127 replies to this topic

[Alli]

What are the holdups on making wind power more widely available? Is it cost? Technology? Why isn't wind power used everywhere now? I mean, everywhere gets wind, right?

[gangandealer]

That's true, except we must also take into consideration that by using wind mills, we are lessening the wind in the surrounding area.

[Ecodisaster]

I believe there is a lot of controversy about wind power. Most of us would think that it is a great alternative to fossil fuels.
Wind is not a constant source, it changes continuously. Water is a continuous source. Wind is intermittent.
Also, wind power costs a lot. For instance the tax subsidies for wind power are 200 greater than other fuels.
Look at what happened in Scotland, where they decided to replace fossil fuels for wind power in the farms, and they ended up getting half the power.

It also kills tons of birds every year, but...fossil fuels kill more animals.

Of course, I am not saying I am against wind power, and it may just be politics, but for what I have read, it is not really an efficient way to replace fossil fuels.

[Mon-Jes]

Bird and bat deaths, ice flung off propeller blades, disruptive humming sounds, controversy over windfarms plunked down in the middle of landscapes... take your pick. :-)

[zspuckl]

I think the big problem is that there is this big notion that wind power is the future, but really the payout in energy for the wind power is not substantial enough to sustain anything.

[zararina]

I think not all places are applicable to have wind power plant or turbines. It should be where there are strong winds like near the shore or high places in a mountain. Turbines could not be safe to be place in a crowded place that could cause accidents specially if there are natural disasters.

[Liv]

Mon-Jes makes some good points. I recently went on holiday to Wales and they had a huge wind farm near where I was staying. The noise was unbelievable! Now I realize in order to save the environment we should be able to handle the noise, but I could not get over how noisy it was. This was a relatively small farm too and we weren't even staying right on top of it either.

[Ecodisaster]

Liv, on 30 October 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

Mon-Jes makes some good points. I recently went on holiday to Wales and they had a huge wind farm near where I was staying. The noise was unbelievable! Now I realize in order to save the environment we should be able to handle the noise, but I could not get over how noisy it was. This was a relatively small farm too and we weren't even staying right on top of it either.

I can tell you coal factories are horribly noisy as well. Nuclear is not noisy, but I am not for it, although very efficient.
I believe it is beyond noise, it is about efficiency. Money, whether we want it or not, is still what rules almost everything, and companies and governments are not willing to go clean if they lose money in doing so. Wind power is not efficient. Biogas is more efficient and reliable, and we can all generate it at home with our own waste. It doesn't take too much money, but it is kind of stinky. Does anybody know if biogas contaminate as much?

[Usty]

The size, and efficiency of the windmills, coupled with the reliability of wind as a power source. That's would holding it back. If the Earths weather conditions went completely out of whack, causing huge wind gusts around most areas at all time, then it would be used more.

Until everyone got tired of having to repair the windmills. Even the Turbines would suffer in conditions like that.

[Green Thumb]

I believe there are small wind turbines specifically made for residential home. Investing in the wind energy isn't that bad to lower your electricity cost.

[zspuckl]

People seem to also have this notion that there is just always wind, there really isn't enough repeatedly in one area for use to be able to harness it, until we can know how much wind there will be in a gien location and when, it is really hard to expand on wind power!

[Germs]

The main reason holding them back to me seems to be environmentalists themselves, half the time i see them complaining regardless of where the wind farms are placed, apparently they ruin natural beauty amongst other things.

[SpiroFlo]

A lot to respond to in this thread. Hooray multi-quote!

Ecodisaster, on 29 October 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

Wind is not a constant source, it changes continuously. Water is a continuous source. Wind is intermittent.

Agreed. You can only store so much wind power and you can't predict when the wind will blow. I heard some scholar had something to say about chasing after the wind...

Usty, on 30 October 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

The size, and efficiency of the windmills, coupled with the reliability of wind as a power source.

I remember driving through Wyoming and seeing one fin of the turbine on the back of a flatbed. It was giant. I never thought about how big they are until I saw that.

Germs, on 03 November 2011 - 07:23 AM, said:

The main reason holding them back to me seems to be environmentalists themselves, half the time i see them complaining regardless of where the wind farms are placed, apparently they ruin natural beauty amongst other things.

Ha. I always wonder why giant wind turbines are allowed in Wyoming whereas California doesn't want offshore rigs ruining the landscape of the ocean. Maybe it's that oil and gas is ill-favored (especially in CA) or because people don't care as much about Wyoming landscape (maybe why it hasn't expanded past areas like that), but there you go.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Ecodisaster, on 29 October 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

It also kills tons of birds every year, but...fossil fuels kill more animals.

Links to prove that statement?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

http://en.wikipedia....water_Wind_Farm
http://en.wikipedia...._power_in_Texas
http://en.wikipedia....arge_wind_farms

(for some reason my original post didn't work, so here are just the links-sorry)

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Ecodisaster, on 29 October 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

It also kills tons of birds every year, but...fossil fuels kill more animals.

http://www.treehugge...kill-birds.html

[HollisterFitch]

I think wind power is a great idea and should be used everywhere, along with, other methods. I don't think one single method can be the solution. I think multiple sources of energy is our road to freedom (solar, wind, water, etc..)

[Ecodisaster]

Shortpoet, on 12 November 2011 - 05:15 AM, said:

http://www.treehugge...kill-birds.html

It is a known fact that wind power kills animals, not only birds but also mammals, like bats. Like I said, not as many as other energy sources, of course. It is just 10,000-40,000 birds killed every year, birds alone, not counting on bats. So that's some number. From this being an "irrelevant" number compared to other animal deaths (but we are specifically talking about wind power here), to calling it a myth, there is a huge difference. I am not for or against wind power, I am just neutral reporting the facts, or at least, what they present us as facts. I still think if they made the wind turbines a bit more efficient and animal friendly, it would be great. That's why we need more thought to it.

Links here, some scientific research papers, with estimates and proof.

Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities in North America

Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee

Studies conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

American Wind Energy Association

http://policy.audubo...ower-overview-0  The Audubon society kind of supports the same, but clearly says the amount killed is minimum, and perhaps it can be solved by changing installation methods, still promoting the wind turbines though.



And some blog-magazine too http://andrewsulliva...irds-ctd-1.html , which actually says the same as I do. I am not against wind power, I am just saying it still kills animals, but a tiny amount compared to the other options. Still, an animal is an animal, no matter how many get killed.

My point is, there is no myth involved. Yes, anti-alternative energy people will use the "it kills birds" phrase, but there is some truth to it. Still, wind power is better than the regular energy sources. You have to take into account that in order to reduce the impact of wind turbines on wildlife, a consultation with the wildlife experts is a must. You, I and most of the people on this board know, that's not the case when it comes to money. Most of the time companies looking for easy money are also behind the installation if wind power, not green minds. There is no consultation with any experts before installation in most cases, just licenses that allow you to build and install.

And finally, wikipedia, not a reliable source if you ask me,  but here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towerkill

Basically the same thing we are saying, it does kill birds (and bats and others) but not as many as other man-made stuff.
Still, it kills animals. Buildings do too, but we don't stop building. We just need to study the situation individually before we install wind turbines (which still I believe are inefficient in the first place).

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"Using multipliers to calculate the true cost of the damage to wildlife species, the Center estimates that
approximately 6,000 sea turtles, 26,000 dolphins and whales,
82,000 birds, and countless fish and invertebrates may have been harmed by the disaster.
Based on the documented, ongoing effects of previous oil spills, pollution from the 2010 BP spill will continue
to affect Gulf wildlife for decades.
The number of birds, sea turtles, dolphins and other animals sickened or killed and tallied as part of the
government’s official count represents a small fraction of the total animals harmed by this disastrous spill.”
http://www.biologica...04-12-2011.html
http://www.biologica...Report_2011.pdf

[Ecodisaster]

Shortpoet, on 13 November 2011 - 05:24 AM, said:

"Using multipliers to calculate the true cost of the damage to wildlife species, the Center estimates that
approximately 6,000 sea turtles, 26,000 dolphins and whales,
82,000 birds, and countless fish and invertebrates may have been harmed by the disaster.
Based on the documented, ongoing effects of previous oil spills, pollution from the 2010 BP spill will continue
to affect Gulf wildlife for decades.
The number of birds, sea turtles, dolphins and other animals sickened or killed and tallied as part of the
government’s official count represents a small fraction of the total animals harmed by this disastrous spill.”
http://www.biologica...04-12-2011.html
http://www.biologica...Report_2011.pdf

Yep, like I said on my original post on this topic, fossil fuels are far worse than wind power, it is horrible.

Quote

Ecodisaster:
It also kills tons of birds every year, but...fossil fuels kill more animals.

Still, Wind power kills animals, like I showed you guys, but then again, cars do too. And buildings, and sewers, and almost everything else. Still, I am just neutrally reporting what the numbers tell us, not against wind power. Although it is not efficient enough.
Most of the time green people are behind not installing new wind turbines, due to the animal killing thing and the disruption of the landscape.

Thank you for the links Shortpoet, great ones.