Wind Farm off the South Shore of Long Island

[Throckmorton]

Sounds good to me.

http://wcbs880.com/nynews/NY--LIWindPower-on/resources_news_html

[Brianboru]

1. Conservation. Solar and Wind power

should be our focus. I still can't understand those who oppose these efforts, on both sides of the political divide.

[dogindia]

10. kick.n/t

[ClarkUSA]

2. Only problem with them: they kill a huge amount of bats

Bat populations will be decimated in the area. There is no way around it right now. I support alternative energy sources but I also don't want them to destroy wildlife. There must be a solution somewhere.

[Viking12]

3. You need to take into account the full range of effects

Decimate is clearly an overstatement. Sure, SOME poorly sighted windmills kill SOME animals. But, when juxtaposed against the long-term risks to wildlife from mountain-top mining, pollutants, and climate change, windpower looks pretty good. No electricity generation is free from environmental costs, we need to account for the full range of costs across throughout the cycle of available options and implement a course of action accordingly.

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. Bats shouldn't be 4 miles out

This wind farm is proposed to be out four miles from shore, where they can get better winds. They can still pose a hazard for some birds. But I don't think bats will face much risk. Why would a bat be out that far from shore?

[jpak]

6. The new megawatt-scale turbines have blades that rotate at low speeds

minimizing the possibility of critter-blade collisions.

They could also be shut down during peak migration periods.

on edit: link

http://www.cleanpowernow.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=12

[Coastie for Truth]

8. I think the choice comes down to

1. Destroying bats
2. Killing American kids and Iraqi civilians (Iranian civilians next?) in futile wars for oil.
3. Slowly watching our economy grind down - with the concommitant dislocation and conflicts (the 1960's were nothing, the 1930's were nothing - compared to the Kunstler-Zersan "Malthusian" scenario)

[Kolesar]

11. They kill bats in the Appalachian hills and mountains

...and that is a very valid concern. I doubt if the bats go to sea to hunt, though. I am concerned about building wind turbines in bird flyways, such as the Pacific Coast and the Great Lakes.

[EC]

4. The one thing I've noticed about these, is that the

utility companies that have other interests (oil) will say they'll use wind if they can put it in such and such place, usually a place they know will create problems and refusals...then they can say, well, we did have plans to use wind turbines, but the tree-huggers said no...there are plenty of places where they could erect these farms without damage to the environment...but will they offer to put them in reasonable places or continue to use the environmentalists as excuses as to why they can't?

[NNadir]

7. Let's be clear: Long Island is a perfectly appropriate place for wind.

This isn't a big environmental risk for this wind farm. This isn't a conspiracy. This is good old fashioned NIMBY for which Long Island is famous. In fact, this is why the United States is seriously declining. It is because no one in this primitive, nearly illiterate country is willing to accept even a minimal risk or a minimal inconvenience for the greater good.

In spite what you read from poorly educated twits, energy really doesn't come from outer space whenever you need it and it isn't free.

I, for instance, support nuclear power. I would be perfectly happy to live near a nuclear plant (especially for the tax base); and I would be perfectly happy to have fission products stored in my neighborhood and to have nuclear fuels reprocessed here. But then again, I'm rather unusual in the sense that I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

I lived on Long Island for almost thirty years. Until I was in my twenties I rarely left it. I was a child there. I was educated there. I know of what I speak.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. Not being facetious

But look at the meteorology, as well as transmission/distribution issues.

A good book on lots of this stuff is Anthony Evans' "An Introduction to Economic Geology and Its Environmental Impact" - very well written and readable - not overly techie but not insulting. (I am not a geologist - had a totally boring hard rock geology for coal country engineers course in college which totally turned me off - but this is a good read).

[Throckmorton]

12. Define reasonable places.

Electrical power can only be efficiently transmitted a limited distance. Placing these windmills in North Dakota, while certainly windy most of the time, does next to nothing for most of the urban areas of this country.

The losses across the transmission system work out to around 0.125% per mile at 345 KV, 60 Hz. After about 400 miles 50% of the energy placed into a transmission line is lost. Extremely high voltage DC transmission facility's (250 KV bi-polar to Ground) fair better, 0.068% per mile, but have their own issues with fault clearing and conversion back to AC. Having worked in power generation my entire life it never ceases to amaze me what the charging current on even a short transmission line is.

These numbers are averages nationwide. Local topography, geology, and weather conditions can drastically alter these numbers.

BTW, most utility companies burn little oil. Just about every base loaded plan in the USA burns coal, is nuclear, or hydro powered. Oil is mostly used as a peaking fuel.

[NNadir]

13. Shhhh. You'll wake them up.

The wind farms should be off Long Island. This is a perfect place for them. (They should be off Cape Cod too.)

If these plants are not perfect there, they cannot be installed anywhere.