Corning Leader: Opponents demand investigation into wind farms

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by brianidaho

I disagree with the carbon tariff however...it's another con job designed to line someone's pockets, while penalizing those who actually produce something.

Been saying that since the silly idea was first mooted,as I have about wind which would not have a chance without subsidies and grants ,dont forget those one off payments

With respect to the farmer's choice, zoning is a suitable method of control. I'm a strong supporter of property rights, however they are not absolute in all cases. For example, if a farmer wanted to site a hazardous waste site on his property he would be prohibited due to the impact on others. No difference with power generation. Would you be as in-favor of your neighbor for example locating a coal-fired power plant on his property?

What rights has anyone got to inflict any hardship or illness on a locality? I passed a bloody windfactory this AM............ Flicker and Strobe,dangereous for driving but my God what if you had an epiliptic child near one of those useless whirlygigs?

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by CWW

LMagic007 Moderator

James. 007 is Australian,try to understand.Used to be a Traffic Warden before the banned cars in Oz. so Adi took him in.

[Windguy]

Look at wind in context first and foremost. Wind is only 1.5 times more expensive than coal but it's costs are nearly all upfront. Same goes with solar except (old figures puts solar at 8 times the cost). So subsidies just help push wind over the initial build costs then generating electricity for the next 20 years with a once per year (one day) maintenance schedule). So it's nearly free.

Land use can still be done to right up to the base for grazing or farming.

So where is the problem, those subsidises are needed since most of the electricity is privatised already in America. If you didn't privatise your electricity companies, then you wouldn't have had the disaster called Enron and you wouldn't be ripped off from wind companies. If I had a product I was selling and the government decided to give people subsidises to buy, I would jack up prices to take my share of the increased profits too.

The best idea, instead of subsidies, the government should offer interest free loans instead, then implement a carbon trading scheme.

One day you may see a WG built by Walmart to help them offset CO2 emissions.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by brianidaho

I agree with you with respect to leveling the playing field with respect to tax breaks, they should be eliminated for both alternative and fossil fuel production methods. I disagree with the carbon tariff however...it's another con job designed to line someone's pockets, while penalizing those who actually produce something.

1. The problem is that for a very long time, the fossil fuel industry has had favoured treatment in terms of tax credits and a favourable regulatory environment from governments. So simply making it all level now, still gives them an unfair advantage over new renewable energy technology which is starting from a relatively low base of its technological evolution and needs to play catch up. It's also widely accepted that we must accelerate the increasing contribution of our clean energy base, to help tackle CO2 emissions. Many countries have mandated clean energy targets and dates and in order that such targets and dates are met, stronger incentives are required to influence the course of the industry to help achieve the goals set. As is often applied in government to influence the course of the private sector, the carrot and the stick methodology, with the tax credits and rebates being the carrot and the carbon tariff being the stick.

2. The other thing is that the fossil fuel industry has also received a hidden carbon and pollution tax credit. The fossil fuel industry has not been held to account for its environmental impacts. That is a government failure, but nonetheless it's a cost that is borne by the world. Its part of the very reason, the world is scrambling around to combat contributing factors to Climate Change. i.e. CO2 and other polluting emissions. This is a cost to be more significantly borne by future generations and I suspect now even the current particularly younger generation. This one reason is why carbon tariffs are required. i.e. to help drive clean energy technology and dissuade carbon air polluting practices by energy companies. We have all sorts of regulations in this world, that dictate what we produce, how we produce etc... so a carbon tariff is no different in that respect. The carbon tariff simply recognises that what man does can impact the environment upon which he relies upon for his ultimate survival, being the same environment that will be left for future generations to contend with.

3. On the matter of farmers, I agree that obviously they are bound by government regulation at all levels. However outside matters of regulation, it's their choice.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by forfismum

Been saying that since the silly idea was first mooted,as I have about wind which would not have a chance without subsidies and grants ,dont forget those one off payments


What rights has anyone got to inflict any hardship or illness on a locality? I passed a bloody windfactory this AM............ Flicker and Strobe,dangereous for driving but my God what if you had an epiliptic child near one of those useless whirlygigs?

I agree with what WG may have said, that rebates may be a better way to go than subsidies and grants. I'm in favour of tax credits because the fossil fuel industry has had them and the playing field needs levelling. As said before though, the fossil fuel industry has had it's hand in the cookie jar for years.

In terms of property rights again I defer to government regulation at all levels, but if you disagree with the government at any level, by all means reasonable, exercise your democratic right accordingly.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Windguy

The best idea, instead of subsidies, the government should offer interest free loans instead, then implement a carbon trading scheme.

One day you may see a WG built by Walmart to help them offset CO2 emissions.

Naw,the global warming thing is almost dead and folks will move on to the next scare so the money for scams will dry up.Folks who have trouble buying food and paying for housing will soon tire of being fleeced to pay for whirleygigs and other baubles,may take more than a week mind you,but its coming.
Invest in HulaHoops,not been a fashion for a while now and must be due a comeback.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by brianidaho

I have nothing against wind power as such, however, wind power generation should be treated like any other industrial process.

1) Eliminate subsidies and tax breaks. Long term, this will be the best thing for the industry since it will force them to be competative with other power generation methods.

In the UK the subsidies for wind farms are being reduced. The new ROC (Renewables Obligation Certificate) proposals offer 1 ROC for onshore wind turbine generation (I can't remember about offshore off the top of my head) where as other, newer, emerging technologies will be getting up to 2 ROCs per MWh of electricity generated. The ROCs system is tied into government targets for electricity genenration from energy sources other than fossil fuels. Each year a limit on the ammount of fossil fuel generated electricity is set. For every MWh generated over the limit from fossil fuels, the generator must pay either the government or a company that has produced more than their allowance from alternative energy sources to buy some of their spare ROCs. All of the revenue generated by the additional charge to those exceeding their allowance is divided up amongst the generators that have not exceeded their allowance. The proposals to modify the ROC system suggest that the ROCs each different technology could claim per MWh should be evaluated on a regular period. If the proffitability of a technique improves, as it reaches technological maturity, it can be moved to a lower ROC band. Equally, if a technology encounters and reasonable difficulties, it can be moved us a ROC band. Technologies can eventually be banded out of ROC entitilement.

Originally Posted by brianidaho

2) Ensure that they are sited in areas zoned industrial. Calling a collection of turbines a "wind farm" is dishonest-they are an industrial process and should be treated accordingly. They don't belong in rural areas sandwiched between residences. If they are so "benign" locate them in densly populated urban/suburban areas.

There are a whole host of reasons why it is virtually imposible to find a good wind farm site in a city as covered by Commercial Wind Turbine Siting Restrictions . Wind turbines are not the only indurstrial machinery on a farm. Tractors, combine harvesters and the like are all industrial machines. Some of them have sharp blades and the like and so have to be kept and used in accordance with health and safety procedures, just like wind turbines do.

Farming is a commercial business. Often in the UK the value of land which has received permission for the sititng of a wind farm increases dramatically. The revenue from the sale of the electricity produced also increases the farmer's income. This is worth noting when a few years ago the news was full of the plight of British farmers going out of business etc because consumers would not pay high enough prices to make producing economic.

Livestock can be kept in the same field as wind turbines because cows and sheep tend to have the sense to move to the other end of the field out of the way if the turbine begins to make a funny sound or starts to wobble like it might break (as per the youtube video someone posted). Cars don't tend to be so intelligent or diverse in the directions they can move. If a wind turbine might fall on to a road, if there's a car driving along it can only either stop, go forwards or backwards. If there is alot of traffic it can only either stop (and risk getting hit) or go forwards faster and risk an accident due to breaking the speed limit. Cities are full of roads. Avioding risking the wind turbine falling on a road alone excludes a lot of the city area.

Do you want us to start building nuclear power stations in the middle of cities too?

The unpredictability issue is valid and wind farms seem to be the only electricity generating technique that I know of that have managed to convince the wider world that it is the National Grid's problem, rather then the electricity generator's. It would make more sense to me for the electricity generator to be required to develop a satisfactory electricity storage medium to be coupled with the wind farm to improve the reliability of the electricity supply.

(P.S. Appologies if there are any spelling mistakes, it's taking so long to get the post submitted that I can't be bothered to check atm).

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The required wind resource is not in built up areas.

Very true.
There are a small number of wind turbines in cities that are actually successful, but they're the exception rather than the rule.

Wind turbines like nice flat lands (which is why farmers seem to often benefit from them), or open sea.

Sorry for stating the obvious, but it seemed needed.

[brianidaho]

Originally Posted by spadlet

There are a whole host of reasons why it is virtually imposible to find a good wind farm site in a city as covered by Commercial Wind Turbine Siting Restrictions . Wind turbines are not the only indurstrial machinery on a farm. Tractors, combine harvesters and the like are all industrial machines. Some of them have sharp blades and the like and so have to be kept and used in accordance with health and safety procedures, just like wind turbines do.

Farming is a commercial business. Often in the UK the value of land which has received permission for the sititng of a wind farm increases dramatically. The revenue from the sale of the electricity produced also increases the farmer's income. This is worth noting when a few years ago the news was full of the plight of British farmers going out of business etc because consumers would not pay high enough prices to make producing economic.

Livestock can be kept in the same field as wind turbines because cows and sheep tend to have the sense to move to the other end of the field out of the way if the turbine begins to make a funny sound or starts to wobble like it might break (as per the youtube video someone posted). Cars don't tend to be so intelligent or diverse in the directions they can move. If a wind turbine might fall on to a road, if there's a car driving along it can only either stop, go forwards or backwards. If there is alot of traffic it can only either stop (and risk getting hit) or go forwards faster and risk an accident due to breaking the speed limit. Cities are full of roads. Avioding risking the wind turbine falling on a road alone excludes a lot of the city area.

Do you want us to start building nuclear power stations in the middle of cities too?

All the issues you bring up with respect to equipment associated with farming are certainly true; however, none of them are anywhere near the same scale. IMO the biggest issue with wind turbines in a populated rural environment is the "visual pollution" (to use a overworked and tacky term) associated with them. 400 foot tall wind turbine assemblies in a rural area are as much of an eye-sore as a 40 story office building stuck in the same environment...its just obtrusive and doesn't "fit". Other areas it might not be as much of an issue. The US "great plains" have large distances between residences and might be more suitable than a populated area like upstate NY.

Fundamentally though, IMO power generation, as well as waste disposal and other issues should be more localized with the population that utilizes them. With regard to locating nuclear power stations in cities, IIRC it's already done in France, and should be the same here. Coal, natural gas and oil fired plants are often located in industrial areas near cities, or at least were.

All too often urban dwellers want to dump the environmental impacts of their lifestyle choices on those in rural areas. This includes issues such as wastewater treatment, garbage disposal/landfilling as well as power generation. I'd like to see regulations passes such that all waste is kept/treated within the county (not sure the equivalent political subdivision in Europe) that produces them.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by brianidaho

I'd like to see regulations passes such that all waste is kept/treated within the county (not sure the equivalent political subdivision in Europe) that produces them.

In the UK all of our counties include urban and rural areas, as far as I know, so that wouldn't make any difference. I guess maybe in the USA it's different. There's no such thing as an untouched place in England, even the ancient woodlands have been used by humans to varying extents over time. I guess the closest is around hte highland in Scotland, but even they have been populated in the past. On TV America looks like it has lots of land where humans have probably never set foot, so I guess it might be a diffrent situation. (At which point Forfi's Mum gives me a massive lecture on how terrible wind turbines are, wherever they are).

I don't think it's neceesarily true about city dwellers trying to force rural people to put up with the plant etc. Alot of people I know in cities honestly don't seem to have a problem with the idea of having wind turbines in cities and ironically it can be some of the city dwellers that get most upset about siting wind turbines in the countryside (ramblers associations etc).

I've seen quite a few of the little microwind turbines dotted around cities, it's just that the significance of their output is questionable.