Why people in eastern Washington don't like wind farms.....

Yard Sale

Huge Member
Nuclear is as close as your going to come. That one nuclear plant in the Tri-Cities generates more electricity than ALL the Industrial Wind Areas combined in the Northwest on a annual or even monthly basis.

Coal fired plants have a fairly small footprint....but they really put out the particulate stuff. We see it as haze.

Natural gas has a fairly small site footprint, but you have to run the pipelines there, and if you have been to northern BC that footprint on the landscape is pretty bad in a pristine landscape.

See this real time generating capacity graph....That is one nuclear power plant, two coal plants, I am guessing about half a million acres of Industrial Wind Areas and I believe about 100 plus dams. You can kinda get an idea of footprint from these statistics.

https://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.png

Coal has a small footprint? Where do you think it comes from?

But it just creates “haze” right? You know, like fog....
 

ribka

Active Member
A couple of things that the article doesn't mention:

-The farmers on whose land the turbines are leased from LOVE them - they get paid far more for that quarter acre used to hold each wind turbine than if they put grain on them. I met a farmer in Idaho who, upon receiving his funds, went on a round-the-world trip with his family. He had 15 WTG's on it.

-those California turbines that are non-functional? They're all over 25 years old. Their output is less than 10% of a modern WTG.

-Economic sense does not necessarily depend on jobs. Jobs in the wind industry are great, don't get me wrong. Many of the jobs are not local, sorry. They are monitored electronically remotely. Repair people are not located right there, but usually work over a large territory. Lots of jobs are temporary - hundreds of folks help at the ports to offload the WTG's, truckers move them to the wind farms, and hundreds more build the wind farms. Few local jobs remain, but that doesn't mean the industry doesn't generate jobs.

-Absolutely true, wind power is more expensive than coal, certainly more than dams. Most of the anti wind propaganda put out by those paid by the oil industry, please don't believe me but research it.

Wind energy is not primarily created for economic savings, but because it is less environmentally damaging than dams or coal.
Dan

Do you have big wind turbines next to your house?
 
B

bennysbuddy

Dan

Do you have big wind turbines next to your house?
Nope, cell towers, overhead power lines,church bells,and a assortment of other annoying things that make modern life possible
 

longputt

Active Member
Your right.

I forgot that the price for the coal plant in western Washington is paid for in environmet in Wyoming and Montana.


I'm just kidding...but what if a certain percentage, say 50%, of your counties energy demand had to be generated within your county? Do you think opinions might change? Remote polluters, like King County, might have a different outlook.
 
Last edited:

longputt

Active Member
Nuclear is as close as your going to come. That one nuclear plant in the Tri-Cities generates more electricity than ALL the Industrial Wind Areas combined in the Northwest on a annual or even monthly basis.

Coal fired plants have a fairly small footprint....but they really put out the particulate stuff. We see it as haze.

Natural gas has a fairly small site footprint, but you have to run the pipelines there, and if you have been to northern BC that footprint on the landscape is pretty bad in a pristine landscape.

See this real time generating capacity graph....That is one nuclear power plant, two coal plants, I am guessing about half a million acres of Industrial Wind Areas and I believe about 100 plus dams. You can kinda get an idea of footprint from these statistics.

https://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.png


Here's a fun nuclear fact:

The fuel sitting in the spent fuel storage and dry casks is only 5 to 10% used. That means if we re-processed and extracted the unused fuel we could run our reactors for 10 to 20 times longer without ever mining uranium again. Given the 40 year life of our reactors that is 400 to 800 years without mining!

This "bury it in the in the ground" philosophy is flat wrong...thank the Carter administration.

It seems like our country is using nuclear power about as inefficiently as we possibly can! Thank deregulation of the utilities for that...thank the Reagan administration.
 

tkww

Member
The fuel sitting in the spent fuel storage and dry casks is only 5 to 10% used. That means if we re-processed and extracted the unused fuel we could run our reactors for 10 to 20 times longer without ever mining uranium again. Given the 40 year life of our reactors that is 400 to 800 years without mining!

But think of all the poor uranium minors (read:corporations) who would be out of work! As we've been diligently trying to established with gill netting (and previously with logging), we have to keep doing it wrong so that people don't have to change.
 

HBB

Active Member
I'm just kidding...but what if a certain percentage, say 50%, of your counties energy demand had to be generated within your county? Do you think opinions might change? Remote polluters, like King County, might have a different outlook.

King County already relies on the Snoqualmie Falls Hydro plant. I'm not sure whether the Cedar Falls Dam is still in use as a hydroelectric facility, but assume it could come back on line if it's currently inactive. That might get you fairly close to 50% (I need to check generating capacity), but if not, there are of course there a number of other rivers that could be dammed for hydro plants as well.

Overall, if King County had to generate a significant percentage of its electricity internally, it would be in about as good a position as any other county in the state, despite much larger demand. That's not to say that their wouldn't be adverse environmental impacts, of course.
 

longputt

Active Member
King County already relies on the Snoqualmie Falls Hydro plant. I'm not sure whether the Cedar Falls Dam is still in use as a hydroelectric facility, but assume it could come back on line if it's currently inactive. That might get you fairly close to 50% (I need to check generating capacity), but if not, there are of course there a number of other rivers that could be dammed for hydro plants as well.

Overall, if King County had to generate a significant percentage of its electricity internally, it would be in about as good a position as any other county in the state, despite much larger demand. That's not to say that their wouldn't be adverse environmental impacts, of course.

That's good news how are the fish by passes operated on those dams?

The Wikipedia site for Puget Sound Energy is very interesting (not sure if it is true!) 37% of the power comes from a coal plant in MT and King County generates about 210MW using 3 dams of the 2900 MW capacity. Not sure how much King County specifically uses.

It would be interesting to know where the additional 2100MW (5000MW capacity less 2900MW owned) purchased from the grid comes from?
 
Last edited:

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top