Why no "outrage" against wind farms

[Fidalgo911S]

Feel like stirring the pot a little today. Has anyone here seen a windfarm? I've been flying over a set of two in east central Washington for the past nine years. They're on the Rattlesnake and Saddle mountains.

It started as a few and then grew to this huge mass of sticks on the hills. Here's the thing environmentalists never say: They Ugly! They're a blight on the landscape! I rarely see more than a couple spinning slowly in the slight wind over there. And they're going to employ the masses and "free" us from foreign oil. It's a joke! Pass the Kool-Aid green believer.

Isn't anyone "outraged" (my most hated word) over the destruction of that landscape?

[BGCarrera32]

They are foolish given the ROI and Kw/hr they put out, when the wind is blowing

Uber efficient nuclear is the way to go.

[Jim Richards]

Why no "outrage"

It's Friday. My outrage is getting a head start on the weekend.

[legion]

We have a large wind farm about 5 miles west of Bloomington. I like them--or at least how they look. They are interesting to look at and break up the flat terrain.

What I don't like about them is that they are another industry that couldn't exist without large government subsidies. Last I checked, they are a more expensive to build and maintain than coal or nuclear. They are only "competitive" because the federal government subsidizes their construction costs.

I still think there should be a large windfarm between Chicago and Washington D.C.. We could power the whole country!

[TerryH]

Originally Posted by Fidalgo911S

Feel like stirring the pot a little today. Has anyone here seen a windfarm? I've been flying over a set of two in east central Washington for the past nine years. They're on the Rattlesnake and Saddle mountains.

It started as a few and then grew to this huge mass of sticks on the hills. Here's the thing environmentalists never say: They Ugly! They're a blight on the landscape! I rarely see more than a couple spinning slowly in the slight wind over there. And they're going to employ the masses and "free" us from foreign oil. It's a joke! Pass the Kool-Aid green believer.

Isn't anyone "outraged" (my most hated word) over the destruction of that landscape?

I think "destruction" is a little dramatic. They may be an eyesore and a huge blemish on the countryside, but they aren't "destroying" anything but the view. Wind and solar power need to be evolved into something less burdensome and more affordable for the general population to latch onto it. There is talk of getting those windmills into the jet stream where they can really crank out the mega-giga-tera-watts. Wind generated power requires miles of transmission lines that are also an eyesore.

Every energy source has it's drawbacks. Wind is good... when it blows, solar is good... when the sun shines. Coal is every-ready, but creates huge emissions. Nuke is good, but there is waste.

Take your pick, but the general consensus is we have to get out of the coal business for producing electricity.

[Les Paul]

I'm another guy that thinks they break up the bleak landscape. At least aroung here. Within the next 10 years there are supposed to be 3 or 4 thousand within a 100 mile radius of here. The new ones put out 2mw each. Not to shabby. And since the wind averages 12.8mph here year round they go at least 6 days a week. I've thought about going to work for one of the many companies here but each operator has 8-10 turbines they take care of. Still have to climb on a ladder 300ft several times a day. Probably a younger mans game.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by Fidalgo911S

Here's the thing environmentalists never say: They Ugly! They're a blight on the landscape!

Yet, sometimes they do say that about billboards.

I would be willing to bet that many environmentalists would b*tch about wind farms being ugly if somebody wanted to put one up near their home... the old NIMBY thing.

[onewhippedpuppy]

We have several big ones in KS, I think they're pretty cool. It's not like it ruins an ocean view or anything. They're located on farmland, which now just gets farmed around the wind turbines. Furthermore, in windy KS they're nearly always spinning. My only real objection is that the ROI is a joke. I'm with BGCarrera, nuclear is the only sensible way to go.

[Jeff Higgins]

With relatives in Clarkston, I go past those wind farms when taking the scenic route to go see them. I don't think they look bad at all; they certainly beat our west side clear cuts. They always seem to be turning, too.

I know nothing of the economics of wind power. My brother-in-law, however, touts its advantages in his area. He got in early, buying shares in this operation, and has done quite well. He claims the ones in his area not only power the originally targeted communities, but supply excess power to the BPA grid all year long. What you guys are saying about subsidies and whanot kind of surprises me in light of what he has told me. Maybe I should show more interest next time he brings it up.

[IROC]

I can walk over to the other side of my building and see a bunch of wind turbines along a ridge off in the distance. I think they're cool.

If they cannot exist without subsidies, though, then they should not exist IMHO. Subsidize the research to make them competitive if you absolutely must subsidize something - don't subsidize the construction of inefficient devices...that doesn't seem very smart.

[coldstart]

THINK OF THE BIRDS!!!!!!

OUTRAGE!!!!
























That is the best I could do for outrage on a Friday....

[David]

Texas has more wind power than any other state and more than all but a few countries. I watch the grid info sometimes and wind power is usually about 10% of Texas' electric usage. Although it can drop to about 1% or go up to about 20%.

The biggest problem is when the wind suddenly stops and the spinning reserve gas plants have to catch the load very quickly. This is probably the biggest reason why the max wind power on any grid shouldn't go over 20%.

[rick-l]

Originally Posted by Fidalgo911S

I rarely see more than a couple spinning slowly in the slight wind over there. ?

They are supposed to generate tax credits not electricity

[Aerkuld]

Originally Posted by coldstart

THINK OF THE BIRDS!!!!!!

OUTRAGE!!!!...

Actually I think that is one of the complaints I have heard. Seriously.

[sammyg2]

I don't get excited because they are not pretty, I get ticked off because the enviro-nazis keep pushing for them even though they are not economical. Electricity generated by wind costs 4 times as much as electricity generated by natural gas and 10 times as much as electricity generated by nuclear power.
They are not practical and don't put out enough electricity to justify the expense, except when the government subsidizes them to make the lib-tards feel better.
The government gives them rebates and tax credits and grants and the government says that a percentage of our power has to come from these stupid things which drives up our untility costs.
if it wasn't for the government wasting our money to do pay people to something that doesn't make sense, there wouldn't be wind farms.
The only reason they do it is to pacify the ignorant hippie fools.
I personally don't like the idea of my tax dollars being used to reward someone to do something dumb, and then when they do I am forced to pay more for something.
Why is it when people start being idealistic and not realistic, it costs me money?
If wind farms made sense we wouldn't have to pay people to build them.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by TerryH

Wind and solar power need to be evolved into something less burdensome and more affordable for the general population to latch onto it. There is talk of getting those windmills into the jet stream where they can really crank out the mega-giga-tera-watts. Wind generated power requires miles of transmission lines that are also an eyesore.

Yeah, that'll happen. The reason they are "talking about it" is so the government will give them huge grants to study something that is a bad idea. It can't be done economically, it'll cost way more than it will ever produce, and you think that's a good thing.

Every energy source has it's drawbacks. Wind is good... when it blows, solar is good... when the sun shines. Coal is every-ready, but creates huge emissions. Nuke is good, but there is waste.

Wind is not good. It's too expensive. solar is even worse. The only "good that comes from wind and solar is that they make the fools feel good. the "waste" from a nuke plant is very small. A nuke plant running for 50 years will not generate enough waste to fill a small freaking swimming pool. We dug the uranium up out of the ground, we use it for a while, but when we try to put it back in the ground so deep and so far down that no one would ever be affected by it in a zillion years, the enviro-tards protest it and stop it because they're idiots.

Take your pick, but the general consensus is we have to get out of the coal business for producing electricity.

general consensus if you ask people who don't have a clue on the subject other than what they heard in 10 second sound bites.
We only have one power source that is more economical, cleaner, and better and makes more sense than coal and natural gas. Nuclear. Unfortunately the enviro-tards all but destroyed that industry because they were too stupid to realize what they were doing. Coal can be burned to produce electricity cleanly. We have the technology to scrub the emissions and clean the exhaust so that coal doesn't pollute, and even with that added expense it's still more economical that wind or solar.
It should be illegal to be a hippie.

[David]

The cost is high and yes, they wouldn't be built without gov't assistance, but I believe they should be built.

Wind is free and clean and we can't use it up like other natural resource. Many new technologies (yes I know it's not really that new) would never take off without gov't assistance. Think about gas turbines. Do you think they'd have ever become viable without gov't money in the beginning?

[masraum]

I believe there is outrage against windfarms in some places in Europe, maybe the Netherlands or the North Sea area. I find them visually interesting when I see them. I've seen some in Cali, but not the farms that are in West Texas.

Windmills are more about a warm fuzzy feeling. I'm not sure what I feel about them (other than the fact that I work for a company that uses natural gas to generate power). Nuclear is cheaper and in some ways better, but at the same time, the potential for serious, far reaching problems is greater.

I guess for now all power should come from Calpine, I mean, from Natural Gas power plants (owned by Calpine).

[Jim Richards]

When sammy types, you can feel the love.


I'm jiggy with nuclear. Maybe we can put a nuke power station on the Potomac. Clear out the Capital Yacht Club and build a reactor plant in its place.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Coal can be burned to produce electricity cleanly. We have the technology to scrub the emissions and clean the exhaust so that coal doesn't pollute, and even with that added expense it's still more economical that wind or solar.

Don't forget Natural Gas.