Wind power takes a blow around Minnesota

[NickB79]

"ELKTON, MINN. -- Every sunny morning, shadows from the massive rotating blades swing across their breakfast table. The giant towers dominate the view from their deck. Noise from the turbines fills the silence that Dolores and Rudy Jech once enjoyed on their Minnesota farm.

"Rudy and I are retired, and we like to sit out on our deck," Dolores said. "And that darned thing is right across the road from us. It's an eyesore, it's noisy, and having so many of them there's a constant hum."

Just as they are being touted as a green, economical and job-producing energy source, wind farms in Minnesota are starting to get serious blowback. Across the state, people are opposing projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Opposition is also rising in other states. It's not likely to blow over quickly in Minnesota, which is the nation's fourth-largest producer of wind power and on track to double its 1,805-megawatt capacity in the next couple of years."

http://www.startribune.com/local/81195972.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ

Edit: Screwed up the title, fixed now.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. K&R

It's important that these stories be told, as well as the positive ones.

I hate neg recs on stories like this one.

[TxRider]

2. One would think the state would require

That a certain distance be maintained from inhabited structures.

[kristopher]

4. 900 feet isn't very close.

I can understand that things like this piss people off; my neighbor put up a sodium light and I hate the damned thing. However, that is part of life, we don't get to dictate what others can do with their property when it is a reasonable use.

The end of the article is interesting:
"After complaining to the developer, they received two large evergreen trees to partly block the view, and $3,000 a year to compensate for the noise. But Lienau said that no money can restore tranquility for her "shell-shocked" 85-year-old father, who struggles with panic attacks and anxiety."

I'd bet that if that annuity attached to the property they would have very little trouble selling it.

[joshcryer]

11. Hahaha, $3000 a year. They *are* getting free electricity.

[NickB79]

5. They do, but it is only 500 ft

With wind turbines getting progressively larger, that distance may need to be reconsidered.

[joshcryer]

3. Give the NIMBYs within 1000 feet* free electricity.

*or however many feet away you can instrumentally hear a wind turbine.

[4_TN_TITANS]

25. I've been told that you can hear the 'swoosh'

from those massive blades a mile away, and that was on a Tennessee hilltop.

[kristopher]

26. I've been told that a fairy takes my baby teeth and leaves me money...

They did redesign turbine about 8 years ago because of a problem related to sound. The rotors were passing too close to the tower and it was causing a compression wave that was audible a long distance away. They incorporated a design that moved the rotor further away from the tower into newer turbines and that fixed that issue.

I don't doubt that there are some instances where the rotor "swoosh" is audible a mile away; but it is pretty difficult. Think about it, if it is exceptionally quiet, the wind isn't blowing. If the wind is blowing, the noise from nearby trees is going to be louder than an unpowered propeller blade passing through the air.

Remember that wind is the biggest threat to fossil fuel interests and they are spending large sums of money to put out disinformation.

[joshcryer]

27. I read the report about health concerns, and I'd bet money they did that due to EPA standards.

Turbines *must* meet EPA noise standards (a duh moment for anyone here). So it's unlikely that they will ever go beyond background noise to any significant extent. It turns out fluctuating air vibrations are hard for our brains to sample out, so *some* people are "bothered" by it.

[earth mom]

6. Bet they complain about extreme temperatures & the costs of heating & cooling too.

I guess the health of the planet doesn't matter when it inconveniences people.

Spare me. :eyes:

[malakai2]

12. Hey, look who doesn't have one in her backyard

Right?

[kristopher]

19. Studies show that people pay MORE to live around wind turbines.

A hedonic price study of real estate around the US was done by the Renewable Energy Policy Project where they compared a number of sites around the country (IIRC it was 10 locations). At each place they tracked sales of homes with a view of turbines and those without the view. Those with a view sold for more in 8 out of the ten areas studied.

[appal_jack]

7. k&r

I consider myself very pro-renewables, but of course I want to hear the stories of the problems and setbacks caused by them so that they can be further refined and improved.

I worked and lived in Minnesota one winter, and I loved the place (Ely) and the people there. When Minnesotans actually open their mouths to complain, something is very wrong. At the risk of echoing a stereotype, I'd say that Minnesotans in general are not generally a complaining bunch of people.

-app

[catnhatnh]

8. We're just starting in NH...

but we put them up on ridge lines. I realize that is not an option in many states, but most mid-west and western states should have unpopulated areas. My bet is that it was merely more convenient to put the plant that close to a home or homes. Offshore Massachusetts is being delayed for how they might "look". The fact is we need renewables and there are places to put wind farms.

[NNadir]

9. That's my idea of a good time. Take unpopulated wilderness, take giant trucks

pulling vast pieces of metal that will stay there forever, bring service crews and trucks in, all because of a pop fad that will leave huge amounts of debris there in 20 years.

Wunderbar.

Which should we do first? Cover every square meter of the Mohave desert with solar cells or trash every mountain ridge on the Applalachian trail so people can sit on their computers and wax romantic about how great so called "renewble energy is."

We don't need so called "renewables." We need a remote sense of respect for the environment involving a sense of reality.

This is low energy density trash.

[kristopher]

10. No, they are the best way to address climate change and energy security

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[invader zim]

20. Is cut and paste the best you can do ??

just wondering...you use it in every post.

Zim

[kristopher]

21. Is that the most intelligent comment you have about content?

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[invader zim]

22. just curious

you seem to think the opinion piece in question is the be all/ end all argument related to energy policy.

Zim

[kristopher]

23. It isn't an "opinion piece".

It is an example of an analysis that can be reproduced by anyone independently - I've done most of the same analysis myself over the course of several years. As to the "be all/end all" remark; the analysis is valid. Claims are routinely made here that attempt to distort the overall situation regarding the alternatives to our energy security and climate change needs and this peer reviewed article is an apt and authoritative rebuttal of such distortions as those trying to portray wind as some sort of an environmental disaster.

Do you have specific criticisms of the analysis?

[malakai2]

14. Should have unpopulated areas?

You mean like "It's probably there, we just need to find it," or "We need to create some unpopulated areas"? Because terms like "unpopulated" have a different meaning in a place like New Jersey versus a place like Wyoming.

In some of these states with the highest wind potential, it IS decidedly more convenient to locate wind farms near cities and towns. That's where the distribution lines are. Unless the wind developers are going to pay to string distribution lines to the lowest of low density areas, turbines won't be going in those areas. It's not cost effective to build a new grid along with the new generators, not without the kinds of subsidies they won't be getting. Consider Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota-those states are awash in funds generated by coal mines, oil wells, and gas wells, and as long as the return on investment in those products is high, the infrastructure is in place, energy use by Americans increases, and state budgets are tight, those states have no incentive to go out of their way to foster something that isn't a moneymaker.

And then there's the need issue...as long as energy consumption is non-negotiable, or takes a back seat to demand for increased generation, this problem with finding generating locations is not going away. If anything, it will become more contentious as people who live in these areas deal with the noise, effects on their livestock, diminished property values, loss of hunting and fishing opportunities (this is a very big deal for lots of folks where I live), ice throw in winter, and so on. Yeah, a warming climate will impact those people, but will it impact them to the same degree as a turbine 500 feet off their property line? Try convincing them. Try especially hard if you aren't from the state in question, or at least a neighboring state. I suspect the Endangered Species Act will become a new favorite law in plains states as the locals discover it's ability to tie up federal projects and permits.

[joshcryer]

13. Wind power study debunking "health risk" myth:

http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/talkwind/Wind_Turbine_Sound_and_Health_Effects.pdf

At most the fluctuating sound of wind turbines is an annoyance. It will apparently get you paid, though. So if you're not a particularly annoyed person you can get free money *and* enjoy the technology which can save the planet.

[malakai2]

15. 1,805 megawatt capacity

Is that the nameplate capacity? What's the capacity factor?

[joshcryer]

16. Unfortunately those numbers are never made available at the consumer level.

You have to dig in to papers to get those kinds of numbers and they're usually generalized.

[malakai2]

17. I hate that

You'd think that being honest up front about exactly what amount of generation people could reasonably expect would help wind developers. Making people feel empowered in their options and all that.

[kristopher]

18. Sure they are.

The trouble is most people don't understand their significance and popular reporting tends to phrase it as "power for X number of homes".

http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=1366&file=E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf.

[PavePusher]

24. Shades (pun intended) of the Kennedy's.... n/t