Renewable Energy and NIMBYs

[Kroney]

So I've been browsing around on the Beeb site and noticed this story:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-25364699

 

I don't think there's anybody that seriously doesn't think renewable energy needs to be pursued, even if they don't happen to think climate change is a thing. Dwindling fossil resources surely make it a necessity. However, whenever companies attempt to put up turbines, which I believe are currently the only solution approaching cost-effectiveness, there's a chorus of howling from people that don't want to have to look at them. I realise that the reason that SP dropped the project was down to technological and environmental concerns over people whinging, but even so. 

 

How on Earth are people so self-centred that they'd rather have an uninterrupted view than have clean energy? This farm would have powered a million homes, yet there are people out there that don't consider that important enough to have a very slight inconvenience placed upon them. 

 

Are there any really viable alternatives to wind turbines? I'd be interested to know how the following would work, because the images that come to mind don't make any sense.

 

"wind farm which is currently under construction in the Irish Sea with DONG Energy."

[kirottu]

I have always liked how wind turbines look, somehow majestic and stuff. 

[Raithe]

While I don't have a firm grasp on all the details, I have heard that wind turbines really aren't that efficient or that cost effective for the amount of power they do produce. They tend to be more of a.. feel good / pr thing that of practical use in providing power to a city.

 

They can be good for small remote places that don't need much power, but you'd need a ridiculous amount of them to equal a small "traditional" power station.

[Sabotin]

I believe the best type of energy source depends entirely on where said source is needed. I hate when people globally diss some or other types of power plants, just because they have "lower stats" in some aspect.

 

The problem with wind turbines is that their energy production efficiency goes up with their size, but that presents a whole slew of other problems. They require lots of building materials and large areas and have expensive maintenance (both machinery and wind blades). They are too expensive (as you read the investment would return in 15-20 years in that particular case). They are unreliable: they only operate x days of the year depending on weather conditions. Yet still, they are apparently the perfect source for certain regions in Europe. And that's great.

 

Maybe I'm just speaking for my county (or EU), but renewable energy sources are only viable now because of subsidies to their construction and the energy they produce. The belief is that with larger proliferation of renewable sources the energy prices would drop enough to be competitive with conventional ones. Companies invest in building them because they get a pretty penny from the country they are in, the ecological/charitable aspects are minimal. Then you have the political aspects where both sides have their own push and interests. There just isn't any fit-all solution.

 

Then there's some ridiculous stuff going on. For example in my country the main source of power is a big coal plant and a nuclear plant. We have a coal mine nearby the plant, but use coal from Indonesia because it's cheaper and because the local one doesn't fit ecological standards. We have a closed Uranium mine. They're planning on building another block of the coal plant and close the nuclear plant. Meh...

[Nonek]

There are quite a few going up in Scotland, had to lease some new land because of there construction scaring away the Fallow and Reds, and talking with the local farmers they seem to pay quite handsomely. Also noticed quite a few up near Holmfirth, where the in laws live, they never seem to be on though strangely enough. Both areas are quite scenic. 

 

Edit: I assume the long term future lies in cold fusion ultimately, though i'm by no means an expert on such things.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Nonek

[Rostere]

Renewable energy is a good thing, but it only produces tiny, tiny, amounts of energy (even in the "best case" - real values are often lower). Any hopes of entirely replacing nuclear and carbon-based are not viable now or in the near future. That said, I applaud everyone who feels rich enough to invest in renewable energy.

 

I think solar energy in places which have lots of sun is one of the most interesting prospects right now.

 

Then there's some ridiculous stuff going on. For example in my country the main source of power is a big coal plant and a nuclear plant. We have a coal mine nearby the plant, but use coal from Indonesia because it's cheaper and because the local one doesn't fit ecological standards. We have a closed Uranium mine. They're planning on building another block of the coal plant and close the nuclear plant. Meh...

 

This is just insane.

[Walsingham]

I was involved tangentially with a project up in Scotland to turn a large estate into a windfarm. The RSPB blocked it. That's the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

 

I'll be crystal clear and say I am unconvinced by global warming. But I accept that it is the general consensus. It therefore annoys the holy **** out of me when people ignore it for the sak eof - as you say - a nice view, or the convenience of the less spotted marsh cretin.

[HoonDing]

Après nous le déluge.

[Amentep]

I was involved tangentially with a project up in Scotland to turn a large estate into a windfarm. The RSPB blocked it. That's the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

 

I'll be crystal clear and say I am unconvinced by global warming. But I accept that it is the general consensus. It therefore annoys the holy **** out of me when people ignore it for the sak eof - as you say - a nice view, or the convenience of the less spotted marsh cretin.

 

It might seems a short sited view in some respects to preserve an endangered species current habitat when radical climate shift would probably decimate its habitat just as much as a bulldozer (as ecologically fragile creatures wouldn't stand global warming if it is really "a thing").

 

On the other hand, the best solution would be one that preserves the habitats and reduces the carbon emissions I guess.  I worry, though, that those best solutions are going to be at best limited and at worst impossible.

[Walsingham]

While I respect you personally, Amentep. Well, a bit, anyway. I can't respect that view.

 

What kind of god damned world do you think we live in? Perfect decisions are not the decisions you look for when you are facing a time critical problem. A time critical problem is what the world supposedly faces. It's no f***ing good wanting a nice alternative. Either windfarms need to be built right now, or they don't. If they don't then we shouldn't be building ANY of the pointless bastards. If they do, then F**K the reed warbler.

 

I would add that this kind of woolliness is _precisely_ why many serious businessmen and engineers don't take the Green movement seriously.

[Gorgon]

So I take it windfarm+spotted whatever = splat. They should put them on city roofs. Sort out the pigeon problem.

[Azdeus]

Windfarms are absolutely devastating to things like bats too. So more windfarms = more mosquitoes = more dead nazis, so it's all good!

[Kroney]

Personally I think ****ing huge great wind turbines plugged into the Grid are a thoroughly cack-handed way of going about things. Photovoltaic cells and a couple of smaller turbines built into any large building so that they're self-sufficient seems like the best idea to me. Houses can easily be retrofitted with a few panels and a couple of sexy big nuke plants pn the Grid to cover the shortfall.

 

What really needs to happen is for some balls to be grown and a "yeah well, this is going to get built so **** off complaining" attitude.

[Amentep]

While I respect you personally, Amentep. Well, a bit, anyway. I can't respect that view.

 

What kind of god damned world do you think we live in? Perfect decisions are not the decisions you look for when you are facing a time critical problem. A time critical problem is what the world supposedly faces. It's no f***ing good wanting a nice alternative. Either windfarms need to be built right now, or they don't. If they don't then we shouldn't be building ANY of the pointless bastards. If they do, then F**K the reed warbler.

 

I would add that this kind of woolliness is _precisely_ why many serious businessmen and engineers don't take the Green movement seriously.

 

Er... I don't think we're disagreeing.

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  To clarify my two paragraphs I submit the following two:

 

It makes no sense to protect an endangered species at the expense of stopping a solution to a problem that will, in the end, kill the endangered species just as surely as damaging their habitat and kill a whole lot more besides.

 

While the best solution is one that would, ideally, allow the endangered species to survive AND build the viable energy alternatives, if that solution doesn't exist...well Spock was right, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Walsingham]

Windfarms are absolutely devastating to things like bats too. So more windfarms = more mosquitoes = more dead nazis, so it's all good!

 

You win today's internet.

[Zoraptor]

So I take it windfarm+spotted whatever = splat. They should put them on city roofs. Sort out the pigeon problem.

Well yeah, they should. It's far more efficient to produce the power where it's actually used, and inconveniences the people using the power rather than people somewhere else.

 NIMBY works both ways after all, you have cities saying Not In My Back Yard to power plants near them, then shouting about how rural areas should be converted to produce their power then complaining about hippies blocking them.

 

Sometimes it gets particularly stupid. They wanted to build a wind farm on the Crown Range here- basically in the middle of the South Island, miles away from anywhere. And it's utterly pointless. The South Island already produces far, far more energy than it uses which is then pumped up to us in the North Island without giving them any advantage whatsoever despite all the crap like having large areas stuck deluged by hydro dams. It'll produce energy that has significant losses before it reaches anywhere, it's in a glut area, and was pushed on the extremely rare occasion of the SI not being in energy surplus (due to running the hydro at 100% capacity through out a drought, hydro energy being extremely cheap) when the only reason the lakes were drained was to send the power to Auckland and Wellington. But it isn't near a big population area, so you won't get entitled morons whinging about their house values being impacted and politicians won't lose votes, so let's go for it!

[LadyCrimson]

While I don't have a firm grasp on all the details, I have heard that wind turbines really aren't that efficient or that cost effective for the amount of power they do produce. They tend to be more of a.. feel good / pr thing that of practical use in providing power to a city.

 

They can be good for small remote places that don't need much power, but you'd need a ridiculous amount of them to equal a small "traditional" power station.

That's pretty much what I've understood, as well. They're efficient and good for smaller use or "booster" use but not for powering major metropolitan cities with millions and millions of electronics addicted people. The amount of space required would be comparatively huge...plus not just any ol' spot is "great" for placing them, causing a lot of bickering over land in areas where land is seriously becoming a premium thing.

 

There's also the complaint of, not just view blockage, but noise. Apparently they can be very noisy if you live anywhere near them.

 

..as to the flying animal splatter - to me that's not terribly relevant, since many many more of those die from the current set up of powerlines and other such things, as well as pets, pesticides, even just from flying into buildings (birds aren't always very bright, y'know) etc. Wind turbine loss of such animals is pretty minor compared to the total from everything else. More wind farms would increase those numbers of course, but using it as a protest against wind power doesn't seem like a strong argument in most cases. Not that I'm saying it's cool or anything, just that in the scheme of things, so far it's pretty minor numbers-wise.

[Hurlshort]

These look cooler than windmills:

 

[LadyCrimson]

It's like a sci-fi scene on Mars, especially with that giant crop circle behind it.

[kgambit]

While I don't have a firm grasp on all the details, I have heard that wind turbines really aren't that efficient or that cost effective for the amount of power they do produce. They tend to be more of a.. feel good / pr thing that of practical use in providing power to a city.

 

They can be good for small remote places that don't need much power, but you'd need a ridiculous amount of them to equal a small "traditional" power station.

 

A wind turbine can only capture 59.3 per cent of the kinetic energy of the wind.  Betz' law 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz'_law

 

The advantage of wind energy is that it doesn't require any fuel and it's cost is constant over the life of the project.  Here's one comparison

 

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/Geronimo-Engelking1-29-13.pdf  check out page 7

 

Also according to the EIA, the total cost of wind energy without federal tax and other financial incentives is about 9.7 cents/kilowatt-hour. The total cost of conventional coal without federal tax and other financial incentives is about 9.4 cents/kilowatt-hour.

 

http://meic.org/issues/montana-clean-energy/cost-of-wind-vs-fossil-fuels/#sthash.dyD4uDoC.dpuf

Edited December 13, 2013 by kgambit

[Walsingham]

A wonderfully apropos article about how politicians - to avoid a temporary hit to their popularity - pay terrorist ransoms. These ransom payment fuel a kidnap industry that guarantees more kidnaps and more ransoms.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25359636

 

This is the level of thinking we're talking here, gentlemen.

[babaganoosh13]

I had never heard of anyone having a problem with wind turbines before they wanted to put an offshore wind farm off the coast of Nantucket Island around 2004ish. The Kennedy's et al didn't want to look at them, so they had them shut it down. Slowly after that, more and more people seemed to not want them around. All of a sudden health problems started arising for the neighbours of those who had turbines.
 
My guess is, if they started paying the neighbours (say $100 a month) as well as the land owners, a lot of those health problems would go away.
 
I feel as though if someone has a problem with a wind turbine, the should have an option: have a mini-coal generator in their backyard, or they should have to have nuclear waste dumped in their property. All of a sudden wind doesn't seem so bad. That is the cost of our current non-renewable energy sources.
 
Personally, I think they should invest real money and resources on solar. Right now in Canada, we've really only got the University of Toronto (edit: just found out about U of Alberta now) working on it. They've kinda figured it out. They currently have cells at 11% efficiency. They're finally starting to make strides. It was at just over 7% last year.
 
Here's an article from 2005: http://www.ross.ws/content/solar-power-gets-big-boost-nano
 
I would be very, very happy if we could finally get rid of nuclear. Short-term, we need to reduce the carbon we put in the air. I just see the long-term fact the nuclear waste does not go away. Unless we some how come up with a neutralizer for the radiation, I think it will do a lot more harm in the long run (assuming climate change doesn't do us in. [Except for parts* of Florida. That can be under water.])
 
*The parts of Florida that can be under water are wherever large percentages of people are who own snakes because they think they're cool, but have no idea how to handle them. Plus the parts that think "I felt threatened by him, even though I was the one with the gun and started the whole thing." is a perfectly good defense for murder. Essentially the white trash parts. Even the rich white trash.

[Agiel]

A relevant article from the Atlantic Monthly.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/

[Walsingham]

A relevant article from the Atlantic Monthly.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/

 

There's also the point that we are finding more and more energy efficient means of using fuels. The LED lightbulbs I use are, what, ten times as efficient as the ones we had when I was a kid? The cars are also becoming more efficient, and so on.

 

I cannot possibly believe that there will be some sort of sudden crash in the supply of energy.