Where do Wind Farms belong?

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Roof tops, the median strip of highways, Portland's Eastern Promanade, Boston's Esplanade, bridges, waterfronts, and on the grounds of every state capitol. Put them in the backyards of the end user.
Easier said than done.

Windpower produces stresses that most buildings and towers, not having been specifically designed for that, cannot tolerate or will accomodate only such a small plant that it is not economically feasible.

Even if one were willing to industrialize promonades, esplanades, facades, and back yards ... after all, who needs open space when we have the internet ... the wind currents need to meet certain mimimums and after the engineers the lawyers take over and then you have safety radius etc. to deal with.
 
Since the thread has drifted to sustainable energy, I would like to point out that photovoltaic cells (AKA solar Panels) are currently "free" to New Hampshire residents for their primary residence. Obviously there are conditions, but the current cost for Evergreen Solar (made in Marlborough Mass) cosmetic blemished solar panels are just about $3.00 per watt. These panels are UL rated and guaranteed, but have some color variations making them unsuitable for high visibility locations. The state of NH will cut a subsidy check in July of 2009 for $3 per installed watt for grid tie applications that went on line after last June (2008) up to $2,500 dollars. The federal government will also give you a 30% tax rebate (not a deduction) that now has no upper limit which will go towards the overall cost of the system. This 30% rebate will cover part of the balance of system components and installation costs.

The NH rebates will be paid for from the sale of carbon credits from the Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative. Note: the NH statute was signed by the governor but the NH PUC hasnt propogated the rules of the program so the usual caveat emptor applies.
 
Many great points by all. I think that wind power is important and can be part of the solution. A better feasible alternative is solar. And before you say solar only works in the Arizona or something, check out the Maine solar house: http://www.solarhouse.com.

Back to wind - yes it has flaws, and no I do not think it can solve all of our problems. The right applications' benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I do not want to hear that wind towers ruins somebody's view. Who decides which views are good and then what does or does not wreck that view? For my money, the Golden Gate looks better with the bridge there. May we not say this about windfarms one day? Who knows.

A valid argument for keeping them out of the woods in the middle of nowhere is destruction of habitat for threatened or endangered species. The only other argument I can think up would be to keep them out of actual wilderness areas, which are not the proposed sites I have seen in New England so this one does not apply.

I still think the best applications are to have them at population centers, where there is already the infrastructure and demand. This is my backyard, by the way, making me an IMBY for wind farms.
 
Every time there is a proposal for a wind factory on a beautiful, forested ridge, the proponants, who claim environmental concern, say something like..."it will produce 300gigawatts...if that much power was produced by coal it would put a thousand tons of carbon into the atmosphere"...

This is purposely misleading. Use your brains, people. Where is the evidence that infact a comensurate amount of coal was indeed not burned as a result of that nasty wind factory? It never happens.

How many of these wind factories already exist? Where is the evidence that less coal was burned as a result? This is total BS. Use your brains, people. Face reality. All of the existing wind factories combined have not reduced coal by an once. They never can.

The Bicknell's Thrush's mating habitat has shrunk so much from development. Now even people who care about the environment are supporting more destruction. What about the pine martens and the lynxes and the others who live there, who are constantly losing ground?

Now we will allow the clear-cut devastation of some of the last prescious high-elevation acreage left for some nasty 400' towers and buildings because the public is too slow to catch on that these wind factories never acheive the stated goal: to cause less coal to be burned.

I notice noone has yet responded to prove that wind factories result in less coal being burned. Does anyone really care? Is environmentalism just a bumper sticker on your car to make you look cool and feel good?
 
Last edited:
"Proving" that less coal is burned or that coal plants are being shut down due to the building of windmills is most likely not possible. The North American Grid is frequently mentioned as the most complicated man made "machine" on Earth, therefore trying to establish direct corelation between a windfarm being built in one location and the shutdown of a coal plant somewhere else is not something that is going to be acheivable. Realistically, once a coal power plant is built, its going to be run, as currently its the cheapest dollars per KW given current regulations which ignore several significant societal costs. Change the equation by putting value to the societal costs in a way that an average rate payer will accept, and then you may see plants shutting down, once affordable alternative ways of generation are located and produced. Currently there is an attempt at finding affordable alternatives, and whether you agree or not, "society" has identified industrial wind as a better alternative than coal.

What further complicates the issue is that its a lot quicker to permit and build a wind farm than a coal plant. The new coal plants going on line today have probably been in planning, permitting and construction for over 10 years. The windfarms being built today are not going to impact those plants, they at best will hopefully offset future coal plants from being built.

Texas is probably the best example of future new coal plants not being built due to the large number of windfarms built in west texas. Prior to the incentive regulations for wind generated power, the regional utilities were planning to go on a spree to build several new coal plants. With a change of ownership of the utilities, and wind generation, the plans for the plants have been canceled. Texas is having definite issues with such a high amount of wind power on the grid and there have been a couple of occurances of serious power issues related to unexpected losses of wind. Currently the solution is to build a large number of simple cycle gas turbine power plants that can rapidly be ramped up and down (unfortunately at a considerable loss of efficiency)

As for regional examples, the current problem is that the coal plants in
operation tend to be close to the demand in along the I95 corridor, where new power plants are very difficult to build and the grid to the outlying areas is marginal. The one somewhat close example is the conversion of the PSNH coal boiler to biomass down in the Portsmouth area. Granted the coal generation was displaced with biomass rather than wind, but that was a small but successful quantifiable displacement of coal with a renewable. Note that the reason the conversion was done was that the state of Mass passed incentives and penalties on power utlities that forced them to support renewable generation and it was cheaper to do the conversion of a boiler in NH than one in Mass.
 
and in NY state

Published March 07, 2009 09:34 pm - Many area residents are worried that a massive turbine could suddenly collapse.

Residents shocked by wind-turbine collapse


By ANDREA VanVALKENBURG
Staff Writer


ALTONA — Many residents were shocked that a massive wind turbine could come tumbling down and officials say it could take months to learn why one collapsed Friday.

Mike Fellion flew over the wreckage Saturday morning and was amazed to see that pieces of the structure appeared to have been thrown "about a quarter-mile away."

"I was surprised," said Fellion, who flew above the wreckage with his father, Victor, a volunteer pilot who runs the Wings of Life program, which provides emergency medical flights for ailing residents.

"I'm just hoping that this was an isolated incident."

Neighbors around the Altona wind park reported hearing loud explosions before the turbine apparently snapped in half around 10 a.m. and then caught fire.

Helen Morales, who lives near the fallen Fisher Way turbine, didn't hear anything, but earlier saw the blades on one turbine "spinning at a high rate of speed" and noted that the air appeared "cloudy" around it.

She doesn't know if the faster-moving blades were attached to the affected turbine, but wonders if her observations were connected to Friday's collapse, which was the first major incident at the Norther Tier wind parks.

Though the push for wind energy has received strong support from many local residents, others, like members of the West Beekmantown Neighborhood Association, feel they pose a danger to public safety and health and have resisted the efforts.

There are zoning regulations in place that restrict how close turbines can be erected near homes, but some wondered Saturday if similar collapses could happen and whether flying debris could extend beyond the protected perimeter.

As word of the collapse spread Friday, Adirondack Council spokesman John Sheehan expressed concern about the risks turbines could pose on elevated and sloped locations if a collapse could happen in flatland parks.

The Altona wind park will remain closed as the investigation continues.

In their latest update, Noble Environmental Power officials said it could take several months to finalize their investigation, which is being conducted jointly with General Electric.

Noble CEO Walt Howard toured the site after the collapse and spoke with employees there.

In a news release, he said: "I am pleased with the quick response of the Noble team. They secured the site and accounted for all Noble employees in a manner that is consistent with our stringent safety policy. I am also grateful to the fire department for its swift response."

Officials said the wind park utilizes General Electric 1.5 megawatt turbines. There are currently more than 12,000 of those turbines across the world and they are the most widely deployed turbines, Noble said.

Altona Town Supervisor Larry Ross was also surprised by the collapse and said he will be updated on the investigation as it progresses.

"They're going to keep me in the loop so I know what's going on," he said from his home Saturday.

"The main thing was that no one was hurt "¦ and now it's a matter of finding out what happened and putting it back together."

E-mail Andrea VanValkenburg at: [email protected]
 
Texas is probably the best example of future new coal plants not being built due to the large number of windfarms built in west texas. Prior to the incentive regulations for wind generated power, the regional utilities were planning to go on a spree to build several new coal plants. With a change of ownership of the utilities, and wind generation, the plans for the plants have been canceled. Texas is having definite issues with such a high amount of wind power on the grid and there have been a couple of occurances of serious power issues related to unexpected losses of wind. Currently the solution is to build a large number of simple cycle gas turbine power plants that can rapidly be ramped up and down (unfortunately at a considerable loss of efficiency)
West Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico ... several large wind (farms, mills, plants, you name the euphemism ... it depends on the spin behind it ... we need less spin, more facts, more open minds, more understanding) ... no lack of wind, no danger of spoiling views ... just that every once in a while the wind pauses to, well, maybe take a breath and show us who's in charge. That's when the back up gets really expensive.

Erik and I were walking through a desert oasis which once flourished because the windmill would pump water which served a variety of interests: plantings, trees, livestock. It was a hot still day, then faster than a roadrunner could skoot by, the wind came up and started pumping again. As fast as it came up, it stopped ... and all was still and dry again.

Wind is wonderful. But, it is very expensive to accomodate those times when it does not blow. Of all the things invisible in which to put your faith and fate, wind is not one of them. Wind is AN answer, not THE answer.

P.S. Speaking of West Texas, there is plenty of energy in a West Texas dance hall but that's just impossible to harness.
 
I like the idea of using rooftops and medians for power, whether wind or solar. Has anyone seen this tower first hand?

http://www.massmegawatts.com/blandford/slide3.html

Disclaimer: I invest in the company.

But I've never actually seen the tower, which is supposed to be in Blandford, MA. These little towers are shorter and lighter than the tall propellor types, and might be more suitable for buildings. I believe there also some technical challenges still to overcome.
 
HikeBikeSkiFish - my friend from NHPR says: It was probably one of these two…

http://www.nhpr.org/node/23476

or

http://www.nhpr.org/node/23715

(links to recent stories on wind power on NHPR)

http://www.nhpr.org/node/23715 is the proper one - thanks Ellen - it was not posted (yet) the day after I heard it.

TWO IMPORTANT LINES for those who live up there / care about this:

But the committee did say it would hold a hearing on March 19th somewhere in Coos to give residents a chance to testify.

A final decision on the project is due early in April.


Tim
 
No red sqares?...No flames?...hmmmm... I'm trying to shake things up here.....

Peakbagger, thanks for addressing my point about coal displacement. However, I must say that it looks like next to nothing. When we look at the sheer volume of power needed and generated and consumed, we just cannot make any real dent in coal with wind. In my mind, certainly not enough to come anywhere near justifying stripping those beautiful forested ridges. It's just not right. To clearcut that high-elevation forest, home to all that wildlife that is losing habitat, for such a miniscule fraction of energy demand is a crime.

I'm sad because there is no passion on this board to save this forested ridge from destruction. The level of concern for the environment of our group runs much higher than that of the general public. The mood here seems to be that the clearcut and loss of high-elevation forest is kind-of-sort-of a bit of a shame, but a microscopic fraction of cleaner energy production is worth it.

I guess "go green" and alternative fuels have become so ingrained in pop culture that destroying high-elevation forest habitat is ok if "green" proponants say so.

I'm sad for the Canada Lynxes and the Bicknell's Thrushes...
 
No red sqares?...No flames?...hmmmm... I'm trying to shake things up here.....

Forestgnome - I think nobody is arguing with you because you are asking good questions and I, for one, can't dispute or dismiss them. I appreciate your tenacity on this topic. It has helped me refine my feelings on the subject. I still feel that simple view-wrecking is not a valid argument against them, but for a lot of people that is the only reason they do not like them. For me, I cannot stop thinking about losing that habitat. What did any of the creatures that call that land home do wrong?

If we went from Kitty Hawk to the moon in a lifetime, I hold onto the hope that I will be able to witness us reaching just as far with alternative power, including wind power. I must admit that we are not there yet, in fact we have a long way to go. I am all for investing sizable amounts of money in these technologies; I fear the biggest mistake we can make is not trying hard enough to realize the full potential of wind and solar power. Do we really need to ruin, possibly forever, an important tract of land just to prove more needs to be invested in new technology? ... NO!

FWIW, I have never wanted wind farms in the mountains. I think the crap atop Mt Washington is an absolute sin, mainly because the acreage above treeline is so limited and this development, and all the pollution from brainless bumper-sticker-seeking tourists that comes with it, is taking away things that can never be replaced in our lifetimes. Please do not even get me started on the freaggin' cog railroad, either!

I thought at first to be in favor of the windfarm because it would be "green" and if everyone says not in my backyard - or my favorite place to visit - then nothing gets accomplished ... but that was assuming building a windfarm somewhere would actually accomplish something. I am willing to sacrifice for a better future, but the correct direction is R&D, not build first and ask questions later.
 
I agree about the "square thingy" I have a different opinion on wind power than you, doesn't mean I do not value your opinion (even though its wrong :p) The points you made were interesting and I saw the reasons why people may be opposed to wind power.

On a side note I heard that a South Carolina power company is exploring a possible wind power system using smaller turbines along the coast.
 
Here is a link to Northfield, a pumped water storage facility which has the potential of over 1000 megawatts power generation as standby when other generation facilities are off line.

I can't help but think, AMC has identified 200 miles of "suitable" ridgeline in Maine for wind power ... why not undertake a similar study of suitable locations for "pumped" power as a standby for all that wind potential.

Sure sure, the usual environmental objections will be raised but isn't it about time we addressed energy less by industrialization of pristine areas than by thoughtful location of such facilities and the appurtenant system to make them truly feasible?

http://www.firstlightpower.com/generation/hydro.asp

As you can see, there are environmental tradeoffs that can have multiple and beneficial effects.
 
There was a pumped storage hydro project designed to store 880 Megawatts in Maine 30 years ago, it was called the Dickey Lincoln Project and was located on the St John River. It would have backed up 50 miles of the St John and flooded 50,000 acres of wood lands. Needless to say, it was shot down many years ago due to environmental impact. It was arguably the birth of the movement to "save the maine woods".

Even earlier (1920's)than that there were a couple of mega hydroprojects on the upper Androscoggin river. One of them was "High Pontook", it would have flooded the androscoggin river upstream of Dummer NH all the way up to Errol. The other one was a dam near the maine/NH line that would have flooded Shelburne NH back to Gorham. Those were never pursued beyond a concept stage.

Basically pumped storage sounds great but it takes a lot of water to store a lot of power (either that or a very high elevation difference). Flagstaff lake in Maine is effectively half a pumped storage system that fills up with water during the night and is opened during the day to supply peaking power.

Additionally the rapid changes in water level and flows in the storage lakes and downstream rivers, raises havoc with wildlife.
 
Here is a link to Northfield, a pumped water storage facility which has the potential of over 1000 megawatts power generation as standby when other generation facilities are off line.
Watts are a unit of power (energy/time), not total energy (measured in watt-hours). So the above figure describes how many lightbulbs it can drive, but not for how long.

I checked the reference--it does not appear to give the total capacity in MWH.

Just for comparison, 1000 MW is a typical power output for a fossil fuel or nuclear plant.

Doug
 
What would happen if we all (and I mean all) shut off every electrical device in our home, including TVs, radios, microwaves and these lithesome PCs/Macs, for a few days each month. Say... every weekend. Find something else to do… Maybe take a walk in the woods. The nearby woods so we don’t need to drive our cars 100.. 200.. 300 miles to find some good woods.

How much electricity would we avoid using? How many windmills/wind turbines/coal plants/hydro plants/nuclear plants could we avoid? Quite a bit if we all did it. I mean all.

Of course then we’d all be in the woods not spending $3.00 to park our cars. But then again some of us might get lost and we might get charged to get found. And we’d really trample the trails a lot more requiring more trail maintenance. And we might all get attacked by moose. And we’d find all sorts of new ways to break our gear. And we’d find all sorts of new food types.

And we’d probably use those privies a bit more requiring more expensive maintenance on them (toilet reference required at least every 12 posts on threads exceeding 3 pages :eek:).

Or….

We could all try to work with each other and our leaders in coming up with a reasonable solution to our energy issues with out the NIMBY and similar issues that often stop sound solutions from moving forward. I’m not saying that wind farms are the answer to anything. Or that they’re not. I just think that we need to accept that we as a society have decided that there are certain things that we want. And something has to give to make that happen. It’s likely that if we all looked at the potential solutions with the emotion completely removed we just might come up with something that we all can live with. Kind of like we decide to walk in the same place in those special areas where the plants have the toughest time so we don't hurt so many plants but we still get to go to those nice places.

Just a thought…
 
Just saw an interesting statistic: to supply current US electrical power usage would require 750,000 sq mi of wind farms: approximately equal to the size of Texas, California, Montana, and Florida.

While I don't think anyone is suggesting that we attempt to supply all of our electrical power from wind, this statistic suggests that very large areas will be required for wind to supply a significant fraction.

The same article states the efficiency of pumped storage at less than 75%, so large amounts of power would be lost if we depend on it.

Ref: http://www.wse.jhu.edu/news-publications/winter09_14-21.pdf

Doug

Can anyone read this and continue with the "step in the right direction" idea and really support more wind factories? I don't get it from folks who consider clear-cutting forests to be undesirable, especially high-elevation forest.

Do the math. More wind power requires more land to be stripped. No proponants of wind predict that a single tower might be able to produce real amounts of power one day. They just say we need more of them. Does anyone really beleive that technology will magically change this?

Solar power may be equally feeble, but it doesn't require stripping beautiful forests. The sun shines almost everywhere. Why not put more effort into developing solar? It's actually not harmful to the environment, as wind factories are, and it makes us feel just as good about ourselves.

Let's be serious. Nuclear power is actually capable of producing real amounts of electricity. Nuclear plants can be located anywhere. Why not put our energies into R&D of making nuclear as safe as we can. If the French can produce 90% of their juice with nuclear, then the technological masters of the world can do even better.
 
Top