Gary A.
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2014
- Messages
- 22,357
- Reaction score
- 7,540
- Location
- Southern California
- Website
- www.garyayala.com
Windmills do not create much noise pollution. Generally, wind turbines are no closer than 300 yards/meters to homes. At that distance a wind turbine generates about 43 decibels. Most home refrigerators generate about 40 decibels and the average air conditioner creates 45 decibels. At 500 yards/meters the sound drops to 38 decibels which is below the average background noise which ranges from 40 - 45 decibels. Under those circumstances the wind turbine noise is completely masked by the background.First, thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate it. I also appreciate your finance perspective on the topic, something that's usually not discussed.
Second, the statement that I initially questioned had little to do with finance, rather dead birds and noise pollution. However, I'd appreciate a response from your finance perspective on the social and environmental costs (literal costs) from this. As an engineer (and consultant), I work on a very small portion of what power plants do, and in that small portion, we deal with social and environmental costs of impacts to society and the environment. Any thoughts?
The environmental damage I read about is anecdotal, not directly observed. However, spinning blades create their own set of concerns. Beings who live on the leeward side of the windmills do have to contend with noise pollution. Birds fly into the vanes, and there's no practical way to prevent this. The EPA has more or less written off dead eagles and other endangered birds; quite a callous view of conservationism. Does this excuse the problems with fossil fuels? No, but those are constantly worked on by power companies installing smoke stack scrubber and filters, and the constant agency (of all types) monitoring of nuclear power systems.
Right now, fossil and nuclear power sources are by and large contained within finite areas, and their impact has been long studied and acted upon by the companies themselves, or through government regulation. People are comfortable around fossil power, not as much nuclear (although imminently safe).
One of the things I learned with the Three Mile Island incident, was that the operators there did not believe what their instruments were telling them, thereby creating a man-made problem.
I'm not naive to believe that any power solution doesn't have its assets and liabilities, but the panic caused by those wanting immediate conversion to "eco-friendly" solutions seem content with the crushing cost of those conversions, and little known real benefits.
Folks generally know little of the "war" between Tesla and Edison over power generation. The money spent by Edison's allies for DC power spared little in the way of outlandish propaganda to push a system which could not scale upward as demand grew.
You mentioned a lack of studies/vetting regarding renewable energy.
"I'm a skeptic about any "systems" which tout advantages without proper vetting. "Green" energy is one of those which purports to be a panacea, replacing fossil-based and nuclear energy, but has to be propped up using tax credits and government subsidies. Not one of the statements I've read has done an end-to-end fully costed analysis."
Just because you haven't read any reports/publications does not mean they do not exist. In California, the Environmental Impact Reports, CEQA court cases, public hearings, energy studies sponsored and researched by governments, private sector and universities can possibly filled the entire Library of Congress. As an environmental consultant and a former environmental commissioner for the City of Los Angeles, I have seen, read and personally contributed to plenty.
PS- The wind turbines in California generally exceed that 300 yards/meters distance. Have you ever been up close to a wind turbine?
Last edited: