Slashdot Log In
Tilting At Windmills
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Apr 21, 2006 03:38 PM
from the oil-just-hit-75-bucks-a-barrel dept.
from the oil-just-hit-75-bucks-a-barrel dept.
GreedyCapitalist writes "Anne Applebaum writes in the Washington Post about environmentalists who are opposing renewable energy sources." From the article: "Already, activists and real estate developers have stalled projects across Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. In Western Maryland, a proposal to build wind turbines alongside a coal mine, on a heavily logged mountaintop next to a transmission line, has just been nixed by state officials who called it too environmentally damaging. Along the coast of Nantucket, Mass. -- the only sufficiently shallow spot on the New England coast -- a coalition of anti-wind groups and summer homeowners, among them the Kennedy family, also seems set to block Cape Wind, a planned offshore wind farm. Their well-funded lobbying last month won them the attentions of Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who, though normally an advocate of a state's right to its own resources, has made an exception for Massachusetts and helped pass an amendment designed to kill the project altogether."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
If it wasn't so true, it would be hilarious. Instead, we're currently faced with a no-win scenario. Don't want Power Plant technology X in your back yard? Fine, we'll move it to the middle of the desert. You don't like that because there's a fault there that *might* cause a teeny Earthquake 500 years from now? Fine, we'll move it to the swamp land. What's that? We'd be destroying the natural habitat of mosquitoes? Why do you want to keep mosquitoes around? FINE! Then we'll move it to the ocean where we can... what? You don't want it there, EITHER? Why the hell not? Because it might damage a coral reef? What if we build an artifical one? That will change the ocean currents?
NNNGNGGNNGGGG!! HUMANS #$!@@!# CHANGE #@$!#!@! THINGS !@#!#!!!! IT'S !@#!@# WHAT @!#@!# WE @#$!@#$ DO!
Call us when you don't have power and really, really want some. Good-bye!
Re:Too True (Score:4, Insightful)
Except it doesn't work that way. The 10 people that bitched about the environment stop the millions from getting power. Those 10 people probably moved somewhere where there was power - so they could bitch about it again, leaving the millions to suffer.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, there is a small but significant subset of environmentalists that literally wouldn't be happy until humans are extinct. We need to ignore those people and try to inject some common sense into our environmental discussions.
Inability to compromise at all is what defines a zealot.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
These groups take on an environmental mantle because it sounds a lot better than the other arguments they'd be making - namely, "My million dollar estate will lose 10% of its value", "Uck, something white that spins!", and "Wind farms cause women to have five periods a month and give them brain cancer." Real environmental groups (for example, the Sierra Club) love wind farms [sierraclub.org].
It's annoying to see people on sites like slashdot buy into the "oooh, all those nutty environmentalists keep contradicting themselves! They must just want to destroy society!" arguments.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Interesting)
What is driving the projects here in Washington State has been a set of deals with local farmers to rent space on farmland for the windmills. The farmer then gets a percentage of the proceeds (and is thus farming wind), and the power company (usually a county PUD) gets the space for the windmills. Works out well for everyone.
Now, it is true that there are some environmental hazards of windmills, regarding migrating birds, and the like. However, these are small in comparison to the problems of coal, nuclear, and even hydroelectic on the scale that it has been implemented in our state. Wind is a good option if approached well and built up in moderation.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Interesting)
Noise is a concern to people who have seen the California wind turbines from the 70's in operation. The lower RPM's, improved blade design, and increased tower clearance make the new, larger designs much quieter. I think it's almost eery how quiet they are.
Birds are a pretty minor concern as well. Some people like to point to a valley in California where the hawk population decreased by 90% after the turbines were installed. That was one exceptional region, and the newer designs are also better in that regards. The newer 1.5 MW turbines are huge! The blades typically clear the ground by about 50 meters and the birds generally below the swept area. The lower RPM's also give them more time to dodge the blades if they do get the crazy notion to fly through the swept area.
By the way, I have a bone to pick with you about your turbines over there in eastern Washington. One of your boys got dropped in the middle of our freeways here in Portland last fall. Really messed up traffic to have a 100 ton generator sitting in the road. If that ain't proof that wind power is evil, I don't know what is.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
The "enviromentalists" that are against wind and solar power on account of asthetics piss me off. If we can't get energy from wind or solar because they don't look pretty and we can't get energy from fossil fuels because of CO2 and other emissions and nuclear power makes baby Jesus cry, then where the hell DO we get it from?
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
At least that's what those particular kinds of environmentalists believe -- personally, I think wind (and solar, and tidal, and nuclear) power is great.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:4, Funny)
Even worse, windmills steal energy from the planet, and due to the requirement of the conservation of energy, will slow down earth's rotation, destroy its orbit, and send us crashing into the sun!
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you against the pollution that the coal fired plants put off, and the potential radiation from a nuclear plant? Then you'd like wind, solar, hydroelectric, and wave power.
Are you worried about the woodland critters and plants? Then solar is probably out, because you'd be covering the ground to some degree with panels.
Are you worried about the birds? Then wind power is out.
Are you worried about fish? Then hydroelectric is out.
Are you worried about whales? Then wave power is out.
There are non-environmental people against various things too. I believe it was in Connecticut, the local government was pushing for wind power. It wasn't the environmentalists there complaining, it was the locals complaining about the potential for noise and, god forbid, windmills being seen if you were to drive 20 miles and climb up on a hill to get a look.
I think nuclear plants look pretty cool. They have a particular asthetic look to the domed reactor and huge cooling towers. Then again, it's not quite as pleasing to take a boat anywhere near the warm water outlet and not find anything living in the water.
I'm all for solar, wind, and wave power. Not only can it be deployed fairly easily, but it can eventually be moved for whatever reason. Maybe another location is found to be more productive. Hydroelectric is nice, but it does require a huge building project to accomplish it, and usually flooding large areas to get the required water pressure.
I live by a really great place to put a wind and solar farm. There's a ridge with almost constant wind. The south facing side of the hills could be home to huge solar panel arrays. The residents in the valley below would never have it. There are a few million of them, living in smog year round. Clean power would destroy their pretty view. Of course, they can't usually see the view through the smog.
Environmentalists would complain that it would hurt the natural ecosystem. Sure, some coyotes may get killed. If the neighbors wouldn't have complained about gunshots, I would have killed some on my own. What about the small woodland critters? Well, my cats killed off quite a few, probably numbering near the same as any power generation systems would have. In nature, things die. It's not a perfect world, even though people have their perfect picture of it in their minds. I guess most environmentalists have never seen a house cat come home with parts of a small bird, snake, lizard, or anything else that may move enough for a cat to play with. It's nothing compared to what the larger animals do to each other.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
Freeways weren't designed to be places to "enjoy nature". They were designed for transportation. If you want to enjoy nature, go to a national park.
So instead of generating some invisible CO2 which plants need to generate oxygen, we instead use "clean" alternatives that destroy thousands of acres from a visual, natural, and ecosystem standpoint. Which is really worse on the environment?
The air pollution is worse. Nature doesn't care about how things look, only about how they effect the lives of the plants and animals nearby. Windmills have much less of an effect on the environment than their conventional equivalent does, and that's not even counting the environmental effect of the various wars that are being fought (and will be fought in the future) to control the remaining fossil fuels. If we built renewable energy infrastructure now, we can avoid those later.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the term was used loosely here, IMHO. these were animal lovers, and not in my backyard, very wealthy people.
In my book, if you got a swimming pool, more bedrooms, and bathrooms than people living in the house, and own a vehicle that ways over 3000#'s you are not a environmentalist.
now don't interperit that as saying I find anything wrong with living that way, I do what I can to get thier myself. But I realize thats I am not good for the environment, and try not to claim to be able to tell others their not entitled to do anyhting less damaging than I do myself. (well I would if it were land I owened, but if you want to do it on land you plan to own/buy.)
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
Being rich doesn't imply owning a house with more bathrooms than people. Being rich doesn't imply owning a car that weighs more than 1.5 tons. Being an environmentalist (and actually practicing what you preach) does imply purchasing a fuel-efficient vehicle unless you have a serious need for one which is not, and does otherwise imply not wasting scarce or non-renewable resources.
Heating or cooling a 6,000 square foot house uses scarce resources. Moving a 1.5 ton vehicle around the road uses scarce resources. An individual who is serious about protecting the environment, even if they are able to afford the 6,000 square foot house or the 1.5 ton vehicle, will not purchase such items unless they have a legitimate need.
Understand?
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:4, Interesting)
Your first link claimed he hadn't changed anything in Mims' letter, but in fact cut an unspecified amount, likely the more cogent part. At any rate it all has no bearing on the case at hand. Attacking the messenger is not a valid tactic.
Your second link is an attempt at the old guilt-by-association argument - or perhaps even more tenuous. Something along the lines of "Al-jazeera reports on Bush and on al-Quaeda, therefore Bush is linked to Al-Quaeda"
Your third link is to a TV station whose idea of invesigative reporting goes no further than asking Pianka if he wanted to kill everybody and then taking everything he says as unvarnished truth.
Your fourth link is where you cribbed most of your post, and it is pure primate territorial display - "The wingnut echo chamber has recently gone insane
Here's a better link to someone proposing that Pinka didn't mean it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/pianka
And here are a couple of first hand refutations in reply to that:
So no, Pianka isn't likely to spread a virus but he is looking forward to the deaths of billions of people.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a downside to everything... which is something people seem to miss. Joe Sixpack and Sarah Soccermom want a perfect solution that never needs fixing, looks cute and emits only rainbows and pine scented goodness.
There is no perfect solution. Until people accept that, and agree on what the "least bad" solution is, we'll likely be stuck with deadlock. Lets hope it doesn't take electricity rationing and $20 per gallon gasoline to drag people to that point.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
No (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
Use less energy can mean:
Stop buying vehicles that are wasteful.
Stop driving 5 extra miles to save 8 cents on a loaf of bread.
Maybe investigate how to make 18-wheelers get 5mpg more than they do now.
Build a bike lane once in a while.
Don't give subsidies to companies that pollute when there are cleaner alternatives.
There are thousands of ways to reduce energy use. Many involve technology.
We can consume what we do now, and watch the population grow so that the total amount of energy consumed increases.
Or, we can reduce what we consume now and be more efficient. As the growth in the population occurs, energy use increases at a slower rate.
How hard would it be for us to tell energy companies, no subsidies for you. That money is going to buy insulation, and CF bulbs for every house in the country? Total electricity (therefore coal/gas) usage declines.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Informative)
Something that could easily be accomplished. A Jetta TDI wagon rated at 36/47mpg has comparable cargo capacity [theautochannel.com] (34 cu ft) to many midsize SUVs that are rated at 15/20mpg.
"Maybe investigate how to make 18-wheelers get 5mpg more than they do now."
Interestingly it is WalMart that is pushing the hardest for this.
Wal-Mart Seeks to Double Truck Fuel Economy by 2015 [greencarcongress.com]
"Wal-Mart has set a goal of doubling the fuel efficiency of its new heavy-duty trucks from 6.5 to 13 miles per gallon by 2015, thereby keeping some 26 billion pounds of carbon dioxide out of the air between now and 2020.
Beginning with the its 2007 model-year trucks, the company will begin introducing models with improved aerodynamics, transmission and tires, as well as an auxiliary power unit in every truck in its fleet.
Some of the changes include:
* Trailer Side Skirts. Wind skirts under the trailer significantly reduce wind resistance and reduces airflow around the trailer. This is a big fuel economy benefit.
* Super Single Tires. Wal-Mart combined the two wheels normally seen on a rear axle into a single wheel that is not quite as wide as the sum of two wheels. This gives a smoother ride and better fuel economy from the reduced surface area and improved tire wall stiffness.
* Aerodynamic tractor package. Making the tractor more aerodynamic radically reduces the fuel required to operate the truck, as approximately two-thirds of all gallons burnt today by trucks can be attributed to overcoming aerodynamic resistance.
* Tag Axle. Reduced weight means increased efficiency. This type of rear axle reduces the weight of one rear axle as it eliminates internal axle drive train.
* Auxiliary Power Unit. This APU eliminates the use of the tractor's main engine for keeping our drivers warm or cool at night. Instead, this very small diesel engine does the job at optimum efficiency. This saves a substantial amount of fuel.
The company has estimated it will save some $52 million per year in fuel costs."
More info: http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMStoresWeb/naviga
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:4, Insightful)
Once you buy an SUV for occasional justified use, you wind up using it for all sorts of other stuff too. Just because you see an SUV going down the road with two people and nothing else in it doesn't mean that the family shouldn't own an SUV -- just that they don't have the luxury of owning an SUV and an economy car simultaneously.
It's not an excuse, but a lot of this stereotyping of SUV drivers gets a little overzealous.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Insightful)
The "actual benefits of wind power" are neither here nor there.
Parent
Re:Too True (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power [wikipedia.org]
To sum up: Intermittancy is a non-issue where associated with pumped storage. Europe's hydroelectric dams, for example, have enough water behind them to power the entire continent for a month, and only take minutes to change their output. There are plenty of other efficient ways to deal with the intermittancy issue; it just requires preplanning instead of using wind as a patch. For most systems, no extra storage is needed and no waste occurs unless you start getting to a large percentage of your power coming from wind. This is due to the fact that normal powerplants can fall off the grid without notice as well. This doesn't occur as often as wind cycles up and down, but because it can occur, and the results of a loss of power are unacceptable to Americans, we have to have the surplus capacity anyways. Wind power output can generally be predicted well for hours in advance, which is more than enough for most existing plants to ramp up their generation (some plants take as little as 30 seconds). This ignores demand-side management as well. For example, if you have wind power running an electricity-intensive industrial process (such as aluminum refining or desalinization), you just ramp up and down plant capacity as the power situation dictates. The wider the turbines are spread out, the more constant the wind is. Also, wind tends to be inversely correlated with solar energy (cloudy days and nights tend to be windier)
There are lots of refs at the bottom of the page.
Also, your linked article may want to recheck how "little" global warming hydroelectric power (which wind often displaces) causes. Dams displace CO2, but they increase methane production; methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas. In some cases, hydroelectric plants are worse global warming contributors, per MW, than coal. Pairing wind with hydroelectric allows you to reduce the scale of the hydroelectric plant use (or, conversely, to get a lot more power out of a give amount of hydroelectric potential)
Parent
There's two kinds of green in politics... (Score:4, Insightful)
These coalitions of anti-wind groups... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps we could use them to power turbines.
Unfucking possible. (Score:4, Funny)
*bangs head into wall*
Re:Unfucking possible. (Score:5, Insightful)
liberal != environmentalist
A good environemntalist is a conservative - they conserve their energy use by being conservative with their power needs.
Life is never black & white.
Parent
Re:Unfucking possible. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Low taxes requires low government consumption. Low energy bills in your home requires low energy usage.
The guy who calculates that each use of a single pair of $400 shoes plus 2 new sets of soles ($50 a shot) is 21 cents per day over a decade vesus 40 cents per day for a pair of $100 shoes that last a year -- thus buys the single pair of shoes.
Reduce and Reuse are both far more important than Recycling but it takes an awfully frugle person to make significant headway on them.
Live well beneth your means and you will be an exceptional environmentalist and have a ton of cash in the bank.
Parent
I object... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I object... (Score:4, Insightful)
So I open the comments expecting to see all of them basically repeating same, but instead I had to scroll all the way down here to find your comment.
Parent
Typical American short-sighted politics (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, because in 2 or 3 decades, when the sea rises and countless disaster stories that will make the LA flooding look like a joke will occur every year, the weather will turn hot and sterile, or brutally cold where it was mild before,... I'm sure we'll all be happy that the mountaintop's view has been preserved...
Think longer term (Score:5, Funny)
More Republican Fair-Weather Federalism (Score:4, Insightful)
I got my anti-windmill dvd in the mail last week. (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought people would be happy about it, usually anything renewable is looked well upon, hell 5 miles away there is a manure digester that was praised for being "forward-looking".
But this project is facing major opposition from the local residents because of supposedly lower property value.
Funny thing about it, they don't want a windfarm ruining thier view, but they have no problem building a $500,000 house on a previously wooded hillside, and running the nice road up the side of the hill to drive there.
They can kiss my ass, as least i am getting something from the windmill.
NIMBY, Externalities, Fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
Folks are in denial of the seriousness of the energy crisis, and the realities of energy production. They assume that some miracle, somehow, will provide them with the energy to drive out and live in in their beautiful second homes, free of any aesthetic and environmental problems. They want to be close to some idyllic nature, free of stress. And the reason they can be in denial is that energy production - through the magic of long distance ac/dc wires - shifts production burdens to some poor sap somewhere else.
Consider the opposition to wind: why build a wind farm near some lovely guest home on the Cape when you can build a coal plant in West Virginia? The poor folks (and WV is a very poor state), will take the coal plant and see their homes turn grey, their mountains cut to shreds, their lungs turn black. And Cape Cod will be sunny, pretty, free from harm, at the cost of someone else's life.
I realize this sounds extreme, but look at the coal / oil / hydrocarbon executives who lobby Congress for tax breaks for gas and coal production, freedom from pollution controls, etc. and then spend the weekends in Bozeman, Montana. They don't see the effects of the damage they're doing, as, well - they get to live in an idyllic mountain valley.
Until we can develop fusion, energy production will be ugly. Sad, but true. Windmills are not at all perfect, but are hell of a lot better, IMHO, than some coal plant choking the lungs of those folks who cannot afford a second home in luxury land. I wish those who always say NIMBY! would accept some responsibility for their own choices, and recognize the need to share the burden of energy production.
This is an economic case of externalities being allocated to those with the least political power, the least influence, the least chance of fighting back. Putting the plant on the cheapest land may be accounting wise efficient, but may be bad policy. We either have the windmills, or the coal plant, or the nuke, but somewhere power must be generated.
Windmills along the PA Turnpike (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a bank of windmills visible from the PA Turnpike, somewhere in the western half of the state. I would suggest that such areas - those adjacent to major traffic arteries - would be excellent locations for wind-based power generation. Quite often the land surrounding the turnpikes and interstates isn't exactly prime residential land, so the NIMBYism might be kept to a minimum.
From The Fine Article: They are right to note that wind will not soon replace coal or gas, that wind isn't always as effective as supporters claim
I find this viewpoint frustrating: "it won't solve all of our problems at once so it is not worth pursuing". We might actually need a combination of solutions to the energy problem - imagine that.
Anybody here ever heard of the Grand Coulee Dam? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowadays, there's no way to legally replicate such marvellous accomplishments as our fathers bequeathed to us. No more Hoover Dams, no more offshore drilling, no more drilling in the wilderness. Mind you, I hold nature worthy of preservation but I also hold technology worthy of furtherance. There must be a balancing point somewhere; we seem to have missed it.
You ever think that our grandparents are only dieing of old age because their progeny is embarassing them? Just sayin', is all.
Wealthy elites make bad environmentalists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, NIMBY rich people might claim that what they want is to save the environment, but really, all they want is to maintain their property values.
Absolute stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen no end of moronic arguments about this stuff. Some of the "better examples":
I hate this crap. They're terrified of their property values dropping, so they are desperately trying to fight it any way they can, digging up any idea they can come up with for why this is stupid. Wind power works great in a lot of european countries, without any nasty "ecological impacts".
Maybe they'd like a nuclear power plant on Nantucket instead? How about a coal-fired electric plant? Maybe they'd like their electric bill to quadruple to pay for solar panels that won't last more than 15 years?
Don't worry, they will get over it. (Score:4, Interesting)
They were ridiculed and everybody were adamant that windmills would spoil the landscape and do things to the cows milk etc.
Then the government introduced a subsidy on electricity from windmills and suddenly all the farmers could see a good business case and today we have most of the country plastered with windmills.
As a result Denmark gets around 20% of its electricity from wind nowadays.
Once energy prices get high enough, windmills will stop ruining USA and become "a sensible economic investment".
BTW: The trend here is to put new windmills off the coast because water disturbs the wind less than land.
Poul-Henning
I'm related to one of these anti-wind activists... (Score:5, Interesting)
NIMBYs a front for the OIl Industry (Score:4, Interesting)
The so-called Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, i.e. those people trying to stop wind turbines in the water off of cape cod, is headed by William I. Koch, who is a billionaire by way of his family's Oil & Gas fortune. The Alaska congressmen are just trying to protect the value of the what Alaska is worth - which is a lot of money when the US can get oil from nowhere else -- of course they don't want competition from states who would rather generate the power at home without expensive Alaskan oil. Ted Kennedy is opposed for an unknown reason - but the other Massachusetts senator, the famous John Kerry, is a supporter of Wind Power.
There was a document leaked a while back showing the fund raising strategy of the professional fund raising company from new york who was hired by this Alliance - and the strategy biols down to "Don't bother with the poor or middle class - raise money from the ultra-rich" -- the rich who don't have to suffer from energy crisis that we are going through, or some who even get richer because of it.
I am going to stop now, before I burst an artery...
Re:An example (Score:4, Insightful)
This may come as a shock, but the left does not have a monopoly on overly wealthy hypocritical asshats who will be the death of us all.
--Ryvar
Parent
Re:An example (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, no. Most of Cape Cod's residents are pretty poor, relatively speaking. Living costs are insane. Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard both have huge problems with drug and alcohol abuse because there's nothing to do on the islands, and life is pretty rough. Outside of the tourist seaason, practically nobody is around.
The Cape isn't dominated by million dollar homes; to a large extent it's "middle class" people who have a small summer place.
These issues are largely being driven (read: funded) by a very small minority that doesn't even live there.
Parent
Re:These are not environmentalists (Score:4, Interesting)
Completely opposite ends of the green spectrum: Extremists vs. dabblers. Wannabe terrorists vs. people who put a bumper sticker on their SUV.
It's like equating Falwell's crazies with fair-weather Christians. It offends people in the middle who care about the message but haven't gone so far as to be unable to understand it anymore.
Parent
Have some tasty Don Young quotes (Score:5, Informative)
You know these people aren't environmentalists when they get Don Young on their side. Let's look at some Don Young quotes: [brainyquote.com]
Yeah, Don, it's the environmentalists that are leading us into environmental disaster. Riiiiiight....
Parent
Re:Not for me. (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget to:
Parent