Jump to content

Lakes not so great for wind projects, according to new energy blueprint


News

Recommended Posts

Oh yeah, gettin some good wind out there today on Erie, nice walleye chop. :)

When I look at Ohio's north shore and consider all of the abandoned industrial property and the soon to be shutdown First Energy plants, it seems a shame to even consider offshore wind farms, vs putting them on the shoreline. but it saves those power generation companies the real estate costs of developing on land if they put them in the water, so I imagine they will not quit pushing for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting these wind monsters on the water is definitely an eyesore and will ruin the esthetics for everyone. We are currently installing 500' high wind towers in Ludington, about 65 of them or so, and I can tell you, the folks affected on their prime rolling farm meadows are not happy at all, and their land values crashed also already, and they haven't even finished installing them yet. Wait till the flicker issues kick in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Esthetics aside, we haven't been very good to the lakes in the past, just imagine the environmental damage that will be caused to the lakes from stirring up all of that horribly contaminated sediment on the lake beds that is now encapsulated by many layers of clean sediment, just to get those monstrosities anchored into the bedrock of the lake floor.

That is a basket of excrement best left undisturbed, IMO.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are currently installing 500' high wind towers in Ludington, about 65 of them or so, and I can tell you, the folks affected on their prime rolling farm meadows are not happy at all, and their land values crashed also already, and they haven't even finished installing them yet. Wait till the flicker issues kick in.

Yes, what an eyesore. I would hate to live around them. Those poor property owners are going to get hosed if they try to sell their homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There freakin fugly, and i dont want to have to navigate around them espically on erie where there is 300 - 500 boats all fishing the same area. you think the pack in ludington or manistee is bad come down and see what sputnick is like when the fish are there add in windmills and someone is gonna get killed. I am completely against these hazards to navigation. put em somewhere else. we dont need em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There freakin fugly, and i dont want to have to navigate around them espically on erie where there is 300 - 500 boats all fishing the same area. you think the pack in ludington or manistee is bad come down and see what sputnick is like when the fish are there add in windmills and someone is gonna get killed. I am completely against these hazards to navigation. put em somewhere else. we dont need em.

I doubt you'll have to worry about navigating them. With everything going on in the world They probably won't let you get within a mile of them claiming terrorist attack. Just rope off the lake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There freakin fugly, and i dont want to have to navigate around them espically on erie where there is 300 - 500 boats all fishing the same area. you think the pack in ludington or manistee is bad come down and see what sputnick is like when the fish are there add in windmills and someone is gonna get killed. I am completely against these hazards to navigation. put em somewhere else. we dont need em.

All a matter of opinion. Where should they put them then?? Obviously somewhere where you will not have to see them. What about the person that lives where you think they should go? Don't get me wrong, I don't want them in any of the lakes either, but they are more than likely going somewhere. Good luck stopping it.

I don't know about the buffer zone on them. Where that came from or who, if anybody ever said it, we regularly use them for "cover" while hunting. There isn't one around here that you can't drive up to and touch if you want. Don't see why it would be any different on the water, but its possible.

To be perfectly honest why they would want to put them over there is beyond me. The wind needed to run them just isn't there.

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/us_windmap_80meters_820w.jpg

Edit: As I said before, I am absolutely opposed to them in the lakes also. Don't misread that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All a matter of opinion. Where should they put them then?? Obviously somewhere where you will not have to see them. What about the person that lives where you think they should go? Don't get me wrong, I don't want them in any of the lakes either, but they are more than likely going somewhere. Good luck stopping it.

I don't know about the buffer zone on them. Where that came from or who, if anybody ever said it, we regularly use them for "cover" while hunting. There isn't one around here that you can't drive up to and touch if you want. Don't see why it would be any different on the water, but its possible.

To be perfectly honest why they would want to put them over there is beyond me. The wind needed to run them just isn't there.

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/us_windmap_80meters_820w.jpg

Personally i think they should stick with neuclear or coal and forget the green option till they find a better way.

And your right about not enough wind most of the time the ones on the canadian side arent turning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am all for cleaner energy the real point is if any of it actually worked and made money they would already be everywhere. The fact is take away government money and mandates and there would not be any of them being built. The ones pushing for this the hardest are the only ones who will make anything from it and they could care less if the rest of us go bankrupt paying for it. I know of no green energy that is capable of paying for itself in the current market. The only way they will ever work is like Obama said prices naturally will have to go up and go up a lot. The 1 % a year increase is pure hogwash it won't work there has to be more money or people will go broke. They may be able to cap the output cost at 1% but they can't cap the cost of building them. So the cost of building them must come from somewhere or are we just gonna keep printing money till it has no value at all. Compare the German Mark after WW1 to the British Pound. When Germany began doing what we are doing right now ( Printing money ) in a matter of years their currency went from a few Marks per Pound to over 100,000 per pound. What we are seeing right now is just the start. Soon most of our middle class will be below the poverty level and the adjustment needed to fix it is beyond painful for millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We dive different islands in the carribbean during the winter. Most of the islands we go to are in near the equater and have the trade winds. They have tried windmills on several islands and have fiound even with the constant wind that they just dont produce. Bonaire for example when we were there in 2005 was one of the big test years. in 2007 they were back to running the power plant and not using the windmills at all. Several of the other islands have tried it allso to the same avail. Curcaco, Aruba, Grand and Little Cayman, Dominica. and these are just the islands that we frequent. Here the wind never stops the one thing they might get is a wind reversal but the wind is constant. If they would work anywhere it would be these islands. I just dont think this is the right solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...