# Opposition to Wind Farms.



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Do you have any in your back yard, or fought to keep them out?

Currently, there is much heated debate, in our county over proposed "wind farms" I've been busy and not paid a great deal of attention, but now have been informed that our township, looks ripe to start plastering them up.

We have started receiving mailers from both wind generation concerns and groups who oppose them. One the one side you have farmers, looking for easy money,(apparently they lined up for leases) there will be construction jobs, etc., plus they are "teasing" with a tad lower property taxes, in the "effected areas".

On the other side, there are organized opposition groups, some who already live near wind turbine farms and claim there is noise, problems with wildlife, lower property values, etc. I see wind turbines by the hundreds, in more rural areas of of IL, etc. but there is a fair number people that live in my area.

I dont' want to end living in the "rural slums", and could certainly live without seeing them obscure my sunsets.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

I always thought that they looked pretty cool when we drive past some of the windfarms on road trips. Do they make noise? It seems as though they would.


----------



## maverickxxx (Jan 25, 2011)

there was a guy in england that is aginst them cause they will alter the rotation of the earth. i did a report on them in collage. for an aginst i also worked on a project close to them being put up an more then a few miles away u cant see them.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

There is a low frequency noise they make. It is their all the time but if you are close you will not be able to hear it but it is their. If you are close to the side of them you will hear it all the time. And yes it scares the wildlife and makes them move away.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

I'd like one here, but we're in the valley, not on top of the hill...the wind is only able to drive my little homemade 12V turbine...never support the bigguns...LOL!
Matt


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

There trying to put them up around 30 miles from here across the state line an people here are throwing a fit about property values an the view... Its in the next state an on a different mountain? Dont think I will see them or lose any value. I think its better than putting up another coal plant next door.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

So the liberals want the wind farms as long as they are not in their back yard. Ha ha ha. that's funny.......


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SquashNut said:


> So the liberals want the wind farms as long as they are not in their back yard. Ha ha ha. that's funny.......


I put one in my backyard up in Elko. The clip I made about it has over 130,000 views so far.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oI0N21QqwA[/ame]


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

A great regular lease income, from what I can tell... I wouldn't want any on any of my close property... detached land, sure.

Good old NIMBY.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

There are thousands of them in Iowa. We're about 10 miles from a wind farm. You can see the lights at night from here. The government is determined to eliminate coal fired generation of electricity so what other options are there? I certainly wouldn't want to live in the shadow of a tower but I don't want to live under high capacity electric transmission lines either. I guess I'd prefer the wind towers to a nuclear plant although I'm sure the nuclear plant generation capacity would be much greater than an entire wind farm.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

funny how no one ever notices or complains about the regular old telephone poles you see on both sides of every single road everywhere. that's not an eyesore or anything...

over time people won't even notice them...just like telephone poles.


----------



## Kirk (Oct 31, 2003)

I like the look of windmills, I also think that they will help to provide clean energy. In my area they wanted to put them out in Lake Michigan. I thought it was an awesome idea, but most people didn't.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I put one in my backyard up in Elko. The clip I made about it has over 130,000 views so far.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oI0N21QqwA


Uh, I believe the turbines in these wind farms are a _tad_ bit bigger than yours, Nevada. 

It is comical how the alternative energy crowd only supports the technology as long as it's not in their backyard.


----------



## steff bugielski (Nov 10, 2003)

It beats the heck out of a nuclear power plant or large transfer station in your back yard.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Yes. They make noise. Birds fly into them, get chopped up and die. Carcasses litter their footings. 
They require rare-earth metals/minerals in their production and are not environmentally friendly. You are not just putting up a 400' tall fan with a pully attached to a generator. You are erecting a big, expensive construct.
When attached to the power grid they require instant-ready back-ups for when the wind drops off and the current production goes away. 
Has anyone considered what might happen if a tornado came by? Or will the county pass a regulation limiting tornadoes to certain corridors to avoid the "wind farms?"
Just a few considerations.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

TheMartianChick said:


> I always thought that they looked pretty cool when we drive past some of the windfarms on road trips. Do they make noise? It seems as though they would.


Thought the same, read an article by someone who lives close, said there was no adverse effects on birds like previous claims. Noise-not all the time-was like the ocean was near.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

Justin Thyme said:


> Yes. They make noise. Birds fly into them, get chopped up and die. Carcasses litter their footings.
> They require rare-earth metals/minerals in their production and are not environmentally friendly. You are not just putting up a 400' tall fan with a pully attached to a generator. You are erecting a big, expensive construct.
> When attached to the power grid they require instant-ready back-ups for when the wind drops off and the current production goes away.
> Has anyone considered what might happen if a tornado came by? Or will the county pass a regulation limiting tornadoes to certain corridors to avoid the "wind farms?"
> Just a few considerations.


There is a large wind farm being put up in Van Wert County, OH. I realize we are very windy in NW/Central OH, but if any county is going to get an F4/F5 in Ohio, it's Van Wert. A large tornado is not a question of "if" there will be a large tornado, because there "will be" a large tornado in Van Wert County again eventually.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

We have some within a few miles of us in either direction. A few friends have them within 1000 feet of their houses. They make a constant thumping noise and a vibration that I never expected and I could never get use to. Kind of like a dog barking 24 hours a day.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

vicki in NW OH said:


> There is a large wind farm being put up in Van Wert County, OH. I realize we are very windy in NW/Central OH, but if any county is going to get an F4/F5 in Ohio, it's Van Wert. A large tornado is not a question of "if" there will be a large tornado, because there "will be" a large tornado in Van Wert County again eventually.


If that was a valid complaint then nothing should be built there.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> The government is determined to eliminate coal fired generation of electricity so what other options are there?


Wonder what will happen, when it's 97 degrees and there is no wind :help:


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> The government is determined to eliminate coal fired generation of electricity so what other options are there?


*Change or eliminate the government.*


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Wonder what will happen, when it's 97 degrees and there is no wind :help:


It'll be just like it was before electricity and A/C. Hot and muggy and we'll be waiting for rain and hoping a tornado doesn't come with it.


----------



## mountainwmn (Sep 11, 2009)

I came up onto one when going to look at a horse. I have passed the line of windmills before, but never actually came face to face with one. I was amazed by how big it was up close, and pulled over to look. I didn't hear any noise at all, though it was a foggy day which might have muffled it if it was soft. I didn't see any dead birds either, and I did see deer and turkey walking past. I wouldn't mind living near them.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

They are starting to build them( windmill farms) here. Cause all kinds of mental issues, stress from the noise.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

I helped build a 110 of them near Gardner Iowa ,These things are huge.Im told farmers get 3 k for each every year ,don't know how true that is.Does'nt bother wildlife one bit .I can not hear them but I have old mans ears .......... They blend in so well that when my city friends come and visit ,I have to point them out.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Seems I remember in the "old days" that to make wind power feasible, there had to be about an average of 11MPH wind, which made since why wind farms, were near mountain passes (CA, WY,etc.), or other windy areas.

Now they are going up everywhere.

Apparently that requirement has not changed much, but average wind speed in my area is only about 6MPH.



> Wind speed varies from year to year, season to season, with the time of day, and with the height above ground. For a grid connected wind system, an average annual wind speed of 10 mph is usually considered the cutoff. Most experts recommend average annual wind speeds between Class 2 (11.5 mph at hub height) and Class 4 (13.4 mph at hub height). Class 3 sites have average wind speeds of 12.5 mph at hub height. Hub height is the distance from the ground to the center of the turbine rotor.


http://www.seiremc.com/info/info/graph2.htm

The wind farm in Van Wert OH, with similar aveage wind speed, just popped up out of the blue, which surprising, is how Ohio voted, in the last POTUS election.

Since wind farms are being built with stimilus money, is it possible the locations of wind farms, are determined by Politics, more than practicality?

Was that a dumb question?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I oppose them in general. They are a vast money pit sponsored by the government. Think solar power in the 70s and hydrogen power in the 00s. Tons of tax money tossed into both of those rat holes.

For every watt of power you generate from wind you have to have a conventional power plant online and ready to replace if the wind dies. So where's the gain? Where's the savings?


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Seems I remember in the "old days" that to make wind power feasible, there had to be about an average of 11MPH wind, which made since why wind farms, were near mountain passes (CA, WY,etc.), or other windy areas.
> 
> Now they are going up everywhere.
> 
> ...


*uh, YES. It was. (You did ask.)* 



watcher said:


> I oppose them in general. They are a vast money pit sponsored by the government. Think solar power in the 70s and hydrogen power in the 00s. Tons of tax money tossed into both of those rat holes.
> 
> For every watt of power you generate from wind you have to have a conventional power plant online and ready to replace if the wind dies. So where's the gain? Where's the savings?


*There is neither gain nor savings. Just a "feel good" waste of tax dollars for an industry that cannot support itself on its own merits.*


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

From our nearby liberal rag comes something else about these monstrosities:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/08/13/1409385/solar-and-wind-power-projects.html


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Justin Thyme said:


> From our nearby liberal rag comes something else about these monstrosities:
> 
> http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/08/13/1409385/solar-and-wind-power-projects.html


:huh:
Im no beat-nik lefty loon that thinks the sky is falling or coal is evil ,but if that web site wants to prove the dangers of windmills they need to do a much better job.... on a scale of 1 - 10 on the lameness meter ,I give it an 11.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> :huh:
> Im no beat-nik lefty loon that thinks the sky is falling or coal is evil ,but if that web site wants to prove the dangers of windmills they need to do a much better job.... on a scale of 1 - 10 on the lameness meter ,I give it an 11.


What an interesting take on a L.A. Times story reprinted in the Raleigh (NC) News & Observer. Exactly what did you find to be so lame about it?


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

I live 30 miles away from the largest wind farm in the US. Drive through a part of it all the time and have never seen dead birds. But do see cattle and sheep grazing under them, and deer blinds at the edges of the field. I doubt anyone would erect a blind if there weren't deer and other wildlife around. I wouldn't want one within a short distance from my house due to the noise, but I certainly wouldn't mind them within 1000 feet or so. The noise is rather unusual -- not like a mechanical one, but more like the "sensation" I get from deep bass -- reverbiration rather than actual noise.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

. "One of these days, a turbine's going to fall on someone."

~ this is just goofy ~

Many wind turbine technicians work in a bathroom-size space 20 stories above ground surrounded by high-voltage electrical equipment. Some inspect turbine blades while suspended alongside them on sites whipped by strong winds. Components can weigh more than 90 tons.

~ again , big deal ~

Technicians have fallen hundreds of feet; others have been crushed by wayward parts or trapped in twisting machinery. Pilots in small planes have crashed into the towers. Electrical explosions last year left one worker in Illinois with third-degree burns, and two in San Diego County with similar injuries.

~ Ya it stinks that people get hurt .Kinda makes me think about building skyscrappers and operating farm equiptment . ~

Workers could asphyxiate inside turbine enclosures,

~ eye roll ~

or inhale harmful gases and vapors when buffing and resurfacing blades, the Department of Labor cautions.

~ they us a type of gas mask when doing this ~

Again....... a lame attempt at fear mongering.


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> Again....... a lame attempt at fear mongering.


:thumb:


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Belfrybat said:


> I live 30 miles away from the largest wind farm in the US. Drive through a part of it all the time and have never seen dead birds. But do see cattle and sheep grazing under them, and deer blinds at the edges of the field. I doubt anyone would erect a blind if there weren't deer and other wildlife around. I wouldn't want one within a short distance from my house due to the noise, but I certainly wouldn't mind them within 1000 feet or so. The noise is rather unusual -- not like a mechanical one, but more like the "sensation" I get from deep bass -- reverbiration rather than actual noise.


Im no big fan of windmills myself ,I could come up with alot of reasons not to build one ,but the " it scares wild life" is bizzare.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> . "One of these days, a turbine's going to fall on someone."
> 
> ~ this is just goofy ~
> *
> ...


The point is that without ongoing and forever government subsidies these things wouldn't get off the ground, much less up in the air where they do a spectacularly inferior job of providing power. 
This is not your 'summer breeze' leaving behind free power. It is a spectacularly expensive technology that takes up enormous amounts of space for a paltry return on investment. That is why it requires government subsidies. 
Why should somebody in New York pay for something that doesn't work in Indiana? Just to pretend we have a clean energy source and take a step towards energy independence. Well, here's another wake-up call. We have to get the raw materials (and much of the finished product parts) from other countries anyway. 
We should dig up our own coal and use our coal-fired plants and have electricity from our own lands and hands.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Justin Thyme said:


> The point is that without ongoing and forever government subsidies these things wouldn't get off the ground, much less up in the air where they do a spectacularly inferior job of providing power.
> This is not your 'summer breeze' leaving behind free power. It is a spectacularly expensive technology that takes up enormous amounts of space for a paltry return on investment. That is why it requires government subsidies.
> Why should somebody in New York pay for something that doesn't work in Indiana? Just to pretend we have a clean energy source and take a step towards energy independence. Well, here's another wake-up call. We have to get the raw materials (and much of the finished product parts) from other countries anyway.
> We should dig up our own coal and use our coal-fired plants and have electricity from our own lands and hands.


On this I agree WITH YOU 100 %........... But the link you posted was nothing more then sillyness.


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

That article was all about safety an it was a joke.

"Since the 1970s, there have been 78 fatalities, with about half in the United States."

Thats not alot.
Linemen die working on regular old wires too.
2007 Stats: 06 Killed, 11 Injured
2006 Stats: 37 Killed, 42 Injured
2005 Stats: 43 Killed, 38 Injured
2004 Stats: 40 Killed, 18 Injured
2003 Stats: 44 Killed, 27 Injured
2002 Stats: 39 Killed, 33 Injured
2001 Stats: 52 Killed, 27 Injured
2000 Stats: 46 Killed, 34 Injured
1999 Stats: 35 Killed, 23 Injured
1998 Stats: 44 Killed, 20 Injured
1997 Stats: 35 Killed, 23 Injured
1996 Stats: 39 Killed, 21 Injured
1995 Stats: 49 Killed, 34 Injured
1994 Stats: 43 Killed, 20 Injured
1993 Stats: 46 Killed, 35 Injured
1992 Stats: 47 Killed, 40 Injured
1991 Stats: 28 Killed, 28 Injured
1990 Stats: 24 Killed, 22 Injured
1989 Stats: 24 Killed, 10 Injured
1988 Stats: 27 Killed, 11 Injured
1987 Stats: 19 Killed, 05 Injured
1986 Stats: 22 Killed, 08 Injured
1985 Stats: 27 Killed, 14 Injured
1984 Stats: 23 Killed, 11 Injured 

One of the linemen collages is here in my county an even with lots if instructors over-site there are lots of people hurt every semester.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

RebelCowboySnB said:


> That article was all about safety an it was a joke.
> 
> "Since the 1970s, there have been 78 fatalities, with about half in the United States."


I think we all agree that 1 death is 1 to many. I think the 
watchdog organization "Industrial Wind Action Group" needs to find a more creative writer.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> On this I agree WITH YOU 100 %........... But the link you posted was nothing more then sillyness.


"Sillyness" I don't know. But it was published by 'feel good' leftwing type papers that usually paint the rosiest pictures of anything left of center, green- this or that modern day tech stuff.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> I think we all agree that 1 death is 1 to many. I think the
> watchdog organization "Industrial Wind Action Group" needs to find a more creative writer.


Or a more sympathetic one.


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

Oh yea, one is to many.... But...

The fact is nothing is safe an any one things death statistics only mean something when compared to other similar things.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Justin Thyme said:


> Or a more sympathetic one.


Or at least one a little better at working off the cuff..........:bowtie:

Is your only issue the tax payer subsidies?


----------



## NickyBlade (May 27, 2008)

We looked at a log cabin that was listed with a really low asking price. Didn't know it was in the middle of a wind farm until driving down the road to see the place... 

It might end up like telephone poles where we all get used to them eventually. But, those things really creep me out! I thought they were awesome looking from far away, but when you're right under them... they are huge and alien looking. I'd never be able to sleep in a house surrounded by them. One might be ok... I don't know. lol. Perhaps I am a scaredy pants.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> Is your only issue the tax payer subsidies?


No. My real issue is that they just don't work as advertised. If they did work they wouldn't need to be subsidized. 
I've pretty much gone over what my problems are with these things:
1) when the wind drops off you need a real; power plan t to pick up the slack.
2) They do have a tendency to break and are very difficult to fix.
3) It's a new technology that has too many bugs in it right now to make the massive investment necessary to even test it out on a mass scale
4) The turbines require expensive and highly specialized parts made out of materials we don't have very much of, making us dependent on foreign countries (including but not limited to China) for original and replacement parts._ Not_ a step toward energy independence.
5) The mining of those raw materials is not in any way environmentally friendly so this is not a "green" technology either. It only appears to be when you look at the final product. Sort of like electric-cars. They don't work all that well and they are unfriendly to the environment both before (during manufacture of those batteries) and after (disposing of the batteries) their useful lives; although they give the _appearance_ of environmental friendship.
6) The technology is not cost effective, requiring the subsidizing by a deep pocketed benefactor. Why should that benefactor be the American taxpayer? His pockets are threadbare and empty....


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Justin Thyme said:


> No. My real issue is that they just don't work as advertised. If they did work they wouldn't need to be subsidized.
> I've pretty much gone over what my problems are with these things:
> 1) when the wind drops off you need a real; power plan t to pick up the slack.
> 2) They do have a tendency to break and are very difficult to fix.
> ...


1 -5 .... I don't care about...... lets see if I can I get your blood boiling here.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/11/corporate-welfare-watch-wind-f

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/04/google_others_join_controversi.html


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> 1 -5 .... I don't care about...... lets see if I can I get your blood boiling here.
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/11/corporate-welfare-watch-wind-f
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/04/google_others_join_controversi.html


No boiling blood. Just further vindication. Shows how much these guys are in bed with each other and how cost ineffective/useless the technology is (at least for today).


----------



## Rusty'sDog (Oct 14, 2010)

"If it worked, it wouldn't need subsidies..." Absolute BS. Almost every power plant in this country was built with taxpayer's money!

Of the energy consumed in our country, 40% is coal fired. Do you have any idea how many coal miners in this country have lost their lives in that dark and dingy dungeon? Most city slickers have neither the "balz", nor the knowledge to do that job!

If everybody in this country would dry their clothes on a clothes line, we would save enough energy to close every nuclear energy plant in the nation. Until "the consumers" learn to not waste energy, we will need every available option.

As much as I hate taxes, I would champion the cause if the federal government applied a 5Â¢ per KWH tax on all electric use for the purpose of R & D, and implementation of sustainable power.


----------



## Justin Thyme (Jun 3, 2011)

Rusty'sDog said:


> "If it worked, it wouldn't need subsidies..." Absolute BS. Almost every power plant in this country was built with taxpayer's money!
> 
> *May be b.s. but, sadly, a truth. It is not economically feasible without taxpayer money and not for the foreseeable future. Wind farms built today with subsidies will still be collecting them years down the road, if they last that long. Power plants, coal, hydro-electric and nuclear actually work, do what they're supposed to and last for decades without collapsing in a heap. Plus, they earn money.*
> 
> ...


And I will champion your right to pay anything additional you want on your tax bill. But this country was built on private enterprise discovering/inventing better way of doing things and I'D PREFER TO RELY ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR, THANK YOU. It has never let us down.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Solar, Wind, Ethanol - all subsidised by "government" (us). Nuff said.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

J.T.M. said:


> I think we all agree that 1 death is 1 to many. I think the
> watchdog organization "Industrial Wind Action Group" needs to find a more creative writer.


no we don't death is as much a part of life as birth. you can never regulate enough safety to not have any death. every day we wake up we don't know if we will go to bed that night. should I not drive because I "might get killed in a wreck"? should I not flip on the light switch because I "might get electrocuted"?
heck I shouldn't cut my grass because I might slip and fall and cut off my toes. we should not have windmills because someone might get hurt? if we follow that logic we shouldn't have coal powered plants because coal miners do get killed. coal ash ponds have killed people. we should not have nuclear plats because people have been killed in them. heck electricity itself has killed people so lets just ban it. of course death has been around longer then all those things. we have managed to live longer lives with technology and with government regs yet we have yet to cheat death. how far do we go? when we take 4 people to do a single job to keep death at bay? how much do we spend/lose to keep the stupid gene pool alive? accidents happen you can't regulate them away. we are humans and no man is perfect. we have yet to achieve immortality! smart people know that we can't.

I was with you J.T.M.until this comment. 
I'm not a greeny meany. I do believe in green power. I do not believe it should be subsidized. nor do I believe any other form of power should be. people should have a choice. we as humans will choose the less painful chose. its a fact of life. some will choose to use oil and gas til its to scarce and hurts to much. some will choose for the government to regulated our choices. some will move ahead and embrace new technology. then some will envision the future 30 or forty years ahead.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Uh, I believe the turbines in these wind farms are a _tad_ bit bigger than yours, Nevada.
> 
> It is comical how the alternative energy crowd only supports the technology as long as it's not in their backyard.


Much like the libs who support higher taxes as long as they're not paying them.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Well I like the concept of wind farms and am working on some wind generation around the old homestead myself but I have to admit I wouldnt want one close to me (one of the big wind farms that is). Is it hypocritical of me to support wind generation but not want it in my back yard? Yup...I also support Nuclear energy and dont choose to live close to a Nuc plant.


----------



## travlnusa (Dec 12, 2004)

There is a company that is pushing the state to put up 51 towers in our township. They will be about 500' tall at the blade tip. I have two major issues here. One will be the shadow flicker that will cross my house on the south side. The other one is my right of land use. 

They are building one on my neighbors land. Good for him. It is being built 75 feet from the property line. That means that by default my land is being used a part of the buffer zone around it, thus I can not use that land for anything other than pasture/field.

If it were my wish to sell off that part of land to someone, they could not build on it as it is to close the tower.

Neighbor has the right to do as he chooses with his land. That choice should now dis-allow me the same choice


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

travlnusa said:


> There is a company that is pushing the state to put up 51 towers in our township. They will be about 500' tall at the blade tip. I have two major issues here. One will be the shadow flicker that will cross my house on the south side. The other one is my right of land use.
> 
> They are building one on my neighbors land. Good for him. It is being built 75 feet from the property line. That means that by default my land is being used a part of the buffer zone around it, thus I can not use that land for anything other than pasture/field.
> 
> ...


Is there truly no recourse for you?


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Justin Thyme said:


> No. My real issue is that they just don't work as advertised. If they did work they wouldn't need to be subsidized.
> I've pretty much gone over what my problems are with these things:
> 1) when the wind drops off you need a real; power plan t to pick up the slack.
> 2) They do have a tendency to break and are very difficult to fix.
> ...


And in 20 years, what happens to them when new technology comes out? It will be like giant graveyards all over the country. The land owners will be stuck with them and there probably won't be any recourse because these companies will have gone out of business. 
We have been getting calls constantly from these companies and I just hang up on them, in our area no one wants them period. This is farming country and I can just imagine trying to work around them with big machinery.
There IS noise with them and the constant lights flickering. People that live around them can't seem to sell their property.


----------



## ksfarmer (Apr 28, 2007)

scooter said:


> And in 20 years, what happens to them when new technology comes out? It will be like giant graveyards all over the country. The land owners will be stuck with them and there probably won't be any recourse because these companies will have gone out of business.
> We have been getting calls constantly from these companies and I just hang up on them, in our area no one wants them period. This is farming country and I can just imagine trying to work around them with big machinery.
> There IS noise with them and the constant lights flickering. People that live around them can't seem to sell their property.


Have you checked the prices on scrap metal lately? I doubt they will stand long if no longer being used. 
We farm around powerline poles now, not much change.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Boy, I might need to get some put in if their noise could drown out the train whistles, barking dogs, jet noise, etc.

Wouldn't tornadoes increase power production? Or would it spin backwards.


----------



## sirquack (Feb 18, 2009)

Justin Thyme said:


> Yes. They make noise. Birds fly into them, get chopped up and die. Carcasses litter their footings.
> They require rare-earth metals/minerals in their production and are not environmentally friendly. You are not just putting up a 400' tall fan with a pully attached to a generator. You are erecting a big, expensive construct.
> When attached to the power grid they require instant-ready back-ups for when the wind drops off and the current production goes away.
> Has anyone considered what might happen if a tornado came by? Or will the county pass a regulation limiting tornadoes to certain corridors to avoid the "wind farms?"
> Just a few considerations.


Sorry Justin, your ideas are pretty corrupt. I have been around many big wind turbines here in Iowa as a friend of mine does maintenance on them and I have seen, let me see, ONE bird in all of the ones a visited. And it was not chopped up. It probably banged into the mast and not the blades. 
As for someone elses contention that animals avoid them, I have seen plenty of wildllife around them. In fact, there were some smaller trees and shrubs around them and they were filled with birds and sheltered rabbits and other animals. 
So quite falling for the BS you read. I plan on erecting two towers of the airstream wind turbines on my own property in conjunction with some active solar panels to reduce my dependence on grid tied power.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://www.allwindenergy.com/

I'm trying to find the news show I saw, or article about it, but most of the current wind turbines are now being made in China. The ones in the US were overlooked out of business, etc.

The show (I want to say a "Dateline" or "20/20") was showing Americans making the turbines, but China company got the business and I am remembering that they were not the superior make or the less price.

I'll try to find what I'm remembering and post a link, later tonight.


----------



## mldrenen (Nov 29, 2007)

Justin Thyme said:


> We should dig up our own coal and use our coal-fired plants and have electricity from our own lands and hands.



there seems to be more uproar over wind turbines that "may" scare an animal or kill an odd bird than there is over mountain top removal for coal, which i'm pretty sure does more damage.

also, wind turbines _are_ viable. many private companies and utility providers in our area have erected them and are seeing substantial savings. 

why are you so adamantly opposed to them?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

mldrenen - just so you'll know - he cannot answer here any longer.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

There was a wind turbine factory not 10 miles from where I am sitting now that closed. Another larger factory in the northern part of Ky closed as well. The one in Morgantown cited Federal contracts going to the Chinese rather than American firms as the reason for closure. I was in the Morgantown facility often it was an interesting operation. As I recall it lost a town of 1200 about 150 good paying jobs when it closed.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And if anybody thinks that putting wind towers, putting up solar panels all over the place, or anything else that is named "green" will ween this country off of oil they are barking up the wrong tree.
This country lives on oil, Period. So many many many things OTHER then gasoline is coming from petroleum, this country will never in the next decade, or the decade after that or the decade after that, and so on will this country stop using oil. Period. So we need to continue to use coal, use natural gas, use anything and everything this great earth provides. Including putting up Nuclear Plants.


----------



## unregistered6474 (Apr 21, 2003)

I think they're great! They provide a lot of jobs, land leases, etc. and they're better than having coal mining, nuclear energy or a fracking operation in your backyard. 

One wind turbine is rated to supply power to 500-600 homes, and the foundation takes only a half-acre of land. 

States like Iowa, that don't have oil or coal, can produce their own energy through wind -- I think that's sort of cool. Plus, the installation and manufacture of the turbines provides much-needed jobs in rural areas.

Also, for people claiming that they kill birds, far more birds are killed by feral cats.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> And if anybody thinks that putting wind towers, putting up solar panels all over the place, or anything else that is named "green" will ween this country off of oil they are barking up the wrong tree.
> This country lives on oil, Period. So many many many things OTHER then gasoline is coming from petroleum, this country will never in the next decade, or the decade after that or the decade after that, and so on will this country stop using oil. Period. So we need to continue to use coal, use natural gas, use anything and everything this great earth provides. Including putting up Nuclear Plants.


 Yes we know all this. Yet you, and everyone else opposed to renewables, have still failed to make the case why 'cleaner energy' cannot be part of the energy mix. It most certainly can, and already IS a growing part of our energy supply. 

Wind turbines would not be my first choice for renewable energy. They are too exposed to the elements (by design), and they have too many moving parts. Which, I am sorry to say are being outsourced to China more and more. (Which should be against the law because tax revenue is ending up there).

Also, I dont imagine I would want to live next to one, although I'd take that over living next to a nuke plant or downwind of a coal burning plant. ( our nearest coal burning plant, JUST BUILT last year, is 15 miles away ).

Coal, nuclear, gas, as well as solar and wind are ALL important to our energy security. Many of you dismissing renewables outright are seriously misinformed. Many of your comments seem to come not from experience but anti-'clean energy' talking points, most of which are laughably easy to refute.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Katlara said:


> I think they're great! They provide a lot of jobs, land leases, etc. and they're better than having coal mining, nuclear energy or a fracking operation in your backyard.
> 
> One wind turbine is rated to supply power to 500-600 homes, and the foundation takes only a half-acre of land.
> 
> ...


 The Great Plains should DEFINITELY make use of the wind. That is one setting where wind turbines have their place.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mldrenen said:


> there seems to be more uproar over wind turbines that "may" scare an animal or kill an odd bird than there is over mountain top removal for coal, which i'm pretty sure does more damage.
> 
> also, wind turbines _are_ viable. many private companies and utility providers in our area have erected them and are seeing substantial savings.
> 
> why are you so adamantly opposed to them?


I'm not him but I'll reply. I oppose them because they are not viable. The only reason companies are installing them is because my tax money is being given to these companies to do it.

I also oppose them because they make no sense once you begin to understand how the electrical system works. 

To start talk to someone who uses a windmill to provide electricity for their home. 

Do they have a windmill connected directly to their house? AFAIK, no one does this. They have the mill connected to a bank of batteries and then use an inverter to provide power to the house. Now why would they do that? Because the electricity from the mill varies based on the wind and most electrical equipment does not like with you try to feed it anything but _pure_110-120 VAC @ 60 hertz.

Also ask them if they rely SOLELY on the mill or if they have a large bank of batteries AND a generator as a back up. 

Now think about trying to use windmills in a huge electrical supply grid. You are going to have to have generators running on standby so they can instantly kick in if/when the wind drops to the point the mills are not providing the necessary power.

This is a very, very simple explanation of this. I'm no dummy and I had a long and fairly confusing discussion about what a TVA generation station has to do to make sure the electricity was kept _pure_.


----------



## sirquack (Feb 18, 2009)

I really love hearing people use subsidies as an excuse for not liking Wind, Solar, Biodiesel or any other greener energy. Do people not see the amounts of money going to big oil as tax breaks or direct subsidies. So to say that the wind turbines can't stand on their own is very hypocritical when big oil is not able, or at least unwilling to, stand on it's own either.
Research is necessary no matter what the source or energy. I am a realist and know that wind is not the only source of energy, but I will use it to offset my need for more traditional methods of energy production. In Iowa, wind represents about 20% of the states energy production. That is pretty darn good if you consider what it prevents from having to happen. No need for more traditional power plants. As the state grows that may change, but offsetting that much power need on a renewable source is a good thing. 
And as most people will eventually figure out, oil is not an endless supply. We see that at the pumps every time we fill up. I would rather have something as an option instead of solely relying on someone else to control my destiny.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

sirquack said:


> I really love hearing people use subsidies as an excuse for not liking Wind, Solar, Biodiesel or any other greener energy. Do people not see the amounts of money going to big oil as tax breaks or direct subsidies. So to say that the wind turbines can't stand on their own is very hypocritical when big oil is not able, or at least unwilling to, stand on it's own either.
> Research is necessary no matter what the source or energy. I am a realist and know that wind is not the only source of energy, but I will use it to offset my need for more traditional methods of energy production. In Iowa, wind represents about 20% of the states energy production. That is pretty darn good if you consider what it prevents from having to happen. No need for more traditional power plants. As the state grows that may change, but offsetting that much power need on a renewable source is a good thing.
> And as most people will eventually figure out, oil is not an endless supply. We see that at the pumps every time we fill up. I would rather have something as an option instead of solely relying on someone else to control my destiny.


Oil may get breaks but it does not *need* them. Think about it 3 years ago would you think people would be willingly paying $3.50/gallon for gas and showing next to no reduction in usage?

If all the breaks oil gets were to go away and prices jumped 50% people would keep right on buying all the oil related products. Its clear you can't say the same about any "green" energy because no of them have made it.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

watcher said:


> Now think about trying to use windmills in a huge electrical supply grid. You are going to have to have generators running on standby so they can instantly kick in if/when the wind drops to the point the mills are not providing the necessary power.


Or, as Homer Simpson put it...."From now on, the Simpsons are living intermittently." :hysterical: I don't normally watch The Simpsons but happened to catch that episode. It was hysterically funny due to it's accuracy at depicting life w/ a wind generator. BTDT.










Note: those are fans blowing on the wind generator, lol.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2011)

I have absolutely no dog in this fight but I will say this . Several months ago when they were talking about installing windmills in the ocean off the northeast coast there was a dateline , 20/20 , 60 minutes type program about them . They stated in that program that the windmills wouldn't produce enough energy during their useful lifetime to pay for themselves much less be an energy savings . I would assume that would be one of the reasons tax payer money would be needed to build them . No private company could stay in business undertaking an endeavor like that .
Of course the government seems extremely proficient at finding one rat hole after another to pour money down .


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I put one in my backyard up in Elko. The clip I made about it has over 130,000 views so far.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oI0N21QqwA


Cool video! :rock:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

http://greenanswers.com/news/255300/rising-bird-death-rates-wind-energy-really-sustainable



> In the Bay Area, wind turbines also have a bad image to animal activists and residents. Providing thousands of nearby homes with clean, wind generated electricity since the 1980s, the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area also causes a significant amount of bird deaths. Having 5,000 wind turbines, the wind farm at Altamont Pass causes about 67 golden eagle deaths a year. However, the much smaller Pine Tree wind farm and its 90 turbines has a higher death rate per turbine; about 3 times greater than the Altamont Pass wind farm.
> 
> Although high bird mortality rates is one of the most detrimental impacts wind turbines have, governments have been rather slow to address the problem. Says Shawn Smallwood, an expert on raptor ecology, "Wind farms have been killing birds for decades and law enforcement has done nothing about it." Perhaps the reason for the government's slow action is the push for renewable energy sources. In April, California governor Jerry Brown passed a law requiring a third of electricity used in the state to come from renewable sources, including wind, by 2020. The new law is the most aggressive of any state in the US.


A potential solution? Oh, yeah.


> A possible solution to ease the damage to migrating birds is to shut down wind farms during migrating seasons.


It will be interesting to see which special interest group wins this conundrum.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> http://greenanswers.com/news/255300/rising-bird-death-rates-wind-energy-really-sustainable
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Wow. 5000 turbines and 67 eagles killed. How many birds do you think get killed in a oil spill, or a nuclear meltdown, or a mountaintop removal?? Please, people, stop whining about BIRDS. Get some real info, then we can discuss this subject in a rational manner.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> I'm not him but I'll reply. I oppose them because they are not viable. The only reason companies are installing them is because my tax money is being given to these companies to do it.
> 
> I also oppose them because they make no sense once you begin to understand how the electrical system works.
> 
> ...


 NO ONE is recommending going to a purely wind based energy grid. How many times does this need to be said? Wind, solar, and other intermittent but clean sources of power are always designed to supplement existing power generating stations, reducing their load, and reducing their non-renewable fuel consumption. Some of you need an education in renewable energy. You know, there is a alternative energy forum on this very site, the folks there have ACTUAL knowledge of this subject, they dont go and repeat what some biased source with an agenda told them.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And how many birds that are killed and EATEN so they never show up as being Dead are there?
Walking around in the woods how many deer to you see dead?
Yet there are 100's to 1,000's of them that die and are never found or seen, as they are EATEN, And a bird is so small it would be eaten up in no time before anybody ever got out to count them. See the problem with a place that said OH they found 67 Eagles killed. How many were disposed of before anybody spotted them as being dead. Studies and things like that are posted all over the net. OH so few are found yet so MANY MANY more have been killed and are just not found.


----------



## mldrenen (Nov 29, 2007)

watcher said:


> I'm not him but I'll reply. I oppose them because they are not viable. The only reason companies are installing them is because my tax money is being given to these companies to do it.
> 
> I also oppose them because they make no sense once you begin to understand how the electrical system works.




we don't have large wind farms in my area, so my experience is limited to private companies installing large wind turbines for their own consumption, with excess electricity being sold to the grid. obviously the economics and tax arrangements vary with larger projects, as well as state by state.

in one of the cases, there was no state grant or tax credit for installation. total cost was $1.7million. they may receive a small tax credit for the excess electricity they produce that gets sold to the electric company. i think i remember reading that the amount of the credit was <$25k annually. they expect to recoup their costs in 8 years of operation. 

viable? yeah, i think so.

another local company (ski resort), installed one that cost $4million, received a tax rebate of $500k, and an ongoing tax credit of ~$45k annually. they expect to recoup their money in less than 5 years. 

viable? again, i think so.

both situations involve tax dollars, but not to a large extent. they both would be viable options without any tax dollars involved, and in both cases the tax credits were incidental bonuses.


----------



## sirquack (Feb 18, 2009)

watcher said:


> Oil may get breaks but it does not *need* them. Think about it 3 years ago would you think people would be willingly paying $3.50/gallon for gas and showing next to no reduction in usage?
> 
> If all the breaks oil gets were to go away and prices jumped 50% people would keep right on buying all the oil related products. Its clear you can't say the same about any "green" energy because no of them have made it.


Watcher, the counter point to your comment would be, when oil was first being used for energy production, were the subsidies being provided necessary? Wind is in its relative infancy. The subsidies is currently receives are to help more people being to use cleaner energies. I would hope that more and more R & D is being done to create better capacity for wind. But as others have said, it is just part of a bigger plan. Wind is not the end all, oil is definitely moving in a direction to be too expensive and other energy production like coal, nuclear and solar are all also part of the plan. But we need to concede that we need to at least make efforts to begin moving towards cleaner sources and only by investing in technology can we make it better.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> NO ONE is recommending going to a purely wind based energy grid. How many times does this need to be said? Wind, solar, and other intermittent but clean sources of power are always designed to supplement existing power generating stations, reducing their load, and reducing their non-renewable fuel consumption.


Just how many redundant energy systems are you suggesting we build? So far I can see three, 1) wind; 2) solar 3) conventional. All three of which would have to be kept on line and ready to take up the slack when the others failed.

Yeah, that's really a good use of resources.




greg273 said:


> Some of you need an education in renewable energy.


To get a bit snippy here, the odds are I was studying "alternative energy" while you were still wearing diapers. Do you know you can use solar thermal energy to generate hydrogen? Did you know you can use solar thermal directly to make ice? Heck, I have two plans to use solar thermal to AC a home, one directly and the other indirectly. 

You can yap until your teeth fall out but the fact still stands anything which is not reliable to work 24/7/365 is NOT a viable large scale replacement for conventional electrical generation. 





greg273 said:


> You know, there is a alternative energy forum on this very site, the folks there have ACTUAL knowledge of this subject, they dont go and repeat what some biased source with an agenda told them.


Yes it is but I have not seen anything in there which is scalable. Its not that difficult (expensive but not difficult) to build a system to power a home. But you can not use any of those systems for a neighborhood much less the entire nation.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mldrenen said:


> both situations involve tax dollars, but not to a large extent. they both would be viable options without any tax dollars involved, and in both cases the tax credits were incidental bonuses.


If this is true they why are we not seeing 100% privately funded wind farms popping up? With the price of oil today surely it would be a big time money maker.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Ya know, the ONLY solution HAS to be large scale conventional power generation.
That's the ONLY thing that will work. There are NO other possibilities in all the realm of human thought.
There is simply no point in even THINKING about.............cuz after all, that's how mankind has developed so far.............by keeping the status quo.

(Where's the head banging against the brick wall icon, anyway?)


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

sirquack said:


> Watcher, the counter point to your comment would be, when oil was first being used for energy production, were the subsidies being provided necessary?


You have just proved (proven?) my point. The switch from coal to oil was done without ANY government help. It was done by private businesses based on the fact oil was cheaper and easier than using coal.

The same thing applies to industry switching from steam to electrical power. Companies didn't go to the government and say "We _need_ to switch to using electrical motors, please give us money to make it possible." They looked at the cost and benefits of electric vs steam and made the switch.




sirquack said:


> Wind is in its relative infancy.


HOCKEY PUCKS and *DOUBLE HOCKEY PUCKS!!!!!!!!!!* Man has been using wind energy for if not thousands of years. _The first practical windmills were in use in Sistan, a region in Iran and bordering Afghanistan, at least by the 9th century and possibly as early as the 7th century. _

We have been using them to produce electricity since the late 1800s. If they haven't reached the point of being practical in 100+ years I think it maybe time to look else where. Don't you agree?




sirquack said:


> The subsidies is currently receives are to help more people being to use cleaner energies. I would hope that more and more R & D is being done to create better capacity for wind. But as others


A few questions. 1) Do you really think having the government involved is going to help? You must not be old enough to remember the 70s and early 80s. The government pumped tons of tax payer's dollars into "alternative energy". Just what did the nation get in return for those dollars?

2) If its such a great thing why are tax dollars needed anyway? I don't remember Apple applying for subsidies to come up with the iPod nor iPad. IIRC, H. Ford didn't take tax payer's money to build his auto plants. 




sirquack said:


> have said, it is just part of a bigger plan. Wind is not the end all, oil is definitely moving in a direction to be too expensive and other energy


As I pointed out nothing which is not reliable 24/7/365 is going to be a major player in the electrical supply grid. That's because if you have something like that in the grid you are going to HAVE to have a back up system on line 24/7/365 and ready to take up the slack. I'll ask you the same question I asked before, how many systems are you planning on building and is building 3-20 different redundant systems a good use of resources?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Energy Rebel said:


> Ya know, the ONLY solution HAS to be large scale conventional power generation.
> That's the ONLY thing that will work. There are NO other possibilities in all the realm of human thought.
> There is simply no point in even THINKING about.............cuz after all, that's how mankind has developed so far.............by keeping the status quo.
> 
> (Where's the head banging against the brick wall icon, anyway?)


It doesn't have to be conventional. If perfected fusion would work great.


----------



## mldrenen (Nov 29, 2007)

watcher said:


> If this is true they why are we not seeing 100% privately funded wind farms popping up? With the price of oil today surely it would be a big time money maker.



like i said, i'm only familiar with private/small wind power. it works exceptionally well in that application, provided you can foot the bill for the infrastructure up front.

which brings me to my theory for why wind farms haven't been 100% privately funded. up front cost and length of time to recoup that cost. being relatively new, equipment is expensive. longevity hasn't been fully tested yet. how many private investors are willing to line up for an investment that isn't already proven to be a big money maker?

i believe another reason is that large energy companies can more easily and cheaply build coal fired plants, or even nuclear plants, and recoup their costs much faster, thereby maximizing profits. 

the problems with coal are 1) finite source. 2) some methods for removal are absolutely awful and destructive. 3) air pollution is a problem. i believe that newer plants are cleaner, but i can't imagine that they are cleaner than wind or solar.

the problem with nuclear are 1) terrorist target. 2) risk of meltdown 3) we still have no friggin idea what to do with the waste aside from burying it deep in a mountain somewhere and pretending like it doesn't exist.

the problems with wind that you and others have mentioned seem relatively minor in comparison. but i will concede that they do exist, and that they should be addressed before wind could become a replacement for conventional power. 

and lastly, i'd rather see our government throw money at alternative energy development than funding never-ending wars, or spend it on oil from countries that are inches away from being enemies.

edited to add: this is the type of story that graces our local news with relative frequency the last few years. that may help explain some of my acceptance of new energy sources. i'd rather live with less electrical gadgetry in my life than with an environment full of poison. http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/massachusetts/tritium-from-vt-nuke-plant-in-ct-river


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

I'm divided on how I feel about them. I think we need to be looking for alternative sources of energy. wind energy isn't perfect but as long as the windmills are operating a coal or NG gas fired plant isn't. Yes windmills need back up generator capacity but there already is some back up capacity built into the current system. 

I'm not totally against the subsidizing a start up industry such as wind but there needs to be a time line for phasing out any subsidies so that the industry is working toward standing on it's own.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> as long as the windmills are operating a coal or NG gas fired plant isn't.


You can *control *when a coal or gas plant generates power.

You can't *control* the wind.


----------



## mldrenen (Nov 29, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can *control *when a coal or gas plant generates power.
> 
> You can't *control* the wind.




they don't just stick turbines anywhere. they are sited where wind speeds are high and reliably steady. most turbines spin most of the time. winds 200-400 feet in the air are nearly constant.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Texas produces more electricity from wind than any other state. Most of the wind farms are in west Texas, but the latest facility to go online is just north of Muenster, located about 30 miles northwest of Denton. Until recently, the sleepy little town of about 1,500 people was best known for its German heritage. Until the wind farm blew into town. The rolling fields just north of Muenster are now dotted with 75 electricity-producing wind turbines. 


This windfarm is next to where I race at the red river and my home.

[youtube]RFPj9frhKuo[/youtube]


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sure wind farms can help, but in no way will they be the ONLY source for electricity in this country. Selected spots can and will get a partial supply of their electric from wind power. But in no way will wind power ever replace the entire electric grid, NORE should it.
Wind does not blow 24/7 - 365.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mldrenen said:


> like i said, i'm only familiar with private/small wind power. it works exceptionally well in that application, provided you can foot the bill for the infrastructure up front.


Yep but as I said its not scalable. Can you imagine the battery bank you'd need to handle the power needs of say NYC for one windless day?




mldrenen said:


> which brings me to my theory for why wind farms haven't been 100% privately funded. up front cost and length of time to recoup that cost. being relatively new, equipment is expensive. longevity hasn't been fully tested yet. how many private investors are willing to line up for an investment that isn't already proven to be a big money maker?


So you want the government to force you to risk your money in something you are not willing to? We tried this in the 70s and it was nothing but a large rat hole which did nothing but move money out of the pockets of one tax payer into another.




mldrenen said:


> i believe another reason is that large energy companies can more easily and cheaply build coal fired plants, or even nuclear plants, and recoup their costs much faster, thereby maximizing profits.


IOW, the other options are not viable.




mldrenen said:


> the problems with coal are 1) finite source. 2) some methods for removal are absolutely awful and destructive. 3) air pollution is a problem. i believe that newer plants are cleaner, but i can't imagine that they are cleaner than wind or solar.


Yet people are perfectly willing to keep using it. Do you really want to give the government even more power to force you to something you don't want to?




mldrenen said:


> the problem with nuclear are 1) terrorist target. 2) risk of meltdown 3) we still have no friggin idea what to do with the waste aside from burying it deep in a mountain somewhere and pretending like it doesn't exist.


That all depends. First off a properly constructed reactor can meltdown yet not pose any danger. Second, waste is easily handled. Europe and Japan have been doing it for decades. What they do is recycle it. FYI, most of the "waste" is still usable, you just need to get it out of the 'spent fuel'. 

Think of it this way, you wonder why you are using 10 times as much wood as your neighbor and have 30 times as much waste. You stack up some wood and set it on fire. When the flames die down you toss water on it, dig everything out and start over with new wood. What he does is stacks up the wood and sets it on fire, just as you do. But when the flames die down he takes a poker and stirs things around until it flames back up. This means all of his wood burns to ash whereas only 10% or so of your wood burns.




mldrenen said:


> and lastly, i'd rather see our government throw money at alternative energy development than funding never-ending wars, or spend it on oil from countries that are inches away from being enemies.


That's like saying you rather see the government spending money on painting the grass green. Both are a waste of money.


----------



## mldrenen (Nov 29, 2007)

watcher said:


> Both are a waste of money.




that's your opinion. you're entitled to it. like i said, i'm not an expert on large scale wind. i think it's a viable alternative source of electricity, and one that should be used in conjunction with other sources, no matter the scale.

studies reveal that nuclear energy isn't viable without government subsidies either. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/int...er-isnt-viable-without-corporate-welfare/4981

reprocessing nuclear fuel _reduces_ the amount of radioactive waste, but doesn't eliminate it. we still have to bury the rest in a mountain somewhere. that bothers me.

at some point we're going to run out of easy coal, just like we'll run out of easy oil. at that point we'll turn to tar sand oil, and mountain top removal coal. neither of those options are without serious and permanent risks to both humans and the environment. that also bothers me.

i think the bottom line for me is that i wouldn't see higher energy prices as an EOTWAWKI situation. it would probably lead to a greater demand for more energy efficient products and reduced consumption. as a society, we're addicted to convenience and gadgets, and we're willing to destroy our environment and personal well-being to keep the juice flowing through the grid, our big screen tv's and ac's humming, and our cars at the ready for a drive to anywhere, anytime. i'm just as guilty of that mentality, and it disgusts me.

if we refuse to spend money developing new technologies, we're going to be stuck with 20th century technology and their various associated ills, long into the future. we've got to realize that our current energy production methods have worked well for the age in which they were developed, for the demand that they were designed to meet, and for the population level what it was. they don't seem as promising when you look toward the horizon at exploding populations, exponentially increasing demands, and dwindling resources. 

like i said, i'd rather my tax money go toward reducing our dependence on unsustainable energy sources than on half of the things that they waste it on.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mldrenen said:


> that's your opinion. you're entitled to it. like i said, i'm not an expert on large scale wind. i think it's a viable alternative source of electricity, and one that should be used in conjunction with other sources, no matter the scale.


Its an opinion backed up by the facts. If it were not the case we'd have it today. After all we spent tons of tax payer's money in the past 30+ years




mldrenen said:


> reprocessing nuclear fuel _reduces_ the amount of radioactive waste, but doesn't eliminate it. we still have to bury the rest in a mountain somewhere. that bothers me.


A couple of things here. 

If we were to switch to newer reactors we could drastically reduce the amount of waste.

After you remove the non usable radioactive material, i.e. the real waste you have a very small amount. It can then be mixed/baked into a ceramic which is stable. At that point it can be safely buried, remember it came out of the ground go begin with, or stored other ways. 

Also the true waste is highly radioactive which means it has a very short half life. So you don't have to store it for thousands of years. Or even hundreds.




mldrenen said:


> at some point we're going to run out of easy coal, just like we'll run out of easy oil. at that point we'll turn to tar sand oil, and mountain top removal coal. neither of those options are without serious and permanent risks to both humans and the environment. that also bothers me.


Remember the law of supply and demand. As the amount of "easy" coal and oil starts to go away its cost will go up. As that happens other things will become more economically viable. But wind and solar are still going to have the problem of not being reliable 24/7/365.




mldrenen said:


> if we refuse to spend money developing new technologies, we're going to be stuck with 20th century technology and their various associated ills, long into the future. we've got to realize that our current energy production methods have worked well for the age in which they were developed, for the demand that they were designed to meet, and for the population level what it was. they don't seem as promising when you look toward the horizon at exploding populations, exponentially increasing demands, and dwindling resources.


I have no problem with you spending all the money you want to develop any new, or old, technologies you wish. I have no problem with you giving all the money you want to someone trying to develop technology. I do have a problem with the government forcing me to give you money to develop it.




mldrenen said:


> like i said, i'd rather my tax money go toward reducing our dependence on unsustainable energy sources than on half of the things that they waste it on.


I rather my tax money be spend on the things the Constitution says the government is supposed to do and NOTHING else.


----------



## mldrenen (Nov 29, 2007)

watcher said:


> Its an opinion backed up by the facts. If it were not the case we'd have it today. After all we spent tons of tax payer's money in the past 30+ years


"it's a waste of money" is an opinion that can't be backed up by fact. i don't believe it to be a waste of money.




watcher said:


> If we were to switch to newer reactors we could drastically reduce the amount of waste.
> 
> After you remove the non usable radioactive material, i.e. the real waste you have a very small amount. It can then be mixed/baked into a ceramic which is stable. At that point it can be safely buried, remember it came out of the ground go begin with, or stored other ways.
> 
> Also the true waste is highly radioactive which means it has a very short half life. So you don't have to store it for thousands of years. Or even hundreds.



possibly all very true. i don't know the specifics. did you read the link i posted in response to you about a local nuclear plant that has been leaking radioactive tritium into our river for who knows how long? we can call nuclear safe and cheap, but the facts don't always back up those claims.




watcher said:


> I have no problem with you spending all the money you want to develop any new, or old, technologies you wish. I have no problem with you giving all the money you want to someone trying to develop technology. I do have a problem with the government forcing me to give you money to develop it.



go grab a glass of your favorite drink, sit down in front of your computer, and google the following:

1) coal subsidies
2) oil subsidies
3) nuclear subsidies

read anything you can find on those topics. then come back in here and rail against conventional energy sources for being subsidized with our tax dollars. after all, if they were viable industries they shouldn't have to be propped up with my money.




watcher said:


> I rather my tax money be spend on the things the Constitution says the government is supposed to do and NOTHING else.


the constitution gives the government the right to collect taxes, and spend those taxes on defense and the general welfare of the country. pretty broad, if you ask me. what would you limit their spending on?


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Has anyone noticed a recurring theme in the threads about alternative energy generation?
If it's coal, gas, oil or nuclear, it's good.
Solar, wind and to a certain extent, hydroelectric - bad, no good, don't even try it.
I wonder why that is, I mean apart from the obvious premise that somehow, scientifically it won't work.
See any other similarity?

You need a corporation or or some other group to depend on to extract and supply that power for you. IOW, you have to buy it continuously.
If you build your own independent system and it's powered by something that occurs naturally from the earth or sun, you don't have to write a check for the supply, just the system, which you own.

Maybe that's just a coincidence, but I get that the feeling that not all detractors have your best interest in mind.


----------



## mldrenen (Nov 29, 2007)

Energy Rebel said:


> Maybe that's just a coincidence, but I get that the feeling that not all detractors have your best interest in mind.



in defense of watcher, i don't think he's trying to dissuade anyone for any sinister reasons. i think he's a man who has strong opinions about things, and likes to argue his side adamantly. just like everyone else on here. isn't that why we all participate in GC?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mldrenen said:


> "it's a waste of money" is an opinion that can't be backed up by fact. i don't believe it to be a waste of money.


Ok, show me the return on investment on all the tax dollars we spent on alternative energy from 1970 to 1990. If you can't show that then you have to admit it was wasted.




mldrenen said:


> possibly all very true. i don't know the specifics.


You don't know specifics but you are telling me how dangerous it is? Doesn't that sound just a bit hypocritical to you? Was it you or someone else who told me I should learn more about alternative energy before I criticized it?




mldrenen said:


> did you read the link i posted in response to you about a local nuclear plant that has been leaking radioactive tritium into our river for who knows how long? we can call nuclear safe and cheap, but the facts don't always back up those claims.


Refresh my memory just how many people were killed in that leak? While you are at it tell me how many died from the Three Mile Island accident? Heck give me a total of the number of radiation deaths from power plants in the US for the last 40 years. If that number is any where near the number of deaths from black lung I'll admit nuke power isn't safe.




mldrenen said:


> go grab a glass of your favorite drink, sit down in front of your computer, and google the following:
> 
> 1) coal subsidies
> 2) oil subsidies
> 3) nuclear subsidies


I don't have to. I know a lot about them. I know that coal nor oil needed subsidies to come to market. I know they both would still be on the market making a profit if the subsidies were removed. I also know the same can not be said about solar and/or wind power. If it were true then we'd see them on the market today, not reading stories of how tax supported business in the market are declaring bankruptcy.

Nuke is a different critter all together because of "the bomb". If it hadn't been for WWII the odds are we'd just now be getting into nuke power and it would be the fuel of the future. And yes it would probably be getting subsidies and no it wouldn't need them to survive because it would be able to pay for itself.




mldrenen said:


> read anything you can find on those topics. then come back in here and rail against conventional energy sources for being subsidized with our tax dollars. after all, if they were viable industries they shouldn't have to be propped up with my money.


They aren't being propped up with your money. Do you REALLY think an oil company would go belly up if the government stopped tax breaks and the like? Around the world BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars spent on oil each year. If you can't make money in a market like that its because you are trying to fail.




mldrenen said:


> the constitution gives the government the right to collect taxes, and spend those taxes on defense and the general welfare of the country. pretty broad, if you ask me. what would you limit their spending on?


The basic test is the money being paid to someone (individual or business) which providing a good or service to the government. If so then it MIGHT be a constitutional expenditure. We'd have to go deeper to see. But if the person is just being given the money, that expenditure is unconstitutional.

The government has no power to take money from you and give to me just because it thinks/feels I need it more than you do. That is not in the "general welfare" of the country. That's the welfare of the individual, not the government purview.


----------



## mldrenen (Nov 29, 2007)

watcher said:


> You don't know specifics but you are telling me how dangerous it is? Doesn't that sound just a bit hypocritical to you? Was it you or someone else who told me I should learn more about alternative energy before I criticized it?


that wasn't me, and i'm not being hypocritical. i'm telling you that i'm not personally comfortable with nuclear energy. i don't want a plant built near me, and if that meant that i would go without electricity, then so be it. 



watcher said:


> Refresh my memory just how many people were killed in that leak? While you are at it tell me how many died from the Three Mile Island accident? Heck give me a total of the number of radiation deaths from power plants in the US for the last 40 years. If that number is any where near the number of deaths from black lung I'll admit nuke power isn't safe.


we obviously have different ideas of acceptable risk and "danger". i didn't die from tritium being in the ground water, but it sure as hell doesn't mean it's acceptable to me. would you want your groundwater or open bodies of freshwater contaminated with radioactive chemicals? 




watcher said:


> They aren't being propped up with your money. Do you REALLY think an oil company would go belly up if the government stopped tax breaks and the like? Around the world BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars spent on oil each year. If you can't make money in a market like that its because you are trying to fail.


obviously they don't NEED the subsidies, but i never hear you complaining about billions and billions of tax dollars going to those industries every year. by your litmus test, those subsidies are unconstitutional. so please, rail against them. how the hell does it make sense to give money away to private industries that make their own money hand over fist?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Solar, wind and to a certain extent, hydroelectric - bad, no good, don't even try it.


None of those are constant and reliable


----------



## mldrenen (Nov 29, 2007)

watcher said:


> Ok, show me the return on investment on all the tax dollars we spent on alternative energy from 1970 to 1990. If you can't show that then you have to admit it was wasted.


everything i have read about wind energy points to it's inefficiency and unreliability in the early years, as well as how it has advanced in both categories by leaps and bounds thanks to new technology and better analysis of potential sites. to compare current wind projects to wind projects from 40 years ago is apples to oranges.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nobody has said a Person Can't put up their own power unit whatever that maybe.
Just as a nation as a whole these alternatives will not take over what nuclear, Coal, and what Oil does, to keep the lights on, the American people moving, and the machinery operating. All that takes what is reliable and is on at a flick of a switch. Not at the whim of the wind, or sun.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

mldrenen said:


> in defense of watcher, i don't think he's trying to dissuade anyone for any sinister reasons. i think he's a man who has strong opinions about things, and likes to argue his side adamantly. just like everyone else on here. isn't that why we all participate in GC?



It probably seemed like it, because watcher was the most recent, prolific detractor, but it wasn't meant at him in particular.
I know of other threads where some of the strongest proponents of nuclear had worked in that field, the same for coal, oil and gas.
This is only natural, but the bias should still be noted.



arabian knight said:


> Nobody has said a Person Can't put up their own power unit whatever that maybe.
> Just as a nation as a whole these alternatives will not take over what nuclear, Coal, and what Oil does, to keep the lights on, the American people moving, and the machinery operating. All that takes what is reliable and is on at a flick of a switch. Not at the whim of the wind, or sun.


Very true, no one said you can't.
But that isn't the main point of the naysayers, is it?
It's usually that it's unreliable, it won't work, you need to just do it my way and keep on shelling out your money in the way we've grown accustomed to.
I rarely see the quote, "It's all right by me, go ahead if you want."
It may get slipped in there a time or two, but that isn't really the main emotion is it?




Bearfootfarm said:


> None of those are constant and reliable


^^^^^^^^^
Case in point.

Can someone explain the scientific reason why the sun comes up every morning and heats the earth and the wind constantly blows?
Hint:
It has to do with the earth rotating.


Is it really honest to say that the earth's rotation is unreliable?


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

There are two-three HUGE wind farms just north of Lafayette, IN. 

We have signed a contract with a company. I'm not so keen on the blinking red lights at night, but I sure like it a lot better than a subdivision. 

No, the wind doesn't blow all the time here--it just seems like it sometimes. 

Bottom line; I'd rather look at towers than subdivisions. 

No, wind power is not and will not be the total answer, but it will HELP. The solution will be several sources of power.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mldrenen said:


> obviously they don't NEED the subsidies, but i never hear you complaining about billions and billions of tax dollars going to those industries every year. by your litmus test, those subsidies are unconstitutional. so please, rail against them. how the hell does it make sense to give money away to private industries that make their own money hand over fist?


Start a thread on them and I will. I have stated over and over and over I think its unconstitutional for the government to give money to any one (individual or business) unless a good or service is being provided.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mldrenen said:


> everything i have read about wind energy points to it's inefficiency and unreliability in the early years, as well as how it has advanced in both categories by leaps and bounds thanks to new technology and better analysis of potential sites. to compare current wind projects to wind projects from 40 years ago is apples to oranges.


Not the point. Its not about advancements, its about if the money spent on research has been cost effective.

Switch from alternative energy to autos. You can't compare auto tech today with that of 40 years ago. But you can look at the fact that the money invested in research throughout the years has resulted in profit for the companies.

Can you say the same about all the tax dollars poured down the rat hole of alternative energy?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Energy Rebel said:


> It probably seemed like it, because watcher was the most recent, prolific detractor, but it wasn't meant at him in particular.
> I know of other threads where some of the strongest proponents of nuclear had worked in that field, the same for coal, oil and gas.
> This is only natural, but the bias should still be noted.


You might not believe it but I'm all for *viable* alternative energy. 

I think every city should have a methane generating plant installed at their sewage treatment plant and the methane used to generate the power necessary to run the plant.

I think its silly for someone to build a building then spend thousands of dollars on electricity a month to cool when a solar thermal powered NH3 system could be used.

I think a lot of areas could use wind or solar to generate electricity for things which are only needed intermittently, e.g. to pump its water into stowage towers. 

But at the same I think its a waste of money and resources and just plain dumb to try to use an intermittent supply to power a system which MUST have consistent power 24/7/365. 

I also think its a waste of money and resources and dumb to build back up systems to back up your back up systems. Is it smart to have to have a solar system to back up the wind system when the wind dies (or is blowing too hard) and at the same time have to have a conventional system (oil, coal, NG) to back up the solar back up system for when the wind dies and the sun isn't shining. 





Energy Rebel said:


> Can someone explain the scientific reason why the sun comes up every morning and heats the earth and the wind constantly blows?


The wind constantly blows somewhere on earth. Are you suggesting we build a world wide energy system so when the wind isn't blowing in FL it can import electricity from China? 

Or are you thinking we can just do without electricity when the wind stops or slows down?

Can you tell me where on earth where the wind blows at a near constant speed 24/7/365?


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

watcher said:


> You might not believe it but I'm all for *viable* alternative energy.
> 
> I think every city should have a methane generating plant installed at their sewage treatment plant and the methane used to generate the power necessary to run the plant.
> 
> ...



I'm glad to see examples of thinking outside the box - like methane generation. Methane is the principle component of natural gas.
We really could be more efficient and resourceful in our energy systems.


As to your last question..........yes I can.
But first, why do you ask?
Once again are we solely looking at conventional wind mills, with conventional generators and conventional speed controls?
If so, I see why you'd ask.

But here's your answer.
Just about anywhere on the earth at 32,000 ft. 
Actually that's the optimum spot, it's pretty consistent at much lower altitudes as well.

http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

Now, here's a little something for those tackling the variable speed controls from ground based, conventional systems.
Ever used a variable speed bridgeport mill?
Notice the pulley system on them?
Picture that split pulley with one half on the power shaft and the other half on the generator.
As the wind increases to max, the shaft rpm's on the generator slows, as the wind speed drops, the rpm's on the generator increases.
A simple, mechanical solution for a what is presently solved with electronics that dump the excess power and only "cut in" the generator at a minimum speed.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Judy in IN said:


> There are two-three HUGE wind farms just north of Lafayette, IN.
> 
> We have signed a contract with a company. I'm not so keen on the blinking red lights at night, but I sure like it a lot better than a subdivision.
> 
> ...


With $10 corn on the horizon and $6k/acre farmland, it likely that the days of farmland, being sold off and converted to housing, are over - possibly forever.


----------



## southerngurl (May 11, 2003)

MELOC said:


> funny how no one ever notices or complains about the regular old telephone poles you see on both sides of every single road everywhere. that's not an eyesore or anything...
> 
> over time people won't even notice them...just like telephone poles.


I notice telephone poles, they're very ugly. I always wonder why they don't run that underground.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

southerngurl said:


> I notice telephone poles, they're very ugly. I always wonder why they don't run that underground.


Money.
90% of the time, when you ask a "why" question............"why is it done this way?".........or "why do people do that?"............the ultimate answer is money.

It's cheaper to buy poles and run overhead than to bury.
After a few wind and ice storms, maybe not so much, but why do today, what you can put off until tomorrow, right?


----------



## Judy in IN (Nov 28, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> With $10 corn on the horizon and $6k/acre farmland, it likely that the days of farmland, being sold off and converted to housing, are over - possibly forever.


$6K? You can't TOUCH land around us for 6K. Corn is at $7.11 right now, and we're going to an auction where I'm betting the good row-crop ground goes for $8K, at least!

It's like anything else. The developer just passes the cost of the lot on to the homeowner. Subdivisions are not dead.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Case in point.
> 
> Can someone explain the scientific reason why the sun comes up every morning and heats the earth and the wind constantly blows?
> Hint:
> ...


Is it honest to* pretend *anyone said that at all, when it was never stated?

The fact that Earth's rotation is fairly constant has nothing to do with the *amount* of sunlight that actually reaches a given point on the surface.

If your best argument is to just twist what I said, you've already admitted you're wrong


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Is it honest to* pretend *anyone said that at all, when it was never stated?
> 
> The fact that Earth's rotation is fairly constant has nothing to do with the *amount* of sunlight that actually reaches a given point on the surface.
> 
> If your best argument is to just twist what I said, you've already admitted you're wrong




Wind.......wind......wind.

Earth rotates.......causes wind.........never stops as long as the earth is rotating.


Was this not your quote, from post #99?


Bearfootfarm 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 23,495
Quote:
From me:
Solar, *wind *and to a certain extent, hydroelectric - bad, no good, don't even try it.



And your reply:
*None of those are constant and reliable*



Yeah.
Me, and all the guys from Archimedes thru Einstein........all wrong

Where's that icon of the guy beating his head against a brick wall again?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And your reply:
> None of those are constant and reliable


Yes that's what I said, and in the *context* of* using them *to supply electricity it's still true.

Knowing there's a constant breeze at 32,000 ft doesn't mean much if you can't put a windmill there



> Yeah.
> Me, and all the guys from Archimedes thru Einstein........*all wrong*



Nope.....*They* had their parts correct
They understood the concept of keeping *in context*


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes that's what I said, and in the *context* of* using them *to supply electricity it's still true.
> 
> Knowing there's a constant breeze at 32,000 ft doesn't mean much if you can't put a windmill there
> 
> ...




Oh.
You mean like this?

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/june24/high-altitude-winds-062309.html

And yes, there are many more projects like this out there.
Do a little googling.
I Gotta go have Sunday dinner at Mom's.


Oh, one more thing.
Before the, "Yeah, but that's new technology we have to wait for" statement.........the idea was John Elzier's................1833.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Energy Rebel said:


> Oh.
> You mean like this?
> 
> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/june24/high-altitude-winds-062309.html
> ...


And obviously it was before jetliners.....or airplanes of any sort. 


> To capture that energy, designers are dreaming up models of wind-turbine kites that fly so high, cruising airliners would have to steer around them.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sure there is a "Jet Stream" but can't build a wind turbine that high now can they?
And the wind Does not Blow 24/7 365 at all. 
Ever been at sea when the winds are DEAD CALM??
Geesh at sea too, where no mountains no buildings nothing can get in the way and yet NO WIND.
Wow how the left likes to over state things when they know they have been out manned, out gunned, and out smarted. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Energy Rebel said:


> Oh.
> You mean like this?
> 
> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/june24/high-altitude-winds-062309.html
> ...


Do you read your own sources?

It's mostly theory and speculation, with this one bit of FACT:



> &#8220;While the winds at high altitude are much more consistent than the winds at the surface, they&#8217;re *still not consistent enough*


LOL

You did all that research just to find a source that said the same thing I did to begin with


----------



## Parttimefarmer (May 5, 2011)

I am not really for them. Two reasons. #1, I really don't think they are all they are supposed to be. Here in MI they are being built because of regulations on % of "clean" energy, not necessarily because they are the best thing for us or best long term use of funds. They meet a target date, therefore they are going to be used.

#2, Many of the residents where the towers are, at least here, aren't the ones leasing land to the utilities. It's very easy to accept lease money and ignore health questions when you are a property owner, but not a resident.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you read your own sources?
> 
> It's mostly theory and speculation, with this one bit of FACT:
> 
> ...


YES I DO
I TOLD YOU I WAS GOING TO DINNER WITH MY MOM, AND I DID

I am not about to pull up every popular science article, every university research project, every business currently working on this just to try to prove to someone who is ignorant of physics that the earth's rotation is not a consistent and reliable.
You're never gonna believe it, you and your coal and oil buddies just go have a party with the "drill, baby drill" cheerleader, meanwhile the rest of us are going to go ahead with a reliable and cheap source of energy that we don't have to pay tribute to a corporation every month.

You apparently overlooked the 2-4 cent a kilowatt part (look at your bill and do the math).
The main point is, if you're gonna open your mouth with unscientific statements about physics and math, be prepared for the inevitable correction.

But go ahead, tell me again how it CAN'T be done and WON'T work.
History is full of fools who said the same thing.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> And obviously it was before jetliners.....or airplanes of any sort.





arabian knight said:


> Sure there is a "Jet Stream" but can't build a wind turbine that high now can they?
> And the wind Does not Blow 24/7 365 at all.
> Ever been at sea when the winds are DEAD CALM??
> Geesh at sea too, where no mountains no buildings nothing can get in the way and yet NO WIND.
> Wow how the left likes to over state things when they know they have been out manned, out gunned, and out smarted. LOL


You guys are friggen unbelievable.

One is more concerned about a plane avoiding a stationary object and the other one apparently hasn't ever heard of a tethered balloon turbine.

AGAIN, the question posed was where and how would this be possible.
I answer.
And then get this BS from a bunch of closed minded, set-in-their-ways, "that's not gonna work, cuz that's not the way my daddy and grand daddy did it"...

Go ahead , how about the commie, pinko, "liberal" (without knowing the definition) label?


If the inventors of the world listened to people like you, we'd still be in caves eating our food cold.
Have at it.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Energy Rebel said:


> You guys are friggen unbelievable.
> 
> One is more concerned about a plane avoiding a stationary object and the other one apparently hasn't ever heard of a tethered balloon turbine.
> 
> ...


Goodness, don't blow a gasket, hon. I never said it wouldn't work. But if you'd bothered to read the developers' websites, you'd see that even _they_ admit the technology faces some big challenges.

I get the impression that you're young.....perhaps younger than 30? As for being close-minded and set in our ways, I suspect some of us were using wind turbines and solar panels before you were born. So maybe you need to get off your high horse and consider that some of us might know a thing or two about alternative energy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And then get this BS from a bunch of closed minded, set-in-their-ways, "that's not gonna work, cuz that's not the way my daddy and grand daddy did it"...


LOL

*Your own source *backed up what I said, and now you're resorting to ranting and name calling.

No point in continuing this discussion


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's no point discussing this either.
This one link is not, never has been my only source.
AS I STATED THERE ARE MANY OTHERS.
I'm not y'all's google daddy.

AS I STATED, this 'new technology" was thought of in 1833, older than ALL of us (I'm 47).

The statement made was that it wasn't possible to have a reliable source of wind, because the wind on the ground wasn't consistent. I tried to show that all you have to do is open your mind to other ways of doing it and there will be a solution to every problem.
Instead, the closed minds just want to stay closed.

I was a young boy in 1973 when OPEC was formed and the embargo began. That was our wake up call - almost 40 years ago.
But what do we do?
Hit the snooze button and continue this attitude of, "No, No, No that won't work."

AS I STATED, no single source of alternative energy will provide nationwide power at the drop of a hat. But having a single source that can be cut off will guarantee we have a major problem (1970's again).

AS I STATED, thinking about this in a conventional box only will result in the status quo.

I'm going to put a metal roof on as my shingles are over 30 years old. When I do, I'll apply an amorphous crystalline solar film product that's made by a company in California. It's 1/2 as efficient , but 1/4 the cost.
I am also going to put 2 wind turbines (of an UNconventional nature) to pump water uphill for storage (batteries) which will then supply power for a micro hydro unit. 
No, I am not going to provide any links, I'm not your google daddy. 
Then I am going to tell Duke Power to kiss my little behind.

That's what I am doing.
Y'all just keep on drilling for oil and desecrating the mountain tops for coal and have a happy time doing it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Energy Rebel said:


> I was a young boy in 1973 when OPEC was formed and the embargo began. That was our wake up call - almost 40 years ago. But what do we do?


 That is why we must open up all the drilling that can be done in this Country. Nothing was done, back then and we are still importing so much oil. We have more natural resources in this country, oil. oil shale, coal, natural gas, etc. we have more then the mideast.
We need to do everything we can we what we have tell the mideast go eat sand.
And while we open up everywhere, it will give the time for alternatives to get it right, and in 25 to 50 years we then may just have the rest of the alternatives up and at their peak efficiency point where the major portion of our energy can come from those. But until then this country is in bad shape NOW, and loosening up regs. will kick start other new start ups HERE instead if moving to CHina, like the majority of the Wind turbines and other components are coming from now. 

Many of those so called greenie jobs that O promised have now closed and moved the factory to China. We need to do everything possible in this country. and Drilling, pumping, and building new Nuclear Plants is the way to do this.

One must not close their minds to just greenie type energy either.
Other sources are good for this country as well. Like Coal, Oil, GAs etc.
No Wind blows 24/7 365, And we do not have the transmission lines to handle all that wind power, and my goodness how about all those batteries must be in use and is not really earth friendly either. Ever think of that????


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Energy Rebel said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's no point discussing this either.
> This one link is not, never has been my only source.
> AS I STATED THERE ARE MANY OTHERS.
> I'm not y'all's google daddy.
> ...


And in all of those years how much progress has been made?




Energy Rebel said:


> I was a young boy in 1973 when OPEC was formed and the embargo began. That was our wake up call - almost 40 years ago.
> But what do we do?
> Hit the snooze button and continue this attitude of, "No, No, No that won't work."


You might want to read a bit of history. We, through the government, pumped TONS of money into alternate energy in the 70s. How much progress did that get us?




Energy Rebel said:


> AS I STATED, no single source of alternative energy will provide nationwide power at the drop of a hat. But having a single source that can be cut off will guarantee we have a major problem (1970's again).


I have stated the same thing. But I also have stated it makes no sense to waste money and resources by trying to put in a system which by its very nature demands you have at least one back up system on line 24/7/365. If we could predict when wind speeds would drop we MIGHT be able to use wind and ONLY have the coal/oil/NG fired generators online SOME of the time. But because we can not do that they have to be up and running all the time to take up the load.




Energy Rebel said:


> AS I STATED, thinking about this in a conventional box only will result in the status quo.


Believe it or not thinking outside the box is one thing engineers do and do very well. But they also must build with what is inside the box. For example there is the thermoelectric effect where you can generate electricity with nothing more than two different temperatures. Many years ago a group of us were thinking why couldn't we use the cold water in the deep ocean and the warm water at the top? Sounds like a never ending power source. But there were so many problems with it, especially with the tech of the time, that it was just not viable. IOW, it COULD be done but the benefits of it were way outweighed by the cost.




Energy Rebel said:


> I'm going to put a metal roof on as my shingles are over 30 years old. When I do, I'll apply an amorphous crystalline solar film product that's made by a company in California. It's 1/2 as efficient , but 1/4 the cost.
> I am also going to put 2 wind turbines (of an UNconventional nature) to pump water uphill for storage (batteries) which will then supply power for a micro hydro unit.
> No, I am not going to provide any links, I'm not your google daddy.
> Then I am going to tell Duke Power to kiss my little behind.


As I have stated before all of that works ok for individuals and in some cases even slightly larger users but it is not scalable.




Energy Rebel said:


> That's what I am doing.
> Y'all just keep on drilling for oil and desecrating the mountain tops for coal and have a happy time doing it.


And all the power from that oil and coal will continue to provide YOU with all the other things you need and/or want. 

Think about this, does the company who makes your solar cells run their plant off solar power? No, well then you might want to send a thank you letter to the coal company which provided the coal to make the electricity the company used to make your cells. Did the company which made the parts for your wind and water turbines use solar or water power to make them? Did the company which delivered them use electric trucks charged by wind power?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> AS I STATED, this 'new technology" was thought of in 1833, older than ALL of us (I'm 47).


And still not *operational*



> The statement made was that it wasn't possible to have a reliable source of wind, because the wind on the ground *wasn't consistent. I tried to show* that all you have to do is open your mind to other ways of doing it and there will be a solution to every problem.
> Instead, the closed minds just want to stay closed.


Again, the source you used to "try to show" it's consistent said it WASN'T.

Show us a system in operation rather than old *theories and speculations*



> I am also *going to *put 2 wind turbines (of an UNconventional nature) to pump water uphill for storage (batteries) which will then supply power for a micro hydro unit


Get back to us when you* know* it really works.
It should be interesting


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Uh............. yeah.
When dealing with a pea brain, all the showing in the world won't matter.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Uh............. yeah.
> When dealing with a pea brain, all the showing in the world won't matter.


LOL

Name calling is all you've got?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> Name calling is all you've got?


Sure is, as that is all they have left. With no real thoughts of their own, and no real viable solutions, all they can do is call names.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

No it really isn't.
When you repeatedly tell someone, "That's not all, but that's all I have time for right now" and they insist on shoving one statement from one link up my --- when I said there are dozens of sites, many other examples and even companies working on this but I'm not your google daddy - look it up yourself - what did you expect?
I got the same reply on another thread.
The difference?
I have no problem doing my own research. I rather like it that way.
But there are some that want you to spoon feed them info for the sole purpose of spitting it back in your face.
I've dealt with people like this before, and the best way is simply call it like it is, knock the dust off your shoes and leave them to their own destructiveness.

"Show me?" Why?

When I mentioned about my own little off grid project combining solar, wind and hydro - did I get "Hmm, that would be interesting to see" or was it snideness about it NOT being done, yeah right buddy, I just bet that'll work, too.

You see, it won't matter. It will probably take me several years, as I work full time myself and plan on saving money by doing it all myself.
Still won't matter.
When I completely disconnect from the grid, I'll know I did the smart thing, but others just don't care.
They don't want to know. They don't want to learn. And they particularly hate it when you try to show light and reason to anyone else.

Of course you need oil, for things like tires, plastics and many other useful things.
BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO POWER EVERY COTTON-PICKIN APPLIANCE ON THE PLANET WITH OIL AND COAL.
You just don't have to and despite the talking point from the industry - it's not cheaper.
But you have to understand math and science to know that.

Tell me, oh wise ones, did you calculate the cost of millions of years, megatons of plants and animals and tremendous geological pressures when you came up with the figure of cost of drilling and mining this resource?

No? Why not?

Of course the factory that makes the panels is going to use fuel (and YES, the plant does have solar power that makes them) but AFTER it's installed, you are forever going to use LESS.
Not so with conventional fossil fuels. You use it, then you need some more.

If you are a "conservative" why not "conserve"?

Show me?
Why?
There are still people who don't believe that we went to the moon.
There are still people on the earth, 500 years after Columbus that STILL believe the world is flat.
I'm sure the Wright brothers heard all the negative comments they could stand.......even after Kitty Hawk.
I can't remember the pope's name, but even though he persecuted Galileo, privately he admitted that he was right. The earth DID revolve around the sun. Shoot, Copernicus proved that hundreds of years before.

But it didn't matter.
This is the way we've always taught and done it and by God, that's the way it's going to stay.

Two of the best areas in the country for ground based wind turbines are on the east coast of North Carolina and where I live, in the Blue Ridge. (No, I'm not going to post the wind map - look it up).
But what does Boone, NC do? Pass an ordinance prohibiting them. (No, I don't live in Boone)

Why? Because they are "eyesores."
We'd rather strip an entire top off a mountain and truck out the coal or spill the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, then have a tower in the way of our sunset view.
Now THAT'S smart thinkin".

Some people don't want to know, they don't want to learn.
But even more, they want to destroy any knowledge to prevent others from doing so.
What can you say to people like that?

I already did.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do know one thing. I watched a show (I think on discovery) that was showing alternative "fuels". One of which was solar collectors that were being built. Not solar pannels, but reflectors turned to a central collector. They new the sun didn't shine 24/7, so the heat is collected and transfered to a liquid(can't remember specific) to store the heat, and be released at will to turn turbines for elect power. There are ways to store energy other than batteries. for the record, I think we need to drill here, but I would wager that if/when we do, since the pressure would be off, there wouldn't be much searching for alternatives.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Probably molten salt is the storage medium.
Another example of something I saw in Popular Science magazine as a kid.
Most of this technology is doable, it's just the ideas are squashed and the patents bought up and stuck in an executive's top desk drawer somewhere so it can't be done.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

Energy Rebel said:


> Probably molten salt is the storage medium.
> Another example of something I saw in Popular Science magazine as a kid.
> Most of this technology is doable, it's just the ideas are squashed and the patents bought up and stuck in an executive's top desk drawer somewhere so it can't be done.


I think that was it. I agree, unless real motivation/pressure is there, no real search for a change, or even suppliment will happen.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Energy Rebel said:


> Probably molten salt is the storage medium.
> Another example of something I saw in Popular Science magazine as a kid.
> Most of this technology is doable, it's just the ideas are squashed and the patents bought up and stuck in an executive's top desk drawer somewhere so it can't be done.


Yeah right there next to the 100 MPG carburetor.

Again the problem is to cost to benefit ratio. Look at your own planned system. How much money are you going to spent initially, how much up keep (in time and money) are you going to have to put into it for its life span and how much money are you going to save?


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

watcher said:


> Yeah right there next to the 100 MPG carburetor.
> 
> Again the problem is to cost to benefit ratio. Look at your own planned system. How much money are you going to spent initially, how much up keep (in time and money) are you going to have to put into it for its life span and how much money are you going to save?


Efficiancies can be improved, granted only to a certain point, but improvements can be made. The problem is what motivation do the energy companies have to research something new or different? I guarantee coal fired plants are way more efficiant now than 40 years ago. Just the same as solar, and wind. The difference is the amount of time put in, and the ones who produce the power would rather find ways to improve what they have than find something new, it is much cheaper. It doesn't matter how efficiant coal, gas, and oil fuels get, they cannot be reproduced (yet) and will eventually run out.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Yeah right there next to the 100 MPG carburetor.
> 
> Again the problem is to cost to benefit ratio. Look at your own planned system. How much money are you going to spent initially, how much up keep (in time and money) are you going to have to put into it for its life span and how much money are you going to save?


 What does it cost to build a nuke plant? To mine uranium? To build a coal fired powerplant? To blow up a mountain to get to the coal underneath? Everything costs something, the benefit with renewables is once the device for harvesting them is in place, the FUEL is free. For as long as the sun shines, and the wind blows. Of course there will be some maintenance and some on-going costs... show us any form of energy that DOESNT require upkeep!!
As I stated earlier, I am no great advocate of wind power, except in a few high-wind areas. Too many moving parts, that is one of the reasons solar, with fossil fueled backup, is the way to go. Every kilowatt generated with renewables is one less kilowatt of coal, oil, or nuclear that has to be produced. 
Some of you are obviously lacking in real-world knowledge on this subject. It appears many of you get your info from pro-fossil fuel websites or publications.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Some of you are obviously lacking in real-world knowledge on this subject


Real world knowledge is what makes many think wind and solar aren't REALISTIC answers to producing enough power to replace fossil or nuclear fuels.

The *theories* all sound wonderful, but have yet to materialize.


----------



## sticky_burr (Dec 10, 2010)

i am mostly against the wind farms because of transmission losses. they put them on the plains or a mountian in the middle of no where up here. they need to be as near as possible to the user like neuclear reactors but with in reason. like LA has plenty of hills and sea floor that could be wind farmed, although a LA reactor NO.

there needs to be a reasonable feed in tarriff as my home etc is to be set up i can make way more than needed but why if exess is considered a gift to the benevolent power company


----------



## freegal (Mar 4, 2005)

I didn't read all the replies so this may have been said, but the county south of here is full of wind turbines and at night the whole horizon is blinking red lights. The power generated does not stay here but is for two other states - one neighboring and one hundreds of miles away. A friend's home has wind turbines in the field directly next to her property line. There is an electrical hum when it is on. The turbines loom over their home, they are so huge. My friends are selling their home and moving out of state. This was to be their retirement home. They planted a lovely apple orchard, built their dream home, put up nice fencing and horse facilities then the neighboring farmers decided to sell out to the wind power companies in spite of the protests of the majority of the neighbors. I am not for them. They do not benefit the citizens here in any way.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Real world knowledge is what makes many think wind and solar aren't REALISTIC answers to producing enough power to replace fossil or nuclear fuels.
> 
> The *theories* all sound wonderful, but have yet to materialize.


 Again, the goal is not to REPLACE fossil fuels, but to SUPPLEMENT them, and EXTEND our supply of those non-renewables. As a near to medium term goal, that is absolutely REALISTIC. 
This is not THEORY, but FACT. 



> In fact, "The amount of solar radiation striking the earth over a three-day period is equivalent to the energy stored in all fossil energy sources."





> solar equipment will eventually pay for itself in 2 to 5 years depending on how much sun a particular location receives. Then the user will have a virtually free energy source until the end of the equipment's working life, according to a paper called "Energy Payback Time of Crystalline Silicon Solar Modules." Future improvements are projected to decrease the payback time to 1 to 3 years.


 This figure represents 'embodied energy'... ie, the energy in mining and manufacture it took to build the solar cell. The solar cell then generates that much energy in that amount of time. After that, it is essentially FREE energy for the rest of the life of the cell. (20-30 years)
http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/solar.html


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Curtis B said:


> Efficiancies can be improved, granted only to a certain point, but improvements can be made. The problem is what motivation do the energy companies have to research something new or different?


The same reason they have to research anything, PROFIT. If it reaches the point where either the cost of solar drops or people are willing to pay the higher cost for it you can bet you'll see companies producing it. But as long as there's no profit potential why would they?




Curtis B said:


> I guarantee coal fired plants are way more efficiant now than 40 years ago. Just the same as solar, and wind. The difference is the amount of time put in, and the ones who produce the power would rather find ways to improve what they have than find something new, it is much cheaper. It doesn't matter how efficiant coal, gas, and oil fuels get, they cannot be reproduced (yet) and will eventually run out.


There's your answer. As coal and oil get scarcer the cost will rise and the difference between them and alternative fuels will grow smaller. At that time it will be cost effective to use them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> What does it cost to build a nuke plant? To mine uranium? To build a coal fired powerplant? To blow up a mountain to get to the coal underneath?


Enough to make it cost effective. IOW, they can do that and still be able to sell the power they produce at a price people will buy and buy lots of it. 




greg273 said:


> Everything costs something, the benefit with renewables is once the device for harvesting them is in place, the FUEL is free. For as long as the sun shines, and the wind blows. Of course there will be some maintenance and some on-going costs... show us any form of energy that DOESNT require upkeep!!


You have hit the problem square on the head. What do you do when the sun isn't shining where your solar plant is? What do you do when the wind isn't blowing where you mills are? Do you just not provide the electricity to the people who are expecting it? Or are you going to have to have a power plant online ready?




greg273 said:


> As I stated earlier, I am no great advocate of wind power, except in a few high-wind areas. Too many moving parts, that is one of the reasons solar, with fossil fueled backup, is the way to go. Every kilowatt generated with renewables is one less kilowatt of coal, oil, or nuclear that has to be produced.


Again I ask it is worth those saved kilowatts when you are going to have to have a conventional power plant on standby? A power plant isn't like the standby generator at the hospital which can kick on in a few seconds of a power failure. It takes hours, if not days, to get started from cold.




greg273 said:


> Some of you are obviously lacking in real-world knowledge on this subject. It appears many of you get your info from pro-fossil fuel websites or publications.


As I have stated to another poster, I was probably researching alternative energy since before you were potty trained. I've researched everything from methane to using solar thermal (i.e. heat) to decompose water into H2 and O2 to thermocouples. None of them are viable today. Most of them are not scalable to the point they can work for anything larger than a small factory. All the study in the world will not change the laws of physics, meteorology, and the way the power system works.

Maybe YOU need some real world knowledge on how a major power plant and a electrical grid works. It seems you have been getting your info from the anti coal crowd.

I'll give you the same challenge I have given many, many, many others. Show me ONE factory producing an alternative power (windmill, solar cells, etc) which gets 100% of its power from alternative power.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Again, the goal is not to REPLACE fossil fuels, but to SUPPLEMENT them, and EXTEND our supply of those non-renewables. As a near to medium term goal, that is absolutely REALISTIC.
> This is not THEORY, but FACT.


It's not realistic, since you STILL need all the capacity provided by conventional power plants because wind and solar are NOT RELIABLE



> Quote:
> In fact, "The amount of solar radiation striking the earth over a three-day period is equivalent to the energy stored in all fossil energy sources."


The above is meaningless trivia since it can't be harnessed and stored


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

That is true.
How many that are trying to say switch over to solar it IS the future.
But how many of those really know what kind of power the USA has to have at the flick of a switch?
Many many factories are not using 110, not straight 220 either.
220 Three Phase, 440 three phase And even higher, 11kW 3ph 4 Pole AC Motor for 400V or 660V 3 phase supply. Use with 400V Variable Frequency Drives or a fixed frequency.
You are not in any way shape or form going to provide THAT kind of power.
And Companies are NOT going to redo their entire electrical system at some whim of the so called green movement.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Energy Rebel 
Probably molten salt is the storage medium.
Another example of something I saw in Popular Science magazine as a kid.
Most of this technology is doable, it's just the ideas are squashed and the patents bought up and stuck in an executive's top desk drawer somewhere so it can't be done.




watcher said:


> Yeah right there next to the 100 MPG carburetor.
> 
> Again the problem is to cost to benefit ratio. Look at your own planned system. How much money are you going to spent initially, how much up keep (in time and money) are you going to have to put into it for its life span and how much money are you going to save?




*sigh*

Actually I think it could have been the August 1981 issue with the electric car battery that ran for 3,000 miles at a clip and the metal used was aluminum, not lead, cadmium or nickel. The reactant was humid air.
It has never been seen again.
Yeah, a light weight battery that didn't use scarce or exotic metals and gave you the ability to run distances of thousands, not hundreds of miles.
That's not something the petroleum execs would want to keep out of the public domain, is it?
BTW, you didn't recharge this battery with oil and coal fired plants, simply changed the aluminum plates every 3,000 miles, like an oil change.
And of course as noted before, the tires, plastics and 10w-30 would come from petroleum - I did take organic chemistry.


My system?
I have a rough idea of initial cost - far less (1/3) than it would be if you bought it. Being a machinist and jack of all trades, it will mostly be built by me.
The generator heads I'll likely buy, but precision ground shafts for the pump(s) and access to precision bearings is not a problem. 
If a specific date of payback return was my top priority, I'd probably have a bean counter's spreadsheet all ready to go before I drilled the first hole.
I do know that as time goes on and Duke Power bills go up (they just had ANOTHER rate increase last week approved) THAT concern will slowly fade off my radar screen.
A much higher priority for me anyway, is that I cease to be dependent on outside sources for power. There is a day coming, all too quickly, when that will be staring everyone of us in the face.
And what decision you make at that time will have far more importance than the papers in your wallet with dead presidents on them.

As I progress, I'll post on the alternative energy sub-forum, not here.
Knowledge is scoffed at here or worse, suppressed. 

Proverbs 26:4-5


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

OK BF and Watcher, your dismissal of solar and wind power is based on flawed, or rather misplaced logic... you are still fixated on the 'bigger is better' notion. The idea of centralized power plants. I would never imagine, in Illinois or anywhere except the desert southwest, a 24-7 base-load solar electric generating station. That is not what I am talking about. We burn coal here. Lots of it. In fact, the latest coal plant was built directly over the coal seam. (yes, its burning dirty bituminous coal, but they assure us its the latest in stack scrubbing technology... still a major polluter.)
Now, if everyone served by that plant invested in a 1KW solar array (~$2500), (or better yet .5kw of solar and .5kw of wind) the amount of coal they would need to burn would drop by 75% averaged over the year. Winter, spring, summer, fall, day or night. While coal plants dont fire up and down as quickly as natural gas plants do, they are still designed to anticipate peaks and valleys in demand. The grid-tied technology is already there, despite your constantly repeating 'it wont work'. It will work. These figures are based on my firsthand knowledge of how much my own 1.1Kw PV array generates on a yearly basis.
And watcher, you seem to love the idea of nuke plants. They are staggeringly expensive, require highly dangerous fuel and have a limited lifetime, at which point they must be dealt with. Future generations may be cursing us for fooling around with the atom.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> That is true.
> How many that are trying to say switch over to solar it IS the future.
> But how many of those really know what kind of power the USA has to have at the flick of a switch?
> Many many factories are not using 110, not straight 220 either.
> ...


 And if each rooftop was a solar generating station, there would be plenty of conventional power to run those factories. Just as there is now, except we'd be burning less coal, natural gas, oil, and splitting less radioactive materials. Grid-tied solar and wind is a reality.
You are another who seems to think that centrally locating power generating capacity is the only way to tackle this problem. Which couldnt be further from the truth.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

We need new Nuclear Plants Period.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> OK BF and Watcher, your dismissal of solar and wind power is based on flawed, or rather misplaced logic... you are still fixated on the 'bigger is better' notion. The idea of centralized power plants. I would never imagine, in Illinois or anywhere except the desert southwest, a 24-7 base-load solar electric generating station. That is not what I am talking about. We burn coal here. Lots of it. In fact, the latest coal plant was built directly over the coal seam. (yes, its burning dirty bituminous coal, but they assure us its the latest in stack scrubbing technology... still a major polluter.)
> Now, if everyone served by that plant invested in a 1KW solar array (~$2500), (or better yet .5kw of solar and .5kw of wind) the amount of coal they would need to burn would drop by 75% averaged over the year. Winter, spring, summer, fall, day or night. While coal plants dont fire up and down as quickly as natural gas plants do, they are still designed to anticipate peaks and valleys in demand. The grid-tied technology is already there, despite your constantly repeating 'it wont work'. It will work. These figures are based on my firsthand knowledge of how much my own 1.1Kw PV array generates on a yearly basis.


The point you're missing is that not everyone has the necessary exposure to use solar or wind technology. 

We used a wind generator for a number of years.....until the neighbors' trees became large enough to create turbulence or completely blocked the wind. And there were the months of Aug and Sept, when we would go for weeks w/o sufficient wind. We did fine w/ solar but, then again, we don't live on a city lot. The only thing that was prohibitive back in the 70s and 80s was cost.

Same goes for solar; if the neighbors' trees block all but noon-day sun, what's the point? Or are we now going to tell people they're not allowed to have trees on their property?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And if each rooftop was a solar generating station, there would be plenty of conventional power to run those factories


You'd STILL need the conventional plants online as backup, since solar and wind are NOT *reliable*


----------



## Parttimefarmer (May 5, 2011)

I lived with solar off grid for two months. That was not a good two months. Hope you don't need to wash (and line dry only) clothes if it's cloudy. You can't, and have a well pump. 

We went though more batteries, gas, and propane than we could have POSSIBLY saved on fossil fuel from solar trying to be able to flush, have water, and have A light at night. No fridge, no TV, no computer, no anything. When it got in the upper 90's not even a fan to help, awful.

So we thought wind would be great! Had a site analysis, has be 200 ft to work. We have plenty of space and can pop it on a hay field. Oh, can't do it, says the county. 60ft tower only for us. Of course the utilities are approved for 52 commercial turbines. We could allow the utility to put up a huge tower, in the same spot we can't put a 200 foot tower. 

So, we bought a fridge, tied to the grid, and can shower and wash our clothes too. This attitude that people should or could just do it, isn't so realistic. I had time and money to invest, and couldn't do it.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

So those opposed to alternatives to at least suppliment, what is supposed to happen when the resources are gone, and there is no place left to store spent rods? I know it is aways into the future, just thinkn ahead.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'd STILL need the conventional plants online as backup, since solar and wind are NOT *reliable*


 Absolutely. The only benefit would be less fuel being consumed at those plants.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> The point you're missing is that not everyone has the necessary exposure to use solar or wind technology.
> 
> We used a wind generator for a number of years.....until the neighbors' trees became large enough to create turbulence or completely blocked the wind. And there were the months of Aug and Sept, when we would go for weeks w/o sufficient wind. We did fine w/ solar but, then again, we don't live on a city lot. The only thing that was prohibitive back in the 70s and 80s was cost.
> 
> Same goes for solar; if the neighbors' trees block all but noon-day sun, what's the point? Or are we now going to tell people they're not allowed to have trees on their property?


 LOL.... Really, I realize its not for everyone.... I took great pains to site my own house so it had good southern exposure. But MANY people have access to full sunlight...Look at all those new subdivision houses with their roofs just baking in the sun all day.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And how many of those Don't want to bother with having a '/Bank of Batteries in their house??? Ever think of that?
And BTW I thought YOU were going to take your ideas from here and mover them over to Alternative Energy Forum??? Hmmmm


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> what is supposed to happen when the resources are* gone*


Nuclear fuel isn't going to be gone.

Biodiesel can be manufactured.
Methane can be produced.



> But MANY people have *access to full sunlight*...Look at all those new subdivision houses with their roofs just baking in the sun all day.


Except when it's cloudy, or at night, or when it snows
If you're happy with only having power when conditions are right, go for it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Anyone who has a grid-tied alternative energy system has power when the wind does not blow, and the sun does not shine,without battery backup, as long as the grid is functioning. This is nothing new.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> And how many of those Don't want to bother with having a '/Bank of Batteries in their house??? Ever think of that?
> * And BTW I thought YOU were going to take your ideas from here and mover them over to Alternative Energy Forum??? * Hmmmm



That would be me.




Bearfootfarm said:


> Nuclear fuel isn't going to be gone.
> 
> Biodiesel can be manufactured.
> Methane can be produced.



True



Bearfootfarm said:


> Except when it's cloudy, or at night, or when it snows
> If you're happy with only having power when conditions are right, go for it[?



Not true.
Obviously at night you don't get solar, but clouds and snow are myths.
The factors affecting it most are extreme heat, dirt and hard shade - meaning shadows from trees, poles, buildings, etc.

I paid good money to learn all this, but did the experiments myself to prove it. This is first hand knowledge reading my voltmeter while attached to my own panel at my own house.
The portion of the spectrum the cells use for electricity go thru clouds. That's why you still get sunburnt on a cloudy day.
I've had up tp 3 inches of snow on my panel and because of the cold, I got more power than in July.
More than 3 inches? I don't know, I'm sure at some point it slows it down.



That's why when you size an inverter for your system you have to go to the historical records, find the coldest day in the last 100 years and add 10% to get the right amperage (or watts). Otherwise one cold day in the middle of a harsh winter, you'll smoke your inverter.

Other myths.
You can only get enough sun in tropical and sub tropical climates.

The angle has to be perfect. Horizontal to optimum angle will get you a total of 10% output variance.

And of course, you need a lot of batteries. I'd have some just in case, but you don't need them.

You can't get 3 phase power from solar or wind.
Sure you can, people use phase converters all the time at their hose where they only have single phase.
You can also use a 3 phase generator in place of a single phase on a wind turbine.
Not the best idea, but it can be done.



greg273 said:


> Anyone who has a grid-tied alternative energy system has power when the wind does not blow, and the sun does not shine,without battery backup, as long as the grid is functioning. This is nothing new.


Shhhhhhhhhh.......they might learn something.



I mainly posted this in the interest of others who made read this thread and be dissuaded from alternative power by those spreading misinformation.
Many things CAN be done, but only by those willing to try.


----------



## orangehen (Dec 7, 2005)

http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

A GREAT article on the problems with wind turbines....it tells it ALL.

Also, http://martynorth.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/gear-oil-failures-in-windmills/
a sort of slide show of pictures of gear oil failure in wind turbines.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Energy Rebel said:


> Not true.
> Obviously at night you don't get solar, but clouds and snow are myths.
> The factors affecting it most are extreme heat, dirt and hard shade - meaning shadows from trees, poles, buildings, etc.
> 
> ...


Sure, you might get a trickle charge on cloudy days, but what happens when you have weeks of cloudy weather, like during winter? If you're totally dependent on solar, either you're going to have to compensate by buying a lot more/bigger solar panels (at great expense), or........you're going to have to dramatically alter you consumption.

BTDT.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> Sure, you might get a trickle charge on cloudy days, but what happens when you have weeks of cloudy weather, like during winter? If you're totally dependent on solar, either you're going to have to compensate by buying a lot more/bigger solar panels (at great expense), or........you're going to have to dramatically alter you consumption.
> 
> BTDT.


Maybe that was true in your experience, but not in mine.
There are different spectrums of light and different types of panels.
The longer the wavelength, the less clouds affect it.
The reading on my voltmeter dropped only slightly, not to a trickle.

http://www.solarpoweristhefuture.com/what-light-wave-do-solar-panels-use.shtml

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Energy Rebel said:


> Maybe that was true in your experience, but not in mine.
> There are different spectrums of light and different types of panels.
> The longer the wavelength, the less clouds affect it.
> The reading on my voltmeter dropped only slightly, not to a trickle.
> ...


Are ther any toxic bi-products in the manufacture of solar panels? And where are most of them made?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

orangehen said:


> http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html
> 
> A GREAT article on the problems with wind turbines....it tells it ALL.
> 
> ...


 Some good articles and resources for those opposed to industrial-scale wind farms.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Are ther any toxic bi-products in the manufacture of solar panels? And where are most of them made?




Yes.
Mostly China nowadays.
The ones I like are made in California and Ohio.

Did you expect me to lie?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Energy Rebel said:


> Yes.
> Mostly China nowadays.
> The ones I like are made in California and Ohio.
> 
> Did you expect me to lie?


No. I think that folks need to be aware of what is in the products they purchase, and what the bi-products are. Do you know what those bi-products are? Obama gave a solar company here in California millions and millions of our tax dollars to help make them competitive, didn't work! Total waste of OUR money, no one was held accountable! Do you know the story behind this? It's typical of so called "green jobs". Solar works kind of, but we have yet to see long term reports on how the consumer products will hold up. Mu neighbor had a system that was subsidized and has had several panels fail in less then 2 years. He has to pay out of his pocket for any and all maintence on his system. He now regrets his decision. Coal, hydro, and nuclear are cheaper and less pron to failure than solar or wind power generation.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Yes and yes.
I do know.
Hopefully, your neighbor had a 30 year guarantee on his panels. 
If not, he should have bought them from a company that does.

There are many corporations in the U.S. that take gov't subsidies and go belly up, not just "green" ones.
I rather like to judge on an individual basis instead of lumping everything in the same category.

And I assume when you mean "cheaper" you aren't factoring in megatons of plants and animals, millions of years and tremendous geological pressure.
You know, the whole process of making fossil fuels, not just the drilling and mining?
(It's ok, if you actually factor that into the cost, it would just mess up the math)


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Energy Rebel said:


> Yes.
> Mostly China nowadays.
> The ones I like are made in California and Ohio.
> 
> Did you expect me to lie?





JeffreyD said:


> No. I think that folks need to be aware of what is in the products they purchase, and what the bi-products are. Do you know what those bi-products are? Obama gave a solar company here in California millions and millions of our tax dollars to help make them competitive, didn't work! Total waste of OUR money, no one was held accountable! Do you know the story behind this? It's typical of so called "green jobs". Solar works kind of, but we have yet to see long term reports on how the consumer products will hold up. Mu neighbor had a system that was subsidized and has had several panels fail in less then 2 years. He has to pay out of his pocket for any and all maintence on his system. He now regrets his decision. Coal, hydro, and nuclear are cheaper and less pron to failure than solar or wind power generation.





Energy Rebel said:


> Yes and yes.
> I do know.
> Hopefully, your neighbor had a 30 year guarantee on his panels.
> If not, he should have bought them from a company that does.
> ...



What would some of those bi-products be?

My heighbor got the panels that the company provided under the government subsidy. His contract stated he was responsible for any maintence on them, of course, he could pay the installer to come out and fix them, but he was told they would last for decades!
Factoring in his payment to his utility, his bill is slightly higher than it was before, but he is helping to combat global warming, I mean climate change!

I don't consider dead animals and plants and geological pressure to cost anything at all, 
since it was no cost to any humans! Could you tell me what the exact cost would be?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> What would some of those bi-products be?
> 
> My heighbor got the panels that the company provided under the government subsidy. His contract stated he was responsible for any maintence on them, of course, he could pay the installer to come out and fix them, but he was told they would last for decades!
> Factoring in his payment to his utility, his bill is slightly higher than it was before, but he is helping to combat global warming, I mean climate change!
> ...


 Youre concerned about 'toxic materials' and you claim that coal, oil, gas and nukes are somehow better in that department than PV? LOL. Thats quite a stretch. Of course there are by-products...any form of industry or energy production has by-products. The by products from PV manufacture pale in comparison to coal and nukes though. No comparison in the long term. 

And the energy it takes to produce a solar panel is paid back in a few short years (2 to 3) by the energy production of said panel. 

I've been reading through some of the articles that hype up the 'toxic by-product' angle of solar panels, they are mostly just that, hype. It does get trotted out from time to time, which means people are still falling for it. Its a very weak argument against solar, and falls apart under the most basic comparisons to our other methods of generating energy.
But I thought this thread was about wind power??


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> What would some of those bi-products be?
> 
> My heighbor got the panels that the company provided under the government subsidy. His contract stated he was responsible for any maintence on them, of course, he could pay the installer to come out and fix them, but he was told they would last for decades!
> Factoring in his payment to his utility, his bill is slightly higher than it was before, but he is helping to combat global warming, I mean climate change!
> ...


 And who is getting panels as a 'government subsidy'??? Last i heard, there were renewable energy tax credits, but I've never heard of the government simply giving homeowners solar panels...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Youre concerned about 'toxic materials' and you claim that coal, oil, gas and nukes are somehow better in that department than PV? LOL. Thats quite a stretch. Of course there are by-products...any form of industry or energy production has by-products. The by products from PV manufacture pale in comparison to coal and nukes though. No comparison in the long term.
> 
> And the energy it takes to produce a solar panel is paid back in a few short years (2 to 3) by the energy production of said panel.
> 
> ...


I never said I was against solar now did I? And since you know so much about them, how about you list the highly toxic bi-poducts, or should I do it for you? Just to let you know, I have been involved with the manufacture of solar panels on and off for almost 20 years! They are, at best, still in ther infancy. I just don't think that as taxpayers, we should foot the bill for these technologies! If businesses felt they could make a profit from them they would fund the research themselves!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

:kiss:​


greg273 said:


> And who is getting panels as a 'government subsidy'??? Last i heard, there were renewable energy tax credits, but I've never heard of the government simply giving homeowners solar panels...


The federal government is subsidizing the utilities, the homeowner gets the system for a fraction of the actual cost and pays a small fee every month to the utility. The cost of the system is based on the size of the system of course, and only those that meet certain citeria will qualify. My neighbors power bill averaged about $160 per month. He qualified for the program, but now pays about $185 per month for going green. Plus he has to pay for system maintence should he need it, and he has needed it!


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> What would some of those bi-products be?
> 
> 
> *From your more recent posts, you have experience in this field. So can I safely assume that the question is not because you don't know, but rather to find out if I do?
> ...



*Of course you don't.
I don't have an exact figure to give you. But I'd bet that somewhere a scientist in a lab has probably done it or at least tried.
That is, compressing decayed plant and animal material under heat and time to duplicate the process.

The reason I asked you to consider is simple.
As long as it's "free" it looks silly to think of an alternative as being cost competitive.

But what about the day (whenever it comes) when the supply grows short.
And the only way to make more is to wait a really loooooooooooong time or try the lab thing?
They are getting results with algae, but that's not as cheap either.
It's kind of like the grasshopper and ant analogy.
As long as we don't have to work for it and don't care, all is good.
But it may not be so cheap, easy and plentiful one day...................something to think about.*


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> :kiss:​
> The federal government is subsidizing the utilities, the homeowner gets the system for a fraction of the actual cost and pays a small fee every month to the utility. The cost of the system is based on the size of the system of course, and only those that meet certain citeria will qualify. My neighbors power bill averaged about $160 per month. He qualified for the program, but now pays about $185 per month for going green. Plus he has to pay for system maintence should he need it, and he has needed it!


 Guess he bought some junk panels. Or, rather, the taxpayers bought some junk panels. 
Government support of the energy industry is nothing new, lets not act like solar is getting all the freebies.



> # The vast majority of federal subsidies for fossil fuels and renewable energy supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel.
> # The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuelsâa mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for many yearsâtotaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.
> # Subsidies for renewable fuels, a relatively young and developing industry, totaled $29 billion over the same period (almost half of which went to biofuels).


 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies


----------

