Lots of air makes the world go round

Via EnviroSpin Watch we learn that Tony Blair's government has problems on many fronts, as this article in Country Life tells (but does not show) us:

The 10 Most Hated Eyesores Voted by Country Life Readers. When Country Life asked readers to nominate the worst eyesores in Britain, nominations flooded in.

And among those nominations, "wind farms" float to the top of the list.

Now the plutocrats of Nantucket Sound also have problems with wind farms so Country Life readers are in good company.

But I do wonder how many have ever seen a wind farm. I hadn't until about six months ago when I saw one near

and posted about it here.

Here's another picture of what they look like in the desert of Southern California:

There are actually row upon row of them, perhaps several hundred in a farm. Very striking. Very beautiful. (Maybe even a work of genius; I know I had a profound transcendent aesthetic experience. And though I am spoofing the language, it's actually true; I found these objects extremely striking.) I suspect that the country folk's fears (in the abstract -- I don't really know if the specific plan at issue is stupid or not) are probably vastly overblown; no one likes change. But windmills are in reality (or can be) extremely good-looking. I would not want to live directly underneath one, (though I can't imagine that stock would care,) but I would think a buffer of a mile or so would be ample separation from residential areas. And that is in the open desert.

Without knowing more I still can't yet take this NIMBY battle particularly seriously, though I suspect that the English country opposition is a foxy bunch when it comes to bleeding hearts.

UPDATE: As to windmills and beauty, at his own his own blog, Byzantium's Shores says I agree.

My wife's grandmother lives in the midst of a very big windfarm in northwestern Iowa, and on our last visit I found them profoundly lovely -- especially on one foggy morning when those slowly-turning turbines looked, from a distance, like some kind of giants on a lonely moor. Also, people who complain about the droning sound of a windfarm are just plain wrong. We actually went and stood underneath a turbine that was rotating at a pretty decent rate, and the drone was actually softer than that of the normal buzz of the autumn locusts.

Comments

[Henrik Mintis]

Interesting that you showed a picture of a windfarm that doesn't rise above the landscape. Maybe you should see if you can find a windfarm in a flatter area, like the rolling hills of a rural farming area populated with small cottages and fences, and see if it improves the view.

[back40]

Your "eye" changes with environment. For a person dialed in on desert landscapes the California windmills are indeed jarring and ugly, a darkly ominous symbol of urban orcs devoid of style or grace. Urban dwellers more often find them interesting, a touch of civilization in a hostile wasteland, a serene point of order and symmetry in an otherwise disordered, discordant environment.

There are more urbans and they seem to have the power to impose their objectives on all others. It seems useful to understand the magnitude of their crimes against those less powerful if only to make sense of the acts of resistance.

[Laurence Aurbach]

Yes, back40, that is a noble sentiment and I can understand why rural dwellers oppose large mechanisms on the landscape. But don't rural folks also use electricity and burn gasoline? Would they prefer strip mines, oil derricks and hazwaste? Is this a case of eating the cake and wanting a whole, unspoiled cake too?

I also find a landscape of windmills exceedingly beautiful. There's an art to siting them so they look better than rigid industrial rows.

[back40]

Given all the other problems with windmills - their lack of efficiency, manufacturing costs, pollution, harm to wildlife etc. etc. - their ugliness tips the balance to negative for those who must suffer their existence. There are better solutions, such as tidal generators below water, and we will continue to develop even better ones.

Wind mills are wrong for many reasons not least of which is the cynicism for alternative energy efforts that they cause. When bad solutions are imposed on society in the name of good causes those good causes suffer. The public becomes wary of future initiatives because of their bad experiences with past wonder cures.

We need to avoid squandering public good will on bad ideas. Simplistic arguments that attempt to justify bad ideas by citing current problems fail when the cure is worse than the disease. Better we should continue to develop real cures.

It's frustrating for governments, corporations and advocacy groups when the people refuse to cooperate with their schemes, but personal involvemnt in such decisions is the best, most engaged type of environmentalism.

[David Sucher]

Back40 makes an interesting comment which implies, I think, that the decision whether to invest in windmills should be a social one. It may well be that there are public utilities which want to get in on wind power. But there are also plenty of private companies. The only decision which we the public ought to be concerned is the land use & environmental impact questions.

Such matters as wind power's (supposed) "lack of efficiency, manufacturing costs" and general feasibility seem to me to be a question solely for investors to make. Let them fall on their faces or make piles of dough; it's their investment decision.

The environmental impacts, including the very difficult "aesthetic" one, are legitimately a question of public policy and of course intense public debate.

I have actually seen these windmills and thought them very beautiful, so obviously there will be plenty of politics in that aesthetic question alone.

As to Henrik's point, that's a good one, though as one of the pictures in my prior post shows the windmill against the sky, I think it's safe to say that I think thme rather pretty.

Someone made a point about impacts on wildlife. is there any data on that? What about stock -- cattle, horses, pigs etc. Are they offended by windmills?

One other point: Let's bear in mind that the whole noise issue such as it might be should be considered in light of the general background winds of the areas where a windmill is likely to be placed. The "venturi" which prompts the Palm Springs windmills in the first place creates a fairly steady and high level of noise. I couldn't get close enough to the windmills to be able to distinguish their particular sound.

[Laurence Aurbach]

When it comes to overall environmental impacts, windmills are probably the top performers. There has been a lot of concern about birds crashing into windmills, based on one study of the Altamont Pass wind farm. It appears now that the Altamont impacts were an anomaly: http://www.currykerlinger.com/

Most impacts on birds can be addressed through proper siting, which is what conservation groups like the Audubon Society are working to achieve throughout the country. The biggest complainers about birds and windmills are the oil and gas interests. This editorial tells the ugly story: http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/4351

[David Sucher]

I started thinking further about windmills today as I was shopping for a ski helmet, (highly recommended these day, btw) and I wondered how I would feel if there was a windmill or two at the top of Whistler or Blackcomb Mountains, two of my very favorite places in the world.

I decided it would be fine.

[back40]

"Such matters as wind power's (supposed) "lack of efficiency, manufacturing costs" and general feasibility seem to me to be a question solely for investors to make. Let them fall on their faces or make piles of dough; it's their investment decision."

That's not how it works. No one would invest in alternative energy without subsidies, which are public policy issues rather than private investment issues. If this were not so we wouldn't be debating the subject, investors would simply do it unless prevented by regulation.

It isn't just that wind (as well as solar) power is more expensive in several distinct ways, it is also incapable of ever being more than a redundant fraction of generating capacity. Wind and solar power are intermittent, varying with the wind and sun. Worse, they are off when most needed. Wind blows in spring and fall when energy demand is least, the sun shines bright on long summer days but only briefly and dimly in winter.

Tidal generators - think of them as underwater wind mills - work all the time. The tide comes in and goes out, regular as the rotation of the earth, every hour in everyday in every season. This sort of moon power can replace other forms of generation rather than just adding redundant capacity. And they aren't eyesores in otherwise lovely spots.

[David Sucher]

Would anyone invest in oil without subsidies? Our society is so filled with subsidies and cross-subsidies and hidden-subsidies that I am not sure if one can truly say that virtually any industry stands on its own feet.

Yes, wind power is being subsidized.

Not surprisngly the Cape Cod Times seems to be a good (and even fair-handed from my very cursory purusal) source onf information on the natucket Sound proposal. A July, 2003 article titled Cape Wind eyes subsidy had this to say:

The proposed Senate energy bill gives $11.2 billion for fossil fuels and $2.9 billion for renewables, an analysis by a Washington, D.C.-based research organization has found. Another $4.3 billion would be spent for energy efficiency and just over $1 billion for nuclear power.

So yes wind power is subsidized, so is every source, in the form of Production Tax Credits. Exactly how those Credits operate and whether they are wise to begin with for any source of energy is another question.

Nonethless, assuming the credits are based on a unit of energy produced, there is still market and entreprenurial risk; capital can be shifted from one source of energy to another with a neutral impact on taxes, though of course not profits. Therefore capital stil has a key role and I believe decisive role to play in whether to make a specific investment or not on economic grounds.

[Murph]

David, I'm going to agree with you on the aesthetics; I think windmills are beautiful, and I grew up in farmland, so I hardly qualify as an "urban orc". Turbines are a big PIMBY issue for me ("Please! In *my* backyard! I want one!") I haven't consulted personally with any farmers on the topic (though it would be as easy as walking down the road when I visit my family at Christmas), but, from what I've read, plenty of farmers and ranchers are desperately happy to have the turbines on their property--putting up turbines on grazing land leaves 90% of the land grazable, while the lease on the last 10% brings in a *much* greater income per acre than the actual grazing.

I'm generally not sure where back40 is coming from, but it sounds like FUD. (the practice of spreading questionable information with the goal of causing "fear, uncertainty, doubt".) I don't have my sources at hand, but I can dig some up.

I'm curious about the "efficiency" problems. From an engineer's perspective, efficiency is a question of how much energy yield you get from fuel input. In an engine or generator, efficiency is measured in terms of how much of the energy stored in gasoline is turned into usable power; solar cells measure efficiency in how much of the light that strikes them is turned into usable power. With turbines, it's much less important--the wind is not "burnt" or radiated off as heat and noise if it isn't turned into useful power...It keeps moving, and hits the next turbine across the field.

Also, the question of seasonal wind yield is one I've never heard of before. I think back40 needs to spend some time in the Dakotas and Montana, which get a pretty continuous wind for most of the year. Seasonal solar, similarly. I've seen houses which are pleasantly warmed in a Michigan January by pure solar power, even on partially overcast days--it just takes creative design. Obviously, this is all anecdotal, but, as I said, I'm the only source I have on hand to cite.

But I'll press on anyways to manufacturing costs. It's never cheap to build the first few of anything. Not cars, not turbines, not tidal generators. You need to built in quantity to get the labor costs per unit down and the material and energy inputs as streamlined as possible. The reason we associate wind power with inefficient manufacturing is because it's still a novelty industry. Countries like Denmark, which produces a lot more wind power, and a lot more turbines, don't have quite the same problems.

[Christopher Davis]

Both aesthetically and as a means of collecting a renewable energy source, I think wind turbines are great, but the idea of sprinkling them around rural areas disturbs me. It disturbs me in the same way that plans for rural broadband disturb me. I'd rather know what in the world people are doing out there in the first place. If you want a natural, agrarian lifestyle, fine, but don't expect the amenities of city life. It confounds me that conservatives in government are willing to spend tax-payer money on expensive new infrastructure and fuel subsidies but visiously oppose investing in public transit and mixed-income urban communities. Expanding infrastructure in rural areas just encourages more people to move away from cities, thus causing even greater environmental harm.

Why not instead work on ways of pleasantly incorporating wind turbines to new skyscraper design and help clean up those "dirty" cities.

[Murph]

Christopher, some of those people are out there growing food and raising cattle. Especially in the areas that are most often mentioned for large scale turbine farms--the dakotas, eastern montana, west texas. And most of these large scale plans involve generating the power there, where it's most harvestable, and sending it to more urban areas--just as most of Manhattan's gasoline originates somewhere off the island, we shouldn't expect it to generate its own wind power. Wind is a natural resource just like everything else. I don't think that turbine dreams involve supplying power to subdivisions in the great plains or the high desert, though, if you've seen such plans, please point me to them so that I can be disgusted by them. :)

Putting turbines on skyscrapers would be nice, but I don't think the buildings are structurally intended for that kind of load.

[clew]

back40, I assume you don't live near a coast - you're getting suspiciously close to NIMBYISM if you're 'dialed in' to the beauties of your locale and no-one else's.

I suspect that there's an enormously greater, objectively measurable (by the ton) complexity of life in tidezones, compared to how-far-above the deserts. Mucking with the shores is likely to be pretty damaging.

I'm also dubious about the necessity of stored energy - we have the grid to move it around space, and economic incentives should move a lot of it around time, once we can actually a)bill more for peak power and b)set the washer/dryer/printer to run at the cheap hours.

[back40]

No, I'm a mountain man not a surfer. But I do think that NIMBYISM is the very best sort of engaged environmentalism. It's the most democratic, the most observant, the least corrupt and has been in the forefront of every useful initiative. It's only authoritarians that deride NIMBYs, bossy elitists who have nothing but disdain for the views of the public, and nothing but lust for power as motive. NIMBYs have been a pain in the neck for politicians, corporations and lavishly funded pseudo-environmental organizations staffed by careerists. Good for them.