Thank you Ms. Schalit for your brilliant summary. When you consider that almost 90% of Mainers support wind power based upon the latest reported survey it is no wonder we find ourselves in the current predicament. The whole process is analogous to a committee of auto mechanics (no offense intended) planning and performing their first brain surgery. In the end the body still works but the mind has gone numb.
By JustAGnome, unverified — Mon, 08/09/2010 - 09:27
Williamson doesn’t cite his source because he knows any reasoned person will be skeptical of its credibility. The European Wind Energy Association produced such a report which drew the conclusion that wind is replacing nuclear and coal. What Williamson doesn’t say is in the report is that a total net reduction in nuclear and coal capacity in 2009 of 1,748 MW coincided with a net increase of 6,226 MW of natural gas capacity, or a net increase in fossil generation of 4,478 MW. The EWEA report stated that EU wind capacity increased by 10,000 MW for the year. So at an average capacity factor of 30%, the forecast generation of 3,000 MW is still exceeded by growth in fossil generation by 1,478 MW. Only deluded wind baggers think wind power makes economic and ecological sense.
After review of all the papers recommended, I couldn't find a single clinical study of people with medical complaints or conditions. All the papers, many which referernce each other, address the "theoretical" reasons why wind turbines should not cause the physical ailments claimed by local residents. But nobody studied the ill-patients. It appears that people adversely affected by wind turbine noise will have to start dropping dead before the medical community begins to take an active interest. Legionaires disease didn't exist until the hotel residents in Atlanta died. My sympathies are with the wind farm neighbors. RIP.
While I believe Mr. Rooks is well intentioned, he is poorly informed and badly misguided. Before he casts aspersions on windustry opponents he should do some homework on actual wind power performance.
Denmark has been trying to reduce its CO2 emissions for 30 years. In fact from 1980 thru 2009 they reduced CO2 in the electric generating industry by 35%. But 31% of the reduction occurred from 1980 thru 1985 before they even started adding wind power. The remaining 4% of the reduction in CO2 was due to replacement of numerous coal fired electric units with new natural gas fired CHP units over the following 25 years. And this is despite the fact that wind power as a percentage of total electric generating capacity has increased from 3% to 24.4% since 1990.
The problem that many of us wind power opponents have with wind power supporters is that the later never has any performance statistics to legitimize their viewpoint. Any numbers proffered are always qualified with “equivalent to”, “could”, “may”, or it “is presumed”. Maine’s Title 35-A establishes wind power in the state using the same language. Our policy makers shamefully never did their due diligence and fully vetted the actual merits of wind power. Like blind sheep they have moved forward because others have done the same.
Mr. Rooks’ economic arguments are also without substantiation. Wind power receives taxpayer subsidies over 10 times that of other traditional generating sources that provide reliable and dispatchable power. Wind power does neither. Add in all the new mandates to grow and support wind power and electric rates in constant dollars can be expected to double based upon the European experience over the past two decades.
Ideology, hypothetical constructs and conceptual estimates are great academic exercises but do not reflect practical reality. Dirigo insurance has been a classic example of what sounded like a great idea and failed. Maine screwed up royally in the 1980’s with the biomass mandates and the state is just now beginning to recover. Wind power opponents see wind power as a proven loser. There are certain current and former policy makers that see this has a golden opportunity to fleece the public. Caveat emptor Maine!
Tron: I think the author is trying to make the point that Climate Science is not being held to the same strict standards of the “scientific method” as other disciplines. Pharmaceutical industry people go to jail when they destroy, withhold or manipulate raw data. If Climate Change is a life or death threat shouldn’t we hold the climate science experts to the same level of skepticism and standards of performance?
Mr. Houston’s rebuttal based upon the NRCM’s past history has no relevance on their present actions. Their knowledge of wind power and the tangential issues is abominable. Asserting wind power tax payments will reduce community tax rates is myopic. Revenue sharing for schools is based upon state valuation of property values. The development of wind farms in these small communities substantially increases the tax base. Mars Hill has seen its tax base rise 76% since First Wind put in the turbines. The State’s projected FY2011 Revenue Sharing will reduce the Mars Hill school district funding by $303,000 over the previous year. So the big tax revenue increase for Mars Hill is becoming a myth. Every other town that gets a wind farm will feel the same pain.
Recent Comments
A Self Inflicted Lobotomy
Thank you Ms. Schalit for your brilliant summary. When you consider that almost 90% of Mainers support wind power based upon the latest reported survey it is no wonder we find ourselves in the current predicament. The whole process is analogous to a committee of auto mechanics (no offense intended) planning and performing their first brain surgery. In the end the body still works but the mind has gone numb.
Williamson
Williamson doesn’t cite his source because he knows any reasoned person will be skeptical of its credibility. The European Wind Energy Association produced such a report which drew the conclusion that wind is replacing nuclear and coal. What Williamson doesn’t say is in the report is that a total net reduction in nuclear and coal capacity in 2009 of 1,748 MW coincided with a net increase of 6,226 MW of natural gas capacity, or a net increase in fossil generation of 4,478 MW. The EWEA report stated that EU wind capacity increased by 10,000 MW for the year. So at an average capacity factor of 30%, the forecast generation of 3,000 MW is still exceeded by growth in fossil generation by 1,478 MW. Only deluded wind baggers think wind power makes economic and ecological sense.
Garbage In Garbage Out
After review of all the papers recommended, I couldn't find a single clinical study of people with medical complaints or conditions. All the papers, many which referernce each other, address the "theoretical" reasons why wind turbines should not cause the physical ailments claimed by local residents. But nobody studied the ill-patients. It appears that people adversely affected by wind turbine noise will have to start dropping dead before the medical community begins to take an active interest. Legionaires disease didn't exist until the hotel residents in Atlanta died. My sympathies are with the wind farm neighbors. RIP.
Rooks is in Fantasyland
While I believe Mr. Rooks is well intentioned, he is poorly informed and badly misguided. Before he casts aspersions on windustry opponents he should do some homework on actual wind power performance.
Denmark has been trying to reduce its CO2 emissions for 30 years. In fact from 1980 thru 2009 they reduced CO2 in the electric generating industry by 35%. But 31% of the reduction occurred from 1980 thru 1985 before they even started adding wind power. The remaining 4% of the reduction in CO2 was due to replacement of numerous coal fired electric units with new natural gas fired CHP units over the following 25 years. And this is despite the fact that wind power as a percentage of total electric generating capacity has increased from 3% to 24.4% since 1990.
The problem that many of us wind power opponents have with wind power supporters is that the later never has any performance statistics to legitimize their viewpoint. Any numbers proffered are always qualified with “equivalent to”, “could”, “may”, or it “is presumed”. Maine’s Title 35-A establishes wind power in the state using the same language. Our policy makers shamefully never did their due diligence and fully vetted the actual merits of wind power. Like blind sheep they have moved forward because others have done the same.
Mr. Rooks’ economic arguments are also without substantiation. Wind power receives taxpayer subsidies over 10 times that of other traditional generating sources that provide reliable and dispatchable power. Wind power does neither. Add in all the new mandates to grow and support wind power and electric rates in constant dollars can be expected to double based upon the European experience over the past two decades.
Ideology, hypothetical constructs and conceptual estimates are great academic exercises but do not reflect practical reality. Dirigo insurance has been a classic example of what sounded like a great idea and failed. Maine screwed up royally in the 1980’s with the biomass mandates and the state is just now beginning to recover. Wind power opponents see wind power as a proven loser. There are certain current and former policy makers that see this has a golden opportunity to fleece the public. Caveat emptor Maine!
Cult Science
Tron: I think the author is trying to make the point that Climate Science is not being held to the same strict standards of the “scientific method” as other disciplines. Pharmaceutical industry people go to jail when they destroy, withhold or manipulate raw data. If Climate Change is a life or death threat shouldn’t we hold the climate science experts to the same level of skepticism and standards of performance?
NRCM
Mr. Houston’s rebuttal based upon the NRCM’s past history has no relevance on their present actions. Their knowledge of wind power and the tangential issues is abominable. Asserting wind power tax payments will reduce community tax rates is myopic. Revenue sharing for schools is based upon state valuation of property values. The development of wind farms in these small communities substantially increases the tax base. Mars Hill has seen its tax base rise 76% since First Wind put in the turbines. The State’s projected FY2011 Revenue Sharing will reduce the Mars Hill school district funding by $303,000 over the previous year. So the big tax revenue increase for Mars Hill is becoming a myth. Every other town that gets a wind farm will feel the same pain.