SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Last week Union County voters struck down a ballot measure to support wind energy development in Northeast Oregon. By a four-point margin, the non-binding vote reflects a love-hate relationship residents there have with wind turbines operating in their community.
Since 1998 when the region's first wind farm, Vansycle Ridge, came on line, Oregon has seen more giant turbines enter the landscape. From the bottom of the base to the tip of a fully extended blade, the turbines can reach up to 520 feet tall – that’s nearly as tall as Portland's tallest skyscraper, the Wells Fargo building. Prime locations for wind farms are elevated sites that are ideal for capturing wind flow. Because of the need for height and exposure, wind farms can often change scenic views for neighbors. Some residents complain that land use regulations don’t sufficiently protect the landscapes that attract visitors who bring revenue to the area. They fear more turbines will cause a decline in the tourism economy. Others complain of the wind farms’ broader environmental and public health impacts.
But Oregon has vigorously incentivized wind energy development in the state with the Business Energy Tax Credits (BETC) program. And that's been widely credited with attracting the world’s leading wind energy companies to locate their North American headquarters in Portland, making the state fourth in the nation for new wind capacity.
At first, wind energy accounted for 25 megawatts of Bonneville Power Administration transmissions. Now the amount of wind energy flowing through BPA is 2,095 megawatts. Recent reports have revealed that surpluses of hydro electricity sometimes prompt wind energy producers to shut down. But more wind farms on land are in development, including what will be the world's largest wind farm. And still other developers are working on technology to build offshore wind turbines.
Do you have concerns about wind energy? Do you live near wind turbines? What do you think are the benefits and risks of wind energy? What's the proper role of wind in the energy mix?
GUESTS: (note: all caps)
- Dennis Wilkinson: Union County voter who opposes wind energy development
- Doug Lewis: Union County voter who supports wind energy development
- Rachel Shimshak: Executive director of Renewable Northwest Project
- Cassandra Profita: Reporter for OPB's Ecotrope site
- Paul Klarin: Marine affairs coordinator for the State of Oregon
Tagged as: energy · environment · wind
Photo credit: Oregon Public Broadcasting / Creative Commons
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
Definitely have concerns about wind energy. If people living near windmills are bothered by noise and night lighting, that's problematic.
If wildlife is harmed then that's a problem. Heard that windmill towers are painted the wrong color; they should be purple instead of white so birds will avoid them. Does tower lighting affect birds migrating at night?
Started reading an article which stated large pivot irrigation systems change local weather. Wonder how wind farms alter their micro climates?
When will battery technology evolve so that variable wind-generated electricity can be safely and economically stored so it can be used when needed?
Perhaps the Northwest has enough wind farms for now. Believe we should operate windmills for 10 or 20 years so we can determine their environmental side effects. Also provides time for design evolution to develop more efficient and safer models.
There should be more action taken to conserve energy in the first place. This is the least expensive way to minimize or use of environment-damaging technologies.
-
Good points all around- I completely agree that the appropriate studies must be undetaken in order to properly site a wind facility. In Oregon, I think the state and local jurisdictions do require the correct level of scientific analysis for these studies (noise, flicker, wildlife, etc.). You should check out the OR EFSC website, which has information about the different projects as well as the mitigation plans for each.
As for modeling climatic change and micro shifts in habitat usage by wildlife- I'm not aware of this level of scrutiny required for any development. If we require this for wind, we should certainly require it for coal, oil, gas, hydro, and nuclear generation facilities. Also, I'd be curious to know if these shifts may occur to a noticable degree over the 20-30 year lifespan of a wind facility? When a wind facility is in need of repowering, it is likely better technology will replace the old wind turbines, and thus the siting process (including those wildlife studies) will need occur all over again. This may mitigate your concerns about climate change induced shifts in landscape usage by wildlife.
Overall you raise good points, many of which we can be worked through with some effort by developers, planner, and other experts.
-
Wind will be interesting in their development because of these kinds of concerns.
I am a real fan of those big fans and I'd like to see them become well loved icons just like the old Dutch and Spanish windmills.
I wonder what the first responses were when the first big and very loud steam engined tractors and combines were brought in to Union County to replace those lovely old quiet draft horses?
I lived for awhile up in Steilacoom, Washington, one short block away from the ferry dock and about 200 feet from the two main north-south railroad lines and the first few nights those trains woke me up in a panic because they were so close and they had to whistle warnings at the crossing of the road to the ferry. But after awhile I got used to them and they faded into the background and I'd sleep through their noise.
So, is this just tilting at windmills? Will the windturbine neighbors get used to them and begin to take pride in their clean energy neighbors?
I hope so, I am sick and tired of constant wars for Oil to power our military to fight even more wars for Oil. Whoosh, whoosh, not boom boom!
-
We don't really use oil for electricity, so how will wind farms wean us off foriegn oil? nootka rose
-
Electric cars.
-
So the "News Headline" on the comedy shows is something like "More than half of the voters in Union County, Oregon, are having trouble Breaking Wind".
"eastern oregon residents near wind farms express health concerns over noise lights stress"
-
How close do you live to turbines?
-
It was an attempted joke about flatulence. The noise and stress of it. That's all.
And I'd like to live close to turbines, even right under one so that I could enjoy that reassuring sound telling me that nobody is killing somebody else for possession and control of that resource like our hundred of years of Wars for Oil.
-
Unfortunately wind farms won't get us there.
-
The Grande Ronde Valley is a remarkably beautiful valley surrounded by mountains. The most iconic is Mt. Emily to the west. Directly opposite to the east is Mt. Harris. To the south east is the tallest; Mt Fanny. If Emily Harris says her middle name is Fanny we will have to build a monument to her right in the middle of the valley.
Seriously though, people here in Union county love their view. To the north is Pumpkin Ridge, the lowest of the mountains that ring the valley. To the south is Craig Mountain, not the most iconic, but overlooking the town of Union. This is the mountain in question.
If you look at a map that rates wind sites, a 1 rating is required before a wind developer will even consider building. A 2 rating is really desirable. [Much of the Columbia River Gorge is rated as a 2.] The rating of 3 is rare. Several sites on Craig mountain are rated as 3. An existing Wind Farm a little SE of Craig mountain is rated as a 2.
I am about 15 miles from the proposed development so would not notice much impact. I think the project is probably the responsible thing to do, both nationally and internationally. I voted for it. But I have many friends on both sides of the issue, and to say that passion is more on one side than the other is an understatement.
I would prefer that things proceed deliberatively. But we are dealing with human beings here. What are you going to do?
The wind potential will always be there whether this project goes forward now or not. Baker Valley to the south is higher elevation than the Grande Ronde Valley. It has Snow capped mountains to the West and Snowcapped mountains to the East. All that cold air drains into Baker Valley and then right over Craig Mountain. -
The Grande Ronde Valley is a remarkably beautiful valley surrounded by mountains. The most iconic is Mt. Emily to the west. Directly opposite to the east is Mt. Harris. To the south east is the tallest; Mt Fanny. If Emily Harris says her middle name is Fanny we will have to build a monument to her right in the middle of the valley.
That's funny! For the record, my middle name is not Fanny!
-Emily
-
Craig mt. doesn't only overlook Union, it overlooks Hot Lake and Ladd Marsh too. If you like bird watching and just enjoying the 360 degree view from the Marsh, your view will change alot if this thing goes in.
-
One of the local oppositions arguments against the Craig Mountain/ Antelope ridge wind development is that it is a foreign company doing it with "our" tax dollars. [This is not quite accurate in that if they don't build, we don't have any more tax money as a result. (That is the way subsidies work.)] So let me suggest this:
If Union county could get the Tribes to agree, and if we could get the government to give "Us" a 10 year loan to build the Antelope wind farm and put a Hydro-electric dam on Catherine Creek, Union county could get off the grid completely, drive electric vehicles for free, have it all payed off in ten years and start funding county services with the sale of excess electricity. If the dam (with fish ladder , and hatchery for the Tribes) was not enough to compensate for the intermittent wind perhaps a co-generation plant that burned grass straw and forest waste could fill the gap.
A win, win, win.... More Salmon, less flooding, more irrigated food production, less CO2, more photosynthesis, less smoke from open field and slash burning, more money for schools and the local economy. We win locally while doing what's right globally. -
I like that idea but the anti-government folks would fight it as "socialism' because the people of Union County would end up owning their own utility, just like the people of Eugene own their co-op, EWEB, and the people of LA own their own electric utility.
But I'd like to see most towns and cities buy and install at least a few of their own wind-turbines because it would diversify them around the state and eventually cut back on energy costs for each cities people.
And a properly computerized grid would shift the power sourcing to where the wind was blowing best at the time, evening out the surging problems.
I think Co-ops are a good way to go and I reject the idea that some rich capitalist in Scotland has a "Divine Right" to make a profit from selling energy in Oregon or any where else for that matter.
-
"I like that idea but the anti-government folks would fight it as "socialism'"
All you have to do is label Union County a Survivalist Retreat (Haven, whatever) and start up a militia to get around that concern... ;-)
-
Hey, good idea, turn "survivalists" on to establishing their own local Co-Ops. I'd like to witness that anti-government contradiction get resolved.
Survivalists creating and participating in their own local governments. What a concept!
-
Wind power has a host of problems. Out-of-state interests export their hunger for power to places such as Oregon where the turbines destroy our resources, not theirs. While some of the money does go to landowners, much of it goes to out-of-state corporations. The wind farms create noise, health problems for people, kill or impact wildlife, and destroy views of pristine landscape we once took for granted. The rest of us have to look at these monstrosities and don't get any benefit at all.
If you think wind farms don't have impact, look at http://www.lensjoy.com/Blog/windmills_are_coming.htm and see what they are doing to the view from the eastern Columbia Gorge.
People have been fooled into thinking that renewable energy has no environmental impact. It does, and it must be regulated for the impacts it creates just as we do for coal and other power sources. The government funded buildout of these wind farms is being done as if there is no impact at all, in the name of "green jobs and energy." While I am in favor of renewable energy, I am not in favor of putting it in under the guise of it being so clean it doesn't need the same due diligence we would give a coal-fired plant in our state. There need to be limits, and the public needs to have a say in how it's installed.
Development of wind farms must be slowed so we can understand the true impacts of the turbines on people, wildlife, and our scenic views and improve the technology, siting, and designs so that they reduce those impacts before it's too late or too costly to retrofit the existing projects with lower impact technology.
We can also do things that generate power without the dark side of wind through programs such as energy conservation and rooftop solar, which put the power right where it's used on buildings that already exist and don't impact views or wildlife.
Oregon ought to have an export tax on wind power to keep more of the power in our state, subsidize rooftop solar, and make others pay for the true cost of fixing the environmental damage of these projects.
-
Good ideas in general but I'm guessing that an export tax would bring responses from other States like an Oil export tax from Alaska and Louisiana, and Canada, a gas export tax from various states and Canada, a coal export tax from Wyoming, a Uranium tax from wherever, a Columbia water export tax from Canada and then again from Washington, on and on. Starting tax wars in not a good idea, it's a race to the bottom, just like tax cuts and subsidies.
I think that if Oregon is going to subsidize projects we ought to just flat out put requirements on them to at least mostly benefit Oregon, or trade benefits in kind. We are better off cooperating with others than competing against them.
-
I think there are many people who live across the state who work for these "out of state corporations" and spend their money in Oregon. Who cares if the paycheck comes from an out of state organization, wind developments create jobs for Oregonians.
And in this day and age it seems like we are in need of both jobs and electricity. Why not put Oregonians to work for the cleanest type of energy that is feasible today (rooftop solar is awesome, but just not realistic yet.).
-
Rooftop solar thermal is still underutilized. And it is very realistic and economical.
-
Just a comment about the beauty of the Columbia Gorge views being ruined by wind farms. I agree there is visual impact, but is that any worse than the 3 ugly dams Bonnevile, The Dalles and John Day in the gorge?? From my house I can see the windfarms in Sherman County, Condon and up the Maryhill grade in WA, yes they have visual impact...but no worse than the dam I can also see from here. Both have night lights that affect the night view also, but ANY energy source will have some impact, but is visual what we hang our argument on??
-
Considering those darned surpluses of too much free wind energy, well, I'd like to see someone develop little controller units to hook up to water heaters, electric car battery chargers, laundry dryers, home electric heating systems, and the like that would respond to signals from BPA when there is a lot of wind and turn on those home and business systems to absorb that energy, in a way, timeshifting the load to when that load is needed. Giving BPA the ability to vary the load as well as varying the supply completes the circle, essentially the long sought "Grid Battery" that can absorb excess generation and time shift it to when it is needed.
"Heat water and homes when the wind blows", ought to become a good old saying just like the old "Make hay when the sun shines"!
These units could be wireless or through computer hookups, and each could have a separate address just like the internet so that the main BPA controllers could turn them on, one, tens, hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands at a time to absorb that extra wind. And when each home or business has absorbed as much of that excess power that it can safely handle, it can turn off and signal back to BPA that it shut off, so BPA can signal someone elses controller unit to turn on.
And since that ability to timeshift benefits BPA and the rest of the suppliers, the people who set up those units in their homes and businesses ought to get that excess power at a reduced rate.
And there is the possibility that it could be integrated into a Pacific Power type "Heat" program where people can donate money to help low income folks get electricity, only this time the excess could be donated by the wind turbine owners and operators who would get a tax write off for the wear and tear on their wind turbines during the period of generating excess energy. Good PR all around and some poor folks benefit, so it's potentially a good thing.
The government could subsidize developing, building, and installing those controller units because it is potentially one of the lowest cost ways to computerize the grid without massive infrastructure costs of new lines, generating facilities, and centralized computerized power controlling units. Big stuff is expensive and disruptive in big steps over long periods of time, but little stuff is relatively inexpensive and can be phased in over shorter and smoother steps of time.
Hmm, and it would create jobs by the many many thousands. Developers, builders, installers, sales folks, ad people, paper pushers, accountants, tool sales, utility trucks, repair and service, etc.
-
Great ideas, Tom. I would also like to see a "local solar" public utility that would fund solar installations on places such as schools, warehouses, shopping centers, gyms, and other large buildings that have roof space to spare with the electricity going into the grid locally so it benefits the community by providing cheap renewable power. The problem with a lot of buildings in urban areas is that the occupant has no interest in generating power if it doesn't affect their own bill. A school isn't occupied in the summer when the sun is brightest, and a health club that uses lots of hot water and heating is leased from someone else who doesn't pay the power bill. So many large buildings have no incentive to install solar capacity. Instead, we are putting up wind turbines because the benefit goes directly to a farmer. What a crazy system.
We need a big overall look at the incentives and barriers to renewable energy in all its forms and statewide and nationwide strategies to make sure the money isn't rushing into one place just because of poor policy, as it is today.
-
I grew up in beautiful Union, Oregon surrounded by those mountains. I am pro wind energy in its capacity as clean energy, to a certain extent. I draw the line on my support when I have to ask, Are we really being environmentally friendly when we take away the essence of beauty from our environment???
-
Yes, does it make sense to destroy the enviornment in order to save it?
I live in Union, and I've read through the ODFW report on the Telocaset windfarm near here, the elk left the area during construction and have still not returned in numbers anywhere near their previous habitation.
Golden eagles have been killed by the turbines, and that project is one third the size of the proposed Antelope Ridge development, which is in prime wildlife habitat and in the path of a migrating bird 'flyway' for some of the birds travelling to nearby Ladd Marsh.
How about we start with real energy conservation, and put a hold on these projects until their real cost is understood .
-
One problem with the Union County situation is that Horizon applied to the State for the permit to build there, taking the decision and control out of the local hands. Why does a project that is 100MW or larger get decided by the State, not the locals? It should be the other way around, due to the intrusive nature of large projects. The more populated west side should not be able to make such a rule to force this on those who prefer the rural environment without 200-ton machines in their backyard, all to make the west-siders feel good about what somebody else is forced to do for the environment.
FAA lights are now being developed that will only turn on when aircraft come near. That should be mandatory, and a mandatory retrofit for broken lights. They do have a limited life.
Wind has electric energy in it. Where does the energy not go when the turbines capture it prematurely? What will be the impact of so many turbines taking so much of the energy out of the area? More than a proverbial butterfly in the jungle.
-
The top 10 reasons to NOT to support wind farms:
10. They lower property values to nearby neighbors.
9. They ruin views.
8. They create Green jobs - IN CHINA, where the turbines are manufactured.
7. The windmills require fossil fuel to manufacture
6. They do not provide energy security. *1
5. They make a subsonic hum that make nearby neighbors go mad.
4. They require Federal and State subsidies to build them.
3. The full costs of wind electric power are about 3–4-times that of nuclear, gas, or coal. The cost is so high in the producing wind energy that the net energy return is close to negative.*2
2. We, i.e. you, me, our children, grand children and great grandchildren will have to pay the taxes for the money we borrowed to give the subsidies.
And the number one reason NOT to support wind farms ----
1. They chop birds to pieces. *3
Wind generated power has a role IF you remove the subsidies and let the market mechanisms and natural profit incentives take care of allocation. (While you are at it, immediately stop the ethanol subsidy. Probably should stop the sugar industry subsidy while - cheap enough sugar might make ethanol work. Just for fairness the subsidies for photovoltaic should go out the window as well.)
Nuclear wins hands down. Just vitrify the waste and store it underground. It could be safer, cleaner, cheaper and more abundant than any other energy source the human race has discovered.
We all know about heated steam turbines to produce electricity.Now there's so much more you can do with cheap high temperature processed heat - desalination on a large scale. Water molecules can be split to O and H constituents at the temperatures created in fission. That's just the tip of the iceberg! What makes nuclear power so costly is environmental disinformation and alarmism that feed sensationalism and NIMBY politics.
I believe the scientist and engineers have solved the concerns but the bureaucrats and competing interest stand in the way.
*1. With current technology they only produce electricity when the wind is blowing, which maybe when you don't need it. You can't store it. If you want energy security you've got to go with coal, which the USA has more of than any other country on the planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal)
*2. Ref: Prof. Alfred Voss, Director of Institute for Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle, Energieanwenundung/Univ. Stuttgart.
*3. A recent study found that wind farms in just one area of Washington state kill 7,000 birds and 3,000 bats every year. I can't find the source but I am sure news addicts heard the story.
-
Ignorance among the general population is the largest obstacle to nuclear power. Most people associate nuclear power with Chernobyl or Three mile Mile Island. They have no idea that modern nuclear power plants bear no resemblance to those dinosaurs. People fail to realize that places like Hanford are relics of the Cold War when nuclear wastes were poorly understood and disposal was unregulated.
With out a massive education campaign nuclear energy will never be accepted in the U.S.
-
The Free Market has told us that nuclear is not economically feasible.
Nobody will build a plant without huge financial guarantees from the federal government. In other words, the nuclear industry demands that the downside risks be socialized onto the public long before the plant is built and then the profits are privatized.
I think a few nukes ought to be built but they ought to be owned and run by the government which has an excellent record of designing and operating nuclear plants in US Navy Ships.
Private corporations always cut corners in the constant shareholder demand for ever increasing profits, so they ought to be kept out of potentially very dangerous businesses like Nuclear Power.
-
Most wind turbines are manufactured in the US or in Europe, not in China. Check out the European-owned companies building factories for wind turbine manufacturing in Iowa.
So far every attempt by eco-terrorists to slander wind turbines as being giant machines that kill birds have been proven false. Even Ted Kennedy's attempt to use that myth to stop windfarms off the coast of Martha's Vineyard failed.
I grew up in Iowa with wind farms and never had any problems with the wind farms. We never saw any drop in property values, claims of "stress" or complaints about the noise.
Seems to me that all the people that are against wind energy should be put to use working in the coal mines.
-
And speaking of bat kills, I know lots of people who are concerned about West Nile virus. Obviously if you allow large #s of bats to be killed in your area it means you will have to rely even MORE heavily on chemical sprays., with which we are already doused each summer.
-
To state "Just vitrify the waste and store it underground" is the most ignorant recommendation that pro-nuclear positions make. Please do further research to understand exactly the extreme costs and risks invovled with handling and processing nuclear waste. Nuclear is not the answer.
Please understand that the basic physics and chemistry of nuclear technology directly contradicts sustainability as it creates entropy (disorder) for the systems which humans rely on. Elements such as strontium-90, a by-product of nuclear energy, cannot be distinguished from calcium by the human body, and thus causes lukemia. The other transuranic elements are by default uncontainable, they destroy the very structure of conatiners or vitrification that attempt to conceal it. Resulting in environmental contamination and risk to human's well being.
No matter how it is framed, wind and solar do not carry these extreme consequences (of which there are many more). Additionally, the US is in no position to begin the construction of new reactors as the solution for waste is yet to be resolved.
Cost is a further argument against nuclear. Research this before making claims to support it.
The fundamental issue we're facing is an imbalance of available resources (energy production) and consumption. This is a commons dilemna for which some people may have to sacrifice their "view of the scenery" (and also sacrafice the pleasures of unlimited use of energy). If citizens are willing to compormise then modern technology can be artfully incorporated into the natural environment if stakeholders can contribute their perspectives (wind turbines don't necessarily need to be ugly).
Storing the electricty from wind generation is a whole other matter. For now, something we can get immediate return on is developing and sharing techniques to concerve.
-
jtaylor83,
There should be a windfall tax on blowhards.
-
Would someone please address the life span of a wind farm. What happens after 10 or 15 years? Are the turbines constantly rebuilt? If cheaper alternatives to wind come on line are the towers abandoned? Or are bonds posted to pay for the removal of obsolete technology. Google 'abandoned wind farms' to see some disturbing images of thousands of turbines left derelict in California and Hawaii. Will rural Oregon counties be stuck with the expensive removal of these towers 10 or 20 years from now?
-
They are built to last a minimum of 20 years, and now decommissioning bonds are imposed. There is also scrap value, and redevelopment opportunity since they are put up in windy areas. The financial models go out 20 years. The rumors about being paid off in 7-8 years and abandoned are silly.
In the Altamont in California bird regulations have forced abandonment of the old farms there, which don't have adequate decommissioning obligations. So the enviros shot themselves in the foot.
-
As you drive through the Colombia River Gorge eastward to Union County, realize this is the greatest Carbon Free Energy Generation Site on the West Coast and probably the whole West.
It is NOT Solar, Geothermal, Wave or Wind Power which are only miniscule amounting to less than 3% COMBINED of National Power Generation.
IT IS HYDROELECTRIC POWER. The 50+ Hydro-Electric Dams on the Columbia and Snake River Basin provide up to 80% of Bonneville Power Generation which serves 90% of the State of Oregon by area. And this is highly available BASELINE POWER on tap 24 hours/7 days/365 days a year-- unlike wind or solar.
http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/about_BPA/Facts/FactDocs/BPA_Facts_2008.pdf
And this carbon free power has been available for almost 80 years. Know where you electricity REALLY comes from. We should be grateful.
-
Governor Kulongoski directed the Oregon Energy Department to declare that hydroelectric power is not renewable. It does not count toward toward future renewable goals.
-
Governor Kulongoski directed the Oregon Energy Department to declare that hydroelectric power is not renewable. -- cfbednarek — Fri Nov. 12th 9:34a.m.
Yet another example of Governor Tax&Gouge-me spouting off on a topic he knows nothing about! Hydro is renewable as long as we have rain in the highlands.
-
Perhaps the guest who feels that wind developments reduce property values should have a look at this report by the LBNL: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-2829e.pdf
Exec Summary: Wind developments do NOT reduce property values. This is rooted in actual data, not just perception.
-
How close is your home to a wind industrial site?
-
Not close enough. Instead I live near a freeway and many large buildings in downtown Portland. I wish I lived closer to one, I find them to be lovely.
-
The rising demand for electricity worldwide makes wind farms immaterial. Co2 emmissions are ever rising and wind farms will not change that. 850 new coal power plants are planned to be built between India, US and China. 70 in the US alone. Capping our energy production and use is the only thing that will stop increasing co2 emissions. Conservation could have a major impact on co2. These windfarms need to be studied for health effects and impact on wildlife before any more are built.
-
Cap CO2? Go nuclear. Energy needs will continue to increase and conservation will mildly reduce these. If future energy needs do not get met we will be back in the middle-ages. Capitalism requires it; we can't/won't get off that track.
And, before anyone gets bent out of shape about the dangers of nuclear pause to think of the 20,000 Americans that are killed in drink related driving crashes each year and the 27,000 people killed accidently each year by guns. Not too mention the150,000 kileed by bacteria nd mistakes in hospitals every year.
Risk needs to be evaluated without knee-jerk reactions.
-
I was very pro wind turbines. Several together are quite beutiful. Then I came across the endless rows of turbines in California. Not pretty.
My main objection is one of aesthetics. They damage the visual impact of the land they dominate.
So concerned am I, I changed my PGE wind source option.
Local nuclear as envisioned by Bill Gates at Terrapower is preferable. Non-polluting, quiet and far less obtrusive.
Jef Fowler
Portland, OR
-
We are going to need a variety of sources of energy going forward and wind is a valid part of the mix. All forms of electricity generation have environmental impacts.
There is a desire to shut down the PGE Boardman coal burning plant in 2020 or before - where is the replacement 1GW of electricity going to come from? We could just build more Nat Gas buring plants, but we'll eventually run out of that resource too (in less than 100 years from now). Also, nat gas is easily used as a transportation fuel, so it would be better used powering cars/trucks instead of generating electricity (to reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports)
We need to press ahead with an "Apollo project" to transform our energy production from non-renewable (and dirty) fuel sources to renewable (and cleaner) sources of energy. This is not going to happen overnight. Where's the 25, 50, and 100 year plan - we need to look at the long-term picture here.
Wind, PV (solar), Solar Thermal, Geothermal, Wave power, even nuclear power are all going to be needed to make this happen.
-
When wind projects are under a threshold of 105 megawatts, then it is left to the counties to approve or disapprove. Counties have a strong incentive to approve these due to pressure to improve the tax base and to benefit land owners. This is the case in Steens Mountains as in other locations. See article: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/02/yoking_oregons_wind_where_it_m.html. This particular project would surround the pristine Kiger Gorge (and be visible from the overlook on Steens), but the state would have no say if the project goes forward. We need to LOWER the megawatt threshold.
-
The last caller, Doug, is correct. In essence, Americans are spoiled, they complain about everything yet when solutions are available they complain. Wind power for the most part is pollution free, somewhat frees us from our oil polluting use, in fact, there is now an Eagle problem on Californian's and Oregon coasts. Wind power is much safer than nuclear energy. As for the environment, birds and bats adapt. Eagles in the the Pacific Northwest including Alaska are in very good shape. Noise: There is more noise on the pacific coast during windy, stormy and calm days than wind power turbines. People, like birds and bats adapt. In Europe where environment issues are number one, wind power exists and provides Germany with almost a third of their energy needs. In essence we need WIND POWER in the Pacific Northwest because it will be a source of clean energy, provide many needed jobs for Orgonin and it frees us from fighting oil wars for our energy needs.
-
I've stood right at the base of a wind tower and it made less noise than my neighbor's air conditioner. Less noise than a barking dog a block away. Waaaaaaaaaay less noise than a Harley, or one of those "high school Hondas."
People like cheap power, as long as they don't have to see how we get it. The oil spill in the gulf had zero impact on our demand for oil, because the environmental disaster was not felt locally. Very few people made the connection between increasing demand for power and the consequences that come with it.
-
I am for SUSTAINABLE ENERGY. However a critical point of Sustainable is financially sustainability.
Special tax credits, tax rebates, special fees, incentive financing, and special interest rates are NOT SUSTAINABLE. Solar and Wind are HEAVILY Supplemented. And they are NOT SUSTAINABLE(at this time).
-
I moved from union county 3 years ago.I lived on a 200 acre ranch with amazing views There is a very strict elk overlay over almost the whole county. This limited the building Of houses so that the elk wouldn't be disturbed.how did the turbines get approval from The dept of fish and wildlife if normal people couldn't get permits tobuild Less invasive houses?
-
Talking about the problems with wind power's health and environmental effects is appropriate only as long as the older power sources are not privileged by being left out of similar scrutiny. The alternatives have negative aspects as well that we need to compare to those of wind power. Coal power releases the radioactive gas radon, the neurotoxic heavy metal mercury, microscopic particles that harm people with asthma and other respiratory diseases, and also nitrogen and sulfur oxides that contribute to acid rain when the coal is burned. Natural gas extraction increasingly involves hydraulic fracturing, with pollution of groundwater and wells by the chemical cocktail that is injected underground. Burning of all fossil fuels contributes to global climate change. Nuclear reactors come with the well known risks of possible radioactive release and certain radioactive waste storage. The question is not if wind power is perfect, but if on balance it is better than the alternatives.
-
Yeppers!
-
Very well put.
-
My problem is not with wind power it is with wind farms. In fact, it is with the "grid" as a primary provider of power over all.
I would like to see a more distributed and decentralized system over all where a much higher % of anyone's power is produced locally and can still function if the larger grid were to go down.
As far as I can see, wind farms are a product of the control and sell mind set that we need to move away from.
-
I agree.
-
Well that's something we agree on Tom.
-
Compare the views:
Big, ugly, dark, evil looking coal or nuclear plants spewing black smoke or vast amounts of cooling water wasting heat as steam.
or:
Those tall slim beautiful wind turbines strutting across the landscape like supermodels on the fashion catwalks of Paris and Milan.
'Nuff said.
-
agreed
-
I suggest you visit California to see what crowds of turbines look like. I agree in small groups there is a poetry to them but in the numbers needed to make meaningful impact on power generation they are ugly and damaging to the true visual beauty that is the Northwest.
-
Beauty is clearly in the eye of the beholder. As I look from my home in La Grande to Telecasette Wind Farm I see big, ugly dark, menacing one eyed monsters making my neighbors sick, our community a battleground and threatening the natural landscape that drew most of us to live here. At least with the other forms of energy like coal, they are required to return the relatively small area of the earth they damage to it's pre-activity condition. They say the cost of decommissioning these wind farms is roughly 1/4 of the cost to build them. Because of the large amounts of oil they contain (850 gallons per wind tower), they are in effect creating huge hazardous waste sites that noone has the money to remove. These LLC designations increase the likelyhood that many of these wind farms will be rusting away 30 or 50 years from now, just like they are in California. By the way, those of us in Eastern Oregon may not have the money of these huge foreign companies, but we truly love the land and will fight to the death to protect it one windmill at a time!
-
You guest is wrong about property taxes. Your guest asserts that property owners will pay less in property taxes because of the installation of wind farms. Because of Oregon's weird voter-encacted property tax system, property taxes paid by wind farms will not cause others taxes to decline. If you don't believe me, call the county tax assessor.
-
I support wind energy here and am swayed by none of the opposition arguments. They are not thinking ahead and are a big part of the problem rather than the solution. People are indeed partying like it is 1999!
-
I am a power user, and I support power conservation and sustainable power generation projects. I am open to wind turbines where they make sense. I don't hear enough about the value of open space. I am very concerned about these turbines popping up on the rimrocks and ridge tops that are our horizons. I am sickened by the blinking red lights at night in the gorge these days. I am vehemently opposed to turbines being erected in areas that aren't already polluted with human-made structures. LEAVE OUR OPEN SPACE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. It is an irreplaceable and extremely undervalued resource.
-
I have a question. Your guests mention an extensive permitting process. Has a wind project ever been denied? I think this is just another gold rush. This is about money not saving the world.
-
Doug's (farmer/rancher that supports turbines) comments on this program makes him sound like he has been coached by the wind industry. He appears to have all the lines of the industry. For example, Doug's denial that the turbines require spinning backup from a balancing reserve (that emits CO2 in the process) is a company line in a attempt to dupe the public into believing wind turbines produce something other than hot air, higher power rates, and highert taxes.
The power is mostly going to California, folks. Go online and read the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (formerly NWPPC) and BPA publications and get facts, not the spin. The PNW does not need the bat and bird blender eyesore manufactured and built by foreign megacorporations or their subsidiaries (licensed locally to dupe US society). Educate yourself and do not buy into the green money propaganda.
-
Another good article,
How (not) to Resolve the Energy Crisis, published by Low-Tech magazine on Wed. 11/18/2009. Author, Kris De Decker.
Statistics on co2 reduction (or lack thereof) in big wind energy countries such as Spain and Denmark.
Considering the conditions on the Oregon coast, I can not imagine an energy generating device capable of withstand steady winds of 20-30 mph gusting to 70 mph or more. Winter storms bring gusts over 100 mph. The swell at Newport 2 days ago was 18-24 feet. Producing breaking waves up to 40'. How will a tower withstand these harsh conditions? I think it is folly to expect them to last. It is not unusual for several NOAA buoys to break free of their moorings each winter. What happens when a 300 foot tall tower or a giant hydraulic wave energy buoy breaks loose washes up on the shore?
I wonder who this Rachel Shimshack is? She talks about all the benefits to the city of Union, and yet, the city manager, mayor, and most of the city council are against the Antelope Ridge project.
Lots of great ideas and questions here. For more on wind energy and its health effects, the "hush money" payments from Caithness Energy to neighbors of its Oregon wind farm, renewable power gridlock that results from too much wind and water, and the methods Bonneville Power Administration is testing to store wind power and accommodate big wind surges, check out this page on my blog:
http://ecotrope.opb.org/tag/wind/
There's also a video that takes you inside a wind turbine. I'll be posting about wind energy quite a bit, and would love your input on new developments.
Rachel Shimshack is a lobbyist. She is paid by the industry. She dodged all the questions. Locals cannot say no under the state rules with large projects, or have leverage to mitigate.
Why do local residents have to bear the brunt of the fraud of Global Warming, and the solution being shoved down our throats? Try putting one of these in downtown Portland. Can you say "zoning laws"? It would never get thru, but in rural areas, somehow huge towers next door are ok, viewsheds ruined are ok, the people Rachel is sorry have to bear the brunt of her business have to be the ones whose lives are ruined. Not hers.
All companies involved with wind development are huge.
The crass ruination of nature is another example of the White Man's complete detachment from nature. The Green Movement has been totally co-opted. Al Gore is a fraud.
All the talk about doing our part, etc., doesn't give much comfort to those who moved out of the Chity to get away from what city dwellers don't seem to comprehend.
In a nutshell ... "Windbaggers are a new version of Carpetbaggers. Eastern states are beginning to refuse wind farms in their towns, so the "windbaggers" are heading west where officials, codes, and smaller communities are ill prepared for what the wind is blowing in."
quote from B. A. Lert
Like any new installation of technology (and science), it is very appropriate and necessary to move ahead with caution and consideration of multiple perspectives. This discussion is excellent.
Policies should be developed in order to reach a compromise about these huge problems and consequences we face in modern times.
Any suggestions?
Top 10 Reasons to Support Wind Energy:
- Wind energy fosters economic recovery and creates jobs. Wind in Sherman County increased the tax base by $2.5 billion and created about as many full-time jobs as the county has high school graduates.
- All independent governmental studies have consistently concluded that operating wind farms do not result in ill health impacts. Pollutive sources of energy cause myriad health problems.
- Wind offers secure, homegrown energy that lessens dependence on foreign fuel.
- Wind energy supports farmers and ranchers who can lease land and harvest a second crop while preserving traditional means of working land.
- Wind companies work closely with wildlife officials and biologists to preserve and restore important habitats.
- Other nations are exceeding the U.S. in clean energy. Supporting wind energy enables us to be part of the global race for a clean energy economy.
- Wind is a low-cost, low-risk fuel, unlike fossil sources that are high-cost and high-risk, due to volatility. Wind receives a minute fraction of the amount federal subsidies that oil and gas companies receive.
- Wind is a safely accessible resource. As finite fossil fuels become limited and difficult to extract, tragedies like oil spills and mine incidents will continue.
- Wind energy is future-forward. Clean energy considers the health and security of our children.
- Wind energy combats global warming, a problem recognized by the U.S. military and U.S. department of Fish and Wildlife.
On behalf of Renewable Northwest Project.
You must be kidding about low cost. Us taxpayers are supporting huge write offs for this wind power as well as paying higher electric bills. How can you say it is so great when it is so unpredictable that you have to have constant traditional backup power resulting in no reduction in traditional electrical power costs. You are just adding on a second expensive power source while still paying for the original. At it's best wind energy costs twice as much as other energy. The wind companies just want to get these things up before the money goes away (it will with the changing political landscape). If in doubt, look at the 14,000 wind towers built in the early 1980 in California. The subsidies dried up and by 1985 the towers were abandoned. They still stand, rusting, and producing nothing. Wind towers take huge amounts of land that ends up being criss crossed with pavement, cement platforms and towers rising as much as 520 feet (the height of a 52 story building.(in the case of the proposed Antelope Ridge Wind Farm it will cover 47,000 acres of land that will no longer be scenic, safe for man or animal, and in an area where there are those who don't even want motorized vehicles in the areas. I can't understand why anyone supporting protection of the environment could believe these are a good thing. By the way, the Department of Fish and Wildlife is not a supporter of Wind Farms, at least in this area. They are bad, bad, bad for wildlife. One other little caviate--they are setting these wind farms up as Limited Liability Companies. Any lawsuits in the future and there are sure to be many, can only go back on the small LLC while leaving the huge international company, which in our case is Horizon Wind completely safe from having to face the health and environmental consequences of the wind farms. Gosh, isn't that convenient ????
I live in Union County. A majority of voters do not want these monsters being built in our beautiful valley. They take huge amounts of land, kill wildlife, take large quantitie of steel, cement and oil (yes, oil--at least 850 gallons per wind tower). We already have one wind farm in the area, and in spite of the few people living close by, there have been multiple health problems. Ask yourself "Would you want to live under these when wind farm developers have paid people off and even bought their property because of health effects and made them sign agreements that they won't tell what the problem was? There is nothing "green" about wind power. At it's best it costs 20% more than other energy. We are having it crammed down our unwilling throats and a lot of us are in a fighting mood about it. In spite of a public vote against them, Horizon has gone so far as to offer food and little paper windmills to get people to come to meetings and make it look like a majority are for them. Now they are trying to ramrod a SIP agreement through our county commissioners to add to the faulty perception that we want windmills. Hopefully our county commissioners will look to the future and see that in 10 or 15 years the real winners will be the ones that protected the land for future generations, instead of destroying it for perceived short term financial gain.
Yawn.
Comments are now closed.
Wind energy benefits: renewable, no emissions, no fuel costs
Wind energy risks: variable power output, bird killer?
As far as the role of wind in the energy mix, I think we should get as much as we can. Iowa already gets 20% of its electricity from wind energy (http://www.omaha.com/article/20100303/NEWS01/703039859).
I personally love wind turbines. I wish we could get a 300 MW wind farm here in Multnomah County.