Hi Kevin,
 
I've been following the wind turbine thread and finally have a message
(yours) that stimulates a response.  First of all I'm a wind
mill/turbine geek (Mechanical Engineer now retired)- I am currently
installing 2 windmills: 1) a Superior 2 diaphram air pump to aerate my 2
ponds. This is a multiblade (approx 12 ft dia) on a 30 ft unipole and 2)
an Endurance S250- low rpm- 225 rpm max vs up to 350 for competition
(and therfore low noise at 55 mph wind speed) for whole house power
generation and income for feeding back to the grid.
 
Comments/Inputs:

*       Conservation important but only one part of the story
*       I dont see any significant safety issues with small wind mills-
spoke with owner between Cayuga and Seneca Lakes and he said there have
been no dead birds or other fatalities
*       If everyone who has  13 mph ave windspeed installed a 10,000 to
15,000 kwh per year wind turbine (at half cost- Feds and State pay
$18,000 for an Endurance cost of $39,500) I think we would make a
significant dent in our power generation needs.  I havent run the
numbers on this and dont intend to.
*       We need to rapidly increase nuclear power generation.   This
issue that tends to draw the most (emotional) concern is radioactive
waste disposal.  I think (as do many others who have looked carefully at
the situation) this is a non starter.  Encase the waste in concrete and
bury/place in a salt formation (that has been around millions of years
with no breach of integrity)  I know I will get the more progressive
section of this listserv to attack my position with various histerical
rantings.  I will not answer any of these.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of kevin millar
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 8:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Subsidies for Alternative Production or Conservation? Which is
more cost effective?


 
 Steve,
          I have serious questions that even the maximization of wind
power and other renewable alternatives will make a significant dent in
our dependence on coal, oil or nuclear sources to deliver the currently
accepted level of energy production, delivery, use and future
expectations of same. If we do not concentrate on using less energy,
much less, then all the tax incentives for alternatives will just
deliver short term gains in a losing attempt to meet an unrealistic
demand. The safety and esthetics do matter, but what I am more concerned
about is whether or not we are throwing money ( tax incentives ) in the
wrong direction to bandaid a longer term and more serious issue, ie
unreasonable power production, delivery and usage expectations? 
 
 
Kevin
                                   

>From: "Stephen Nicholson" 
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Wind turbine safety zone
>
>Safety zones will certainly prevent an accident. But why do we need to
make
>wind farms the safest place in the world? I imagine insurance adjusters
>would say that parking your car in the lot to go hiking is much more
>dangerous. Trees shed ice and branches all the time, and "widow-makers"
are
>not a rural myth. How can we allow airplanes to fly overhead, full of
>people?
>
>The calculated risks of installing a Wind Farm must be weighed against
the
>risks of continuing to burn coal to make electricity. Everyday we plug
in
>appliances, narrowly averting electrocution, then fuel up our cars with
a
>highly flammable liquid, and proceed to drive away at a fatal rate of
speed.
>
>My belief is that the known risks of using nuclear and coal power make
it
>imperative that we install as many wind turbines as possible,
calculating
>that the odds of a fatal accident, or damage to the environment, is
orders
>of magnitude less with wind. I say "Throw caution to the Wind".
>Steve
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> > Incidents like this may be rare, but that is not the point. The
point
>> > is that because they may occur, there needs to be saftey zones.
>> >
>> > The question for which I seek an answer is what is a reasonable
safety
>> > zone? Is it feasible to co-locate hiking trails and wind turbines?
>> > Were a cluster of wind turbines placed at the top of Connecticut
Hill,
>> > how would that affect the public's access?
>> >
>> > --Cris
>> >
>> > The Tompkins Renewable Energy Education Alliance (TREEA) is
committed to
>> > furthering discussion and exploration of alternative energy options
within
>> > our region. For more information about TREEA, visit our website:
>> > www.treea.org
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>-- Stephen C. Nicholson 220 Yaple Rd. Berkshire, NY 13736 607-539-6923 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>



The Tompkins Renewable Energy Education Alliance (TREEA) is committed to
furthering discussion and exploration of alternative energy options
within our region. For more information about TREEA, visit our website:
www.treea.org



_______________________________________________
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org

Reply via email to