Bethany Preservation Group

And some interesting offshoots:

- dare you to say the man is lying. He merely took the wind company's own data and plotted it on a different graph format.

- confirming the theory that wind is at its lowest when demand is highest. Naturally, since the weather conditions that precipitate peak electricity demands (high temps, low wind) are exactly those that fail to rotate turbine blades.

- confirming the old adage "If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to anything."

- notice also the bit about peak electricity demand. If you recall from news reports, electric demand during those three months was double what it normally is. And yet, the upstate NY electric plants were able to meet that demand. That illustrates, more clearly than all the charts, graphs and tables I have already studied, that upstate NY *does not need* additional electric plants - wind or otherwise.

Downstate needs them, yes. But again, where is wind most efficient? Offshore. Turbines fairly distant off the cost of Long Island would be the logical implementation of wind energy in NY -- the plan that is driven by need and not by money.

No, this is interesting data Effie and thank you for providing it. Yes I'd agree - a 25% number hardly would seem profitable for this enterprise. Profit aside though - that still is a ton of megawatts which weren't produced by coal and that's a good thing for the environment.

Effie, do you have the rest of the year's data? After I read thru this a few times I couldn't tell if I was looking at an avg month - a good month or the worst month. Also - the variations in the seasonale wind production would be interesting to review. My neighbors tell me that the changes of seasons are peak - but I've never seen evidence.

Coal power plant consumption and emissions has NOT been reduced by your "ton of [wind] megawatts".

If you knew how a coal plant makes power you wouldn't be claiming this falsehood.

From the DOE/EIA (Energy Information Agency) Official Energy Statistics from the US Government:
Summary Stats:
COAL Net Generation:
2005: 2,013,179
2004: 1,978,620

Other Renewables (includes WIND):
2005: 94,932
2004: 90,408

Formosa

No, these are not typical months - they are the months when electric production is most critical. This is the crux of the matter - can wind turbines produce when the electricity is needed? The answer seems to be no.

The next question seems to be whether wind turbines can make up the difference in spring and fall when they are actually producing needed electricity. Again, the answer seems to be no, because of the spinning reserve problem.

Formosa is spot-on here. Running coal or other fossil fuels as spinning reserve forces the plants to run at less than optimal efficiency and that negates any positives.

A decade of German experience has shown that 80% spinning reserve is required (despite American computer predictions of 20-30%). That should equate to a 20% reduction in pollution and greenhouse gases. I would shout that savings to the high heavens if it existed.

However, the fact that the plants are run at less than optimum efficiency means a great deal more coal is used and more pollution produced for that 80% electric level. The net effect is nil.

Until electricity can be stored between the time it is generated and the time it is used, you will have no electricity when it is needed and no pollution negation to make up for it.

Effie, as far as I know electricty is used year round. Offsetting in the winter is still an offset. I've heard that peak argument - but well - so what if its reduced in the winter months. I'd actually like to see the October thru March numbers. I bet its quite productive and generated quite an offset to pollution. I won't repeat my other postings - but please read the berkley PHDs and the other data. It says quite a different story. A story that says the pollution reduction depends on the mix of Coal, hydro and nuclear on the grid. That the reduction is 50% on average..

I'm not going to take theory over fact. I have some experience with theoretical studies being tested and they don't always pan out the way you think - particularly computer models.

Germany and Denmark have been using full-scale wind power for decades. The finding in Denmark is zero effect; the finding in Germany is negligible effect.

You can quote studies and theories all you want -- but the real world data is right there.

Sorry Effie - you said the real world data is right here. Can you send me the link or the data that your using to pass judgement. I'll have an open mind - I promise.

The Danish study by David J. White that I pointed to in another thread has some good figures. Also, the energy report he refers to - the Innogy report. But good luck finding a copy of that any longer. I've been searching for another copy since I lost mine -- you'd have to write them, I think.

Also, there's the German article "The Windmill Madness" from March, 2004. That was part of the devastating government report on wind turbine results that was so bad it got buried rather than released. The folks at Der Spiegel (sp?) magazine got their hands on that report and wrote some hard facts. There was a copy at clowd.co.uk but it's gone now. You can find snippets from the article all over the Internet by searching on it; you'll likely get the main points and figures.

Best I can offer at this time. Documents that don't state glowing things about wind turbines tend to get buried by the parties responsible for putting them up -- no one wants to admit an $86 million mistake.

Disapointing Effie. Everytime I ask you come up empty handed. You say the facts are right there - but the facts are never presentable. I'm trying to be open minded but its pretty hard not just to think that this is all a rationalization.

Hi Effie. This is a MIT study about the benefit of wind that is produced in the Northeast in the Winter. About how that actually works in the benefit of CHG reduction. What do you think --- MIT after all. Hard to say these folks are biased.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/wind-1221.html

Also can you please provide the 12 months worth of wind data? I'd really like to study it.

Hey, visitoragain. Your link is interesting, and will be more so when they finish their study. All they've determined is that, yes, you can generate wind power off-shore and that you'll do best in Winter. It says that the energy theoretically displaces fossil fuels primarily in the Winter. It doesn't answer the question of the net effect on the environment as a whole, based on how the spinning reserves are managed. In fact, the closing paragraph says so:

"So here's the research challenge," said Connors. "Before we can calculate the true environmental benefits of using renewables, we need to be able to figure out the operating mode of the whole electric power system in a particular region and over time." The usual static data -- annual wind power and annual power plant emissions, for example -- are insufficient.

That goes without saying that their results will bias toward the generation facilities in the Boston area. Spinning reserves generally come from sources that power up and down quickest, which in the Western New York area would primarily be hydro....

With respect to your request for the wind data, go here
Punch in the quarter (can only get a quarter at a time, but you can always combine data into one spreadsheet). For Maple Ridge, select Flat Rock Windpower LLC. Then hit submit. All the data are in the "transactions" spreadsheet in the zip file.

Some things I've noticed:
Correlating the data against NYISO's usage reports (actually, there are a lot more data there than that, but page 37 of each reports shows peak loads) shows that, on the 3 highest load days of the summer (all three successive record breakers: 17 July, 1 August, 2 August), Maple Ridge sold an average of 120, 137.6, and 131 MW hours. There were whole days of poor activity from that power plant, but it did produce on those days.

He claims that "the FERC data shows no time period when at least some energy wasn't sold" but that's untrue. What happens is that the hours are only recorded when there is a transaction. There are 1833 records in the 3Q spreadsheet, but there were 2208 hours during that reporting period. That means for nearly 17% of the time during 3Q, the turbines were still. There is no accounting for how much of that was shut downs for maintenance (of course, what kind of work requires all turbines to be shut down?) but it seems an awful high percentage...That would obviously also skew the 0-30 numbers, to the point where ~48% of the time it was producing 30 or fewer MWh.

Another factor that isn't worked into the data is the work done this Summer to grow the capacity of Maple Ridge. The power plant grew from the 240 peak it started the Summer with to 320. That's clear when you look at the 4Q data. As is predictable, 4Q '06, even considering the higher capacity, is better than 3Q (Averaging 84.8 MWh in 4Q vs. 50.2 in 3Q). 4Q is traditionally the best quarter for wind power plants.

Understand, visitoragain, that many folks are flooding the papers with letters stating that New York's usage is stretching capacity based on the record peaks every Summer, and that we have to choose between having wind power facilities in our back yards and having nuclear power facilities in our back yards. It is an argument that is faulty on several levels, and I've already blathered on long enough, but the point of the original post here was to say that, during the Summer, when usage is generally at its peak, wind production is generally at its valley (and of course the data I've shown just so happened that during actual highest peak need, the turbines did produce), so you can't argue that wind will solve an 'energy crisis' in New York (it's not going to stop from building non-wind facilities if we near the crisis point), but at best supplement and potentially reduce usage of fossil fuels.

Hi Dan. Its kind of funny that people that oppose windfarms are looking for these same farms to solve the summer peak load problem. Although as you note above they did add capacity to the grid during times of peak load. I'm sure the wind entities would like to be able to produce more in the summer because the spot rates are higher.

The crux of that MIT study pointed out that the scalability of the coal plants was greatest in the winter which also happens to match the peak output of wind farms. So it was a very nice fit from a GRG reduction model. The on-shore versus off-shore has to do with total output of the farm itself - nothing to do with the how CRG reduction model. If Effie (or you? can you?)posts the entire year for the data above - guess what - we'll see peak output in the winter too. BTW - the MIT study did not contain the word theoretical.

Quote: According to the MIT study, wintertime wind power will replace electricity generated by relatively inefficient and dirty fossil fuel power plants

Also - it didn't say at all if there was any geographic bias in their northeast study. You introduced that concept for some reason.

My own view with turbines is that they fill a nice niche. A pollution free niche. And now evidently a nice CRG wintertime reduction niche. It however can only be one part of the puzzle. If you navigate around that MIT site - there is also some interesting stuff on Geo-thermal. Not that it would work in the northeast - but still interesting.

I didn't say that people who oppose turbines are looking for them to solve the Summer-time peak problems. I said that those who support turbines argue that New York needs more power (because of record peaks every Summer), and if we don't allow turbines then people will end up with a nuclear power plant in their back yard. The folks who oppose turbines do not, contrary to popular opinion, hold a monopoly on "scare tactics" and "truth bending."

Let's move on to the MIT report. If you actually read the report rather than the summary article, you would see right from the beginning that it says (emphasis mine):

This project addresses fundamental economic and environmental issues related to the costs and benefits of deep-water offshore wind for New England. We identify key performance thresholds including cost, and we quantify the variability of the offshore wind regime.

The whole point of the study is not to determine if wind displaces coal, but to determine if the extra costs associated with building off-shore are worth the extra wind energy that would be generated. This is what they did:

The research team analyzed historical NOAA windspeed data and calculated windspeed at wind turbine hub height for each individual data site, and estimated potential generation, wholesale power market revenue, and avoided emissions from locating wind turbines in similar environments. These calculations were based on historical hourly values of: NOAA windspeeds, New England Independent System Operator (ISO-NE) wholesale power prices, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission rates for fossil generators.

It is all scientific calculations, but it is all theory. They did not build wind turbines off-shore and calculate the net effect on the power system, they calculated how much wind would be generated. Heck they even had to extrapolate the wind data to match the hub height of the higher producing turbines. They also were not working with complete data, so they used interpolation at times as well.

The amount of fossil fuel generation replaced is also calculated and is based on the same faulty assumptions that the turbine companies present. They even say so in the report. The assumption is that 1MWh generated by wind turbines is 1MWh less output from other sources. They do go a little farther in looking at generation profiles of the region to see what types of generation facilities are running at what times, and thus how much emissions are created, and find that during the winter: a.) dirtier plants provide more of the capacity, and b.) wind turbines provide more capacity during the winter. And they make it clear that off-shore, in particular, has the potential to be far better in this area. Once again, it is a comparison of off-shore to on-shore, not wind vs. no wind. The study fails to get into the dynamics of the power grid, and they readily admit that. That was the point of the section of the article I cited. I mentioned that it's regionally biased because different areas have different means of generating electricity. Wind power plants in Wyoming County New York will not displace coal-fired plants in Boston. Each area has its own profile of power-generating sources. Western New York happens to already have a considerable amount of clean power due to hydro-generation. This factors huge into amount of emissions displaced by wind power, as hydro, is the easiest way to provide spinning reserves for wind turbines, because of how fast you can ramp up or down. The amount of emissions displacement that comes from turbines has a ton to do with what you are keeping in reserves. Even when using "dirty" power generators as reserves, they actually are less efficient when not run at capacity. Meaning the amount of emission reduction isn't necessarily scalar (1MWh of wind produced, even in a 100% "dirty power" area, does not necessarily equate to 1MWh of emissions reduced).

The fact that winter-time generation is better than summer-time for turbines is a given. You do not need a report from MIT to prove that. The data I provided (based on the spreadsheets, which I linked to, with instructions how to get there) also show that. You go from 50.2 MWh 3Q to 84.8 MWh 4Q. Even in the 4th Quarter, the amount generated at Maple Ridge, on average, is less than the energy savings you would see if every household in New York State replaced 1 (one) 100W incandescent light bulb with a 23W compact fluorescent equivalent (about 95MWh, on average, based on 4 hours per day usage of the bulb)....

Hi Dan. I've only seen material about offsetting the summer time peak as an issue from Anti-wind folks. Like the red herring of an issue of it also reducing oil comsumption. Just where did you ever read anyone saying we needed wind turbines to solve that issue? I've seen it raised as an issue on just about every anti-wind site but not in any material from the developers. Heck though, maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure you'll point it out if I am.

I hadn't had access to the full report - thank you for sharing that. Its a bit of heavy reading and I'll spend more time going thru it. I can't believe though that you think the brain trust from MIT doesn't understand the grid dynamics. The study also did have an area of focus on Wind production versus GHG offset. Do you really think that if wind is generated on-shore that somehow it affects the scalablity of the Coal plants differently that if was generated offshore (other than one source having more output than the other)?

Since the grid is very interconnected - as we discovered with the blackout a few years back - I can't believe that you really think that the spot market only operates locally and that the developers are limited to selling to a specific geographic locale or radius around a given farm. Tell me Dan - is this what you believe? If so - just how does NYC get all of its needs met --- from coal plants that surround the city? You know they buy from all over the place.

As far as mathematical models - just how else do you think this works? If a model is predictible than its more than just theory. I don't see in that study any words that its untested theory. Only you say that. In fact - they used measurements as inputs - which would be needed to validate the model.

If you look on page 48 of that study there is a comparision of offshore versus onshore which does say that offshore is better - but onshore still yield benefits. Some like offshore yielding 70% reduction benefits and onshore 50%.

I would think Dan since turbines are in existance and are going up all over that place that the CRG offset study would be greeted as good news.

I don't think he said that MIT brain trusts don't understand grid dynamics. I think he said that they didn't factor those into that report. Which is true.

As far as spot market is concerned, of course it's more regional than western and central New York. However, NYSERDA's own reports clearly state that the transmission lines do not currently have enough capacity to bring any more electricity from western/central to NYC. The estimate is ten years to build them. Most folks in the industry believe that a higher-gauge transmission line will be fast-tracked within a year or two. But right now, any electricity generated here will not reach NYC. Theoretically, you can help NYC by pushing more electricity into our surrounding areas, which may mean more electricity from Pennsylvania / Jersey plants available for the city. But that's trickle effect and pretty much negligible. So much so that, again, those industry insiders are seeing crisis in a few years while that transmission line is being fast-tracked.

You have some really weird ideas about tested vs. untested theories. Tested theories means they actually built the plants and measured the output to see if it matches the predictions. That has not been done - not even in small scale. Ergo, all conclusions reached in that report are UNTESTED theories. They're sound theories, which means much better than guesses, but still not fact.

I echo much of what Effie said. When reading academic papers, there is a huge semantic difference between "could/might" and "will/does." "Could/might" means a guess, perhaps educated, but a guess, a theory. "will/does" means the experiment proved whatever they are saying. Note that when they talk of environmental savings, they talk in terms of "could," which mean that is a theoretical maximum of savings. Again, if you go back to the article you posted, it closes with:

"So here's the research challenge," said Connors. "Before we can calculate the true environmental benefits of using renewables, we need to be able to figure out the operating mode of the whole electric power system in a particular region and over time." The usual static data -- annual wind power and annual power plant emissions, for example -- are insufficient.

The goals of the document were to outline the cost/benefit for offshore from an economic perspective (is it worth it for developers to deal with the extra hassle/cost?). The environmental findings were secondary, and were not researched as deeply. They did go so far as determining what the "static data" mentioned above shows (what percentage of what kinds of energy sources would potentially be displaced by wind on a seasonal basis), but they do not account for, as an example, what type of energy source would be used for spin-up reserves. And that's what I mean about it not scaling. I was obviously unclear (and perhaps inaccurate) in my wording, but the amount of greenhouse gases saved will be based primarily on what else is powering the system. It's not automatic that 1MWh of wind displaces 1MWh of "dirty" energy.

What I read about wind reducing reliance on foreign oil all comes from pro-turbine folks. They usually bundle it in with the "wind or nuclear" argument, actually. The only thing I hear from anti-turbine folks is in response to that faulty argument.

Here's the other thing about "regional differences:" the portions of New York served by National Grid get about 70-75% of their energy from sources that don't generate greenhouse gases (Hydro(~35%), Nuclear(~40%)). Another 5-8% comes from the relatively harmless Natural Gas. Coal and oil only account for about 15%. Understand I'm saying "about" because it does vary. The only source I could find for this is here and the latest is pretty old (EOY 2005). They come in at about half of the state average for emissions. The bottom line is that what wind will displace in this area will depend on a lot of dynamics with respect to the regional electrical system, and I don't expect to see those numbers without some careful study, as this kind of stuff isn't openly reported.

I do appreciate your deep concern regarding greenhouse gases, though. I take it you've replaced all of your incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents? I imagine you also plan on using your turbine money to invest in geothermal heating, perhaps install a personal wind turbine as well? Or maybe you already have...

As you know Dan with any type of pure research that information comes out that wasn't necessarily the target of original research. Collateral benefit. Happen's all the time in pure research. I think you know this.

I know you and Effie echo that there is a difference between real world and acadedic research - but I'm believe this is only so because you can't find academic reseach or govt. research that backs your position. And I have to ask as well what is the motivation for making these claims. I still think it view shed related and trying to find supplimentary issues that are also of a concern. There comes a point where a grand conspiracy isn't believable because because lack of credible information.

Similiar like saying the wind producer make claims about reducing foreign oil or solving the summer time load - I asked you to provide this promotial material - but you didn't. This says something - at least to me. Also like Effie holding back on the full year of generation numbers.

I never said that it was a one to one CRG reduction ratio - that MIT research said something like 50% - 70% and one of the other articles that I posted was quite frank about that it depended upon the mixture of coal, hydro and nuclear. But here's the difference Dan between you and I. I have brought forth studies that back my point - you don't. Find them. I'll read them and information is good for everyone to review. Problem is is that they don't exist. The best I've seen is some very clever writing by Dr. Pierpont - but she doesn't have anytype of background in this field and she has skin in the game.

BTW, where did you come up with your stats of NY? Those producers on that site you provided detail the CRG mix but not how much they electricity they produced. Without that number - calculating the weighted avg. is impossible. Can't even estimate it. How did you estimate it?

Regarding the light bulbs. I do think convential bulbs should be outlawed. Me - I don't need to replace them (I use 12 volt). I'm off grid. Not wind but solar with a bank of ATM glass mat batteries, xantrex sw inverters powered by a series of BP 75 watt solar arrays. My cooking is natural gas as well as my on-demand water heater. My place is super insulated heated by a combination wood stove (renewable resource) and vented Rinnai energystar gas heaters. Besides the bulbs - whats your situation Dan?

Actually my turbine money I said before I plan on re-invested in land resources and put them in conservency status.

If you do want a good performer in the green energy sector - look at FTEK. Niche focus on coal emission reduction systems. I made good money on it this year (50% return). Still a good long term buy though.

So I provide you with one report, lament that I can't provide you with three -- and that's nothing? Between this and your constant refusal to interpret scientific data in a scientific manner, you've now lost all credibility with me.

Sadly, you and I seem to be on the same side of the eco-debate - putting our money and actions where our mouths are - but where I want to invest in proven technologies that create considerable return on investment, you seem to be happy with anything that might work. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'd wish you the best of luck, but I really don't feel that way. I hope that you get some skepticism someday.

I'm sorry, visitoragain, but I have a tough time arguing with you when you don't even properly comprehend the studies that you link to. The 50-70% number you remember refers to the incremental improvements in emission reduction from going off-shore. Remember the study is not about the merits of on-shore, it is strictly about how much better off-shore is, based on higher, more consistent wind. You keep seeing number like 50-70% related to emissions and say "Hey, it says in the report that emissions go down 50-70%." That is not the case, unless you are talking off-shore vs. on-shore. Any "collateral benefit" from this study is relative to the merits of on-shore versus off-shore wind, and is relevant primarily to the East Coast (and areas whose energy supply patterns fairly well match that area).

If you can't comprehend the studies you post, what are the chances that you would comprehend what others post? Generally, studies on both sides of the debate have "skin" as pro studies are generally sponsored either by Wind Companies or governments (which have laid out billions of dollars in wind tax breaks, and as such don't want to be told the money is wasted). Anti-"industrial turbine" studies are generally sponsored by folks who have had bad experiences. Occasionally, there are somewhat independent studies launched that contain stuff to either side, and occasionally responses of studies commissioned by entities don't give the answers they were looking for. In many cases, those "contrary" studies get buried.

I don't have a lot of time right now (research, work, etc), but some light reading for you:
Here is a study from EirGrid, the Irish equivalent of NYISO. These are the folks responsible for managing the flow of electricity throughout Ireland. They need to know (and report on) the true net effect of wind on the system as a whole. What they show, in short, is the larger the system, the less effect that wind as a %age of supply is. Now they scale only up to 6.5GW of capacity, while New York State has a total of around 40GW of capacity, and, as with the Boston study, the results generally map to the local "power profile" (a lot less hydro and nuclear than New York...). From an emissions abatement perspective, they note: "The cost of CO2 abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives."
Here's a report from the Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK. They show that, in effect, adding wind capacity adds surplus capacity rather than replacing conventional capacity. Look particularly at Table 4. Increasing from 500MW to 25,000MW of wind capacity on a system with peak need of 50,000 MW
decreases the need for conventional capacity by 4,000MW.
This paper from the David Hume institute outlines more of the "voodoo economics" involved with wind. Their findings include:

• It is most unlikely that realising the official targets for the output of renewables, of which wind power is the principal component, is the lowest cost way of achieving the desired reduction in CO2 emissions. Achieving greater efficiency savings in transport, households and businesses would be more cost-effective.
  
• Because of the cost of providing additional stand-by generating capacity, it is unlikely that wind power will ever account for more than 20% of electricity generation through the National Grid. That being the case, its development can make no substantial contribution to an overall reduction in carbon emissions.
  

There are more, but I don't have time to document them right now, and I expect they might keep you busy for an hour or so...Remember, too, these are from Europe, which has much more stringent restrictions on where industrial wind turbine power plants can go (require Zone 3 wind as opposed to the US which requires only Zone 2) and it's important to note because a 2 MPH drop-off in wind from peak for a turbine reduces the turbine's production by about 50% (IIRC...might be a little less, but it's still much more significant than the decrease in wind). In short, I feel the government is wasting money throwing it at Industrial Wind Power Plants. I think they could get a lot further with both managing energy needs and reducing GHG emissions by spending money to improve existing system efficiencies at a macro level and incentives for personal/farm alternatives at a micro level. I think the home system you outline (outside perhaps from the relatively dirty wood-burning stove, which not only contributes emissions but erases a form of natural CO2 emission reduction) is a model of the types of things that the government should provide even more incentives for private citizens to do. Again, which do you think is cheaper: subsidizing the costs involved in erecting and "running" (production tax credits) Maple Ridge (currently averaging 85MWh) or sending a free 23W compact flourescent light bulb to the 7,000,000 households in New York state (which would average 95MWh of savings, based on using it in place of a 100W incandescent bulb 4 hours per day)?

Hey Dan. Since the total cost of ownership is just lower on the new bulbs - why not just ban them. Cheaper and more effective than handing out everyone one bulb.

I missed the promotional material. Are you going to post anything?

Still wonder if you didn't have your viewshed impacted - would you be as passioniate or not with any of this stuff? You seem to argue everything but what I would have thought is the real issue here.

MIT :
According to the MIT study, wintertime wind power will replace electricity generated by relatively inefficient and dirty fossil fuel power plants. However, since wind, electricity demand, fossil fuel prices and investment in power generation are so variable, the MIT team is now performing a more comprehensive analysis.

still seems to be a viable finding to me - summarized in their own words.

I ready those that you have graciously posted. Interesting that the scotland study is based on two limiting premises: lack of grid infra-structure coupled with exceedingly small areas that could support large commerical farms. Did you miss that point?
The hume article on page 26 pretty much summarizes that it fails due to the permitting process and financial un-certainity. Which one of these issues or both are you apparently trying to argue.

Weren't you trying to find material that supported that CRG wasn't reduced by wind farms? At bit off topic.

Some quick hits, because again, I don't have a lot of time:
--Even with handing out CF's it's a cheaper (from a government cost perspective) way to get the same effects of a Wind Power Plant the size of Maple Ridge.
--Which ties into the actual points of the documents I linked: there are cheaper ways to help reduce emissions while managing electrical needs. I never said that GHG are not reduced by turbines, what I've said (and your comprehension of my words are read with the same stilt that you read everything else, despite your claims of "keeping an open mind") is that there are cheaper ways of getting more (and more discernable) reduction in GHG. And even then, GHG reduction will be greatest in areas that are primarily provided by fossil-fuel generating facilities.
--I also never said that it was "wind companies" making the claim that turbines reduce our dependency on foreign oil. It's supporters writing letters to the editor who are as ill-informed as anti-turbine people who think that turbines will throw large chunks of ice 2000 feet. I'm tired of lies from extremists on both sides of the debate.
--The quote you refer to in the Hume article, in context, refers to the question of why it is that they are behind plan in the installation of turbines, NOT why it is that turbines are not an economically reasonable means to manage electrical power needs while reducing emissions.
--I note you haven't said anything about the Royal Academy of Engineering report...

You believe what you want about why I don't think industrial power plants belong within flicker/noise distance of people. When I first started getting notes in my paper box from the anti-turbine extremists, I chuckled heartily, because they were written so sensationally. I went to Wethersfield and thought they were pretty neat. Then I started reading. There do seem to be some situations where the turbines go in and there are no ill effects. Then I read of instances of folks who are driven out of their homes by the turbines, because of the health issues that can (and do) arise. There seems to be no rhyme nor reason why a particular installation will go good or bad. The developers make the same promises up-front....

Generally, though, it seems you can't read about large-scale installations where there is a reasonable population density where there isn't at least one house bought out by the developer because the people could not live there. I don't want to be that person bought out by the developer. I want to live in the house that my family chose to live in, and don't want to be driven out because of greed.

The thing is, I even once believed that wind power was viable in the right places (mostly offshore, but certainly areas in which you have at least zone 3 wind), but the more I'm reading, the more I see that it causes more problems than it solves. The Systems Operators generally grin and bear it because the government demands that they buy every MWh that the turbines produce (another area where they are treated differently from any other electrical energy source). But, if you actually understood the reports, you'd see that, even when they are working in cooperation with primarily fossil fuel, they are making the fossil fuel systems work more inefficiently, which negates much of the environmental gains you get. Here's another source saying that, in a more concise way, about Danish wind. I'm sure you'll find a way to twist the words there to fit your world-view...

I probably didn't hit everything, but that's all I have time for right now.

I understand the reports dan - but cherry picking data isn't a way to win arguments. You know I thought I did say something about the royal ada. report. Maybe in my haste of editing I lost it. If memory serves me there was a summary about the lack of suitable site and the permitting process which made it not feasible. That's not a problem in the north country.

Ha, I'm glad you put in the ice throwing bit- I've been after effie for months on that. I think at one point she wanted a 1/2 mile setback because of that.

Anyway, as I told Formosa - I'm going to hang up my skates for a bit and give the folks on this site a bit of peace and quiet.

So in parting - for a while:
I've always said that view shed is a real issue as it is evidently with you too. Towns must weigh in the tax benefits versus the sight impact - which is real. Towns like mine needed the revenue badly and the most vocal seemed to be those same houses which had car graveyards for front yards. Personally I like them and look forward to having them up. Thing is people on this site have resorted to frugle scare tacticts and grand conspirarcy theories. Yet the US govt, many foreign govts, state govt, Berkley, MIT, almost all environmental groups, and numerious - I mean numerious other non partison sites endorse wind. Its been easier I'm sure for me to find data than those on this site as the negative data is lean, sparce, mostly cherry picked, and yet people are fanatical in their beliefs - or desire to create belief. Its like a propaganda machine. Trouble is - not much backs it up but people that are part of the propaganda machine. Good bye for now.

Sincerly - the visitor

Really, visitor, is that the best you can do? One last report. This one from Germany
See, you cherry-pick from Industry and Industry-sponsored data. You don't even link to the right studies to make your point. So far, the stuff I have "cherry-picked" have generally been the people who have to deal with the net effects of the "Wind Push:" the independent systems operators. The ones who have to balance the power and ensure you and I (well, I guess just I) have power when we need it. They are the ones talking about how much strain wind puts on the system, and the "hidden costs" in running things inefficiently for the sake of wind. I trust them to know the truth.

You make your assumptions. Me, I guess I'll assume that you have "seller's remorse," and, like the governments that you link to, spend an extreme amount of time rationalizing decisions involving money poorly spent (usually due to strong lobbying), so you need to come here and tell off naysayers with random links to studies you don't understand in order to feel better about yourself. Fine. Hope you feel real good.

Me, if I were given $100M with the task of improving emissions, I would not be spending it on wind. Based on what I've read, the incentives paid for wind provide for a huge cost per Ton of CO2 offset, even in the most ideal conditions, let alone those in Western New York. Yeah, turbines can reduce emissions. But, to provide an analogy, if I get a superficial cut on my finger (and, BTW, I'm not a hemophiliac), I could stop the bleeding by putting a tourniquet on my arm. It's a way of accomplishing the task.... It's the same way with wind with respect to emissions.

BTW, I know effie. She also believes in reasonable numbers for ice throw. As per her comments in this topic, she believes in industry standards, which would be 941 feet for the turbines proposed for Bethany. As usual, you're barking up the wrong tree. No wait, I expect in your world that 941 feet is equal to a half mile...

Enjoy your vacation. Given the fact that you didn't want to identify yourself, I'm guessing you live in an off-grid community, and it sounds like you all appreciate the opportunity to provide power for the rest of us. For that I thank you.

I know you're "gone," visitoragain, but I was doing some searching on something else entirely, and came across this wind brochure. Feel free to read the heading at the top of page 3. For those who don't want to bother, it says (emphasis mine, though it's in large print) "Wind power reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil." It's a document from "Environmental Advocates of New York." Of course, this is also for the benefit of those who believe visitoragain's "point" that pro-"Industrial Wind Power Plant in residential area" folks don't bring up the "reliance on foreign oil."

Again, it wasn't what I was searching for, but it happened to come up, so I thought I'd share.