Windmills along the lake

[Grady223]

I would encourage all the islands to mount as many of the big windmills as would fit - bet Rattle Snake could fit 25 -30, Diamond could fit another dozen, as could Barndoor and Sleepers. With the strong NW winds and no winter usage, payback from selling power back to the grid would be short. What a benefit to the envoronment. And, what an improvement it would be to the beauty of the Lake - should really improve everyone's view!

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Grady223

I would encourage all the islands to mount as many of the big windmills as would fit - bet Rattle Snake could fit 25 -30, Diamond could fit another dozen, as could Barndoor and Sleepers. With the strong NW winds and no winter usage, payback from selling power back to the grid would be short. What a benefit to the envoronment. And, what an improvement it would be to the beauty of the Lake - should really improve everyone's view!

This would prolly require the Clear Cutting of ALL the trees on the islands which would also provide even more Renewable Energy to warm us for many winters to come. YES..? NB

[ApS]

"Bird-strikes" into skyscrapers are devastating in numbers, but the ordinary house cat kills many more songbirds than any of today's technologies. (The relatively small island of Key West has about 40,000 housecats and is a major US flyway for migrating songbirds).

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...most electric power generation was fueled by coal ..."

New coal-fired plants are to be bankrupted.

Originally Posted by Grady223

I would encourage all the islands to mount as many of the big windmills as would fit - bet Rattle Snake could fit 25 -30, Diamond could fit another dozen, as could Barndoor and Sleepers. With the strong NW winds and no winter usage, payback from selling power back to the grid would be short. What a benefit to the envoronment. And, what an improvement it would be to the beauty of the Lake - should really improve everyone's view!

Let's take another view at Lake Winnipesaukee and "view":

Lake Winnipesaukee's first windmills should be copies of those off US coasts and be built at "The Witches".

(Improving the "view" of The Witches!)

[Rattlesnake Gal]

I just found this old postcard in McDude's gallery. It has a windmill! Can I guess for it would have been a pump for water?


Click here to see the postcard in PhotoPost, where you can super-size it.

[SAMIAM]

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

[Rattlesnake Guy]

How about a farm at the witches? We could set a good example for the cape and islands.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

How about a farm at the witches? We could set a good example for the cape and islands.

Writing about "Cape Wind", which is off the shore of the Kennedy and Cronkite compounds at Nantucket, SAIL magazine writes this excerpt:

"...There have been many proposals for offshore wind farms on the U.S. coast, but none to date are operational; Cape Wind is the closest to fruition. So far, U.S. energy companies have opted for land-based wind farms, whereas offshore farms are common in Europe..."

...and...

Cape Wind is supported by the Audobon (sic) Society.

The magazine notes that the Cape Wind permitting process began eight years ago.

[Cobalt 25]

I have been following the Cape Wind fiasco since it's inception. When it was first proposed, my first reaction was that it must be a joke- there's no way it could be approved because it would ruin the Sound.

After reading more about it, I changed my opinion. The objections raised by the antis (The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound) were truly bogus. One by one, the studies during these past 8 years showed that a wind farm at that location would not be detrimental to the environment at all. Yet the Alliance introduced lawsuit after lawsuit in a successful attempt to delay the process.

I have been a big supporter of Ted Kennedy, and this was the only issue upon which I disagreed with him. He has, in my opinion, done a lot for our country, but his position on this issue seemed self-serving. I wish he had changed his position on this before he passed away.

Shameful. In my opinion, shameful is the only word that can describe the obstructionism shown by the antis. And the latest? The permitting process is again on hold because the Wampanoag Tribe claims the windmills will prevent them from being able to practice their religion because they will block out the sun! Their casinos apparently don't count if you are standing on the west side of them in the morning. There is soon going to be a very important ruling on this latest bogus claim in the courts.

8 years. It is amazing what a small group of zealots can do to prevent something like this from happening. Getting Audubon Society approval should be the ultimate testimonial to the value of this project.

Windmills on Winni! A great way to be a leader in new technology to help improve the environment! They're coming folks, like it or not.

Peter

[trfour]

'Stealth' wind turbine blade may end radar problem.
cnet-Reuters; http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10...orsPicksArea.0

[Shedwannabe]

Apropos of all the hot air expanded on "how the theft of the emails proved climate change was a hoax"... the inquiry into the "fake data" conducted by the oversight agency found...guess what? ... That the scientists were telling the truth, that the data was there to prove them, and that the climate change deniers were in fact wrong (as some of us had said all along)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/sc...aa.html?ref=us

Unfortunately, this will not get the headlines the false accusations got, and those who have had their heads in the sand the last few years will still believe the false accusations (which unfortunately includes the NH Republican Party which voted to leave the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative because climate change was a hoax....). The data shows climate change is happening. ALL national academies of science around the world accept it. The flat-earther's of our time, the climate deniers, don't.

The saddest thing is that there is a group of people, including many active on this forum, who prefer fantasy and self·-aggrandizement over reality and living sustainably. Not only do they want to ignore reality themselves, they want to force everyone else to ignore reality by eviscerating all attempts to respond to the problems.

[SIKSUKR]

Oh this really changes my mind now.Why didn't you show me this in the past.All of us that have our head in the sand as you say have one thing you don't,our own opinions and thought process based on independent readings and studies.People like yourself are the real problem because they allow themselves to have their head stuck in the sand by other liberal media sources.

Again from me:There is no debate that the climate is changing.Its always changed since the earth was formed,millions of years before humans were on this planet.We've had everything from a firey hot atmosphere to a mile of ice on top of where we live today.The debate is whether it is manmade.I subscibe that our little tiny sample of climate is but a grain of sand in the solar sytem.

The only people that want to force everyone else to ignore reality by eviscerating all attempts to respond to the problems, as you accused others is yourself and others like you that call out other people that have differing opinions and chastize them.Your last post proves this.Typical liberal mentality,if you don't agree with me then I'll call you names to discredit you.

In short,thank you for confirming I have the correct vision and political persuasion.

[NoBozo]

It's SNOWING out again, Shed has a bad case of Cabin Fever and also the day off, and was reading old threads to keep his-self busy, and stumbled on to this one and it stirred up his emotions again. YUP: That splains it. NB

[SAMIAM]

You're right,NoBozo.....kinda fun to see people stirred up on both sides of an issue.Can't imagine what would happen if Don allowed political debate.

[ITD]

If all human caused global warming believers would practice what they preach by swearing off energy use (junk your car, disconnect from the grid) that would do more to lower co2 emissions than any cap and tax scheme. They could solve their "problem" and leave the rest of us alone.

[jrc]

I mean do we have to do this again?

Here a liberal news source interview of the 'father' of the AGW theory and he admits he cooked the books.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Game, set and match.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by jrc

I mean do we have to do this again?

Here a liberal news source interview of the 'father' of the AGW theory and he admits he cooked the books.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Game, set and match.

I read the article in your link and didn't see where Dr. Jones admitted to cooking the books. Could you please indicate where he does so?

Thanks

[jrc]

OK, this is the easiest piece:

"There is more than one "official" surface temperature record, based on actual land station records. There is the one we have developed in CRU, but there are also the series developed at NCDC and GISS. Although we all use very similar station datasets, we each employ different ways of assessing the quality of the individual series and different ways of developing gridded products. The GISS data and their program are freely available for people to experiment with. The agreement between the three series is very good."

Dr Jones' findings are not based on the actual land station records. It's based on data he modified from the real data. He freely admits he changed the actual land record to generate his "official" surface temperature record. That's cooking the books.

Their has never been an independent review of the real data. As a matter of fact if you check a few other sources, you will find that Dr. Jones claims that much of the real data is lost cannot be verified.

Reading further you see that there are three different datasets all derived from the lost real data. All different and only GISS allows anyone to see their data. If this is science and there is a scientific method of converting actual land station data to "official" surface temperature records, then this process would be open and repeatable.

So Dr Jones is 100% sure that we have global warming, he bases this on data that he won't show us, he admits it was changed from the original data using a method he won't tell us, and he claims he lost the original data.

[jrc]

here's another spot:

"The phrase 'hide the decline' was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."


Confronted with differing data, tree rings vs instument data, he chose to use tree rings when that data supported his theory and instrument data when that supported his theory and a "trick" to hide the differences when they didn't agree. In science, when your data doesn't agree, you can't pick the data you like and use a "trick" to hide the data you don't. That's cooking the books.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

In short,thank you for confirming I have the correct vision and political persuasion.

The world is a strange place, isn't it. This is the very response I had previously (and still have) after reading the comments attacking the notion of human caused global warming. Amazing how people on the opposite sides of the issue can feel the exact same feeling. I can't imagine what I would do if I suddenly found myself in a conservative's body and mind - probably die of shock.

As to the numerous comments on how the amount of snow we have been having "disproves" global warming, that is, as usual, taking an instance and constructing a theory from it (or more likely taking a theory and finding an instance that supports it. The latest modeling suggests that the high temperatures in the higher latitudes (north of the Arctic Circle, its MUCH warmer than average) has the effect of pushing the airflow and precipitation down to our latitudes.

The difference between that and the theories here (lots of snow in the Lakes Region disproves global warming) is that the data supports the theory across the board. The idea that high snowfall this year in the Lakes Region disproving human caused global warming is like saying I found one four leaf clover in an entire field, therefore four leaf clovers are the norm everywhere.

But of course, I realize no scientific demonstration would possibly convince those not willing to look at the facts. Conspiracy theories are usually embraced because people have trouble thinking one person could have so much impact; likewise, anti-scientific attitudes are embraced because people have trouble imagining so much change will come from simple activities of driving to work, flying an airplane to a vacation, heating ones home. What many people fail to factor in is overpopulation, wasteful energy use, and the cumulative effects of 300 million people.

I say 300 million, not 7 billion, because lets face it - global warming is caused by excessive affluence, not by mere numbers of humans. Its the "McMansions" that people have to heat, its the excessive energy use for air conditioning, heating, spas, etc. etc. etc. The idea of helping raise the standard of the world will be disastrous (as we see in the way China and India are vastly increasing there energy use, their pollution (remember, China had to close down industry in most of the Beijing region to get air quality to an acceptable level) and their impact on global warming. The world would have a lot more "breathing space" (literally) were the super affluent be curtailed (as is happening in the Arab world right now).

[CateP]

Shed- I sent you a PM. Check your messages

[Yankee]

Shed,

The planet is still recovering from the last glacial maximum that reached its zenith around 20K years ago with the ice retreating from what we know as the US of A approx 12K years ago. Glaciologically speaking, we are still in the last ice age because the poles of our planet still remain covered in ice.

That human presence has had an effect on the planets climate there is no doubt. But to infer as you so vociferiously do that our civilization is the dominant cause is IMO a myopic viewpoint.

IMHO, the sun's varying intensity and our planets active vulcanism throughout Earth's history have and still dominate the world's climate. Before the Pleistocene age, the world was much warmer with much higher CO2 levels.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

...gee whiz...if they can build fish ladders so the salmon can migrate up and down river around a dam.....then they should just build some big safety cages around the whirling propellers to protect the birds. On second thought....how about bird ladders so the birdies can climb around the windmills?

[trfour]

No worries here in the Lakes Region, FLL.


Link; http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

Thought about it.

Decided to pass on it until you posted again.

And actually, Acres Per Second did make remarks on your post (see above). So did StephenB and I believe he said something about "poor planning" on the part of the engineers. If that's the case then the company who installed those things out west should move them.

I've lived in CA and seen the hills covered by wind turbines. They're awesome to see. I believe there's a mandate in the state that calls for a certain amount of renewable energy to be supplied. I think it's smart on their part because our dependence on foreign countries supplying our oil is hurting us.

Did you watch the video I posted? It's addressed by an engineer who designs the wind turbines, when he spoke to the Alton & Barnstead school boards at a meeting. (Alton & Barnstead share a high school and have a joint maintenance agreement - both school boards meet together to manage the high school.)

There's an excellent study here: http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

And a good article about it here:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...n_misconce.php

Now, take into consideration the availability of wind, the use of a "renewable" source for energy, and a source that is local vs. being from a foreign country, like oil, and the benefits of the wind turbine far outweigh the negatives, in my opinion. I'd wager that far more damage is done from an oil spill than from a wind turbine.

[Yosemite Sam]

Here is an interesting article about a person who put a WindMill on her land in Ossipee. The article was in the Granite State News sometime in early 2008.



BY ELISSA PAQUETTE
Staff Writer

OSSIPEE — A 34-foot windmill reaches toward the sky from Cecily Clark’s hilltop acreage in Ossipee. The three, six- foot long fiberglass
blades rotate continuously downwind atop a tapered pole, producing a slight hum when the wind picks up. As the wind direction shifts, so
do the blades. Clark, a sculptor, admires the elegant design. “I always wanted one,” she says, “and the technology is here now.” A chance meeting with contractors Greg and Leonah Simon, recent residents from Nova Scotia who specialize in windmill installation, enabled Clark to fulfill her desire to run her studio on clean energy. “It’s a natural extension for me. My father was a product of the Depression. He saved tinfoil, made sure we turned out the lights when we left the room, and always emphasized conservation,” says Clark. “I can remember when we had to return our toothpaste tubes before buying a new one at the pharmacy. There was lead in them.” Clark,who has lived in the area since 1968, just beyond the Wolfeboro-Ossipee town line on Pork Hill, is a pioneer of sorts. She is the first person to generate wind energy
harnessed to the Wolfeboro Municipal Electric Department grid. Learning the process has been a challenge for her as well as Barry Muccio,
manager of the electric facility. Since the department is not under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, he had to gather
information to draft Wolfeboro’s own policy for a “net metering” pilot program. The pilot program was recently approved by Wolfeboro selectmen. The eight-page document states, “the goal will be to establish future policies which will remain consistent with prudent electrical practices set forth by the National Electric Safety Code,National Electric Code and any other Federal, State and local government codes, while offering a mutual service agreement which is legal, objective, reliable and safe to both participating parties (utility and customer).” Net metering allows a person to be connected to the grid with a meter that runs both ways. When the windmill is generating more electricity than needed, the electric meter runs backward and the electric company records a credit. When the customer’s needs exceed production, the meter reverses course. At the end of a month, there is either a bill to pay or a credit. Since there is no one else currently in her position, Clark will be a primary source of feedback over the course of the year – as well as any others who might want to emulate her. Standing on her hilltop, gazing over the Ossipee Mountain range, she points to a complex of white buildings in a clearing within the rolling, forested vista off in the distance. “They are interested in installing a windmill too,” she points out. Her neighbors also have expressed an interest. They’ll be able to
benefit from her journey through the installation steps and now, production. The anemometer on Clark’s sunroom wall tells her the highest rate of wind in a given day. Thirty to 40 mph gusts are frequent, making her location ideal for generating wind energy. Seventy mph is the highest rate she has recorded, Early in October 2007, Clark ordered her windmill. The cost? $12,000 for the fixed costs, excluding having to
hire an electrician and contractor, and wire at $1 a foot. Her windmill is 300 feet from the meter, necessitating a $300 expense for wire alone.
Trees had to be cut, a trench dug to hold a conduit for the wires, and a hole excavated for the 3,000 pounds of concrete in the six-foot deep base. The rebar cage itself, embedded in the concrete foundation, weighed 750 pounds. Every day brought excitement as the project progressed. Clark’s photo diary shows the men working with snow underfoot as winter approached. Clark terms it “most exciting” to watch the workers hoist the tower into place on its base with their gin pole, but she declares Dec. 22, 2007, the first day of operation,“ the real McCoy.” Clark can now look at her computer screen and see detailed, current information on her windmill’s productionrate. That data is interfaced with Arizona-based Southwest Wind power, a company that just started producing her Skystream 3.7 model a year ago. When
there are glitches, as there have been in the early months of the year, Greg and Leonah Simons have access to the data and are able to
communicate with the company. Soon after installation, production stopped while the inverter (the device that converts direct current to alternating current) had to be reconfigured. Currently, when the blades get to a certain speed, the turbine shuts off. The Simons are communicating with the company to resolve the issue. Clark is “unphased.” She recognizes that a venture into new territory is not without
obstacles to solve, saying, “Somebody has to be the first.” She estimates that she’ll be able to cover the electrical production for the kiln in her sculpture studio, but most important is that she is using clean, renewable energy. If there is any surplus, she has the satisfaction that other users will also be able to power their homes, even if only in part, from energy that is not polluting the air. The electric department installed the necessary meter with a kill switch to be used at any point that work needs to be done on the wires, and another meter shows her total production to date. On days when the wind is blowing, “it’s great to watch the electric meter run backwards.” Her Skystream 3.7 produced 14 kilowatt hours of electricity in a 20-hour period in March. To date, with various starts and stops, she’s produced close to 130 kilowatt hours. “I know it’s only a drop in the bucket, but it’s a step in the right direction. We should be encouraging clean energy use in some fashion.”
According to figures suppliedby the N.H. Public Utilities Commission, Clark’s wind turbine is among only 15 such units generating into
electric grids in New Hampshire. A few installations have been around since the 1980s. As for incentives, Wolfeboro voters passed a warrant article (31) to adopt the provisions of RSA72:66 for a property tax exemption of $5,000 for home owners equipped with a wind-powered
energy system. Under the state’s net-metering law, final rules have been established and are readily available online under Final Rules – PUC 900. Tom Frantz of the Public Utilities Commission urges interested parties to look at RSA362-a:9, which lists the conditions that net metering customers must follow. The Wolfeboro Muncipal Electric (WMED) Department’s pilot program adopted most of the rules set forth by the state, but as a separate entity, the department has the right to establish its own guidelines. One deviation is that the monthly base rate to customers, which stays the same in utility companies throughout the state, is currently double the rate for Wolfeboro’s net metering customers. Also, while the state’s net metering rules offer customers the opportunity to sell electricity to up to three retail customers, the
WMED draft states that the agreement with a customer will be “based on the premise of offsetting part or all of the customer’s own electrical requirements through the use of renewable energy technology.” That includes solar or hydro as well as wind. Cecily Clark is Wolfeboro’s first net metering customer, but more are sure to follow. Already, Peter Goodrich, who will be retiring in June to live full-time inWolfeboro in his solar home, is contributing to the grid too. New manufacturing and service economies are on the rise state and nationwide. Wolfeboro is on its way to going green.

[fatlazyless]

Around the lake, Gunstock Mt ski area stands out as potential windy spot to build a wind turbine. Gunstock already has numerous chairlift towers that go unused for about eight months/year. Building an introductory wind turbine somewhere up on Gunstock Mountain might be a year round energy maker?


Oops... I forgot that Gunstock belongs to Belknap County....so it has an unlimited source of money and generating income is not a problem......sorry....

[Rattlesnake Gal]

The Long Island Inn used to have a windmill too. Used I would guess to pump water?

[Dr. Green]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Around the lake, Gunstock Mt ski area stands out as potential windy spot to build a wind turbine. Gunstock already has numerous chairlift towers that go unused for about eight months/year. Building an introductory wind turbine somewhere up on Gunstock Mountain might be a year round energy maker?

Interestingly, Gunstock approached my store (www.sustainabilitynh.com) about the possibility of installing solar panels on Gunstock Mtn. to help power their huts, etc. I pointed out that all ski areas face north, to keep the sun off the slopes so the snow stays longer, so the return on the installation would likely never equal the outlay of purchase and installation (unlike normal south facing residential solar installations, which can pay for themselves in 15-20 years (with State and Federal rebates).

[Yosemite Sam]

There was a good article in the Meredith News this week about a family that runs their house on solar panels (or hopes to anyway).

Click on picture below to read the article:

[SAMIAM]

I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.

You know what... I'd agree with you whole-hog if it meant we could drill on US territory.

The problem I have with our reliance on petrol isn't because I'm a "treehugger" (which is somehow a dirty word on this form) or "green". I don't suggest these things to "feel good" - but I do hate how dependent we are on foreign suppliers for our fuel.

That being said... why not more water or steam or gas turbines to create energy - it doesn't have to be solar or wind. It's hardly a warm-fuzzy thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's more about self-reliance to me than anything else.

As far as our infrastructure goes, it takes time to implement these things so that there is an impact on the power grid. The initial implementation takes upfront costs that other energy sources don't call for simply because they are "common".

I'll leave you with this graph from the NY Times about where things are going with energy (graph #1) and how much has been spent to develop new sources (graph #2):






Graphs and article can be read (and a lot bigger, I might add!) HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html

[tis]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.

Samiam, you just always have so much common sense!! What you say is true, however I must admit, it is kind of fascinating fooling around with these alternatives. Too bad they couldn't do more with them-make them worthwhile.

[Dr. Green]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.

Samiam

When you point out solar is only 1% and will only double to 2%, the reasonable person would conclude that power companies and big business have fought solar for years, denying it subsidies while enjoying massive subsidies of their own. That we only use 1% is a sign of our short-sightedness, not that we don't need it.

You notice petroleum declines 15% over the next 20 years. Why? Because petroleum production has been level and is beginning to decline, while energy demand keeps increasing. That is behind the spike in oil prices from $1.50 to $4.00 last year. How do we prepare to live in a future of declining petroleum availability? We should be changing as much as we can to solar and wind. That said, wind is not a very good residential resource in NH (though commercial wind is great).

If we continue to use most of the oil for warming the house and producing electricity, there will be much left in the future for transportation, etc., when we get to the point that we don't have enough to do both. Since our economy is so dependent on oil, it will be hit harder than other economies (for example 3rd world) which don't rely so much on fossil fuel when the crunch comes. We will be hit much harder than economies like Germany, which have developed solar resources much more than us.

As to your thoughts about "the global warming thing...", I am getting more and more upset over time while the deniers delay our global response to a crisis that reputable scientists are in almost complete unanimity about. Read the Limits to Growth, 30 Year update (published in 2002) and see why they continue to warm about an ecological collapse facing us if we don't focus on sustainability. We are living in serious overshoot (a technical term) where we are using resources much faster than we can renew them, and EVEN IF global warming scenarios were totally wrong (in the face of all evidence that they are right) we would still be facing massive challenges to maintain oour standard of living.

The hoodwinking is by those trying to convince us that science is not...well....science, but a mere set of untested opinions.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Dr. Green

Samiam

science is not...well....science, but a mere set of untested opinions.

Science is not all facts. It is also hypothesis, which IS opinion of the scientist!
Don't assume because you can call it science that it is fact!

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by Dr. Green

Samiam

When you point out solar is only 1% and will only double to 2%, the reasonable person would conclude that power companies and big business have fought solar for years, denying it subsidies while enjoying massive subsidies of their own. That we only use 1% is a sign of our short-sightedness, not that we don't need it.

You notice petroleum declines 15% over the next 20 years. Why? Because petroleum production has been level and is beginning to decline, while energy demand keeps increasing. That is behind the spike in oil prices from $1.50 to $4.00 last year. How do we prepare to live in a future of declining petroleum availability? We should be changing as much as we can to solar and wind. That said, wind is not a very good residential resource in NH (though commercial wind is great).

If we continue to use most of the oil for warming the house and producing electricity, there will be much left in the future for transportation, etc., when we get to the point that we don't have enough to do both. Since our economy is so dependent on oil, it will be hit harder than other economies (for example 3rd world) which don't rely so much on fossil fuel when the crunch comes. We will be hit much harder than economies like Germany, which have developed solar resources much more than us.

As to your thoughts about "the global warming thing...", I am getting more and more upset over time while the deniers delay our global response to a crisis that reputable scientists are in almost complete unanimity about. Read the Limits to Growth, 30 Year update (published in 2002) and see why they continue to warm about an ecological collapse facing us if we don't focus on sustainability. We are living in serious overshoot (a technical term) where we are using resources much faster than we can renew them, and EVEN IF global warming scenarios were totally wrong (in the face of all evidence that they are right) we would still be facing massive challenges to maintain oour standard of living.

The hoodwinking is by those trying to convince us that science is not...well....science, but a mere set of untested opinions.

I think it's fair to say that us "deniers" are equally upset with those of you that have fallen for this hoax. You don't need to be a scientist to see that we are cooling, not warming. This whole thing is just a scheme to let government control more and more of our economy....bet you love the new cap and trade bill..you won't even be able to start a chain saw without forking over come kind of "carbon" tax.
What's even more insulting to our intelligence is the hypocrisy of people like Al Gore who scold us about warming up our car in the winter while he maintains a mansion that uses enough fuel to run 50 standard homes and crosses the country in a Gulfstream jet.......but I almost forgot...it's OK because he bought some "carbon credits" in his own company. Plant a few trees and the guilt is gone.

[tis]

We need a thanks button here for that post Sam. I know I sound like your champion, I just can't help it, I usually agree with you.

[NBR]

Oh my! Seals in the artic are becoming too warm. The polar ice cap has shrunk significantly and further shrinkage is a flooding threat to costal habitation. Excuse me the alarm was from the New York Times from 1822. Much like their ice age threat of the 1960's.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I think it's fair to say that us "deniers" are equally upset with those of you that have fallen for this hoax. You don't need to be a scientist to see that we are cooling, not warming. This whole thing is just a scheme to let government control more and more of our economy....bet you love the new cap and trade bill..you won't even be able to start a chain saw without forking over come kind of "carbon" tax.
What's even more insulting to our intelligence is the hypocrisy of people like Al Gore who scold us about warming up our car in the winter while he maintains a mansion that uses enough fuel to run 50 standard homes and crosses the country in a Gulfstream jet.......but I almost forgot...it's OK because he bought some "carbon credits" in his own company. Plant a few trees and the guilt is gone.

I agree with you SAMIAM.

When I wake up in the morning and it’s cold out, then it’s global cooling. If I wake up in the morning and it’s hot, then it’s global warming.

All kidding aside, this is what I believe:

The Earth's rotation axis is not perpendicular to the plane in which it orbits the Sun. It's offset by 23.5 degrees. This tilt, or obliquity, explains why we have seasons and why places above the Arctic Circle have 24-hour darkness in winter and constant sunlight in the summer.

When the offset changes (wobbles) from what we believe is the norm, then the earths temperature changes to make it cooler or warmer depending on where you are located on the earth.

The sun will ultimately determine whether it’s going to be hot or cold in the future and not some wannabe global warming scientist like Al Gore.

[gtxrider]

I took a course and the one thing the teacher said to take from the class is "There is no such thing as a free lunch." This was a data class and the example was higher speed = more errors per second.

I think about this when I read about ZERO EMISSIONS CARS. Where does the power come from to recharge the batteries? What are the windmills made of? How do we refine the metal to build them? Where will we put them? Who pays for the land? Who wants the farms in their back yard?

Don't get me wrong every little bit helps but nothing is perfert.

Remember everything has a cost.

Nuclear?

[Shedwannabe]

This is fascinating.

I'd heard there were people who didn't believe in global warming despite all the scientific evidence, but to hear from one is kind of like discovering a "flat-earth-er" who really believes there is an edge to the earth. I don't personally know anyone who would admit to it - I just imagine anyone would be embarrassed to be caught making statements like that.

Just because Al Gore is a hypocrite in that regard has no bearing on whether his message is true or not, and unfortunately his message is true (as far as science can determine). Pineneedles, I do see your comment about Dr. Green's post that science is hypotheses, and you are right, just because all the evidence supports a hypothesis doesn't mean it is right. BUT it does mean you have to point out some evidence that it isn't right, and to say "its a cold October" totally misses the point. The southwest of the US had one of the hottest years recorded.... while New England took a tiny step back.

Samiam - I hear you that you feel this is a conspiracy by the US government to take more and more control. Of course, that control is being demanded by the majority of the people who saw what happened when the government pretended, in the face of massive evidence, that there was no problem. I don't want government taking control of my life, but I like even less wholesale slaughter of any environmental protection and the laying to waste of the planet my descendants will (try to) live on.

I hear Al Gore is the target of ridicule. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the personal attacks on him are somehow used as an explanation of why global warming is wrong. Unfortunately for you deniers, in any scientific venue, the reality of the damage we are doing to our life-support system, our planet, is documented and the evidence grows clearer every month. That is why ALL the governments of the world are coming together to take action, because those whose responsibility it is to care for their citizens are looking ahead and seeing that without drastic curtailment of carbon emissions, they will fail in their responsibilities.

[Yosemite Sam]

Al Gore only wants to report global warming in the summer time.

[SIKSUKR]

Look Shed, it's this simple to explain. First off, when we talk about global warming, it usually is meant as "man-made global warming. There in lies the rub. We have records of our climate for a whole, what, 130 years? Not much of a sample when the earth has been here, what, a billion years? The earth has warmed and frozen many times over before man ever walked on it. The itsy bitsy solar system we live in with it's itsy bitsy planets have had eons of change and will continue to till our miniscule sun burns itself out. Put it this way, there are billions of solar systems in our galaxy in which there are billions of galaxys. For you and your so called experts to call out anyone who disagrees with this absolute conclusion based on such a microscopic sample of a microscopic view is, well,v ery much like our current administration's attitude of "how dare you question anything I do?". It should scare the hell out of any open minded person.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Look Shed, it's this simple to explain. First off, when we talk about global warming, it usually is meant as "man-made global warming. There in lies the rub. We have records of our climate for a whole, what, 130 years? Not much of a sample when the earth has been here, what, a billion years? The earth has warmed and frozen many times over before man ever walked on it. The itsy bitsy solar system we live in with it's itsy bitsy planets have had eons of change and will continue to till our miniscule sun burns itself out. Put it this way, there are billions of solar systems in our galaxy in which there are billions of galaxys. For you and your so called experts to call out anyone who disagrees with this absolute conclusion based on such a microscopic sample of a microscopic view is, well,v ery much like our current administration's attitude of "how dare you question anything I do?". It should scare the hell out of any open minded person.

You da man!! Very well put!

AND........."Drill Baby Drill"

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Look Shed, it's this simple to explain. First off, when we talk about global warming, it usually is meant as "man-made global warming. There in lies the rub. We have records of our climate for a whole, what, 130 years? Not much of a sample when the earth has been here, what, a billion years? The earth has warmed and frozen many times over before man ever walked on it. The itsy bitsy solar system we live in with it's itsy bitsy planets have had eons of change and will continue to till our miniscule sun burns itself out. Put it this way, there are billions of solar systems in our galaxy in which there are billions of galaxys. For you and your so called experts to call out anyone who disagrees with this absolute conclusion based on such a microscopic sample of a microscopic view is, well,v ery much like our current administration's attitude of "how dare you question anything I do?". It should scare the hell out of any open minded person.

Insert "Thanks" here.
Very well said SS.

[Boater]

Goody, my favorite topic.

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

I'd heard there were people who didn't believe in global warming despite all the scientific evidence, but to hear from one is kind of like discovering a "flat-earth-er" who really believes there is an edge to the earth. I don't personally know anyone who would admit to it - I just imagine anyone would be embarrassed to be caught making statements like that.

Shed, the statement above shows your political bias on this topic. Calling people who have a reasoned honest disagreement with you "deniers" or "flat-earthers" is really offensive. It is a typical Liberal tactic. It infers that skeptics are like Holocaust deniers and hinders any constructive conversation.

You really don't know ANYONE who is skeptical about AGW? Wow, you don't get out much. There are thousands of scientists that are skeptical. Climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, astronauts and more. You can see that many posting here are also skeptical. Many members of the IPCC itself now don't agree. How, in good conscience, can you ignore and discard their concerns? Any theory you present can be disputed and debated. Problem is, Liberals aren't listening (see Algore shutting off the mike of a questioner). Like you, they simply DECLARE the conversation over and won't even listen to other points of view. This is science?

You also imply that people you know may have doubts but you don't "know anyone who would admit to it". Do you realize what you are saying? Apparently the suppression of non-PC scientific opinion has been accomplished. How low we have sunk when a scientist doesn't dare speak his opinion.

I could get into an extended debate about the very foundations of the AGW theories but what's the use if you've already closed your mind? It is very doubtful that Co2 is the problem here. There is a direct correlation between sun activity and climate change. The connection between Co2 and AGW is highly debatable. 97% of the Co2 on the planet comes from fires, decomposition and volcanoes. Lakes like Winnipesaukee and oceans are huge factories of Co2. They pump it out in mass quantities.

The real endgame for AGW worshipers is to tax and control. While Liberals plot to burden businesses with new taxes and regulations that will further cripple our economy while having minimal impact on climate, emerging economies like China are building power plants like there is no tomorrow. They know that without energy there can be no growth and prosperity. They know that they need oil and electricity. They will drill anywhere (even off our coasts) and do what is necessary to ensure their economic growth. Too bad we won't. While we refuse to create any energy China and others will become the economic superpowers and will laugh at our feeble attempts to control the climate.

Nothing is settled, nothing is beyond debate. Defend your beliefs vigorously but don't demean or discard opposing opinions. Most likely they are not completely wrong and you are not completely right.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

This is fascinating.

I'd heard there were people who didn't believe in global warming despite all the scientific evidence, but to hear from one is kind of like discovering a "flat-earth-er" who really believes there is an edge to the earth. I don't personally know anyone who would admit to it - I just imagine anyone would be embarrassed to be caught making statements like that.

Proud to introduce you to another. Me. Check back in a few decades. I will be willing to reevaluate the data as it comes, will you?

[tis]

It never ceases to amaze me at how easily so many are so willing to "drink the cool aid". I am so proud there are so many of us here who aren't afraid to question.

I also hate reading long posts, as a rule I don't think most people bother to read them all.

If we get cap and trade, we are done as a country. Just MHO.

[fatlazyless]

Go google 'Middlebury College willow trees' to read a recent newspaper article on how this northern Vermont school powers their multi building heating plant. The fast growing willow trees are grown nearby.

Believe the central boiler heats 17 different college buildings with cast iron radiators having switched from oil to wood chips to locally grown willow trees.

About one mile west of Route 93 Exit 24, the Bridgewater Power Co powers wood chips into electricity for the grid, and simultaneously powers down the local property tax. It also creates jobs for local loggers and truckers. Been runn'n for ovah 20 years now, crank'n lectricty with nary a white plume of steamy smoke to show for it......ayuh!.

NH has a long history of smokestack industry. Too bad that NH's paper mill biz has unrolled. Seems like wood chip powered electricity could be a good fit. You probably noticed that all the miles and miles of trees, up north, have been growing like crazy for the last three growing seasons what with all the rain.

[SIKSUKR]

Having posted what I did, I feel shed might feel like he/she is being ganged up on. Unlike what shed posted, I support anybody's right to disagree which really set me off. I normally don't like to get dragged into these battles but the mentality and current trend towards "listen to what I say and don't disagree or you are an idiot" tone of the latest administration has me a little sensitive. Does this me a racists also? Scary stuff.

[Newbiesaukee]

I admit to being a "can't we all get along" kind of guy. My other trait is to cut off the extreme opinions on any issue ( I also buy the medium price washing machine which is usually a better value than the most expensive or the cheapest).

This discussion has been pretty reasonable and a number of good points have been made (again cutting off the extremes).

In my opinion, SIKSUKR made the most important point. There is a fundamental distinction between those who believe global warming exists, meaning that the changes ARE occurring, and those who also believe that humans are the CAUSE of global warming.

And a lot of the comments do not address this so that we are comparing apples and oranges. Of course, if you do not believe that GW is occurring then ANY suggestion to modify it, by definition, has to be wrong. It is vital in considering different opinions to know whether the person believes it is occurring or not. An atheist really can have no valid opinion on whether the Mass should be in Latin or English or the "correctness" of the Sunni or Shia interpretation of Islam.

I do believe that the preponderance of evidence is that GW is real and the average temps are increasing worldwide. Just because we've had some cold winters, etc. in no way refutes the argument any more than the stock market going up for a bit means "happy days are here again." I am NOT so convinced that humans are the direct cause or of the prudence of some of the proposals.

The difficulty is to separate the best answer form the cr*p and there is a lot more of the latter. But you gotta keep trying.

Mixing up ones own political views, strong emotions, social views rarely leads to the correct answer to what is, in reality, a scientific question and this includes both Gore and the fanatics at either end.

Finally, even my position that the "middle" is always correct is not always true and is an "extreme" position itself. Sometimes those at the extremes are correct, just not usually for most of the issues we face as a society.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Dr. Green

Interestingly, Gunstock approached my store (www.sustainabilitynh.com) about the possibility of installing solar panels on Gunstock Mtn. to help power their huts, etc. I pointed out that all ski areas face north, to keep the sun off the slopes so the snow stays longer, so the return on the installation would likely never equal the outlay of purchase and installation (unlike normal south facing residential solar installations, which can pay for themselves in 15-20 years (with State and Federal rebates).

Gunstock should take their competitor Wachusetts as a green initiative. Wachusetts harness the heat from the air and water compressors use in snowmaking to heat their main lodge. Wachusetts received commendation from the fed for their initiatives.

[Nagigator]

Wachusett Mountain in Princeton, Ma is installing 2 rather large windmills on the summit.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSFKdARjCFM

Hope this goes through!

Clarification: The Princeton Light Dept. is installing 2 windmills on the summit of Wachusett Mountain.

[SAMIAM]

Boater,that was a great and thoughtful response....I'm sending that to everyone on my mailing list.
Also, tis made a good point that, while GW is a scam...that people should be free to pursue alternative energy for their own use. I am totally in favor of that as long as the government is not shoving it down our throats.

[SAMIAM]

I'll probably get tossed for this....but I'll say it anyway. When Exxon had their oil spill, they were fined millions for the death of all the waterbirds. Shopping centers, roads, bridges and condominium projects are stopped immediately if they stumble on a single osprey nest....or an eagle or a spotted owl shows up. ACLU lawyers, with beards and Birkenstocks are all over the airwaves in vein popping rage.............but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

[Just Sold]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

..but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

SAMIAM that is a pretty impressive statement but I have never seen any reports of thousands of birds being killed every day by anything anywhere. I can't believe your statement to be true - I cannot even google any info that supports your statement. Better check your facts and provide confirmation of them unless you are just trolling regarding this subject.

[Whimsey]

Sadly, Samiam's assertions are accurate. See the article in the Wall Street Journal six weeks ago:

Windmills Are Killing Our Birds -- WSJ article 9-7-2009

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.

Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.

The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies.

"Somebody has given the wind industry a get-out-of-jail-free card," Mr. Fry told me. "If there were even one prosecution," he added, the wind industry would be forced to take the issue seriously.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the industry's trade association, each megawatt of installed wind-power results in the killing of between one and six birds per year. At the end of 2008, the U.S. had about 25,000 megawatts of wind turbines.

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to be producing 20% of its electricity from wind. Meeting that goal, according to the Department of Energy, will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, a 12-fold increase over 2008 levels. If that target is achieved, we can expect some 300,000 birds, at the least, to be killed by wind turbines each year.

On its Web site, the Wind Energy Association says that bird kills by wind turbines are a "very small fraction of those caused by other commonly accepted human activities and structures—house cats kill an estimated one billion birds annually." That may be true, but it is not much of a defense. When cats kill birds, federal law doesn't require marching them to our courthouses to hold them responsible.

During the late 1980s and early '90s, Rob Lee was one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's lead law-enforcement investigators on the problem of bird kills in Western oil fields. Now retired and living in Lubbock, Texas, Mr. Lee tells me that solving the problem in the oil fields "was easy and cheap." The oil companies only had to put netting over their tanks and waste facilities.

Why aren't wind companies prosecuted for killing eagles and other birds? "The fix here is not easy or cheap," Mr. Lee told me. He added that he doesn't expect to see any prosecutions of the politically correct wind industry.

This is a double standard that more people—and not just bird lovers—should be paying attention to. In protecting America's wildlife, federal law-enforcement officials are turning a blind eye to the harm done by "green" energy.

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by Whimsey

See the article in the Wall Street Journal six weeks ago:

Note that this is not an article by a Wall Street Journal reporter, but in the "opinion" section of the Journal written by: Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"

Not to say that he isn't accurate, but just to make sure the source is clear...

cheers -PIG

[Argie's Wife]

I would hazard the guess that automobiles, sliding glass doors, and domestic cats kill many more birds a year than the wind turbines. Maybe we should have no windows, keep indoor cats, and stop driving our cars?

Before someone blows a gasket.... My point isn't that I don't like wildlife and especially birds, but that everything has an unanticipated or unintended consequence on the enviroment in some way. Think about it.

And yes, of course I think that the turbine engineers could do a better job of protecting wildlife and perhaps there's some deterrent they could design so that birds, bats, and butterflies aren't endangered. Fining the companies won't help, though, as guess who really ends up paying those fines? Yup. The consumer.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

I would hazard the guess that automobiles, sliding glass doors, and domestic cats kill many more birds a year than the wind turbines. Maybe we should have no windows, keep indoor cats, and stop driving our cars?

Before someone blows a gasket.... My point isn't that I don't like wildlife and especially birds, but that everything has an unanticipated or unintended consequence on the enviroment in some way. Think about it.

And yes, of course I think that the turbine engineers could do a better job of protecting wildlife and perhaps there's some deterrent they could design so that birds, bats, and butterflies aren't endangered. Fining the companies won't help, though, as guess who really ends up paying those fines? Yup. The consumer.

AW: I'm afraid you have veered into some Common Sense. BUT..We don't need no Common Sense when talking about GW .....or Wind Turbines. It just screws up the argument. Just sayin. NB

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

SAMIAM that is a pretty impressive statement but I have never seen any reports of thousands of birds being killed every day by anything anywhere. I can't believe your statement to be true - I cannot even google any info that supports your statement. Better check your facts and provide confirmation of them unless you are just trolling regarding this subject.

I read it recently in either Smithsonian or National Geographic and have since thrown them out. I didn't believe it either.....It had to be the Sept or Oct mag.....probably can be seached on their website.

[Just Sold]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I read it recently in either Smithsonian or National Geographic and have since thrown them out.I didn't believe it either.....It had to be the Sept or Oct mag.....probably can be seached on their website.

Unfortunately neither of these sources have any articles on electric power windmills killing birds that I could easily find on their web sites. Not even Mr Robert Brice's "Opinion" published in the Wall Street Journal (not an article by the WSJ) contained the claim you stated. Prior to my previous post I did search quite extensively in response to your statement "but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles,hawks and owls every single day" and only found the WSJ "Opinion" by Mr. Brice.

I encourage and enjoy everyone's opinion even when it differs from mine but I get irked when people make wild and unsubstantiated claims as some, including you, have made on this site of late. There is enough misinformation to be had elsewhere so please be sure of your sources and facts when making such claims.

FYI: There is a draft report (June 2009) on the birds killed and no Eagles are listed in that report and you can review it here. Even a newspaper article in 2004 did not even come close to the accusation made in Mr. Brice's "Opinion".
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/m...l_kb_study.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...4/ai_n9722887/

[Cobalt 25]

Well put, Just Sold!

Also, weather is not climate, so dismissing global warming because it was colder than normal last Tuesday in Peoria, Illinois, doesn't make much sense.

Peter

[SAMIAM]

I have no axe to grind on this subject, Justsold.......and I don't like your suggestion that I'm playing loose with the facts. You clearly have some kind of an agenda...........I googled up "Birds killed by windmills" and got so many pages, there is not even room to quote them. Thousands of golden eagles have been killed, as well as hawks and owls.
And please don't whine about feral cats.......don't think they could take on an eagle.

[trfour]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I'll probably get tossed for this....but I'll say it anyway.When Exxon had their oil spill,they were fined millions for the death of all the waterbirds .Shopping centers,roads,bridges and condominium projects are stopped immediately if they stumble on a single osprey nest....or an eagle or a spotted owl shows up.ACLU lawyers,with beards and Birkenstocks are all over the airwaves in vein popping rage.............but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles,hawks and owls every single day,and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

Sam, read on; http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways...omment-page-1/

[SAMIAM]

Read on....Birds and Windmills
The Whirling Blades of Wind Turbines Can be Deadly to Birds
© Rosemary Drisdelle

Oct 25, 2006
Windmills, especially older ones, in the wrong places can cause many bird deaths. Newer technology and thoughtful location of wind farms can minimize the death toll.

Anyone who has investigated the issue of bird mortality and windmills has heard of Altamont Pass, an area of rolling grasslands near San Francisco studded with 4000 wind turbines. Marching across the landscape in platoons and columns, the turbines, each with its whirling blades, resemble supersize barbed wire fencing. Estimates put the number of birds killed annually at Altamont Pass at 4,700, about 1,300 of them raptors (Golden Eagles, hawks, Burrowing Owls and other birds of prey).

Yet Altamont Pass seems to be the worst of the worst. The environment here supports high populations of ground-squirrels, and consequently high numbers of birds of prey. It is also situated in a migratory bird flyway. And because many of the turbines at Altamont are older models, with small rapidly turning blades, any birds that do fly near are more likely to meet with a sudden violent end. New windmills are much taller, lifting the blades above the flight paths of many birds, have larger, more slowly turning blades, and can do the work of four of the smaller turbines



Read more: http://birds.suite101.com/article.cf...#ixzz0V35oM6MG

[SAMIAM]

Those of you who like windmills are welcome have them.....but, please don't try to tell us that they are harmless to birds. You are culling the few stories by supporters that claim the opposite, but anyone can view the information that is out there..........

Windmills Are Killing Our Birds: One standard for oil companies, another for green energy sources.

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont

I've noticed your quotes are mainly about Altamont, CA wind turbines. Ever seen it or been out there? I have. It's huge - to say the least. It's one of the oldest sites of its kind in the US and engineering issues were realized after the installation/implementation of the site. It's been used to study the problem with the impact on birds in the area (and of course all the birds in CA are protected with a migratory bird act.) (Source HERE) I believe engineers today are avoiding doing that again - it's not been good and is supposed to be re-designed in the near future.

There have been design changes to windmills since the installation of Altamont. (Source HERE.) Oh, and they do mention that cats are a bigger threat to birds than windmills, but that windmills are more of a threat to bats than to birds. (So... set up some sonic deterrent that only bats will hear and problem solved...) There's no "whining" there, Sam, just facts.

I seriously doubt that we'll see anything like Altamont in the LR and I'm not going to.... dare I say it?... get my feathers ruffled about a couple of wind turbines in the area that aren't even in place yet. This is a science that's still developing and there's much to be learned. Personally, I think it's great that other resources are being realized and explored.

[ishoot308]

Hi Samiam;

You are 100% correct in your assessment of the Altamont wind farms. The number of bird deaths quoted are actually considered conservative and most likely are quite higher!

Yes, Altamont is the worse by far and the reason for this is it is in a migration route for birds. It was quite stupid to allow wind generating turbines to be used in such a sensitive area. The newer wind farms which are not in migration routes are not nearly as deadly to birds.

FWIW;

Dan

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Read on....Birds and Windmills
The Whirling Blades of Wind Turbines Can be Deadly to Birds

You seen to cite multiple references to the fact that one of the first, oldest, and largest windmill installations has yielded data that shows poorly planned and installed large scale installations can be problematic.

Reading further, there seems to be much agreement that the generation of windmills being installed currently has learned much from these early sites to greatly reduce the impact to bird populations.

[SAMIAM]

Brk-Int......That me be true....I certainly hope so. I don't mean to harp on this so much, but I just don't think it's worth hurting any wild life to power up our homes when there are so many other sources. I'm all in favor of other sources of alternative energy. Solar is great and doesn't anything.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Brk-Int......That me be true....I certainly hope so. I don't mean to harp on this so much, but I just don't think it's worth hurting any wild life to power up our homes when there are so many other sources. I'm all in favor of other sources of alternative energy. Solar is great and doesn't anything.

Understood. I think though that you might be comparing direct measurables, like dead birds on the ground, to less direct factors.

Solar cell manufacturing is a messy, chemical-ridden process. Both for the solar panels, and for the batteries that sit behind them to provide energy storage for when it is dark out. That has a lot of environmental side affects that people don't directly concentrate on.

Coal or natural gas plants have environmental side effects, and so on.

The fact is that there is no "clean" way to power our lives. Electricity is not a naturally occurring phenomenon (eliminating lighting or things that can't be properly harnessed or predicted). The only way to get electricity is to convert some element (wind, sunlight, gas, coal, etc.) into electron movement. Then, we have to carry those electrons through hundreds of miles of cable (made of metals mined from the earth) and through transformers (made of more metal, with various fluids in them), and so on.

To mangle an old Internet meme, every time you load a web page, the power company kills a kitten.

I agree that we should try to minimize the impact we make on the world with our electricity generation and distribution, but we should look at the full impact of various power options, not just the right-in-front-of-your-face impact, which does not always tell the whole story.

[Shedwannabe]

Getting back to a previous Side topic in this thread...

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers". Everyone there (except one person, who was courageous to speak up) firmly accepts that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that humans are causing global warming. The person who disagreed admitted global warming was happening, but was unconvinced how much was due to human activity and how much to natural processes. I spoke with several teachers who were exasperated with people trying to tell their kids to take it on faith that global warming wasn't happening, or who were using "quack scientists" - i.e - those without formal training in climatology - as supposed "experts" . One presenter (I forget his name) works with students and challenges them to a debate about global warming - he allows the students to dispute any part of his presentation, with the only caveat being they have to back up their dispute with scientific evidence. He reports many students do put a lot of energy into preparing for the debate, but then despair because all their points against global warming turn out to be hearsay (or "quackery" directly contradicted by scientific research. Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.

Anyway, science teachers (there) were near unanimous that climate change is one of the most important topics facing youth today, and that appropriate teaching is a high priority. They mostly see "appropriate teaching" as "relying on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that shows climate change is human caused, and needed responses now, before it is too late.

I met one teacher who countered the argument that we can't afford the disruptions to our economy caused by taking action for climate change by noting that changing to a sustainable, green economy would be much better for our economy, when you take into account there would be less pollution control costs, less health costs due our current practice of to not taking into account the health effects of our system of economic production, and less spent on wars designed to continue our inexpensive access to fossil fuels.

So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

1) Migrating birds suffer huge losses just through Mother Nature: through ignorance, Humanity makes these losses even greater.

While loss of any birdlife is regrettable, a reduction in the number of hawks and eagle predators would result in restoring prior small bird populations.

2) We don't need to build alternative energy sources when simple conservation of our present resources could result in significant savings: why not turn out the excessive night-lighting that is consuming huge amounts of power after dark.

With our energy resources stretched so thin today, is it really necessary to illuminate everything?

[Airedale1]

I wish I had the time to give a well thought out response to some of the comments on here, but unfortunately I need to get outside and start shoveling about a foot of "global warming" off of my property.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Airedale1

I wish I had the time to give a well thought out response to some of the comments on here, but unfortunately I need to get outside and start shoveling about a foot of "global warming" off of my property.

Global Warming caused that snow, there is nothing global warming can't do.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by ITD

Global Warming caused that snow, there is nothing global warming can't do.

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Rose

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

Is the "science settled" on anthropogenic global warming Rose?

[trfour]

Originally Posted by Rose

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

A Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose. May I add that She and Her Great wealth of knowledge is, has and always will be respected and enjoyed here!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...70N2HN20110124

Also, WSI's meteorologists are predicting a notably cold spring for the entire Northern United States this year, 2011.

Keep up the great work Rose, We love you!
Terry
_________________________________

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Migrating birds suffer huge losses just through Mother Nature: through ignorance, Humanity makes these losses even greater.

While loss of any birdlife is regrettable, a reduction in the number of hawks and eagle predators would result in restoring prior small bird populations.

2) We don't need to build alternative energy sources when simple conservation of our present resources could result in significant savings: why not turn out the excessive night-lighting that is consuming huge amounts of power after dark.

With our energy resources stretched so thin today, is it really necessary to illuminate everything?

Has anyone seen the satellite picture just like this one..Except. it's the Korean Peninsula. North Korea is completely DARK. I suggest our liberals in this country would have us emulate North Korea. THEY (our own liberals) of course would be in charge. NB ....Maybe not so funny....

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/Korean-night.html

[StephenB]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

Ummm, read up. I responded to your post already. Repeat: most of the birds killed out west are killed at one wind farm at Atamont Pass outside of the Bay area. Most folks now agree that this particular area, combined with lots of smaller, earlier generation windmills with smaller, higher speed blades, are responsible for the bird deaths. Please read up for the rest of my comments.

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

Your post caught my eye. I knew I had read a similar report. I remembered where I say it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...nd-farms_N.htm

[John A. Birdsall]

This conversation is somewhat over my head, but in the beginning of this thread it was about windmill power. I am assuming that Rattlesnake has an association. It would seem to me that two things could go on the peak of Rattlesnake, Cell towers for At&t and windmills to give the island electricity.

I think the wind would generate enough for the whole island. Other Islands Large ones) would or could do the same thing.

As for Al Gore, let him keep thinking he invented the internet, Someone once said that he could be replaced, and they were right he was replaced.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

This conversation is somewhat over my head, but in the beginning of this thread it was about windmill power. I am assuming that Rattlesnake has an association. It would seem to me that two things could go on the peak of Rattlesnake, Cell towers for At&t and windmills to give the island electricity.

I think the wind would generate enough for the whole island. Other Islands Large ones) would or could do the same thing.

A windmill or perhaps windmills were looked into by Rattlesnake Island Association.
"Not only was it cost prohibitive, but the town was not in general favor of the project." - Quote from the RIA Secretary.