Quote :

"Nothing in 1068 would prevent offshore windmills."

Who's going to pay for those offshore windfarms?

7/23/2009 11:08:01 PM

The consumer through increased utility fees.

7/23/2009 11:09:57 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that mountain windfarms are probably substantially less expensive than ocean windfarms.

7/23/2009 11:12:31 PM

Quote :

" Your entire argument is based from a knee jerk position and you haven't bothered to investigate the matter."

You've said nothing convincing enough to make me investigate. You seem to think the roads will be 100 feet wide leading to the windmill. Now you're saying the power lines coming from windmills is different from normal power lines. You can drive down 40 tomorrow afternoon and see the massive swaths they cut across the landscape to put the power lines in.

I mean ffs, it isn't like the entirety of the entire Appalachian mountain chain is going to be ruined by 10 thousand windmills. What is the alternative you're pushing, nuclear? What is worse, a small area in a vast forest of emptiness having it's natural landscaped ruined, or for some folks enhanced, or having to deal with the nuclear waste issue?

7/23/2009 11:18:21 PM

These are transmission lines and no, they do not just cut across the mountainscape. They are in limited areas and not in the pristine wilderness.

Furthermore, wind power will not be able to offset baseload power production, so basically you are cutting up the mountains for nothing.

And thank you for finally admitting that you are completely ignorant on the matter. No point in furthering the conversation with someone who has made up their mind without investigating the facts.

^^You can put in more offshore farms than you can mountain farms based upon logistics alone and offshore is cheaper.

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 11:24 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 11:23:42 PM

So you're saying you have no convincing argument against wind farms other than aesthetics?

Quote :

"hese are transmission lines and no, they do not just cut across the mountainscape. They are in limited areas and not in the pristine wilderness."

What? I know what I've seen with my own eyes. You can go look anywhere they have the big high voltage lines, they typically clear the area right under them. You said it yourself they don't grow trees under them (even though your pic shows trees under them).

Furthermore, I'm trying to find the lines running around this wind farm



or this one



or this one



but maybe my vision is just shitty.

There is no way any sane human being can say the windmills are uglier than the gangly steel structures of the early 20th century that carry our power here and there.


[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 11:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 11:26:14 PM

Because they are really going to show the transmission lines. Christ you are dense.

Do you seriously think that Tesla's atmospheric electricity principle is in use here?

[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 11:35 PM. Reason : why don't you read up on ridgetop windmills before we continue this conversation.]



No transmission lines.



[Edited on July 23, 2009 at 11:40 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2009 11:34:13 PM

Speaking as someone that grew up in HaywoodCherokee County, this is fucking retarded.

7/24/2009 12:11:02 AM

Quote :

"Because they are really going to show the transmission lines. Christ you are dense. "

You're the one that said something was different about the power transmission between windmills and traditional power delivery and all you did was post a picture showing otherwise.

You've lost this argument now get the fuck out of the thread.

7/24/2009 7:28:42 AM

I'd prefer another nuke plant.

7/24/2009 7:45:22 AM

Quote :

"You're the one that said something was different about the power transmission between windmills and traditional power delivery and all you did was post a picture showing otherwise. You've lost this argument now get the fuck out of the thread."

What the fuck are you talking about? You have to be the worst troll ever.

7/24/2009 8:31:51 AM

Quote :

"What is the alternative you're pushing, nuclear?"

Yes.

7/24/2009 9:12:09 AM

I think these things are an eyesore for sure.

Are they going to be covering the whole western part of the state with them? Is there a risk of that?

I mean, cause if it's just a handful of farms or something, that's okay. But I got a real problem with putting those things up all over the goddamn place.

Why would we want to litter one of the most beautiful places in the world?

7/24/2009 10:38:26 AM

Wind power? Not in my backyard!

7/24/2009 10:40:29 AM

disco_stu

I am all for nuclear, and I think it is a much more promising national solution to reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation than wind power.

However....

This is a regional issue. While the Appalachian Mountains don't have much radioactive material lying around, they do have mountains that are relatively windy. Why not take advantage of that? Or at least leave the option open for enterprising individuals or counties???

Like I was saying earlier, if windmill farms could actually provide cheaper electricity, it might encourage new industries to locate in the relatively impoverished area.

7/24/2009 10:41:10 AM

Wind is extremely expensive and it cannot replace any of the baseload to have any real affect. Plus the bulk of the truly windy peaks are off limits being that they are in state parks, national parks, along the blue ridge parkway, and along the appalachian trail.

The biggest problem with the original 1068 was that it was written without any regional input outside of the wind energy industry.

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2009 10:45:53 AM

^^^No. My backyard is totally cool. Put like a thousand of them bitches up.

It's Blue Ridge I'm worried about.

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ]

7/24/2009 10:46:17 AM

actually tbqh having a windmill in your backyard would suck cause of the shadows caused by the arms. I'd much rather have a nuke or hydro.

7/24/2009 10:48:07 AM

Quote :

"Why would we want to litter one of the most beautiful places in the world?"

Arguments made by
a) People not living in West NC, but enjoy thinking about its pristine mountains
b) Relatively Wealthy People living in West NC whose property value stands to be negatively impacted
c) Older People living in NC that distrust any proposal that might change anything

I think if you offer a working man in WNC the choice between a great view and a well paying job that was created by businesses moving to the mountains to take advantage of cheap power, you would not have to guess which one they would pick.

And of course, the choice is even less severe than that. The mountains are not going to disappear because we start building wind mills. The Great Smoky Mountain National Park alone contains over 800 square miles of protected land. And that doesn't include *other* protected areas in the region, like the Pisgah National Forest. If you're worried about protecting the mountains, we already got it covered.

Personally, I'm now more worried about the livelihood of the people that live there.

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 10:58 AM. Reason : ```]

7/24/2009 10:56:47 AM

Quote :

"Arguments made by a) People not living in West NC, but enjoy thinking about its pristine mountains b) Relatively Wealthy People living in West NC whose property value stands to be negatively impacted c) Older People living in NC that distrust any proposal that might change anything"

Outside of Asheville and Boone, the people of WNC are pretty much against windfarms in their communities. It has nothing to do with property values, what have you.

7/24/2009 11:19:08 AM

^ I have not seen it polled. Is that just your impression? because I get a different impression.

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM. Reason : ``]

7/24/2009 11:35:41 AM

Quote :

"created by businesses moving to the mountains to take advantage of cheap power"

I'm having difficulty finding numbers comparing the enduser cost for power generated by wind power vs. nuclear or anything like that.

7/24/2009 11:40:32 AM

Quote :

"Furthermore, I'm trying to find the lines running around this wind farm"

7/24/2009 12:11:09 PM

Quote :

"^ I have not seen it polled. Is that just your impression? because I get a different impression."

In Asheville and Boone its about 60% for wind power, but when you get into McDowell, Avery, Swain, Graham and other parts support drops to 30%.

Quote :

"I'm having difficulty finding numbers comparing the enduser cost for power generated by wind power vs. nuclear or anything like that."

Wind is expensive due to the start up costs associated with it and the unreliability of the power source. Nuclear is fairly inexpensive due to the government subsidising the risk. If the government didn't subsidize it, it would be the most expensive energy source out there.

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 1:04 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2009 1:03:08 PM

wow, thanks for the numbers on the issue.

7/24/2009 1:13:47 PM

Quote :

"Wind is expensive due to the start up costs associated with it and the unreliability of the power source. Nuclear is fairly inexpensive due to the government subsidising the risk. If the government didn't subsidize it, it would be the most expensive energy source out there."

Wind power and other renewables collect a pretty penny in subsidies, too.

2007 Energy Subsidies and Support (millions of $$$$)

								Federal
		Direct		Tax		Research &	Electricity
		Expenditures	Expenditures	Development	Support		Total

Nuclear		-		199		922		146		1,267
Renewables	5		3,970		727		173		4,875

7/24/2009 2:17:13 PM

disco_stu,

The point of comparison I am making is between wind power (which is what is being considering in the legislature) and the status quo. Here is current average retail price data for North Carolina as a whole by end use sector:

Residential - 9.24 Cents per kilowatthour
Commercial - 7.37 Cents per kilowatthour
Industrial - 5.26 Cents per kilowatthour
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html

According to all the estimates I am finding, wind can range from 3 to 9 cents per kilowatt hour depending on the assumptions one is making. So that means wind could offer some significant savings for all end users. Plus, even if the cost of wind power in WNC ran up to the highest estimate, 9 cents per kWh, it could still potentially be cheaper to industrial clients once the cap on GHG emissions is set (and that is really just a matter of time) and traditional alternatives like coal become much more expensive.

What about comparing wind to nuclear? Well, the comparison doesn’t look great from the info I have found.

Quote :

" In June 2008 Lazard, a preeminent financial advisory and asset management firm, published “Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis – Version 2.0" comparing recent estimates of the cost/kWh of various power generation sources including renewables, coal, natural gas, and nuclear.Lazard’s analysis indicated the range of costs/kWh for new nuclear power plants, estimated by Lazard to be approximately 10 to 13 cents/kWh in 2007 levelized dollars…[would be] significantly higher than costs for wind power (4 to 9 cents/kWh)"

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

But it seems like all of these estimtes will depend on what assumptions you make. So you can take this study for whats it worth. But nothing is certain.

I can say, though that GE has been working on an environmental impact statement for the ERC for like 2 years to install that new refining facility down in Wilmington. Then they have to worry about construction (I'm sure it would not take even longer for electricity generation facilities). So no matter what the numbers are, it could be a decade or more to get just one nuclear power plant in WNC. Thats why I think wind power would be a better near-term solution to providing cheaper, cleaner electricity for WNC than nukes.

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 2:25 PM. Reason : ``]

7/24/2009 2:17:24 PM

The point is, wind will not offset any baseload.

7/24/2009 2:50:45 PM

True, especially if we limit ourselves to North Carolina wind power.

I just wonder where in North Carolina Duke and Progress are going to find 12.5% by 2021.

7/24/2009 3:12:03 PM

Quote :

"Arguments made by a) People not living in West NC, but enjoy thinking about its pristine mountains b) Relatively Wealthy People living in West NC whose property value stands to be negatively impacted c) Older People living in NC that distrust any proposal that might change anything I think if you offer a working man in WNC the choice between a great view and a well paying job that was created by businesses moving to the mountains to take advantage of cheap power, you would not have to guess which one they would pick."

There are some native entrepreneurs who'd love to make a quick buck up in the mountains. But for the most part, folks up there have been staunchly against a bustling economy or tons of industry. They have repeatedly voted against their own economic interests in order to keep outsiders out and maintain their way of life. It's frustrating to those few looking to "advance," but those few eventually just move to Charlotte or go to college and don't come back except to visit and enjoy the...great view.

7/24/2009 4:17:51 PM

eh

nuke power!

7/24/2009 4:18:58 PM

so whats the cost/effectivness numbers

7/24/2009 4:21:02 PM

no idea but im assuming nuclear power is more cost effective than wind.

7/24/2009 4:29:57 PM