The Place Where Ludington Talks
The Powers That Be: Against the Wind, For the Water
When I first heard about the proposed offshore wind farm (POWF), I didn't believe it was an idea based in reality. Sure, I love the idea of a clean, renewable source of energy, the potential of new jobs in the area, and the innovation of the idea. I even advocated wind energy when I attended elementary school, and had a windmill on the farm I grew up on.
But this project is destined to be one of the biggest boondoggles I have ever seen. I did some research. I could mention the loss of the mighty tourist dollar to the Mason-Oceana area due to the three-pronged eyesores, or the loss of property values not only to lakeshore-fronted properties, but also by extension inland-property values. I could mention the as yet unproven technology to be employed or the various accidents that have happened to other wind turbines in the past. I could mention the impact on the local fishing/aquatourism community and the hundreds of birds that would wash up ashore on our beaches each year after having been bludgeoned by that perch they saw.
But that's all unnecessary (wink), because even if this project is run according to plan and fulfills all its lofty dreams, there is the matter of comparisons and contrasts with the status quo. Our beloved, environmentally-friendly Ludington Pumped Storage Project (PSP), whose very existence makes it possible to develop and make wind farm energy feasible in this area.
1) The PSP was built between 1969-73 at a cost of $327 million (adjusted for inflation is about $1.5 billion). The POWF is scheduled to take at least 6 years to build at a cost of over $3 billion.
2) The PSP can produce up to 1872 mW of electricity during peak demand times. The POWF will be able to get up to 1000 mW, depending on the wind, which is typically less during peak demand (summer day) times.
3) The PSP is situated on less than 4 sq. miles and is surrounded by a park, a campground, and scenic overlooks. The POWF will be on 100 sq. miles of Michigan real estate, diverting public water traffic around it.
4) Annual state and local taxes collected from the PSP exceed $10 million, they put over $12 million into the area's economy, owned by power companies, and employ 41 people. Your federal and state taxes will be primarily subsidizing this effort. Historically, wind farms have given few benefits to the local area they're at, particularly when offshore.
OK, let's see what we got. The PSP puts out about twice the energy at half the cost, and demanded no existing infrastructure, like the POWF does. The POWF takes up 30 times more area, and offers its power when conditions are right, usually not at peak times. The local effect on jobs, our environment, and our economy is currently unknown for the POWF, the PSP's effects are known and overwhelmingly positive.
So why are we even considering these idiotic wind farms here? Why don't we start looking for more places to set up new pumped storage projects, the efficient, green alternative to power production?
But this project is destined to be one of the biggest boondoggles I have ever seen. I did some research. I could mention the loss of the mighty tourist dollar to the Mason-Oceana area due to the three-pronged eyesores, or the loss of property values not only to lakeshore-fronted properties, but also by extension inland-property values. I could mention the as yet unproven technology to be employed or the various accidents that have happened to other wind turbines in the past. I could mention the impact on the local fishing/aquatourism community and the hundreds of birds that would wash up ashore on our beaches each year after having been bludgeoned by that perch they saw.
But that's all unnecessary (wink), because even if this project is run according to plan and fulfills all its lofty dreams, there is the matter of comparisons and contrasts with the status quo. Our beloved, environmentally-friendly Ludington Pumped Storage Project (PSP), whose very existence makes it possible to develop and make wind farm energy feasible in this area.
1) The PSP was built between 1969-73 at a cost of $327 million (adjusted for inflation is about $1.5 billion). The POWF is scheduled to take at least 6 years to build at a cost of over $3 billion.
2) The PSP can produce up to 1872 mW of electricity during peak demand times. The POWF will be able to get up to 1000 mW, depending on the wind, which is typically less during peak demand (summer day) times.
3) The PSP is situated on less than 4 sq. miles and is surrounded by a park, a campground, and scenic overlooks. The POWF will be on 100 sq. miles of Michigan real estate, diverting public water traffic around it.
4) Annual state and local taxes collected from the PSP exceed $10 million, they put over $12 million into the area's economy, owned by power companies, and employ 41 people. Your federal and state taxes will be primarily subsidizing this effort. Historically, wind farms have given few benefits to the local area they're at, particularly when offshore.
OK, let's see what we got. The PSP puts out about twice the energy at half the cost, and demanded no existing infrastructure, like the POWF does. The POWF takes up 30 times more area, and offers its power when conditions are right, usually not at peak times. The local effect on jobs, our environment, and our economy is currently unknown for the POWF, the PSP's effects are known and overwhelmingly positive.
So why are we even considering these idiotic wind farms here? Why don't we start looking for more places to set up new pumped storage projects, the efficient, green alternative to power production?
Views: 351
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Victoria George Cook on
-
Good reading, guys. I initially thought the project was not visually pleasing and would affect tourism, but good overall. It would be nice to start alternative energy sources and quit depleting our fossils, but is there a good alternative? How about solar panels over the PSP lake-- less evaporation of the manmade lake and more easily accessed power for the pumps?
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on
-
In regards to solar power, actually producing the power once you got everything up is relatively safe. The problem arises in the production of the components for solar power, in particular the mirrors. Part of the process in producing the mirrors ends up producing a toxic waste product which of course has to be dealt with in some way.
I think the more we learn about the alternative energies, the more we are going to find that a lot of them are harmful to the environment as fossil fuels are. Look at the newer lightbulbs that have become popular.... break one of those and you seemingly would be better off putting on a protective suit just to clean it up. Sure it saves on your electric bill but that's only if it doesn't kill you.
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
It would be nice if we could develop nuclear fusion as an alternative, then we wouldn't have all the worries about environmental impacts, unless that too requires special materials (other than water) that are detrimental. We will eventually have to wean ourselves from oil, natural gas, and coal, and it will be top bad if we cannot have a replacement power structure getting built up before that.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
