Giant Windmills Wildly Unpopular

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/germanys-giant-windmills-wildly-unpopular-040002343.html

Germany's Giant Windmills Are Wildly Unpopular

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

And crazy in a dense place like the hills of Bavaria. Okay for the wind corridor of West Texas, where not much else will grow, but Germany? I swear, those people can't seem to get it right, for a smart people in general. First they put out all those diesel cars that polluted like crazy. Then they put cheaters on them so they'd pass a smog test. Then they outlawed diesel cars altogether and they're putting up windmills. 

[Guest]

@Jan van Eck  ... thoughts on the thread title..?   

#windmillscheesehookersandweed

Edited November 1, 2019 by Guest

[markslawson + 1,042]

22 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Germany's Giant Windmills Are Wildly Unpopular

The story illustrates the major difficulties renewable energy has in going beyond a certain point - the story says something like 22 per cent of electricity from wind. Given the geography that's already pretty good and probably the best they are going to do without igniting a major backlash.. if they really want to reduce emissions then they have to go nuclear or.. mayb they could go another way entirely and get rid of the people-hating Greens. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

IMHO they should have fracked for natural gas a long time ago, but the leftists wouldn't allow it. They would rather support Russia economically, and buy their natural gas. The Germans have ruled out nuclear for the same reason, but buy electricity from France which has the reactors. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

When I was working in Denmark about 20 years ago, many people did not like the ‘windmills’ cluttering up their nice landscape....the politicians couldn’t have cared less.

[NickW + 2,714]

21 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

When I was working in Denmark about 20 years ago, many people did not like the ‘windmills’ cluttering up their nice landscape....the politicians couldn’t have cared less.

The Danes I know are quite supportive. Perhaps something to do with living on a sandbank whose highest point is 171 metres above chart datum. 

[Boat + 1,315]

Wind on water will become even more popular. Better wind along with fewer populations to look.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, Boat said:

Wind on water will become even more popular. Better wind along with fewer populations to look.

Better yet, keep it over the horizon. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Better yet, keep it over the horizon. 

20 miles off shore, a 600ft tall wind turbine would be 100% impossible to see due to curvature of the earth.  Not to mention you cannot even see 20 miles 80% of the time anyways. 

All of the Great lakes, assuming they have proper wind criteria should be the #1 goal of wind turbine projects(only a few portions of them are too deep)... but they are not.  Tells me $$$ issues are the real reason. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Why would there be money issues for twenty miles out?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Why would there be money issues for twenty miles out?

Because they are only building them as political footballs.  Not because of actual cost of power.  Laying cable is cheap.  Wind capacity is far superior on those lakes than on land. Especially Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Superior.  Yet they are building wind farms in the ocean in salt country where it is much more expensive.... Why?  Yet more political footballs for people in the NE USA whose population density on land do not allow such political footballs to be built.  Its all about the feels, and not the $$$.

See the UK/North Sea gets its wind farms in the ocean far from people and has some of the best wind, if not THE best in the world bar none.  Of course vast majority of the world does not have wind resources to play political football feel goody-to-shoes about. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

52 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

  Laying cable is cheap.

If the greenies actually were honest, their first step would be to support and run several HVDC lines North to South, East to West in several spots spanning a thousand+++ miles each.  Especially true when the windturbines in question are producing DC to begin with as this would allow the turbines to produce medium~HVDC instead of low voltage DC phase chopped to AC and then boosted via transformers to Medium voltage AC.  This change alone would improve power produced and used by the public by 3%-->5%.  But, those giant transmission lines are owned by the Feds and not utilities so will not change.  Why Texas can run HVDC lines(big state), Minnesota can run HVDC lines into Manitoba, Quebec to USA can run HVDC, Several HVDC lines inside BC, Alberta, or short single state to single state lines can be built across rivers, straights between BC/WA etc as HVDC can be buried much more cheaply and laid underwater than AC, but no one else can. 

[Rashid 0]

what happend oil trading?not opened still?

[Guest]

?  ... 35 minutes still

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Because they are only building them as political footballs.  Not because of actual cost of power.  Laying cable is cheap.  Wind capacity is far superior on those lakes than on land. Especially Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Superior.  Yet they are building wind farms in the ocean in salt country where it is much more expensive.... Why?  Yet more political footballs for people in the NE USA whose population density on land do not allow such political footballs to be built.  Its all about the feels, and not the $$$.

See the UK/North Sea gets its wind farms in the ocean far from people and has some of the best wind, if not THE best in the world bar none.  Of course vast majority of the world does not have wind resources to play political football feel goody-to-shoes about. 

I favor natural gas over everything else but out of sight wind turbines on the Great Lakes seems like a great idea to me. I can't see why getting support would be any harder than anywhere else. Am I missing something? 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

23 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I favor natural gas over everything else but out of sight wind turbines on the Great Lakes seems like a great idea to me. I can't see why getting support would be any harder than anywhere else. Am I missing something? 

Because land owners are local and get $$$ and are spokesmen for the wind turbine companies.  The LAKE property on the other hand is the STATE/Federal jurisdiction and they have ZERO incentive to DO anything as this may rock the boat jeopardizing their cushy tushy job.  Why governments, irregardless of type, suck.  Government employees have zero incentive to get off their asses and proactively do anything yet they have everything to lose. 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I favor natural gas over everything else but out of sight wind turbines on the Great Lakes seems like a great idea to me. I can't see why getting support would be any harder than anywhere else. Am I missing something? 

Bear in mind that wind turbines have provided a lot of supplemental income for mid west farmers. A monthly cheque of several thousand dollars can make a lot of difference to a family farm. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

A good point, but I think the people of the area should have a vote on what is allowed. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 11/3/2019 at 11:03 PM, ronwagn said:

Why would there be money issues for twenty miles out?

Keep in mind that these things CAN become ‘hazards to navigation’.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Keep in mind that these things CAN become ‘hazards to navigation’.

In the age before AIS/RADAR on every boat including pleasure boats... yes.  Today?  No. 

[NickW + 2,714]

14 hours ago, ronwagn said:

A good point, but I think the people of the area should have a vote on what is allowed. 

Local planning laws. I'm not sure how local government in the USA works but in the UK planning applications are made to local councils for determination. If objections are made the application is heard before a planning committee of elected representives in public. 

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Keep in mind that these things CAN become ‘hazards to navigation’.

The ability to steer a vessel helps here. 

As the turbines are static, 200ft or more tall and made of steel they are fairly easy to spot either visually on on radar and chart a course around😉

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Local planning laws. I'm not sure how local government in the USA works but in the UK planning applications are made to local councils for determination. If objections are made the application is heard before a planning committee of elected representives in public. 

That is the way it should be IMHO. Sometimes games are played though, the public is not properly notified etc. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

That is the way it should be IMHO. Sometimes games are played though, the public is not properly notified etc. 

A failure to apply proper consultation rules in the UK can result in judicial review of the decision. 

Thats why applications have to be appropriately advertised and consultation periods set for minimum periods of time. 

A lodging of an objection automatically slows the process down.