Objectors to wind farms to be "bought off"

[phantom power]

Ministers are considering whether to establish a “conservation bank” to help overcome planning objections to wind farms and other renewable-energy projects.

Planning problems have held back British onshore wind farms. Vestas blamed nimby (not in my back yard) objections for its recent decision to shut Britain’s only wind-turbine plant, on the Isle of Wight (see panel below).

Vestas and other energy groups say planning delays and uncertainties make it riskier to invest in Britain than in other countries, where planning approval can take half the time and there are more lucrative incentives for developers.

...

“The idea of conservation banking is to give businesses greater clarity and speed up the development of infrastructure projects, such as wind farms, that would otherwise suffer long delays or get rejected,” said Irranca-Davies.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6806408.ece

[Laelth]

1. Good for the U.K. Kick out Vestas.

Wind Power BLOWS.

See the following:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/wind-turbine-bats.html
http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html
http://www.nortexwind.org/index.htm
http://www.stopillwind.org/index.php
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/
http://www.savewesternny.org/
http://www.wind-watch.org/
http://www.epaw.org/
http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=166
http://www.rivercitymalone.com/?p=654
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/21/the-unbearable-lightness-of-wi
http://notesfromotherside.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-on-renewable-energy.html
http://www.pest-03.org/ (Power Engineers Supporting Truth)

Or just watch this series of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_utFV2ukOtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOd5tSZF3A4&feature=related

There's more, but you get the idea. :)

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Wind Energy Basics

http://www.nrel.gov/learning/re_wind.html

[Nederland]

21. Question

I admit that I don't know the pro's and con's of wind power, but your link does nothing to address the concerns raised by the links in Laelth's post (I confess I only read three--one on bats, one on base power, and one generic one).

[kristopher]

25. Why do you require someone else to do your research for you?

Is it really that difficult to find legitimate current information on those subjects?

Or perhaps you just want to give the fossil fuel/nuclear industry a hand spreading disinformation...

[Nederland]

27. It's called Socratic Dialog

Perhaps you should Google it.

[kristopher]

29. You'd never guess, but

I've actually heard of that before so no need to Google it at all. Over the years I've also managed to pick up a fair understanding of how people push propaganda.

I'd say of those two knowledge clusters that the learning about propaganda is the more relevant as 1)even wiki gives a basic rendering of those topics and 2) Lie_eth's links are the worst sort of nonsense that you'd never give 1/2 a second of credence to if such crap were offered about nuclear energy.

[madokie]

5. One thing about it you're persistent

:rofl:

[NNadir]

6. How big is that wind farm inside the gates by the pool, big boy?

Bigger than the solar pool light?

How come we never hear all about your swell wind farm in your backyard and your solar house?

Home owners association ban big solar stations and big wind farms in your neighborhood?

They don't let you go up on the roof with your bottle of Windex to clean the glass? How about you send some poor suckers from Guatemala, the guys who are always waiting just outside the gates for a two dollar an hour job, go up there and get the palm fronds off your swell solar panels?

I forgot. Home owners association...big talk...no fucking action...so sense of reality.

Never mind, I know the mentality. It's all fucking talk about the lives of other people who don't live behind the gates.

By the way, I am calling for more nuclear reactors in my backyard, but then again, I have a pretty sophisticated familiarity with the contents of a science books.

[madokie]

9. I'm happy for you but I seriously doubt we'll be building any more nuke plants

You have no clue as to what it is you say but I have to admit you did get a big laugh out of me. I need not know all there is to know about nuclear energy to know that an industry that has to rely on obfuscations and outright lies can't be good. A point you seem to have missed, so sad.

You come here with disdain and scorn talking your shit about and too anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you then you wonder why it is I have taken offense, well you can take all that you say you know and wrap it up stick it in one of your empty bottles and then cram it right square up your, well you can fill in the rest I'm sure. A widdle baby throwing wild eyed fits is what you remind me of.

Oh, 'bout forgot, have a great day, I know I'm going too

[truebrit71]

18. No kidding right?!

:eyes:

[TheWraith]

7. I can comment on one of those links...

I live in a county in Western New York with something like 400 wind turbines, one of the counties targeted by that site "SaveWesternNY.org." There's a constant stream of letters to the editor in the local papers, mostly from the anti-turbine people though some pro-turbine. In my experience, the anti-turbine people tend to be much more likely to play fast and loose with the facts, relying completely on emotional arguments, unsourced claims, unsupported arguments, and just generally wrong stuff.

[kristopher]

8. Those "anti-wind" groups are largely astroturf.

ANY land use change (LUC) is going to activate strong resistance in a small percentage of people regardless of the merits or problems of the LUC. Another fairly consistent percentage will be cautious of the unknown and, if a vocal opposition arises this group will go into a sort of safe mode and either withhold support (poll as no opinion) or oppose the project. If/when the project gets completed those in the 'safe mode' will make a final decision based on their actual experience with the LUC.

In the case of wind turbines original, pre-project polling usually results in 80+% approval, curing construction the approval might drop to around 50-60%, but after completion it rebounds back to very near the original 80+%.

While it is difficult to track the specific inputs, the Save Our Sound group in Cape Cod, with its ties to Koch Industries and Phelps Dodge Minerals Mining Company seems to be the template for the virtually all antiwind wind groups around the country. They aren't the original, however. I looked into this in some detain back in 2003-4 and it appeared to me that the origin is actually a group in England that sprouted when Blair withdrew the government subsidies for their domestic coal industry and shifted the funds to offshore sind development. There are a couple of main sites (with virtually none of the "About US" information one sees at legitimate grass roots sites) that compile information and articles for use by the local groups.

With the internet, it doesn't require any real funding to create the appearance of opposition and use that appearance to recruit those in safe mode into the effort. It is exactly the same type of organizational tactic being used to get these loons out to the town halls.

[TheWraith]

16. That's pretty much the approval numbers around here.

60+ percent in favor in the town where the biggest fight and most construction are taking place. The anti-wind people argue that only a few hundred people (out of a population of 1300) bothered to return the poll form asking whether you supported or opposed wind turbines, so that means a majority isn't really in favor. :eyes:

[kristopher]

3. Compensation = "buying off" and No Compensation = "outsiders raping the locals" nt

[phantom power]

13. I think the phrase "bought off" is pretty loaded...

which is why I stuck it in quotes. Whether you say "compensated" or "bought off" depends on what kind of emotional message you want to send.

Rhetorical catch-22 is a pretty easy game to play. If it was a coal plant, a person could easily also play the catch 22 game: If Big Coal compensated locals to put in a new plant, it would be "bought off" or if they did not it would be "steamrolling the locals." I bet that story would not see much argument here in E/E.

If Nancy Pelosi tries to prevent a thermal solar installation on her protected desert, she's somebody's corporate shill. If she tries to prevent a coal plant on her protected desert, she's a hero. Right?

[kristopher]

15. Somehow that reply...

...totally fails to capture the relative difference in external costs of the technologies and their place within our economic system. Representatives of coal are part of a group that is trying to protect over 100 TRILLION DOLLARS worth of owned assets. They are motivated by greed to disregard the costs to others.

On the other side we have exactly the opposite; proponents have little to no financial stake and are largely motivated by the desire to reduce harmful external costs associated with the entrenched reliance on centrally controlled thermal generation.


There is a vast gulf between those two perspectives.

[phantom power]

19. Maybe.

I will make four predictions about the future for your consideration.

1) Wind turbines will reduce some external costs and increase others. Being low-density energy sources, they are going to occupy a lot of landscape. They will occupy the habitats of desert tortoises and prairie chickens and tuna and humans. Maybe the locals can be compensated to make that more palatable. Some locals will not be soothed, and you can expect those people to call it "bought off."

2) One consequence of renewable success is that big money will start to become involved. Expect to see the size of that "vast gulf" between perspectives decrease rapidly in size.

3) Locals who are upset at the impacts of renewable energy installations will be called obstructionists by people who want renewables. If they are upset at the impacts of something like a coal plant or a nuclear plant, they will be called heros by people who want renewables. If a coal company gives them money, it will be called "bought off"

4) If a renewable company gives locals money, it will be called compensation by people who want renewables. If a coal company gives them money, it will be called "bought off."


I still think it's fine to build renewables. Especially wind turbines. In fact, please hurry, since time is running out. I hope that while we do it, everybody tries to be as honest as possible about the impacts on the locals.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_2030.html

U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program

20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply

Here you will find the description of the "20% Wind Energy by 2030" report, which was recently published by the U.S. Department of Energy, and related materials and workshops.

Overview

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a report that examines the technical feasibility of using wind energy to generate 20% of the nation's electricity demand by 2030. The report, "20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply," includes contributions from DOE and its national laboratories, the wind industry, electric utilities, and other groups. The report examines the costs, major impacts, and challenges associated with producing 20% wind energy or 300 GW of wind generating capacity by 2030.

The report's conclusions include:

1. Reaching 20% wind energy will require enhanced transmission infrastructure, streamlined siting and permitting regimes, improved reliability and operability of wind systems, and increased U.S. wind manufacturing capacity.
2. Achieving 20% wind energy will require the number of turbine installations to increase from approximately 2000 per year in 2006 to almost 7000 per year in 2017.
3. Integrating 20% wind energy into the grid can be done reliably for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.
4. Achieving 20 percent wind energy is not limited by the availability of raw materials.
5. Addressing transmission challenges such as siting and cost allocation of new transmission lines to access the Nation's best wind resources will be required to achieve 20% wind energy.

…

[Nederland]

22. 20% has never been achieved anywhere

I wonder how they think it can be done here?

[kristopher]

24. That isn't true.

No, I'm not going to provide you a link. You should already know better.

[Nederland]

26. Yes it is

No, I'm not going to provide you a link. You should already know better.

[kristopher]

28. You certainly turned that around on me, didn't you?

That must mean we are in a stand-off. Or it would if this were a matter of obscure fact or subjective opinion. Since it is a matter of widely known objective fact, you might want to consider whether or not you want to look as foolish the next time you're tempted to make the same claim.

[Nederland]

32. Yup

I've decided that I'm going to respond to you with the same degree of seriousness that you do to me. A well thought out reply will receive a well thought our response. A vapid post completely lacking in coherent logic like the one above will receive a response that is equally worthless.

[kristopher]

34. Where does that chain of events start?

You consider making a patently false claim to be a post meeting your stated standard?

A policy goal was noted and you, apropos of nothing, tried to denigrate it with a false claim. How, precisely, does qualify as "coherent logic" or as having "a degree of seriousness" meriting my time in digging out a reference to correct your slop/lie?


Please, explain how that is supposed to work.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. The Danish will be quite disappointed to learn that

http://risoe-staged.risoe.dk/Research/sustainable_energy/wind_energy.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

[kristopher]

23. And you are just "trying to be as honest as possible"?

I don't think so. You are clearlytrying to create a false impression to foster opposition to wind energy. You have no basis to oppose the technology on legitimate grounds so you resort to this type of tactic. Frankly I'm disappointed in you.

1) Talk about a disingenuous statement!!! "Wind turbines will reduce some external costs and increase others." Well shut my mouth! You don't say? How about adding the very, very, very relevant fact that the degree to which they will reduce external costs is HUGE and the degree to which they will increase 'others' is TINY.

2) There can NEVER be an equivalence between renewables and fossil fuels/nuclear since the entire financial input is capital investment. There really are profound consequences to leaving fuels behind. And even if that were not the case, the point you are trying to make is irrelevant to the idea that greed is motivating those who protect fossil fuels/nuclear while desire to eliminate various external costs is motivating those supporting renewable development. There is no equivalency.

3) Locals who object to the impacts of renewable installations are entitled to voice their opinions. However, so are those who consider objections based of "visual pollution" are also entitled to voice their opinion that such objections are a product of extremely selfish people. There are legitimate environmental issues that must be considered with developing renewables, and I know of no one that wishes to ignore them. That said, however, the current situation is more a case where astroturf organized opposition exploits the fact that EPA processes and criteria for evaluating overall environmental impact need to be reconsidered in order to accommodate the trade-off in benefit/cost associated with the goal of large scale replacement of fossil fuels. For example, no wind farm will be given credit for largely removing mercury from from our food supply, but the overall effort to replace fossils will have exactly that result.

4) True. See my previous post.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. FWIW: The (London) Times is a subsidiary of "News International"

http://www.newsinternational.co.uk/

…

News International is the main UK subsidiary of News Corporation. …

In a sense, you can think of this as the British equivalent of http://foxnews.com

[Nihil]

10. Not quite that bad ...

> In a sense, you can think of this as the British equivalent of http://foxnews.com

... but it's closer to that than the Independent or Guardian ...

FWIW, I don't agree with the "buying off" approach as it will just
feed the speculators whilst emptying the (limited) funds for renewable
initiatives and will prove to be a very bad move: said speculators
will put their money behind the anti-windfarm groups (whether they
are astroturf or nimby based) in order to increase the levels of
"compensation" (= their profit). Such publicity will only act in a
negative way when influencing the general public about renewables.

:-(

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Remember this stunning bit of investigative journalism?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2702804.ece

From The Sunday Times
October 21, 2007

Ouch! Hillary Clinton's softer image is clawed over dumped cat

Sarah Baxter

AS THE “first pet” of the Clinton era, Socks, the White House cat, allowed “chilly” Hillary Clinton to show a caring, maternal side as well as bringing joy to her daughter Chelsea. So where is Socks today?

Once the presidency was over, there was no room for Socks any more. After years of loyal service at the White House, the black and white cat was dumped on Betty Currie, Bill Clinton’s personal secretary, who also had an embarrassing clean-up role in the saga of his relationship with the intern Monica Lewinsky.

Some believe the abandoned pet could now come between Hillary Clinton and her ambition to return to the White House as America’s first woman president.

Clinton has been boosting her prospects in the past week with some homespun references to her gender as part of a series of events with the theme Women Changing America, during which she chatted girlfriend-to-girlfriend and mom-to-mom with female voters.

…

[Nihil]

12. And?

As it happens, I don't remember it as I rarely read the Times
(usually only at my father-in-law's) so all I know about it is
what you've quoted above. Mind you, even if I'd seen the headline,
I doubt that I'd have read the article given my apathy over the
trivia that the media (and distressingly large sections of the
general public) believes to be "newsworthy".

Out of curiosity - and given the above admission of my ignorance
of the event - what was the problem?
Was it the mention of Lewinsky and an "embarrassing clean-up role"?
Was it that Socks had actually been stuffed before presenting it
to the secretary as a souvenir paperweight?
The thought that Hillary might have a "caring, maternal" side?
The fact that a newspaper obsessed over Clinton trivia rather than
reporting fairly on other candidates?

:shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. I first became aware of this story, when a right-winger sent it to me in e-mail

It seemed expertly timed to damage Hillary Clinton's reputation, just as she was experiencing a bit of a "bounce" in the polls. It also seemed expertly targeted at the very demographic she was succeeding with.

The fact that the entire story was not just trivial, but also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socks_(cat)">complete and utter hogwash did not speak well for the credibility of The (London) Times.

The conclusion seemed obvious to me. Either it was a "hatchet job" or (at the least) very poorly researched.


I believe the former. (How about you?)

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_repeats_claim_Hillary_had_cat_1107.html

Fox News airs bizarre claim that Hillary ordered hit on cats

David Edwards and Jason Rhyne
Published: Wednesday November 7, 2007

Fox News on Wednesday aired a bizarre accusation that Sen. Hillary Clinton is connected with the murder of two cats.

Sen. Clinton's accuser is Kathleen Willey, the one-time White House aide who in 1993 claimed to have been groped by then-president Bill Clinton in the Oval Office. Willey raised the strange cat-killing allegation -- and a raft of others -- in her new book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The Fox and Friends morning program detailed charges in the book that Willey's cat, Bullseye, was the victim of a targeted hit by a Clinton-hired henchman.

"A man, he was pretending to be a jogger, he came up to me and just asked did I ever find my cat?" Willey told the http://www.nysun.com/article/65976?page_no=3">New York Sun, who also picked up the cat story Wednesday. "He mentioned my cat by name and , 'Yeah, that Bullseye was a really nice cat.'" Willey told the Sun the abducted cat was part of an intimidation plan organized by the Clintons after she was called to testify in Paula Jones' sexual harassment suit against the president.

…

(The New York Sun is also owned by News Corporation.)

[Nihil]

31. Fair enough ...

As I said, I wasn't aware of that incident but it is only
too believable given the influence that money has over the
mass media.
:shrug:

[JoFerg]

17. Blowing Wind

Seems that the PowerWorkers Union here in Ontario are taking a more realistic view of Wind Power:

http://abetterenergyplan.ca/the_plan_renewable.php

/Jo
http://envirogy.wordpress.com

[Dogmudgeon]

30. No sinister conspiracies are required

Certainly, dark forces, conspiracies, the black hand of Capitalism/Socialism/the Illuminati, and so on, can interfere in the affairs of Hono(u)rable Men. But that isn't usually how it goes, especially when there's a buck to be made.

Some people just don't like windmills and don't want them in their backyard.

Some wind farms are poorly planned and built, and produce a lot of undesirable side-effects, from flicker to infrasound.

In other cases, there are business and finance details that are neglected, and out come the lawyers.

If the principal company goes under, the project can be a disaster. Then again, even the loss of a key contractor can doom a project.

There can also be political details that are overlooked; more in the way of permits and licensing rather than bribery and corruption.

There are many "little things" that can go wrong in ANY large project. Ideology, "big picture" problems, and flaws in fundamental science are seldom the problem; stupidity and negligence often are. We are mistaken if we think that sinister forces are the primary obstacle faced by new technologies.

--d!