We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

× Comments for this thread are now closed.
  • Avatar
    yosh 5 years ago

    In Ontario, we are all about FIT, and it indeed gets people involved, in a good way. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of NIMBYs crying the blues, and due to the size of turbines, it brings them in as far as the eyes that can see the turbines. Hopefully a lot less than 45% of projects are being stalled.

    • Avatar
      rucio 5 years ago

      The Danes are so involved that they've virtually stopped onshore wind since 2002. Perhaps they've learned something we haven't yet.
        • Avatar
          Bob_Wallace Top Commenter rucio 5 years ago

          From 2002 to 2010 the percentage of electricity produced by wind in Denmark grew from 14% to 22%. Installed capacity rose from 2890 Mw to 3810 MW.

          At least 416MW of that 920MW increase came from two offshore wind farms.

          I suppose one might say that the Danes learned the value of getting turbines offshore into stronger, cleaner wind.

          We'll also get turbines offshore where they can power coastal zones. But unlike the Danes we've got tremendous wind resources in the center of our country and it's a shorter haul to get power from there to our interior cities than to bring it all the way from the coast.
            • Avatar
              rucio Bob_Wallace 5 years ago

              Cut out 2002, i.e., since 2002: virtually new no onshore wind.
                • Avatar
                  Bob_Wallace Top Commenter rucio 5 years ago

                  What's your point?

                  Denmark has better offshore wind resources than onshore wind resources. A few years ago offshore wind technology reached a point to make offshore workable. When that happened Denmark started building more offshore than on shore.

                  The same will likely happen along the eastern seaboard of the US. There's not a lot of good on shore wind, but excellent offshore wind. The western US coast will largely wait for floating turbines to mature except for a few select locations.

                  Lots of the interior of the NA continent does not have offshore potential. In those places we will continue to build on shore.

                  Ontario could probably put some turbines out in Lake Superior, but it wouldn't give them much 'offshore advantage', being on the windward shore.
                    • Avatar
                      rucio Bob_Wallace 5 years ago

                      The point is that the Danish people stopped onshore development. It was their opposition that forced developers to go offshore. The opposition was based on experience (with relatively small turbines compared with those being erected now).

                      The article here calls for FITs and community development as in Denmark. That doesn't cure the ill effects of giant wind turbines in the neighborhood.
                        • Avatar
                          Bob_Wallace Top Commenter rucio 5 years ago

                          NIMBY played a part in Denmark moving largely to offshore wind. Stronger wind at different times of day played a part as well. Moving wind offshore and away from where people live makes sense to me, but other people don't want it offshore.

                          Whatever one wishes to do will likely meet with resistance from someone.

                          Want to build a new building? Someone will likely complain over using bare land. Want to tear down an existing building and turn in into bare land? You can get resistance over that as well.

                          Want to build high speed rail? NIMBY. Want to tear out an old unused railroad? People will protest. (Happening right now in CA.)

                          Fact is, we much change the way we generate electricity. If we do not we will screw up everybody's life.
                            • Avatar
                              Rednest1 Bob_Wallace 5 years ago

                              And that's a healthy dialogue that isn't helped by knee-jerk labeling of one side as NIMBY no matter the reason for their opposition. What's your derogatory term for developers? They would seem to more accurately merit the NIMBY term, since it's always someone else's backyard that they're targeting.
                                • Avatar
                                  Bob_Wallace Top Commenter Rednest1 5 years ago

                                  NIMBY is "Not in MY backyard". "Put it in someone else's backyard."

                                  If someone has a different objection then they aren't pulling a NIMBY. For example, if someone objected to wind farms because they kill birds (which they don't) then that would not be a NIMBY, but a concerned (misinformed) environmentalist.

                                  I don't have a derogatory term for developers. Some are fine people and some are greedy jerks. I try to differentiate between them.

                                  If you live in a non-windy place and want to build a wind farm should you build it there because it's your backyard or should you build it somewhere the wind blows?
                      • Avatar
                        Davies 5 years ago

                        As a company that has clients in clean and other energy including solar, coal, offshore oil, nuclear power, and wind farms across the country we know that NIMBYism does not discriminate solely against clean energy. As the article states, lot of concerns stem from a lack of understanding of the sector and at the root people are fearful of any change.