Report sees few drawbacks on wind farm (off Nantucket)

Boston Globe ^ | 11/08/2004 | Beth Daley

[AlexW]

"What dead birds?"

I was being a bit facetious, but I do read conflicting
reports on bird mortality, such as this one.

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/renew/renew2d.html

I know their are many other reports that downplay the problem.
I don't have a dog in this hunt, and really have no opinion.

[Wolfie]

You mean Santa has to fly through those blades to get to that house? Why then I'm against them, we've gotta save X-mas.

Look closer. He's there.

[Plumed Serpent]

Wind power now produces energy at lower cost than fossil fuels. Additionally, the supply is forever and, therefore, when the cost of a turbine is amortized, the kilowatt hour cost drops even more. Interestingly, in higher winds (gusts especially) a turbine's output increases exponentially.
The Vestas model located in Hull Massachusetts costs roughly $700K and can provide power to at least 250 homes, the larger ones can go upwards of $2 million. Constructing a new energy plant costs millions just as a windfarm does, however, the conventional plant requires the purchase of whatever fuel it needs to burn. A windfarm never needs fuel. Maintenance costs are lower as there are fewer moving parts, far fewer safety concerns, and a much smaller workforce required.
Some noise does exist (a whoosh, whoosh in the very immediate area) but is a moot point in an offshore configuration.
They provide an elegant and compelling solution to our energy needs as every wind turbine represents less hard currency going abroad.

[newgeezer]

My point was more specific to this case, and wondering how or why there would be dead birds on the beaches.

[Plumed Serpent]

Never seen one dead bird on the beaches of Hull. Ever.

[LisaS]

You are not correct. Wind power is heavily subsidized by the US Government and there is still a premium paid for the power. Turbines can operate in a fix window of wind speeds between 15-55 mph. Too high and they shut down. If any town becomes dependent on wind for its main source of power, it requires a backup, fossil-fuel based source to account for times when wind does not blow.

And they make a low-frequency noise that is highly penetrating.

Before anyone buys into the Wind industry's propaganda, it is important to know why so many people oppose the boondoggle.

[momf]

"I'm sure if a Kennedy dressed up in a little dutch boy uniform and made the wind farms look like Holland, maybe stick his finger into a dyke it would be another Vineyard tourist trap"

Is that a dam type dyke, or...... 8)

[biblewonk]

Wow, 67 posts!

[momf]

I keep hearing how our trash is overwhelming; the amount is filling landfills rapidly.

Why aren't the environment protecting folks working on burning it for energy instead of fossil fuel? This is pre-fossil fuel.

[newgeezer]

How much power will the proposed windmills produce and at what cost? Is it significantly cheaper or at least the same price as current sources? Is the power it will generate "significant"?

Wow, someone's asking questions instead of echoing Rush Limbaugh's ignorance.

How refreshing! :-)

[biblewonk]

Does it really make sense to try to speak to Lisas, or Rush, or Teddy on the topic of windpower? It's a lot like evangelism. Some people just have hard hearts.

[LisaS]

I completely agree. Bio-mass is taking hold here in NH although usually fueled by wood products. Trash for electricity makes sense.

[AlexW]

"how or why there would be dead birds on the beaches"

Only in that the ones killed by the windmills would most likely wash ashore, unless eaten by the fish.

[LisaS]

With all due respect, yours is the classic argument presented by the Wind industry in its effort to discount those they call the "anti's". NIMBY, NIMBY is their other rant.

This is likely the wrong medium for what I see as a complicated debate. I do believe that the "anti's" have the better argument.

[newgeezer]

Check this out: Vertical windmills.

[newgeezer]

Given the distance from shore, ... oh, nevermind.

[Plumed Serpent]

Very true on all points. However, all energy is subsidized by the government in one way or another. The thing is that a kilowatt hour is often priced on the production end only. If one takes all costs in account including eventual clean-up some interesting things happen. Taking down an old conventional plant requires hauling of scrap, large workforce, and environmental clean up. Taking down an aging nuke plant can be astronomical.
You're right about dependency. Conventional plants will always have role. Minimization of that role should be the goal.
Again, the noise factor should be moot using the off shore scheme.

[biblewonk]

Well I believe that windmills are beautiful works of engineering. It is so great that they produce power for less than the cost of natural gas and competitive with most other forms of power and that the source of their power is not being used up. I think it is just excellent that each GW of wind power installed, about 7 weeks worth, brings more knowledge to the industry allowing more reduction in the cost of the power. I think it is excellent that Denmark produces 20 percent of their power with wind and Germany and Spain are both at 5 percent. I think 1.8 penny's per kwhr is a very small price to pay to help develop this excellent idea. I suspect that there are people that could have argued against sailboats littering up the seas hundreds of years ago. I think that there are just some people that you can't reach.

[1Old Pro]

I'm no expert, but we definately should consider alternate energy sources especially more efficient sources. Hydro-electric, from the little I know, seems to have provided an escellent alternative. I'd definately consider wind if viable.

But I also think nuclear is an alternative if the red tape costs could be eliminated.

[Plumed Serpent]

Absolutely. There is no single 'magic bullet'. Wind power, solar, tidal power, geothermal, and hydrogen fuel should all be looked at. The less fossil fuel we use, the less we need to buy from the Middle East.