Wind Turbine ********. Just opened the mail and seen the plan for three massive units

[buickanddeere]

You are making this up. Got any facts?

Quote from sited study
Studies show no evidence for direct human health effects from wind turbines
The credible peer-reviewed scientific data and various government reports in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom refute the claim that wind farms cause negative health impacts.

You really think the peer reviewed studies skipped the complainers??? References???

Loren

Several of our neighbours moved into town to get away from the noise and strobing. Do you think any ontario government agency is going to contradict the other ontario government agencies that approved the turbines? Or criticize their political masters? You should have seen the government departments and bureaucracy circle the wagons with the walkerton water crisis.
When I get home I'll send the link to our local wind awareness group.

 

[Sodo]

You have one side being paid to say one thing, the other side being paid to say another, and a bunch of folk in the middle. The middle crowd is seemingly clueless to the fact that getting all worked up about the talking points of either side is rather silly. Most folk seem to have issue stepping back and viewing it all for what it is.

Very well said but skipped a key detail.

Keep in mind many of the folks on either side are "paid" by quality of life. Clean water, clean air, safe food, good health, pleasant views, safety, infrastructure, freedom of oppression etc.

These are a passive form of payment that can't compete well against the "active" form which are commercial projects, "paid marketing campaigns" that use our news channels (radio, TV, internet, forums, spam emails, print media etc).

Its disappointing that our goverment is unable to help us with this problem but here we are,,,,.

 

[Loren49]

Several of our neighbours moved into town to get away from the noise and strobing. Do you think any ontario government agency is going to contradict the other ontario government agencies that approved the turbines? Or criticize their political masters? You should have seen the government departments and bureaucracy circle the wagons with the walkerton water crisis.
When I get home I'll send the link to our local wind awareness group.

In my area the strong majority are satisfied or very satisfied with the 195 unit wind farm. There are 2 other projects that will likely break ground within a year or so with about 100 new units.

A yearly survey is done by the Community College in the next county that consistently shows overall positive feedback.

Shoreline areas seem to have more opposition coming from those with more wealth. There is that old "not in my back yard"

I've lived very close to towers and am quite aware of the noise level and strobe at times. I very seldom notice either and spend a good deal of time outside. I find highway noise much more annoying as I deal with very little traffic here. For every person I know who rants and raves about how bad they are annoyed by the towers, I know dozens who say they are no big deal.

As one of my references states some people find the units very annoying but there is no evidence they cause any health problems.

Loren

 

[Loren49]

Anyone who thinks they have "all the facts" to actually "argue" either side is already discredited in my opinion. There are too many facts yet to be determined for anyone to be 100% correct. The situation is much larger than any study or our limited sciences can PROVE...

You have one side being paid to say one thing, the other side being paid to say another, and a bunch of folk in the middle. The middle crowd is seemingly clueless to the fact that getting all worked up about the talking points of either side is rather silly. Most folk seem to have issue stepping back and viewing it all for what it is.

It is a well known fact when the gossip/tabloid trashpapers at the grocery store are saying Will Smith had the child from an alien encounter, his next movie will get bigger numbers at the box office. Why they can't see that the "arguments" and "talking points" are just increases in pay for all the losers causing the conflict and confusion is beyond me...

Not all are being paid in dollars. There is good information to refute claims such as nearly all pollution is now cleaned up, burning of fossil fuels have no negative consequences, air quality in US is just fine and if its not, it has nothing to do with burning coal, oil etc.

There is much good information available and for those who seek some level of truth/understanding it only takes a bit of research and reading.

The other choice is to just go with a story and stick with it.

Loren

 

[KiwiBro]

In my area the strong majority are satisfied or very satisfied with the 195 unit wind farm. There are 2 other projects that will likely break ground within a year or so with about 100 new units.

A yearly survey is done by the Community College in the next county that consistently shows overall positive feedback.

Shoreline areas seem to have more opposition coming from those with more wealth. There is that old "not in my back yard"

I've lived very close to towers and am quite aware of the noise level and strobe at times. I very seldom notice either and spend a good deal of time outside. I find highway noise much more annoying as I deal with very little traffic here. For every person I know who rants and raves about how bad they are annoyed by the towers, I know dozens who say they are no big deal.

As one of my references states some people find the units very annoying but there is no evidence they cause any health problems.

Loren

From my perspective only, you do your cause a disservice when you trivialise or do not empathise with people who feel their reasonable enjoyment of their properties has been adversely impacted by anything imposed against their will.

Sure, we can seldom please everyone all the time, but perhaps explaining the lengths the wind generators go to to appease those with reasonable concerns might be a good place to start a discussion on the matter rather than trivialising or ignoring or projecting as unreasonable simply because they are a minority or the things they point to don't bother you personally. Or even laying out the case for these as the best of all the options so that the aggreived can see there was no better option and their quality of life would have suffered without the wind generator anyway, through blackouts, etc, etc.

I just don't think it wise to ignore detractors, or blanket them with the 'minority' moniker as if their voice is no longer important. I'm getting off topic now but that sort of thing happens in all walks of life, and it breeds contempt and disconnected people, and that breeds trouble for everyone in the long run. Similarly, real progress should not be halted because a few crazies who can't see logic cling to unrealistic ideals, but there is a whole phalanx in between who don't deserve to be labelled crazy yet find their enjoyment of their properties adversely impacted by 'progress', and who deserve a voice that is acknowledged.

 

[Loren49]

You sound mean spirited, hatful, and unhappy to me! The doom and gloom you spout simply isn't true, thankfully your types remain as marginalized as the tin foil hat guys. Better turn up the NG heat because the world is cooling has been for 18 years now. HS

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | BillMoyers.com

1. No, the Earth Hasn't Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

This claim was popularized by Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate skeptic with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called research relies on people's confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there has been no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.?.................................Spencer also dismisses the theory of evolution, and has written: " I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

Of course, none of that matters if their science is sound. But according to John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, who has published over 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it isn't "It turns out that they made three serious errors in their data, " he explains. "It took years, and it took a lot of time from other scientists to find these errors in their calculations. In fact, they switched a positive sign for a negative sign in one of their equations..............

RealClimate debunks one myth (about global cooling) while advancing another (that warming is linear) | ThinkProgress


It seems that you likely made another false statement.

Loren

 

[KiwiBro]

Here was the article I read on Tesla: How Tesla's Powerwall Stacks Up to Conventional Energy, By the Numbers

paul

Thanks. Quite a bit has been written about these before and after the announcement. What would be great though, is more info on their other, higher capacity option I guess they are targeting at higher users like business or schools or the like for distributed micro-grid-level storage?

The same companies doing the solar+battery leases to individual housholds, could bid for something similar but to developers of new subdivisions and make the whole subdivision off grid and market as such. I'd like to see if that stacks up. I mean - newly built for energy conservation in the first place may be the costs of keeping such a house off-grid may not be so bad.

Has anyone done the numbers on that?

 

[KiwiBro]

Imagine the cost of cleaning up asbestos , mercury , cadmium, lead, PBC's, furans and dioxins around the country. Nuclear is cheap by comparison.

That's the rub. The externalities first have to be defined before they can be placed at the feet of the people who cause them. Especially in the private sector. Is doing so really as hard as it seems or has it been fudged by agendas on all sides of the debate to the point their whole agenda is based around never allowing consensus on the externalities lest doing so hurt their cause.

So, what sorts of frameworks exist to settle the science/economics of these sorts of overall costs of both existing and prospective generation/distribution options? Should we settle on that before even beginning to discuss what method suits where, etc?

Perhaps just leave it up to the market, with the state having a clawback right if the science later proves there are greater costs to society than originally advised? Not that the state would have the ability in some cases to claw it back even if it were proven to be a cost that has not been applied to the generator.

 

[KiwiBro]

Off-topic:

Has anyone credible information on or links to any good forums discussing Sunvault's ( Sunvault Energy ) graphene based capacitor?

I've been to their website but it just reads like a skunkworks, snake-oil proposition put together by college kids trying to scam people out of their $. I find it really hard to believe that if it were reputable, some significant VC $ wasn't flowing their way already.

Here's what the CEO had to say, allegedly, lately:

"Currently the cost to manufacture a lithium battery is about $500 (USD) per/ kWh. Tesla recently announced a Super Factory to be built in Nevada, with a promise to get the price of lithium batteries down to $150 USD per kWh by 2020, our current cost estimated for this type of graphene base supercapacitor is about $100 per kWh today and we feel confident we should be able to cut this pricing in half by the end of 2015".

 

[TomSeller]

You sound mean spirited, hateful, and unhappy to me! The doom and gloom you spout simply isn't true.

Talking to yourself again.