Windmills - Whats the big deal?

Why is everyone so upset about those giant windmills they want to build near Lake Erie?
There is a ton of wind around the lake. Who profits from the electricity produced from these machines?
Isn't there something they can put on or near those windmills to keep the birds away?
(Like a giant Owl). Or how about certain lights or ultrasonic sound or an electronic scarecrow?

No votes yet

The wind map of Ohio, the geography of our shallow end of Lake Erie, and the clear-land or eminent-domain nature of a lake surface all make it perfectly clear that the best place to emplace wind turbines in Ohio is on Lake Erie along the northern shore.

But that's precisely the location that irritates the Ohio elite who own most of the coastline of Ohio along Lake Erie.

We live in a society where it's OK to put a coal-fired power plant in the boonies since at best it will upset a few poor people. Nobody cares what the fuck they complain about. But to put clean power generation within the view of people who bought shoreline properties specifically to enjoy the view? That ranks right up there with heresy.

And so we don't have Lake Erie wind turbines. And we never will... since rich people will only continue owning the shorelines, and will continue have much greater influence in government.

Go home, folks. This is a non-issue.

Watch the whole thing. It's not just about the medical problems but also the fact that more than 50% of the time these things aren't generating anything, and when they do it can't be stored.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Old news Fred! Saw this long time ago on CBC. New units are much quieter. Where can I complain about Sylvania township punks with their loud thumping cars? Well somethings you have to accept in the name of growth.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Very funny DMHI. You say it's old news and that you saw it a long time ago. The Documentary first aired in February of this year, hardly old news and a long time ago. When did these " new units" begin getting manufactured since it's only been 10 months? Maybe you can cite some stats.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Homer Simpson factor at Davis Besse and Fukushima

Fukushima two years on: a dirty job with no end in sight
The tsunami that wrecked the Fukushima Daiichi power plant has led to the toughest nuclear cleanup ever. Radioactive water is still poisoning the sea – and it could take 40 years to fix the mess. Is Japan up to the challenge?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/03/fukushima-daiichi-tsu...

US Sailors to Refile Fukushima Radiation Lawsuit
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/20/us-sailors-to-refile-fukus...

Now which is worse Wind or Nuclear? You be the judge.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Fred,

Donna Honey isn't posting with the frequency since you started to referring to "her" as DMHI.

MikeyA

Gomer, Donnahoney isn't posting as much since some of her replies to WB (Wilson's Bitch), got deleted somehow. Plus the fact that the post WB floods this site with,along with your suckass replies are just plain boring anymore. We get it WB, you hate blacks, unions and liberals. Who cares.

Hope I didn't offend anyone!

Sure sure. "She" had her replies deleted. LOL funny.

This is what watching a one song band is like.

MikeyA

If your postings got deleted, you violated site rules in a big way. Bother to read and understand the site rules. And this comes from a guy (i.e. me) who runs his mouth a lot. So that's saying something.

And we wonder why they call them bird brains

I have observed the windmills in California and they look great. We should get some.

We can go one of two ways. Either we can mortgage the future by using every source of energy which severely pollutes the environment -- fossil fuels and nuclear fission; or we can do our best to switch to alternative fuels, which the world will eventually have to use even though these alternative fuels create their own sets of problems. It seems the rational and responsible thing to do is to try to use these alternative sources as efficiently as possible to both lessen our dependence upon fossil and nuclear fuels today, while increasing the knowledge of how best to use these alternative energy sources for future generations.

I bet the first option will be chosen, because we're obviously choosing it all the time now. It's in the zeitgeist.

The best option is to leverage our "petroleum inheritance" by using that massive energy input to gear up alt-energy exploitation. Yeah, but people seldom see past any of that. Alt-e inputs will be smaller, more expensive, and less practical. Highly self-interested and short-term sort of thinkers can only admire the massive petroleum energy wave.

Future generations are already screwed. Civilization-sized energy infrastructures take a lot of investment to transform into something else. We're already decades behind in making the investment, and we fall behind at roughly a rate of 1.0... 1 year further behind with every passing year. We were 20-30 years behind at the turn of the century, now we're 30-40 years behind. By 2030, when petroleum depletion will be so large that nobody's propaganda can hide it anymore, it'll be 50-60 years behind. In other words, we'll never catch up. It would cost about $1 trillion to catch up now, but we're obviously not even trying. The lure of easy, huge energy from existing petroleum exploitation is just too much for most people to resist. So by the time oil becomes critically depleted, the $3+ trillion investment will be impossible to scrape together.

That's why I call it the "petroleum inheritance". It's a one-time shot of huge wealth. Petroleum is the reason for our large system of capital formation. Great tracts of capital have become synonymous with petroleum, which allows them to exist and move.

And knowing all this, it's incumbent upon us to plan accordingly for the ever less fruitful future. We must learn to do less, with less. Society's excesses will become more and more encapsulated within the grasp of the elite. In short, by 2050 AD, the elite will still be tooling around in powerful gasoline vehicles, while the rest of us will have to make do with walking, bicycling, and comparatively pathetic electric cars. Some NG vehicles will exist, sure, but largely put into fleet service. There will be an obvious class division determined by gasoline.

Hydrogen technology is the way to go as soon as we figure out how to keep from blowing ourselves up.

Your ignorance about hydrogen is simply stunning. I mean, really.

The vast majority of hydrogen is sourced from a fossil fuel, natural gas. You seem to assume we crack if from H2O or something. Balderdash.

Bother to read a book sometime.

You need to do more than read a book. Cheap technology to efficiently produce usable hydrogen from sea water already exists, but as long as the fossil fuel money barons are in control we won't see that technology available anytime soon.

More balderdash. If there was cheap technology as you said, companies would have already arisen from a base of lesser funding, to exploit it. Cheap tech generally means less capital would be required to get started, right? Of course right.

There are no magic solutions. Nothing beats fossil fuels. Nothing CAN beat fossil fuels. The combination of cost, energy density and practicality of fossil fuels just can't be beat.

The real reason the FFBs are in control is because FFs themselves are in control. And by the time alternatives become price competitive, it will be because the price of FFs will rise. And that kills the American economy, which was ONLY designed to run on cheap energy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.