** RTFirefly ** The land owners of the wind farm near me do receive a monthly payment.
Jeez, didn’t you guys cover this in your Elementary Marxism 101?
A rich liberal is defined more by class than by political persuasion. Since the great majority of people who have more money than they could possibly deserve are of a conservative mind, they stand out by exception. But their “liberalism” is shallow, not being properly founded in the proletariat yada yada. This isn’t necessarily thier fault, exactly, they mean well, but are prone to forget that they belong to a privileged group, not an oppressed one. A couple nights of slumming doesn’t mean you can sing the blues.
Most likely, just well meaning folks, albeit pampered. They have confused unsightliness with oppression, and can probably be talked out of it.
luc: Most likely, just well meaning folks, albeit pampered. They have confused unsightliness with oppression, and can probably be talked out of it.
Or maybe they (or some of them, at least) are just selfish hypocrites. Your tongue-in-cheek Marxist analysis is funny, but I see no reason to avoid the conclusion that liberals have their share of selfish hypocrites just like anybody else. (And I wouldn’t confine that to rich liberals, either; I know some non-rich liberals who are very concerned about the environment—right up to the point where environmental restrictions would inconvenience them personally, when their concern suddenly wanes.)
That’s called rent, which doesn’t have to take the form of a fixed sum each month.
Your point?
The problem with paying people a percentage of profits for having to look at the wind farm is that wind power is already very expensive. Add a few more little costs, and it becomes wholly non-productive.
Here in Alberta, we have wind farms. I think they are beautiful. These are not ugly strip mines - they are rows of pristine white towers, very 21st century looking. No guy wires or open lattices - just white towers with majestic blades slowly turning.
And I’m not sold on wind power. For those actually pushing it (i.e. the Kennedys), looking at them should be enjoyable, a visible sign that the world is changing for the better.
Even if they don’t want to look at them, you’d think they’d swallow their aesthetic judgement and take one on the chin for the sake of their values.
But I guess that’s too much to expect. People like the Kennedys think that rules and tradeoffs are for lesser humans. They should get everything their way.
Like the Bushes that way. Call me when one of the currently eligible generation volunteers for military service.
Meantime, it’s true that these windmills are very pretty, from the pictures I’ve seen. I can’t for the life of me figure out what the objection is.
Coming in late, as usual, my best arguments are gone.
Not ugly. Check.
High tech looking in a limited-environmental-footprint 21st Century kind of way. Check.
Kennedys should be leading the way. Check.
Why didn’t they think this through? That’s the real question. Even from a self-interested political viewpoint, this is a loser.
Questions for the wise Doper community / hijack
What about federal tax breaks for windmills and solar panels, could that make a significant dent in overall energy consumption? What level of participation nationally would it require to do so? How much would it cost each homeowner? (I understand that to answer these questions a number of assumptions must be made.) What is the state of the technology? Would such a plan significantly help environmental quality?
I sat down once to figure out if I could off load some costs by installing solar panels on my roof. Well it was going to take about 20 years to pay for itself. It was a substantialk cost.
In Denmark, the government made wind power a win-win proposal for everybody: landowners who lease their land to the wind farmoperators get substantailtax breaks. The windfarm operators get fast building approvals;and the danish government indemnifies people who lose their views or clain envronmental degredation (as a result of the construction of the windmills).
What I can’t understand:
-how a small nation like Denmark can make a positive good understood by the populace, and make windpower a reality!
-whilewe, the largest oil-consuming nation in the world, have the issue (of windpower) mired up in the courts for years-probably in 20 years, the Danes will have 100% clean electric power, and we will still be litigating this crap in the courts!
Of course (SpineyNorman pleas comment), the fact that the Danes have to pay 3x the price we pay for oil has something to do with it!
That’s true, it is a substantial cost, but if you’re going to be in your house for that long, why not do it? And if everyone did it, then moving house wouldn’t be a problem either because your new house would also have solar panels. And, while it might take a while to pay itself off financially, the environmental payoff starts straight away.
Nitpick: They are called “wind turbines” not “windmills”. They are generating power, not milling grain.
Actually, the few articles I looked up indicated that wind power (at least in Montana) is slightly less expensive than the average price per megawatt. The problem with wind power is that it is intermittant and the technology is relatively new. A wind farm’s typical output is generally only about 30% of its stated capacity.
Actually, we are the second largest producer of wind energy in the world (in MWhs), behind Germany. Whatever “issues” are mired up in the courts are the same issues that any company would face when trying to build a potentially unsightly structure. Imagine if Texaco tried to build an oil rig off the shore of Martha’s Vinyard.
Thought I should also mention that the Danes have a much smaller country to power.
Rent, royalty, dividend…whatever! Sheesh!
Excuse the heck out of me!
My point?? You said they should get a dividend, all I did was point out the landowners do receive money for having the generators on their land, in the form of a monthly payment. My point was that individuals DO get paid for having the generators on their land and indeed seem quite happy with the arrangement.
The people who have them on their land refer to it as a royalty, just like people who have oil or gas wells on their land get a royalty for having the well on their land. I know there is a distinction between owning a mineral under your land and getting paid for wind blowing across your land, but the landowners call it a royalty. No cite, this is cafe talk.
Sorry if I misunderstood your point, I’m not trying to drag up a fight here.
I’m not likely to be in this house for more than 3-4 more years. The mobility of the NA work force (those who can afford the cost of solar or wind) works against it.
Eye of the beholder, I suppose, but I found the pictures posted to be fugly as hell. If I had to look at that crap on my one and only yearly vacation, I would take my vacation dollars elsewhere. Cape Ann comes to mind.
As to the assertion that Cape Cod is not pristine, keep in mind that there is a world of difference between route 6 and a Nantucket beach. The childish HAW HAW HAW attitude shows a major lack of understanding as to what the islands are all about.
NIMBY? I’d be glad to have them in my Brookline back yard. In fact, I can think of plenty of places in the Boston area where they would not only not look crappy, but would look pretty cool. An unspoiled shoreline is not one of those places.
I’m afraid you did, but no prob.
I wasn’t talking about the landowners, who I assumed could get some cash flow for letting people use their property. I was talking about dividends to those whose view is allegedly spoiled by the wind farms.
I would just like to say that I have never been to Cape Cod.
And now that I know that it is not pristine, I don’t think I ever will go there.
That is all.
Oh, OK…Sorry about that…
As for the “view compensation”, I don’t know if that would work. Whereas the “company” would only have to pay off a few landowners, they might have to pay off a great deal many more people whose view would be spoiled.
Either the “view dividend” would be so small to the individuals as to not be worth much, or so large to the “company” that the whole idea of cheap wind power would be lost.
As for having them off the coast of Cape Cod, it doesn’t sound like a very good location even without worrying about spoiled views.
The company I cited above (and in the other thread linked to in this thread) says their wind farms have to be close to a high voltage transmission line to be cost effective. That means that some power trunk would have to be included in the cost of the Cape Cod project.
And building the towers on land is quick…I was amazed how fast the one near here went up. Building them offshore would be a lot harder/more expensive. Factor in the opposition due to the location and it all looks like a big boondoggle (or even like pork barrel, it seems that ill-planned).
Well, Duke, one big selling point to offshore generators is that the wind is likely to be strong and steady. No buildings, mountains or any other such stuff to block the flow. Chances are, these generators will produce more per year than similar ones on land.
Thing is, parts of it are. Route 6 is basically an elongated strip mall, but some of the more remote locations are protected wetlands. And while residential areas are not nature preserves, there is old-world charm there. Big machinery would ruin it.
But feel free to stay away. It’s too crowded as it is.
Yeah, sometimes I forget that everyplace isn’t as flat, barren and windy as here.