Are all the windmills in the Gorge screwing up the wind?

[jesusjones]

On my drive to Roosevelt yesterday I couldn’t help but notice how the windmills are mucking up the landscape. I had to wonder are these things going to screw up wind flow as well. It seems that if there are going to be so many mills on the hills, they should tear down the dams on the Snake. That’s only fair isn’t it?

[WMP]

I believe the concept here is that in approximately 500 - 1,000 years, there will be billions upon billions of wind turbines in the Gorge.... enough, perhaps, to replace a couple dams?

My complaint is that the color of BRIGHT WHITE seems to go against the landscape... why not an earthy tan or puke / slime -- brownish / green color? I mean, gesh, Gorge Commission makes me paint my house this ungodly color.

- WMP

[hilton08]

They just need to take some of the excess electricity from the 30knot days and run the windmills in reverse like a big fan. Then we could still sail on the "no wind" days and have guaranteed wind all summer.

[bajaguy]

From my viewpoint, every windmachine I see means thousands of barrels of oil and tons of coal not being burned to generate power at the expense of the atmosphere. I doubt that the machines being built at the east end of the Gorge are affecting the wind we share on the river. I've heard that the machines will not be allowed within the Gorge National Scenic area, so that means from Stevenson to Maryhill will be a windmachine free zone.

[WMP]

Big problem with not allowing wind turbines in the scenic area is that best quality winter east winds blow between Stevenson and Corbet... within the scenic area boundary.

Winter is the most demanding time for power in the NW, dams can't produce near enough power to keep up with demand.... thus, PGE Boardman coal plant (biggest atmospheric mess creator in NW) will remain in operation until a cleaner, cheaper (emphasis on cheaper) alternative can be found.

Hey, I'm all for clean wind energy... I just think wind turbines could be made to blend better with the landscape. From what I understand, it's an FAA requirement that wind turbines are to be bright white or bright orange in order to be visible to aircraft and kiters?

- WMP

[katosandog]

Oh, I hate to get into a debate on this here, but here goes ...

The thought that enough wind turbines can be built to replace fossil fuels is insane, and I'll bet right now that years from now we'll be lamenting the massive misallocation of capital. IMHO, the only thing that can reduce fossil fuel use is micro project development - i.e. wind and solar generation at a household level, where output and consumption is monitored by the direct user. Macro wind power development will fail.

We are entering a dangerous period where it's perceived that electricity is "clean" (I want a car I can plug-in!), and it's use will skyrocket as folks plug-in their entire lifestyle.

[drblanke]

Ya, not the best sight around Maryhill these days. Reminds me of the sea of power poles servicing the pump heads in the west Texas Permian basin.

I'm glad turbines aren't allowed in the scenic area proper. Anybody who supports them in Underwood/Mosier should drive out to Maryhill and take a look.

[andymc4610]

Try I-10 to Palm Springs, thousands of the suckers.

[windoggi]

cool stuff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mwW1phX_7M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuQEvcFUyJg

[Ferry]

bring back Nuclear power! Stop the BS and save this Country because energy is going to explode (in cost $$) Energy is what your government is going to try to bring back our economy. It's bogus!

Do not under estimate this man http://www.pushback.com/Wattenburg/

one of the most creditible people when it comes to energy!


Intel and Sun CEOs Propose Nuclear Plants—Here is some ammunition for them
Dr. Bill Wattenburg
KGO Radio 810AM
“The Open Line to the West Coast Show”
ABC San Francisco
Consultant, Lawrence Livermore National laboratory
www.drbill.org
February 22, 2001

Here are some new ideas from knowledgeable scientists who are very realistic about the modern realities of nuclear power vs. all other alternatives.

Western States Must Build More Hydroelectric and Nuclear Power Plants to Stop Being Blackmailed by Out of State Natural Gas Suppliers.
The Auburn Dam Must be Completed.
Nuclear Plants Can be Built Near Hydro Reservoirs for the Ultimate Safety Factor That Guarantees no Nuclear Accidents.
California and Nevada Should Build Several Nuclear Power Plants at the Former Nevada Test Site that Would Make Both States Energy Independent.
Ironically, Burning Fossil Fuels is Putting 2,000 tons of Radioactivity in the Air We Breath Every Year and Producing our Most Toxic Waste Sites (www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html).
Natural Gas Supplies are being Depleted, Pipelines Overloaded. All States Will be Blackmailed for Higher Prices as Populations Increase.
The recent energy crisis in California is a wake up call. There will be continued crises and rate increases so long as we are totally dependent on outside suppliers for natural gas. All western states will suffer the same fate as supplies of natural gas are depleted. We are in this trap because our whole country has been forced to burn non-renewable fossil fuels, gas, oil and coal, for most of our power since environmental hysteria stopped the building of hydro and nuclear power plants in the U.S. And yet, our hydro and nuclear plants have been supplying more than thirty percent of our power, silently, reliably, for the last forty years with none of our money being paid to outside power suppliers. California and its neighboring western states must build and share more hydro and nuclear power plants that will give us all some energy independence.

It is foolish for our political leaders to give up the only bargaining chip that we can use to force natural gas suppliers to keep their prices reasonable. Hydro and nuclear plants don’t need their natural gas at all. These suppliers will lose a major captive market if we build more hydro and nuclear plants. There is only one way that they’ll offer long term contracts for greater supplies of natural gas—and that is when they realize California is going to build its own power plants that don’t need them—forever.

The governor and the legislature must immediately investigate our options for building and sharing more hydroelectric and modern nuclear plants on the many sites that could be used in California, Nevada, and Arizona, and Mexico. The governors of these states must appoint a blue-ribbon commission of our most knowledgeable scientists, lay people, and business people to look at reality, to find the truth and tell it to the public and the press.

More hydroelectric and nuclear power plants would protect us against economic blackmail by the suppliers of natural gas and cleanup our air. These plants don’t need an energy source from anyone but nature itself. For decades our hydroelectric and nuclear plants have been producing pollution free energy for California at a fraction of the cost we are now paying for non-renewal, air polluting energy from burning fossil fuels. The new natural gas fired power plants being built will make us even more dependent on the out of state energy suppliers who are blackmailing California now. We are playing right into their hands. Certainly, we need to build more power plants of any sort for the short term, but California must protect itself for the long term.

Unfortunately, our political leaders have not even mentioned this possibility for California to become more energy independent and stable. Our leaders are intimidated by self-proclaimed environmentalist groups. Anyone who even dares call for a new study of hydroelectric or nuclear power plants is immediately labeled as an anti-environmentalist. Many in the press routinely publish all scare stores about nuclear plants on the front page. The truth has long been smothered by hysteria propagated by self-serving nuclear fear mongers, in the same way that scientific frauds terrified the world over the non-existent Y2K disaster.

A scientific report from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory at the end of this article (http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html) will show you the enormous environmental damage that has been done to this country and the world by the so-called environmentalists who forced us to use only fossil fuels. Did you know that you have been breathing a thousand times more radioactivity in the air—every year—then could ever come from all of our nuclear power plants? It is ironic that those who claimed to be environmentalists in attacking hydro and nuclear power have in fact done enormous damage to the environment and the air we breath. Now the gullible public is also paying ten times more for the dirty power we were forced to use than we would be paying had we increased our supply of clean hydro and nuclear power with inexhaustible energy supplies.

Desirable Sites for New Nuclear Plants
The states of California, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, and the nation of Mexico could build many modern nuclear plants on any number of remote, uninhabited sites in a way that would give all these areas energy independence and enormous savings for their economies.

Vast uninhabited high-plains areas exist in northeastern California and southeastern Oregon that are appropriate sites for new nuclear plants. These sites are close to existing power transmission lines that feed power to the western states. The Herlong Weapons Storage Depot in Lassen County, Northern California, is a large area that was used to store material that is thousands of times more dangerous than any imaginable threat from a nuclear Power plant.

The Nevada Nuclear Test Site, for instance, is a vast area that is off limits to development forever. Over 500 underground nuclear weapons tests at NTS created hundreds of times more nuclear material than all the nuclear power plant waste now stored in this country or that could be generated in the next several hundred years. This nuclear material is safely buried thousands of feet under the ground. A nuclear power complex at NTS could supply inexpensive, reliable power forever to the burgeoning Nevada economy as well as hook up to the major power transmission lines that feed California and Arizona. Thousand of new jobs and billions of dollars of permanent income would be created in Nevada.

Nuclear Plants Below Hydro Reservoirs
Nuclear plants can be built below existing hydroelectric dams such that the cooling water flowing through the nuclear plants warms the uncommonly cold water coming from the hydro reservoirs. Environmentalists complain that hydro reservoirs keep the downstream river waters too cold for the fish. We have spent hundreds of millions to alleviate this problem (see the forebay at Oroville Dam where hundreds of millions were spent to warm the water before it re-enters the Feather River). Why not solve two problems at once and gain the energy we need by putting nuclear plants below the hydro reservoirs. This gives us two sources of power and helps restore the ecology of the downstream rivers.

New nuclear plants built below existing or new hydro plants can share the power transmission lines and many other facilities needed by both. The massive amount of water in the reservoir above can be released immediately to provide the ultimate safety factor for any possible overheating of the nuclear core. The entire plant can be immersed in water. All concerns about an earthquake damaging the nuclear plant go away because any hydro dam will collapse long before the nuclear plant will be damaged. This was demonstrated in the recent massive earthquake in India. Two large nuclear plants on the earthquake fault were not damaged.

Nuclear plants installed below hydro dams easily can be installed such that the massive release of water from the hydro reservoir would drown the nuclear plant below with no release of the nuclear material that is entirely contained within the sealed nuclear reactor core. Modern nuclear plants approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission already have this added safety feature. Any possible overheating of the nuclear core triggers automatic release of an emergency reservoir of water to cool the core in a manner that operators can not disable, as happened in the Three Mile Island accident.

The scare stories about dangers from earthquakes were put to the test recently by the massive earthquake in India. Two of the world’s largest nuclear plants are located almost on the fault zone that experienced one of the biggest jolts of this century. The plants suffered no serious damage. This was expected because billions of dollars were invested in the construction to guarantee the integrity of the plants. We build nuclear plants in the U.S. the same way—like Diablo Canyon.

Fears of earthquake damage have been grossly exaggerated. A great deal of the expense of a nuclear plant goes into massively strong structures to protect against earthquakes and contain any radioactivity released inside. These buildings are stronger than our missile silos designed to withstand the blast of nuclear weapons nearby which produce shocks must greater than any imaginable earthquake.

The U.S. has been building nuclear plants for the rest of the world for the last twenty years. The designs are the safest and most modern in the world. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has indicated that it will give swifter approval to new nuclear plant designs that have additional safety features and performance upgrades that have been developed from forty years of operational experience with nuclear plants throughout the world.

There are several nuclear plant sites in the state that are now unused. These were approved for nuclear plants long ago. They certainly should be approved in reasonable time for new plants or upgrades of the existing plants. The Rancho Seco nuclear plant owned by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) was shut down because of a combination of operational problems and community sentiment. But it was fully operational and could have been improved rather than shut down. Now SMUD is saddled with the enormous expense of de-commissioning a nuclear plant that is no longer producing income. SMUD should be more than happy to let the state or another utility take over the plant and either upgrade it or build a new one on the site. This could be done within two years. There is a site near Eureka that has an abandoned nuclear plant.

Why Continue to be Blackmailed by Natural Gas Suppliers?
The gas pipelines into California are running at full capacity. New power plants being built will use even more of the dwindling supplies of natural gas. This will leave homeowners and businesses with even less. We can expect prices to increase again. Even this supposedly clean natural gas is a major contributor to air pollution in the state.

New hydro and nuclear plants are the only safeguard that California and its neighboring states will not be blackmailed again in the near future by natural gas producers. What good does it do to build new natural gas power plants when we have to buy the gas from the same outside suppliers who are robbing us now for the electricity they generate with their gas? They will do it again with certainty as our population and economy grow. Gas supplies are already in short supply. It will get worse rather than better as the nation’s energy demands grow. And we will be back where we are now—paying five to ten times more for energy than it costs to generate power with new hydro and nuclear plants.

Just the threat that California will build several new nuclear plants that perform as well as Diablo Canyon will strike fear in the outside power producers who will lose their ten billion dollar market for selling high-priced power and natural gas to California. We should do more than threaten. We should build some hydroelectric and nuclear plants as soon as possible.

There are only two sources of clean, inexhaustible power available to California within the next few years. These are more hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants. They have silently and reliably supplied 25% of California’s power for decades. They are the cheapest sources of clean, guaranteed power that require no expensive fuel from outside energy suppliers. They throw no pollution into our air.

The biggest threat to the outside power suppliers that are blackmailing us now are new power plants that need neither the electricity they generate nor the natural gas they sell. Only two things can give us this edge: more hydroelectric plants or more nuclear plants. We can not build enough new hydro plants to generate another 20,000 megawatts within the next ten years. (A typical major dam with hydro turbines produces maybe 1,000 megawatts. We do not have the rivers and reservoir sites to build 20 more). But we should build those that we can. The Auburn Dam on the American River has been delayed for decades. Millions have been spent on the design and preliminary work. It must be completed as soon as possible.

However, several nuclear plants could be up and running within three years if we cut through the senseless red tape and fraudulent environmental claims and hysteria. Fortunately, citizens now hurt in the pocketbook are getting sobered very quickly about the realities of the economy and safety of nuclear plants as compared to the promises of cheap natural gas that the so-called environmentalists gave us.

Objections and legal actions by those who call themselves environmentalists have stopped the building of both hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants for the last twenty years. These objections—and the public hysteria that they have caused at times—must now be compared to the real damage to our environment and economy by continuing to be burn enormous quantities of highly polluting and increasingly expensive fossil fuels for the energy California needs.

Experts in the power business tell us that solar, wind, geothermal and all other alternative sources of power will not be able to supply more than 3% to 5% of our total power needs in California within the next ten years. There are very real technical and economic reasons way these alternative energy sources supply less than 1% of our power today. (How do we cover 10,000 square miles with solar panels or wind mills? Then what do we do when the sun is not shinning and the wind is not blowing?)

The great hydroelectric projects in the west fueled our economy and provided water storage for agriculture and urban centers. For more than forty years, over a hundred nuclear power plants in the nation have given us the only major source of no-polluting power that can not be held hostage to foreign supplies of oil and natural gas.

The reservoirs of hydroelectric dams create an explosion of animal life and provide bountiful recreation facilities for our people. We have paid billions of dollars to provide means for fish to pass by the dams on their way to spawning upstream. The dams give us needed water storage and flood control. But these advantages are seldom mentioned by the environmental hysteria cult that objects to any use of our natural resources for the benefit of mankind—a group that is also an important species on this planet.


Thanks

FERRY