Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Public gasps at Lake Michigan wind farm images
Oceana Herald Journal ^ | 12/16/09 | John Cavanagh

Posted on 12/16/2009 1:07:52 PM PST by reaganrevolutionin2010

A collective gasp was heard when computer enhanced photographs depicting numerous wind turbine generators were shown in Lake Michigan off Pentwater harbor and Little Point Sable at informational meeting in Scottville Tuesday night.

The photos were included as part of the public presentation before a full house at West Shore Community College by wind farm developer Scandia Wind LLC.

“It’s (Lake Michigan) more beautiful without them. Even I recognize that,” said Harald Dirdal, a project manager with Havgul Clean Energy of Norway.

Scandia Wind LLC is exploring the possibility of constructing an estimated $3 billion, 1,000 megawatt wind farm in Lake Michigan over a 100 square mile area from the Ludington Pumped Storage facility to Silver Lake.

(Excerpt) Read more at oceanaheraldjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: banana; energy; michigan; nimby; wind; windfarms
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last
A good case of NIMBY needs to sprout Nationwide. I say start in Marin County and Cape Cod first!
1 posted on 12/16/2009 1:07:54 PM PST by reaganrevolutionin2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010

Having spent a great deal of professionsl time at LPS, Pentwater, Ludington and the entire west coast, I’m all for the spinners being put in!

I would bet that the ones most aghast at the prospect voted for Opossum.


2 posted on 12/16/2009 1:17:10 PM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010

Just like California. While I think windmills are not economical, this particular opposition to them shows what I call “California Thinking.” It can be summed up by the attitude of:

“We want electricity, but we don’t want anything that actually generates electricity anywhere near us. We expect that infinite quantities of electricity will be made in ‘some other place’ without any harm to any living thing and will be transported at no cost to our electric outlets.”


3 posted on 12/16/2009 1:19:32 PM PST by henkster (0bamanomics: The "Final Solution" to America's "Prosperity Question.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010

Why can’t they just bury them underground like electric cables?


4 posted on 12/16/2009 1:19:43 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear (These fragments I have shored against my ruins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
Why can’t they just bury them underground like electric cables?

Hell, put them all in Washington, D.C.

There's enough wind there to power the world!

5 posted on 12/16/2009 1:23:44 PM PST by MamaTexan (All men were Created equal, but government has no mandate to KEEP everyone that way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Taking into account all of the costs (startup, decommission, fuel, etc.)

Natural Gas is ....... 3.4 - 4.5 cents/kW-hour
Nuclear is ..............4.0 - 5.5 cents/kW-hour
Offshore Wind is......6.0 - 15. cents/kW-hour

The first two are assumed to run at 8,000 hours per year.

Wind power at 2200 hours per year.


6 posted on 12/16/2009 1:26:47 PM PST by 21twelve (Drive Reality out with a pitchfork if you want , it always comes back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010
This probably isn't the same image the article is about, but this is an image of the proposed wind farm on Lake Michigan:


7 posted on 12/16/2009 1:34:55 PM PST by the anti-liberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal

Video here: http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/ottawa_county/Mtg-set-to-talk-wind-turbines-in-lake


8 posted on 12/16/2009 1:36:49 PM PST by NowApproachingMidnight (purple durple lips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010
Ah, nevermind - here's the caption for that particular image:
In 2002, the world’s largest offshore wind farm was built off the Danish west coast into the North Sea.
It was used for illustration in an article discussing the wind farm planned for Lake Michigan.
9 posted on 12/16/2009 1:38:28 PM PST by the anti-liberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
Taking into account all of the costs (startup, decommission, fuel, etc.)....

And the fact that they provide virtually zero benefit just compounds the stupidity of the decision, no? http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx

10 posted on 12/16/2009 1:50:11 PM PST by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest... ("Sooner or later in life, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences." Robert Louis Stevenson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: henkster

Well actually that’s the thinking of every state, not just CA. The people in CA want electricity by any means, wind, solar, coal etc. but the minority special interest groups have our elected officials bent over the money barrel and control everything.


11 posted on 12/16/2009 1:52:52 PM PST by repubpub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010

Greenies live in gentrified urban spaces, shower infrequently and hate cars, houses, suburbs and open spaces. Don’t let them ruin everyone’s lives.


12 posted on 12/16/2009 1:53:29 PM PST by relictele
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010
Wind power is inefficient, inconsistent, and ugly.

Other than that, what's to lose?

13 posted on 12/16/2009 1:57:21 PM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010

The general idea is: put the turbines “out there” (where the conservatives live), and send the power “in here” (cities, where the liberals live)....

hh


14 posted on 12/16/2009 2:08:18 PM PST by hoosier hick (Note to RINOs: We need a choice, not an echo....Barry Goldwater)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NowApproachingMidnight
Since I've inadvertently posted the wind farm in Denmark, I suppose it's only appropriate to also mention:
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone). Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery. Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds. Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”
Wind power is a complete disaster (Denmark relevant)
15 posted on 12/16/2009 2:12:08 PM PST by the anti-liberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: relictele

It always amazes me how libs, who live in a urban concrete jungle the furthest they could from nature, can tell the rest of us who decide to live closer to God how to live.
Arrogance beyond imagination.


16 posted on 12/16/2009 2:14:10 PM PST by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal
What a lot of people fail to realize is that depending on unreliable and chaotic generating sources for a significant portion of base load capacity builds in a structural requirement to burn more fossil fuels, either coal or natural gas, to make up for the deficiencies in wind or solar-based generation. You generally come out on the losing side of the ledger both on costs and emissions.
17 posted on 12/16/2009 2:28:25 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wildbill22

To top it off liberals in NY and London frequently poke each other in the ribs and joke about how far removed they are from anything but buildings, asphalt and concrete. They treat parks as if grass and trees are alien species.


18 posted on 12/16/2009 2:37:54 PM PST by relictele
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010

I’m in favor of starting near the Navy Pier and giving those living along Lake Shore drive a good view.


19 posted on 12/16/2009 2:45:33 PM PST by A Strict Constructionist (How long before we are forced to refresh the Tree of Liberty? Sic semper tryannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal
On the Denmark experience with wind-based generation, many people don't know that the Danish energy program contains a lot of the things advocated by the darling of the “renewable energy” crowd, Amory Lovins (Amorous Loving). Things like cogeneration, use of “micropower” (really a bunch of little power sources burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases), windmills, solar, etc. The result? The highest per-capita costs for electricity among the European nations, the highest GHG and other pollutant emissions per capita, and net electricity imports from places like Norway (hydropower) and France (80% nuclear). In fact, if it were not for the availability of Norwegian hydropower and pumped storage, the Danish wind generation would be even less reliable than it is now. But what they can do is when wind is available, they export power to Norway, which stores it in pumped storage reservoirs. When wind is not available, the Danes import electricity from Norway and France. Not very practical on a wide scale, although if you're a small nation without a large economy and not geographically dispersed, such niche sources might be able to contribute in a minor way to your energy needs.
20 posted on 12/17/2009 5:24:41 AM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...

21 posted on 12/19/2009 4:34:43 PM PST by SunkenCiv (My Sunday Feeling is that Nothing is easy. Goes for the rest of the week too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NowApproachingMidnight

Yup, that would be ugly.


22 posted on 12/19/2009 4:38:50 PM PST by discostu (The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
Wind power is inefficient, inconsistent, and ugly.

Inefficient, no. Inconsistent, yes. Ugly, hell no.

23 posted on 12/24/2009 7:53:22 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
I agree. I don't think they're ugly at all. There's a few really big windmills in Atlantic City that I think are beautiful and fascinating to watch.

Of course, they're essentially worthless for large scale reliable power generation. But they're pretty.

24 posted on 12/24/2009 7:59:57 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: chimera
and pumped storage,

Where do you get this idea?

25 posted on 12/24/2009 8:00:14 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dead
Of course, they're essentially worthless for large scale reliable power generation.

Yes they are, individually. Just like cars are essentially worthless for large scale reliable transportation, individually.

26 posted on 12/24/2009 8:06:36 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
Yes they are, individually. Just like cars are essentially worthless for large scale reliable transportation, individually.

I don't care if you have a hundred windmills or a thousand, they are still not reliable for large scale power generation.

They only work when the wind blows.

27 posted on 12/24/2009 8:31:43 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010
I'd rather see this...


28 posted on 12/24/2009 8:42:56 AM PST by Fresh Wind ("...a whip of political correctness strangles their voice"-Vaclav Klaus on GW skeptics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
They only work when the wind blows.

The wind is ALWAYS blowing somewhere.

29 posted on 12/24/2009 8:51:05 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dead
I don't care if you have a hundred windmills or a thousand,

A thousand is small potatos. In Iowa we have nearly 3000 with more coming. 10,000 seems reasonable for a state of 56,000 square miles.

30 posted on 12/24/2009 8:53:51 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

Typical power loss for long distance transmission is 50%.

So instead of a 1,000 windmills, you have 500.


31 posted on 12/24/2009 9:02:17 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction;, one of the five top worries of the American farmer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
And don't forget this gem:

"The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1% — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2278837/posts

32 posted on 12/24/2009 9:05:59 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction;, one of the five top worries of the American farmer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Apple Blossom

ping


33 posted on 12/24/2009 9:08:59 AM PST by bmwcyle (Free the Navy Seals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010
Wind and solar farms have a large footprint. In order to equal one medium output nuclear plant you need solar panels taking up 7 miles by 7 miles. The solution to our energy future is to do more of what we're doing, coal, oil etc. while building nuclear plants.

Of copurse we would have to open Yucca Mountain depository and wake up the guy in the white house.

34 posted on 12/24/2009 9:10:29 AM PST by votemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
Actually, extraordinarily inefficient. The worst in the alternative energy world.

And yes, ugly as hell, which is why people gasped at the virtual model when it was revealed. I've seen these things on the ridges of Maui, the deserts of Texas, and they just make the landscape ugly.

Why do you think the Kennedy's wouldn't let them in their private view, cause they were pretty?

35 posted on 12/24/2009 9:12:30 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

As many as you have, you save nothing because you have to have a power plant on back up, running all the time because of the inconsistency. This is such a dumb waste of resources.


36 posted on 12/24/2009 9:14:49 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: henkster

IT would be fine, if they actually produced enough electricity... but they don’t... the best thing would be nuclear.


37 posted on 12/24/2009 9:15:27 AM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
Typical power loss for long distance transmission is 50%.

So instead of a 1,000 windmills, you have 500.

You are sadly mistaken.

38 posted on 12/24/2009 9:17:10 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: votemout
So right you are:

"Scientist calls nation's biggest solar plant a toy

Researcher's report claims advocates inflating numbers to hide cost"

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=117592

39 posted on 12/24/2009 9:18:15 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction;, one of the five top worries of the American farmer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Wind power has about an 80 percent approval rating by those near windfarms.


40 posted on 12/24/2009 9:19:09 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
As many as you have, you save nothing because you have to have a power plant on back up, running all the time because of the inconsistency. This is such a dumb waste of resources.

You are sadly mistaken.

41 posted on 12/24/2009 9:20:51 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

There was a woman on Dennis Prager about 4 months ago. She has written a pro-nuclear energy book and debunks the feasibility of solar and windmill farms. She used to be an anti-nuke fanatic. He said he would post her book title on his site, but I never saw it. Can’t remember her name.


42 posted on 12/24/2009 9:50:43 AM PST by votemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

Actually, it’s those who think windpower is feasible without storage that are sadly mistaken.........cause it’s a simple matter that when the wind does not blow, people don’t turn off their electrical usage. You may want to live like a luddite, but most of us don’t.


43 posted on 12/26/2009 8:39:06 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Soon the country will get 3 percent of it’s power from wind, then 4, then 5...


44 posted on 12/26/2009 8:51:35 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
Yes, but it won't save anything. You have to burn the fuels to back the windmills up.

So why are we doing something this stupid? Does it somehow make you feel better?

45 posted on 12/26/2009 9:29:24 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010

They are against windmills, hydro power, coal, atomic energy, geothermal power, and probably solar panels next.


46 posted on 12/26/2009 9:33:59 AM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganrevolutionin2010

This wind business is an absolute con. There are MASSIVE fields of natural gas underneath the eastern seaboard. The consters have infiltrated the Dept of energy and have bought enough congresscritters to force us to pay for their machinations.


47 posted on 12/26/2009 9:37:17 AM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark
Yes, but it won't save anything. You have to burn the fuels to back the windmills up.

Backup is accomplished with hydro which can often be switched on and off in a heartbeat, natural gas which also can also be turned on rapidly and coal which has many levels of backup. So you're wrong.

48 posted on 12/26/2009 10:18:10 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

http://www.embracewind.com/myths.html


49 posted on 12/26/2009 10:22:12 AM PST by DungeonMaster (camel, eye of a needle; rich man, heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
In a heartbeat? Bwahahahaha.

You know absolutely nothing about this stuff do you?

50 posted on 12/26/2009 10:23:58 AM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson