2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Doug's (farmer/rancher that supports turbines) comments on this program makes him sound like he has been coached by the wind industry.  He appears to have all the lines of the industry.  For example, Doug's denial that the turbines require spinning backup from a balancing reserve (that emits CO2 in the process) is a company line in a attempt to dupe the public into believing wind turbines produce something other than hot air, higher power rates, and highert taxes. 

The power is mostly going to California, folks.  Go online and read the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (formerly NWPPC) and BPA publications and get facts, not the spin.  The PNW does not need the bat and bird blender eyesore manufactured and built by foreign megacorporations or their subsidiaries (licensed locally to dupe US society).  Educate yourself and do not buy into the green money propaganda. 

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context

The impact of industrial wind development in the Gorge will mean a devastated landscape.  Monstrous pinwheels, sometimes spinning on the ridges by day, and pulsing red lights on the ridges above AND reflecting off of the waters of the Columbia River below...ALL NIGHT LONG, every night of the year.  It has already happened outside the east borders of the NSA.

The National Scenic Act was intended to protect the spectacular scenic qualities of what we now know as the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area.  People and business in the Gorge have stringent development regulations, if development is allowed at all, to protect the Gorge scenery for the present and the future.  The views are an economic machine within itself.  People travle not only from around North America, but from around the World to take in the magnificant and variable views as one travels from east to west or west to east. 

The National Scenic Act did not forsee the 400-500 ft high, non static development that is now occuring just outside of the boundaries or they would have been drawn differently.  It is now up to the states of Washington and Oregon and people from around the world to step up and protect what Multinational Corporations will destroy in their pursuit for profits. 

It would have been nice if OPB Think Out Loud would have chosen a more balanced panel to present what comes down to a simple concept:  Some places are worth protecting and the Gorge is one of them.  The Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area and the tourism industries that have developed because of the SPECTACULAR scenic qualities of the Gorge also need a voice at the table.  Were they invited?

The public expects better from "publicly" funded programs.  

posted 2 years, 12 months ago
view in context

Because of all the competing uses for water, including water for fish, you cannot take advantage of the previous bloggers number. It would have devastating consequences on the river/hydropower system already in a precarious balancing act. In the "good ol' days" of hydro, there were no environmental regulations. Today, the "good ol days" of wind turbines, there are limited environmental regulations (none meaningful) or regard for the environment or people. Society is supposed to learn the lessons of history, but yet, here we go again. And the twisted, humorous part is that everyone is being sold a bag of goods that somehow, we will ultimately save ourselves from ourselves by further degrading our environment in an overall meaningless attempt to slow the degradation.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

And I cannot believe that there is even any argument today against Hydro. Maybe some people do not like the look of a concrete dam. It is renewable, non-CO2 emmitting, thus green, and available on a milliseconds notice AND would be storable with no environmental or social regulations hindering development. We should place a dam on every river and stream, maybe some fish will die (salmon too), but not as many as would die from global warming, whatever. Society would have a lot of energy to waste!

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Newer designs are not quieter. As the machines become larger, with larger blades, the technological impovements in areodynamic flow has not kept pace. The mechanical gears to rotate the blades and the nacelle make noise as well. As the machines age, expect even more noise than the newest models currently put out. The sound of a new car is much more pleasing than the sound of an oder model, but for how long?. Most of the noise problems are not in the flatlands such as eastern Oregon or Washington, but in the more mountainous regions. When you live in the wind shadow of a ridge and have little or no wind sound interferance in the background, the noise reportedly is much more significant. Simple sound amplification models indicate that amplification of sound can occur downwind of the turbines. When you couple that with complex topography that can funnel and bounce the sound around a serious noise pollution problem can occur. The noise can also be 24/7. The quietest time of the day, nighttime, can become the most problematic for people living nearby, and even not so nearby. Current research, that the wind industry trys to brush aside, indicates that the turbines should be placed a minimum of 1.25 miles from homes, and this is particularly true in mountainous regions. Please note that none of the investors of these projects actually live among the turbines..........day and night, day after day. If they did, they just might abandon their homes as some people have had to do. Just visiting and standing under for a few moments will not give a representative feel of what is happening in some communities. I love the story of bus tours where they drive people up in a bus, unload them under a turbines, pass around the wine and say, "See, they not noisy." None of us go to concert, stand hundreds of feet under a speaker or stage directed downwind and expect to hear much. Of course, that same speaker in a huge ampitheater would create a lot of noise, even when placed high overhead.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

The representatives from the wind energy really know how talk.....hot air. I would like to respond to misrepresentations.

One rep stated that mammals are not affected at all by the turbines. Bats are mammals and high numbers have been wiped out by poorly placed projects.

The situation with using Hydropower as backup for wind energy was grossly misrepresented as well. Most of the hydro power in the Pacific NW is called "run of the river" meaning that there is little storage capacity in the hydro system. Thus, the river water cannot be stored, it must be released downstream, whether it is used to turn a turbine or spilled. Excessive spill can harm fish. The Columbia River hydro system must be managed for salmon, transportation, irrigation, recreation, AND energy. If energy becomes the overriding priority, then salmon, as well as other beneficial uses will be negatively affected. Essentially wind energy as proposed today harms bats, birds, and fish. If you study the issue extensively.

The water for hydro on the Columbia River is not stored in any meaningful amounts. It cannot be. Do the research and do not fall for the retoric.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context