ANWR wind farm proposal

The subject line is not true (yet) but think about the concept.
Would "green" types OK massive visual blight and access roads for thousands of 400-foot wind turbines in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, just because they are a "zero-emissions" power source? I would hope not, but aesthetics seem to evaporate in the wind for advocates.
ANWR is a landscape few people ever see but I'm almost more OK with oil drilling than wrecking more pristine scenery with huge, spinning industrial towers. The profile and motion of man-made objects is critical to a view. The word "green" conjures images of views colored by chlorophyll, not white steel.
CO2 isn't good but oil derricks are harder to see from a distance and aren't usually perched on ridge-lines. They would also (presumably) come down after the oil is depleted, leaving the landscape free of obvious structures. Wind turbines would have to stay indefinitely, by design.
It's reported that 60% of U.S. turbines are behind in maintenance due to lack of skilled workers. When gearboxes fail they are useless eyesores for weeks or months. Drive by any wind farm and you'll see a good number of idle turbines. This is not set it and forget it technology.
If we must put up thousands more turbines, they should be painted the color of the average local sky to blend into horizons. But that could heighten the bird-kill risk. I really don't see how wind power fits with environmental activism.
Building more roads and forcing industrial views upon millions of acres is what it comes down to (if maximum deployment is achieved). People who call wind turbines "beautiful" must think cities are the most interesting part of the landscape. That's industrialism, not environmentalism.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Don't blight the land that feeds you.

Enough Already wrote in news:589f1591-3e8a-4db2- 9651-212c3877f86a@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com:
..

Building more roads and forcing industrial views upon millions of acres is what it comes down to (if maximum deployment is achieved). People who call wind turbines "beautiful" must think cities are the most interesting part of the landscape. That's industrialism, not environmentalism.

The farmers and ranchers in remote locations who profit from the secondary use of their properties would disagree with you.
I don't consider it much of a problem either.
--Damon, who gets a fraction of his electricity from wind in eastern Washington state

It don't matter what you do, some fucking morons will complain. So stop listening to the stupid fucking morons and start doing something about energy production.

-- Claude Hopper :)
? ? �

Enough Already wrote:

CO2 isn't good

CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life.
Graham

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:40:13 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Enough Already wrote:
CO2 isn't good
CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life.
Graham

Yes , its odd that CO2 has been with us ever since human beings started to inhabit the planet but its only very recently become bad. When I went to school, I was never taught that CO2 was bad. But we cant have ETS schemes unless CO2 is bad. Its a good thing that O2 and N2 arnt greenhouse gases, or at least arnt yet, or we would be in real trouble.

On 14 Nov, 19:35, Enough Already wrote:

The subject line is not true (yet) but think about the concept.
Would "green" types OK massive visual blight and access roads for thousands of 400-foot wind turbines in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, just because they are a "zero-emissions" power source? I would hope not, but aesthetics seem to evaporate in the wind for advocates.
ANWR is a landscape few people ever see but I'm almost more OK with oil drilling than wrecking more pristine scenery with huge, spinning industrial towers. The profile and motion of man-made objects is critical to a view. The word "green" conjures images of views colored by chlorophyll, not white steel.

If few ever see it, what's the problem?
They don't leak oil in any dangerous way. They don't melt any permafrost. And they're not an eye sore because there are no eyes.
There's also no customers for the electricity in ANWR.

CO2 isn't good but oil derricks are harder to see from a distance and aren't usually perched on ridge-lines. They would also (presumably) come down after the oil is depleted, leaving the landscape free of obvious structures. Wind turbines would have to stay indefinitely, by design.
It's reported that 60% of U.S. turbines are behind in maintenance due to lack of skilled workers. When gearboxes fail they are useless eyesores for weeks or months. Drive by any wind farm and you'll see a good number of idle turbines. This is not set it and forget it technology.
That's an issue. Are you referring to the 1990s farms with small wind

turbines or the multi MW windfarms?

If we must put up thousands more turbines, they should be painted the color of the average local sky to blend into horizons. But that could heighten the bird-kill risk. I really don't see how wind power fits with environmental activism.
As far as I'm aware, there is no serious bird kill risk, though

camoflaging the blades might create one.
I have heard there's a bat-kill risk.

Building more roads and forcing industrial views upon millions of acres is what it comes down to (if maximum deployment is achieved). People who call wind turbines "beautiful" must think cities are the most interesting part of the landscape. That's industrialism, not environmentalism.
Roads do actually do more damage. What about airships for

construction?
Offshore of course, no need for roads and no transportation limit on component size.

"Eeyore" wrote in message

Enough Already wrote:
CO2 isn't good
CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life.
Graham

Yes, but not 70 Million Tons added to the environment each year in the US alone. CO2 is out of balance in the environment and growing.

"Bob Eld" ha scritto nel messaggio

"Eeyore" wrote in message
Enough Already wrote:
CO2 isn't good
CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life.
Graham
Yes, but not 70 Million Tons added to the environment each year in the US alone. CO2 is out of balance in the environment and growing.

Only 70 milions tons per year for Us alone? I think is a greater figure

"Romeo Gigli" wrote in message

"Bob Eld" ha scritto nel messaggio
"Eeyore" wrote in message
Enough Already wrote:
CO2 isn't good
CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life.
Graham
Yes, but not 70 Million Tons added to the environment each year in the US alone. CO2 is out of balance in the environment and growing.
Only 70 milions tons per year for Us alone? I think is a greater figure

Yeah, your right, it's in the billions of tons. But, the point remains with the environment even more ot of balance than suggested.

On Nov 14, 2:35�pm, Enough Already wrote:

The subject line is not true (yet) but think about the concept.
Would "green" types OK massive visual blight and access roads for thousands of 400-foot wind turbines in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, just because they are a "zero-emissions" power source? I would hope not, but aesthetics seem to evaporate in the wind for advocates.
ANWR is a landscape few people ever see but I'm almost more OK with oil drilling than wrecking more pristine scenery with huge, spinning industrial towers. The profile and motion of man-made objects is critical to a view. The word "green" conjures images of views colored by chlorophyll, not white steel.

Well, the people with science, engineering, energy, and techonology brains have ready invented GPS, fiber optics, USB, All-In-One- Printers, Post McDonald's Holograms, AAVs, AUVs, Post Ford Batteries, Post AT&T Optics, and On-Line-Publishing to completley remove the entire idiot state of Alaska and Canada, from any future involvement in an any energy issues, So it's doesn't matter that much what blights the ANWR cretins either way.

CO2 isn't good but oil derricks are harder to see from a distance and aren't usually perched on ridge-lines. They would also (presumably) come down after the oil is depleted, leaving the landscape free of obvious structures. Wind turbines would have to stay indefinitely, by design.
It's reported that 60% of U.S. turbines are behind in maintenance due to lack of skilled workers. When gearboxes fail they are useless eyesores for weeks or months. Drive by any wind farm and you'll see a good number of idle turbines. This is not set it and forget it technology.
If we must put up thousands more turbines, they should be painted the color of the average local sky to blend into horizons. But that could heighten the bird-kill risk. I really don't see how wind power fits with environmental activism.
Building more roads and forcing industrial views upon millions of acres is what it comes down to (if maximum deployment is achieved). People who call wind turbines "beautiful" must think cities are the most interesting part of the landscape. That's industrialism, not environmentalism.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Don't blight the land that feeds you.

Mauried wrote:

Eeyore wrote: Enough Already wrote:
CO2 isn't good
CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life.
Yes , its odd that CO2 has been with us ever since human beings started to inhabit the planet but its only very recently become bad. When I went to school, I was never taught that CO2 was bad. But we cant have ETS schemes unless CO2 is bad. Its a good thing that O2 and N2 arnt greenhouse gases, or at least arnt yet, or we would be in real trouble.

You're one of the few people who 'get it' Mauried.
Did you know that elevated CO2 actually increases agricultural output too ? As does warmer temperatures generally. In a world where people are starving, these are GOOD things.
Graham

disgoftunwells wrote:

I have heard there's a bat-kill risk.

I've heard there's a fish-kill risk when trawlers go to sea as well.
Graham

Bob Eld wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote Enough Already wrote:
CO2 isn't good
CO2 is ESSENTIAL for life.
Yes, but not 70 Million Tons added to the environment each year in the US alone.

The USA is uniquely bad.

CO2 is out of balance in the environment and growing.

And the quantity produced and absorbed by the natural environment is ...... ?
TOTALLY UNKNOWN. Let's have some numbers before babbling about things of no concern.
Graham

disgoftunwells wrote in news:12b36b63-54b7- 4574-a4dd-680521904ead@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com:

I have heard there's a bat-kill risk.

I guess they have sonar defeating features then.