"Ugly wind turbines; you put 'em up, but not around here" Topic

link
The first time I saw a line of these was in Wyoming, years ago, along a ridge north of I-80. Uuugly! And I have never changed my mind. They spoil every landscape that they "decorate". So you use them, please. But I don't want to see them.

Not a word about that essential public sentiment, however, in the article………….

We have a lot in the "thumb" area of Michigan, yes ugly & often not even being used, not turning at all,

I don't think the are ugly but I will say that where they are sited is important. I think that power-plants are far uglier.

There's some around here in NEPA too.
Up on the top of mountain ridges.
Half the time they're shut down or have missing blades. They're surprisingly high maintenance and kill migratory birds.

I don't mind the look of them at all. We have lots in Ontario and so does Pennsylvania, as I see on my drives to the HMGS conventions.

They need a certain speed of wind to get them to start working and that is why you see them not running. Or they are down for maintenance. But GWA will be happy to see that their days are numbered. Better, smaller and way more efficient designs are coming out.

One example that will have legs is the wind spire design. It addresses the problems with wind turbines and doesn't interfere with birds migrating.

One brand:

windspireenergy.com

I actually like them.

Uuugly! And I have never changed my mind. They spoil every landscape that they "decorate"

Are they worse than electric power grids? I'd prefer both of these around my house than a coal plant.

Around where I live people battle for squeezing as many on their land as possible due to the subsidy dollars. I guess that makes them pretty well accepted.

I too find them ugly, but I also remember as a kid whenever I complained about the smell of the lumber mills or cattle lots the old timers would just glare and say "That's the smell of money!"

I'd still rather geo thermal energy though. Combine that with all underground power lines and folks would just forget how power gets to the house all together.

Yes, power stations are ugly too. But compared to a patch of wind turbines, they are very innocuous. One thing I am used to, of course, is the look of the "marching giants", those enormous lines of high power towers. They are as ugly as anything But I don't see them being replaced anytime soon by less obtrusive power grid carriers.

The grandpa in Hope and Glory is spot on: "I curse you, every watt, volt and amp!" – as he glares across the river at the open field behind his house, where the "marching" line of power poles offends his 19th century aesthetics. :)

Considering the numbers of wind turbines required (with the corresponding space requirements) to replace one power plant and the fact that due to the requirements for consistent winds, the visual impact of a conventional power plant is an order of magnitude less than than that of windmills.

Frankly the deployment of pocket nukes would do away with any significant visual impact for the plant and the need for high voltage transmission lines.

P.S. Last time I drove out of Denver trough Wyoming on the way to Idaho fewer than 1 in 5 of those turbines were turning. Factor that into the numbers of turbines needed to replace that conventional plant as well.

Yeah ask Texas about wind power and how terrible it is. At night when demand is down, they generate enough power just from wind to power the entire state.

When I was visiting the British Isles two summers ago I was amazed at how many wind turbines there were. Hundreds and hundreds just in the places I went. But I don't find them ugly. I think they are fascinating and their presences speaks of good sense and responsibility. I'd like to see lots more of them in the US

Considering the numbers of wind turbines required (with the corresponding space requirements) to replace one power plant and the fact that due to the requirements for consistent winds, the visual impact of a conventional power plant is an order of magnitude less than than that of windmills.

I think that is a bit of an overstatement. And, to be fair, these huge wind turbines are the first generation designs. The new ones operate in less wind, require less start up energy, less area footprint, less weight, less strain on the bearings, less maintenance, less down time, ……you get the idea.

Last time I drove out of Denver trough Wyoming on the way to Idaho fewer than 1 in 5 of those turbines were turning.

The fact that only 1 in 5 turbines seem to work (assuming that is accurate) says more about the maintenance schedules than the technology, doesn't it?. If one is working then the wind is sufficient.

Factor that into the numbers of turbines needed to replace that conventional plant as well.

Mr Redshirt seems to disagree. And if the conventional plant is coal, then there are other issues too.

And when the wind is down in Texas they have to meet their power needs using those less efficient conventional backup generators.

If wind is used for base load generation then every watt they generate has to be backed up by a watt of less efficient rapid ramp up conventional generation.

And in Texas that wind power depends on high voltage transmission lines to get to the consumers.

At the individual level I know a fellow in SW Colorado who is off the grid using solar. He tried to integrate wind into his setup but gave up due to the variability and unreliability. He has actually states that due to cost and unreliability he would really rather be hooked to the grid…

There has been a lot of controversy about them in Britain, too.

We now have a lot offshore. Yes, it is a more expensive option than land based ones. But the wind is a lot stronger out to sea, and we have a shedload of sea just wobbling around doing nothing….

And in Texas that wind power depends on high voltage transmission lines to get to the consumers.

Ya, so? All power generation does.

Both coal burning and nuclear power basically boil water. The steam drives a turbine and turns an electrical generator. A wind turbine also cranks an electrical generator, hydro electric plants have water turbines that are linked to generators. All power generation generates electricity and needs to go down transmission lines to the consumers. I don't see your point.

In my province of Ontario, wind power only contributes about 1.5% of total electricity production. Ok, not so much. But that translates into over 203,000 homes powered for an hour, and produces a net decrease in 230 metric tonnes of CO2 released into the atmosphere every hour (based on coal power generation). We are 61.5% nuclear, 33.5% hydroelectric, and 3% natural gas, for those who are interested. Wind and biofuels are the other 2%

So minimal contribution for maximum eye-sore? :)

Dan

Whereas coal and lignite offers a maximum of negative externalities for a certain amount of eye-sore?

PDF link

Then there's this recent study from Lehigh University that ties proximity to coal plant emissions and low birth weights.

link

*Personally, I don't find windmills and solar farms to be an eyesore, but I do have family – and regularly visit – Sudbury Ontario where the environmental effects of copper smelting were disastrous.

There was a group of young physicians (not sure if UK or US) who were complaining because median weight standards for births were too high, and that healthy-minded people tended to have lower than average weight babies.

So maybe the people in the emissions study just happened to be people in California, who exercised more and were vegetarians? :)

Dan
PS. Why use China and similar nations as part of the statistics for the West? Aren't their emissions standards appalling compared to anything our factories in the West are subject to? Unless you're going to build a factory in the US according to China's so-called "standards", isn't that a bit misleading? Is it just for shock value?

Don't "biofuels" produce CO2 when you burn them?
Heck, I'm not allowed to burn leaves in the Fall around here. I miss that smell.

Don't "biofuels" produce CO2 when you burn them?

Sure do. Let's pick the least efficient of the biofuels, ethanol.
As you may remember from your Organic Chemistry days, one molecule of ethanol creates two molecules of CO2 during combustion.

Compare that to a high octane fuel of 2,2,4 trimethylpentane, the most common isooctane found in gasoline. One molecule of that releases eight molecules of CO2.

When comparing energy output, gasoline is almost twice as powerful with 46 KJ/kg versus 26 KJ/kg of ethanol. So one get gets less than two times the output and four times the greenhouse gas. That's why ethanol powered cars are cleaner than internal combustion engines, but won't be feuling NASCAR anytime soon.

Ethanol has other benefits also. But all of them do release CO2 when burned.

There was a group of young physicians (not sure if UK or US) who were complaining because median weight standards for births were too high, and that healthy-minded people tended to have lower than average weight babies.

So we'll be healthier if we moved next to coal plants?

link

link

link

PDF link

link

PDF link

Both my sons were higher than average weight babies. They are now 6'6" and 6'5". Does that mean I was not healthy-minded? My wife may agree.

… Personally, I don't find windmills and solar farms to be an eyesore …

I bet you don't live beneath them, do you?

Well, I actually don't think that's an ugly scene at all. I would not want to live in such a small village, but for other reasons. I do understand that others may feel otherwise and that is fine. Like I said before, wind energy is hear to stay and the next generations of wind turbines will be be more efficient, cheaper and less intrusive.

I wonder if hundred of years ago Dutchmen would be having the same disagreements over windmills dotting the landscape. I would suspect some would.

Yes, power stations are ugly too. But compared to a patch of wind turbines, they are very innocuous.

I wouldn't call the high level of CO2 emissions and the health effects of living downwind of a powerplant "innocuous".

@Great War Ace: "I bet you don't live beneath them, do you?"

If I moved out in the country to get away from urban eye sores, I sure would hate it if someone built those awful white things right behind my house.

Dan
PS. If they went and built those things despite objections from the entire village, I wouldn't be surprised if they frequent experienced breakdowns, more than usual.

So negative externalities exist within the context of wind mills, but not with CO2?????