Renewables you support-solar or wind.

[mamooth]

Have you ever actually seen a wind farm?

Yes, and almost all of them are located in cornfields.

No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.

Then one wonders why they planted crops under the wind turbines.

I did pull over, prepared to be deafened by the wind turbines, and listened. From around a thousand feet away, I couldn't hear them over the background noise. Since the wind turbines are less noisy than passing traffic, I'm not hearing a problem.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Have you ever actually seen a wind farm?

Yes, and almost all of them are located in cornfields.

No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.

Then one wonders why they planted crops under the wind turbines.

I did pull over, prepared to be deafened by the wind turbines, and listened. From around a thousand feet away, I couldn't hear them over the background noise. Since the wind turbines are less noisy than passing traffic, I'm not hearing a problem.

i have not seen them in cornfields

but rather on pasture land

 

[Old Rocks]

At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.

The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.

Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.

You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.

Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.

Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.

 

[Derideo_Te]

At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.

The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.

Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.

You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.

Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.

Wildfowl deaths due to fossil fuel plants exceed those of wind turbines. FYI plenty of farmers are happy with dual use because they know that as long as those turbines are turning they have an alternate source of income that doesn't depend upon how much rain falls.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.

Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.

Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.

Exactly, having a steady $50k pa income takes the stress out of the boom/bust cycles of farming.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.

Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.

Exactly, having a steady $50k pa income takes the stress out of the boom/bust cycles of farming.

i have heard ranging from 2 to 4 grand per mill property taxes rise as value of

property increases with the long term income

 

[mamooth]

It might, however, give rise to "jealous neighbor syndrome", which causes a whole host of maladies that are blamed on the wind turbines. It's never the person getting the check who feels ill.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.

Exactly, having a steady $50k pa income takes the stress out of the boom/bust cycles of farming.

i have heard ranging from 2 to 4 grand per mill property taxes rise as value of

property increases with the long term income

Property improvements always raise taxable value. Farms are businesses, property taxes are deductible expenses against income. The net difference will still be money in the pockets of the farmers that otherwise would not be there.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wisconsin Farmer Has Regrets about Hosting Turbines

 

[jon_berzerk]

Exactly, having a steady $50k pa income takes the stress out of the boom/bust cycles of farming.

i have heard ranging from 2 to 4 grand per mill property taxes rise as value of

property increases with the long term income

Property improvements always raise taxable value. Farms are businesses, property taxes are deductible expenses against income. The net difference will still be money in the pockets of the farmers that otherwise would not be there.

i was not making a judgement one way or the other

just pointing out what surrounds leasing land for windmills

or cell towers for that matter

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wisconsin Farmer Has Regrets about Hosting Turbines

Mistake #1, signing a contract without it being reviewed by your lawyer. Hopefully other farmers won't make the same mistake.

 

[Bern80]

You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.

Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.

Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.

Yeah when somone subsidized you to the tune of 5k, it gets easier to ignore the environmental impact they have.

 

[flacaltenn]

Der-Te:

You just require too much remedial education for my busy schedule..
Everytime you check in with your fairy tale knowledge of "renewables", it causes me to repost crap that any KNOWLEDGEABLE citizen should know before they weigh in on the topics.. Last time you didn't know that clouds affect solar panels and NOW you deny that there is a growing sense of being lied to in the public about the siting hazards of wind.

You REALLY REALLY need to know about wind shadow flickering. Because LAWYERS shouldn't be neccessary.. An INFORMED public would NEVER allow these generators to be placed ANYWHERE near homes or livestock areas. This effect will RUIN the value of a property..


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ]Industrial Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker in Wisconsin 2008 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyOImGHyJtQ]Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise, Byron Wisconsin - YouTube[/ame]

As for that assertion of wind noise --- I've been there and done that MULTIPLE times. It's also addressed in the 2 vids above.. But for Mammoth, who either stood in the wrong position or was talking about a much smaller turbine than these. Even the manufacturer SPEC SHEETS puts the noise level WAY above a turbo prop plane consistantly flying overhead or a back seat at a rock concert.

The sound fields will vary GREATLY depending on whether you standing in the wind line or off to the side and with the NUMBER of turbines in the area. Because the individual wind patterns will combine to form beats and nodal points that add and subtract and MIX the frequencies of the sounds..

http://www.k2wind.ca/wp-content/uploads/WTS-Wind-Turbine-Specifications-Report-and-App-A.pdf

Sound power nameplate (2.030 MW)
3 m/s – 91.4 dBA; 4 m/s – 95.6 dBA; 5 m/s – 99.8 dBA; 6 m/s – 102.5 dBA; >7 m/s – 103.0 dBA

That was from a report by Ontario wind on the MANUFACTURER stated noise specs for their turbines.
You cannot ARGUE with the facts.. A 95dbA noise generator is OBNOXIOUS at less than a 1/4 mile..

 

[Old Rocks]

Tell that to the geese here that are getting chopped up by the wind farms. And duel purpose? Have you ever actually seen a wind farm? No farmer is going to want to try to harvest that land.

Are you that brain dead? Many thousands of acres of wheatland in Oregon and Washington support not only wheat but thousands of windmills. And, as one wheat farmer said about the ten mills on his land, the only complaint that he had was there were not twenty. The base of the mills take up little space, and the yearly royalty is around 5K. That is a real boon in an endeavor that can vary wildly from year to year in profitability.

Yeah when somone subsidized you to the tune of 5k, it gets easier to ignore the environmental impact they have.

LOL. The wheat farmers own the land. The power company needs land to put the mills on. Not subsudization, but a business deal. And it is 5K per mill. Not only that, they grow wheat right up to the base of the mills. So it is win-win for all.

Report: Wind Energy Price in the U.S. at All-Time Low, Localized Wind Power on the Rise | The Daily Fusion

Wind is a credible source of new generation in the U.S. Wind power comprised 43% of all new U.S. electric capacity additions in 2012 and represented $25 billion in new investment. Wind power currently contributes more than 12% of total electricity generation in nine states (with three of these states above 20%), and provides more than 4% of total U.S. electricity supply.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Der-Te:

You just require too much remedial education for my busy schedule..
Everytime you check in with your fairy tale knowledge of "renewables", it causes me to repost crap that any KNOWLEDGEABLE citizen should know before they weigh in on the topics.. Last time you didn't know that clouds affect solar panels and NOW you deny that there is a growing sense of being lied to in the public about the siting hazards of wind.

You REALLY REALLY need to know about wind shadow flickering. Because LAWYERS shouldn't be neccessary.. An INFORMED public would NEVER allow these generators to be placed ANYWHERE near homes or livestock areas. This effect will RUIN the value of a property..


Industrial Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker in Wisconsin 2008 - YouTube

Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise, Byron Wisconsin - YouTube

As for that assertion of wind noise --- I've been there and done that MULTIPLE times. It's also addressed in the 2 vids above.. But for Mammoth, who either stood in the wrong position or was talking about a much smaller turbine than these. Even the manufacturer SPEC SHEETS puts the noise level WAY above a turbo prop plane consistantly flying overhead or a back seat at a rock concert.

The sound fields will vary GREATLY depending on whether you standing in the wind line or off to the side and with the NUMBER of turbines in the area. Because the individual wind patterns will combine to form beats and nodal points that add and subtract and MIX the frequencies of the sounds..

http://www.k2wind.ca/wp-content/uploads/WTS-Wind-Turbine-Specifications-Report-and-App-A.pdf

Sound power nameplate (2.030 MW)
3 m/s – 91.4 dBA; 4 m/s – 95.6 dBA; 5 m/s – 99.8 dBA; 6 m/s – 102.5 dBA; >7 m/s – 103.0 dBA

That was from a report by Ontario wind on the MANUFACTURER stated noise specs for their turbines.
You cannot ARGUE with the facts.. A 95dbA noise generator is OBNOXIOUS at less than a 1/4 mile..

Strike 2!

Your domestic cloud cover link in notoriously rain soaked Scotland was a complete bust and now your latest offering exposes even more ignorance on your part. The noise levels in your link are all taken from a height of 10m (30'+) above ground level. At ground level the noise from a wind turbine is less than that of the wind itself. You can stand at ground level at the base of a wind turbine and converse at the same level as you would in a normal office.

Thanks for once again doing such a magnificent job of harming your own credibility. Have a nice day.

 

[Old Rocks]

Der-Te:

You just require too much remedial education for my busy schedule..
Everytime you check in with your fairy tale knowledge of "renewables", it causes me to repost crap that any KNOWLEDGEABLE citizen should know before they weigh in on the topics.. Last time you didn't know that clouds affect solar panels and NOW you deny that there is a growing sense of being lied to in the public about the siting hazards of wind.

You REALLY REALLY need to know about wind shadow flickering. Because LAWYERS shouldn't be neccessary.. An INFORMED public would NEVER allow these generators to be placed ANYWHERE near homes or livestock areas. This effect will RUIN the value of a property..


Industrial Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker in Wisconsin 2008 - YouTube

Wind Turbine Shadow Flicker and Noise, Byron Wisconsin - YouTube

As for that assertion of wind noise --- I've been there and done that MULTIPLE times. It's also addressed in the 2 vids above.. But for Mammoth, who either stood in the wrong position or was talking about a much smaller turbine than these. Even the manufacturer SPEC SHEETS puts the noise level WAY above a turbo prop plane consistantly flying overhead or a back seat at a rock concert.

The sound fields will vary GREATLY depending on whether you standing in the wind line or off to the side and with the NUMBER of turbines in the area. Because the individual wind patterns will combine to form beats and nodal points that add and subtract and MIX the frequencies of the sounds..

http://www.k2wind.ca/wp-content/uploads/WTS-Wind-Turbine-Specifications-Report-and-App-A.pdf

Sound power nameplate (2.030 MW)
3 m/s – 91.4 dBA; 4 m/s – 95.6 dBA; 5 m/s – 99.8 dBA; 6 m/s – 102.5 dBA; >7 m/s – 103.0 dBA

That was from a report by Ontario wind on the MANUFACTURER stated noise specs for their turbines.
You cannot ARGUE with the facts.. A 95dbA noise generator is OBNOXIOUS at less than a 1/4 mile..

Strike 2!

Your domestic cloud cover link in notoriously rain soaked Scotland was a complete bust and now your latest offering exposes even more ignorance on your part. The noise levels in your link are all taken from a height of 10m (30'+) above ground level. At ground level the noise from a wind turbine is less than that of the wind itself. You can stand at ground level at the base of a wind turbine and converse at the same level as you would in a normal office.

Thanks for once again doing such a magnificent job of harming your own credibility. Have a nice day.

Stood beneath a mill south of Wasco, Oregon, and did exactly the same thing. I could hear a gentle swoosh-swoosh, and my wife, with excellent hearing, said the noise was not objectionable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Y'all are engineering illiterate.. The sound fields REACH the ground within 100 yards of fan..
Are you really trying to be embarrassed here claiming that there is no noise field from wind turbines?

The 30ft that Der-Te parrots is the IEC standard height for measuring the WIND VELOCITY -- not the noise. The link that I with the Siemans Acoustic Data clearly states the distance was 130M.

Date: 16-04-2011
Engineer: EJK
Location: XXXXX in Ontario
Turbine-ID: T1
Hub Height: 80m
Distance: 130m

Roughness: 0,05m
K-Faktor: 0.7418
V_P/V_Anemo: 1.041

And a discussion about IEC 61400-11 measurement here
http://www.windenergy.org/swat/IEC%20Acoustic%20Standard%20IEC%2061400-11%20110718.pdf

.... will CLEARLY show you that the placement of MICROPHONE is at GROUND LEVEL...

Better READ the Appendix A BETTER in the link I first gave you BEFORE you go off inventing facts not in evidence..

PS.. Clouds in Scotland reduce Solar panel efficiencies the same as they do anywhere in the world..
YOU --- just didn't understand what you were looking at.. Wanna continue to DENY basic physics?

PPS.. at this point Der-Te -- you've got no credibility left to lose --- SO
GO FOR IT...

 

[flacaltenn]

Wind turbine noise, an independent assessment | Rand Acoustics


Wind turbines larger than one megawatt of rated power have become an unexpected surprise for many nearby residents by being much louder than expected. The sounds produced by blades, gearing, and generator are significantly louder and more noticeable as wind turbine size increases. Long blades create a distinctive aerodynamic sound as air shears off the trailing edge and tip. The sound character varies from a “whoosh” at low wind speeds to “a jet plane that never lands” at moderate and higher wind speeds. Blade-induced air vortices spinning off the tip may produce an audible “thump” as each blade sweeps past the mast. Thumping can become more pronounced at distance, described as “sneakers in a dryer,” when sounds from multiple turbines arrive at a listener’s position simultaneously.

Other professionals have developed thresholds, or criteria, for sound level to protect public health that may be applied to planning for wind turbine permitting. Recommendations from Hayes McKenzie Partnership in 2006 limited maximum wind turbine sound levels at residences to 38 dBA and no more than 33 dBA when “beating noises” are audible when the turbines spin.

Dan Driscoll presented his analysis in 2009 (Environmental Stakeholder Roundtable on Wind Power, June 16, 2009) with a Composite Noise Rating analysis of 33 dBA to reduce rural community response to the level of “sporadic complaints.”

Michael Nissenbaum issued his findings in 2010 from his medical study at Mars Hill, recommending a 7000-foot setback for public health. The World Health Organization published sound level thresholds of sleep disturbance and adverse health effects from peer-reviewed medical studies (Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, October 2009).

Our next column will compare our sound level versus distance data with these medical, health, and community response criteria and show what distances are necessary to protect public health.

Currently there is no effective, reliable noise mitigation for wind turbines of this size other than shutdown. Therefore, at this time it appears appropriate that proposed wind turbine sites should position wind turbines at least one mile away from residential properties and further for sites with more than one wind turbine. Smaller wind turbines (under one megawatt power rating) produce less noise than those currently being marketed and installed for grid power in Maine; these may be an option when distance is an issue.

Really? No noise? Probably because they DONT WORK very often.. Go back on day when they ARE working... And the wind speeds are above 10mph.

 

[Corrigendum]

I'm in favor of any kind of technology that can provide value in the free market. But if you have to tax and regulate successful energy technologies in order to make your "supported" products fly, you're backing the wrong technologies.

If an energy technology works, people will buy it. I'm in favor of free markets in energy.

 

[elektra]

At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.

The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.

Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.

You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.

I laughed when I read, "sawgrass". Yes, replace farmland and food with "sawgrass". A win, win, for everyone.

Wind Turbines, extremely expensive, massive amounts of concrete, millions of tons of fossil fuel turned into non-producing wind turbines that do not last 10 years. So sad so many feel so good, just call yourself Green, doesn't that make you feel goooood.

Honestly, Green Energy advocates are using more natural resources than everyone else, Solar Panels, LED bulbs, 200 ton windmills, nickel batteries in cars, simply call it Green and people jump on board, post an article they can find with Google, and wow, they are educated. Follow up with a news report of the president or vice president warning and then all the Green Living folks are validated. Hell, mine as well payoff the Scientist with grants and fat jobs at the universities.

sorry, I am sure you have a very good arguement in favor of Sawgrass and I should just let you tax the hell out of me so you can prove it.