Wind farm project dies down with bill: Senator slips in provision

Boston Herald ^ | Thursday, October 7, 2004 | John Strahinich

[aardvark-pitcher]

The point isn't whether wind power is inherently good or bad , and it's pretty obviously a good idea. The problem as usual is in its execution. To quote a few idioms: It doesn't make sense to destroy the environment to save the environment. There is a time and a place for everything. don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Etc. So what's needed is proper siting, environmental impacts, escrows for removal of the towers if the company goes under, remove government subsidies and let the market decide, etc.

The new World Trade Center buildings will have wind turbines built in to make power for the buildings. Great idea!

In fact there are many new alternative energy technologies that are more promising. Like the Tidal generators being installed in the Hudson River (under water, out of sight, powered by the ebb and flow of the tides).

Or how about CWT http://www.changingworldtech.com which takes any organic waste (including sludge, tires, turkey guts) and converts them in to oil and water with no toxic by products.

Or advances in nanotechnology + photovoltaics, which will allow roofing shingles and housepaint to be your personal power source.

There's a bright energy future but Wind turbines don't belong in pristine countryside and shorelines.

[biblewonk]

I just read in my latest issue of windpower monthly that the latest poll in England showed that 80 percent of the population is pro wind power and even more interestingly, 70 percent are pro wind even if it is very near their house. This with a huge propaganda campaign against wind going on right now in England. Another interesting fact is that when people have windpower developed near their town, they become even more pro-wind. It is still very rare and most people don't even know what a modern windturbine looks or sounds like or how much power it can produce at what price.

[biblewonk]

There are definitely some areas that should not be developed with wind power. I agree completely. My big issue here on the FR is with the many people that side with Rush in calling Windpower worthless or a ripoff.

I've never been to the Dakotas but I hear that it is largely an erie wasteland. It is also known as the Saudi Arabia of windpower. Fully developing wind power in N.Dakota, Nebraska and Texas would produce all of the 3 Quads of electricity this country uses per year.

[ralph rotten]

YOU ARE SO RIGHT AN " H FIELD " WILL DROP ABOUT 3dB FOR EVERY FOOT OF SEA WATER, NOW SOUND WAVE DO TRAVEL WELL---

[LisaS]

Thanks. I will see if I can find it on line. However, these surveys are usually conducted by and for the wind industry. That said, what would you expect a xx (fill in your favorite New England state) Liberal who voted for Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry to say when asked if they are pro-wind? Like most liberals, they are ill-informed on the subject and permit their emotions to decide for them - in this case they wouldn't be caught dead saying they oppose alternative energy sources.

I have seen these polls and, equally important, have read the counters to them (of course the opposition surveys are never picked up by anything but the very local media).

The wind companies go to local public hearings with these bogus surveys (along with the ones that claim increases in property valuations within the viewsheds)and the small townsfolk look at each other and wonder why they don't feel that way. The anti-wind crowd is politely told that they are selfishly trying to protect their own backyard and that they are standing in the way of progress - nothing could be further from the truth.

Wind is simply too unreliable (averaging output at 30-35% capacity) - it is hard to justify placing these massive towers on our New England ridgelines. The gain is simply not there.

You are correct, there are places where wind power makes sense. And N. Dakota is one such place where land is not productive but the wind sure does blow. Even if we turned N. Dakota into a huge wind electricity plant for the US, it is far too remote. Cost of electricity distribution would be prohibitive.

[LisaS]

Oops - my mistake. I misread England for New England in your posting. Well, anyway, the UK would vote for Kerry is asked:)

The surveys I referenced were conducted in MA and VT on a regional level (not statewide) by the wind industry that showed equivalent percentages.

--Lisa

[biblewonk]

Wind is simply too unreliable (averaging output at 30-35% capacity) - it is hard to justify placing these massive towers on our New England ridgelines. The gain is simply not there.

This is a very frustrating statement for me to keep hearing. I know what you mean but this statement is saying something else. To say unreliable you are saying that the turbines are in disrepair all the time. I know you know this is not the case.

When to comes to their worth, that is a measure of the value of the electricity vs the cost. Even if they had a capacity factor of 10 percent, if the cost of that power was very small, then the value is there. Today windpower is wholesaled at about 3.2 cents per kwhr which is quite competitive. Yes, it gets the PTC which is 1.8 cents. It is expected that in 5 years the PTC will no longer be needed.

[biblewonk]

You are right about the cost of distribution. That statistic about N. Dakota, Nebraska and Texas is only quoted too show how much energy we are talking with windmills vs the amount of energy used in the USA. After all the hurricanes we've seen this year, we can see that it would never make sense to put windmills in Florida.

[chimera]

The point isn't whether wind power is inherently good or bad , and it's pretty obviously a good idea.

We have to be careful to avoid the very human tendency to attach any moral significance to an inherently amoral realm. Not that you were doing it, but I see it often practiced on FR, for some reason. Assigning "goodness" or "badness" to a given technology makes no sense. You simply evaluate the advantages and disadvantages, and make a decision as to it's appropriateness in a given application.

There is nothing "good" or "bad" about windpower. It has it's advantages and shortcomings, like any other technology. It's disadvantages, as a baseload power source, are it's variability and perhaps the need to transmit energy over long distances, which leads to losses. On the economic downside, like solar, it is a diffuse energy source. That means you have to work harder to gather enough of the energy to make it economical on a large scale. On the economic upside, fuel costs are low, which helps in the long term. From a distributed source viewpoint, you could place an electricity source in locations where alternatives are costly and/or impractical. If you have an effective power dispatching system, you could use a number of distributed sources to fill in gaps in the supply curve if your system is experiencing shortages (although an efficient energy storage system would help on that score).