Barren landscapes as shown look pretty hostiile to humans without the turbines: albeit with their own harsh beauty. Forcing people to confront their luxurous energy consumption can onoy be done when the nation's elite have their proverbial "oxes gored". Thus, by pasting tubines up on the hozizon lines of where the rich and famous relax is a fine idea.

That "pretty scary" one looks like the road to Palm Springs. The thing about that place, is that it has a lot of the old-style small turbines. I'm not sure that the older installations are even efficient to opperate (high maintenance cost to power output) ... and FWIW, I find the mess of small turbines to be uglier.

BTW, fantastic idea for the photo contest!

I, for one, find almost all wind farm installations quite beautiful. Perhaps not in the typical way, but more as evidence of changing attitudes and common sense.
Every time I hear blue bloods on Nantucket or Martha's Vineyard whining about a few dots on the horizon and the effect on the price of their seven and eight figure beach front homes I just about lose it. I wonder how a building coal burning plant next door would effect those prices -- I bet they would just skyrocket, especially if it was fired with cheap, sulfur-rich coal - yummy!
As for the Canadians, well, this seems to be the alternative. The general message is "take one for the team" guys.

re: John Laumer
does being rich and famous make you more of an energy consumer by default?

I agree with the beauty of windfarms. I get giddy when I used to go near the ones at Altamont Pass in California, or down near Palm Springs. I just learned there's one here in Oregon, and I cannot wait to go see it. How I'd love to take a tour of one. I think they are beautiful in their own way.

Well in general being a celeb means lots of travel and consumption of goods; so yes, especially with the big mansion and vacation home lifestyles that typically go with that status, the rich and famous are comsuming more stuff and inspiring others to aspire to doing the same. There are exceptions of course: examples -- the small set of Hollywood celebs who engage in "conspicuous conservation" by driving a Prius to make a statement, or live a spartan life by choice. I'm careful to say that these are polar opposites and I know that society is a broad spectrum. Would be nice if popular culture occasionally reflected the non-stereotypical end. It would be nicer if waterfron property owners ( who by defintion are wealthier than averaage) made a public statement in support of wind power.

Sometimes windfarms can be ugly, but if done right they contain a sense of ethereal beauty. Besides - I think a coal generator or other form of energy creation is just as ugly - at least the windfarm has a minimal impact on the enviroment besides the inital costs of creating the generator.

I did a photoshoot a while back and posted one of the shots on the flickr page!

Cheers!

I've been curious myself about the turbines around Palm Springs.  Are there any plans afoot to replace them with e.g. 5 MW units when the old ones are retired?  Such a move would have many fewer but bigger towers and turbines, and with fewer blades cleaving the air at much larger intervals the bird kills would be reduced.

http://amazngdrx.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/5/25/884869.html

A quick check of the annual average windspeed map shows that the nearly deserted region in the middle of the northern midwestern great plains is the best area for huge wind machines.

And hardly anyone will see them. The economy of scale, mass production and installation, and lack of objection to siting will more than make up for transportation losses of the power to where it is needed. In the same way that hydroelectric power from Canada is transported ..on low loss 500 kvdc lines.

I am not opposed to smaller local machines, and even small scale home units are economically viable over decades long energy savings for homeowners.

But the thing about these huge 1000 foot machines is that the power generated could come in at 2 cents per kwh independent of fuel costs, there are none for wind power.

The 500 foot blades move slowly compared to the flight of birds, and can even be padded to further reduce bird kills. A slight loss of efficiency to save birds is not a problem on this scale in the very high average wind areas.

If capital were allocated to upgrade and extend the national power grid and create a fair market in electric power that couldn't be manipulated by monopolists, the majority of power could come from these huge machines in remote sites, no more NIMBY.

For local machines where noise, bird kills, and unsightliness are prime concerns, vertical axis designs that are 2 to 3 times wider than they are high maybe the answer. The blades move slower, they are less visible, and they get around local tower height restrictions.

Enough power can still be provided even in fairly low average wind areas to power small buinesses, farms, and homes economically. The cost structure for these local machines needs to favor the investor a bit more and the power company a bit less and these applications would take off.

I would only listen to anyone who opposed wind turbines if they did the following;

Gave up their car use
Fully insolated their home
Got rid of their dishwasher and other wasteful white goods
Opposed all future road building/widening
Suported the saving of ancient hedgerows/trees
Bought local food and products
Proved that Cliamic Change was not occuring

Most people speaking out against new techologies are quiet happy for future generations to sort out the problems of energy supply. All forms of generation have environmental problems.