I wasn't expecting much discussion. I'm just amazed that supposedly politically savvy Washington officials enacted a policy that would be overwhelmingly opposed. They could have just made the wind companies pay a fine for every eagle that dies, like polluters do.MarleysGh0st wrote:You're not one of the usual suspects in the political rant thread, jarnon, but with that "anger everybody" lead, I'm not sure if you want a reasonable discussion about the story or if this is just one more thread that folks who respect their own sanity should stay away from.
http://mag.audubon.org/articles/conserv ... facilitiesThe free pass is over. On Friday, Duke Energy Renewables pleaded guilty to the deaths of more than 150 protected birds at two of its Wyoming wind power sites and agreed to pay $1 million in fines. It marks the first time a wind energy company been prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, despite the fact that numerous projects are known killing grounds of protected avian species.
The turbines already cost more than the energy they produce.rayxtwo wrote:I don't know what the big deal is. If they want to protect the birds, just build guards around the blades just like they have on house fans. Problem solved.
Ray
True of any turbine, whether it's hydroelectric, wind, or fossil-fuel based. All those costs have to amortized over time. But your statement is disingenuous in that it implies that producing wind energy is merely a way to get cheaper energy. It's a way to try to add to the sources available for the grid, so that limited natural resources can be conserved. And, the notion goes, since wind is free, the costs can easily be amortized over a long time.BackInTex wrote:The turbines already cost more than the energy they produce.rayxtwo wrote:I don't know what the big deal is. If they want to protect the birds, just build guards around the blades just like they have on house fans. Problem solved.
Ray
For a blade guard to be effective against birds flying into it, it would probably decrease the efficiency more than 50%. I'm on the side of the birds here, but this is one solution even I can't lobby for.mrkelley23 wrote:True of any turbine, whether it's hydroelectric, wind, or fossil-fuel based. All those costs have to amortized over time. But your statement is disingenuous in that it implies that producing wind energy is merely a way to get cheaper energy. It's a way to try to add to the sources available for the grid, so that limited natural resources can be conserved. And, the notion goes, since wind is free, the costs can easily be amortized over a long time.BackInTex wrote:The turbines already cost more than the energy they produce.rayxtwo wrote:I don't know what the big deal is. If they want to protect the birds, just build guards around the blades just like they have on house fans. Problem solved.
Ray
Here's something I wonder, though, as a physics teacher. These wind farms are located in windy areas by necessity. When they are large enough, with enough blades, there is no question that they "slow down the wind" in that area. Slowing down the wind has the effect of changing wind patterns, which could change local prevailing winds, which could eventually affect climate over large parts of the globe. Has any serious study been made of this potential? Cause I'm not finding one.
And, BiT, your answer is valid -- I didn't mean to dispute that. The reason you don't build guards around the blades is because of the two big engineering principles: cost and mass. Building blade guards would add tremendously to the cost and mass, as well as decreasing the efficiency of the machine.
One of the harder concepts to explain to high school physics students -- angular speed versus linear speed. I like how Calvin's Dad explained it, although I can't use it any more, for obvious reasons.Estonut wrote:When I first started hearing about birds being killed by wind turbines, I didn't get how that was possible. 'Stupid birds,' I thought. I've since read that although the blades appear to be moving very slowly, some of them are so massive that the tips of the blades can be traveling up to 180 mph.
Calvin's dad was a trendy hipster before his time. Have you been in a record store lately? Records are back in a big way. But I don't see how that fad can last much longer.mrkelley23 wrote:One of the harder concepts to explain to high school physics students -- angular speed versus linear speed. I like how Calvin's Dad explained it, although I can't use it any more, for obvious reasons.Estonut wrote:When I first started hearing about birds being killed by wind turbines, I didn't get how that was possible. 'Stupid birds,' I thought. I've since read that although the blades appear to be moving very slowly, some of them are so massive that the tips of the blades can be traveling up to 180 mph.
wind farms affect climatemrkelley23 wrote:True of any turbine, whether it's hydroelectric, wind, or fossil-fuel based. All those costs have to amortized over time. But your statement is disingenuous in that it implies that producing wind energy is merely a way to get cheaper energy. It's a way to try to add to the sources available for the grid, so that limited natural resources can be conserved. And, the notion goes, since wind is free, the costs can easily be amortized over a long time.BackInTex wrote:The turbines already cost more than the energy they produce.rayxtwo wrote:I don't know what the big deal is. If they want to protect the birds, just build guards around the blades just like they have on house fans. Problem solved.
Ray
Here's something I wonder, though, as a physics teacher. These wind farms are located in windy areas by necessity. When they are large enough, with enough blades, there is no question that they "slow down the wind" in that area. Slowing down the wind has the effect of changing wind patterns, which could change local prevailing winds, which could eventually affect climate over large parts of the globe. Has any serious study been made of this potential? Cause I'm not finding one.
And, BiT, your answer is valid -- I didn't mean to dispute that. The reason you don't build guards around the blades is because of the two big engineering principles: cost and mass. Building blade guards would add tremendously to the cost and mass, as well as decreasing the efficiency of the machine.
Ah, there's a study -- just what I was looking for. Thanks, tmitsss -- I knew I couldn't have been the only person to think of this.themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:wind farms affect climatemrkelley23 wrote:True of any turbine, whether it's hydroelectric, wind, or fossil-fuel based. All those costs have to amortized over time. But your statement is disingenuous in that it implies that producing wind energy is merely a way to get cheaper energy. It's a way to try to add to the sources available for the grid, so that limited natural resources can be conserved. And, the notion goes, since wind is free, the costs can easily be amortized over a long time.BackInTex wrote:
The turbines already cost more than the energy they produce.
Here's something I wonder, though, as a physics teacher. These wind farms are located in windy areas by necessity. When they are large enough, with enough blades, there is no question that they "slow down the wind" in that area. Slowing down the wind has the effect of changing wind patterns, which could change local prevailing winds, which could eventually affect climate over large parts of the globe. Has any serious study been made of this potential? Cause I'm not finding one.
And, BiT, your answer is valid -- I didn't mean to dispute that. The reason you don't build guards around the blades is because of the two big engineering principles: cost and mass. Building blade guards would add tremendously to the cost and mass, as well as decreasing the efficiency of the machine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... study.html
BackInTex wrote: The turbines already cost more than the energy they produce.
At the core that statement makes little sense. I'm not saying you're wrong about the motivation, but to call my statement disingenuous and that somehow your statement ("It's a way to try to add to the sources available for the grid") is a about a rational and noble purpose is, well, absurd.mrkelley23 wrote:True of any turbine, whether it's hydroelectric, wind, or fossil-fuel based. All those costs have to amortized over time. But your statement is disingenuous in that it implies that producing wind energy is merely a way to get cheaper energy. It's a way to try to add to the sources available for the grid, so that limited natural resources can be conserved. And, the notion goes, since wind is free, the costs can easily be amortized over a long time.
Yes, I think we agree a lot more than we disagree (on this topic, anyway). We just speak such different languages that it sounds like we're arguing.BackInTex wrote:BackInTex wrote: The turbines already cost more than the energy they produce.At the core that statement makes little sense. I'm not saying you're wrong about the motivation, but to call my statement disingenuous and that somehow your statement ("It's a way to try to add to the sources available for the grid") is a about a rational and noble purpose is, well, absurd.mrkelley23 wrote:True of any turbine, whether it's hydroelectric, wind, or fossil-fuel based. All those costs have to amortized over time. But your statement is disingenuous in that it implies that producing wind energy is merely a way to get cheaper energy. It's a way to try to add to the sources available for the grid, so that limited natural resources can be conserved. And, the notion goes, since wind is free, the costs can easily be amortized over a long time.
If you want to call the current wind-to-energy efforts R&D, then I'd agree. We need to find a way to economically (and I guess with some environmentally friendliness) transform the wind into energy. But we don't need it now. We do not have an energy shortage and to continue to waste money on wind energy is foolish. We should save our money for when we do need it because by then all the current wind-to-energy infrastructure will be obsolete and needing replacing confirming its all been a big waste (not withstanding the R&D benefit).
One of the biggest costs of wind energy is it is produce where it is not needed and must be transported long distances. Our technology for transporting electricity is about the same as it was 50 years ago.
One of the best things I've seen written here. Well said.mrkelley23 wrote:Yes, I think we agree a lot more than we disagree (on this topic, anyway). We just speak such different languages that it sounds like we're arguing.
The roof of the building I'm working in now is entirely covered in solar panels that greatly reduce our power consumption. No subsidy is necessary.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Most people are well meaning with their ideas and political philosophies about any particular subject. One of these subjects is 'renewable' energy. But many just don't take the time to consider the unintended consequences of ideas that just 'seem' so right and environmentally friendly. And some take it to the point of denigrating and demonizing any opposition or rational arguments against their point of view on the subject. (And a lot of times, they are very loud and shrill about it.)
I am all for any kind of energy source that would be truly renewable and cost effective for everyone. Really, who wouldn't be? But it must be self sufficient and viable on it's own merits. If it has to be subsidized to work, it's not ready. I put wind power, ethanol, solar power electric cars and those kinds of things in that category. When they are ready and viable, they will get mass acceptance in the market and be implemented safely. Otherwise, they are not ready for prime time. And they should not be forced on us.
Then I like it. As long as the company who made the solar panels is not getting preferential treatment at the expense of someone else (or taxpayers). Can you verify that?Bob Juch wrote:The roof of the building I'm working in now is entirely covered in solar panels that greatly reduce our power consumption. No subsidy is necessary.flockofseagulls104 wrote:Most people are well meaning with their ideas and political philosophies about any particular subject. One of these subjects is 'renewable' energy. But many just don't take the time to consider the unintended consequences of ideas that just 'seem' so right and environmentally friendly. And some take it to the point of denigrating and demonizing any opposition or rational arguments against their point of view on the subject. (And a lot of times, they are very loud and shrill about it.)
I am all for any kind of energy source that would be truly renewable and cost effective for everyone. Really, who wouldn't be? But it must be self sufficient and viable on it's own merits. If it has to be subsidized to work, it's not ready. I put wind power, ethanol, solar power electric cars and those kinds of things in that category. When they are ready and viable, they will get mass acceptance in the market and be implemented safely. Otherwise, they are not ready for prime time. And they should not be forced on us.
