the complaints as those of “hypocritical limousine liberals”, but I think it’s likely more an American cultural problem than anything else.

NIMBY is a mindset of most Americans, I can’t argue with you there…

**

(However, having seen plenty of “proponent mock-ups” in my professional careeer, and comparing them to reality ex post facto, I have doubts that the turbines will be nearly as unobtrusive as the linked pictures show. Those low-res images are not giving a clear or accurate impression, IMO.)**

It seems that they should appear a little taller than the pictures that were linked. Towers 300’ tall are about 32.5 minutes in angular size from 6 miles out (not counting the curvature of the Earth) - about the size of a full moon. The pictures linked makes it look much smaller - but then anything loses perspective when lined up against the horizon and no other landmarks are around to compare to.

**

And I seriously doubt anyone here can see a “coal burning monstrosity” ( :rolleyes: ) from 10-20 miles away. Shit, I wish I could, then it would make all those plants I visit every few weeks that much easier to find. Some plants I can get within a quarter mile before I see the stack - and if they have a wet scrubber, they don’t need but a stack a couple hundred feet high. Even in flat Arizona you can’t see them from 10-20 miles away - and I say that having been to every single coal plant in Arizona. **

I wasn’t talking about physically visualizing the plant from 10-20 miles away, I was talking about the emissions from the plant 10-20 miles away - it will make an impact from that distance, regardless of how tight the regulations are with respect to wind power. Funny how you mention that at a quarter mile from the plant, you can’t see a stack a couple hundred feet high when people here argue 300’ from 6 miles!

[Yeticus_Rex]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
Are you trying to compare an industrial coking plant with a coal power plant in terms of pollution? And a steel mill, no less? Comparing industrial coal plants to utility ones is an entirely scientifically invalid comparison. Most people I know wouldn’t want to be within 5 miles of a heavy grain producer either. In fact, when I visit sites in Illinois and Iowa that produce grain products, I choke on those fumes, not the coal fumes.

Different comparison yes, but same polluting outcome when compared to wind or solar energy. The quantity of pollution may be different, but polluting nonetheless. And yes, people were choking from these fumes, not fumes from grain producing mills.

**Look at the pollution levels in California, then look up how many coal plants there are - or ever were - in the State. It’s interesting. Then look up the current regulations for utility coal emissions for a new plant, while you’re at it.

**

I don’t have to look it up; I know things have improved since the 1970’s, and so has the regulations. What you are forgetting is that the greater L.A. area (and Southern California generally) has the geography (valleys of ~1000ft. elevation surrounded by mountains with 8000-11500ft. elevation) that traps and creates inversion layers that keeps smog in place throughout most of the summer months unless a cold front passes through which is extremely rare in the summer. That’s why we rely on imported power, damming the Colorado River, aquaducts and gravity, natural gas plants, and nuclear power. The steel mill I was talking about was built for producing war products during WWII as a necessity for Pacific campaigns, but closed in the early 80’s under pressure of foreign markets. There has not been a third stage smog alert since that plant closed. Second stage alerts dropped dramatically as well and only occur during the summer months with an inversion layer in place. First stage alerts have declined too, but not at the same rate as second stage alerts. Traffic is now our main polluting factor except when a forest fire is raging. Adding a coal burning plant for energy would have much more impact here than it would back east.

Wind is great, even if expensive, and I feel that the people in question in the OP are weenies striving to continue a dangerous precedent. Apparently, the people in Devonshire don’t mind the wind turbines that are going in off their coast, and Devon is a hell of a lot more scenic than Nantucket Sound. I guess could catagorize the complaints as those of “hypocritical limousine liberals”, but I think it’s likely more an American cultural problem than anything else.

NIMBY is a mindset of most Americans, I can’t argue with you there…

**

(However, having seen plenty of “proponent mock-ups” in my professional careeer, and comparing them to reality ex post facto, I have doubts that the turbines will be nearly as unobtrusive as the linked pictures show. Those low-res images are not giving a clear or accurate impression, IMO.)**

It seems that they should appear a little taller than the pictures that were linked. Towers 300’ tall are about 32.5 minutes in angular size from 6 miles out (not counting the curvature of the Earth) - about the size of a full moon. The pictures linked makes it look much smaller - but then anything loses perspective when lined up against the horizon and no other landmarks are around to compare to.

**

And I seriously doubt anyone here can see a “coal burning monstrosity” ( :rolleyes: ) from 10-20 miles away. Shit, I wish I could, then it would make all those plants I visit every few weeks that much easier to find. Some plants I can get within a quarter mile before I see the stack - and if they have a wet scrubber, they don’t need but a stack a couple hundred feet high. Even in flat Arizona you can’t see them from 10-20 miles away - and I say that having been to every single coal plant in Arizona. **

I wasn’t talking about physically visualizing the plant from 10-20 miles away, I was talking about the emissions from the plant 10-20 miles away - it will make an impact from that distance, regardless of how tight the regulations are with respect to wind power. Funny how you mention that at a quarter mile from the plant, you can’t see a stack a couple hundred feet high when people here argue 300’ from 6 miles!

[Yeticus_Rex]

*Originally posted by Grey *
**Yeticus Rex are you talking about these views?

I ask because they don’t appear to be placed near a main tourism centre, nor do they appear to be close to 300 ft tall.

The zealots in this thread are not those opposed to wind power. The zealots are the ones determined to insist that wind power be used regardless of the wishes of the locals. **

Most of the wind mills are about 4-10 miles to the northwest of Palm Springs proper and most of them are on hills (hundreds of feet above the valley floor) below the Banning Pass, visible for up to roughly 30 miles. Some are tall (300 ft), some are older and smaller.

Sorry for the previous double post…

[Sam_Stone]

The problem isn’t that people won’t want wind power near them. The problem is that they don’t want ANY power sources near them. Nuclear, wind, hydro, oil, gas… It’s hard to get approval for ANY of them.

And yet, people’s appetite for the product of those plants continues to grow.

This is the same problem we have with government spending - people won’t tolerate tax increases, and yet they demand ever-increasing government services.

I believe it was Robert Heinlein who once said that a society is doomed as soon as it realizes it can vote itself bread and circuses. That looks more prescient every day.

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by Yeticus Rex *
Different comparison yes, but same polluting outcome when compared to wind or solar energy. The quantity of pollution may be different, but polluting nonetheless. And yes, people were choking from these fumes, not fumes from grain producing mills.

No, with respect, you don’t understand. A coke plant produces not only a different quantity of emissions, but a different quality of emissions than a coal power plant. And a steel mill is very different. It has less to do with the “quantity”, because that is hard to define. In terms of CO2 emissions, the quantity of a good-sized coal plant far exceed that of a steel mill. In terms of particulates and CO, they are typically less. In terms of NOx they can be less, or more, depending on the emissions control equipment. In terms of SO2, same thing. In terms of volatiles and HAPs, the steel mill might have much, much more - and those things will choke you more than almost anything else. Except for ground-level ozone (which the steel mill may or may not have more of). Then there are heavy metals (steel mill can have more, but a chloralkali plant can be very high - both more than a coal plant).

Not to say that a coal plant won’t pollute and choke, but it’s not fair to compare steel mills and coal plants.

I don’t have to look it up; I know things have improved since the 1970’s, and so has the regulations. What you are forgetting is that the greater L.A. area (and Southern California generally) has the geography (valleys of ~1000ft. elevation surrounded by mountains with 8000-11500ft. elevation) that traps and creates inversion layers that keeps smog in place throughout most of the summer months unless a cold front passes through which is extremely rare in the summer.

Considering I’ve done environmental impact studies for that very district, I actually am not “forgetting”. You made generalizations about the “health risks” of a new coal plant, and I asked if you knew the emissions regulations and the emissions sources of California. You say you don’t need to look it up. OK - there is no meeting of the minds here.

That’s why we rely on imported power, damming the Colorado River, aquaducts and gravity, natural gas plants, and nuclear power. The steel mill I was talking about was built for producing war products during WWII as a necessity for Pacific campaigns, but closed in the early 80’s under pressure of foreign markets. There has not been a third stage smog alert since that plant closed. Second stage alerts dropped dramatically as well and only occur during the summer months with an inversion layer in place. First stage alerts have declined too, but not at the same rate as second stage alerts. Traffic is now our main polluting factor except when a forest fire is raging. Adding a coal burning plant for energy would have much more impact here than it would back east.

Please show how a steel mill compares to a coal plant in terms of emissions and emissions regualtions in California.

**Funny how you mention that at a quarter mile from the plant, you can’t see a stack a couple hundred feet high when people here argue 300’ from 6 miles! **

That’s because some coal plants aren’t typcially located in barren wastes and beaches. Some are, but many are tucked away and have short stacks (Vermillion, Lawrence 3 and 4), especially if they were designed with a wet scrubber (some Ohio river plants). Most can only be seen within a couple miles (like the one I’m at today), some only within a quarter mile (like the OTHER one I visited just today), and some rare ones can be seen from 3-5 miles away (like Jeffrey, Navaho, Coronado, for example).

[MonkeyMensch]

*Originally posted by World Eater *
**Because of assholes like you, this will most likely become a reality. **

I want to see the first pass. That South Rim i’ gonna be bitch for the first Cat over it…

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by MonkeyMensch *
**I want to see the first pass. That South Rim i’ gonna be bitch for the first Cat over it… **

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
**That’s because some coal plants aren’t typcially located in barren wastes and beaches. Some are, but many are tucked away and have short stacks (Vermillion, Lawrence 3 and 4), especially if they were designed with a wet scrubber (some Ohio river plants). Most can only be seen within a couple miles (like the one I’m at today), some only within a quarter mile (like the OTHER one I visited just today), and some rare ones can be seen from 3-5 miles away (like Jeffrey, Navaho, Coronado, for example). **

Hold on, how the heck can you ever only see a coal plant within a quarter mile? Is it behind a tall building or a hill or something?

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by ntucker *
**How many valid arguments does someone need? **

More then one.

**

tdn has a valid point: they’re ugly, and the view they’re messing up is critical to his area’s livelihood. **

Critical?

**

You seem to think that because this issue isn’t important to you, then it should simply be ignored. **

Point out where I said we should ignore the aesthetics of the things.

**

Sure, you can call his position “NIMBYism”, but I’m coining the term HAITBYism for you: “How About In Their Back Yards?” Sounds like you suffer from a variant strain of the very disease you’re complaining about.
**

People who conducted research and found that Cape Cod would be a prime location for a wind farm are the ones that said “how about your backyard?”, not me.

**

And a bit of advice: settle down and try debating rationally. Someone disagreeing with you isn’t an excuse to become a raging fucking asshole. Yeah, sure, it’s the pit, but that doesn’t mean you’re required to be a jackass. **

Thanks for the tip, I’m kind of new around here.

[spinky]

*Originally posted by World Eater *
Point out where I said we should ignore the aesthetics of the things.

You have made it quite clear that your bias doesn’t allow you to consider the aesthetics to be very important at all in this case. “Ignore” is hyperbole, but somewhere in between “ignore” and “pay very slight attention to” is your position, must like tdn’s position is somewhere between “treat as important to the area’s livelihood” and “hold sacred”.

Personally, I find the idea of forcing windmills down some town’s throat just because they have a nice place for them completely revolting. But I’m funny about that whole freedom thing and don’t understand why Cape Cod should be forced to provide anyone else with electricity.

People who conducted research and found that Cape Cod would be a prime location for a wind farm are the ones that said “how about your backyard?”, not me.

And you seem to be agreeing and repeating their sentiments. So yes, you are saying that.

Thanks for the tip, I’m kind of new around here.

You’re just a slow learner. Give it a few more thousand posts.

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by ntucker *
**You have made it quite clear that your bias doesn’t allow you to consider the aesthetics to be very important at all in this case. **

Why yes, in this particular case I don’t consider the aesthetics to be too big of a deal. They are 6 miles off the coast, not 500 feet, 6 fucking miles! I hope one day they will want to put a wind farm in “my backyard”, because I will welcome it. Do these people get up in arms if a huge ship drops anchor a few miles off the coast and sits there for a few days?

**

“Ignore” is hyperbole, but somewhere in between “ignore” and “pay very slight attention to” is your position, must like tdn’s position is somewhere between “treat as important to the area’s livelihood” and “hold sacred”. **

My position - View is fucking fine!
His position - The horror the horror!

It’s simply a matter of opinion.

**

Personally, I find the idea of forcing windmills down some town’s throat just because they have a nice place for them completely revolting. **

I find people rejecting clean alternative energy simply because of the way it looks to be equally revolting.
**

But I’m funny about that whole freedom thing and don’t understand why Cape Cod should be forced to provide anyone else with electricity.**

They would be using electricity, so whatever amount is wind generated is less electricity piped from where ever the hell they currently get it. This is generally considered a good thing.
**

And you seem to be agreeing and repeating their sentiments.
**

Well from every other standpoint except the ugly one, it’s the perfect location, so should we be surprised that they chose it?
**

So yes, you are saying that.You’re just a slow learner. Give it a few more thousand posts. **

:rolleyes:

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
**Hold on, how the heck can you ever only see a coal plant within a quarter mile? Is it behind a tall building or a hill or something? **

Vermillion is located in a little hollow in a treed area. The one I was at a day ago was along the river and has a very short stack, and you drive through large forests of pine trees to get to it. You only see the stack as you emerge from the woods. Those certainly aren’t typical, but they are examples. My point being way back earlier in this thread that the statment:

don’t give in to another coal burning plant 10 or 20 miles away because that too will screw up your view as well

And I was saying that was false, a new plant (which would almost certainly be scrubbed) would not be visible within 10 to 20 miles, barring some sort of odd siting or location.

Then the response was:

I wasn’t talking about physically visualizing the plant from 10-20 miles away, I was talking about the emissions from the plant 10-20 miles away

And I cannot fathom how “will screw up your view as well” does NOT refer to “physically visualizing” the plant. I mean, the whole subtopic in question was the “visual pollution” of the structures, right?

Anyhow, I don’t intend to nitpick anymore.

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *
**Anyhow, I don’t intend to nitpick anymore. **

To be honest, I don’t think he’s listening to you.

But is anyone going to admire the sheer beauty of tidal generators? Look at the designs!

Just how neat an idea is this, it’s damned bri…why do I get the feeling that I’m the only one here who feels like this? I’ll get me coat.

[Grey]

No you’re right they are impressive. I went looking for that link way back at the start but never found it. Damn cool.

The problem looks like maintenance. How do you prevent corrosion, fix blades, lubricate the bearings and all that other good stuff in 100 ft of water (blade are 60 ft wide)? That adds cost, which, along with its diffuse nature, is what is preventing wind power from being adopted here in NA. Underwater maintenance would be one more cost that could cripple the idea.

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by Grey *
**The problem looks like maintenance. How do you prevent corrosion, fix blades, lubricate the bearings and all that other good stuff in 100 ft of water (blade are 60 ft wide)? That adds cost, which, along with its diffuse nature, is what is preventing wind power from being adopted here in NA. Underwater maintenance would be one more cost that could cripple the idea. **

Scroll down a l’il further on that link, to see the group shot of a farm of turbines, with the 2nd from left raised for maintenance. The idea seems to be to have the working parts on a raisable platform, so all maintenance is down above water.

I know some of the guys working on the north sea test of these, and they say that the gear is mostly designed by people with marine engineering experience from oil rigs. They view the water depths they’re working in (20-30m) as almost trivial compared to the kind of working depths rigs and platforms operate in.