wind, some other views

http://www.windaction.org/videos/22687

I thought this might be interesting because we have:
Summit Wind
Harvest Wind
Florida Light and Power
Invenergy
and soon to come Blue Cloud Wind in the area.
People who have been dealing with it long term are not all thrilled about the results.
Since we can only find the 'happy stories' in most media and by most politicians (similar to cafos) i thought it was a good idea to show another point of view.

They recommended a setback for turbines on the website you listed but didn't state what the distance would be. Do you know how far they are recommending for the setback?

I never would have imagined health problems for people who have wind turbines on their property. It was an interesting website. Thanks for bringing it up.

1000 feet appears to be the most common setback rule. It isn't very far when you consider the size of a turbine and the length of the blades. YouTube has some interesting videos of turbines running while full of ice (they are supposed to stop, a blade can throw ice 1/4 mile), homes damaged by ice throws, turbine fires, imagine one of those in the hills during our usually dry summers. Turbine noise, tubine flickers. I hope people realize what they are signing on to. Have they looked at their contracts? Is there something in there that says a farmer who has signed can NEVER complain about wind energy? It is in a lot of wind contracts.

If you google up Lisa Linowes, the main representative of Industrial Wind Action Group (contributions may be sent to Parkerhill Technology Group, LLC) here is one of her quotes from an article about Garner Mountain : If so, Linowes wants it to be clear she won’t be one of them. “I would like to see the millions (of dollars) being sent to these wind companies in the form of tax credits and appreciation programs – if that money was put into cleaning up these coal facilities, you could take them a long way,” she said. “It’s almost as if the wind companies were a distraction. " The Industrial Wind Action Group is not very transperant, it could be just a group promoting the corporate interests of coal, gas and oil. Lisa Linowes is listed as the director, Parkerhill Technology is listed as the recipient of the donations and Jonathan S. Linowes is listed as the president of Parkerhill Technology. Lisa appears to work there too as executive producer of it's various media projects. The anti-wind group doesn't seem to have grass roots at all.

Don't be a corporate pawn. Go to source watch and check your sources.

Compare this to Dakota Rural Action- those are real people, their group has a history and you can go right to their offices which are listed on their web site.

Dakota Action is a tremendous group but to blindly accept them as the ultimate resource is a mistaken belief. A very good friend of mine, Frank James worked for Dakota Action and when I was testifying at Congressional Hearings I learned that no one group represented family farms. Frank and I would often debate and come up with different solutions.

If you think about it, farming is so diverse that there are so many competing interests in almost every facet of farming.

The most recent conflict of interests between farmers has occurred in the past two years. As crop farmers continued to promote ethanol plants, dairy farmers felt the pinch in increased food costs.

My experience is that we should listen to as many sides and use as many resources as possible as we develop the great cheap food policy so that we can afford to feed the millions of children in this country.

All farmers owe an obligation to give their products away so that we can feed the masses. Right?

We need to be careful on who we support!

Judging the credibility of a source by how close it fits your ideology is pretty dumb.

I didn't mean to blindly support Dakota Rural Action I meant that Dakot Rural Action is a legitimate group representing and trying to represent honestly. wether or not you agree with DRA 's position you can almost always accept the facts and sources they use. My post was not about position but credibility.

Industrial Wind Action Group is a scam. It's a useful group to people who don't want towers or transmission lines in their own neighborhood and can't get their way honestly. If you need to feel good about stopping projects on other people's property you can go to Industrial Wind Action Group and find some lies to comfort you.

Making up stuff about the dangers of electrical transmission lines and wind towers is much cheaper than buying all the land around you for miles in order to have your way. Industrial Wind Action Group plays upon that need.

Of course making up stuff doesn't help protect public health either. There are considerations in wind project and transmission line siting, but you won't find the truth at Lisa Linowes web site.

Industrial Wind Action Group is pretty much a mysterious one woman show- Lisa Linowes is the face , body and head of the web site. They have no membership list, no list of funding sources, no public board meetings. Industrial Wind Action Group sends Lisa Linowes around opposing wind projects across the US. Where do they get their funding? She promotes coal as the best alternative to wind and demands that the subsidies to wind would be better spent on coal plants. Right, we need more strip mining in Appalachia and Wyoming to preserve the scenery.

I am not sure that you understood the point I was trying to make. I agree and disagree with y'all.

There is no one source that is better than the other. Frankly, when debating we are often of the opinion that when three independent sources reach the same conclusion the position was considered strong, not prima facie, but strong.

Almost all sources have some bias and prejudice. There are strong studies that wind power does have some negative effects. Yesterday I was talking to a wind power worker who said, "I understand setbacks. One day I observed a hung of ice go flying almost 3/4's of a mile because the turbine was not turned off." I understand the turbines are supposed to be turned off, but sometimes this does not occur and innocent passerby's may be at risk. The site made an observation of a mere 1/4 mile of ice traveling.

I want all of you to think about it. Is this possible? Absolutely! What is the speed of a turbine at 40 mph winds. Those of you who know physics, could probably calculate the distance one pound of ice would travel. Since the size and weight of the ice and the speed of the turbine is unpredictable, the danger to others is also unpredictable.

There have been significant studies in Russia regarding side effects to milking when the farm is located in close proximity to transmission lines. This has been discussed in the past.

Wind power is a powerful source of energy and has great potential. As for me, I remain guarded when people claim there are no or nominal side effects. Our dependence on foreign oil needs to discontinue, but with open eyes to potential side effects.

I favor wind power, but I refuse to be blinded by the profits of both sides. There is and will continue to be side effects from wind power and side effects to coal.

Let's encourage progress in stages vs. jumping in and forgetting or pretending there are no side effects.

the most valuable thing about industrial windaction is the weekly update they e-mail that is gleaned from mostly national and sometimes international newspapers about wind issues, the give the title, issue and area, the first part of the article is available to read, if you are interested you can click and read the whole article. the articles are always sourced and not edited, so they speak for themselves, much different than the propoganda that is widely available. all the articles are not negative, by any means, though i would say most are. some are simply generic about a new permit or whatever.
from what i have read in the local paper and via e-mail from the wind people this project is predicated on the building of Big Stone II, although like most things they have said different things to different neighbors.

Who said that wind turbines can throw ice 1/4 mile or 3/4 mile? When did they say it? Is it a lie? A website gleans press releases from the net and that's research?
Why pretend to be part of a rational, honest discussion and then bring up anonymous anecdotes and nameless research from Russia? Is this thread just a game of who can come up with the best whopper off the internet? Dishonesty draws people away from solving problems. Or maybe it's a game of looking for moral support by pretending to have facts of some sort or another.
As with any big structures wind towers and transmission lines have issues that can and are being dealt by responsible people. They deserve responsible input.
Using comments from Russia (the former Soviet Union) to bolster your opposition to US PUC regulated power lines is pretty off the wall. If you really believe the Russian research, which you can't even site, why haven't you moved to Russia? At least turn off your own electricity to save people from the damage caused by the transmission of your share. I don't believe that you believe transmission lines could be a problem in SD or MN. People have already worked hard on the issue for decades and you ignore their work and flash around a nameless study from Russia. Why? Earlier Joelie talked about a study from California, that didn't have a name either. Why?
The Swiss did a study of ice fling on a turbine in the alps, near a weather station and in a ski resort. They studies it for several years and published in 2007. Even in arctic mountain top conditions the farthest out ice landed only about 1.25 times the height of the tower. Winds up to 13 meters per second. [b][font=Times-Bold][size=7][font=Times-Bold][size=7]WIND TURBINE ICE THROW STUDIES IN THE SWISS ALPS [/b][/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7]René Cattin[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7]1[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7], Stefan Kunz[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7]1[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7], Alain Heimo[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7]2[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7], Gabriela Russi[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7]1[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7], Markus Russi[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7]3[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7], Michael Tiefgraber[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Times-Roman][size=7][font=Times-Roman][size=7]1[/size][/font][/size][/font]

Linda S
That was kind of a heated response to a point that is rather obvious -- nearly everything has a side effect...the question is of risk versus gain. A side effect is a consequence other than the one intended. I can't think of anything that doesn't have a side effect -- Can you? And some of those are negative...they must merely be considered and factored; they aren't necessarily show stoppers.

As for Russian studies -- I imagine ice behaves there like it does here. I imagine wind is similar in nature to ours, that gravity acts about the same way, and that air is about as dense per altitude. I imagine Russians aren't any less able to measure distance than we are. In short, just because it's Russian, or any other nationality, doesn't mean it would be less credible. Those blades sling things -- how far isn't a contest, but a consideration. If you've ever been below a radio transmission tower when ice starts to blow off the frame or the guy wires, you know it's both scary and dangerous if you're in the wrong spot!

I think your response didn't further anything productive, including your argument. Let's play fair and stick to pertinent issues. No need to attack!

By Kate Galbraith

New York Times, December 9, 2008

How do wind turbines fare in winter weather?

Not so well, according to one little town in England. The Wisbech Standard reports a harrowing tale in which “lumps of ice three or four feet long flew through the air” and smashed into a carpet showroom and a parking lot.

They apparently came off the spinning blades of a 410-foot-tall wind turbine.
No one was hurt, but residents of Whittlesey, in the southeastern part of England, would not rest until the turbine was shut down. One local businessman described the ice shards as “javelins” coming off the blades.

The wind industry concedes that, as with all tall things (buildings, for example, or trees), ice and snow can build up and, eventually, fall down, creating a hazard to people and structures below.

But the industry denies that “ice-throwing” — another concern surrounding wind power — is a problem. “Ice can end up at places other than exactly at the base of the turbine, but it’s a myth that a turbine will (and can) operate at high speed with ice on it and fling ice for miles,” said Ron Stimmel of the American Wind Energy Association, in an e-mail message.


Just as an airplane will not be able to fly with too much ice on its wings, Mr. Stimmel said, wind turbines are designed to stop or shut off automatically, he said, when they sense the extra weight of ice.

The American Wind Energy Association has posted a brief on the subject, and also discusses the issue in its handbook for siting new wind projects.

But a 2006 publication by G.E. Energy, a maker of large wind turbines, warns that “rotating turbine blades may propel ice fragments some distance from the turbine — up to several hundred meters if conditions are right.”

Its recommendations include placing fences and warning signs around turbines, and locating them a safe distance from buildings or roads. They also recommend deactivating turbines when ice begins to form.

A Swiss report last year, titled “Wind Turbine Ice Throw Studies in the Swiss Alps,” focused on a turbine near a ski area. That report found ice throw to be a “significant safety risk.” The most dangerous place for ice was underneath the turbine, but about 5 percent of fragments landed more than 80 meters — or 260 feet — from the turbine.

A chart from the study shows where and how far ice and snow were flung, relative to the position of the turbine: Distribution of ice throw relative to the wind turbine. (Source: Wind Turbine Ice Throw Studies in the Swiss Alps)

An earlier German study came to a similar conclusion:

As a general recommendation, it can be stated that wind farm developers should be very careful at ice endangered sites in the planning phase and take ice throw into account as a safety issue. Each incident or accident caused by ice throw is an unnecessary event and will decrease the public acceptance of wind energy.

Linda

I believe you have badly misquoted the Swiss Study. The general conclusion of this study was that ice throw was a serious problem.

I have also located a number of studies on transmission lines which concluded that we should not assume transmission lines are safe.

See http://61.6.207.220/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=28

The conclusion from this article which includes the analysis of the Russian study?

"Despite these findings many researchers around the world believe that it is hard to see how the weak fields that come from these outside sources could have any effect in the face of the natural background levels. However, most scientists recommended that we must practice “prudent avoidance” of the source. Since exposure drops rapidly with distance try to maintain maximum distance from potential source. The experts however, mostly agreed that more research is needed to confirm or confound the nation that power line fields, or any electric and magnetic fields for that matter, can kill. So far they believe, majority of the research works are “inadequate” and fundamentally flawed”.

I believe my position of proceeding with care and prudence is well supported by experts in the field despite your claim of safety.

While at the State Fair I noticed a wind generator that did not have the long blades but instead spun from the top and had oval panels. There are many options other than the huge wind turbines with their blades.

I am more inclined to think that we would be better off if people individually got their own wind generators and became self sufficient. In that way people could take care of themselves and you don't run the problem of a power outage where many thousands are left without power. If people have their own unit and become familiar with how it works then if there is a problem they can fix it.

There are many more options besides the huge blade turbines.

Here is one:

I wrote that it is a lie that wind turbines throw ice 1/4 mile. It is a lie.

I read the Swiss article and I did not misquote it. I did not get it wrong. You have it backwards- 260 feet is not 1/4 mile.

Ice falling off and being flung from turbines was a problem around the Swiss tower on top of the alps for roughly 300 feet around the tower. Not 1/4 mile around the tower. I never said that standing under a tower, even the eiffiel tower after an ice storm was safe. Trees, buildings, tall grain bins all shed ice. Some turbines in Brittain were built so close to residences and buildings that ice fall was dangerous. Wind turbines can shed it and fling it but not anywhere close to 1/4 mile.

The Russian problem from the 60's referred to in this article dealt is described as one on the health effects on Russian workers, mouthpiece wrote that his/her Russian study dealt with effects on cows. So this isn't that one, why pretend that it is? Russian workers, not ice , not cows.

The article posted: shows a table and discusses the amount of electric field that are of no concern and then goes on to explain that transmission lines of a certain size with a certain setback or right of way zone that are typical in the US. Look how the lowest exposure in the table and the size of the transmission lines for our local projects comes together. You don't even have to do much math."

" For residential areas below, which it is unnecessary to consider occupancy and
shielding (in plain words there should be no concern). 2.6kV/m
It is well established that in the vicinity of the transmission line the maximum [i]electric field[/i] strength [i]depends mainly on the line voltage and minimum clearance[/i]. In the American transmission system the 345kV lines with a minimum height of 9.1m produce maximum field strength of approximately 7.5kV/m at ground level below the phase conductors. At the edge of the right of 23m from the center line the field strength drops to about 2kV/m."

The studies that advise caution are referring to what distance from the transmission lines? What level of exposure is still a concern? Are experts really calling for more research on exposures that would be typical for our local transmission lines and outside of our South Dakota setbacks or have you made that up too?

Check out the World Health Organization web site. They have been around a lot longer and have done a lot more good than Industrial Wind Action Group.

You make it sound as if the low exposures we would have from our local projects are involved in the studies that are showing health effects. All along everyone has known that this is a thread about local projects. I don't believe that researchers are calling for investigation of relatively small lines with relatively large setbacks like our local projects are planning.

There are many alternatives to "huge wind turbines"? Real alternatives that could supply clean energy in quantities large enough and soon enough to avert a crises? Or did you mean there are many alternatives but none of them will work before we pollute ourselves to death? Small verticle wind turbines are a good thing, they can't solve the energy crisis because the population centers don't have the wind.

Everything has side effects, especially repeating lies as fact. Coming up with fake "dangers" of new projects is a really common tactic by people who just don't want to look at new things in their neighborhood. And that takes away focus from real dangers and delays real solutions.

The freedom of speech and the right to express a contrary opinion is the strength of our society. Last night, Michael Steele pointed out that the claim that those who oppose Obama are racist chills free speech. This is correct.

I really appreciate Joelie but I also appreciate LindaS. A debate, a discussion, that can only allow both sides to be heard is what this area needs more.

Last week I pointed out that the mayor of Ortonville was rude. I did this in an effort that he could watch the tape and see for himself. In that he could become better.

In this discussion, the problem is arguably the studies. Scientific studies are controlled to obtain more consistent results. Am I a liar if I report an incident that is not controlled? For instance, in the studies the turbines are to turn off at a certain wind speed. What happens if they fail to turn off and ice is thrown further?

The study in Russia in which others claim it might not be accurate. The others are motivated by money.

My point is and continues to be, I do not believe anything the federal government tells me and I am cautious with other studies. Some Europeans claim that America is the most corrupt nation in the world. I enter debates with an open mind but a cautious mind. I think LindaS wants to believe certain studies when she should not. This is a good debate that needs to continue. I am thick skinned but sincerely appreciate all of the support.

If their are other studies I would like to see them. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for listening.

I do take irrational criticism of the local wind projects personally. If you read my other posts you know that I do believe in global warming and I have been interested in these local wind projects for years. I didn't just start freaking out because they'll be visible from my future homesite(they will). And I didn't just start drooling because I might make about 2500 dollars on my personal investment a few years from now. I have bias but it's not "life threatening."

As far as the need or the "goodness" of clean energy goes- if the clean energy now people are wrong we get too much clean energy and a little more development in SD than is absolutely necessary and if the anti-clean energy people are wrong then we have vast famines and environmental destruction far beyond a few extra wind turbines spoiling the skyline. So most Americans are betting on renewable energy. The same skyline is vulnerable to huge grain elevators and manufacturing plants already.

People are responsible to phrase what they say so that it's clear wether they know it's true rationally or if they just wish everyone believed it. If you say you think you remember a Russian study of problems around transmission lines I believe you but you can't seriously push that on me as proof that transmission lines are dangerous. If you heard a rumor that wind turbines can throw ice 1/4 mile and you then run around saying that ice fling can be up to 1/4 mile then you just knowingly bet your reputation as a truthful person on some anonymous web site contributor. No one seriously accepts anonymous web site blurbs as facts that are safe to repeat.

So you want your doctor to start getting his info from "unbiased" natural healing practioners who [u]say[/u] that herbs are just as good as chemo and surgery? Right? All of the mainstream studies are tainted by funding you know. Apparently you have a fool proof method of picking out the studies that should be believed? Obviously I use a different method of discernment.

You probably did not notice that the ice throw distance on the top of the alps was about what the normal setbacks are. So the Gov people that you so mistrust have already looked at safety and required a setback that should work even on top of the Swiss Alps. Good for them. Are local wind projects are not the first in the world by any means and our local gov people are not asleep at the wheel.

The same goes for transmission lines. The size of the lines and exposures from the lines slated for the local projects is not the scale that is being implicated in the group of studies showing links to disease. The Big Stone II line is not all that big and close to residences when compared to the lines in the significant disease studies. EMF exposure from appliances in your own home are probably greater than what homes would have from the new lines. Did you know that we all have some EMF exposure from the earth's magnetic field and also home appliances? Again, our own gov people are not asleep at the wheel.

If you read the studies linking transmission lines with disease you will find that the exposures from our local project transmission lines are so low that even those studies do not find a link. That's right, the studies that show the dangers of EMF fields are talking about bigger lines closer to homes, not the local project lines.

You can discount every mainstream researcher and beleive every but then you are left making every judgement by hearsay or your guts. We would certainly be killed by aircraft built that way. Is that what you want for your community?

Incidentally, the California study ,( at least I think it's the one) that Joelie referred to but refused to post the link to, was done by the State of California. So is that report to be thrown out because it was government work? Isn't that funny? It was totally a gov project so can it be trusted? Well I guess if you like the part of the results that you take from it then you think it's a good study. I have to admit that I am curious as to what information is considered worthwhile to all of you. This debate has been an eye opener. Pretty much the first likable rumor wins the debate. Is this California study no good because it too was funded by the typical mainstream groups? Joelie liked the results so she referred to it. Maybe you like the results too so then the funding source is ok? That's really silly. Should I post the link so that you can read the study yourself and not just the bits and pieces selected out for dramatic effect?


I am thankful for the people that take the time to read, study, go into research and manufacturing and not just go by their guts.

Emotional debate and venting and expressing irrational anxieties are all good things and have their place. But they are not the same thing as telling the truth.

LindaS
I went back and read the full transcript of joelie's original post. It was long on reaction and discussion of a basic point that could be considered a DUH. What this study expert discovered was that people living close to 28 large turbines experienced headaches, poor sleep and noise stress. Talk with the radio host ranged from prescription drug increases to other sub, sub, sub effects.
I've lived from between one block to one mile from railroad lines nearly all my life. I love the sound -- Even when I lived one block away from a rail that averaged one train every four minutes around the clock, I found the sounds of railroading soothing and secure.
Apparently wind turbine noise and air disruption (including possible air pressure effects) isn't the same. Windmills in old Europe are welcome sounds. These turbines seem to have some annoying side effects.
OK -- good to know; I won't plan to live under the big, big, big ones. But I'm still looking at one for my roof in the next two years. I like the brushless designs -- less to wear out or break down.
Good post, LindaS. Well said and worth considering.
I have friends who hate the sound of trains -- I sleep better hearing them. I wonder if the turbine sounds can become pleasant eventually. Don't know about the air disruption/air pressure thing. That might mean we need good set backs. I sure wouldn't be comfortable near an airport -- aircraft noise is annoying to me..."Sounds of freedom" notwithstanding. I'd adjust -- close the windows, buy a sturdy house, whatever. Planes gotta fly; I have options to protect my health from the engine whine.
Go clean, alternative power! ...But keep looking at it in all kinds of studies. People should know the side effects and plan accordingly.

I have read both Zorro's and Lindas' posts and have to laugh a little. Last year I was accused of being a rotten environmentalists because I apparently led people to believe I was against the power plant.

Now I am accused of not being green enough by opposing wind power.

Frankly I am neither. Some would call me a realist and some would call me pragmatist on these topics. Here is my general position. The general consensus is that wind power has developed quickly and the studies are not complete. For instance, LindaS pointed out that the graph showed that all ice hunks fell a short distance from the turbine. However, these studies were controlled in the amount of moisture used to create the ice and the speed of the turbines.

We need to go beyond controlled studies. What happens, as it did in my example, when the shut-off malfunctions and the turbine fails to turn off. Clearly, we studied the worst scenarios when we determined that nuclear power was unsafe. My position is that I support wind power, just not with the enthusiasm of the two of you. I am more guarded.

The same thing with coal powered plants and transmission lines. A careful review of these studies indicate that coal powered plants have improved dramatically, but there appears to be a mix result on the studies with transmission lines. My position here is also guarded. We need to meet the energy crunch in the safest way possible and it does not appear that wind can meet all of these demands.

Finally, I prefer solar which has a long way to go.

Here's a little clarification on my position: "An independent paper by Dr. Sander Greenland (University of California, Los Angeles) and colleagues,entitled “A Pooled Analysis of Magnetic Fields, Wire Codes, and Childhood Leukemia,” (Greenland et al.2000) has been published in the journal . The work was funded by NIEHS. The authors concluded: (1) an effect of magnetic fields below 3.0 mG is unlikely or too small to be detected in epidemiological studies; and (2) there is suggestive evidence that an association between magnetic fields greater than 3.0 mG and childhood leukemia exists." And as far as I can tell by reading other web publications at least in part is that exposures over 2 or 3 mG (milligaus) are the concern. Now about the local wind project transmission lines- you tell me which one of those would expose any of our local residences to 2 milligaus or above. After all none of you are worried about the little lines that come into your own houses!

I think we are all having the same quantity problem with the number of feet a tower can fling ice.

Realize that I am being asked to believe that a tower can fling ice 1/4 mile because witnesses in the alps have noted that ice can be flung 260 feet or so. 1/4 mile is over 1200 feet. Don't you think it is strange that none of the locals around wind turbines around the world can get together and sign an eye witness account affadavit and take some photos of ice on the ground 700 or 1200 feet from a turbine?

http://www.windaction.org/news/23373
an article from forbes magazine.

So much for comments that wind power will be expensive! This article is great news and show that unfortunately it is already too late for many community wind projects that plan on simply selling power to utilities. Companies with finances it takes for projects have been filling up the que and getting in line for WAPA and MISO grid studies/permissions. They know how to supply cheap power as you can read in this article. i agree with most of the posts commenting on the article: Well, sure, maybe the per-kilowatt price will go up during peak demand, but that will be offset at least *some* by low or negative pricing at other times. Plus, as people begin to try to conserve, that reduces demand to some degree. Imagine, for instance, the drop if people raised their thermostats in summer just a degree or two or lowered them the same amount in winter. Further, with any luck and political will, a new or improved grid will be a reality on the fairly near horizon.

Free power at night might be an incentive for some changes in the energy consuming industries. There's a lot you can do with free power, even at night. It won't be long before someone figures out how to create jobs with it.

"I'm from Texas, and though our state government often leaves much to be desired, our politicos have made a surprisingly strong commitment to green energy, including putting tax dollars on the table. So, I expect Texans will be benefitting fairly soon -- in a few places, they alreadey are."

It's silly to say that free power at night might drive up daytime prices. If there were no wind turbines then the cost of power to the people would be altogether higher.

I contend that ice is not flung 1/4 mile from existing turbines.

I also contend that none of the transmission lines proposed for the local wind projects are big enough to be a concern. Toting those studies of much much larger transmission lines as pertaining to our local projects was either a very lax mistake or a pretty rotten trick.

The line for Big Stone II was still not all that large, mouthpiece being a very knowledgable person about Big Stone II i thought that a factual comment about transmission line size might be forthcoming. But no. I wonder why not. Size matters in this issue. obviously no one on the blog was scared of their little feeder line into their house.

Whenever people don't post the bibliography/source of the studies they speak of then they don't want you to read for yourself. Very arrogant. I asked for the California study reference, and as a delay tactic the response was that it was easy to find and I would have to look for it myself. That took time. Never believe the results of studies paraphased on a blog, read for yourself.

But if you think transmission lines are ugly, which they are and you don't want to look at them that's understood. If anyone wants to protest them because they don't like their looks or some other legitimate reason that 's worthy of discussion, it's a real concern that has a basis in reality.

In some circles it is ok to bend the truth around you like a comforter and whatever makes one feel good must be trusted over things that make one uncomfortable. I suppose that's what happened. It's called living in a factless world. and it's associated with the politics of no. Everyone has a right to that, but i think that you have no idea how easy it is to be exploited when your feelings determine which information you accept. It's a way of looking at things that has been historically exploited.

Lately there have been hoaxes galore about gun control, health care, etc. I suppose the scares about clean energy are part of the whole culture of "think with your gut".

By the way, it's a lie that the amount of moisture was controlled in the Swiss study that I referenced. It was outdoors in the Swiss Alps, how was that moistured "controlled". The study was particularly useful because the moisture, temperature and winds were so extremely uncontrolled and represented Artic conditions. That's a very greasy way to discount a very good 3 year study.

It was never clear to me wether you actually spoke with a friend who repairs wind turbines who actually said he/she saw ice fly 3/4 mile or if you read that on some anonymous post on the net. Do you know how large a piece of ice must be to be seen with the naked eye 3/4 of a mile or 1/4 of a mile flying through the air?

Do you wonder why the world does not rush to aleviate your concerns with expensive studies? It would not help you in the least since you believe the moisture in the Swiss Alps is controlled.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf

It took me a while to get the hang of this sharing links thing.

What makes Linda Linowes, a media specialist by trade, more trustworthy than a panel of California people who have made science their career? If you trust one anonymous testamonial over "anything" the Federal Gov. publishes then you don't need evidence in order to believe things. Any old testamonial, even an anonymous one might be good enough. You would then be a great juror for the prosecution in the Salem witch trials.

Your community cannot use that poor reasoning or we would soon all be out of electricity, water, jobs and we would have our hands full with disasters of every kind. Cars would not run or be built. Of course our medical care would also be terrible if no one trusted anything that was partly funded by the Federal Government.

Joelie has finally got the hang of posting links to studies; will she ever post the one to the "California study" that showed a link to transmission lines and ALS? Is it funny to pretend to discover a local link to ALS or cancer? We already have local transmission lines larger than any to the wind projects. I think that was all a little blog hoax. I think that was just a trial balloon of sorts to see if the community as a whole might buy into the idea that the little transmission lines for the wind projects are dangerous.

The latest link points to a report that shows that green energy subsidies were no good for the German economy and would be no good for our economy. Who do you trust the least? ExxonMobil of the Federal Government? The report in Joelie's link is funded by ExxonMobil and so it's no wonder that the environmental cost of non wind energy was not in the cost calculations. In a sense the report was accurate as long as you place zero value on clean air, water and land. Once you figure in the cost of cleaning up the air and water and land then wind power is very cheap! Do you have any idea how much it costs to restore a coal mined hillside? What is the cost to treat air pollution induced asthma or emphysema? So who is the organization that produced the financial report on the German energy industry? It is the infamous and biased [b]Institute for Energy Research has received $307,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

[/b]2003
[b]$37,000[/b] ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: [url=http://www.bigstonelakeareaforums.com/post.forum?mode=reply&t=1045#src2]Institute for Energy Research website 5/04[/url]

2004
[b]$45,000[/b] ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Climate Change and Energy Policy Issues
Source: [url=http://www.bigstonelakeareaforums.com/post.forum?mode=reply&t=1045#src4]ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report[/url]

2005
[b]$65,000[/b] ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: [url=http://www.bigstonelakeareaforums.com/post.forum?mode=reply&t=1045#src6]ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report[/url]

2006
[b]$65,000[/b] ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: [url=http://www.bigstonelakeareaforums.com/post.forum?mode=reply&t=1045#src8]ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report[/url]

2007
[b]$95,000[/b] ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: [url=http://www.bigstonelakeareaforums.com/post.forum?mode=reply&t=1045#src9]ExxonMobil 2007 Worldwide Giving Report[/url]

In spite of the funding there are many interesting facts in the report that support renewable energy, including wind, if you remember that the dirty energy industry costs are simply not listed.

I challenge you to disprove what has been published since 2003 on the awea.org site. Sure they have their bias and their bias is not hidden. Do some double checking of what they say. There are a lot of wind turbines operating around the world and the early problems have been worked out. Certainly many other projects are much much riskier than wind turbines and transmission lines. Big Stone II, for instance. Farming, for instance- you can look at Joelie's posts about antibiotics, chemicals, GMO's etc. Rail lines, grain terminals, highways, and ice skating rinks. Just about everything out there is more suspicious than wind turbines and electric transmission lines.

[font=MicrosoftSansSerif][size=12][font=MicrosoftSansSerif][size=12][url=http://www.awea.org/]www.awea.org[/url][/size][/font][/size][/font]