Visitoragain is working for or with one of the investment groups that support turbines. It amuses me to see skewed facts spouted from that site.

I agree with the analysis that they have a systematic method for trivializing the concerns of opponents. Visitoragain frequently accuses me of not liking the look of turbines or of being a NIMBY. Neither is accurate. But those are the talking points they're most familiar with. And so we move on...

I'm kind of new to this wind-turbine debate. I'm not sure what to think of all these big machines. Is it just that they're ugly? It seems like there are a couple of important questions:

Do they produce energy cleanly? If you argue that it's not much energy, then consider that we are personally encouraged to re=cycle (is one little bottle really that much? no, but a million sure are), and we are encouraged to save water by turning off the faucet when we brush our teeth. Does this act alone matter? But our actions don't exist in a vaccuum. One wind farm may not matter on a global scale, but a million wind farms sure could produce some clean energy, maybe?

What proof is there that they make people sick? It seems like other countries wouldn't have so darn many of them if all the world's people suffered from wind turbine syndrome. Could this be a hysteria-induced illness? (migraines can be, after all...)

Do they contribute financially to the home community?
We should find out if the land owners get paid--I know the towns get PILOTs, but is that a lot of money?
Of course, we all argue that money isn't the most important reason to do things, but it is a good benefit.

I am trying to figure out what's so bad about the wind-turbines. I want to know if there's any really big detrimental effects, and if so, why hasn't the rest of the world seen this yet?

Okay, thanks for any help you all can give.

Most of us who are active in opposing these things started asking just the same questions. Let's start with #1: Yes, when the wind blows, a wind turbine generates clean electricty. The problem is that no other conventional system on the grid is reduced or eliminated. The analogy is riding a bicycle next to a car and proclaiming that you saved fuel. Did you ride your bike? Yes. Did the bike produce clean transportation? Yes. Did it matter? No. If these wind turbines actually reduced fossil fuel and GHG there would be very little debate except the astetics.

Your question in saving, uses analogies which are true reductions; turn off the water. Unfortunately industrial wind is not a choice of one _or_ the other (clean vs. conventional) --- we simply get both on the grid - with no change to the conventional that accomplishes any reduction. In other words, after 20 years of industrial wind installations (the industry always makes itself sound like it's "new" but it's been booming and busting for near 20 years now) --- and 60,000 industrial turbines --- there's absolutely no data for any fossil fuel or GHG reduction. There's not been a single conventional power plant decomissioned due to turbines (even in concentrated areas of turbines).

Millions of wind farms? There really isn't any reality in such a thing. This is another part of industrial wind's problems --- they simply do not scale. Full penetration we are talking single digit

I will be glad to provide you all the research I've personally conducted.

Glad to have you here (deleted the other thread - I will have no name-calling on this site).

It's not just that they're ugly. While some people don't like the looks of them, others do. I happen to be one of those -- I am impressed by turbines both up-close and at a distance. The engineering alone is impressive to say nothing of the elegance of the machines.

Do they produce energy cleanly? That's one of the crux questions. Yes, if you put blinders on and look at nothing but the turbine, it makes electricity when the wind blows. However, if you take into account a) the randomness with which that happens, b) the untimeliness of production (turbines produce best when electric demands are low), and c) the spinning reserve problem, you get a net effect of nil. Turbines can't exist in a vacuum - and the ultimate end of using them is no appreciable reduction in fossil fuel use or greenhouse gases even in countries that have erected millions and relied on them for decades.

Recycling is good, especially when considered in context. If I recycle a plastic bottle, I prevent somewhere between 20% and 80% of that plastic from being re-invented. That's excellent, even at only 20% return (I used to go door-to-door collecting signatures and money for recycling legislation).

If I introduce a wind turbine into the electric grid, the current coal plant has to run at 80% capacity to back up that turbine -- electrical balance must be maintained and the wind is simply too variable. The coal plant has to be ready to pick up the voltage level at a microsecond's notice. However, the coal plant uses nearly 100% coal and produces nearly 100% emissions because it is running at less than optimal efficiency. The numbers are solid nines going way past the decimal. I get zero environmental impact.

Proof that they make people sick is still coming in. There are studies being done on both sides. There is no doubt that low-frequency vibrations can and do induce migraines, confusion, vertigo, etc. The question is whether wind turbines produce them in sufficient strength. Guess that depends on how close to them you live.

They contribute financially to the community, but much less than many other capital projects. A single turbine proposed for our town is estimated at $2.6 million value. Taxing that would produce a significant income. Yet MACRS depreciation and NYS tax law would deny the town almost any amount. Therefore, the town would be forced to accept PILOT at a low value. Consider the case of Perry NY - originally the developer offered only $3,000/mW as PILOT. When opposition grew, the developer moved that up to $8,000 ... and Maple Ridge, which banded landowners together into a lawyer-backed organization, supposedly generates $10,000/mW. Of course, no one there has actually seen the money. Point being, they don't generate as much money as, say, a manufacturing plant; and they only generate as much money as the town can wring out of the developer.

In short, there are detriments. Lots of them. However, in our town alone, the developer stands to make $86 million over six years thanks to tax incentives, write-offs and the forced sale of renewable power onto the grid (thanks to Pataki). There is big money to be made from these projects whether they work properly or not. Big money. That's why the largest wind developers are owned by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and other financial firms -- they are essentially large tax write-offs that earn their clients millions.

Will there come a time when they make sense? Absolutely. Two technologies are in the works that could make the storage of wind-generated power a reality. With storage, many of the efficiency and usefulness issues go away. But these technologies are still several decades from production. In the meantime, the current turbines are put on the grid as if they are ready for the challenge.

I have long been a radical environmentalist, engineering geek and idealist. When I first heard turbines were coming, I was excited. So I read more about them. Now, I am less than thrilled. There may come a day when my opinion changes again. But for right now, I feel that turbines are best operated off-shore where the wind blows hardest and most often, and not in full production among communities.

You'll find other folks here with varying opinions - some oppose turbines altogether for similar reasons to what I have presented -- that would be your recycling analogy -- folks who don't want them over water because they don't do much. I'm not sure on that one -- although I too would much rather have the same federal funds channeled into biofuels and the development of hydrogen power rather than wind. Emphasis on the 'much' there. But as long as you call no names, you're welcome to your opinion :)

Hope that helps.