The environment thread

[DukeNukeEm]

I personally consume very little. In terms of efficiency living in the back of a truck is unbeatable. I make the 5 foot commute from the sleeper to the driver's seat in my underwear. I maybe burn a calorie. Add that to me barely having enough room for anything back there and I do much less consuming of resources than just about anyone.

 

Dont blame me for driving the truck. Youre the ones who need mountains of crap delivered to you from 1000's of miles away.

[Texsox]

Balta, how often have you driven past wind farms? After driving past coal mines and wind farms, I will take a coal mine any day if the only environmental impact of the two is visual. I really dislike travelling for an hour and seeing turbines. The past couple summers driving through most of the rocky mountain states has really soured my appreciation of wind power. I don't think most people realize how many turbines are installed and over how wide an area.

[Balta1701]

Balta, how often have you driven past wind farms? After driving past coal mines and wind farms, I will take a coal mine any day if the only environmental impact of the two is visual. I really dislike travelling for an hour and seeing turbines. The past couple summers driving through most of the rocky mountain states has really soured my appreciation of wind power. I don't think most people realize how many turbines are installed and over how wide an area.

I've done the drive from Indianapolis to Gary quite a few times and I enjoy watching that wind farm expand. I also lived in California for 6+ years where there are a variety of older wind farms. And I've done the full east to west coast drive 6 times now.

 

I would be happy to fully agree with you guys on the necessity of protecting sensitive areas, on the necessity of taking steps to minimize the impact on birds, on not putting a windmill 15 feet from a Bald Eagle's nest. The best place in Tennessee for a wind farm would be the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and no one would be louder saying "no" than me.

 

I have zero problem with driving for an hour through wind turbines. I actually would like to see even more, I get more excited by them the bigger the farm is. It's no different than Cell towers to me.

 

I'm more bothered by miles and miles of corn fields with nothing in them.

 

These things are just excuses to me. We don't care about birds being killed by buildings or cars but it's a huge problem when 0.01% as many are killed by wind farms. We don't care about giant scars on the landscape from coal mines or agriculture but we care about not ruining the scenery of the great plains with wind farms. We don't care about pumping out black clouds of soot from factories, coal plants, and vehicles, but oh my those windmills look terrible.

[Texsox]

I guess we'll differ here. The fact that wind farms need to be placed on the most prominent land features also bothers me. But I love the outdoors and natural beauty so I am not happy with any of our energy options at this point. Probably the least objectionable to me is solar. They can be placed low to the ground or coordinated onto rooftops. Again, I am only commenting on the visual. I am near two natural gas powered plants which power much of this area. They can't be seen from more than about a half mile away. They build them right on pipelines that runs through the area. I accept that more so than many miles of a wind farm blotting out the sky.

[DukeNukeEm]

I actually care a lot about all that stuff, too. And yea wind farms on corn fields really doesnt bother me aesthetically but they arent efficient. Those turbines break, and they got to be trucked in. And they arent cheap to build and a lot of it reeks of government connections enabling guys to just throw them up with no care in the world.

 

The birds will be fine, too. Thats not a concern.

[Balta1701]

I guess we'll differ here. The fact that wind farms need to be placed on the most prominent land features also bothers me. But I love the outdoors and natural beauty so I am not happy with any of our energy options at this point. Probably the least objectionable to me is solar. They can be placed low to the ground or coordinated onto rooftops. Again, I am only commenting on the visual. I am near two natural gas powered plants which power much of this area. They can't be seen from more than about a half mile away. They build them right on pipelines that runs through the area. I accept that more so than many miles of a wind farm blotting out the sky.

You'll change your tone on solar if you see the stuff that is going to be built out in California to power large areas. Those things need space.

 

In terms of the visual...I've hung out in a lot of mines, pipelines, and drilling projects. The gas plants near you might not be quite visible...but the drilling, construction, and extraction apparatus leave impressive scars on the landscape.

[Balta1701]

I actually care a lot about all that stuff, too. And yea wind farms on corn fields really doesnt bother me aesthetically but they arent efficient. Those turbines break, and they got to be trucked in. And they arent cheap to build and a lot of it reeks of government connections enabling guys to just throw them up with no care in the world.

 

The birds will be fine, too. Thats not a concern.

I very much disagree with the claims here. The turbines do break yes on occasion, but they are extremely efficient if they're placed in areas where wind actually blows. They're not cheap to build, but they're incredibly cheap to operate because once they're up the fuel costs drop to zero. Compared to a fossil fuel plant...the plant is cheaper to build, but the plant needs a constant supply of fuel to operate (which, in many cases, comes in via train or ship as well).

[Texsox]

I very much disagree with the claims here. The turbines do break yes on occasion, but they are extremely efficient if they're placed in areas where wind actually blows. They're not cheap to build, but they're incredibly cheap to operate because once they're up the fuel costs drop to zero. Compared to a fossil fuel plant...the plant is cheaper to build, but the plant needs a constant supply of fuel to operate (which, in many cases, comes in via train or ship as well).

 

Drops to zero? That's interesting, I always thought there were electronic controls on them but I guess they could manage them with mechanical brakes. That actually might make more sense.

[Balta1701]

Drops to zero? That's interesting, I always thought there were electronic controls on them but I guess they could manage them with mechanical brakes. That actually might make more sense.

You're right, I should have said "nearly zero". There is some small bit of supplies and regular maintenance required to keep them lubriCated and running. It's similar to how you have to change the transmission fluid in an electric car even though it doesn't use gasoline - it's not 100% down to zero but the operating costs are several orders of magnitude less for similar power generation.

 

The startup cost is high, the operating costs are minimal.

[Balta1701]

I guess we'll differ here. The fact that wind farms need to be placed on the most prominent land features also bothers me. But I love the outdoors and natural beauty so I am not happy with any of our energy options at this point. Probably the least objectionable to me is solar. They can be placed low to the ground or coordinated onto rooftops. Again, I am only commenting on the visual. I am near two natural gas powered plants which power much of this area. They can't be seen from more than about a half mile away. They build them right on pipelines that runs through the area. I accept that more so than many miles of a wind farm blotting out the sky.

Also one more detail on the "Visual" part. If you go up to the high peaks in the Smokies, they have pictures showing "what this view looked like in the 1950's or right after a rainstorm" when the air is clear. On those days you could see across the entire Tennessee River valley, maybe 100 miles or so if you had good enough eyes/binoculars.

 

On an average day up there right now you can't even see the cities 20 miles away.

 

I'd trade having some multi-square-mile large white areas filled with wind farms down in that valley for actually being able to see them. It'd be no different than seeing the cities in the valley to me.

[Texsox]

That is a good point I was not considering in my reply. I was strictly considering the plant. The overall affect causes me to prefer wind to coal. Although I may prefer solar and natural gas to wind.

[Texsox]

You're right, I should have said "nearly zero". There is some small bit of supplies and regular maintenance required to keep them lubriCated and running. It's similar to how you have to change the transmission fluid in an electric car even though it doesn't use gasoline - it's not 100% down to zero but the operating costs are several orders of magnitude less for similar power generation.

 

The startup cost is high, the operating costs are minimal.

 

Also, I misread your original post. There is a significant amount of fuel energy that is necessary to power any fuel burning plant.

 

But another point to visuals and how we generate power. The only type of plant I believe some would consider as actually increasing beauty would be a hydroelectric dam. The argument could be made that a large mountain lake is more beautiful than a river running free. I would disagree, but I could be persuaded that it is less obnoxious than some of the others. I just really dislike seeing so much natural habitat destroyed.

[Balta1701]

Also, I misread your original post. There is a significant amount of fuel energy that is necessary to power any fuel burning plant.

 

But another point to visuals and how we generate power. The only type of plant I believe some would consider as actually increasing beauty would be a hydroelectric dam. The argument could be made that a large mountain lake is more beautiful than a river running free. I would disagree, but I could be persuaded that it is less obnoxious than some of the others. I just really dislike seeing so much natural habitat destroyed.

To some degree, I really don't agree with the concept that a wind farm built in the middle of a cornfield or a wheatfield is "destroying natural habitat", on the grounds that...it's a cornfield. Or it's a wheatfield. It's a long way away from a natural habitat already.

 

However, as I said I totally understand your hesitation to "destroy natural habitat" with electrical generation facilities. It's a really good point when people want to build solar plants in the Mojave, they are actually taking a natural habitat and turning it into a power generation station. That's a tough balance to strike, but then again, there are already scars across that area in roads, rails, aqueducts, and electric transmission lines.

[Texsox]

I meant damming a river to generate electricity. You are swapping a natural river for a man made lake. Now, I love lakes and I love rivers. So in some cases I could be persuaded that a hydroelectric damn that destroys so much river habitat, while creating lake habitat may retain more beauty than say a wind farm.

 

The wind farms I am seeing are miles and miles of turbines located on top of hills throughout Texas to Wyoming. I can only remember seeing one in farm fields. Whereas a coal or natural gas plant sits on a mile or much less of land, a wind farm goes on for dozens and dozens of square miles. I just do not like the aesthetics. I would not want to live near one.

[StrangeSox]

Dams can be hugely destructive for ecosystems, and a lot of (non-hydroelectric) dams are being removed from rivers across the country.

[DukeNukeEm]

Dams are worse than wind farms. s***, theyre probably worse than coal.

 

They have a place, but the USA went dam-mad and theres a million of them. See the aforementioned Columbia River which apparently just gets raped for fun by people in OR and WA.

[cabiness42]

I meant damming a river to generate electricity. You are swapping a natural river for a man made lake. Now, I love lakes and I love rivers. So in some cases I could be persuaded that a hydroelectric damn that destroys so much river habitat, while creating lake habitat may retain more beauty than say a wind farm.

 

The wind farms I am seeing are miles and miles of turbines located on top of hills throughout Texas to Wyoming. I can only remember seeing one in farm fields. Whereas a coal or natural gas plant sits on a mile or much less of land, a wind farm goes on for dozens and dozens of square miles. I just do not like the aesthetics. I would not want to live near one.

 

There is a huge wind farm north of Lafayette. My kids absolutely love it. They are always asking me when we are going back to the "Land of the Giant Fans"

 

Otherwise, it's an insanely boring part of the state. There is no beauty to ruin.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I've said this before... you want to build a big wind farm? Put them out away from shore - I mean like out of visual range - in Hudson Bay. It is the perfect spot. Tons of wind almost at all times, virtually no shipping traffic, and even if they are visible by people, there are almost no significant populations of people along most of it's shores anyway. And unlike other oceanic locations, it is not at all susceptible to hurricanes or the like.

 

The one-time cost to set up transmission wires to run to shore would be significant. But the long term savings would be massive, and you have a ton of space to work with.

 

Same can be said of certain portions of the Great Lakes, as long as you get far enough off shore. Though in that case you need to be more careful about shipping channels.

 

[southsider2k5]

I've said this before... you want to build a big wind farm? Put them out away from shore - I mean like out of visual range - in Hudson Bay. It is the perfect spot. Tons of wind almost at all times, virtually no shipping traffic, and even if they are visible by people, there are almost no significant populations of people along most of it's shores anyway. And unlike other oceanic locations, it is not at all susceptible to hurricanes or the like.

 

The one-time cost to set up transmission wires to run to shore would be significant. But the long term savings would be massive, and you have a ton of space to work with.

 

Same can be said of certain portions of the Great Lakes, as long as you get far enough off shore. Though in that case you need to be more careful about shipping channels.

 

They would be visible on Lake Michigan. I can see from Michigan to Chicago on a relatively clear day.

[iamshack]

Part of the issue with wind farms currently (apart from the aesthetics you all have been discussing) is that much of the tax incentives revolving around production costs are up in the air. The numbers don't work for the developers unless those tax incentives are present, at least in this natural gas market.

Edited December 9, 2013 by iamshack

[NorthSideSox72]

They would be visible on Lake Michigan. I can see from Michigan to Chicago on a relatively clear day.

There are parts of Superior and Huron that are well outside of visual range.

 

But I still think Hudson Bay makes the most sense.

 

[farmteam]

Part of the issue with wind farms currently (apart from the aesthetics you all have been discussing) is that much of the tax incentives revolving around production costs are up in the air. The numbers don't work for the developers unless those tax incentives are present, at least in this natural gas market.

When the wind production tax credit was renewed at the end of 2012, was that only for a single year? If so, that was dumb.

 

EDIT: Sure looks like it expires at the end of this year.

Edited December 9, 2013 by farmteam

[StrangeSox]

Everything in the Oceans is Dying

 

 

National Geographic, Nov. 22, 2013: [...] “In the 24 years of this study, the past 2 years have been the biggest amounts of this detritus by far,” said study leader Christine Huffard, a marine biologist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California. [...] In March 2012, less than one percent of the seafloor beneath Station M [located 145 miles west of the coast of California between Santa Barbara and Monterey] was covered in dead sea salps. By July 1, more than 98 percent of it was covered in the decomposing organisms, according to the study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [...] Although climate change is a leading contender for explaining the major increases in 2011 and 2012, Huffard says that these spikes could be part of a longer-term trend that scientists haven’t yet observed. She hopes to continue gathering data from Station M to try and figure it out.

[StrangeSox]

related:

 

It’s normal for a tiny portion of starfish populations to suffer from so-called “wasting syndrome.” If the creatures’ skin is wounded or becomes too dry, little lesions can become infected and lead to the loss of arms. But the disease is typically isolated to one or two starfish among hundreds in a rocky tide pool. And even in bad cases, it rarely stretches beyond a single population. “The spatial extent is unprecedented,” says Pete Raimondi, chair of the ecology and evolutionary biology department at UC Santa Cruz, which monitors starfish populations on the West Coast. “If it’s as extensive as it looks like it is, then we’re talking about a loss of millions and millions.”

 

While starfish—which scientists call sea stars to avoid the misconception that they are actually fish—often recover from the lesions, infections on the West Coast are proving lethal. Populations of starfish monitored by Raimondi have essentially disappeared over a period of months. “They will start losing arms or bits of arms and in the end, they kind of disintegrate … into a gooey mess,” he says. An individual sea star may go from whole to remains in a period of days. Though starfish generally have the ability to grow new arms, in these cases wounds don’t heal and innards become exposed as the animal falls apart.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

10 animals that went extinct in 2013