"Ten Reasons why People who Support Wind Farms Are Deluded, Criminal or Insane. Which One Are You, Vince Cable?"

[billvon 2,990]

>I dont know about the science but I know they are irritating as hell

Yep, and the article describes that effect. You might be irritated by wind turbines, or the jump plane from a nearby DZ, or by Muslims living next to you. However, none of those things cause any health effects.

>they also DO cause motion sickness if in the shadow flicker because I have
>experienced it

Every single study done disagrees with you. I suspect you get "motion sick" because you want to get sick - because they irritate you, and getting motion sick would give you a reason to complain about them.

>And of course this all does not cure the economic failure these things would be
>without our tax dollars feeding this frenzy

That has also been disproved.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>I dont know about the science but I know they are irritating as hell

Yep, and the article describes that effect. You might be irritated by wind turbines, or the jump plane from a nearby DZ, or by Muslims living next to you. However, none of those things cause any health effects.

>they also DO cause motion sickness if in the shadow flicker because I have
>experienced it

Every single study done disagrees with you. I suspect you get "motion sick" because you want to get sick - because they irritate you, and getting motion sick would give you a reason to complain about them.of course you would say this but when it happened I was not even paying attention to it. I was cleaning up the end rows with a disk ripper. You can have your opinions and you can be wrong at the same time

>And of course this all does not cure the economic failure these things would be
>without our tax dollars feeding this frenzy

That has also been disproved.

Not according to Warren Buffet who is one of the biggest owners of the things in the US

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>Bill's post regardless, the fact remains that in ontario wind makes up about 4 % of
>the power supply, and is responsible for 20% of the cost increases in recent
>years...

============
Union of Concerned Scientists

New Wind Power Cheaper than Existing Coal and Natural Gas in Many Parts of the Country

December 10, 2013

Yesterday, we released an update of our 2012 Ripe for Retirement study that was published in the Electricity Journal, which analyzed the economic viability of updating the nation’s coal fleet compared to investing in cleaner alternatives. (For more details on the study, see this blog by my colleague Jeff Deyette.) Thanks to new technology developments that have lowered the costs of new wind projects and increased electricity production, our new analysis shows wind power could play an even greater role than natural gas in replacing existing coal plants.

The analysis shows that retrofitting 71 gigawatts (GW) of existing U.S. coal capacity with modern pollution controls would be more expensive than the cost of building new wind projects with the federal production tax credit (PTC) included. This is 12 GW, or 21 percent, higher than our core scenario comparing coal to the cost of increasing generation at existing natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants.
=============

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Bill's post regardless, the fact remains that in ontario wind makes up about 4 % of
>the power supply, and is responsible for 20% of the cost increases in recent
>years...

============
Union of Concerned Scientists

New Wind Power Cheaper than Existing Coal and Natural Gas in Many Parts of the Country

December 10, 2013

Yesterday, we released an update of our 2012 Ripe for Retirement study that was published in the Electricity Journal, which analyzed the economic viability of updating the nation’s coal fleet compared to investing in cleaner alternatives. (For more details on the study, see this blog by my colleague Jeff Deyette.) Thanks to new technology developments that have lowered the costs of new wind projects and increased electricity production, our new analysis shows wind power could play an even greater role than natural gas in replacing existing coal plants.

The analysis shows that retrofitting 71 gigawatts (GW) of existing U.S. coal capacity with modern pollution controls would be more expensive than the cost of building new wind projects with the federal production tax credit (PTC) included. This is 12 GW, or 21 percent, higher than our core scenario comparing coal to the cost of increasing generation at existing natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants.
=============

Still refuse to post your sources though everyone else is expected to
Sad

Any way
These so called reports like to leave things out like the effect of total capacity wind and solar can cover
Because they can never be all encompasing, the cost of backup or spinning reserves MUST be included in these so call study estimates (and there are usually not because they have an agenda. Who posted the report you put up?)

Regardless of how you look at wind, there MUST be back up. As availability of wind here in Iowa, at the wind farm my company owns, is less than 45%. Therefore duplicate capital investment MUST be made to cover peak demand.

In other words, there can be no reduction of avaialable generation that is not wind or solar. Uynles you come up with storage or you are ok with black outs

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>Still refuse to post your sources though everyone else is expected to

The source is the Union of Concerned Scientists, published December 10, 2013. If you can't be bothered to type in those words, then feel free to remain sourceless.

>and there are usually not because they have an agenda. Who posted the report
>you put up?

The Union of Concerned Scientists.

>In other words, there can be no reduction of avaialable generation that is not wind
>or solar.

In other words, you cannot imagine any way that you could reduce available generation. Fortunately other people are smarter than that.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Still refuse to post your sources though everyone else is expected to

The source is the Union of Concerned Scientists, published December 10, 2013. If you can't be bothered to type in those words, then feel free to remain sourceless.

>and there are usually not because they have an agenda. Who posted the report
>you put up?

The Union of Concerned Scientists.

>In other words, there can be no reduction of avaialable generation that is not wind
>or solar.

In other words, you cannot imagine any way that you could reduce available generation. Fortunately other people are smarter than that.

As usual you love putting words in other peoples mouths and refuse to provide any sourcing but this is normal

And i can imaging other sources
if they can stand on their own fine, so be it

But you support this stuff becasue you push the AWG lie
If you had a good reason it would be a no brainer

Instead what is pushed is being brainless

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>And i can imaging other sources

Great! Now can you imagine loads that only draw power when it's cheap?

Your view reminds me of Edison's back in the 1880's. He knew that large power plants would never work; that since you can't transmit DC power long distances, that local "lighting plants", one in each home or building, would be necessary if electric lighting was to have any chance.

Then Tesla (and Westinghouse) came along with AC power and proved him wrong.

But Edison didn't go down without a fight. He called Westinghouse clueless, greedy losers. He started spreading misinformation saying that alternating current was more dangerous. He even started electrocuting stray animals using alternating current to "prove his point." He claimed all kinds of health risks from AC power, including headaches from the incessant buzzing caused by cheap transformers. (Is any of this sounding familiar yet?)

But Westinghouse persevered, and today our distribution system is mostly AC.

>But you support this stuff becasue you push the AWG lie
>If you had a good reason it would be a no brainer

That's an odd choice of phrases. I support "this stuff" (wind) because it works, and it's cheap, and it's clean. Wind turbines are not "no brainers" but rather the result of a lot of people's brains over the past few decades.

>If you had a good reason it would be a no brainer
>Instead what is pushed is being brainless

So this stuff takes no brains, and instead has no brains?

OK then.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

rushmc

***>Still refuse to post your sources though everyone else is expected to

The source is the Union of Concerned Scientists, published December 10, 2013. If you can't be bothered to type in those words, then feel free to remain sourceless.

>and there are usually not because they have an agenda. Who posted the report
>you put up?

The Union of Concerned Scientists.

>In other words, there can be no reduction of avaialable generation that is not wind
>or solar.

In other words, you cannot imagine any way that you could reduce available generation. Fortunately other people are smarter than that.

As usual you love putting words in other peoples mouths and refuse to provide any sourcing but this is normal

And i can imaging other sources
if they can stand on their own fine, so be it

But you support this stuff becasue you push the AWG lie
If you had a good reason it would be a no brainer

Instead what is pushed is being brainless

Here ya go Marc:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/decrease-coal/economic-analysis-us-coal-plants.html#.VGJEUfldU0I

He did cite the source. No direct link to it, but the source was clearly stated.

And if you actually read what is written, it says that the big replacement for coal will be natural gas. And it makes the comparisons both with and without the tax credits. The tax credits move wind up the list, but wind is still there without them.
With the huge amounts now being produced by fracking, NG costs are back down where they were a few years back.

Kind of interesting. A group called CalPine (or something like that) built a bunch of NG fired plants all over the country. When NG prices spiked, they went under and the finished (or nearly finished) plants went for fire sale prices.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 23]

wolfriverjoe

******>Still refuse to post your sources though everyone else is expected to

The source is the Union of Concerned Scientists, published December 10, 2013. If you can't be bothered to type in those words, then feel free to remain sourceless.

>and there are usually not because they have an agenda. Who posted the report
>you put up?

The Union of Concerned Scientists.

>In other words, there can be no reduction of avaialable generation that is not wind
>or solar.

In other words, you cannot imagine any way that you could reduce available generation. Fortunately other people are smarter than that.

As usual you love putting words in other peoples mouths and refuse to provide any sourcing but this is normal

And i can imaging other sources
if they can stand on their own fine, so be it

But you support this stuff becasue you push the AWG lie
If you had a good reason it would be a no brainer

Instead what is pushed is being brainless

Here ya go Marc:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/decrease-coal/economic-analysis-us-coal-plants.html#.VGJEUfldU0I

He did cite the source. No direct link to it, but the source was clearly stated.

And if you actually read what is written, it says that the big replacement for coal will be natural gas. And it makes the comparisons both with and without the tax credits. The tax credits move wind up the list, but wind is still there without them.
With the huge amounts now being produced by fracking, NG costs are back down where they were a few years back.

Kind of interesting. A group called CalPine (or something like that) built a bunch of NG fired plants all over the country. When NG prices spiked, they went under and the finished (or nearly finished) plants went for fire sale prices.
this thread is about wind
which I have no problem with in theory
but they are NOT cheap just because the fuel source is wind
the main reason for this as they can not be base load reliable at this point. Because of this duplicate capital investment must be made on generation
If not for the tax incentives and the politics of wind generation, very few would have been or would be built today. This is a fact and
They have yet to make any money

And I know NG is a great replacement for coal
But, there is not real reason coal usage should be eneded
It is a great source and as the technolgy continues to gain, coal is cleaner to use
The company I work for is way ahead of EPA requirments with its coal fired fleet and plans to stay that way save for CO2 bs and AWG

We have started construction on a new combined cycle NG plant in Marshalltown Iowa!! great news

So, if we chose to do the wind I am ok with that if done for the right reasons
AWG is NOT a reason at all

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

billvon

>they also DO cause motion sickness if in the shadow flicker because I have
>experienced it

Every single study done disagrees with you. I suspect you get "motion sick" because you want to get sick - because they irritate you, and getting motion sick would give you a reason to complain about them.

Windmills actually cause repetitive-stress forearm injuries due to all the shaking of fists.

[kallend 2,026]

champu

***>they also DO cause motion sickness if in the shadow flicker because I have
>experienced it

Every single study done disagrees with you. I suspect you get "motion sick" because you want to get sick - because they irritate you, and getting motion sick would give you a reason to complain about them.

Windmills actually cause repetitive-stress forearm injuries due to all the shaking of fists.

They are an aid to aerial navigation though. Shown on sectional charts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skypuppy 1]

DanG

Quote

Bill's post regardless, the fact remains that in ontario wind makes up about 4 % of the power supply, and is responsible for 20% of the cost increases in recent years...

Do you have a source for that?

from the toronto sun newspaper

This time, energy analyst Tom Adams and University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick in their report, What Goes Up, argue the Dalton McGuinty/Kathleen Wynne blunder into green energy is hurting consumers, making the province less competitive and benefitting industry insiders. It has created the absurd situation in which Ontario has an energy surplus, while energy prices skyrocket.

As Adams puts it: “Wind and solar power systems provide less than 4% of Ontario’s power but account for 20% of the cost paid by Ontarians, yet the government wants to triple the number of wind and solar generators. That’s a good deal for wind and solar producers but a raw deal for consumers.”

and from london free press, oct 31st













Change text size for the story

Print

Report an error




Wind and solar power are providing less than 4% of Ontario's power but account for 20% of what Ontarians pay, according to a study released Thursday by the Fraser Institute.

And costs will only continue to rise unless the province takes action, the report's authors say.

"That's a good deal for wind and solar producers but a raw deal for consumers," said Tom Adams, an energy analyst and study co-author.

Adams said their analysis also found that new hydroelectric projects have not been beneficial for electricity consumers in Ontario.

"We are not just picking on wind and solar," Adams told The Free Press.

The report by the right-leaning think tank suggests the Ontario government could prevent further electricity rate increase by halting all new hydroelectric, wind and solar projects. To reduce rates, the province could terminate, where possible, existing contracts between renewable energy companies and the Ontario Power Authority.

In what is certain to be a controversial recommendation, the report says Ontario could reopen four of its 12 coal-fired power units at Lambton and Nanticoke that have been outfitted with advanced air pollution control equipment prior to closure. It could also refurbish its nuclear power plants, the Fraser Institute report said.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

kallend

******>they also DO cause motion sickness if in the shadow flicker because I have
>experienced it

Every single study done disagrees with you. I suspect you get "motion sick" because you want to get sick - because they irritate you, and getting motion sick would give you a reason to complain about them.

Windmills actually cause repetitive-stress forearm injuries due to all the shaking of fists.

They are an aid to aerial navigation though. Shown on sectional charts.

as long as you don't fly into one, like that plane earlier this year

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

Breaking News from the North American Platform Against Wind Power: Statement related to Health Canada’s flawed wind turbine and health study summary, Dr. Robert Y. McMurtry



November 9, 2014



On the heels of a media release by the North American Platform Against Wind Power, and on receipt of a sound exploratory synopsis (Denise Wolfe) of gaps and errors in methodology and design in the study/summary of Wind Turbine Noise and Health provided by Health Canada, Dr. Robert McMurtry offers the following statement:

"I have just had the opportunity to review the Denise Wolfe DOCUMENT, and appreciate its obvious quality, reinforced by knowing something of her background. The paper is a powerful statement that casts serious doubt on the recent Health Canada and CanWEA preliminary announcement, the background paper and related media statements. I am deeply saddened that the Ministry whom I was so proud to work for, appears to have fallen."

“In addition

, ongoing efforts will be made with our international network to evaluate all elements of the Health Canada conduct and management of this research. Focus will be on their claims about adverse health events

’

prevalence and incidence. These health effects have been reported globally (peer review publications), by the public and media in the environs of industrial installations of wind turbines.


also

Bayshore Broadcasting
The Medical Officer of Health for Grey Bruce is disappointed with a Health Canada report on wind turbines. Doctor Hazel Lynn says the study leaves a lot of questions unanswered, including how the study was conducted.

Health Canada says it found no evidence linking exposure to wind turbine noise and health effects reported by people living near the towering structures. However, the study did find a relationship between increasing levels of wind turbine noise and residents’ annoyance related to noise, vibration and shadow flicker from the structures.

The year-long study included a detailed questionnaire to adults in more than 1,200 households in southwestern Ontario and P.E.I. living at various distances from almost 400 wind turbines. R

and

Rob Gowan, Kincardine News
Dr. Hazel Lynn says an important segment of the population has been left out of a Health Canada study into the impact of industrial wind turbines on peoples’ health.

The Health Canada study, released Thursday, found no link between wind turbine noise and negative health effects in people. But Lynn, the medical officer of health for Grey-Bruce who has done a review of such studies, said some of the best survey findings are from the people who have moved away because they simply couldn’t live near turbines.

“These folks are still living there so obviously they are not in that 10% of people who actually abandoned their homes,” Lynn said of those who participated in the study.

“Although the wind folks would pooh-pooh those people (who have moved away) as being especially difficult, I think they are especially sensitive and if you are living in a place where you are afraid to go to sleep at night then you are going to move. Obviously this study didn’t pick up any of those folks.” R

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[SkyDekker 1,465]

skypuppy

***

Quote

Decreasing from what?????

Average around $0.28/kWh in 2011 to $0.25/kWh in 2013 for non-industrial customers and half that for industry, from a small amount of research.*

Regardless of amount or starting point, Bill's post says that wind farms are driving down energy costs. So how does it support your argument?

Quote

And they are a waste of money
And the reason they are being built is right on the money

SO you're saying they're useless. So how does Bill's post support your position?


* EU stats webiste, purely the price for the electricity without taking into account fixed infrastructure costs, I believe. Norwegian office of stats says that pure electricity prices dropped over 20% quarter for quarter from 2013 to 2014.

Bill's post regardless, the fact remains that in ontario wind makes up about 4 % of the power supply, and is responsible for 20% of the cost increases in recent years...

Mostly because we (tax payers) subsidize the cheap export to other provinces and states.

[billvon 2,990]

>as long as you don't fly into one, like that plane earlier this year

BAN POWER LINES!

[kallend 2,026]

billvon

>as long as you don't fly into one, like that plane earlier this year

BAN POWER LINES!

And FlightSafety buildings!

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2014%2F10%2F30%2Fus%2Fkansas-wichita-airport-crash%2F&ei=WaxjVIHlGImBygSrh4HoBw&usg=AFQjCNFcIqK-zcYRhCwYIx4G9f8iXH0MWw&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw&cad=rjt

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skypuppy 1]

billvon

>as long as you don't fly into one, like that plane earlier this year

BAN POWER LINES!

power lines generally aren't 300 - 500 ft high.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[billvon 2,990]

>power lines generally aren't 300 - 500 ft high.

And wind turbines generally aren't unlit.

[kallend 2,026]

skypuppy

***>as long as you don't fly into one, like that plane earlier this year

BAN POWER LINES!

power lines generally aren't 300 - 500 ft high.


In the USA:

FAR 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billeisele 130]

any pilot worth a hoot can easily fly between the blades, if not they deserve to be knocked out of the sky

and planes do hit power lines, well not exactly mindless planes, more like less than skilled pilots with a plane

my only complaint is that they aren't required to inform us ahead of time so we can watch, it is quite exciting, all the sparks and the fireball, and the aftermath is also interesting, please be careful removing my plane, that is if it isn't already burned up

uhhhh NO, my job is to restore power not reduce the cost of your repairs, Hey Charlie - just cut that one line and it will drop off the lines, now everyone stand back, first watch the crash then look at that guy over there, he will burst out in tears

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billeisele 130]

and about this wind and solar stuff

when energy storage (other than the types that already exist) becomes commercially viable then wind and solar will no longer is a problem and actually be cost effective

of course none of this real world data applies in California where the system is already so screwed up that reality no longer exists, no other utility in any state thinks that what CA is doing is good or makes any sense

once the silly concept of net metering is addressed (it is being reviewed all over the country and will change to a cost transfer that accurately equates to the value to the grid), the solar peeps will whine even louder, base costs are in the $60 - $80 range, take that for a basic charge then we'll net meter the flows and pay you the avoided cost, sorry if that makes your solar uneconomical, it's not my job to create false economics so you can enrich yourself on the backs of other customers

and once some of the current studies are complete that show the problems that point source generators create then additional and appropriate costs will be added to the solar peeps costs, even more fun will start

my gosh, how terrible, I'm confusing the issue with facts

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[rushmc 23]

billeisele

and about this wind and solar stuff

when energy storage (other than the types that already exist) becomes commercially viable then wind and solar will no longer is a problem and actually be cost effective

of course none of this real world data applies in California where the system is already so screwed up that reality no longer exists, no other utility in any state thinks that what CA is doing is good or makes any sense

once the silly concept of net metering is addressed (it is being reviewed all over the country and will change to a cost transfer that accurately equates to the value to the grid), the solar peeps will whine even louder, base costs are in the $60 - $80 range, take that for a basic charge then we'll net meter the flows and pay you the avoided cost, sorry if that makes your solar uneconomical, it's not my job to create false economics so you can enrich yourself on the backs of other customers

and once some of the current studies are complete that show the problems that point source generators create then additional and appropriate costs will be added to the solar peeps costs, even more fun will start

my gosh, how terrible, I'm confusing the issue with facts

Good post
But if net metering is not decided the way the greenies want it to be, they will then move to make the grid something that is owned by the public
Then it will spiral down even more

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>base costs are in the $60 - $80 range

What does that mean?

[champu 1]

Complete tangent warning...

One thing that does appear to be new this year in California that I find a bit goofy at its face is this credit. I'm not sure how reducing my electricity bill by $40 bucks twice a year is going to encourage me to save electricity.