Republicans & Conservatives Archives

I have a hunch that a significant portion of this opposition to Wind Power comes from the right. In any case, NIMBYism is strangling us. It seems like nothing can be done without an enormous amount of hoopla. Cape Cod already has an oil power-plant in Sandwhich, but must import electricity from the rest of Massachusetts. If CapeWind is not built it is likely that a second fossil-fuel burning power plant needs to be built. It is ridiculous that a tiny speck on the horizon is being called an eyesore. As an MA voter, I was disappointed by Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Brown’s opposition to CapeWind, however I am glad that Sen. Kerry supports it.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 22, 2010 09:39 AM

Warped

I doubt opposition comes from the right. If it makes money, the free market will like it. That is why Texas leads the nation in wind power.

the opposition from the right might come to subsidies. That is not the same as opposing wind power. Government’s role is to create conditions that facilitate the creation of prosperity among the people. Government could help wind power most by easing or eliminating regulatory barriers to building wind farms.

Think about this Cape Wind project. There are some valid concerns, I suppose. But come on. Indian sacred places? Under the water?

Let’s handle this as a property rights issue. Let the developers acquire all the necessary property rights and then let them go ahead. I wish our liberal friends would defend the right to use property in these cases as strongly as they defend the property rights of the Mosque builders in NYC.

Anyway - I personally think that windmills are interesting to look at. They probably improve a view in many cases.

One of my friends lives near the Allegheny front in WVA. He opposed windmills when they were proposed there and organized his own landowners’ association to ban them on their own properties. Now he is regretful. He has seen the windmills are not ugly, not noisy and are good for the local economy. Unfortunately for him, the covenant of his own community, which he helped write, now make it impossible for him to participate.

Posted by: C&J at August 22, 2010 11:16 AM

I doubt opposition comes from the right. If it makes money, the free market will like it. That is why Texas leads the nation in wind power.

the opposition from the right might come to subsidies. That is not the same as opposing wind power. Government’s role is to create conditions that facilitate the creation of prosperity among the people. Government could help wind power most by easing or eliminating regulatory barriers to building wind farms.

I’m talking about the faction of people who willfully disbelieve the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming and chant “Drill, Baby Drill!” at rallies. I don’t know if you have ever been to Cape Cod, but beyond Provincetown it is one of the most conservative parts of the commonwealth (aside from the Kennedy complex). It was one of the few areas Kerry Healey won in 2006 against Deval Patrick.

Think about this Cape Wind project. There are some valid concerns, I suppose. But come on. Indian sacred places? Under the water?

Your link to the Christian-Science Monitor does not mention the Wampanoag burial grounds. Here’s one with a good background. I agree with your sentiment regarding the silliness of the people opposing the wind farm; when it is complete it will be an ideal addition to a very scenic place and it will be a good demonstration of the feasibility of building more farms elsewhere. Posted by: Warped Reality at August 22, 2010 12:06 PM

There is no more reason for q wind generator to be near where it is used than a power plant. The difference is the fuel used (oil, gas, coal) can be transported to the power plant whereas the generating power by wind necessarily takes place at the source of the fuel (wind). Their are real problems with windmills near living quarters, not just ruined scenery - we’re talking loud noise and strobe like lighting effects. Let’s use some logic when deciding where to build them. Other misleading statements:
1) US is far behind other countries when wind power is considered as a % of total energy use
2) Renewable energy would be much more economically competitive if the true cost of burning fossil fuels was paid for by the user. For every pound of carbon burned, over 2 1/2 pounds of oxygen are used up. Nobody pays for that. OK, there is plenty of oxygen, but the pollution and global warming are not paid for by the user in any real sense of the cost
3) In 100 years we will still have the wind and sun, but we won’t have much fossil fuel left. Will we be be ready?

Posted by: DrTom at August 22, 2010 12:25 PM

2) Renewable energy would be much more economically competitive if the true cost of burning fossil fuels was paid for by the user. For every pound of carbon burned, over 2 1/2 pounds of oxygen are used up. Nobody pays for that. OK, there is plenty of oxygen, but the pollution and global warming are not paid for by the user in any real sense of the cos

A carbon tax or a cap & trade scheme could rectify the externalities. From what I’ve read, C&J are fully behind introducing a carbon tax, but skeptical at the ability of the government to intelligently implement a cap & trade scheme.

Their are real problems with windmills near living quarters, not just ruined scenery - we’re talking loud noise and strobe like lighting effects. Let’s use some logic when deciding where to build them.

These things aren’t observed that much when the wind turbines are many miles out in the sound. Posted by: Warped Reality at August 22, 2010 01:06 PM

Warped

Wind power is not directly related to global warming. If wind power makes money, it will be popular.

I remember hearing a lecture from a climate group. They divided the population into those who were moved by global warming, not so much etc. They found that global warming deniers were MOST likely to have taken steps - such as energy conservation, insulation etc - that would help slow warming. Of course, they just did it to save money.

Re Indian sacred stuff - we cannot be limited by these sorts of superstitions. I think it is more than ironic that the same people who reject “creationism” make such a big deal about the same sort of things in other cultures.

I have always taken a secular point of view re these things. If the spirit of the locale or even the great spirit is upset with this, let him come and talk to me. If he is still upset after that, we can change. Of course, if he doesn’t show up for the meeting, I expect it means he is okay with what we are doing.

Thanks for the link, BTW.

Dr Tom & Warped

You hit the point. Gas and oil can be more easily transported. Wind power has to be connected with wires and each of the wind sources produces relatively little power.

Yes, I favor a straight carbon tax. I figure the politicians will find ways to corrupt and mess up a cap & trade. Cap & trade worked very well - for a while - with acid rain emissions. But it worked because it was done among a few producers. Carbon is more ubiquitous. Beyond that, government has recently messed with the system and may have broken it. Temptation is great for politicians to be politicians.

Read what Chrissy wrote re a while back - http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/007133.html

Posted by: C&J at August 22, 2010 01:46 PM

C&J, Gas doesn’t really come out of the ground and the crude oil that does is costly to transport by truck. Most producers in my neck of the woods use pipelines to transport the oil to the refinery. Much less costly since a pipeline runs into the refinery just outside of Denver.

I drive to work through a windfarm so I see a hundred or more wind generators each way, not quite my back yard but pretty close. I think they are cool to look at. Interspersed in the area are many well heads as well. I see them pumping quite a bit but up close they have a smell are loud and the crude fouls the immediate area around the well over time. When prices are low many are shutdown because it costs to much to pump it out of the ground.

A friend of mine has 3 wind generators in his yard and it doesn’t seem to bother him a bit. He says you can hear them once in a while but nothing to loud. The rental income he is paid helps put bread in the toaster, so he thinks the trade off is worth it. He loses some grazing and/or growing area with the wind generators and the road that leads into them but no more than having the same amount of oil wells on the land.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 22, 2010 02:59 PM

Speaking of the dead being so sensitive, how about those law suits over moving cemetaries to make room for development. It is not about the sensitivities of the dead, but, the living survivors of them. Most Americans would want a Waste Management dump to be placed adjacent to their beloved’s graves. People are funny about their traditions regarding burial sites. There are NO exceptions to this cross culturally.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2010 05:49 PM

j2t2

I like wind generation. I think the wind farms are interesting. But you do have to take into account all the connection wires and the fact that each wind turbine doesn’t produce very much power.

I would have wind generation on my land, but the wind doesn’t blow very hard around where I live, so it is not practical.

Re oil wells, it takes less than a acre of land to access 40 square miles of oil underground.

David

Personally, I don’t care what happens to my body when I die and I am not particularly concerned about my parents graves either. But I understand the sensibility. There is an old graveyard on one of my farms. We stay away from it don’t mess with the markers. It depends on how far out you reach the zone. I am willing to give the dead about 10 feet of horizontal space and I would not allow the land on top of them to be developed. The view is none of their business. If the survivors care enough about it, I am willing to sell them some sort of easement. The world belongs to the living.

As I said up top, if any of the dead have any complaints, they are welcome to talk to me about it. Otherwise, I assume they are okay with whatever.

Posted by: C&J at August 22, 2010 09:03 PM

David

BTW - Lots of people have little cemeteries on rural land. Usually nobody visits them. I bet that after a while they just forget, nature reclaims them and they are either entirely lost or become mere curiosities.

It might be interesting for future archeologists. When I mentioned that I don’t care what happens to my body, that is not exactly right. I kinda hope some future archeologist digs me out and puts my bones in a museum. Maybe they can make a diorama. My guess is that they will get it wrong and they will have me hunting with a spear or something.

Posted by: C&J at August 22, 2010 09:10 PM

Interesting story about Portugal’s success in moving toward energy independence. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/earth/10portugal.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

It doesn’t come without a price. But it does demonstrate that with strong political will, there can be substantial progress in energy independence. The US is in a much stronger position than Portugal from a resource standpoint (natural gas reserves, etc.). It remains to be seen whether we have the same political will to achieve energy independence.

Posted by: Rich at August 22, 2010 09:37 PM

“But you do have to take into account all the connection wires and the fact that each wind turbine doesn’t produce very much power.”

When they build a windfarm the HV cabling that transports the electricity to the distribution grid it is the same as building anything else new that produces electricity the wires and towers must be ran. Just like a pipeline is built to get the oil or natural gas to the refinery. Look at how much progress your link to the new pumping stations shows being made on the wells over the past 40 years, just think what the wind generators will do in 40 more years should the progress continue on wind power development.

“Re oil wells, it takes less than a acre of land to access 40 square miles of oil underground.”

So what? It still stinks, pollutes that acre of land and costs a lot to get it out of the ground. I am surprised that you would fall for that 40 square miles story as the reality is your neighbor doesn’t care, he wants the revenues generated from the oil pumping out of the ground so he will place his well where it is best suited for him whether it is 1 mile or 2 away. Let those guys brag but out here they are still competing with other producers in the same area and the 40 sq. miles is meaningless. Sounds pretty but doesn’t change anything.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 22, 2010 10:21 PM

j2t2

I repeat, I like wind power. But you have to look at the total system. Windmills tend to be spread out over a long distance to take advantage of the wind on ridges etc. Each has to be wired to the others and all have to be wired to the main lines.

Wind power tends also to be in places not previously served by high power lines. They have to be built and they traverse long distances.

On some of my land, I have eight acres under power lines that cross the property and it requires a road to maintain the lines. I cannot plant trees on that land. It cannot be used for many things. These eight acres are part of the electrical power footprint. Such things will multiply.

Re the neighbors and oil, royalties are divided among the landowners affected. Each guy doesn’t put up his own well. Laws are fairly well developed in this area. And oil and gas production has progressed a great deal in the last generation.

No form of energy is w/o costs. We should not push into any one form, but develop a portfolio of energy sources. Natural gas and wind are a good combination, since a gas generator can be easily turned on to compensate for poor wind days. As for liquid fuel, gasoline is still the cheapest and has the most power per gallon. (We hear some BS re hydrogen being more powerful per pound, and that is true. But a pound of hydrogen takes up a lot more space than a pound of gasoline.)

Posted by: C&J at August 22, 2010 10:43 PM

C&J Out here the power lines are installed on access roads, for the most part, so the farmers have access to get their machinery into work the fields and the electrical company can maintain the power lines. When they mention the 1 acre for the oil pumping station they forget the access road needed to get to the actual 1 acre site it seems.

Just like the wind towers need to be connected together so do the oil wells via a pipeline. Just like the electrical lines these pipelines need to be maintained. When they are not maintained we have things like the recent Marshall MI. oil spill. When the electrical lines are not maintained we have a electric lines on the road, not quite the same issue.

C&J why would you think the wind turbines would all need to be connected to one another? The purpose of the wind turbine is to produce power the cabling is used to connect the turbine to the generation station for distribution to homes and business.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you C&J as using wind power for a vehicle would be cumbersome, gas and oil work better, for now. These are two separate issues really as oil is not used in generating electricity for home use as it is to expensive to do so.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 23, 2010 01:14 AM

The greatest threat to the world today is dependence on oil. That threat will continue to grow.

We need to think bigger because wind farms, nuclear power plants and deserts filled with solar panels aren’t going to supply the worlds future energy needs. They are fill the gap measures.

Posted by: jlw at August 23, 2010 02:11 AM

j2t2

Actually, I don’t think we are disagreeing at all. I think that we are just so used to disagreeing that it is hard not to write in that fashion.

Let me sum up my general points. We need a portfolio of energy sources. It will be good to transition from carbon based sources to something else (for various geopolitical and environmental reason). Carbon based fuels will be used for a while longer because they are cheap and convenient. All forms of energy have associated costs and often the biggest costs are those not initially seen at all by the casual observer.

Energy transitions take time. It took hundreds of years to transition from wood to coal and decades to transition from coal to oil, and we still use a lot of coal and lots of wood. Sometimes developments of an energy source depend on outside technologies. For example, widespread use of natural gas was made possible by better techniques of making pressurized pipes to transport it. Gas used locally in the 19th Century only became widespread in the 1930s and 1940s for that reason.

Posted by: C&J at August 23, 2010 04:47 AM