Very interesting article.
http://www.resitenow.org/

‘No way of generating energy is 100 per cent clean and problem-free,’ says Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns at Friends of the Earth.

‘Wind energy causes far fewer problems than coal, gas or nuclear. If we don’t invest in green energy, business experts have warned that future generations will be landed with a bill that will dwarf the current financial crisis. But we need to ensure the use of materials like neodymium and concrete is kept to a minimum, that turbines use recycled materials wherever possible and that they are carefully sited to the reduce the already minimal impact on bird populations.’

What a crock!

If the wind isn't blowing they don't work, if the wind is blowing too hard .. they have to shut them down. Worse yet, the 'window' from one to the other isn't that wide.

Can't use 'nuclear?' Look to Europe ... they seem to be using it quite successfully. (Country dependent, but up-wards of 80%.)

I see them all over here on the east side, I hate em. they're ugly by day, and blinking red by night.

Too bad there not hid like when they clear cut.

Mf

It is a sick sight to see....

Keith

I find them an idea that we need to move to. Unfortunately the costs involved to put them up don't pencil out unless there are a load of gevernment subsidies injected into the project.

We took a tour of the wind farm in Vantage, as well as the ones near Grayland. They gave the expected financial return data to us on the tour of the Grayland site. That is when I pointed out to them that in 20 years, based on their projections, they still wouldn't have paid for the cost of the wind turbines, and they would have to replace the turbines at that time.

The tour guide said that they got federal grants that offset the costs, so they will have made the money back in 5 or 6 years. This is when I let him know that every person on the tour had given tax money so the Federal Grant could be paid, so the grant money wasn't really "free" money.

I got the stink eye.

Good for you Dogfish! Too many in governments that receive federal grants don't want to admit that their free money isn't really free at all. Just redirected from the pockets of the taxpayers to their projects.

The nuclear energy program was heavily subsidized by the government, were you ballwashers up in arms about that?
FYI ratepayers are still paying for WPPS and the defunct Trojan Nuclear plants.

Obviously not all projects that obtain federal grants are bad and while I have never penciled out a nuclear plant for profitability, I would think one would break even long before a wind farm since they produce way more power.

Now, down here in University Place, the genius's decided to build a "Town Center" which was going to house light commercial, condos and a library along with a WSU satelite college. The city then got the bright idea to build a parking garage and got federal grants to pay for it, telling us that all was good because it was federal money that they used for the garage. As long as no one figures out where federal money comes from then its great. Unfortunately, the city fired 4 developers and is now heavily leveraged and cannot finish their project. But we have a parking garage all by itself and its okay because they got federal grant money for it.

Try factoring in the cost of nuclear waste disposal, then see how it pencils out.

But OSU has small reactors that can use recycled rods. There will be very little waste. I've heard as much as 87% of the fuel can be reconstituted, and reused.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2008/Jul08/nukes.html

Wind power has the least negative effect on the environment. Our ancestors started using wind power long before any other power sources. North America wasn't discovered by steam boat, jet sled or a nuclear powered submarine. A sail boat isn't going to release oil into the sound unless it's from a kicker. Maybe you want to be energy dependent. They should put wind turbines near rivers to kill the birds that prey on smolt. I would rather see wind turbines than rabbits and tumbleweeds that glow in the dark. Nuclear power is labor intensive and the waste will persist for a long time. I'm not against nuclear power, I just think we need to harness alternative sources of power. I don't care about being 100% green.

I would agree, and hope to see us move that direction, but unless the power generation can be monetarily self sufficient, we end up burning other resources to create cash flow to fund green energy which defeats the purpose of "green" energy.

Production costs of turbines needs to come down. Usually, as technology advances, costs come down. I hope this is the case with wind turbines.

But now we can fly across the continent in several hours, argue on the Internet, and blow up things by remote control drones half a world away. As far as technology goes, wind power is a step backwards. Thousands of square miles of wind turbines produce very little power, and severly restrict the use of land they are on.

The land that the Vantage wind farm is on is scrub step. Unsuitable for anything other than being windblown hills (WDFW or DNR land previously). The last the Grayland site occupies overlooks the beaches, and the footprint is rather small. I actually know the person whose land it was (might still be his). It was a patch of jack firs before, and there are still lots of jack firs around, along with a single road and three pads about 100'x100'.

I would agree that we need to choose sites wisely and manage to a highest and best use for wind power sites. I'm no tree hugger. I would agree that the western Kittitas Valley sites might have a higher use, but that area is essentially farm land with mixed scrub step.

Wind power will make sense when it can be 100% privately funded and run as a profit-making business.

That means someone can look at their piece of windy ground and go to the bank and say: "Here is the wind chart (and a bunch of other expensive studies and environmental reports), here is the cost of the gear, transmission equipment and maintenance, and here is when you get paid back." Just like any real business.

The government should continue to subsidize the R & D.

What energy source is 100% privately funded and run as a profit-making business without federal funds/assisance?

I can't think of one.

When we get the sh!t out of our heads, and look BACK to nuclear power, we'll get a handle on energy independance. As long as we want to be sniveling NIMBY types about where the power plants and waste will go, we'll stay slaves to foreign oil.

As far as I know, wind energy is greenest in terms of being a renewable resource and environmental impacts. It isn't the least cost alternative presently, but like Dogfish posted, as technology advances, production costs (in this case for turbines) come down. I visited the federal wind energy research center in Boulder, CO a year ago last fall. Engineers there think they've got wind turbine blade design about as good as they'll ever get. So wind cost effectiveness depends on lower manufacturing costs and generally rising energy prices.

Regarding government subsidies for wind energy, the amount may be different, but all energy sources are subsidized in one way or another. So energy subsidies becomes a "pick your poison" choice if you're opposed to subsidies.

A lot of wind farms are sited on private ranch lands, where wind energy becomes the highest economic use of the land in comparison with the pre-existing use as grazing land, which can continue with the loss of only the tiny wind turbine footprint.

The ugliness of wind turbines is subjective, but I can't say they are any uglier than hydropower dams, nuclear plants, gas or other fuel combustion turbine generation plants, coal plants, or acres and acres of solar panels. The production of energy isn't pretty, but everyone wants energy, and everyone wants it at a price below the true market cost of producing it. I guess energy is another one of those, "this ain't Burger King; you can't have it your way" examples.

Fred calls wind energy a crock because when the wind doesn't blow, energy production stops. That's true. Not all energy sources run 24/7/365. Combustion turbines do (oil, gas, coal, nuclear). Wind, sun, and hydro don't. Yeah, I included hydro because hydro output varies daily and seasonally, project by project, depending on precip conditions in the respective watersheds. It would be nice if wind turbines ran all the time because that would greatly improve their economic status in the lineup of energy alternatives. A more constructive way to think about wind is as one component of an energy company's overall resource portfolio. The major private utility in WA is PSE, and they have various resources that includes: hydro, coal, combustion turbine, and wind. That's more complicated for operations, but it's provides the best overall combination of system reliability and price.

Sg

I agree with this 100%. The difference I was getting at, is that a coal fired power plant or a natural gas burner actually have business models that make money.

We already know there are a bunch of nuclear reactors floating in Puget Sound right now. They are perfectly safe and controlled. Fear of nuclear power is about the same as fear of getting ate by a shark when you are swimming ath the Y.

Nuclear power represents some of the same problems as oil...

Limited quantity, messy pollution... Not a lot of uranium left on our planet, getting rid of it once its used presents a lot of problems too..

Renewable energy sources are where we need to be looking. The biggest issue is making sacrifices to get rid of oil and finding a way to get renewable energy to produce all of our energy.

Dam's, as much as they fvuck up waterways and rivers, sure do produce a LOT of energy. Columbia River dams produce a great deal more energy for our state then do those wind turbines in E. WA.

About a year ago it was published that there were enough wind generators on line to equal the output of one Bonneville Dam, and it was predicted to double in two years.
So saying they don't produce much energy is false, in fact the problem now is BPA is behind the power curve on transmission capabilities.

"They" don't seem to want anything but status quo energy production, and I think "They" were also the ones crying "Drill baby drill".
A photvoltaic firm cited in Eugene claims to be targeting a $1 a watt array, if they succeed, it would revolutionize homeowner produced energy.

Sorry guys, this is my fault. I packed the Yami 115 full of Seafoam and fired it up a couple weeks ago. Polution meter went off the charts but it had to be done.

Time to build Nukes. Quit screwing around with these tripod look a likes, and build some serious power houses. It's time we put the hard working Union men & women to work . I got tons of desert in my back yard to build. Give me a hell ya....if you agree.

Mf