Skip to main content

View Diary: Cape Cod Kennedys: I'm coming after you next (294 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nimby Here (9+ / 0-)

    I live in the virginia mountains..  no I'm not a rich land owner.  5 yrs ago when I heard that  a power company wanted to put 400 ft wind turbines on our ridges I was thrilled..  You see I live a very conservative life style.  I have energy saving light bulbs. I turn off all lights as I leave a room. I unplug TV and computer when not in use..
     I could go on with this  list of  "what I do to be kind to mother Earth" for a very long time.
     but that is not the point of this comment.
     I was thrilled to hear about this , and surprised  to hear many local folks were against them.  so I started researching.  at first all I could find was what the power companies put out.  all good stuff.
     Then I started digging deeper,  reading everything I could find about wind energy around the world.  I've spent 4 yrs doing this research and I have come to the conclusion that jumping into wind energy would be just another BIG mistake.
     the power companies push wind because of the billions of dollars in tax revenue they will receive.
     wind has problems no matter where you put these monsterous  turbines.. but on top of ridges  they are a disaster.  the bird and bat kills will be huge.  as we are THE main  flyway for  inland birds in the east.
     bats use sonar and it reads clear ahead, then a blade comes up or down and kills them.
     the list of what is wrong with wind is very long.  for our county  it will be devestating not only to birds and bats, but also  for our economy.  you see our only growing industry is tourism..  tourists come here not for the excitement.  but for the night sky, the  birds, the beauty and the quiet. lining all our ridges with  400 plus ft tall industrial wind turbines will destroy all those reasons.
     once our homes and these ridges are destroyed by wind turbines , all the power they produce (and they are not terribly efficient) will be shipped out of here via  huge power lines.
     I personally think it is unfair to ask us to get out of the way, and allow our homes and beloved mountains to be destroyed so that  people in cities who are not all conserving energy can maintain their lifestyle.
     why are we not forcing the issue of conserving? did you know that not one country who embraced wind energy has ever shut down a power plant?  do you know that  the human race cannot survive without bats?  bats eat bugs that eat crops, bats eat bugs that cause diisease.
     my arguement with wind is not a whim, nor is it all about my back yard..  it comes from 4 yrs of  hard research.  It also comes from driving through cities and seeing huge houses with every light in the house on.. and knowing that computers and TV's all over this nation are wasting huge amounts of power when they are turned off.  this so that we have the convience of instant on.
     Yes I know global warming is real,,, but making yet another huge mistake is not the way to fix it.  there are other fixes that work better.  wave energy is very promising.  very  small turbines that run a small town hold much promise. solar  is  on the verge of being available to all.
     One more thing. I need these mountains and  the  unspoiled beauty that surrounds me.  BUT , those of you who live in those  cities need these mountains to remain  as they are.  your kids need them and your grandkids need them.
     that is all I have to say on the subject for now. I will gladly share my research with anyone who is interested.
     thanks for reading this.  if you still think wind is the be all and end all of  fixes.  come out here to see what it is you want to destroy.

    •  Good for you! Pumped storage hydro (0+ / 0-)

      is the way to go... http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      •  But pumped storage hydro is STORAGE ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... not power generation.

        This should not be in lieu of energy conservation. This should be one more ... uh, brick in the wall.

        Energy Independence is the best way to get the beast moving, and then the reigns have to be yanked hard to Carbon Negative solutions.

        Read the Great Lakes As A Regional Renewable Energy Resource (pdf) and The Lake Erie Wind Resource. This is about converting from a fossil fuel industrial base to a renewable energy industrial base.

        But reconstruction of our transport system, a complete rethink and overhaul of the way we use energy in our homes, retrofitting suburbs to seed them with viable village settlements ... there is a large number of different steps that must be taken. We have to both dramatically reduce our energy use per person and dramatically increase our renewable energy production. Either one on its own implies that we will look back and say we could have done so much more.

        OH15: IN: Kilroy for Congress. OUT:Deborah Pryce

        by BruceMcF on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:57:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Benefits outweigh the costs? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, ER Doc

      Look, you might damage some species, sure.  But to make a more effective case, you have to compare those local effects against the global effects upon species of the carbon footprint you're reducing.  I don't know the answer to that, I'm just wondering

      "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords..."

      by pawlr on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:13:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I started out on their side (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, Agathena

          I have spent way more time then I ever wanted to spend, researching industrial wind turbines and their effects good and bad..  
        the only way I will ever be convienced they are worth it is for the entire eastern half of the USA to  start conserving and in a big way.. then if we still need to  sacrifice these mountains  I'll consider getting out of the way.

        •  Real conservation would sure be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          javelina

          the best first place to begin.
          However, I just don't see the majority of Americans doing what it takes for real savings and they are not willing to do without. We live in such a wasteful society, everything seems to be made to throw away as soon as something new and improved comes along.

          Also, one person alone often feels like there is really nothing that they can do that would really save 'that much' anyway. What they miss seeing is the big picture. If EVERY HOUSEHOLD in America would just swap ONE incandescent light-bulb to a new CFL, THAT WOULD SAVE TREMENDOUS amounts of electricity. If they would unplug just ONE appliance that uses electricity while unused-that too could save a LOT.

          I don't know what will finally MAKE Americans more likely to conserve-raise the costs perhaps?
          However, I remember that not many people really changed their driving habits at the much costlier gasoline, they just complained louder or cut those dollars from some other part of their budgets.

          I don't know enough about them to say that wind farms are the better choice-I only know that we must start developing more green power. And we all must start using LESS.
          My 2¢.

          I'm ready for a *Tea Party* !

          by Esjaydee on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:03:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Also, you should look more closely at the ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... offshore wind power proposals.

          The offshore discussion is not about isolated sites like ridgeline windfarms ... this is on the order of 30% of the surface area of the Great Lakes (more than half of Lake Erie), and more power than is presently generated in power plants along the shores of the Great Lakes.

          The total resource is similar to the Dakotas, in the 100's of GW's.

          So its not necessary to put a windfarm on every last high yield ridgeline we can find, in order to have a hope of making headway on the climate crisis. Combine baseline power from GW windfarms offshore in the Great Lakes and on land in the Great Plains, smart grid technologies, and decentralized household and neighbourhood scale renewable energy resources, and there can be slack in the system.

          OH15: IN: Kilroy for Congress. OUT:Deborah Pryce

          by BruceMcF on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:13:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  And how many birds are killed by pollution (7+ / 0-)

      put out by coal and oil based energy, or global warming?
       This is a great debate near where I live.  The Livermore area of CA (for one) has many large wind turbines on the hills.  Many people are crying about the bird casualties.  
       I'm a long time member of the Sierra Club and other animal protection groups.  While I too cringe at the unnecessary death of an innocent bird, in my mind the bigger threat to bird life is global warming.  The life cycles of lower species, which  birds depend on to feed their young, are being thrown out of whack so much that some bird species are losing entire generations of hatchlings (no food to feed them.)
       Would need to see more data on this, but in general it appears the loss of birds to wind turbines is small in compard to those potentially lost to pollution and inadequate food.

      My Karma just ran over your Dogma

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:23:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so it's wind or coal or nothing? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kittania

         there are other options.     conservation,  wave energy,  solar,    for starters. smalll wind  turbines running the local area,   individual hydro where they will work.    
        there are many many  alternatives.  
            all it takes to fix the energy problem is  conservation,imagination and  work.  
              there are many ways to help that are more eficient then  400 Plus ft tall industrial  wind turbines.  
             the  wind or die argument comes from those who stand to benefit  financially, as in huge take subsidies.

        •  I did NOT say wind energy is the ONLY option (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          splashy, ER Doc

          You're putting words in my mouth that I never said, just like a Rethug.
           I'm merely saying that nothing is a 100% solution.  There are trade offs to almost every type of energy production.  And IMHO, the trade off for reducing global warming (in order to save all bird species) by using wind produced energy may be "worth" the death of a few birds, as horrid a thought as that is.
           BTW - western CA is also a major migratory path, what with the (few) wetlands it has.

          My Karma just ran over your Dogma

          by FoundingFatherDAR on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 03:47:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  chances are (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            javelina, ER Doc

            Rethug is exactly what he is. Apparently, his only interest in DailyKos is blasting windpower. . . who would profit from stopping windpower?

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:44:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  neither a thug nor a rethug (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Welshman, Bluebirder, kittania, gatorcog

                    I am simply someone who cares deeply for the mountains that surround me.  and the birds that depend upon them.    I am someone who was forced to research this issue.   Forced to dig deeper into this issue, and someone forced to continue to learn everything about wind energy that I can learn.    There are 2 sides to this  issue, and at this time  you can find both arguments.  
                  I simply  hold the opinion that the downside of wind   far outweighs  it's benefits.  there is research out there to support both sides.    I personally don't trust the  power companies to make the best choice in research.
                     in some, though  not all locations, the bird kills   could be huge,   same with bat kills.   this area that I fight for happens to be one of those.
               I have not posted much at kos  though I have been visiting here for quite some time.    I have been away from home for the past couple of months, and not reading nor posting.   I  happily did not have  computer access.  
                    I am sadly not surprisd by the name calling and character judgements.   But please do not insult me with the name  rethug.
                       
                  http://www.heartland.org/...

              •  Your precious Heartland Institute (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                splashy

                is a front for Big Coal that says tobacco smoke is good for you.

                The following sort of makes it even more obvious who the "Heartland Institute" is really working for. They no more deserve to be called environmentalists than Mark Foley deserves to be called a protector of children.

                The New Coal Rush
                Rising energy needs and relaxed regulations fuel a resurgence
                Written By: Frank Jossi
                Published In: Fedgazette
                Publication Date: September 1, 2004
                Publisher: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

                Abstract:  Coal has become a hot commodity, a potential answer to the nation's insatiable desire for inexpensive power and a potential economic boost for remote towns that welcome the industry with open arms. Coal offers a large reservoir of reserves and provides a more accessible and dependable power supply than gas, wind or solar energy, and a less dangerous one than nuclear power, supporters say.

                Your support for the Heartland Institute makes you either a shill or an idiot. Which are you?

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:06:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ahh yes (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  kittania

                  an Editorial  of yours.
                   good night. I shall leave you to your name calling and  anger.
                   

                         
                   

                  •  if you're honest.... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ningen

                    you'll return your check to the PR outfit you're working for and admit to them you've got no discernable skill at what you're presumably being paid for. Some people aren't cut out for astroturfing.

                    I can understand your dislike for facts, but I can not sympathise with it.

                    Stop wasting my time by posting things anybody can find on the right coal industry site and I'll be happy to ignore your existence.

                    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                    by alizard on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:50:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  good luck (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bluebirder

                    I gave up on this a while ago...these diaries are a wind powered echo chamber.  You cannot have a reasonable discussion here on this subject because you'll just get shouted down.

                    "I hate people when they're not polite"

                    by kittania on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 09:48:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  if your idea of (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Jerome a Paris, Ningen

                      "reasonable discussion" is Big Coal shills (or worse, "useful idiots") repeating Big Coal talking points while the rest of us believe everything you've got to say, you aren't going to get it here.

                      The patience of people with NIMBY types also is pretty much at an end... given that the choices for humanity are to:

                      • reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we dump into the air in the next decade
                      • die off

                      people don't by and large have a whole lot of patience with "but, but this might reduce my property values" or "but, this might interfere with my precious views."

                      Unlike you, I've got a windfarm nearby. You can see a picture downthread. And as far as I know, nothing awful has happened in connection with it and I don't feel tragically put upon because I can see a place in which electricity is being made.

                      If you and your neighbors are worried about a windfarm project in your back yards, don't go to the Heartland Institute and load up on right-wing Big Coal talking points, find an alternate site and raise the money to move the windfarm, don't expect the taxpayers to bail you out and don't waste our time on "the horrors" of wind power.

                      Those of us who've researched this or have enough engineering background to know how this sort of thing works know better. Particularly given the known problems of continuing to generate electricity with fossil fuel.

                      With respect to "Window", just click on his name and you'll find out that the only posts he's ever put here are his anti-environmental posts of today. Also note that he's also the only one I've suggested is likely to be an astroturfer.

                      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                      by alizard on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:18:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  may I ask (0+ / 0-)

                        how the fuck do you know?

                        "Unlike you, I've got a windfarm nearby"

                        see...I don't even have to post anything, you can have your own arguement just fine all by yourself

                        "I hate people when they're not polite"

                        by kittania on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 01:40:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  there is a reason (0+ / 0-)

                          why people look at windfarm opponents as stupid. You can discover it by looking in the mirror.

                          Or go find a Big Coal propaganda site and learn your talking points better next time.

                          I think your problem isn't that you don't like facts, it's that you're not smart enough to distinguish fact from fiction.

                          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                          by alizard on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  Sounds like a rethug to me ... (0+ / 0-)

                The Heartland Institute, Education Issue Suite:

                Government schools are islands of socialism in a sea of competition and choice. Visit Heartland's School Reform Issue Suite to learn how choice and privatization would improve K-12 schools.

                Oh, and don't forget, unless you vote Democratic on November the 7th, thousands of rich people will die. Not immediately, but eventually, because a climate crisis does not always play favorites.

                OH15: IN: Kilroy for Congress. OUT:Deborah Pryce

                by BruceMcF on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:21:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I did not call you a Rethug. (0+ / 0-)

                I said you were acting like a Rethug in the way you twisted my words and made it appear as if I said something I never say did nor intended in what I did say.  

                My Karma just ran over your Dogma

                by FoundingFatherDAR on Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 12:51:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  loss of birds.. (4+ / 0-)

        well it depends on where...   some locations would cause huge bird kills.   migration routes for one..
           our ridges are a main eastern migration route.

      •  Many factors need to be taken into (0+ / 0-)

        consideration when designing energy infrastructure, besides cost-benefit.  The land take required for enough windmills to provide for any substantial urban area can be enough to nullify other environmental benefits.  Plopping them in an innapropriate location instead of somewhere where they don't pollute the landscape requires logical planning, not just emotional "we're saving the environment" reactionism.  

        Personally, I like the off-shore idea.  Co-locate windmills with a hydro program that captures a strong tide - air and water turbines.

        It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

        by gatorcog on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:16:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've answered many of your points (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashy, ER Doc

      in various diaries over the past two years. Here's a sample:

      The future of power generation
      Wind power: birds, landscapes and availability (I)
      Something to take your mind off indictments: Windfarm blogging
      Wind power now CHEAPER for US retail consumers
      Alternative energies: wind power
      wind power: debunking the critics
      Wind farm kills eagles in 'large numbers'

      Please read them. All of the points you make are comprehensively debunked. The only one there is no absolute answer to is that of damaging views. This is a highly subjective issue and there is no good answer. For the rest, the facts are on the side of wind: it's cheap, it kills insignificant number of birds, it's good for tourism, and it's good for local communities in jobs and tax income.

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 02:39:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  People who have witnessed the large bird kills (6+ / 0-)

        don't feel that it's been "comprehensively debunked." You make it sound like we just "think" the birds died.

        They died. Some were vulnerable species. Some are already pressured by pollution and global warming.

        Instead of poo-pooing those who are concerned about the documented bird kills, you might want to try and explain that there are ways to reduce the kills.

        If there aren't concrete ways to reduce the kills, you won't win over all environmentalists.

        •  The real questions (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jerome a Paris, alizard

          are, how do the birds taste??
          and are they over-tenderized by the time they're retrieved?

          Seriously. Anything that reduces our dependence on arab death squads outweighs dead birds.

          Period.

          The Geneva Conventions are not a suicide pact

          by Brain Donor on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:15:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, done incorrectly, this is quite possible. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          javelina, splashy

          The key link that Jerome gave was the second link. Example quote:

          The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds. However, evidence from the US and Spain confirms that poorly sited wind farms can cause severe problems for birds, through disturbance, habitat loss/damage or collision with turbines.

          Note a key point in the following:

          To see whether the 13,000 offshore turbines planned for European waters would be a hazard to migrating birds, Mark Desholm and Johnny Kahlert of the National Environmental Research Institute in Rønde, Denmark, used radar to track flocks of geese and eider ducks around the Nysted wind farm in the Baltic Sea. The farm's 72 turbines are laid out in rows with their blades 480 metres apart.

          Desholm and Kahlert found that the birds flew almost exclusively down the corridors between the turbines, with less than 1 per cent getting close enough to risk collision. The birds gave the turbines an even wider berth at night, sticking more closely to the middle of the corridors.

          Many also avoided the wind farm altogether. The researchers found that while 40 per cent of flocks in the survey area crossed the wind farm site before construction started, only 9 per cent ventured among the turbines once they were operating (Biology Letters, DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0336).

          The key point, of course, is that this is an offshore windfarm, so the turbines are laid out across an area in a regular pattern, rather then laid out along a ridgeline. This is what a Great Plains or offshore Great Lakes windfarm would be like.

          So, really, truly, what Jerome said ... this has been diaried. Wind power: birds, landscapes and availability (I) (includes the links for the snippets above).

          Yes, windfarms can be built that are deathtraps for birds, due to use of windgenerators that are bird killers and siting in a way that maximizes the damage. However, if wind farms are designed correctly, our road system and air pollution from coal power plants and gasoline powered cars will take a far higher toll than wind farms.

          OH15: IN: Kilroy for Congress. OUT:Deborah Pryce

          by BruceMcF on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 10:35:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I heard the new turbines are slower (0+ / 0-)

            and thus kill less birds.  Is that true?

            •  The new turbines are slower ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... they had one as an experimental unit in Newcastle, and it definitely is a lot different to the homesteader kind of units that I recall being described in Mother Earth News in the 70's:

              • The turbines are slower ... they don't spin like an airplane propeller, they sweep
              • The support structure is a continuous surface, not an open gantry like framework, so no places that tempt birds to settle in
              • They are designed to be freestanding, without no guylines ... and guylines are tremendous bird killers.

              When you see the statistics that almost as many birds are killed by antenna towers and similar structures as cats, you see how important the second two points are. As is commonly the case, the cheapest possible solution is that cheap only because the 3rd party costs are ignored.

              OH15: IN: Kilroy for Congress. OUT:Deborah Pryce

              by BruceMcF on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 09:55:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I have an answer for the Kennedys (0+ / 0-)

        and their privileged neighbors on Capre Cod.

        The only one there is no absolute answer to is that of damaging views. This is a highly subjective issue and there is no good answer.

        Please, shut up!!!

    •  Kimball Nebraska (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jerome a Paris, splashy

      has a wind farm that produces electricity to neighboring states.

      Kimball is a small town bordering Colorado and Wyo.

      The windmills are white; and when you come over the hill and see them turning slowly; they are indeed beautiful.  I do not know about the detrimental effects: birds etc., but they turn so slowly, I can't think they would destroy many birds.

      In my area the public power companies are doing everything possible to keep wind power out. I would love to see more wind farms.

      In the Platte valley we have coat trains moving constantly thru the valley. They recently added more tracks.

    •  I'm with you in that those using most of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jerome a Paris, javelina

      the power have GOT to start conserving.
      I want a requirement that all new housing must have roof top wind turbines or solar panels installed and I want to see older buildings get tax breaks for installing.

      I want to see more of these types of initiatives:
      http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/...
      http://wind.dynalias.com/...
      http://www.wind-works.org/...

      http://www.windtrap.co.uk/...

      • still there are lots of places, like out here on the Great Plains where wind makes sense.  

      And these new generators are supposedly more bird/bat friendly:

      http://www.tmawind.com/

    •  so how's astroturf paying these days? (0+ / 0-)

      I find it interesting that your only comments to dailykos to be anti-wind power on this diary, despite a 5-digit UID that suggests you've been around for a while.

      As for your "research", I'm sure I can get Big Coal to do my homework in this area, too if I care to spend 5 minutes at google.

      Unlike you, I actually do live near a windfarm. I prefer having it to you as a neighbor.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:41:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Easy now (0+ / 0-)

        Does everbody who doesn't lock-step with your thinking get insulted like this?  Geeeezzz....

        It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

        by gatorcog on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:26:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  only the people who deserve it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BruceMcF

          especially people who, whether they know it or not, are shilling for Big Coal.

          Given what's on the record of the poster being discussed (nothing but anti-environment posts on this diary), I'm inclined to believe that he does know it.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 07:46:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site