No more NIMBY?

In many places the people that live there would like their neighborhoods to remain largely unchanged. This is particularly true when new and unsightly items are proposed that would change the landscape, or when potentially risky new industries are proposed near homes or work. In its simplest form we call it NIMBY. (Not In My Back Yard). Thus it is with the Boston area in the Globe today, where there are protests cited on the location of both a new LNG port and a training windmill. I posted a picture of the impact of windmills in an earlier picture post from the UK.

Unfortunately it does not make sense to place some energy generators far from the intended user. There are many small sources of energy, solar panels, ground-source heat pumps, windmills and small-scale hydro-electric and biodiesel facilities, that may be most viable if located near the end user. This will have a significant impact on the look of the neighborhood, and will require some change in the general attitude to energy generation. It is not an insurmountable problem, it will, however, add another interval of time between the time that we realize that we are going to need all these small contributors, and the time that they can be installed.

On an unrelated thought: the plane to and from Alaska flew over the Athabasca tar sands.

There was some talk, while we were in Alaska, about the coming gas pipeline from the North Slope. Local politicians want it to follow the current oil pipeline (though for technical reasons it will have to be a much different pipe). On the other hand industry seems convinced that the line will run down through Canada into the Mid-west. The little thought that popped into my head is that there is a concern that there will not be enough natural gas to continue to operate the oil sand extraction process as it gears up from its current 1 mbd of oil toward 2 and perhaps even 5 mbd. Well here comes a pipeline carrying gas that will be passing relatively close. One wonders if the world would rather that this gas were to be used as a natural gas supply or if, instead, it were put towards generating more fuel for cars and our mobile society.

Have a Happy Fourth!

Technorati Tags: ,

I've never understood why anyone thinks windmill are ugly. Compared to a coal plant, nuclear plant, natural gas powered plant? Compared to the homes of the end users: trailer parks, that neighbor with the lime green house that always leaves his garbage out 3 days early? Compared to landfills, sewage treatment plants, aquaducts? Clearcuts, gravel pits, quarries? Stop lights, stop signs, asphalt? How are windmills uglier than any of these other components of modern society? Are people really willing to hand wash their clothes so they don't have to stare out their window at a wind mill? If so maybe we've found a solution to our energy woes.

Energy is a necessity. It's just really strange that the aesthetics of windmills is even listed on the first page of their pros and cons. No one is trying to put them on the rim of grand canyon. Golf courses on the other hand are always popping up in some of the most beautiful natural scenery. Seriously, fuck golfers that can't enjoy a good view without 1/2 inch chemical sprayed turf under their feet.

I do wish they would find a way to keep windmills from killing hawks though.
Concerning the natural gas pipeline -- isn't it the hope of big industry to put the pipeline through Canada so that it can easily tap into Canadian fields along the Beaufort Sea and McKenzie River Delta in addition to North Slope and ANWR?

I've heard that it there is a tremendous amount of steel needed to build the pipeline. Any ideas on 1) how much and 2) how much natural gas would be needed to manufacture it? I know some labor unions in the US are hoping for the longest route possible. I guess it would have to be open to global bidding regardless of the route, but it might increase the global demand and price of steel significantly.

I've also heard that such a pipeline could depress natural gas prices upon completion and that industry is hoping for huge subsidies / price supports from the government. Any truth to that?

I guess I should see if you have discussed this in more depth previously.

What are the prospects for many more smaller windmills on top of each and every building? Are they that much less efficient than the really big ones? What are the different types of wind generations units that exist?

Hi there Rana. :)

I think it's a "being shaken into awareness" issue. I hate to use War of the Worlds as a metaphor (bad, bad movie, btw), but let's look at the characters' reactions to the alien crisis.

(spoiler alert)

First, they say "wow, look that pretty cloud." Then they get scared by the lightning. Then everything's ok and people behave normally again, even though it was absolutely surreal. Then, the tripods come out of the ground and start blowing shit up.

That's when people start becoming aware...getting a sense of the danger. However, still, they have their habits...and those habits/norms (I think WotW demonstrates the breakdown of the nuclear family for example, and how crisis brings it back very well) can lead to further problems for people, until they realize that they have to adapt to the situation.

Then, of course, they get lucky and the aliens die.

Long metaphor...but I think it fits with windmills and this whole peak oil crisis for that matter. People who are aware of the problem are more willing to support windmills, but they're not out there advocating for them, not demanding them, not changing their habits...


Looks like the lontime locals on Sakhalin are having one driven down their throats,

Windmills are in constant motion, and will irritate some people more than static structures for that reason alone; the aircraft avoidance lights are bothersome to many more (including myself).

Windmills on buildings are no solution; they are poorly-sited, too close to the ground rather than in the free stream, and would transmit vibration to the structure.

On the other hand, if farmers are willing to rent small plots to turbine operators for $3000/year, I'm more than willing to let them.  A bunch of 5-megawatt machines is better than a thousand times as many 5-kilowatt machines, and not just because they'll produce juice at a fraction of the cost.

The big NIMBY problem is NOT power generation; we could solve that fairly easily in most states. The big problem is urban infill - even older neighborhoods are now full of people who think that single-family-housing is the only housing worth having or protecting, and they fight even good multi-family or denser single-family tooth and nail.

then they will pay through the nose to heat, cool, travel to and from their homes.

Depends on the home.  It's possible to build houses which need next to no heating.  If electricity becomes expensive enough, it's possible to use absorption chillers run by solar heat or even stored ice from the previous winter (foam-insulated tanks under decks could become very popular).  PV on the roof and plug-in hybrid cars will leave local driving rather cheap.

Unfortunately for Kunstler and his ilk, technology has a solution for every threat aimed at suburbia.  The only thing it can't fix in the short term is the cost of long-distance commuting.