actually i take the view eastern environmental groups who say wind is ok, even just about wherever (except perhaps designated wilderness areas) so long as you for every mountain top you develop with roads, powerlines, clearings, etc you stop one mountain top removal for coal. so far, you actually the same power companies that rely on coal now trying to develop additional wind farms (and claiming as a result they are 'green'.) also, they always assume 'we need more electricity' because they project increased demand (with population growth and more needs (sopping mall lighting, 65 degree air conditioning, etc.)) with little discussion of efficiency or even reducing demand.
i saw your article on the PNAS study showing wind has alot of potential (though the grid and storing it possibly via batteries remain open practical problems if this is really going to kick in) and i agree with that. But there is no more reason to destroy unique ecosystems to just get a drop in the bucket shot of power (using the same subsidies that make dirty energy equally available) than there is to destroy/develop anwar to get through a few more commuting traffic jams in your air conditioned SUV's. (i'd almost say f-k the kennedy's and cape cod, and i ecven fell the same way about protecting anwar or mountains who really are only available to be used by the eco-elite, but the natural ecosystem to me takes precedence). my impresssion is offshore wind doesn't have the same ecological footprint, and also midwest wind if for example its already on developed farmlands (eg wheat) in colorado etc. (But i actually would say the hill country of texas, and
the remaining prarie likely should be ofrf limits. possibly some descendents of europeans could also return home to germany where wind is i gather about 6% of electrcity and planning to be more assuming projections are sound).
'you by the phone
you all alone
its a long way back to germany'
---ramones (possibly on road to ruin).
--- On Tue, 8/4/09, Gar Lipow <the.typo.boy at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Gar Lipow <the.typo.boy at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Attack on industrial wind puffed with false peer review claims
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 11:52 AM
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:37 AM,
> mart<media314159 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > i don't think industrial wind belongs in undeveloped
> wild areas such as the appalachian mountains, were it exists
> mostly because it is subsidized, and has almost zero impact
> on electricity generation in the region (from coal, etc.)
> N Carolina recently apparently ghas banned wind in the
> mountains; offshore is whwere it likely makes sense there,
> except possibly small wind generators around developed
> areas.
>
> OK, I encounter this view all the time. Of course wind
> "exists because
> it is subsidized". It is competing with subsidized coal,
> subsidized
> natural gas, mostly government built (not just subsidized)
> hydro, and
> heavily subsidized nuclear. "Zero impact on
> electricity generation".
> bullshit. The grain of truth in this is because we
> don't do friggin
> planning in our electric utility industry we don't have
> storage and
> long distance transmisison, so some fossil fuel plants are
> kept
> on-line doing "hot burns" in case the wind dies down. Even
> so, this
> ends up using about one unit of coal for every ten units
> coal running
> the wind generators save. Put in some flow batteries
> and you won't
> need "hot burn" spinning reserve at all. Put in long
> distance
> transmission lines. As to offshore wind, you mean in
> practice offshore
> as long as no Kennedy can see it from the window of
> their mansion.
>
> >
> > see discussions for example on
> >
> > www.windwatch-org.
> >
> > www.vawind.org
> >
> > --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Gar Lipow <the.typo.boy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Gar Lipow <the.typo.boy at gmail.com>
> >> Subject: [lbo-talk] Attack on industrial wind
> puffed with false peer review claims
> >> To: "lbo-talk" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> >> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 2:36 PM
> >> Attack on industrial wind puffed with
> >> false peer review claims
> >> Self-published book gained mainstream media
> attention
> >> through deception
> >> http://tinyurl.com/WTSnonsense
> >>
> >> by Gar W. Lipow Aug 3 2009
> >>
> >> Nina Pierpont is a long-time, self-published
> advocate of
> >> the view that
> >> living within a kilometer or two of industrial
> scale wind
> >> farms can
> >> cause migraines, sleep deprivation, and other
> serious
> >> symptoms and
> >> long term damage. Now she’s gained mainstream
> attention
> >> [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/are-wind-farms-a-health-risk-us-scientist-identifies-wind-turbine-syndrome-1766254.html]
> >> by claiming that her new (self-published) book
> Wind Turbine
> >> Syndrome:
> >> A Natural Experiment [http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/] is
> >> peer-reviewed.
> >>
> >> Note, however, that the imprint publishing this
> work,
> >> K-Selected Books
> >> [http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?page_id=11], has a
> >> four-person
> >> editorial board consisting of Pierpont, her
> husband Calvin
> >> Luther
> >> Martin, and two other members. Pierpont’s
> husband is also
> >> the book’s
> >> editor. Her book only can be ordered only from her
> website.
> >> The
> >> “publisher” website is a page on Pierpont’s
> site.
> >> This is obviously a
> >> self-published book.
> >>
> >> Valid peer-review is, by nature, independent.
> While authors
> >> are
> >> encouraged (and sometimes required) to suggest
> possible
> >> peer
> >> reviewers, the final selection of reviewers in
> valid
> >> refereeing is
> >> never made by people closely related to the
> author, or
> >> hired by the
> >> author. Pierpont being on the editorial board of a
> company
> >> that she
> >> claims oversaw a peer review process is itself a
> scandal. I
> >> would be
> >> curious to know who the actual editor was who made
> the
> >> final selection
> >> of referees. Was it someone other than her
> husband?
> >>
> >> Here is the sad thing: People make
> non-peer-reviewed
> >> arguments every
> >> day. Non-fiction that is not peer reviewed has
> been known
> >> to end up on
> >> the best-seller list and influence public debate.
> In
> >> falsely claiming
> >> valid peer review, Pierpont has undermined the
> credibility
> >> of her
> >> arguments far more than non-peer reviewed
> publication would
> >> have.
> >> Valid arguments do not need to be shored up by
> carefully
> >> planned
> >> deceit.
> >>
> >> Pierpont’s work has been widely disputed in
> >> peer-reviewed
> >> publications. This dishonesty does not encourage
> me to
> >> believe her
> >> over her opponents.
> >>
> >> Shame on Pierpont for using such deceit to prop up
> her
> >> case. Shame on
> >> the Independent for not even bothering to read the
> Pierpont
> >> website
> >> carefully enough to detect this poorly concealed
> >> deception.
> >>
> >> ___________________________________
> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
> --
> Please note: Personal messages should be
> sent to [garlpublic]
> followed by the [at] sign with isp of [comcast], then
> [dot] and then
> an extension of net
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>