[at-l] OT was RE: Appalachian Trail victory

Thu Jan 17 07:51:18 CST 2008

This is a classic NIMBY issue with majorities of people living in/around
cities and not wanting the towers in their neighborhood. So where to put
them? "Out there" where there aren't a lot of people to be offended. Yes, I
know that the percentage of time that the wind blows and the average speed
of the winds is taken into account when siting these projects but what
bothers me is that what makes building these projects so far from where the
energy is needed are all the grants and tax breaks being given along with
the higher prices charged for the energy produced. So if you live "out
there" you get a new skyline defined by the windmills along with increased
taxes (to make up for the tax abatements the power companies were given a
break on and the government grants to 'seed' the project) and you are
barraged by your electric company to volunteer to also pay more to receive
only 'green' energy. Meantime the places that caused the need for all that
energy don't have see the windmills. And about the jobs the windmills bring,
the construction is handled by crews from elsewhere and when completed a
wind farm several miles in scope requires 1 (one) employee to monitor. I
also wonder how profitable they will be when all the tax abatements end.

I'm with you Bob. Windmills are a green energy source and should be part of
the future but... There are places they shouldn't go even if the wind does
blow 5% more there than most places, even if the average wind speed is 10%
faster, etc. There is some pressure to build wind farms in the Adirondacks
and even Bill McKibbon has come out in favor of it. I'm unalterably opposed.

Recently I've seen articles suggesting that wind turbines could be mounted
on tall buildings to capture the currents that blow around and up over the
structure. Just as in the case of mountains the winds are faster there like
water flowing through a constriction. I wonder how much of its own energy
NYC could produce with retrofitted wind turbines.

The problem with the current approach is that we are following the typical
pattern of American industry. We take the large scale, obvious and easy
route, sacrificing the land in the process, in the quest to get quick
results. I'm sure that there are many ways to capture energy from the wind.
I don't believe that covering the last of our wild lands with 400+ foot
towers is the way to do it. I'm also disturbed that nowhere in the push to
'green power' is any mention of energy conservation. Maybe if we all just
stopped using so much energy we'd have time to reconsider the solution a bit
more thoroughly before destroying the last of our wild lands. Turn off
lights, TVs, computers, etc. if you aren't using them. Switch to fluorescent
bulbs. Wash your dishes in the sink - by hand. Hang your clothes on a line
to dry, etc., etc. Our great-grandparents had no electricity at all and they
survived. Surely we can learn to survive on less electricity.

End of rant and back to the regular programming.

2008/1/16 Bob C <ellen at clinic.net>:

>  ------------Original Message------------
>
> Subject: RE: [at-l] Appalachian Trail victory
> I don't oppose wind farms. Maine has approved several -- including one a
> few miles west of Black Nubble on the same day the regulatory agency
> rejected Black Nubble. I regretted that approval. It destroys one of my
> favorite small, wild mountains. But i didn't speak in opposition for the
> reasons you mention.  But I also don't believe we need to destroy the last
> of the wild places quite yet, especially those in the view shed of one of
> the wildest portions of a 2,176 mile long National Park.. There are far more
> important things we need to do before destroying the last wild places near
> wild landmarks for token amounts of alternative energy.
>
> Weary
>
>
>
>
> ------------Original Message------------
> From: "Joel P. Urbine" <jurbine at west-chester.com>
> To: "Bob C" <ellen at clinic.net>
> Date: Tue, Jan-15-2008 12:50 PM
> Subject: RE: [at-l] Appalachian Trail victory
> Hi  Bob,
>         Unfortunately wind farms are, and will in the future be built.
>  Face it, we are a country reliant on imported energy resources.  Those
> foreign countries who we import oil from have us over 'their barrel', so to
> speak.  How much are you paying for your fuel oil and how much more are you
> willing to pay?
> Our country should have been exploring and developing alternative energy
> sources long ago, you and I both know that.  Like you, I don't care to see
> wind farms, but it is a 'clean' and 'renewable' energy resource. If we must
> have them they should be well planned and thought-out, and not just
> strategically placed.  I still believe that solar, geothermal and the oceans
> hold the key to our energy woes. Again thanks for all the hard work you do
> staying on top of things. I too believe and fight for wilderness
> preservation. Keep up the good work.
>
> Joel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Bob C [mailto:ellen at clinic.net]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 14, 2008 10:05 PM
> *To:* Joel P. Urbine
> *Subject:* RE: [at-l] Appalachian Trail victory
>
> Joel, Is it your point that every wind power plantation that a developer
> thinks would return a profit should automatically be approved? Wind roars
> over the high plateaus of Yellowstone, and through the canyons of the
> Colorado. Shall we give developers construction rights so they can erect 40
> story towers for wind turbines in these places?  Afterall, a  few thousand
> turbines would allow a coal plant to shut down.  Even better would be a dam
> at the lower end of the grand canyon, think of the coal that could be
> displaced if we filled the canyon with water and installed a few
> hydroelectric turbines.
>
> And ponder also of the tourists that would show up to admire the lake as
> it inundates the grand canyon, with twirling wind turbines on the rim of the
> canyon as a back drop. Why should the rim of the canyon be sacred -- and not
> the rim of the Appalachian Trail?
>
> Weary
>
> Hot dog now we can burn more coal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> at-l mailing list
> at-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
>

-- 
Jim Bullard
http://jims-ramblings.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20080117/6bed80f6/attachment.html 