In answer to a recent speech by Lester Brown, as reported in National Geographic's Energy Blog, a correspondent sends these 10 succinct reasons why wind power is undesirable:
1. It can not meaningfully replace more reliable sources, currently fueled by hydro, fossil fuels, or nuclear. Because wind is intermittent, highly variable, and nondispatchable, the rest of the grid must continue to operate as if it is not there. Large-scale batteries are very far from practicality and would provide only short-term mitigation of variability.
2. It can not meaningfully reduce carbon emissions. In addition to the reasons in (1), wind forces the grid to operate less efficiently, like switching from highway to city driving.
3. It requires huge machines spread over huge areas. Even "good" wind is a diffuse resource to capture.
4. It subjects rural and wild land to industrial development. For the reasons in (3), that's where the space is, and besides the turbines themselves, heavy-duty roads, transfer stations, and high-voltage transmission lines are needed.
5. It destroys, degrades, and fragments wildlife habitat. Again, This is for the reasons in (3) and (4).
6. It is a particular threat to migratory birds, raptors, and bats. These animals already use the wind, and the giant turbine blades are a direct physical danger or force the animals to detour or go elsewhere.
7. Its giant turbine blades create a disturbing thumping or deep swishing noise as they pass through different layers of air. The noises from large wind turbines make many people sick, and other animals are likely affected similarly.
8. It requires blasting on mountain ridges to create level platforms of 2-3 acres or more and wide slow-turning roads.
9. It adversely affects water headlands and runoff when built on mountain ridges. This is not only by the construction (blasting and compacting) of the roads and platforms, but also by the clearance of vegetation for them, as well as for the transfer stations and transmission lines.
10. It's ugly. Industrial wind turbines are now typically well over 400 feet tall and easily dominate the landscape, especially when the blades are turning. And a single facility consists of a lot more than 1, from dozens on mountain ridges to hundreds in the prairies, spread over miles.
wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, wind farms, environment, environmentalism
August 24, 2011
August 19, 2011
Populism Shopulism
After the 2000 election fiasco, I wrote "The election between them [Gore and Bush] came down to which brand of false populism you fall for more easily. So it is not surprising the vote was split right down the middle. ... The most corrupt candidate won [or rather literally 'took the prize']."
Huey Long (a true populist) once said, "They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side. But no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen."
That remains quite evidently true today, and one might add in the same spirit that the only difference between our two parties at the national level is in their campaign messages. Which lies do you prefer to believe?
Huey Long (a true populist) once said, "They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side. But no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen."
That remains quite evidently true today, and one might add in the same spirit that the only difference between our two parties at the national level is in their campaign messages. Which lies do you prefer to believe?
August 10, 2011
Nope, no government programs for me
Percentages of government social program beneficiaries who report that they “have not used a government social program”:
529 or Coverdell: 64.3%
Home Mortgage Interest Deduction: 60.0%
Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit: 59.6%
Student Loans: 53.3%
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: 51.7%
Earned Income Tax Credit: 47.1%
Social Security—Retirement & Survivors: 44.1%
Pell Grants: 43.1%
Unemployment Insurance: 43.0%
Veterans Benefits (other than GI Bill): 41.7%
GI Bill: 40.3%
Medicare: 39.8%
Head Start: 37.2%
Social Security Disability: 28.7%
SSI—Supplemental Security Income: 28.2%
Medicaid: 27.8%
Welfare/Public Assistance: 27.4%
Government Subsidized Housing: 27.4%
Food Stamps: 25.4%
Source: Social and Governmental Issues and Participation Study, 2008. Survey conducted by Survey Research Institute, Cornell University. Principal Investigator, Suzanne Mettler.
529 or Coverdell: 64.3%
Home Mortgage Interest Deduction: 60.0%
Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit: 59.6%
Student Loans: 53.3%
Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: 51.7%
Earned Income Tax Credit: 47.1%
Social Security—Retirement & Survivors: 44.1%
Pell Grants: 43.1%
Unemployment Insurance: 43.0%
Veterans Benefits (other than GI Bill): 41.7%
GI Bill: 40.3%
Medicare: 39.8%
Head Start: 37.2%
Social Security Disability: 28.7%
SSI—Supplemental Security Income: 28.2%
Medicaid: 27.8%
Welfare/Public Assistance: 27.4%
Government Subsidized Housing: 27.4%
Food Stamps: 25.4%
Source: Social and Governmental Issues and Participation Study, 2008. Survey conducted by Survey Research Institute, Cornell University. Principal Investigator, Suzanne Mettler.
August 3, 2011
The Human Pretzel
"I am proud to have voted against this bill but I would have been just as proud to have voted in favor of it if my vote was needed to pass something that I am against."
[thanks to Snarky Boy for catching this from the radio]
Vermont
—Peter Welch, U.S. Representative, Vermont
[thanks to Snarky Boy for catching this from the radio]
Vermont
No adverse wind turbine effects within 10 km radius!
Alec Salt, a researcher at the Washington University School of Medicine who has discovered interesting things about the inner ear's response to low-frequency noise, notes at Wind Concerns Ontario that reports finding no significant ill effects of wind turbines on health or property values all appear to use an cutoff of 5 or 10 kilometers or 5 miles.
It is obvious that with such a cutoff, you are guaranteed to dilute any effect by including a vastly larger number of people and property at greater distances from the wind turbines. Salt puts some hypothetical numbers to that fact, which I here adapt.
First, let us say that a wind facility is 12.6 square kilometers in area (3,105 acres), which as a circle would have a radius of 2 km.
The area within 1 km of the facility would then be the area of a 3-km-radius circle minus 12.6 km², i.e., 15.7 km².
The area would be 37.7 km² within 2 km, 66.0 km² within 5 km, and 301.6 km² within 10 km.
If we then assume that the residential density is consistent throughout these areas, it is clear that there would be 4.2 times more families within 5 km than within 1 km of the facility, and 19.2 times more within 10 km.
Particularly with health effects, where not everyone is affected or affected to the same degree, a significant proportion of affected individuals becomes minuscule in the larger pool: If, say, 10% of the people within 1 km become ill after the wind turbines begin operating (in fact, it appears that the rate is much greater), that becomes only half of one percent of the people living within 10 km (ignoring for now anybody becoming ill farther than 1 km away).
Problem solved!
Also, as a commenter to the Wind Concerns Ontario noted, the physical effects of wind turbines fall off exponentially with distance, further ensuring a dilution to insignificance with a larger distance.
In contrast, if you compare that rate of 10% within 1 km with, say, a 1% rate farther than 2 km, it is very clear that the risk of adverse health effects is increased tenfold by living within 1 km of a wind facility compared with living greater than 2 km from it. But such studies have yet to be done.
It is obvious that with such a cutoff, you are guaranteed to dilute any effect by including a vastly larger number of people and property at greater distances from the wind turbines. Salt puts some hypothetical numbers to that fact, which I here adapt.
First, let us say that a wind facility is 12.6 square kilometers in area (3,105 acres), which as a circle would have a radius of 2 km.
The area within 1 km of the facility would then be the area of a 3-km-radius circle minus 12.6 km², i.e., 15.7 km².
The area would be 37.7 km² within 2 km, 66.0 km² within 5 km, and 301.6 km² within 10 km.
If we then assume that the residential density is consistent throughout these areas, it is clear that there would be 4.2 times more families within 5 km than within 1 km of the facility, and 19.2 times more within 10 km.
Particularly with health effects, where not everyone is affected or affected to the same degree, a significant proportion of affected individuals becomes minuscule in the larger pool: If, say, 10% of the people within 1 km become ill after the wind turbines begin operating (in fact, it appears that the rate is much greater), that becomes only half of one percent of the people living within 10 km (ignoring for now anybody becoming ill farther than 1 km away).
Problem solved!
Also, as a commenter to the Wind Concerns Ontario noted, the physical effects of wind turbines fall off exponentially with distance, further ensuring a dilution to insignificance with a larger distance.
In contrast, if you compare that rate of 10% within 1 km with, say, a 1% rate farther than 2 km, it is very clear that the risk of adverse health effects is increased tenfold by living within 1 km of a wind facility compared with living greater than 2 km from it. But such studies have yet to be done.
July 29, 2011
Goebbels is laughing
The Nazi Propaganda Minister, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, calls his boss, Adolf Hitler, by hell-o-phone.
“Mein Führer,” he exclaims excitedly. “News from the world. It seems we were on the right track, after all. Anti-Semitism is conquering Europe!”
“Good!” the Führer says, “That will be the end of the Jews!”
“Hmmm … well … not exactly, mein Führer. It looks as though we chose the wrong Semites. Our heirs, the new Nazis, are going to annihilate the Arabs and all the other Muslims in Europe.” Then, with a chuckle, “After all, there are many more Muslims than Jews to exterminate.”
“But what about the Jews?” Hitler insists.
“You won’t believe this: the new Nazis love Israel, the Jewish State - and Israel loves them!”
... The New Anti-Semitism, by Uri Avnery (click here), describes how the new fascists have made common cause with the new zionists against the other Semites, the Arabs.
“Mein Führer,” he exclaims excitedly. “News from the world. It seems we were on the right track, after all. Anti-Semitism is conquering Europe!”
“Good!” the Führer says, “That will be the end of the Jews!”
“Hmmm … well … not exactly, mein Führer. It looks as though we chose the wrong Semites. Our heirs, the new Nazis, are going to annihilate the Arabs and all the other Muslims in Europe.” Then, with a chuckle, “After all, there are many more Muslims than Jews to exterminate.”
“But what about the Jews?” Hitler insists.
“You won’t believe this: the new Nazis love Israel, the Jewish State - and Israel loves them!”
... The New Anti-Semitism, by Uri Avnery (click here), describes how the new fascists have made common cause with the new zionists against the other Semites, the Arabs.
July 26, 2011
Danish Minister compares peaceful protesters to mass murderer
The Danish Minister of Integration and Development, Søren Pind, wrote on Facebook that the activists attempting to stop the cutting down of a forest to erect giant wind turbines are like Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik:
Anders Breivik, of course, is the man who killed scores of people in Norway last Friday (July 22) in what he considered to be a strike against multiculturalism. Søren Pind, a member of the ruling right-wing Venstre party, is well known in Denmark for his own attitudes against multiculturalism. That well fits his obvious hatred of people who question their government's actionsculture.
Click here for the story in Danish.
Ekstremismen tager til. Flere og flere mener sig berettiget til at tage sig selv til rette. Optøjerne på Nørrebro. Kirkebesættere. Østerild. Og ekstremismens hidtil mest sataniske fjæs nu i Norge. Det er 70’erne om igen. De næste år handler om demokratiets og retsstatens klippegrund. Nok er nok. Enten er man med. Eller også imod.The Nørrebro church occupation refers to a group of rejected Iraqi asylum seekers who sought refuge in 2009 and the citizens who tried to block police from entering. Østerild refers to the citizens who for 10 days blocked the cutting down of trees in the klitplantage (dunes park) there. The Danish Nature Agency plans to clear it for the companies Vestas and Siemens to erect giant (250 m tall) "test" turbines. The blockade ended today when the number of tree-cutting machines was more than doubled and more than 50 police arrived, armed and with dogs, to clear out the activists and planning to keep guard around the clock until the first round of cutting is done.
Extremism is growing. More and more people see themselves entitled to take the law into their own hands. The riots in Nørrebro. Church occupiers. Østerild. And the most satanic extremism now in Norway. It's the 70s again. The next year is about democracy and the rule of law. Enough is enough. You are either with. Or against.
Anders Breivik, of course, is the man who killed scores of people in Norway last Friday (July 22) in what he considered to be a strike against multiculturalism. Søren Pind, a member of the ruling right-wing Venstre party, is well known in Denmark for his own attitudes against multiculturalism. That well fits his obvious hatred of people who question their government's actionsculture.
Click here for the story in Danish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)