Wind Farms - Before pictures

[Ed Richards]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wind-power-20110724,0,5257706.story

Landscape photographers - time to start taking your before pictures for every place that might support a wind farm. If you do a hybrid process and print digitally, I am sure someone will come up with the Photoshop Wind Turbine Eraser plug in.:-)

[Heroique]

They’re popping up like mushrooms West of the Columbia River, along I-90.

Better than coal plants.

Can’t quite explain it, but from a distance, there's something soothing, graceful about them, as long as they don’t interrupt too much of the beautiful, open desert space.

[Michael Gordon]

I believe that solar is a much bigger threat. There are limited places to profitably cite wind turbines, while panels can be sited just about anywhere in the West. Southern California's deserts are under siege from solar projects:

Desert Protective Council (http://dpcinc.org/)
Mojave Desert Blog (http://www.mojavedesertblog.com/)

[Frank Petronio]

In twenty years, once this generation of wind turbines become rusting 300' hulks and the corporations charged with maintaining them skip town, let me know how you like them then....

[Drew Wiley]

We call them bird-choppers.

[jayabbas]

In twenty years, once this generation of wind turbines become rusting 300' hulks and the corporations charged with maintaining them skip town, let me know how you like them then....

I imagine them as a sky perch for high angle l'scape shots or ultra brave base jumpers or just as you say, rusting 300' hulks -- we shall see.

[Michael Kadillak]

The wind farms are one thing. The redundant conventional backup infrastructure such as natural gas pipelines and gas fired generation that add tens of million dollars of costs to the consumer is what gets me going. When the wind does not blow, the power is not going down the line. We would be better off with the backup full time from an economic perspective. But I digress.....

[Greg Lockrey]

I don't know why they just don't put them in the islands on the interstates along with the solar panels..

[Gem Singer]

Northern Texas, just south of the Oklahoma border. Note the wind turbines in the distance.

[Steve M Hostetter]

modern wind turbines are made of fiberglass, aluminum, and composite material. life span is 20 yrs with the ability to have lifespan expanded an additional 15 yrs.
After this time the windmill is removed and no legacy of pollution is left for further generations.

Only negative aspect is wind isn't constant leaving them idol for periods of time.

Solar panels work off the suns radiation 100% of the time.

[Steve Smith]

Solar panels work off the suns radiation 100% of the time.

Even at night?!!


Steve.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Even at night?!!


Steve.

I stand corrected I should have said 100% of the daylight hours thx steve

If you figure in the stored energy created you could say that they work 24-7

[Sirius Glass]

I imagine them as a sky perch for high angle l'scape shots or ultra brave base jumpers or just as you say, rusting 300' hulks -- we shall see.

Cordless Bungee Jumping

No pesky equipment
Makes a great impact
Large expansive coverage after

[Bill_1856]

Somebody told me that they are incredibly noisey. True?

[Steve M Hostetter]

No Bill they make the same noise as a persons voice talking.

That noise is just from the blades cutting through the air. They regularly grease the bearings so there is never any squeaking noises.

[Frank Petronio]

Maybe it sounds like someone talking if your Mother-in-Law moans on endlessly.... To me the most similar feeling is sitting in coach near the engine of a commuter jet.

But $20K per tower, per year makes it sound quieter, amazing....

[Steve Smith]

Most frustrating part is that the most reliable wind is OFFSHORE winds along the coastal areas. They could anchor hundreds of towers offshore.

They do in England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroby_Sands_Wind_Farm

I'm sure they do in other places too.


Steve.

[Sevo]

In twenty years, once this generation of wind turbines become rusting 300' hulks and the corporations charged with maintaining them skip town, let me know how you like them then....

Given the high number of people among us photographing derelict remains of past industrial periods (from steam age to space age), I suppose the then generation of landscape photographers will be loving them...

[Two23]

I believe that solar is a much bigger threat. There are limited places to profitably cite wind turbines,


No wind turbines are anywhere near "profitable." None will even return their cost. I see them as a short lived fad, just another way for politicians to hand other people's money over to their supporters. It's much like ethanol subsidies etc. Solar is even worse from a cost/reward benefit. It's all window dressing, something to allow politicians to speak "happy talk".


Kent in SD

[Steve M Hostetter]

Just a small home wind generator can save you 25,000.00 over 10 yr period or 85%..

And you can pay the thing off in 3 months

[Steve M Hostetter]

Maybe it sounds like someone talking if your Mother-in-Law moans on endlessly.... To me the most similar feeling is sitting in coach near the engine of a commuter jet.

But $20K per tower, per year makes it sound quieter, amazing....

being out in the middle of corn fields who but the grasshoppers will notice.?

[Steve M Hostetter]

I guess smog doesn't effect the scenery,, or roads, highways, houses, buildings, cell phone towers, ships(oil tankers spilling oil),factories,billowing smoke stacks,jet streams,gravel pits,open earth coal mines,train tracks,flag poles,power lines,dams,oil rigs(land) oil rigs off shore(spilling oil),acid rain,diminishing old growth forests,etc.?

reminds me of nazi germany,, in the end all they could say was, " we were lied to"!

[Drew Wiley]

Here the controversy is that low passes between the coast and inland generate the
most predictable winds, which unfortunately, is exactly the migratory path of many
species of songbirds and raptors. Some of them don't notice the blades when they're
whirling, hence the nickname, "bird choppers". Some of our hills have plenty of wind
turbines, but lots of other areas are off limits. But park boundaries aren't what birds pay attention to (though I shouldn't speak too loudly since I have eight cats!)

[Steve M Hostetter]

I guess birds don't die in oil spills

[jp]

Smoggy haze ruins a lot of summer photo opportunities for me in Maine. We get lots of pollution from all over the country blow our way.

We've got a few windmills too. A local island has three full sized ones; their costs for electricity were exceeding 28c/kwh, so they took power generation into their own hands and now are mostly power exporters instead of consumers, and hope to reduce power rates as they pay down their investment. Offshore wind has a future indeed as more land-based people complain about the noise/looks/lights. The higher wind energy found near the ocean adds to the worthwhileness of it.

I think a couple here and there on land are fine; If they were sufficiently distributed and grid connected, it's always windy somewhere, so it should all average out, negating the gripes about needing coal or natural gas to supplement their not-constant output. We don't complain about ubiquitous utility poles in our images; we have grown up with them and know how to avoid showing them in photos or using them for elements of the photo.

Wind or solar doesn't make sense where electric rates are low; but it does make sense in states where power costs are high. I have the misfortune of doing business in a 15c/kwh state. Conservation is the first priority and best investment, then wind or solar could be worthwhile. The only good byproducts of our expensive power is our interest in conservation and support of wind and solar. I expect the rest of the country to see increasing rates eventually as nuke plants retire, oil prices keep going up, etc...

As solar panel prices keep falling (they are now half the cost of just a few years ago), it will be affordable to own a useful quantity of them for your own houses. LED light when their prices get more reasonable, might be a catalyst for people who don't need air conditioning to get off the grid and be done with the power "system" and all it's political faults and old fashioned ways. Sorta like the cord-cutters of today who don't have phone lines anymore. I'd do it right now, but don't wish to incur the debt from purchasing the system and aren't yet thrilled with LED lights.

[Steve Smith]

I would like to see more direct use of wind (or water) power - just like it was done 100 years ago. i.e. rather than generate electricity to run an electric motor, just harness the rotation of the windmill directly.

Worked fine for grinding corn and running weaving looms.


Steve.

[Drew Wiley]

If the winds are predictable, there's no question that the technology works and is even profitable to investors who have rigs in the better locations. Several mid-sized cities in Calif are powered entirely by wind, but that's still a small percent of the overall
demand. I find them photogenic at times, but certainly wouldn't want to see them
everywhere. There's a big controversy over in Marin county right now about a single
windmill being put up in a otherwise scenic vally. The farmer finally compromised and
agreed to install it where it isn't easily seen. But it set a precedent. This is one county
where being "green" places the priority on scenery itself. Most of us dread the thought of oil rigs being placed offshore from our marine sanctuaries here, which can produce a lot more havoc in short order than wind turbines. But once the turbines are there, so is the infrastructure of lots of little roads all over the farmland. We are lucky to live in an area which significant tracts of land were already previously set aside as official open space and off-limits to development of any kind.

[photobymike]

They’re popping up like mushrooms West of the Columbia River, along I-90.

Better than coal plants.

Can’t quite explain it, but from a distance, there's something soothing, graceful about them, as long as they don’t interrupt too much of the beautiful, open desert space.

Most people do not want to live near them because of the noise, and they kill birds, lots of them...

[Steve M Hostetter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD0v9_zV2uk

I guess it ain't no daisy

I spent a week on the largest wind farms in the country up in Fowler Indiana and I didn't see any sign of dead birds under or around the turbines, no blood on the blades,nothing.

I'd be inclind to think that with the noise the birds would avoid them even at night ,, like they must do in the case of avoiding high tension power lines

[Heroique]

I say forget the birds – industrial energy is what matters, and silly animals shouldn’t get in the way of our higher species. Plus, no law forces a free people to live near noise pollution – or any other kind of pollution. Migrate! ;^)

[Greg Lockrey]

I say forget the birds – industrial energy is what matters, and silly animals shouldn’t get in the way of our higher species. Plus, no law forces a free people to live near noise pollution – or any other kind of pollution. Migrate! ;^)

LOL Now we know where to put one! LOL

[Drew Wiley]

To the contrary, some birds want to land on them or fly fairly low, but don't recognize the blades when they're spinning. Bird brains, I guess, but no dumber than some of the people around here who will step into traffic or run a red light without looking. Like I said, certain migratory birds use the rush of air at the passes for routine migration, which is exactly where the wind farms work best. Different than out on the plains. The saddest thing that used to happen were Calif condors trying to land on high tension power poles. Even though the lines are ten feet apart, these birds are so big that their wings would touch both lines at the same time as they lowered them. Losing a single condor was a big deal at one time, and perhaps still is.

[Scott Walker]

Don't forget about the bats, the big ones kill lots of bats.
The new ones we have up here seem to be quiter than the wind itself but the smaller faster spinning ones are damn noisy.

[Steve M Hostetter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6bXKcbATY

do your own research

[Peter De Smidt]

We live near a lot of the big windmills. I've walked under them a number of times, and I've never seen a dead bird on the ground. What's the evidence that they kill lots of birds?
(I'm not saying that I'm in favor of or against them, as I don't know enough. )

[jp]

I own a large number of traditional radio towers ranging from 40-300'. People blame them for killing birds too. I've never seen a dead bird around any of the towers. I'm scared of heights, so I'm usually the safety guy on the ground wandering around bored (sometimes taking photos) while someone else climbs and works. We work at lots of other people's tower too. It is sometimes possible that foxes remove birds at some sites, but many sites are fenced in pretty serious and they would not be able to get to the birds if they were killed. So evidence shows me the bird concerns are overrated.

[Scott Walker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6bXKcbATY

do your own research

Ok, I did

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAAzBArYdw&NR=1

[Steve M Hostetter]

Ok, I did

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAAzBArYdw&NR=1

yeah I seen the buzzard playing chicken with the windmill for all of 5 minutes,, If you watch the next video you'll see he lived ..

now lets try dunking his head in motor oil

[Drew Wiley]

Wind turbines are pretty damn affordable compared to hydroelectric or geothermal.
And what is any more expensive about extending an electrical grid versus natural gas
lines? Either way, you need infrastructure and access, and someone is going to game the cost of the energy at the end anyway. The bird studies get fairly serious. A few wisecracks and shoot-from-the-hip web searches aren't really competition for the kind of long-term bird census work going on around critical areas. Geese fly in formation and often relatively high unless water or forage are nearby, so are a poor analogy.

[Steve M Hostetter]

There is a law in Marion county that states you can't have a windmill ,, hmm I wonder why..? Because big corp. like the electric companies don't want to lose customers and the big corperations run this country..
Considering the money the power company already has invested in the current tech. they would lose money to change over so it's easier to lie to you then to address the facts
Again,I would research the numbers for yourself and not listen to hear say
I've already broke it down on a personal scale with the home kit wind generators @ a $2500.00 a year savings with the current electric rates

[Steve M Hostetter]

http://www.onlinedownloads.org/diary/home-family/make-your-own-windmill-and-save-money/

The idea is that you don't need to hook into their grid unless you wanna sell the electric company the extra generated power you don't need but that would be a much larger investment to get started..

The down side is that it needs to be legal to have one in your county and you need to have wind.

The up side is that you get totally free electricity and YOU get the huge tax credits!

[Frank Petronio]

Just a FWIW don't stand near a windmill in winter or spring thaw time... the blades can slough off huge, killer sheets of ice and toss them in a 500' radius around the windmill.

[Dave Jeffery]

OT

The use of windmills to capture energy is part of the effort to prevent large scale human extinction due to our continuing global alteration of the composition of our atmosphere. We have increased the percentage of CO2 in the atmophere by 30% over pre-industrial levels (we have just hit 360 ppm vs 280 ppm max over the previous 400,000 years)

Some people may be able to remember the record setting heat waves last week in the US.

"Record-Setting Heat Wave in U.S. Settles in as "Silent Killer"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-heat-wave-silent-killer

A few may remember the record heat waves in Russia last year and in Europpe a few years ago.

2010 was the hottest year on record and 10 of the hottest years have been in the last 15 years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

Arctic sea ice extent at is at record lows this year and people that understand the albedo effect know that this is a life threatening positive warming feedback.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110718_Figure2.png

Imagine being a photographer in the Arctic and documenting the huge changes there. How could other photographers not believe you? This is a great presentation.

Paul Nicklen at TED Tales of an Icebound Wonderland
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_nicklen_tales_of_ice_bound_wonderlands.html


National Geographic's documentation of the threat to the walruses as they have to beach themselves when the ice that they use to rest on and feed from is gone, or is too far off the shelf that is their food source
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100927-us-walrus-haul-vin-video/


I'm sure that a number of people on this forum don't yet understand anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and even though you are photographers you might somehow be able to block out the visual information provided above. The corporate controlled media has done a great job of misinforming people and Exxon admits it funds dishonest global warming denial entities.

I really find it unfortunate that none of you can likely overturn the vast volume of science on the matter. Nothing would make me more happy than to have anyone on this forum, including myself, disprove the science of anthropogenic global warming. The good news is that there is a science forum that has been set up for just this purpose.

This is an important subject so if you believe that you have the evidence, data sets, scientific studies, or other means to overturn the international scientific consensus on AGW please sign into the following science forum and present your evidence and/or opinion. If you don't believe that humans are responsible and that global warming is not a big issue here is your chance to test you beliefs.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176635


Methane relaease from the tundra and the Eastern Siberia Shelf is the 800 lb gorilla in the room and we will likely not survive much more warming

From the BBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKyRHDFKEXQ

also

"Shakhova notes that Earth's geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years,"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142240.htm

I do love climate deniers capacity to attempt to argue the matter from a position of near complete ignorance of the science, so it's no surprise that people don't understand the importance of trying to harness clean wind energy.

Again, you don't believe that AGW is a problem? then perhaps it's time for you to speak up and present your evidence. If you have an opinion on the matter it would be just great if it was supported by any valid science, and if so the international scientific community needs to hear from you. This is a great first step to check out your ideas, data, etc.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176635

There is a great YouTube channel by David Sinclair called "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" which is great.

http://www.google.com/#q=climate+denial+crock+of+the+weel+site:youtube.com&sa=X&ei=7wAwTqrxJcWCgAeM54iUAQ&ved=0CDQQ2wE&hl=en&sqi=2&ei=7wAwTqrxJcWCgAeM54iUAQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=971b927f14c14c2f&biw=1227&bih=952


This is the information that one of our leading scientists in the field, James Hansen, is currently presenting.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf


We need many more windmills, solar panels and most importantly a means to sequester large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. The ultimate irony is that the Earth's massive mantle is comprised mostly of peridotite which obsorbs CO2.

Isn't it time to ask yourself how much you really understand about the science of climate change?

[Michael Kadillak]

Clearly, this is a very emotional issue. I just visited a large wind farm in Texas and lordy me they are friggin noisy as the dickens. I could hear those blades ripping from more than 1/2 mile away. There is no perfect energy on earth and wind has its issues. The esthetic push back is real and when one looks carefully at the raw generation numbers relative to the size of the facilities this is where the buck stops for me. To get us the raw power that we need to make a difference there is not enough area where the wind blows to get us some meaningful results. Ditto for solar. Until we get some orders of magnitude improvements of efficiency, we are not getting much accomplished.

[Sevo]

Clearly, this is a very emotional issue. I just visited a large wind farm in Texas and lordy me they are friggin noisy as the dickens. I could hear those blades ripping from more than 1/2 mile away.

That may be more obvious when you place windmills in deserts or offshore, where there is no natural wind noise at low wind speeds - the only time I could hear a windmill was on a shoreline installation. The wind farms around my place are all among trees, where their noise is entirely masked by the natural background noise of the wind in the trees.

[Dave Jeffery]

Until we get some orders of magnitude improvements of efficiency, we are not getting much accomplished.

We have to start somewhere and this is just the beginning. One can only imagine the improvements that will result from further studies and empirical evidence, given the current technologies that are available.

I will look for the link for a very successful installation that I just read about.

We will learn.

[photobymike]

just google windmill and birds ... here in florida we have alot birds. i could see it now.... alligators would make the home at the base of wind power, because the dinner would be catered.... there food would just drop in front of them.

[E. von Hoegh]

Clearly, this is a very emotional issue. I just visited a large wind farm in Texas and lordy me they are friggin noisy as the dickens. I could hear those blades ripping from more than 1/2 mile away. There is no perfect energy on earth and wind has its issues. The esthetic push back is real and when one looks carefully at the raw generation numbers relative to the size of the facilities this is where the buck stops for me. To get us the raw power that we need to make a difference there is not enough area where the wind blows to get us some meaningful results. Ditto for solar. Until we get some orders of magnitude improvements of efficiency, we are not getting much accomplished.

Here in the Adirondacks, many lakes are troutless due to acid rain. There isn't a single body of water or river that doesn't have a fish consumption advisory due to contaminants, usually mercury. This is a lot less attractive than a wind farm.
The technologies we have now would pollute less if we reduced our energy consumption by reducing the energy we waste. Do you need ALL the lights in the house on? Do you NEED an SUV that never carries more than your butt and some groceries? How about all those phantom electric loads? And so on.

[Sevo]

just google windmill and birds ... here in florida we have alot birds. i could see it now.... alligators would make the home at the base of wind power, because the dinner would be catered.... there food would just drop in front of them.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php

[Jay DeFehr]

In twenty years, once this generation of wind turbines become rusting 300' hulks and the corporations charged with maintaining them skip town, let me know how you like them then....

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindkraftv%C3%A6rket_Tvindkraft

This one has been producing power since 1978, using mostly original parts. I'm sure there have been more than a few technological advances since 1978.

[Scott Walker]

Isn't it time to ask yourself how much you really understand about the science of climate change?

When I was kid I was told by people that claimed to be the worlds foremost experts on the climate that we were contaminating the atmosphere and starting an ice age that would kill us all.

Once I grew up and discovered that I had not froze to death these same experts along with a new crop of brainiacks started telling me that we are contaminating our atmosphere which is going to cause global warming which would cause the oceans to rise, crops to fail, and it would kill us all.

A couple of years ago a bunch of these so called experts got caught lying and falsifying data in order to help their cause, shortly after this happened I was informed that it was no longer global warming but climate change that was going to kill us all.

All of this coming from a group of people that have about a 50/50 chance of predicting the weather here for next Tuesday.

That is what I understand about the science of climate change :eek:

[Steve Smith]

here in florida we have alot birds.

I've never heard of the alot bird.


Steve.

[Drew Wiley]

Scott - when I was a kid I was already reading research papers on engineering problems expected in the high arctic due to permafrost failure. Guess who funded these studies? Guess who still does? Who has the most stake financially in terms of exploiting the arctic? In any scientific field including medicine there are a handful of rogues who falsify data in order to get and unfair jump on research funding. Does that mean you never go to a docter again if you're sick? There's nothing particularly controversial about any of this from the standpoint of the scientific community at large, only from a propaganda standpoint from certain polluting or exploitive interests and their political lackeys. There are thousands of engineers and scientists all over the world studying global warming and already planning how to cope with its effects. I
know some of them quite well, and they certainly don't belong to any kind of information conspiracy. Doesn't mean the long-term weather patterns will be predictable; but that fact in itself makes the whole scenario pretty scary.

[Frank Petronio]

You can argue the validity of human-made climate change all you want... I am usually skeptical and fiscally conservative, but I have no doubt that human-made pollution has to have an effective on our climate.

I also know that the 1812 volcanic eruption in the South Seas caused the following several years to be much cooler than normal, leading to crop failures, which led to political disruptions that affected empires and commerce worldwide. Something like that occurring in our lifetime is very possible, likely even, and it would trump the entire Industrial Revolution's pollution with one event.

I'm skeptical that we can ever reverse any global warming process that is already in place, and I am not sure the proposed cures are any better than accepting the hand we are dealt. To completely reinvent our industrial base, economy, energy and land use years ahead of a nebulous threat -- well, it isn't in our species' nature is it? And we really can't predict where, when, or how global warming will impact us. So why should we screw up our economy when it could just as likely be pointless and futile?

We should remove subsidies while also holding polluters to clean up and pay the true cost of fixing their messes, so as consumers we are paying the true cost of our energy consumption. Only then will you see the wide-spread adoption and changes necessary, and we'll be able to adapt to whatever happens faster and more effectively than if we have to wait for international negotiations and stagnant, corrupt political bodies like the UN or the US Congress to act.

If you started to factor in the real cost of providing energy, including security, health risks, clean-ups -- including wars, nuclear waste, lost rivers, dead birds, transmission losses -- our gas prices would probably double but we'd see some really rapid innovation and true changes to our lifestyle. And whomever develops viable alternatives, be it Hydrogen or some magic juice, will lead the world.

[Drew Wiley]

Hydrogen fuel cell technology is already here. The problem is, it takes a LOT of
conventional energy to extract the hydrogen, then you've got distribution issues, etc. There ain't no free ride. I remember half a century ago my high school physics class took a field trip to the Lawrence Berkeley Lab up the hill here. We received fancy brochures and a lecture about how fusion would provide unlimited power to everyone by 1980 and eliminate our need to burn dirty fossil fuels. So a couples years ago they've managed to sustain a fusion reaction for about a millionth of a second at unbelievable cost in a building holding the world's biggest laser. Won't exactly fit under the hood of your car. I also recently saw a documentary piece on a French automobile
that would go sixty miles with zero pollution using only compressed air in a high-pressure carbon-fiber air storage tank. Of course, at the end of each day they needed
a big diesel air compressor belching out smoke and grit to fill it. Nothing comes free.
Go take pictures of those glaciers now, folks. The next generation might not have many to choose from.

[Tom J McDonald]

Drew Wiley, what's stopping them hooking up that car to a wind turbine?

[Scratched Glass]

Interesting discussion. Turbines kill birds by collisions and the change in air pressure around the blades causes a bats lungs to explode. They are also an eyesore in your neighborhood. There is the alternative we already have; mercury in our fish, oil slicks on the water, billions of dollars going to prop up dictators and monarchies. I'll take the wind turbine, but if every roof had a solar panel, it wouldn't take up any of the landscape

[Michael Kadillak]

When the Kennedy's embrace the installation of wind turbines near their family vacation home for the good of the country, I will similarly step in line. Until then I will rely upon common sense and pragmatism to be my personal guide. Fact of the matter is this.

A natural gas fired 1,000 MW power generation station would emit a minor amount of emissions and only require a 5 acre footprint with 25 employees to run it. To generate a similar amount of solar energy would require an enormous surface area. Similarly it would require wind turbines as far as the eye could see.

The bottom line for me is is this. Wind turbines are a friggin eyesore wherever they are located. Plus, there are only a limited area where they can be located - ie. where the wind blows sufficiently enough. Ditto for solar panels. Human beings are inherently bad for the environment even on their best days. We need power so I am into the best bang for the buck using some simple common sense. People inherently do not want them in their back yard just like penitentiaries.

What good does it do this country to pass emission regulation forcing coal fired electrical generation in the US to be a thing of the past when Asia is buying 2X the coal they bought 10 years ago from this country and burning it to the nines. In a week it is over the Eastern Mountains propagating more acid rain and what have we really accomplished? God gave us a brain for a reason. Check your emotion at the front door. Without reliable power we would not be participating in this forum. I personally am not willing to pay 20-30% more for my power bill just to feel good about how I am saving the planet for my kids. I would rather save that for their tuition payments.

[Drew Wiley]

Tom - no need for a wind turbine to power a car, just use a sail! Or only drive downhill.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

You're not willing to look at wind farms or solar panels, or regulate coal burning, or pay more for your energy to save the planet for your kids, and you call this common sense? You advocate natural gas as a solution to the energy problem, but I can tell you, if natural gas was cheaper than oil or coal, we'd already be using it instead. Natural gas generally burns cleaner than oil or coal, but it's nothing like clean compared to wind or solar, and burning is only the last bit. Before natural gas can burn, it has to be extracted and transported, and that's very dirty business. The fact of the matter is this: no single energy source will provide for the energy needs of an increasingly urban global community. Get used to that idea. Wind and solar will play larger roles, along with natural gas, biofuels, and (drumroll)... artificial life! Designer DNA implanted into enzymes will convert carbon to diesel fuel. Whatever sources of energy we eventually depend on, you can be sure you'll pay a lot more for it as global demand has only begun to rise, and that's the bottom line.

[Heroique]

...What good does it do this country to pass emission regulation forcing coal fired electrical generation in the US to be a thing of the past when Asia is buying 2X the coal they bought 10 years ago from this country and burning it to the nines?

To reduce this country’s per-capita production of CO2 – higher by far than China’s.

Anyway, if we can reduce the rate we remove carbon from the ground and spill it into the air, we’re heading in the right direction. I agree it’s not comfortable to consider how it might be done; it’s even less comfortable to actually do it, and not see immediate, measurable, global benefits.

Or in different words: to trade current personal comforts for future & uncertain global benefits does not motivate much behavioral change, especially if your personal comforts satisfy you.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael,

You're not willing to look at wind farms or solar panels, or regulate coal burning, or pay more for your energy to save the planet for your kids, and you call this common sense? You advocate natural gas as a solution to the energy problem, but I can tell you, if natural gas was cheaper than oil or coal, we'd already be using it instead. Natural gas generally burns cleaner than oil or coal, but it's nothing like clean compared to wind or solar, and burning is only the last bit. Before natural gas can burn, it has to be extracted and transported, and that's very dirty business. The fact of the matter is this: no single energy source will provide for the energy needs of an increasingly urban global community. Get used to that idea. Wind and solar will play larger roles, along with natural gas, biofuels, and (drumroll)... artificial life! Designer DNA implanted into enzymes will convert carbon to diesel fuel. Whatever sources of energy we eventually depend on, you can be sure you'll pay a lot more for it as global demand has only begun to rise, and that's the bottom line.

It comes down to simple efficiency and costs. Electric cars are touted as environmentally responsible but nobody wants to talk about the manufacturing of massive amount of toxic chemicals that go into the numerous batteries that go into them. Plus, when they wear out how do we dispose of these batteries and chemicals? Coal emissions could be cleaned up but the impetus is to put the coal companies out of business in this country because they are perceived as dirty. The natural gas companies are put into this negative category as well and contrary to your opinion, natural gas is a very clean industry that puts out a clean and efficient energy that is going to save our ass because we now have over 150 years of it - yipee!!

The public has shelved nuclear for a very long time after what happened in Japan and our fearless leaders are incapable of setting the energy direction for this country (or any direction for that matter) so the markets are by default doing this for them.

In this economy we do not need high cost energy which is essentially comes from wind and solar. We need to buy some time so that we can weather the storm economically to make the conversions to a more diverse portfolio of energy alternatives slowly as a function of time.

[Frank Petronio]

It's all pointless, we should just burn up the fossil fuels first. By the time we exhaust them the Singlarity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) will occur and we can let our better machine selves figure it out.

As for Natural Gas, all for it unless they go fracking in my backyard. I wouldn't like eminent domain taking control of what's underneath my land and then wrecking my water supply and giving my kids cancer. Makes me feel like a Serf. Maybe out West or in Hillbilly country it's normal but it don't fly in the land of the free (Upstate New York haha).

[Michael Kadillak]

I agree Frank.

Ironically, the National Geographic magazine that years ago touted The End Of Cheap Oil did not take into consideration that there is plenty of hydrocarbons to be found at higher prices which happen to be far less than the alternative energy costs that are currently on the table. And the industry is finding oil like a big dog. Now that we have technology to explore the outer continental shelf it is a whole new chapter in the business. The BP spill was an entirely unnecessary event that I hope will never ever happen again, but hurricane Katrina was an absolutely terrible event as well.

Without some form of government intervention, the energy portfolio in this country will continue to contain an innocuous percentage of alternative fuels until the price of these is equal to or less than petroleum based energy. Since we have 150 years of natural gas, this could be some time in the future. While I acknowledge that many people want to feel good about doing the right thing, the overwhelming energy consumer makes their decision with their pocket book and also vote.

Boulder Colorado is complaining that the local utility is not "green" enough for them and they want to create their own municipal energy utility. It is going to the voters in November with the real increased costs of doing so. We shall see how much above market the economy and the voters there are willing to contractually commit to for the purpose of attaining this green objective.

[Tom J McDonald]

Tom - no need for a wind turbine to power a car, just use a sail! Or only drive downhill.

Or get slaves to push you :rolleyes:

[Jay DeFehr]

The natural gas companies are put into this negative category as well and contrary to your opinion, natural gas is a very clean industry that puts out a clean and efficient energy that is going to save our ass because we now have over 150 years of it - yipee!!

Michael,

I was part of the team that built the largest offshore natural gas platform in Asia, and I'm currently working in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, where a $40 billion gas pipeline project was recently shelved. I know the issues. Your electric car example is a good one for illustrating your characterization of natural gas; if you only look at the end product, it looks very good, but when the complete picture is seen, it's more complicated. Natural gas is only one of many energy sources that will need to be developed to keep up with consumption. Wind and solar are two others.


In this economy we do not need high cost energy which is essentially comes from wind and solar. We need to buy some time so that we can weather the storm economically to make the conversions to a more diverse portfolio of energy alternatives slowly as a function of time.

I'm glad you're not advising anyone on our national energy policy. There is no low cost energy, and developing wind and solar are part of the diverse portfolio we all depend on. It's far too late to wait to develop alternative energies, and our economy will not survive continued procrastination for long. National Geographic was right, of course. Cheap oil ran out a long time ago. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. There are very good reasons we're going to the extreme measures we are to get oil out of the ground here, or from the oil sands in Canada, or drilling ever deeper wells offshore, and it's not because we're "finding oil like a big dog", it's because the oil that remains is harder to find and more expensive to extract. We're developing alternative energy sources because we understand that the time is coming when they will be competitive with oil, and we want to be in a position to profit from them, not because we "want to feel good about doing the right thing". It's the economy, stupid. What you don't understand about the energy industry and economics could fill volumes, but one of those things is that there is a green economy, and it deals in more than feelings, so don't be surprised when the municipal energy initiative passes. Remember that In April 2007, Boulder became the first municipality in the world to launch a dedicated carbon tax (on electricity usage) to fund climate change related interventions. No municipality has ever gone broke going green, but maybe you'd prefer to leave the energy policies to the experts at Enron?

[Michael Kadillak]

Really. Constructing an offshore platform qualifies you to know the dynamic infrastructural issues?

Unlike you I have a degree in Petroleum Engineering with 30 years of experience in the industry and have spend considerable time designing the kind of engineering projects that you are responsible for physically construct so don't call me stupid. Your explanation of your experience qualifies you for opinion, but not much more. The CEO of the team that decided to shelf the project in Alaska was my first boss at Amoco years ago and he made a prudent decision to walk away. You do not have a clue as to what is really happening in the industry and I will leave it at that. I am not going to spend my time with someone that espouses the credentials of someone that has boardroom experience with the issues when in reality you are simply an opinionated citizen. Have a Great Day!


Michael,

I was part of the team that built the largest offshore natural gas platform in Asia, and I'm currently working in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, where a $40 billion gas pipeline project was recently shelved. I know the issues. Your electric car example is a good one for illustrating your characterization of natural gas; if you only look at the end product, it looks very good, but when the complete picture is seen, it's more complicated. Natural gas is only one of many energy sources that will need to be developed to keep up with consumption. Wind and solar are two others.



I'm glad you're not advising anyone on our national energy policy. There is no low cost energy, and developing wind and solar are part of the diverse portfolio we all depend on. It's far too late to wait to develop alternative energies, and our economy will not survive continued procrastination for long. National Geographic was right, of course. Cheap oil ran out a long time ago. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. There are very good reasons we're going to the extreme measures we are to get oil out of the ground here, or from the oil sands in Canada, or drilling ever deeper wells offshore, and it's not because we're "finding oil like a big dog", it's because the oil that remains is harder to find and more expensive to extract. We're developing alternative energy sources because we understand that the time is coming when they will be competitive with oil, and we want to be in a position to profit from them, not because we "want to feel good about doing the right thing". It's the economy, stupid. What you don't understand about the energy industry and economics could fill volumes, but one of those things is that there is a green economy, and it deals in more than feelings, so don't be surprised when the municipal energy initiative passes. Remember that In April 2007, Boulder became the first municipality in the world to launch a dedicated carbon tax (on electricity usage) to fund climate change related interventions. No municipality has ever gone broke going green, but maybe you'd prefer to leave the energy policies to the experts at Enron?

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael, I wasn't calling you stupid, I was referencing the Clinton campaign slogan, but I'm not surprised you missed it. You don't strike me as politically sophisticated. And yes, working in the petroleum extraction industry does provide some insights into the issues surrounding the extraction of petroleum. I also know too many petroleum engineers to very impressed by that credential, and especially in light of your posts here. Whatever your background, you demonstrate no familiarity with economics, or even the realities of the energy industry at large. Or perhaps you're just ignoring the realities to make your point, whatever that might be. I haven't worked in the industry quite as long as you have, but maybe I'm a quicker study. I never claimed boardroom experience, and that doesn't isolate me from the issues. But then, you didn't comment on the content of my post, but merely attempted to pull rank. Typical.

[Frank Petronio]

Jay, we should really harness your hot air and bull$hit as an endless energy source. A few six-packs and soy-burgers -- problems solved!

[Michael Kadillak]

Out of respect for the majority of the good folks on this forum, I will respectfully leave what has been articulated as the documentable trail of discussion on this issue and not be drawn into a fools game. I have more important things to do.

[Tom J McDonald]

I actually find wind farms attractive in their own way.
Maybe because I don't see them everyday, not sure.

I also am attracted visually to coal-fired powerstations.

[Mike Anderson]

....Plus, when they wear out how do we dispose of these batteries and chemicals?

Burn 'em. ;)

...Mike

[jp]

Plus, when they wear out how do we dispose of these batteries and chemicals?

Big Batteries are one of the mostly highly recycled items we have today. While these cars don't use lead acid batteries, I understand lead acid batteries to be 100% recyclable, and an unusually high percentage ends being recycled due to the system of "core charges" and so forth. I'm sure the special batteries these cars use will also end up recycled due to their high cost. Most of cars end up getting recycled before the end of their life anyways. They get totalled or have some little rust holes so they come off the road, get picked for parts, crushed and off to be new steel for something. My main beef with hybrids/electrics is that I want something simple and sporty for personal use. They mostly stopped making such cars 20 years ago though.



The other point worth making... Unrelated and should be a post by itself. There is a disconnect between what the public sees of a business and what actually happens.

Marketing != Business

Thus

Green Marketing != Green Business.

I'm self employed. I'm bad at green marketing but effective in green business. If there's someway to save money or do something favorable for the future of my company that happens to be green, I'm all over it. e.g. I choose solar panels for radio sites if they are cheaper than running power poles a long ways through the woods. I'd choose a hybrid car for my workers if its use meant a worthwhile savings in gasoline for it's particular use/route.

At the other end of the extreme, some businesses are good at marketing green and bad at doing it, which sets them up for hypocracy. I'm thinking of stories where ultra-earthy businesses promote recycling and don't bother to do it themself.

[tlitody]

No wind turbines are anywhere near "profitable." None will even return their cost. I see them as a short lived fad, just another way for politicians to hand other people's money over to their supporters. It's much like ethanol subsidies etc. Solar is even worse from a cost/reward benefit. It's all window dressing, something to allow politicians to speak "happy talk".


Kent in SD

All energy has it's root in solar power. Oil is the residue from solar power. Gas is the residue from solar power. Wind is the residue from solar power. But the thing that really shows how stupid humanity is, is that just a little way below your feet is enough stored heat energy to keep everyone in virtually free energy for the rest of humanity. Unfortunately because its virtually free no companies will invest in thermal energy.
A heat pump system for your home heating and hot water uses 1 unit of electricity to extract 4 from the ground and all you need is single electric pump to run it.
Costs quite a lot to install it (if you have the land and suitable underground geology) but once installed it costs next to nothing to run it.

Check out what they do in Iceland. OK they got it easy cos its so near to the surface. But in the UK we are already beginning to implement thermal heating systems for big city buildings because the on going heating costs are reduced.
Its simple for someone with a big garden to dig trenches to do self install of thermal heating sustems. AND because they are just heat exchangers they can be used to cool your house in summer too. Just think how much you wills save on running air conditioners when your hot water is generated from air heat exchangers.

[rguinter]

OT

The use of windmills to capture energy is part of the effort to prevent large scale human extinction due to our continuing global alteration of the composition of our atmosphere. We have increased the percentage of CO2 in the atmophere by 30% over pre-industrial levels (we have just hit 360 ppm vs 280 ppm max over the previous 400,000 years)....


There is a great YouTube channel by David Sinclair called "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" which is great.

We need many more windmills, solar panels and most importantly a means to sequester large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. The ultimate irony is that the Earth's massive mantle is comprised mostly of peridotite which obsorbs CO2....



Perhaps all this is barking up the wrong tree. Instead of advocating all this "green" growth in energy production (windmills, solar, etc.) and posing our "crock of the week" regarding denial of humanity-caused atmospheric changes, shouldn't we be looking at the "glut of humanity" itself as the root cause? Why is no-one advocating population controls?

Not too long ago when there was 1/10 the number of human beings on the planet we (essentially) had none of these problems.

So what shape are we going to be in (as a species) when there are 10 times more of us than there are now?

All the windmills and solar farms that could possibly be built will not suffice. And where will the food and water come from to feed this massive blob of humanity?

I wonder...

Bob G.

[Greg Lockrey]

Perhaps all this is barking up the wrong tree. Instead of advocating all this "green" growth in energy production (windmills, solar, etc.) and posing our "crock of the week" regarding denial of humanity-caused atmospheric changes, shouldn't we be looking at the "glut of humanity" itself as the root cause? Why is no-one advocating population controls?

Not too long ago when there was 1/10 the number of human beings on the planet we (essentially) had none of these problems.

So what shape are we going to be in (as a species) when there are 10 times more of us than there are now?

All the windmills and solar farms that could possibly be built will not suffice. And where will the food and water come from to feed this massive blob of humanity?


I wonder...

Bob G.

We do have human population controls.... we call them WARS.

[Mike Anderson]

...Why is no-one advocating population controls?


Some environmentalist (I forget who) said the very best thing a person can do for the environment is to not produce offspring.

...Mike

[Jay DeFehr]

Bob,

You make an interesting point. I have a friend who is a biologist and broken record on population control. He's a true Malthusian. My argument is that population density is required for cultural evolution, and our current standard of living (in industrialized nations) is higher than it's ever been. In fact, the place with the highest population density on earth (upper East side of Manhattan), also enjoys the highest standard of living. Meanwhile, places with the lowest population densities overwhelmingly endure the lowest standards of living.

I have a radical view; I think we're evolving beyond our environment. In the distant future, our descendants will be largely immune to environmental conditions.

[Drew Wiley]

Is dat how youse explain why New Yoikers is so rude to each other, ya doity joik?

[Jay DeFehr]

Drew,

I like your accent! Is there a difference between New Yoikers and New Yawkers?

[BillGM]

To late for so many of my special places along the once spectacular upper Columbia Gorge in Oregon. The winds machines are plastered along every hill as far as the eye can see. Green I suppose, but so sad to see such beautiful land covered in technology for the masses. Thank God much of the lower Gorge enjoys some protection.
Oh well.

[Michael Kadillak]

To late for so many of my special places along the once spectacular upper Columbia Gorge in Oregon. The winds machines are plastered along every hill as far as the eye can see. Green I suppose, but so sad to see such beautiful land covered in technology for the masses. Thank God much of the lower Gorge enjoys some protection.
Oh well.

But it is not supposed to look good it is supposed to make you FEEL good.

Personally, I would rather pay extra to keep these massive eyesores out of the landscape. I would opt for a newly designed nuke plant that adheres to the highest engineering standard rather than have 30 + windmills along the upper columbia gorge.

[Jay DeFehr]

I would opt for a newly designed nuke plant that adheres to the highest engineering standard rather than have 30 + windmills along the upper columbia gorge.

Do you mean, like the Japanese ones? Or do you imagine a newer design would be invulnerable? At least we wouldn't need to worry about a wind spill, or a solar meltdown.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I would opt for a newly designed nuke plant that adheres to the highest engineering standard rather than have 30 + windmills along the upper columbia gorge.


Do you mean, like the Japanese ones? Or do you imagine a newer design would be invulnerable?...I'm sure Michael will speak for himself, but my answer is no, not "like the Japanese ones." Fukushima Daiichi are 35 year old GE "Mark 1" designs.

The clean promise of nuclear power is indeed difficult to achieve when corporate profitability drives design and operating decisions. In a perfect world, competent, conservative technical personnel would have the final say, thereby enabling plants that "adhere to the highest engineering standard." Unfortunately, bean counters rule both the plant manufacturers and energy companies.

Given that there seems to be no willingness on the public's part to accept human population growth as the root cause of all environmental problems, we're left with an ever-growing need for more electrical capacity. My preference would be for the government to recognize that, while unable to be economic when properly done, nuclear generation, the most practical solution, is worthy of subsidization and severe design regulation. The result, while not "invulnerable," could be made more safe than coal and gas plants are now. But doing so would require that a "public good" be paid for by the public, i.e. through taxes. The plants might even be best owned by the government, with engineers who quit private industry jobs in protest of design shortfalls put in charge of design, commisioning and operations. This would be a much higher, better use of federal budget than the trillions spent on oil wars.

Of course, probability of all that happening when the oil industry owns the congress and some presidents is nil. :)

[Michael Kadillak]

I'm sure Michael will speak for himself, but my answer is no, not "like the Japanese ones." Fukushima Daiichi are 35 year old GE "Mark 1" designs.

The clean promise of nuclear power is indeed difficult to achieve when corporate profitability drives design and operating decisions. In a perfect world, competent, conservative technical personnel would have the final say, thereby enabling plants that "adhere to the highest engineering standard." Unfortunately, bean counters rule both the plant manufacturers and energy companies.

Given that there seems to be no willingness on the public's part to accept human population growth as the root cause of all environmental problems, we're left with an ever-growing need for more electrical capacity. My preference would be for the government to recognize that, while unable to be economic when properly done, nuclear generation, the most practical solution, is worthy of subsidization and severe design regulation. The result, while not "invulnerable," could be made more safe than coal and gas plants are now. But doing so would require that a "public good" be paid for by the public, i.e. through taxes. The plants might even be best owned by the government, with engineers who quit private industry jobs in protest of design shortfalls put in charge of design, commisioning and operations. This would be a much higher, better use of federal budget than the trillions spent on oil wars.

Of course, probability of all that happening when the oil industry owns the congress and some presidents is nil. :)

I agree with Sal. The forecast for power requirements in this country have some level of escalation associated with them and the numbers are large. I feel that looking for solutions to our current and future generation requirements that look at the larger picture and minimize the size and scope of the solution with the utilization of newer engineering and technology could very well be a more esthetic and environmentally superior solution than hoping that wind, solar and the other alternatives are going to be capable of meeting our actual needs. The fundamental prerequisite is accepting the fact that a growing economy translates to more efficient utilization of energy than we as a country have been asked to do in our lifetime. We need to think more of the end result than the constant emotionally driven "get on the wagon" mentality that may not be the optimal solution. If I could put in one state of the art nuke plant on a small area engineered to the highest standards and avoid the eyesore of a sea of spinning blades in an area like the Columbia river gorge I feel that may very well be an intelligent compromise.

[Jay DeFehr]

Sal and Michael,

There is currently no single technology that will meet all of the energy needs of our increasingly urban world. We will need to utilize an array of existing technologies and continue to develop new ones. Nuclear power is dangerous- permanently dangerous, and every generation of nuclear energy has failed, up to the most recent failures, and there's no reason to believe we've perfected the technology, or the administration of it. The consequences of these failures will be with us in forms we can't predict, into the distant future. The short term (decades) economic justification for the use of nuclear energy is irresponsible and short sighted when there are technologies in development that could make nuclear power obsolete. Wind farms and solar panels, unlike nuclear power plants, can be removed as easily as they're installed, or more easily, with little long term impact on their sites. Future generations assessing the consequences of our energy policies are likely to look on the growing number of nuclear disaster sites in far different terms than they do our experimentation with wind and solar power.

[Michael Kadillak]

Sal and Michael,

There is currently no single technology that will meet all of the energy needs of our increasingly urban world. We will need to utilize an array of existing technologies and continue to develop new ones. Nuclear power is dangerous- permanently dangerous, and every generation of nuclear energy has failed, up to the most recent failures, and there's no reason to believe we've perfected the technology, or the administration of it. The consequences of these failures will be with us in forms we can't predict, into the distant future. The short term (decades) economic justification for the use of nuclear energy is irresponsible and short sighted when there are technologies in development that could make nuclear power obsolete. Wind farms and solar panels, unlike nuclear power plants, can be removed as easily as they're installed, or more easily, with little long term impact on their sites. Future generations assessing the consequences of our energy policies are likely to look on the growing number of nuclear disaster sites in far different terms than they do our experimentation with wind and solar power.

Completely disagree. Nuclear is an evolving technology and France uses it very effectively as do other countries around the globe. That is not going to change anytime soon. In the human world risk is everywhere as nothing is 100% safe. To say that because accidents take place is justification for eliminating a process or procedure would mean that nobody would every fly on a jetliner because history has shown that they do in fact crash with horrific consequences. Realistically, the statistics are well within acceptable standards as far as I am concerned. We need to balance the results with the infrastructure.

Dismantling three facilities is far easier than replacing countless wind turbines or solar panels.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

I agree that nuclear energy is an evolving technology, and as with all evolving technologies, accidents are inevitable. The number of nuclear accidents continues to rise, and the consequences are both very long term, and unpredictable. We simply don't know what the long term consequences might be. What we do know, is that the consequences are cumulative, and will be with us into the distant future. Your comparison to air travel is a facile one. While the consequences of an airliner crash are horrific on a personal level, they simply do not compare on an environmental level. From an environmental perspective, an airline crash is a net gain.

Where do you get the idea that dismantling even one nuclear power plant is easier (whatever that means) than replacing wind generators or solar panels?

[Sal Santamaura]

...The number of nuclear accidents continues to rise, and the consequences are...unpredictable. We simply don't know what the long term consequences might be...On the contrary, nuclear accident consequences are very predictable, devastating and have been known for a long time.

The only problem with nuclear power is that it has been implemented in a manner devised to result in economic competitiveness with fossil fuel alternatives. There's no way to do that and reduce the probability of an accident to acceptably low (read infinitesmal) levels.

Environmental depredation choices available to the reproduction-obsessed public are climate change fueled by oil, coal and natural gas, radiation releases from accidents at extant-technology nuclear plants, and visual as well as noise polution from large solar and wind installations. Since, in my opinion, doing nuclear right is not politically feasible, nor will appropriate global population reduction take place until the planet's carrying capacity limit is reached in a major crash, pick your poison or combination of poisons.

For a while in the early 1970s I thought a fleet of solar power collection satellites feeding large terrestrial rectenna arrays might work. Even if the shuttle fleet were still available and public will suddenly materialized, I no longer believe that approach would come anywhere close to meeting the "needs" of ever-increasing numbers of Homo sapiens.

[Jay DeFehr]

Sal,

Only some consequences of nuclear accidents are predictable, and known, and the known is dwarfed by the unknown. The study of long term environmental impacts of nuclear accidents is in its infancy, and no credible person would claim otherwise. Since radiation affects the genetic material of living organisms, its long term effects are as complex as biology itself, and suggesting the consequences are known is hubris.


The only problem with nuclear power.....

Is thinking there's only one problem with nuclear power.


Environmental depredation choices available to the reproduction-obsessed public....

Does the portion of the public not obsessed with reproduction have different choices available to them? What, in your mind, constitutes obsession, regarding reproduction? I'm so weary of the self proclaimed progressives harping on the evils of reproduction, without which, they wouldn't have the luxury of doing so. Population is the best insurance our species has against extinction, but long before extinction comes the failure of civilization. We need a certain minimum population to maintain our civilization and to continue our cultural and biological evolution. Most people are not aware that around 70,000 years ago the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted, reducing the global human population to as little as 1,000 breeding pairs, all of whom could be seated in a typical opera theater, if they weren't too busy breeding and ensuring our existence. Overpopulation is always a problem for the future, just as it was for Malthus when he first did the math. The math, however, never includes unforeseen circumstances, like the industrialization of agriculture. So, if you want to join the crowd lamenting our presence on "Mother Earth", go right ahead, You'll be in good company, along with Ted Kaczynski, James J. Lee, and other notable anti-populationists.

[Sal Santamaura]

OK, I'm done attempting rational communication in the face of insults put forth under the guise of civility. That makes two people on my ignore list since becoming a member here.

[Jay DeFehr]

Sal,

I'm sorry if I let my frustration with certain attitudes get the best of me. You have a right to your opinions, and I shouldn't have been so snide in giving mine. Please accept my apologies.

[Mike Anderson]

...Nuclear power is dangerous- ...

Coal seems to me a more dangerous energy source. 50,000+ people died in coal mining accidents in the past 10 years in China. Millions more die every year of lung afflictions.

...Mike

[Jay DeFehr]

Mike,

I'd be the last to argue that coal is clean or safe, or that China is a paragon of industrial safety, but the threat posed by nuclear accidents is of a different nature than those you cite. Stop mining coal and coal mining accidents and the related issues are discontinued. Not so with nuclear accidents, the consequences of which linger into the eons, so that the effects are cumulative, and considering the fact that the Chernobyl accident equates to several hundred Hiroshimas, represents a significant difference. Mammals, as a class of animals, are among the most sensitive to radiation, but no organism is completely immune to the effects, which operate at a genetic level. Irradiating the genomes of thousands of species is risky business, to put it mildly.

[Ken Lee]

OK, I'm done attempting rational communication in the face of insults put forth under the guise of civility. That makes two people on my ignore list since becoming a member here.

There's no limit to artistic growth. The same can be said about tactfulness. The two are not entirely unrelated.

This forum provides an excellent place to learn about both. :)

[Michael Kadillak]

Just to put this issue into perspective. At a large conference yesterday an energy expert stated that in order for this country to generate just 1/3 of our current power requirements from wind and solar would require an operating footprint 3 times the landmass of the United States. I would say that we need some improvements in technical efficiency before we start making some real progress.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

Some more perspective: Every minute there is less oil available on this planet, and demand is increasing exponentially with the urbanization of huge populations, while energy derived from wind and solar continues to increase, and the technologies continue to evolve. I don't write hydrocarbons off as a fuel source, even into the distant future. Long after oil supplies are depleted we'll have huge deposits of carbon that might serve as raw materials for conversion to fuels, but as exciting and potentially revolutionary as this might be, burning hydrocarbons is never as clean as wind or solar power.

[Mike Anderson]

Mike,

I'd be the last to argue that coal is clean or safe, or that China is a paragon of industrial safety, but the threat posed by nuclear accidents is of a different nature than those you cite. Stop mining coal and coal mining accidents and the related issues are discontinued.

Not exactly. Miners will still be dying en masse for years to come for their past sacrifices.


Not so with nuclear accidents, the consequences of which linger into the eons, so that the effects are cumulative, and considering the fact that the Chernobyl accident equates to several hundred Hiroshimas, represents a significant difference. Mammals, as a class of animals, are among the most sensitive to radiation, but no organism is completely immune to the effects, which operate at a genetic level. Irradiating the genomes of thousands of species is risky business, to put it mildly.
Disclosure: I don't know much about nuclear power. And I can't argue with you that it's increase might have catastrophic consequences, but I will argue that that's speculation. What's not so speculative is that at least another million people are going to die in the next year from providing coal.

I understand you're not lobbying for the Chinese coal industry, but I think overall human health (I know that's a vague metric) is better served with nuclear power. You're in the industry so go ahead and throw some numbers at me.

BTW genomes of all life on earth have been irradiated since life started here. Accelerating that process too much doesn't sound good to me, but evolution via mutation via irradiation is part of the process that made you and me (for better or worse :)).

...Mike

[Jay DeFehr]

Not exactly. Miners will still be dying en masse for years to come for their past sacrifices.

Sadly, yes. What I meant is that once mining stops, exposure stops, along with the effects of exposure, except for those already exposed. This is not true for radiation.


I don't know much about nuclear power. And I can't argue with you that it's increase might have catastrophic consequences, but I will argue that that's speculation.

It's true we don't know all the long term consequences of radiation pollution, but I'm not convinced a course of action must be proven to be catastrophic before it sounds like a bad idea. That a course of action can reasonably be considered potentially catastrophic seem enough to warrant careful consideration. What we do know, is that radiation causes various forms of cancers and genetic mutations in those exposed much beyond the natural background level. Coal mining threatens individuals, while radiation potentially threatens our species, and many others.


I think overall human health (I know that's a vague metric) is better served with nuclear power

First, I don't think it's a zero sum game, in which we use either nuclear power, or coal, and not both, or any other resource. There is much to despise in coal as a source of energy, but the nature of its threat is of a different category than the threat posed by radiation. Would you prefer China to build nuclear power plants instead of mining coal?


BTW genomes of all life on earth have been irradiated since life started here

yes, I'm well aware. And all life on this planet has evolved to exist within a certain level of radiation, known as the background level, just as we evolved to live within a certain oxygen concentration in the air we breathe (18-22%, roughly). Increase or decrease that concentration significantly, and we die, not from a long term illness, but very suddenly. Seeking benefit by random genetic mutation is a very low odds, and very cruel game to play.

[Drew Wiley]

Once mining stops, there's still the distinct possibility of tailing etc contaminating our
rivers and streams with arsenic, chromium, mercury, and all other kinds of nasty stuff for centuries to come. Air quality is the second issue. Why do you think the coal industry with its mountaintop-leveling etc is spending vast sums of money corrupting our political system and trying to get EPA enforcement of water quality de-funded?

[Jay DeFehr]

Drew,

You're right, heavy metal poisons don't just go away when mining stops, and they affect many species besides our own. Air quality is different. Stop mining/burning coal and the air gets cleaner through natural cycles, which argues in favor of stopping burning coal, not continuing. Coal is nasty, no argument here, but it's a different kind of nasty than nuclear nasty, and I wouldn't consider nuclear pollution a good alternative to coal pollution.

[Drew Wiley]

Ironically there was a coal mining operation right around here during the turn of the
century. Tiny in scale compared to modern idustrial mining, but really fascinating from
a photographic standpoint. The old tailings are magnificently iridescent on rainy or foggy days, and I frequently hike there in Winter months with the 8x10. Some interesting fossils too. The place is called Black Diamond Mines, and is about a 10,000
acre regional park, but growing with new acquisitions. Big windmill farms out on the Calif Delta can be seen from the hilltops there.

[Jay DeFehr]

I hate to admit it on a forum like this one, but wind generators and old mines are more visually interesting to me than trees/rocks, etc.

[CantikFotos]

Looks like the Feds are getting involved now.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wind-eagles-20110803,0,2891547.story

[Drew Wiley]

Predictable. Golden eagles tend to fly low right thru these kinds of places. They need
to find some kind of bright paint for the spinning rotor blades which will tip off raptors
to the danger.

[Nathan Potter]

Wow, what a cacophony of notions.
There is a lot of data on bird fatalities from various sources with one of the best summaries from Western Ecosystems Technology Inc., Wally Erickson. Listed in % fatalities by source shows:

Buildings and Windows 55%
Cats 10%
Power Lines 8%
Vehicles 7%
Pesticides 7%
Communication Towers 2.5%
Wind Turbines .1 to .2 %
Other 10%

He is generous with Wind Turbines, since most list it as 0.01 to 0.02 %. At any rate the data would indicate a near zero rate due to wind turbines when considered within the frame of all bird fatalities.

It appears though that when the turbines are packed closely together and the number is large the fatality rate is higher - even anomalous such as the Altamont phenomena.

Another good source for the relative cost of energy from the Energy Information Agency, 2011, DOE/EIA. Includes Capacity Factor, Cap. cost, Fixed O&M, Var. O&M, Transmission.

Conventional Coal .095
Advanced Coal .109
Adv. Coal with CCS .136
Natural Gas .063 to .125
Advanced Nuclear .114
Wind .097
Wind Offshore .243
Solar PV .211
Solar Thermal .312
Geothermal .102
Biomass .113
Hydro .086

These are per US$/KWhr and are the costs net to the grid for the installed capacity. Note that terrestrial wind farms are really competitive, with the main hangup being the current dirge of capital funds available for construction. Of course the environmental risks associated with each technology is a highly complex issue in some cases and can quite reasonably be argued.

A good example of the complexity can be found in wind power. In Texas we don't worry about the bird fatalities but what about local climate modification. We intercept humid wind from the gulf and of course take out energy. That humidity in the air reduces the air temperature by evaporating over land in the hot Texas sun. Thus downstream from a large wind farm it will be hotter and dryer which will have an effect on the local crops - grass and cotton among other crops. How much effect is difficult to compute and measure reliably.

Hey ain't technology wonderful; but it's tied directly to our grand standard of living and allows us the freedom to play with our imaging toys!

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Jan Pedersen]

Thank you for posting some facts Nathan.
It's been a very long time since this thread had anything to do with picture taking.
Is it time to move it to the lounge?

I have enjoyed the postings and have laughed my ass off by some of the participants to this funny thread.
Many have absolutely not a clue about the econmy and the benefits of alternative energy but solely base it on assumptions rather than real knowledge.

Now don't stop it here but i really believe it belongs in the Lounge.

[Drew Wiley]

There is quite a bit of squabble between the different agencies and data sets depending on who is being paid by whom. There's a career category termed "biostitutes" known for skewing wildlife data in favor of energy interests or developers, and a similar crowd called "geostitutes". The loss of a number of golden
eagles is dramatic since they are relatively uncommon and reproduce slowly, and you
you can't blame kitty cats for any of their deaths (they eat cats). In this area in particular, there's a tremendous amount of fighting even between the different public
agenices, along with perpetual court battles. Each side picks their own slice of evidence.

[Scratched Glass]

There are many reactions to this thread, and politics in general. Some have a knee-jerk reaction based on no evidence or thought, and some have the reaction of a jerk that thinks he/she knows everything because they are in a related industry. Certainly there wouldn't be much conversation on even photography in this forum if we only left comments to Kodak and Nikon technicians.

[Drew Wiley]

Ouch! How has this thread escaped the axe?

[gevalia]

In twenty years, once this generation of wind turbines become rusting 300' hulks and the corporations charged with maintaining them skip town, let me know how you like them then....

Every time I drive i-80 i have that same thought. 5years from now maintenance will be outsourced and the downfall will begin like our bridges.

[gevalia]

In twenty years, once this generation of wind turbines become rusting 300' hulks and the corporations charged with maintaining them skip town, let me know how you like them then....

Every time I drive i-80 i have that same thought. 5years from now maintenance will be outsourced and the downfall will begin like our bridges. At least they aren't offshore.

[CantikFotos]

Every time I drive i-80 i have that same thought. 5years from now maintenance will be outsourced and the downfall will begin like our bridges.

Don't have to wait 5 years......


A school's eco-friendly dream of free power from a £55,000 wind turbine has been blown away after it broke down and the company that installed it went bust.

The system was seen as a green blueprint for clean, sustainable energy for schools nationwide and received grants from various bodies including EDF, the energy giant.

But soon after being installed the wind turbine became faulty and after a few months jammed - showering the school's playing field with debris.

Sue Hawken, chairman of the school governors, said: 'It has been an absolute nightmare from start to finish.

'We've put a claim in but realistically I don't expect to get a single penny from this company.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045862/Schools-green-dream-blown-away--55-000-wind-turbine-breaks-firm-installed-goes-bust.html

[unixrevolution]

In twenty years, once this generation of wind turbines become rusting 300' hulks and the corporations charged with maintaining them skip town, let me know how you like them then....

I'll like them a hell of a lot better than a disused coal or nuclear plant.

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

Listed in % fatalities by source shows:
Wind Turbines .1 to .2 %

If these .1 to .2 % are high flying large birds of rare, endangered kinds like eagles mostly, even these small quotes can endanger the whole population in their respective region.
Nice example for a possibly biased use of statistics.

Ulrich
(who is not against power turbines in general, but against lying with statistics)

[Kevin Crisp]

The sun never sets in Indiana?

[Steve M Hostetter]

The sun never sets in Indiana?

I used to install solar ( Energy Consultants Inc. out of Dayton Ohio) back when there was a 90% tax credit when Carter was president..
The system started out as just a simple 2-panel forced air unit and then we up-graded the panels to start heating the water by installing copper tubing in each panel and a heat exchange unit to the hot water heater..
This system didn't store any electricity because it wasn't designed to but there are now solar panel systems that will charge batteries which stores power for night use.

Did you know that you can save 7-9% on your electric bill or gas by using a hot water heater wrap? I use two of them :D

[Alan Gales]

Did you know that you can save 7-9% on your electric bill or gas by using a hot water heater wrap? I use two of them :D[/QUOTE]

You would be surprised at how many people don't wrap their water heaters. It's easy and inexpensive to do, saves energy and money. A real no brainer!

[Sirius Glass]

But new water heaters for the last decade or two have more insulation, so the savings is not nearly as great as before.