Don't get me wrong, I AM very much in favor of alternative energy development but at least in the wind industry there seems to be a lot of ignorance on the part of politicians and the public making it difficult and sometimes counterproductive.
Localy we actualy have too much wind generating capacity.
The grid dosn't have enough capacity to carry what is produced whenever winds are sustained above about 15MPH so the wind farms take turns being curtailed when the lines reach thier carrying capacity. There are plans to add as much as 3000MW of production on the ridge over the next 5 years with commitments for half of that already.
There are good sites for wind near Minneapolis where most of the electricity in MN gets used and the infrastructure could easily absorb it, but, people don't want those "eyesores" messing up thier view of the 'burbs
Minnesota State law mandates that the power company (Excel) buy the electricity that the idle turbines would be producing if the lines could carry it away. It's a pretty complex "deal" made with the State in order to keep it's nuke plants running a few more years. When they reach they decomissioning dates they're supposed to have replaced the capacity with renewable energy souces. But I suppose then they'll whine that they have the generating capacity but not the infrastructure to utilise it so we'll get stuck paying for electricity we don't get a few more years and they'll keep operating already obsolete Nuke plants
Since the PUC sets electric rates on a "cost plus" basis the consumers, me being one of them, wind up paying for some of our electricity twice since the coal and nuke plants have to produce what was already available.
There's plenty of this type of silliness to go around.
The Columbia River gorge has almost constant winds, Hood River, OR is the "wind surfing capitol of the world" if you believe thier chamber of commerce.
This is probably the most ideal site in the US, if not the world, for wind turbines.
Constant and strong winds blowing in the same direction 90+% of the time could eliminate the need for a yaw system.
Massive electrical transmission lines due to the dams and Aluminum smelters are already in place.
Mild temperature swings from season to season reducing stress on the turbines.
Tall towers would not be needed since the gorge acts like a wind tunnel so turbines of even higher capacity than current designs could be economicaly built.
Since most of the gorge is navagable barge based cranes could be used in construction and transportation of components.
Vestas has a manufacturing facility in Portland.
Markets for the electricity already exist.
Reducing output from the dams could benifit the salmon and other migratory fish if wind were fully developed.
Ok, so why aren't they putting hundreds of turbines in the gorge?
They're "ugly".
They might kill a bird now and then.
Like the dams, smelters, pulp plants and bridges add so much to the "natural scenery" and the smelters and pulp plants really add to the enviornmental quality of the area.
On a side note, FPLE's largest wind farm is near the eastern end of the gorge but it's located in a very spaesely populated area with no nearby market. http://www.fplenergy.com/portfolio/contents/stateline.shtml
There's some "scenic areas" that you can't build anything over 1 story if it can be seen from the river or opposite side of the gorge. Even a small turbine would be impossible to get a permit for if anyone objected.
Paint it dark green or dirt brown to blend in maybe?
The coast of Washington and Oregon both have many sites with cliffs that would be excelent for catching the prevailng westerlies off the Pacific. Gold Beach and Newcastle in Oregon stand out in my mind for this but there's plenty of areas that are probably just as good.
Aside from the objections about "scenery" there's no high capacity electrical transmission lines near the coast in those areas and a yaw system would be needed but those are standard anyway. Oh, then there's be those ugly transmission towers...
The cosat "scenery" can only be seen from a boat for the most part, I'm sure the crews on the frieghters and fishing boats wouldn't be too dissapointed if there were turbines lining the clifftops. Oh, those few rich folks that have thier own boats, forgot about them.....
The Missouri River plateu on either side of the river in the Dakotas could suppliment or replace the output of the dams leaving more water for wildlife, recreation, irrigation and municipal uses. Transmission lines already exist but many were built in the 1940s and early 50s and are in need of repair and upgrades anyway.
I'm sure there's lots of examples where wind would work well if the public objections and politics could be overcome. Offshore in the Chicago/Milwalkee area for instance, I'm only commenting on places I know personaly and only wind power.
My idea of an ideal solution would be solar panels on every roof and small turbines as common as TV antennas once were with an electric car in the garage for commuting and grocery getting.
They might not meet the entire energy needs of a household but would reduce the energy bills and dependance on forign oil and not practical in densely populated areas but every little bit helps. PV cells would have to become cheaper per Watt, a small (sub kilowatt) very low maintainance and low noise wind turbines would need to be mass produced along with small grid tie inverters and such. Technicaly a workable solution but it's the politics that will hold it back.
Being "off the grid" is not a practical solution for most people at least not in the US. Even people with acreages like the site I'm working on. What to do with the excess? Luckily SD also has regs that require the power provider to buy back at the same rate they charge up to 50kW capacity and we're only looking at 10kW max. Small electric Co-Op makes it easier too.
Oh well, enough of my rant
Destroy, then read
