2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

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.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

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.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context

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.

posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context