Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wind Energy More Economically Sound Than Mountaintop Removal Mining

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 12:43 PM
Original message
Wind Energy More Economically Sound Than Mountaintop Removal Mining
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/infocus/story?id=54357

Coal River Mountain Watch has released the results of a study that it commissioned in June from Downstream Strategies, LLC of Morgantown. The study shows that wind development is a better economic land use option than mountaintop removal coal mining, not only for Coal River Mountain, but potentially for all areas in southern West Virginia that exhibit good wind potential, the group said.

The study shows that the proposed Coal River wind farm, consisting of 164 wind turbines and generating 328 megawatts (MW) of electricity, would provide more than US $1.74 million in annual property taxes to Raleigh County. By comparison, the coal severance taxes related to the mountaintop removal mining would provide the county with only US $36,000 per year.

“Mountaintop removal mines on Coal River Mountain would be more profitable for private landholding and coal mining companies, but it is not defensible from the perspective of Raleigh County citizens. Our analysis confirms that a wind farm would produce greater economic benefits to the citizens of Raleigh County when health and environmental externalities are included in the analysis,” said Evan Hansen, president of Downstream Strategies.

<not much more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good
I don't like the push for coal and nuclear. We've got to do better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NOW tense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. To conquer Earth or work with Earth that is the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Much more here
http://www.coalriverwind.org/

The thing that bothers me about this headline is that the study is essentially talking about the benefits to the local community.

I'm confident that much more energy could be harvested by the coal mine than by a wind farm. (I don't want to see it done, but I think intellectual honesty is important.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Over what timeframe?
You can only burn coal once. You can capture wind energy perpetually (at least on a human scale). As the timeframe on which you can capture wind energy approaches infinity, the amount of energy you can derive from doing so also approaches infinity. The amount of power from wind is limitless, it just takes longer to get it.

Coal, on the other hand, is distinctly finite. You mine it, you burn it, and you are done. Fossil fuels can never compete with renewables, except in one dimension, you can gather and burn fossil fuels quickly and in an unsustainable manner.

Intellectual honesty is indeed important, so is a longer term view of things. Over the long haul, renewables will win every time, it is just math and physics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Wind has the highest EROI of any energy source
coal is about 1:15 and declining

Wind is 1:50 - 1:80 and climbing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yowsers! Give me a little credit? OK?
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 01:34 PM by OKIsItJustMe
Quick! How deep is this proposed mine going to go? What volume of coal will it dig up?

Before you answer those questions, you cannot say how long it will take the wind farm on top of the (relatively) undisturbed mountain to generate more power than the coal underneath the mountain.

No doubt about it, I prefer to see the turbines. However, the lack of such figures in the report suggested to me that they didn't look good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I stand marginally corrected
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 01:45 PM by OKIsItJustMe
It's not quite as bad as I thought.

http://www.coalriverwind.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/coalvswindoncoalrivermtn-final.pdf


The year-by-year pattern of electricity generation is similar to the patterns for jobs, earnings, and output. Electricity generated with coal from the Bee Tree, Eagle II, and Eagle III mines will exceed that generated by the wind turbines and underground mines for the first 17 years (Figure 21). Over five investment cycles, however, wind energy production approaches but does not exceed coal-based electricity production (Figure 22).



By the year 2113, the energy figures for the turbines will have almost caught up to the coal. Doing an eyeball extrapolation, it looks like the curves may meet in 2125 or so.

I'd looked at this yesterday, and the report seemed slanted to me. (So I didn't post it at that time.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Does that comparison actually capture the reality of the energy benefit?
I'm on dialup so I'm not investing the 25 minutes to download the link, but from the snip provided it sounds like this is a comparison of gross energy production. To me, the more significant number would be net energy production. If a unit of coal generated electricity costs 3X - 5X the energy to produce as does a unit of wind, doesn't that shift the values considerably and result in a substantially shorter time to parity?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. A quick thought experiment is in order here
This is a study done by people in favor of the wind farm, and against the mountain top removal.
Check out the executive summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mountaintop removal coal mines are poised to begin operation on Coal River Mountain in Raleigh County, West Virginia. In West Virginia as well as surrounding states, hundreds of mountaintop removal mines have flattened hundreds of thousands of acres of mountain peaks in order to access the coal, while pushing the waste material into adjacent valleys and burying headwaters streams.

Coal River Mountain Watch—an organization that works to stop mountaintop removal mining and to help rebuild sustainable communities—is promoting an alternative: the development of a wind farm on Coal River Mountain. This alternative would protect the surface of the mountain, produce green electricity, and preserve current underground coal mining jobs. (Emphasis added by me.)

This report presents two starkly different choices for Coal River Mountain: mountaintop removal versus a wind farm. As this report demonstrates (see Chapter 3), after mountaintop removal, Coal River Mountain would be rendered uneconomical for wind farm development.

Three scenarios are examined in this report: mountaintop removal, conservative wind, and local industry wind scenarios. Both wind scenarios envision 164 wind turbines on Coal River Mountain. The third scenario includes development of a local wind industry that, when combined with construction of wind turbines on Coal River Mountain, would further enhance the local economic benefits of wind.



Now, do you expect them to put the best scenario or the worst scenario forward for wind? (Their third scenario even includes local turbine manufacturing.)

If you check the paragraph I quoted earlier, you may notice this: "… mines will exceed that generated by the wind turbines and underground mines …"

So, their calculations (reaching out more than 100 years) don't deal purely with wind, but with a combination of wind and conventional coal mining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Thanks for the response.
I see your point but I don't think it is a given that consideration of energy payback is factored in. It appears that their emphasis is perhaps more on presenting easily understood concepts, but I could be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. They Could Still Mine the Coal
Just don't blow up the mountain to do it!
There are other ways to mine coal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I'd prefer they didn't do that either
In the long run, coal may kill us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Well, with a little bit of organisation ...
... all of the dead bodies can be stuffed inside the empty coal mines so that
by the time civilisation recovers, there will be a starting reserve of biofuel ...
Problem solved!

:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. I love this one. It's about as silly as the one about ethanol.
My response is the same. The fact that blowing off a mountaintop is a BAD idea (and it is), does not prove that wind power is a GOOD idea (which it is not).

Just because a doctor says a heart attack is better than cancer, that does not prove that a heart attack is good.

Wind Power BLOWS.

See the following:
http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html
http://www.nortexwind.org/index.htm
http://www.stopillwind.org/index.php
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/
http://www.savewesternny.org/

Or just watch this series of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_utFV2ukOtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOd5tSZF3A4&feature=related

There's more, but you get the idea. :)

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. 100,000+ MW of existing wind turbine capacity world-wide - growing by double-digits annually
says you are wrong

McCain lost, too fucking bad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yes, lots of people have been wrong about wind power.
Here's the TRUTH:

The TRUTH about Wind Power

Find it here: http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html

Excerpted from the link above:

Wind Energy is a Failed Technology – evidence from around the world

* Germany (size of Montana ) is the world's largest user of wind technology. Over the last 20 years, Germany has erected 18,000 wind turbines that have only been able to generate 6% of the country's total electricity supply.

* In Feb. 2005, the German Government's energy agency released a report that concluded that wind plants were an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy and also had serious environmental effects.

* This same report suggested reduction of greenhouse gases could be more effectively and cheaply reduced by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants.

* Denmark has 6000 wind turbines; in 2003 that country's greenhouse gas emissions increased 7.3% over 2002 levels.

* Despite being blanketed with wind turbines, Denmark has not been able to shut down one single conventional power plant.

* Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. The Government has canceled plans for three offshore wind plants for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies for existing sites.

* The California Energy Commission reported that the state's 14,000 turbines produced half of one percent of their electricity in 2002. Extrapolating this record to the U.S. as a whole, it would take over 100,000 wind turbines spread over 10 million acres of land (costing $150-300 billion) to produce 5% of the country's electricity.

* Kansas politician Frank Miller was quoted in a press release stating wind plants in Kansas were only expected to supply 1% of the energy used in the state.

* The Wind Industry is meeting much public resistance in Europe, especially in Germany and Denmark , the inefficiency has become apparent and people are angry at the cost of wasted resources. The industry is searching for a bigger market in the U.S. to replace lost sales in Europe.

Wind Energy – Inefficient and Unreliable

* Because of its inherent technical limitations and the fluctuating nature of its power source, no other type of industrial power generation has such poor performance.

* Wind Developers often dwell on wind turbines' installed capacity ; they provide facts and figures based on what the turbines can produce at 100% capacity.

* Because of the fluctuating nature of wind, the amount of energy produced by wind plants is expressed as an average annual output called capacity factor. Research proves that average annual capacity for wind plants is only 15-30% of their installed capacity.

* Due to the intermittency of wind power, all wind turbine plants must have stand-by generators that are powered by fossil fuels. These backup generators must idle 24 hrs a day (emitting considerable amounts of greenhouse gases for nothing) in order to be ready to generate electricity when the wind turbines aren't functioning – wind energy is not clean.

* In a 2003 study, the California Energy Commission studied 3 wind plants and estimated that they had an average capacity credit of 23.9%. The estimated capacity credit for wind energy in the state will be 5%.

* Evidence available from California, Texas, and Ontario suggests that many wind facilities sited on land will achieve capacity credits averaging only in the single digit range.

* A study in Germany proved that for more than half the days in 2004, the sum of wind plant output to the grid was lower than 11% of its capacity.

* In the U.K. 1,010 wind turbines produced 0.1% of their electricity in 2002.

* It would take over 2000 large wind turbines (with a generous capacity factor of 30%) spread over hundreds of miles to equal the power of one 1600 MW conventional power plant situated on a few acres.

* Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. They don't produce power until wind speed reaches 8 mph; reach rated capacity around 33 mph, and shut down at 55 mph because of possible damage to the blades. Their output is intermittent, volatile, and unpredictable.

* This unpredictability causes “grid instability”. Electricity grids must be kept in balance (supply & demand, voltage, frequency) which is why wind power must have back up generators to ramp up and down to balance the unreliable output from wind turbines.

* Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind generated power they buy because of the grid instability they cause.

* For the same reason, in Dec. 2003, Ireland halted all new wind power connections to the national grid and have plans to end state supported subsidies.

* In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections and in 2006 Spain ended all subsidies.

* In 2004, Australia reduced the amount of wind power that utilities are required to buy bringing wind projects to an almost stand still.

* Switzerland is also cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit from wind power.

* It must also be noted that months of peak demand for electricity (summer months) coincide with months of low or no wind.

The Winners & The Losers – huge tax breaks for the Wind Industry while the taxpayers and electric customers pick up the tab.

* On a per kilowatt basis, no other form of industrial energy has recently received higher public subsidy than wind.

* Wind plants are now being built primarily for tax avoidance purposes, not because of their environmental, energy, or economic benefits.

* The tax breaks and subsidies have more value to wind plant owners than the revenue from the sale of the small amount of electricity they produce.

* The big winners are the Wind Industry, the Wind Developer, and a few landowners who lease their land. Electric customers and taxpayers are the big losers.

* Many states have approved Renewable Portfolio standards (RPS) that force utility companies to purchase electricity from wind plants at extremely high prices – this cost is passed on to the consumer.

* Publicly funded tax schemes (production tax credits and double-declining depreciation) reimburse as much as 75% of the wind plant owner's capital cost for each of the $1.65 million wind turbines. You, the taxpayer, are practically paying for the wind plants and will also be paying higher prices for the expensive, small amount of electricity wind turbines produce.

* According to Citizens for Tax Justice, Florida Power and Light Group, (FLP) (largest owner of wind capacity in the U.S. ) paid NO federal income taxes in 2002 and 2003 while reporting net income of more than $2 billion. Those were the years that FLP invested heavily in wind plants. They took more than $1.2 billion in depreciation in those years.

* The Wind Industry has powerful lobbyists in Washington , D.C. placing intense pressure on our politicians. In the not so distant future, if the Wind Industry and Wind Developers are successful, hundreds of thousands of massive turbines will dominate our landscapes while doing virtually nothing to solve the problems of fossil fuel dependency. Subsidies given to industrial wind technology diverts money that could be used in research for other more reliable forms of alternative energy.

* Despite the facts, its unclear if legislators, local government officials, and regulators will temper enthusiasm for wind energy, since so many have accepted the false claims and inaccurate information distributed by the wind industry and advocates. Also, they are well aware of wind industry lobbying power and campaign contributions.

* Wind Developers claim that they increase the local tax base. Research proves those gains are more than offset by the loss of open land, loss of tourism, the decrease in property values, and the taxes and fees consumers must pay to subsidize the industry.

* A survey of property assessors in the UK found that a nearby wind facility lowers property values by up to 15% per year for 2 years.

* In the discussion of property values, it must be remembered that in most places values increase steadily. So any slowing down of that normal rise because of wind power facilities is in fact a loss of value.

* The Wind Industry also claims to create many jobs - a typical wind plant requires one low paid maintenance worker.

Collateral Damage – wind energy is NO FRIEND to the environment

* Ordinary citizens are beginning to realize that wind plants are not environmentally benign. Instead, wind energy has high economic, environmental, ecological, scenic and property value costs.

* Wind plants cause considerable environmental damage to the surrounding countryside. Each wind turbine requires the clear-cutting of at least 4 - 6 acres and another 35 - 75 acres for infrastructure support, i.e. access roads, tensions lines, substations, pool-size irremovable concrete bases, etc.

* Often it is necessary to blast through bedrock, potentially disrupting water flow to existing wells downhill.

* Adverse impacts include erosion, destruction of wildlife habitat, interference with bird migration paths, massive bird kills, destruction of scenic vistas, noise, lowering of property values, distracting blade flicker and aircraft warning lights.

* We must take into consideration the greenhouse gases that are produced by the construction and installation of wind plants: the manufacture of steel, the concrete bases, asphalt for roads, the fuel burned by earth-moving equipment, production of tension lines, pylons, substations, and back-up generators – all for a technology that performs at 15 -30% capacity. It's clear that no real savings will be achieved in greenhouse gas emissions.

* At the Buffalo Mountain wind plant in Tennessee , each turbine foundation is 30 ft deep and contains approx. 3,500 cubic yards of concrete. Concrete production is one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions.

* It has been estimated that a wind plant must be in production for seven years to offset the carbon emissions created in the manufacture of just the concrete needed for their placement.

* A wind plant stands to be seen from at least 20 miles around, meaning it has the potential of degrading the scenery of 1,256 square miles. Western N.C. economies are dependent on the vacation home business and tourists that are attracted to the area for its scenic views, and natural undisturbed environment.

* Then there is the bird problem. The California Energy Commission reported that in 1989 the wind turbines in Altamont Pass killed 60 golden eagles and 300 redtail hawks, not to mention smaller birds.

* Norway researchers Winkleman and Karlsson counted 49 birds killed by a single turbine during one night of migration.

* The U.S Fish and Wildlife Services estimate that European wind power kills 37 birds per turbine per year. Extrapolating that figure to 50 turbines equals the potential for a small wind plant to kill almost 20,000 birds over a 10 year period.

* At least 2000 bats were killed on Backbone Mountain in West Virginia in just 2 months during their 2003 fall migration.

* A 2002 study in Spain estimated that 11,200 birds of prey, 350,000 bats, and 3,000,000 small birds are killed each year by wind turbines and their power lines.

Enter at Your Own Risk - Noise, Fire, and Health Hazards

* The Wind Industry typically plays down the noise problem but it is widely known that in the leases between land owners and developers there is a “noise easement” to protect the wind company from liability. Any complaints or lawsuits would be against the land owner.

* The noise problem is well documented – in Oct. 2005, Germany hosted the First International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise and discussed perspectives for noise control.

* The European Union published results of a 5 year investigation into wind power and found noise complaints to be valid, and that noise levels could not be predicted before developing a site.

* A Meyersdale, Pa resident, Bob Laravee, who lives 3000 ft. from a wind plant, documented noise levels over a 48 hr. period. The results showed an average reading of 75 decibels. According to the EPA, 45 decibels disturb sleep.

* It is difficult to predict noise levels in mountainous terrain. Only a “swishing” may be heard directly underneath a turbine, but farther away the resulting sound of several turbines together has been described to be as loud as a motorcycle or a jet engine.

* In March 2006, Dr Nina Pierpont testified before the N.Y. State Legislature Committee about “Wind Turbine Syndrome” which affects many people living in the vicinity of wind turbines, This syndrome includes chronic sleep problems, severe headaches, dizziness, concentration problems, inner ear problems, etc. People with a history of car sickness, migraines, and inner ear problems are more susceptible.

* Dr. Pierpont also reported that some people feel disturbing pulsations in their chests and ears even when they can't see or hear the wind turbines. Sensitivity to low frequency vibration is highly variable in people and poorly understood. The strobe effect of turbines can also provoke seizures in people with epilepsy.

* Wind turbines are subject to metal fatigue and the effects of ice and wind, parts and whole blades have torn off because of malfunction, flying as far as 8 kilometers and through the window of a home in one case. Whole towers have collapsed in Germany (as recently as 2002) and the U.S.
(e.g. Oklahoma, May 2005).

* California reports 35 turbine generated fires per year due to short circuiting and lightning. A single turbine may contain up to 200 gallons of oil; the transformer at the base of each turbine may contain another 500 gallons of oil. In rural areas even a spark can easily develop into a large fire before discovery is made and fire fighting can begin.

* There are currently many lawsuits around the world due to wind plant noise, lowered property values, and negative health effects. Communities are angry at being forced to become live-in power plants.


The above was posted so that readers of DU could read an alternative opinion to wind industry propaganda. Again, I invite you all to research the matter for yourselves.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. and nobody is fooled by you
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. This is just as much bull today as it was yesterday as it will be tomorrow
Any more tricks in that bag of yours or is this the whole shit and sheebang? An increase in nuclear energy is not in the cards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Keepers of the Blueridge sounds like a wonderful organization....
no doubt funded by "concerned" citizens with no connection to any energy firm - Just like AARP wasn't created by the insurance industry, the DLC and RNC work for the people and * won both elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. You may be right.
Or you may not. Perhaps there is a small coal industry in NC. I honestly don't know, but I wonder if the same suspicion justify ignoring the arguments of this group of people?

http://www.nortexwind.org/index.htm

How many people have to say, "Hey, this is a bad idea," before we should start to listen? Even if these groups are supported by coal or gas or someone else, that doesn't necessarily mean their arguments are baseless, does it?

:shrug:

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Once more with feeling
You can keep misrepresenting the way mining industry money is being used to exaggerate low level local nimbyism and I'll keep pointing out the fact that you are doing it.

Any project that causes alteration to a locale's "sense of place" is going to have a certain number of people that are disturbed by change. These websites are a product of a deliberate effort by fossil fuel interests to capitalize on that "nimby" effect and encourage/exaggerate the degree of public opposition. They first fought through denial of the existence of global warming; when that position was no longer possible to hold they fell back to casting doubt on the anthropogenic causes of climate change. Now we are at a point where that position is no longer tenable, and to make matters worse for them, they have lost the political upper hand that allowed them to stymie the phase out of fossil fuels at the level of central authority. Now their battle lines are refocusing on stoppiing development of fossil alternatives at the local level.

The websites you are promoting are an outgrowth of an effort started in the coal mining regions of England around 2003 by a Brit MP in response to the withdrawal of government subsidies from their domestic coal industry and rechanneling it into the development of wind. It spread to the US via the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound; a group known mainly for the support it receives from Ted and Robert Kennedy. Less known is that it was founded and primarily funded by Republicans with strong ties to fossil fuel and minerals mining interests.

An interesting book about the way nimby manifests itself when tied to political power and encouraged by dark interests is the case study of Cape Wind opposition written by Wendy Williams.
http://capewindbook.typepad.com/blog/

The primary characteristic that ties these groups together is the false, misleading, and totally debunked arguments that are repeated nearly verbatim from website to website and their lack of transparency regarding who is actually involved in the "opposition". So, you might think you are acting locally in good faith, but in fact, you are a tool of the exact same forces that brought us the Tobacco Institute, the environmental skepticism movement, and the global warming denial industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. And even if these sites are supported by coal money ...
(and they might be ... I really don't know) Wind power is still a bad idea.

Just consider the facts below:

* In the U.K. 1,010 wind turbines produced 0.1% of their electricity in 2002.

* It would take over 2000 large wind turbines (with a generous capacity factor of 30%) spread over hundreds of miles to equal the power of one 1600 MW conventional power plant situated on a few acres.

* Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. They don't produce power until wind speed reaches 8 mph; reach rated capacity around 33 mph, and shut down at 55 mph because of possible damage to the blades. Their output is intermittent, volatile, and unpredictable.

* This unpredictability causes “grid instability”. Electricity grids must be kept in balance (supply & demand, voltage, frequency) which is why wind power must have back up generators to ramp up and down to balance the unreliable output from wind turbines.

* Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind generated power they buy because of the grid instability they cause.

* For the same reason, in Dec. 2003, Ireland halted all new wind power connections to the national grid and have plans to end state supported subsidies.

* In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections and in 2006 Spain ended all subsidies.

* In 2004, Australia reduced the amount of wind power that utilities are required to buy bringing wind projects to an almost stand still.

* Switzerland is also cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit from wind power.


That's all true, isn't it? Who cares whether mining interests or concerned citizens are spreading the truth? It's still the truth, and as a member of the reality-based community, I want to deal with the truth in some meaningful way. Lots of people are coming to the conclusion that wind power stinks. That doesn't mean coal is the answer. In fact, I generally agree that coal is the main problem.

But, by the same token, wind power is NOT the answer.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Systematic Chaos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I admire your perseverance, but it's time to face the fact that these people are unreachable.
They live in their little renewable fantasy land, and there's little those of us who know better can do to shut them up.

Still, it's fun watching them as they trip and stumble all over themselves. I think everyone should own at least two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I hear you.
Mercifully, they're not my audience. I am really speaking to all those people who have read these threads but have not had the benefit of the truth.

I love the "idea" of renewable energy, but I also like electricity. If the renewables these folks were pushing produced actually usable electricity, it would be one thing, but the fact that they're strenuously advocating massive government waste and promoting ripping off the taxpayers while simultaneously enriching Republicans is what irritates me. It's hard for me to be quiet in the face of that. I want DU to be a reality-based site. As such, I feel the need to speak for reality when I see fantasy posted here.

Thanks for the sympathy, all the same.

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. Um... Duh? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC