3 Likes
Yes, it was possible. That is how the warning lights work in my neighbourhood because of reasonable nimby complaints, and have for years. They pretty much never come on.
1 Like
No. That would be really bad aerodynamic design, reducing efficiency. Wind turbines slow down wind, today taking up to 80% of the Betz limit’s (59.3%) kinetic energy out of the air movement.
1 Like
This, I think, is the worst of the windmill “disasters”.
2 Likes
It sounds like you have an interest in seeing it not go through as well.
2 Likes
I have an interest in seeing the residents’ concerns taken seriously. The same criteria used to secure the “dark sky reserve” status can be used to evaluate the wind farm as designed, and to redesign it if necessary.
Of course, you could put these wind farms up farther north, where no one lives.
One could say the same of the dark sky preserve. One requires infrastructure and maintenance. The other thrives without them.
1 Like
I live in a suburban sprawl just this side of being a city. There are smaller parks in my immediate vicinity, and I use them often, and value their presence. Yet I also live within driving distance of a national park that offers the thingsI value about the parks in spades.
Where do I enjoy nature? Close in, or an hours drive away?-- Close in, because I don’t have a car, and even if I did own a car, the logistics are simpler. If someone proposed to build on these parklands, even if it would have a direct benefit on the national park, I’d still be pissed.
I still maintain there are ways to have both. It’s not either or.
The residents concerns are taken seriously. To the extent to which they are presented honestly. When misinformation is deliberately employed it should always be reflected in any consideration given. If specious claims regarding a public project’s effect on a public asset are made, and stuck to even when thoroughly debunked, just how much consideration should be given to the petitioner’s remaining claims that they themselves must not have viewed as enough cause to block the project?
The further from urban centers/infra any power generation is, the less benefit it provides. By the time you get to where no one lives in Canada, you’re also where nothing can be maintained due to roads becoming seasonal and installing facilities becomes mind bogglingly expensive.
In the area in question the density is quite low. Through most of the year less than 2 persons per square kilometer. About 1800 persons spread between about 1200 square kilometers. The lion’s share of these people would not ever see the project unless traveling near it.
But Albinson is likely one of the richest people invested in the area. A venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, he can afford to try and influence the energy policy of millions of people, especially with the help of @jlw whose top-ranked site is the first hit on search engines for any terms related to this subject. It matters, it seems, to neither that the information they transmit is definitively false and benefits the establishment that at least one of the two seemed to rail against upon a time.
Pretty sad really. But hey, maybe people will read the comments (LoL not!)
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
