Asymmetrical Information

Ah yes, the familiar ring of NIMBY. Merits of the aesthetics arguments notwithstanding, it seems alternative energy forms are always possible somewhere else...

Did you see the NYT Magazine story on this a while ago? It was classic. Maybe even worth paying for.

Was that the story in which someone was quoted as saying "these windmill things would be fine somewhere INLAND." Dimwits.

When a utility proposes to build a power plant or an oil refinery there are environmental opponents who leap out of the woodwork who want to Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Not Anytime: BANANAs

It is because of BANANAs that there hasn't been a new nuke plant or oil refinery built in this country since the 1980s.

"I feel strongly about preserving the unspoiled places in America, no matter where they are," McCullough said.

So where the hell does he propose we put these wind turbines that he allegedly favors? Manhattan?

“So where the hell does he propose we put these wind turbines that he allegedly favors? Manhattan?”

I think you are starting to get the point. Somebody could always argue that their area of the country is “pristine” and should remain untouched. Rich liberal Democrats are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. Does anyone remember when these same folks were for forced busing of other peoples’ children? They still sent their own kids to the "best" schools.

This is a superb reason when Democrats cannot be elected to any major political office. Their brains are not screwed on tight. They attended universities where deconstructionism and other relativist philosophies pervaded the curriculum. Thus, they currently are unable to think and follow a logical argument. Are the Republicans perfect? Not in the least, but they are definitely the lesser of evils.

Goodness, so coastal liberal Democrats are now diverting windmills to areas with Republican voters.

I guess that would explain why 2/3 of the KwH were generated in California.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/appendixc.html

The next three states in '99 were Minnesota, Iowa, and Texas, although on a per capita basis two of them really stand out more than the third. Minnesota had quite a reputation as a liberal spot in the 1990s, but perhaps liberals were predicting the Republican sweep of the '02 elections in Minnesota when they targeted it for plantation.

I'm not saying there isn't a lot of selfish nonsense in the Nantucket Shoals case. But sometimes "just so stories" may sound better than they really are.

One of the reasons they are in the "Blue" states is that they were often mandated (X% of total generation must be "renewable") and/or had greater tax credits.

Offshore locations are better for wind farms as the wind is steadier. In other locations, such as west texas, conventional power plants make good money being on standby when the wind farms are running.

“Goodness, so coastal liberal Democrats are now diverting windmills to areas with Republican voters. “

I am definitely willing to pay the price to get lower energy bills. Moreover, one should also consider the very poor who are barely getting by. The Democrats are inadvertently the enemy of those living in poverty. This disgraceful incident is merely further proof of that fact.

The only reason Minnesota has so many windmills was because it was forced upon Xcel Energy by the DFL-controlled state legislature in the 1990s. They make no economic sense.

"So where the hell does he propose we put these wind turbines that he allegedly favors? Manhattan?"

Sure. Manhattan, Kansas.

Now how would a talmudic scholar not trash you in a debate about green energy!
Not very convincing Jane!

"Not very convincing Jane!"

How so? Do you have a substantial argument to back up your assertion?

Remember, the windmills need to be some reasonable distance from the population centers they are supporting. If you send electricity more than 500 miles or so, the transmission losses really start adding up...

This post is a little snide even by your standards, Jane.

The project is in federal water, off Massachusetts. Let's take a look at how the Bush govt has treated states with comparable issues. In Florida, the govt bought out drilling rights, but refused to do so in California, because the public interest was stronger in Florida, according to the feds.

Is Mass more like Cal or Fla? Well duh.

And if the project were on land, the developer would need to buy or lease land, go through a development process, etc.

I see now. Rich liberals live near the coast. They shouldn't have any right to be involved in use decisions because the oceans belong to everyone. Poor conservatives, who don't have Barbra's number on speed-dial, need to do the boring things like actually going to land use hearings.

If you REALLY want to start trading hypocrisies (as David Thomson appears to), let's go. The Republicans are the party of personal responsibility, yet propose a massive increase in medicare. They are the party of state's rights, yet interfere in California's desire to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. they are the party of fiscal conservatism, yet have yet to propose a program cut to match the tax cuts. they are the party of integrity and honesty, yet have treated the american people remarkably shabbily about issues of WAR.

So there are democratic hypocrites. so what?

“If you REALLY want to start trading hypocrisies (as David Thomson appears to), let's go. The Republicans are the party of personal responsibility, yet propose a massive increase in medicare. They are the party of state's rights, yet interfere in California's desire to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. they are the party of fiscal conservatism, yet have yet to propose a program cut to match the tax cuts. they are the party of integrity and honesty, yet have treated the american people remarkably shabbily about issues of WAR.”

The Republican party is merely the lesser of evils. It is indeed foolish (and hypocritical) to support the ludicrous increase in medicare. I have also long supported the legalization of marijuana--and strongly disagree with President Bush on this issue. And indeed the Republicans are unfortunately reluctant to argue for specific spending cuts. Your last point is simply false. I see zero evidence that the Bush administration deliberately mislead the American people regarding the Iraq invasion. Possible mistakes in judgment are not the same thing as personal dishonesty.

My central problem with the New England wealthy Democrat hypocrites is their gross stupidity. They don’t even realize the logical inconsistency of their position! Allow me to repeat myself one more time: far too many Democrat leaders seem unable to think and follow a logical argument---and that is why they must be kept out of power.

Even Democratic states have Republican areas. Are the California or Minnesota windmills in red or blue counties?

Xcel put its DFL-mandated windmills in one of the least populated counties in MN - Pipestone country in extreme southwest corner of the state.

>>Presumably the right sort of wind farms are located in midwestern farmland, where the only people who will be bothered are people who don't matter. The kind that vote Republican, and don't care about things like scenery.

Compared to midwestern farmland, a wind farm would *be* scenery.

That's a value judgement, D^2. My family is quite fond of their view.

I never understand this argument, because I think windmills -- of the old wooden or modern shiny varieties -- are beautiful. Driving through Southern Germany a few weeks back, I came across a load of windmills scattered randomly amongst the forest over the hillsides. It was a breathtaking and beautiful sight.

There are extensive California wind farms in the deep blue zones around San Jose... if you drive out of Silicon Valley, you'll see hillsides covered with windmills. Santa Clara County is heavily Democratic.

Another big difference between the Nantucket Shoals and midwestern farms is that the shoals effectively belong to no one while the Minnesota and Iowa farmland is privately owned. The thousands of people who live close to the shoals would not benefit directly from the decision, even while they live with the effects. On the other hand, the midwestern farmers are being paid good rent for their land and presumably had a say in whether they erected windmills or not.

As has been pointed out, farmland is not "unspoiled" territory by any stretch of the imagination.

David Thomson, have you ever been to Nantucket or the Cape? Your concern for all of the poor people unable to pay their electric bills but for the wind farm is misplaced, to put it mildly.

The Rich NIMBY Democrats would never think to place these kinds of projects in Republican areas because they'd run into political opposition.

Instead, they are more likely to put them in minority areas or poor/working class white areas.

"Even Democratic states have Republican areas. Are the California or Minnesota windmills in red or blue counties?"

If you look at a county map of the 2000 election the nation appears to have gone GOP in a big way--the map is red with tiny blue(Gore) dots.

just a random aside...

Where do the rich NIMBY Republicans put their jails and power plants? Scottsdale? DuPage County?

Most of the liberal effete Democrats I know in Massachusetts live within spitting distance of "minority areas or poor/working class white areas," but I guess if we're not sequestering ourselves from problems in the suburbs, we're evil agents of gentrification. Can't win, I suppose.

It would be fun to add up all the stereotypes of liberals generated by the comments here and see if it 110% of the country is liberal while 120% is their conservative victims. It's rather like the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, where every good act done is done in the name of Aslan, and every bad act done is in the name of the evil witch, no matter who actually does it.

"If you look at a county map of the 2000 election the nation appears to have gone GOP in a big way--the map is red with tiny blue(Gore) dots."

That's looking at the land, not the people. Those tiny blue dots are more densely populated than the wide open red spaces.

>>That's a value judgement, D^2.

Yes, I know, they haven't gone completely out of fashion. I am happy to stand in the face of relativists, deconstructionists and all other opponents of aesthetic value judgements, and stick my neck out so far as to say that the view from Cape Cod is a superior sight to the view from Tuskegee Oklahoma.

>>My family is quite fond of their view.

Last time you mentioned your family, I seem to remember they were in upstate New York, which is neither "Mid" nor "West", unless I have been quite scandalously deceived by the Rand-McNally corporation.

D^2, your comment wasn't comparing midwestern farmland to Cape Cod, it was comparing midwestern farmland to a midwestern wind farm. Being a midwesterner as I am, I rather enjoy the view of acres of corn and soy fields off the back deck of my house. It is far preferable to acres of windmills of any shape or sort.

D^2-- I know you're not being entirely serious, but as someone who has lived his life throughout the Eastern part of the US, I can tell you that I see little difference, culturally, between Minneapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo, and St Louis.

Of course, they are different places, but parts of NY state are 500 miles from the sea, and a long ways from the South. So many of us in the Midwest are happy to adopt Rochester, Pittsburgh, and maybe even Wheeling, WV.

One man's opinion.

We New Mexicans are apparently going to get our own wind farm and overall are rather pleased.

I am certain that there are Republicans in Cape Cod who are also opposed to the windmills due to the fact that the only reason to own property there is for the view -- there is little else to the place anymore really. Damaging the view is damaging the one reason property values there are high so residents and other property owners therefore have a legitimate gripe about the proposal. Everyone has some NIMBY in them - the left just a bit more so on average.

Just because someone has a poltical or policy view does not mean that they have to undertake all possible forms of support. One who wants to save some species from extinction (say African Lions) does not need to back their politics by adopting one to live in their own home. And you wont find too many republicans willing to house nuclear waste in their basements (well, ok, except for my father).

. . . I can tell you that I see little difference, culturally, between Minneapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo, and St Louis . . .

As a former Clevelander, I can assure you that there are enormous cultural differences between it and Cincinnati. Cincinnati tries to ban art exhibits while Cleveland tries to attract them.

One difference is that rural New York, Ohio, and Indiana is a good bit more densely populated than rural areas of West Texas, Kansas, or the Dakotas.

This is a longstanding story up here, and you all do the good citizens of the Cape and Islands a disservice to imply that they are wealthy Democrats each and all. Nantucket is heavily populated by extremely weathly business people who are well-known to be solidly Republican. The average price of a house on the island is now over $1 million, a great many inhabited by folks from the ranks of Wall Street and the nation's board rooms (so they aren't looking to put any windmills in Manhattan either, but the Galt family farm might indeed work just fine). In fact, the labor to build and remodel their houses (as well as many other service people) has to take the boat in each morning because they cannot afford to live on the island any more. Having recently returned from there, I speak from first hand knowledge in saying that a casually thrown stone would just as likely take out a vote for Bush as it would for Dean.

The fact that a number of prominent, wealthy liberals are lined up on the beaches to defeat this plan is indeed shameful. (Although to be fair, there are some reasonable criticisms of certain aspects of the venture, although most are addressable.) But look at the contributors who are working against this and you'll see Republicans shoulder to shoulder (or is it wallet to wallet?) with Democratics in bipartisan indignation.

Call it a gale in the hurricane of class struggle. But no doubt, the Kennedys and the Chronkites really ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Yep, that huge pile of salt in Chelsea, real close to the beautiful people. Same for all the oil tanks along the Mystic River, the power plant in Everett, and Logan airport is smack dab in the line of sight of the swells from Wellesley, Weston and Dover.

I'm jumping on the hypocrisy of it. It is hypocritical for wealthy liberals to advocate wind farms, so long as someone else has to bear all the external costs. Any Republicans who have advocated wind farms should be slammed just as hard as the liberals. Although having spent quite a bit of time on Nantucket, Martha's Vinyard, and the Cape, I'd dispute your characterization of the politics; I've always found they leaned distinctly left, and they certainly draw their vacationers from highly left-leaning cities. Democrats poll better on the Upper East Side than in Queens.

"That's looking at the land, not the people. Those tiny blue dots are more densely populated than the wide open red spaces."

Yes, but people in the "blue states" need to realize that their are Reps in your midst, just as Al Gore got about 40% of the vote in Kansas. The blue state/red state divide is a bit misleading. It's really shades of purple.

"One difference is that rural New York, Ohio, and Indiana is a good bit more densely populated than rural areas of West Texas, Kansas, or the Dakotas."

Therefore, presumably the best place for wind farms is rural New York, Ohio and Indiana, as they don't have the Nantucket scenery, yet are "spoiled" by human interference.

The best place for electricity generation is near people, so that you suffer minimal transmission losses. And the best place for wind power generation is offshore, where there's less variance in the wind. (I'm told.) Thus, the very best locations for wind power are pretty much guaranteed to be smack in the middle of somebody's view. It only seems fair that rich liberals would want to ruin their view first, thus redistributing some of the net psychic wealth down the income ladder.

"Yep, that huge pile of salt in Chelsea, real close to the beautiful people. Same for all the oil tanks along the Mystic River, the power plant in Everett,"

You got it. We live in Everett, Medford, Somerville, Allston-Brighton, J.P., the South End, Quincy. I drive past that power plant every day.

"Logan airport is smack dab in the line of sight of the swells from Wellesley, Weston and Dover."

You just managed to identify one of the few towns in Massachusetts that voted for George W. Bush as the epitome of liberalism.

But anyway, is it really a surprise that rich, suburban towns don't like pollution nearby? Suburban liberals are still a pretty rare breed in the country compared to surbuban Republicans, and most suburbanites are NIMBYs, so what makes you (or Jane, for that matter) think you can derive a viable point about liberals or Democrats from suburban NIMBYism? Again, do Republican suburbs in Atlanta, North Dallas, or Chester County Pa. volunteer for garbage dumps and new airports?

"Therefore, presumably the best place for wind farms is rural New York, Ohio and Indiana, as they don't have the Nantucket scenery, yet are "spoiled" by human interference."

Denise, please read it again, with special reference to the other places I listed in the very same sentence you quoted.

My point was to distinguish upstate New York from places like West Texas, not from places like Nantucket.

Actually, Jane, the Upper East Side had a Republican State Senator until the late 1990s and elected a Republican Congressman who was beaten by Carolyn Maloney after redistricting in 1992.

Brittain33:
"There are extensive California wind farms in the deep blue zones around San Jose... if you drive out of Silicon Valley, you'll see hillsides covered with windmills. Santa Clara County is heavily Democratic."

Actually, the windmill area is Altamont Pass in eastern Alameda County. These days it probably does run Democratic though it used to represented by a Republican.

Tops of mountains work well too. Of course, that rather still has the view problem. The Texas windmills are mostly wayyy out in West Texas - the big ones are near McCamey. Don't bother your map, it isn't on there. It's somewhere south of the southeast corner of New Mexico. There isn't nearly enough transmission capacity available to ship all this power back to Houston and Dallas, where it is needed. We're working on it.

Just so we are clear, these things don't look like something out of Hans Christian Anderson or Don Quixote. Wind generation towers are a couple of hundred meters high, and can have blades nearly 50 meters long. I can see why someone wouldn't want them behind their house.

"I'm jumping on the hypocrisy of it. It is hypocritical for wealthy liberals to advocate wind farms, so long as someone else has to bear all the external costs."

And our response is that your claims of hypocrisy are based on a simplistic and inaccurate assessment of the actual issues involved. You're skipping over basic questions here. For example, would you argue that it's liberal NIMBYism to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain instead of Manhattan... after all, people live near Yucca Mountain, and people live in Manhattan, so why should we privilege the liberals in NY over the conservatives in Nevada?

Since we're throwing around acronyms like NIMBY and BANANA, here's one from the California energy scene:

NOPE -

Not
On
Planet
Earth

Your point is both silly and moot. There is no safety reason to locate wind farms in remote, unpopulated areas, as there is with nuclear waste. (Although I wouldn't have any qualms about living near it; from what I've seen, it's perfectly safe.) Manhattan is neither cost-efficient nor geologically appropriate for nuclear waste storage, so it isn't going to be stored there. Wind farms, on the other hand, need to be located near populated areas, in places that don't have houses or factories on them: in other words, places with views. I have no patience with the argument that the view from places where rich people vacation are somehow much more special than the view from places where middle managers live.

I don't blame them for their hypocrisy; presumably, I wouldn't want my view altered either. But since they spend a great deal of time telling the rest of us how many things we have to do for the benefit of society, I think it is incumbent on the rest of us to ensure that they bear their fair share of the cost. Hypocrisy is the tribute that virtue pays to vice. But the proper response of a virtuous society is to force hypocrites onto the straight and narrow when they get caught -- or make them pay the price.

It's not so much the NIMBYism, which I can understand, it's the hypocritical NIMBYism of this particular issue.

So you commute on 99? Avoiding the Tobin? I grew up in Chelsea which was pretty much destroyed by that bridge. Too bad it didn't block the view from the Vineyard, perhaps it would never have been built.

It's rather like the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, where every good act done is done in the name of Aslan, and every bad act done is in the name of the evil witch, no matter who actually does it.

Brittain33, I think you're referring to the concluding book of the Narnia series (The Last Battle) rather than the LW&W. I don't remember anyone doing bad acts in the name of the White Witch, but maybe I'm forgetting something.

Assuming you're actually referring to The Last Battle, the scene is this. Emeth the Calormene is talking to Peter and Lucy and other Narnians in the new world shortly after they saw the old Narnia end. Emeth explains that he met Aslan, "...in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world, even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert. Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such difference kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted..." page 164-5 of 184 in my 1970 Collier Books paperback.

(For those of you unfamiliar with Narnia, Aslan is a Christ figure [and a lion], while Tash is worshipped by the Arabic Calormene, and in this case might reasonably be seen as Satan, or perhaps a sort of Anti-Christ.)

I think you meant your reference to suggest some hypocrisy in this windmill discussion. Assuming this is the scene you were thinking of, Lewis is suggesting that hypocrisy is impossible in the final judgement, and that it is actions rather than words that count.

Fortunately for us all, the issue of windmills in the waters off Nantucket does not rise to the level of good vs. evil, so some hypocrisy is allowed.

No one has said anything about the distances involved here. The Yahoo article says the windmills will be 420 feet tall and 3 miles off the coast. Is it just me, or are we really talking a slight blemish on the horizon more than looming noisy structures?

I'm trying to think, if I'm on the LIE approaching Manhattan, how tall does the Citicorp building look from 3 miles away? Actually, Citicorp is 915 feet tall, so we really want to figure 6 miles away, right?

Three miles puts you about where the BQE crosses the LIE, and six miles is back near Woodhaven Blvd. Trust me, it looks pretty small, way smaller than your thumb at arm's length, say. And a windmill is going to be way thinner and more open than a building.

If I can trust my rusty Trig, an object 420 feet at 15000 feet would take up 1.60386 degrees; the equivalent would be an object 1.008 inches high viewed at 3 feet. So we're talking about 130 half-toothpicks held at arm's length???

So I wonder if there are subtexts to the debate on Nantucket.

(A) It may be the yacht owners who are really upset, because they're the ones who might actually get near the windmills. (Is the area going to be restricted somehow? Or is part of the height to keep everything but the supporting columns out of the way of shipping?)

(B) Maybe it's not the size of the windmills but just that their visibility will remind vacationers that they're not really in unspoiled nature? You would think that anyone with access to electricity and refrigeration would already know that they're not experiencing unspoiled nature, but perhaps these man-made structures, however lost in the distance, would be too much.

PJ: Maybe even less, because at that distance, I think some of that perceived height would be lost in the curvature of the earth.

There is one sound environmental reason for opposing windfarms on land: They execute a lot of birds. Now three miles offshore, OTOH, I believe that risk goes down notably...how far out do seagulls typically venture?

I take 93N home. The northbound tunnel through the city is fantastic.

I take 93N home. The northbound tunnel through the city is fantastic.

"I have no patience with the argument that the view from places where rich people vacation are somehow much more special than the view from places where middle managers live."

I would argue that there is a very concrete way to measure the extra "specialness" of the view from Nantucket over the view from Wollaston Beach. The specialness is rated by the cash value of the real estate involved. Beachfront land in Nantucket is priced higher than the same land in Quincy because the view is more special.

As a libertarian, I would expect you to favor a free market system that would divert unpleasant sights like windmills to cheap, undesirable land. This leads to overall efficiency. Surely I don't need to explain this economic principle to you.

You keep mentioning the mileage limitations as if Nantucket Shoals were the only option here--build windmills there or have brownouts, build a plant no more than 499 miles away or suffer in the dark. But in fact there are plenty of other solutions--you could build the windmills elsewhere in SE Massachusetts, or even build them in mountainous New Hampshire to release more conventional energy for use down south. New England is a small region, after all. The cheaper real estate costs of a less desirable location would mitigate against the reduced efficiency of a landside power compex.

And here's the problem; there is no free market valuation of Nantucket Shoals. Opponents of Cape Wind would argue that the project is taking advantage of a loophole in our real estate system by placing their windmills in federal ocean territory where they can escape all the usual safeguards against externalities. In fact, it's widely acknowledged that Cape Wind is using this as a test case.

If you want to argue that the excellent wind generating environment off Nantucket means that it must be the first choice for placing windmills, real estate values be damned, and let's take advantage of government's long reach into the sea to make it happen, I have to ask how you square that with your libertarian views. As has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, everything about offshore licensing has been poisoned by politics. You should oppose that!

This is what I mean by a "simplistic" reduction of the argument. There are very real issues involved here that shade the debate. You might find yourself actually agreeing with what some of the Nantucket residents have to say. We need to get past looking for easy gotchas and just-so stories; they don't advance the political dialogue at all.

I've travelled and lived everywhere across America, and I love the east coast.

But there exists a stratum of east coast residents who with a straight face will admit they believe they're superior to the rest of the country, intellectually, morally, and aesthetically. The sad reality is, many in that stratum lack the very character features that make America great, namely, enterprise, ingenuity, and self-determination. This fact is crucial to understanding the modern east coast liberal.

Isn't it true that some of the upper east coast colonies did not want independence from Britain? I recall that New York abstained from the independence vote in the continental congress. They thought they'd have a better deal under Britain, economically, etc. They were willing to trade self-determination for comfort, as modern liberals are.

I also recall reading that New York wanted to secede from the country as they watched westward expansion prior to the civil war. They felt the residents of the original colonies were the true Americans; they considered the pioneers dirty and beneath them. Modern liberalism still loathes the innovation and risk taking of the entrepreneurial class, preferring the comfort of big government.

God bless New York, but I do hope they come to adopt more of the great American character that has historically been seen primarily in the heartland - i.e., the red states.

"If I can trust my rusty Trig, an object 420 feet at 15000 feet would take up 1.60386 degrees; the equivalent would be an object 1.008 inches high viewed at 3 feet. So we're talking about 130 half-toothpicks held at arm's length???"

This is why I love blogs, the confirmation that I am not alone in being a geek!

PJ & Anony -- Distance, curvature of the earth, good points. You also need to count humidity as a visibility factor.

Usually I don't sympathize with the particular type of liberals being skewered in this entry, but in this case, they may have a legitimate position. Even here in Kansas there are widely varied local reactions to proposed wind farms, and I don't know if it's correct to label any of them as pure NIMBYism.

Two examples: The biggest wind farm in the state is a 112-MW farm with around 170 turbines, each 300 feet high, spread out over 12,000 acres (to you non-aggie types, that's about 18 square miles). It's located in a sparsely populated area of southwest Kansas, although there certainly are people and farms around it. Generally, as I've learned from the folks I know out there, it's thought of as welcome economic development. And while I don't think they're especially stylish, the turbines are enough of a curiosity to rate a "scenic overlook" and kiosk off the highway. The mayor of Montezuma says "They give the community a sense of pride -- a sign of growth." I don't know him, but I know the county, and he's almost certainly a Republican, as was the Legislature that passed state tax incentives for wind farm development.

On the other hand, in another part of the state more renowned for scenic vistas -- the Flint Hills -- wind farm development is much more controversial. The (largely Republican) area gets a modest but growing chunk of tourism dollars from the open skies and rolling tallgrass prairies, as well as significant residential development on its fringes. The relocated townies who bought land out there did so largely because of the environment. If their neighbor decides to put up 40 300-foot turbines, it doesn't just damage their view; it damages their property values and arguably some of the earnings potential of the area. Part of what landowners pay for in most of the counties in the Flint Hills is some level of protection of the environmental value of their land via zoning and land use regulation. Love 'em or hate 'em, they are built into land values.

Aside from the interesting property rights question there (Who owns the view?), what the two cases really illustrate is that wind farms are NOT necessarily unwanted, and that regional values and property circumstances just might have a legitimate place in the debate.

As an aside, the following link is to a photo that illustrates the size of the turbines relative to old wooden windmills, visit:
http://kswindfarms.us/windgal3/PA230008smch.html

Brittain33:
"I would argue that there is a very concrete way to measure the extra "specialness" of the view from Nantucket over the view from Wollaston Beach. The specialness is rated by the cash value of the real estate involved. Beachfront land in Nantucket is priced higher than the same land in Quincy because the view is more special."

It's not clear from your comment, but you actually can see a windmill from Wollaston beach -- out on the end of Nantasket. Nearby residents think it's kind of cool, and the town in considering building more.

http://www.hullwind.org

In August of 2002 John MacLeod designed a ratepayer survey and mailed it out with the regular bills. Everyone had had plenty of time for an "up close and personal" acquaintance with our turbine. Of the 499 responses that came back, only 11 expressed any disapproval, and even these 11 were not necessarily opposed to Hull Wind 1. Two of the 11 said #1 was OK, but we should not go ahead putting in more. That left 95% of the respondents either mildly or hotly enthusiastic. More than one said "you can put the next one on my property -- even if you have to take down part or all of the buildings I now have standing there". MacLeod interpreted these as poetry.

Here's a picture.

What all this commentary misses is that windmills--scenic or not, hyprocritical Nantucketites notwithstanding--are lousy generators of electricity. Not only do they require vast areas of land (or sea), they make the grid system go haywire. In North America to date, the problems haven't appeared because wind represents about 0.5% of current generation (IIRC), but Denmark is having serious systemic problems. According to a manager of Eltra, the West Danish system operator (where most of the windmills are located), the West Danish system suffers frequent supply/demand imbalances of 800-1,000 MW, because of the turbines' habit of dropping out when they're most needed or coming online when demand is low. Fortunately for the Danes, they have large transmission corridors to neighbouring countries, so they can rely on (say) hydro-intensive Norway to take care of their system's fluctuations. Of course, they pay a price for this, and Danish wind electricity is often exported at cost. And Danish electricity is, I believe, some of the most expensive in Europe.

Wind doesn't displace conventional peaking generation like hydro or natural gas, since you need it to provide back-up power when the wind plant output is insufficient. It doesn't replace baseload generation--coal and nuclear plants--at all, since wind can't operate on a 24/7 basis. If you want to discard conventional generators, you need very large-scale energy storage technologies, and what does that do to the (ostensibly low) cost of wind? Either way, you get one energy system for the price of two.

The Cape Cod wind farm will have an installed (peak) capacity of 420 MW, equivalent to a small conventional power plant. But since the capacity factor will be 40% at best (but more likely closer to 33%), it will produce, on average, 168 MW. And that'll come in fits and starts.

"This is a superb reason when (sic...why?) Democrats cannot be elected to any major political office. Their brains are not screwed on tight."

Well, the last I checked, both houses of Congress were almost 50% Democrats, and the last 2 administrations were Democrats.

And I certainly wouldn't be shocked if the adminstration in 2005 or 2009 was Democratic.

"Are the Republicans perfect? Not in the least, but they are definitely the lesser of evils."

Since one's vote will ***never*** (less than 0.00001% chance) change the results of a federal election such that a Republican is elected over a Democrat, it makes sense to vote for whoever one thinks is the best candidate, NOT "the lesser of two evils."

"And Danish electricity is, I believe, some of the most expensive in Europe."

So, what you're saying is that something is watten in the state of Denmark?

*runs*

:-)

Retry link to turbine-and-windmill pic

Sorry. I'm an idiot. But this time it works.

There ought to be some way to arrange internally reflective fiber optics around the pole and the blades of a windmill to render it invisible.

It certainly wouldn't help the economics, but it would be a neat trick.

:-)

Anonymouse says: Maybe even less, because at that distance, I think some of that perceived height would be lost in the curvature of the earth.

Good point, I didn't think of the earth's curvature. I don't think it's a big factor, though; this site, for example, gives a factor of 8 inches height per 1 mile of distance. So, class, you can reduce the size of your 1 inch half-toothpicks by approzimately 0.5%.

There is one sound environmental reason for opposing windfarms on land: They execute a lot of birds. Now three miles offshore, OTOH, I believe that risk goes down notably...how far out do seagulls typically venture?

Unfortunately, I think the birds are still a concern. There are recognized routes that birds travel in the Western Hemisphere, and I think some of them are off the coast. I'm assuming that this particular area is not on a major bird thoroughfare (or a protesting Nantucketer would have mentioned it and proved he was not selfish bastard but rather an enlightened nature lover concerned with The Birds™).

Denise, I can see that haze from normal humidity would also tend to hide the windmills, but I have no idea how to consider it. Hazy enough to effectively double the distance?

Both the earth curvature and haze aspects only strengthen my contention that these are too far to much affect people's view from Nantucket. But from their public statements, it sure sounds like Mark could get Cronkite and the Kennedys to pay through the nose if he can get his Invisi-Wind-Mill to work.

My thanks to Brittain33 and Kari for making my argument in a far more lucid manner.

the argument, jane, is a little more complex than simple limo. liberal hypocrisy. it includes the capture of externalities (oooh, i just love those sexy econ expressions). Land use laws allow the neighbors of land-based windfarms to express their opposition. LOCAL government then gets to balance property rights vs. community interest.

but sea-based windfarms need only the permission of the feds, which is not known for its sympathy to local issues, unless the governor happens to be the president's brother. so high-priced lobbyists and expensive public-relations campaigns are the only available tool for presenting community opposition.

Or are you so hard-core that you believe that land use laws are unconstitutional? Let's see; you said "I have no patience with the argument that the view from places where rich people vacation are somehow much more special than the view from places where middle managers live"

but what's wrong with that argument, by your political/economic philosophy? if some chic suburb of new york (i dunno, wesport, CT for example) happens to be very windy, shouldn't the rich people of the community be able to elect a planning commission which establishes land use regulations prohibiting windmill farms?

more to the point, given your libertarian philosophy, what gives YOU the right to decide that the price of rich people's viewsheds is equivalent to that of the middle class?

talking about hypocrisies, jane, start by looking in a mirror.

On the visual impact of the Nantucket wind farm: The wind farm developers and their opponents appear to be engaged in a battle over whose photographic imaginings are the more correct. The opponents have side-by-side comparisons here.

These turbines are big'uns at 3.2 MW each (possibly one of the GE models); an entire 747 would easily fit inside the blade diameter of each one.

Jane, transmission losses across power lines are pretty insignificant. What is more important is typically supply bottlenecks. Either way, it is really no big deal to move power generation away from population centers. Your argument that they need to be near the cost as opposed to the middle of the White mountains is a non-starter.

There are other issues with Cape Wind that aren't being addressed here that are legitimate. One of the biggest is commercial and recreational fishing in Nantucket Sound. There are a lot of locals that are neither rich nor liberal that make their living off fishing and are very worried about the effect of all those windmills on their livlihoods. Just for starters, how much of the area would be off limits to them that is accessible now, what happens to the fish population, and so on?

There is also the safety issue. The tips of the blades are moving a a significant fraction of the speed of sound. If you poke around on the web you can find pictures of what happened to some of the Danish windmills because of a mechanical failure. It's ugly and very, very, dangerous. If anyone claims it won't fail, just remember NASA and the Space Shuttles that were supposed to be 100% safe.

If the liberals focused on issues like this no one could call them hypocrites. By focusing on scenery they come off as spoiled children. It reminds me of a similar episode caused by ConEd's desire to build the Storm King reservoir on the Hudson. The idea was to use excess overnight generating capacity to pump water into the reservoir then release it during the day to help at peak load. Nooooo, it spoils our view of the woods, screamed the rich liberals.

The only difference I can detect between the view looking out to sea from Nantucket and Wollaston Beach is the cost of the homes. If anything, the striper fishing is better off Wollaston.

Murray's link doesn't work but here's the project's view of things from http://www.capewind.org/:

a chart showing the windfarm location:
Project Siting and Visual Impact

simulations of the
View from Cape and Islands

Oops. Thanks, Bill. (Note to self: check links in the preview window.)

The wind farm opponents' website with visual impact comparisons is really here.

Kari wrote:

The biggest wind farm in the state is a 112-MW farm with around 170 turbines, each 300 feet high, spread out over 12,000 acres (to you non-aggie types, that's about 18 square miles). It's located in a sparsely populated area of southwest Kansas, although there certainly are people and farms around it.

This is nicely illustrative of the huge size requirements these things need relative to output, as a single-boiler coal-fired power plant will only need a few hundred acres of land with watershed access, and have a net output somewhere between 200-300MW. Additional boiler/generator sets can be installed in parallel to the base facility without significantly increasing the land area. A modest-sized gas-turbine generator (about the size of a trailer-ready cargo freight container, plus associated support plumbing/power conversion equipment and a couple outbuildings) can output about 70MW if running on a cool day and install at densities something like 1-1.5 per acre.

Murray wrote:

Wind doesn't displace conventional peaking generation like hydro or natural gas, since you need it to provide back-up power when the wind plant output is insufficient. It doesn't replace baseload generation--coal and nuclear plants--at all, since wind can't operate on a 24/7 basis. If you want to discard conventional generators, you need very large-scale energy storage technologies, and what does that do to the (ostensibly low) cost of wind? Either way, you get one energy system for the price of two.

Well, that does depend on how well you choose your windfarm sight. Regardless, the "one energy system for the price of two" claim is a bit too simplistic, because in the last analysis the power system is one big grid and energy production is constantly being adjusted and switched in response to demand. In terms of post-installation costs, any time the wind blows it produces power for the price of regular equipment maintenance; any time a conventional plant increases output it does so at the price of additional maintenance and fuel (and more paid man-hours, if I'm not mistaken).

Additionally, some types of regular maintenance have some flexibility; e.g. boiler pipes in a coal-fired plant suffer wind erosion from the draft of coal dust feeding the flames, but typically unless you have a catastrophic failure (depending on how much inefficiency you wish to accept as erosion progresses and more steam leaks into the fire chamber) the replacement schedule can be adjusted by a couple weeks or more. If a wind farm is situated nearby and a cold front is expected to move through Tuesday and Wednesday, that would be an ideal window for scheduling a shutdown without creating a complete local "hole" generation capacity.

FDL wrote:

more to the point, given your libertarian philosophy, what gives YOU the right to decide that the price of rich people's viewsheds is equivalent to that of the middle class?

talking about hypocrisies, jane, start by looking in a mirror.

...and possibly came to those conclusions by failing to take Jane's statements, both on the front page and in this thread, in the full context she supplied for them.

Oh, my, an opinion blog piece based on...an opinion piece from another source.

Nick the Dick,

I would trounce all Talmudic scholars, as I know the One True Way!

Captain Catholic

They certainly could be in the White Mountains, I suppose; I was arguing that you can't stick windmills in Kansas in order to power Mass., not that the only possible site for the wind farm is cape cod. But guess where else rich liberals from Boston have their vacation homes?

We have another great example of NIMBY going on less than a mile from where I type this. The people in the towns (Lexington, Concord, Bedford) surrounding Hanscom Field (a.k.a. Hanscom AFB) in eastern Massachusetts seem dead set against increasing commercial flights there. This despite the fact that the residents of these affluent towns are more likely to use Logan Airport than the people who live near Logan, and despite the fact that flights out of Hanscom would be incredibly convenient for the very people who are protesting. The NIMBYs have adopted a totally transparent "preserve our national heritage" schtick, as though it would be such an awful thing to have actual planes (well, more of them) flying over all those historic landmarks. Which landmarks? Oh, places like Lexington Green and Concord's old North Bridge, where our forefathers showed that they were prepared to accept change in a way that modern-day hypocrites are not. What a crock. It's simple classism. Planes flying overhead are good enough for the people of Chelsea and South Boston, but heaven forbid they should fly over *our* McMansions.

I think if you crowd them around the City of Gold and Lead (as opposed to the White Mountains), they'll be a great deal less susceptible to sabotage done by the Uncapped.

Anony-mouse...good point about scheduling coal plant maintenance to take advantage of adverse weather conditions at the wind generators...but weather prediction, of course, is an imprecise art. My sense is that wind power will be useful up to the point of 10-15% of total system load; beyond that, it is just going to be too hard to cope with the fluctuations. This changes, of course, if really good storage technologies ever come along..

anony-mouse,

It is a bit simplistic to say (as I did) that you get one energy system for the price of two, but equally simplistic to say that it's all one big grid in the final analysis. After all, those conventional plants cost money when they're sitting idle, and more so if their capital costs haven't been recovered.

And it's even worse than that: current natural gas plants are mostly peaking generators, since they can be built quickly and cheaply, but have volatile fuel costs. Utilities pay premium rates for peaking power, but the advent of large-scale wind will bump many of these plants into super-premium services. Because wind is highly (and unpredictably) variable, a comparable capacity of conventional plants needs to be kept running in "spinning reserve" mode, in which the plant is running (the turbines are literally spinning) but producing no power. If wind drops out suddenly, as it is wont to do, the spinning reserve can come in quickly to fill the gap.

So far so good, but there a couple of negative consequences to this system:

1) The spinning reserve plants are burning fuel (and therefore polluting) while the wind plant is running, but they are producing no output. Bang--wind is no longer a zero-emission technology (unless you're fortunate enough to have hydro as spinning reserves, but that's pretty limited).

2) Utilities often pay close to full price for the electricity that the spinning reserve plant could produce, even if it's never called upon to do so. So if the utility schedules 100 MW spinning reserve for three hours, they pay for 300 MWh of electricity (I'm simplifying a bit). At the moment, with a highly controllable electricity system, spinning reserves play a smallish part, but if intermittent generators like wind enter the system on a large scale, there'll be a far greater role for them. So you'll be paying not only for the wind generation, but also for the larger quantity of spinning reserves necessary to ensure reliable grid operation. This isn't too far from "one system for the price of two" after all.

Finally, I have several years of hourly windspeed data for some dozens of sites across the US, and even the best sites have highly variable wind characteristics. It's not as simple as waiting for a cold front to move through, then sitting back and relaxing while the wind plant produces reliable power. Hour to hour, these things are all over the place.

David,

You're right about storage, but remember that it will also add to the cost of renewables, and will itself need to have a comparable output capacity to the renewable generation it serves. So, if you want 500 MW of wind, you're going to need close to that much storage output (and possibly even more power sinking capacity at the storage input, which is hardly a trivial matter). The storage output will need to "follow" the wind generation closely to maintain smooth total generation output, a task that even the fastest conventional plants would be hard-pressed to carry out during periods of high wind volatility. And all storage systems suffer energy conversion losses, meaning that 20-60% of the energy that enters storage is gone. The wind plant will need to grow even larger to overcome those losses.

This is a fascinating problem, no? It'll keep power engineers employed for years!

Bill and Murray, thanks for the links to the various views. I think the main difference between the two simulated views is the haze factor, as Denise mentioned.

I grew up on the North Shore of Long Island, and we could look across the Sound to Connecticut (or Westchester county, depending on the angle). Looking at a map, I think the distance was about 8 miles. On some rare days, it looked close enough to swim; on especially hazy days, you couldn't see the mainland at all. Most of the time, it was blurred and blue, off in the distance.

I think the the Capewind (company) pictures are factoring in a certain amount of haze. It's not maximum haze, because then all you'd see is fog. The SOS (protesters) pictures assume no haze at all, which is why the windmills look so sharp

There are two problems with the SOS pictures. By ignoring haze as a factor, they show the windmills very clearly. (You would think that the blades would be too blurry to see, since they'd be turning, wouldn't you?) This makes us unconsciously think they are closer than they actually are. Maybe that's not dishonest, since there will be very clear days when the windmills will look (almost) like this, but it is disingenuous. Because, the second problem, these clear days are extremely unlikely in the summer. If we're going to show families with picnic baskets, and people actually swimming (brr!), the proper view of the windmills will be... no view at all.

I think the SOS people anticipate my complaint, and talk a bit about clear vs cloudy days here. This strikes me as very insincere, since we're not talking about clouds but about haze; the relevant number would seem to be relative humidity, not cloud cover. (If anyone knows more about this, I hope they'll speak up.)

PJ,

Thanks for the comments. Wind turbine blades move pretty slowly though, about 8.5-13 rpm for the big GE ones, so you'd need a loooonnng exposure to blur them. (This still means that the blade tips move very fast, at 102-186 miles/hour for a 52 metre blade length.)

But I don't see the problem with the link you gave. The SOS people define "clear" as:

an unobstructed view of the horizon and unlimited visibility.

...which would seem to include both cloudy and hazy conditions. And then they give an average clarity listing for the Sound over the last five years. Based on the averages (which is always tricky) it seems that they have pretty clear conditions a lot of the time there.

An earlier version of the SOS site alleged that Cape Wind had used a fisheye lens in their visualization, to artificially "push" the turbines further out to sea, and there were stark differences between the two sets of photos. SOS now says that Cape Wind has changed their visualizations to more closely match those of SOS. As you say, the difference seems to be in the haziness assumed.

In England, where there are more wind farms, some citizens complain that they were misled about the visual impact of the turbines. Companies talked about a 40-metre height, without mentioning that the blades increase this amount by 50% or more. One example is here. The "Broken Promises" section is pretty interesting. Another anti-windfarm site is here.

murray, thanks for clarifying! The physical data greatly helped the original statement.

>>God bless New York, but I do hope they come to adopt more of the great American character that has historically been seen primarily in the heartland - i.e., the red states.

Pretty bad news for the economy if they do ...

Yes, d^2, because it's a well-established FACT that more conservatives in the population makes the economy go south.

I'm not sure how you explain that in view of that there's been a relatively constant ratio of liberals to conservatives for the last century or so. I await your argument with bated breath.

My previous posts on this issue here and elsewhere:

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004283.html

I felt like a prophet a few weeks later when The New York Times published a article under the marvelous title of: A Mighty Wind. The article lays out the staunch, fervent, and widespread opposition of environmentalists to real, as opposed to theoretical, wind turbines. The best quote:

Walter Cronkite squirmed a bit at this characterization. "The problem really is Nimbyism," he admitted when I reached him by phone not long ago, "and it bothers me a great deal that I find myself in this position. I'm all for these factories, but there must be areas that are far less valuable than this place is." With prodding, he suggested the deserts of California. Then, perhaps realizing that might be a tad remote to serve New England's energy needs, he added, "Inland New England would substitute just as well." As we talked, his discomfort was so keen that he interrupted his thought and pleaded, "Be kind to an old man,"

Posted by: Robert Schwartz on July 22, 2003 12:19 AM

http://surroundedbyem.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_surroundedbyem_archive.html#90035868

Monday, March 03, 2003

Posted 1:19 AM by Robert Schwartz

Stop Making Sense

It is so hard to be an Idiot in this day and age. I was reading the Sunday New York Times Travel Section, dreaming about going places that I cannot begin to afford to go, when I came across this item about the continuing controversy over plans to place a gross, more or less, of wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. The Idiot can understand why people become NIMBYs, I hate barking dogs.

But given that gasoline is getting back up to $2.00 a gallon and we are about go to war in the Persian Gulf once again, you would think that any right thinking environmentalist would be a strong supporter of a plan to build wind mills. So I was quite puzzled when I read in the aforementioned Times article the following:

"I'm strongly in favor of wind-energy production at sea," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmental lawyer, when asked about the issue after a recent speech to business leaders in Boston. But Mr. Kennedy said he believed Nantucket Sound was not an appropriate place to put a wind farm, adding, "You wouldn't put wind energy in Yosemite Park."

So, To review the bidding, Mr. Kennedy is an environmentalist, who works for an organization of environmentalists that promotes wind power and he opposes wind power in his backyard . . . which makes my head hurt. There is a paradox lurking back there. I think it is: "How can you solve environmental problems without getting rid of the environmentalists?" Or is it "The only response to NIMBYism is to put it in their front yards."

"'So where the hell does he propose we put these wind turbines that he allegedly favors? Manhattan?'
I think you are starting to get the point. Somebody could always argue that their area of the country is 'pristine' and should remain untouched."

IIRC, there was a letter in the NY Times a while ago that called Central Park pristine.

"Yes, d^2, because it's a well-established FACT that more conservatives in the population makes the economy go south."

Right, as is "New York City is immoral." Which is why it has a lower teen pregnancy rate than, say, Texas.

Hmmm...strawman argument, or non sequitur? It's so hard to tell, sometimes.

Actually there is a very detailed website that addresses the conservation, as well as the aesthetic, as well as the economic, and the public-use issues against allowing the off-shore windfarm

The URL is http://www.saveoursound.org/

Aziz

I checked your site. IMHO, its Hysterical NIMBYism.

I don't understand the deal about wind power. As has been mentioned in other posts, we have plenty of it (relatively speaking) here in California. Vast farms of windmills, in the deserts east of Los Angeles and in the Altamont Pass area east of Oakland. I've never understood it.

Windmills are inefficient. They *do* kill birds, including protected species--although there are devices that are now put on the blades that emit sounds to keep the birds away. They're not reliable, short- or long-term.

No one seems to recognize that different geographical areas have different optimal power solutions. Places like inland California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado--places with historical, reliable data showing 290+/- days of sun a year, should be using solar power. And the utility companies, instead of subsidizing homeowners who install solar panels on their roofs, should use that money to subsidize the manufacture of those panels so that economies of scale can bring down the price of the panels. If you subsidize the homeowner, the same high price for the low volume production is paid every time a panel is bought. If you subsidize the production, eventually you get cheaper production and lower prices and the subsidies end. And as an added benefit, you get free electricy in perpetuity!

Here in Sacramento, a parking lot at one local mall and a parking lot at the state fair have solar panels. Two benefits--shade for the cars below, and electricity during most days. I thought we had this figured out when I was a kid in the 1970's, but perhaps not. I envision rooftops of buildings downtown covered with these panels, perhaps cutting down on the "heat island effect" as well as fossil fuels.

It just seems efficient to me. Where am I wrong?

The Altamont Pass separates the SF Bay Area from the Central Valley. A beautiful, if stark, vista of rolling hills. Turning from rich winter green to bright yellow as wild mustard covers the hillsides in spring, then straw brown in the heat of summer. Windmills cover most of the hills and crests now. As you drive though the pass the spinning motion creates an odd vertigo. Windmill farms are not environmently friendy. They require access roads, heavy machinery and power lines.

They kill endangered raptors at a rate which is becoming critical for some species. As this report shows, scroll down to The "Avian Mortality" Problem

"It now appears that windmills are annually killing thousands of birds worldwide [including] . . . red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, turkey vultures, assorted owls--and federally protected species like Aquila chrysaetos, the golden eagle. And it turns out that the Bay Area . . . is the windmill bird-death capital of America."

Windfarms are also surprisingly noisy when the turbines are turning...each windmill produces approx. half the noise of a power lawnmower. We've driven through the glens and valleys under the windmills...it's awful. Locals, mostly cattle ranchers and wheat farmers, tried to fight the windfarms in the tax-haven mad '80's. Unable to tolerate the noise, all but a handful sold and moved on.

The power into the grid is tiny for the massive investment and environmental havoc. California required 40586 MEGAWATTS TODAY. Industry and infrastructure consume the highest percentage, not homes. In 2002 windpower provided the CA grid with 1822MW, Altamont's 7300 turbines produced 625 MW of that total. Do the math.

I can understand why no one wants these monsters nearby. Windmills are not the answer and they are not green.

feste,

Actually production of new technology is outrunning your math.

1. We added about 1/2 nukes worth of wind to the grid in the last year or so. No nukes have been built for about two decades. It looks like another 1/2 nukes worth will be added this year and in 2004 probably a whole nukes worth will get built. As the cost of wind declines this trend will accelerate.

2. Current standard size of wind turbines is 1.5MW (peak) at that size wind generated electricity is cheaper than natural gas electricity.

3. The next standard size will be 3 MW. At that size wind (unsubsidized) will cost about the same as coal. Once the standard size goes to 6 MW wind will be cheaoer than coal. Intermittancy is not a problem until wind provides above 20% of the load. Currently wind is well below 1%. Perhaps as little as .1%

4. Noise is a problem for smaller machines, 100 KW. Which was the size originally put up in California. The 1.5 MW jobs are not near as noisy. Fewer blades and the blades are farther away.

5. Bird kills. Definitely a problem for small mills. When you get to the biggies it is not too bad. 1.5 birds a year per machine. If you really want to do something for the birds keep all the house cats indoors. They kill about a hundred million birds a year. Tall buildings with glass exteriors are a problem for birds too.

6. Power lines,access roads, heavy machinery. Any where you have utility scale power use or generation you will have power lines, access roads, and heavy machinery. You are not going to get the substation transformer loaded in the back of your pickup.

7. Wind mills are a thing of beauty. Large spinning sculptures. But hey. I'm an engineer.

The problem with solar is the cost per KWh. If you don't care what your electricity cost is solar is very good stuff. Also since there is currently no large scale method of economic electrical storage any one needing electricity at night would be out of luck. Without grid access neither solar nor wind makes commercial sense. Wind is economical now compared to gas fired generators. As the sizes go up it will eventually be cheaper than coal.

Currently the only place solar makes economic sense is for peak shaving in demand metered commercial buildings. Which is why solar electricity for homes must be subsidized.

To put money into stuff that is uneconomic is fine as a hobby. It is a bad idea if you are trying to run a profitable economy.

Wind doesn't take near as much land as the nay sayers claim. With access roads and tower bases they cover about 1/2% of the land area they are situated on. The land is actually dual use. You can farm it and collect wind power.

Here in Sacramento, a parking lot at one local mall and a parking lot at the state fair have solar panels. Two benefits--shade for the cars below, and electricity during most days. I thought we had this figured out when I was a kid in the 1970's, but perhaps not. I envision rooftops of buildings downtown covered with these panels, perhaps cutting down on the "heat island effect" as well as fossil fuels.

It just seems efficient to me. Where am I wrong?

1. Photovoltaics cells are expensive to produce. Think of them as computer chips with lower quality control requirements.

2. They require storage during evening/cloudy days. This means batteries, which are pretty expensive.

3. Both the cells and the storage components require some rather exotic compounds to manufacture them, producing a lot of toxic waste.

4. They need to be cleaned periodically, which is expensive and hazardous. I.e. lots of falls and burns.

5. They don't last forever, some of them might even require more energy than they produce. Economics of scale comes in right from the start, you don't just need a panel, you need the whole shebang.

Other than a few applications, such as remote lighting or whatever, solar electricity is
too expensive and too unreliable. I say we build big nuke plants and use the electricity to crack hydrogen for fuel cells.

Comments are Closed.