Everything Southern Humboldt and more
Thanks to Heraldo for finding it.
It looks intriguing to me. Yes, I know birds will be killed. As noted previously, there is a formidable coalition of environmentalists and conservative NIMBY’s in opposition.
Addendum: Here is an op-ed piece at the Times Standard in support of the proposal.
 | suzy blah blah on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | bolithio on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | Forest Queen on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| suzy blah blah on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | Just Watchin on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| bolithio on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| suzy blah blah on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Forest Queen on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| suzy blah blah on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| suzy blah blah on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Forest Queen on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| suzy blah blah on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
77 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 28, 2011 at 1:04 pm
edsvoice
What is wrong about being “NIMBY” Eric? As long as its not in Eric’s backyard and only for the greater good, right?
If the “NIMBY” property owner doesn’t look out for themselves, who will, Eric Kirk?
Maybe they should play the eminent domain card, its a Federal funded project, right?
December 28, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Matt
People in MN don’t want windmills either:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/135835343.html
(btw, I’m neither for nor against this project. I just don’t believe Eric’s continued assertion that birds are the main cause of it possibly not happening. So far the main opposition has been the people of Ferndale not wanting the equipment to go through their town).
December 28, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Matt
And it’s only going to have 12 FT jobs once it’s completed:
Ferndale residents say ‘no’ to wind energy farm
http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_18811803
—-
“He anticipates a need for 120 full-time employees during construction and six to 12 full-time employees for maintenance of the farm.”
December 28, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Anonymous
what have you got against birds eric?
yet another conflict of good and bad. like the hospital, the corporate park, richardson grove.
peoples backgrounds are precious spaces eric, it is really a shame you don’t understand that.
December 28, 2011 at 5:47 pm
edsvoice
Thanks Matt,
My point was that Eric is calling people “NIMBY” right off the bat, without hearing their own point of view and that is just wrong.
Eric only seems to label people “NIMBY” to describe the “opposition” of a project, when those people have that right and its in their backyard.
December 28, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Anonymous
MIT lecture #4 in the series mitch linked: The ability of humans to step outside of formal systems – meta thinking.
I understand math, I also know it is completely arbitrary. Can you imagine the first human to ever have experienced zoogaboogadoobliaphormorzosis? Imagine if nobody had ever experienced zoogaboogadoobliaphormorzosis, how ignorant we would all be!!! Wait, you all have experienced zoogaboogadoobliaphormorzosis, or at least tried to comprehend it, right? What’s that? You’ve never even heard of zoogaboogadoobliaphormorzosis??? I can’t take anything you say regarding this subject seriously because you’re ignorant of how the universe works. It’s not a matter of debate. It has nothing to do with my subjective perception, it’s entirely your lack of it…you don’t even know what zoogaboogadoobliaphormorzosis is, for crying out loud!
December 28, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Anonymous
Everybody supports alternative energy. As long as the generator is in somebody else’s neighborhood most people are content to benefit from it.
Do the people in Ferndale oppose development and equipment in other areas? Do they oppose the Balloon Track?
December 28, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s interesting Ed. First you ask what is wrong with being a NIMBY. I didn’t say that there was necessarily something wrong with being a NIMBY. But later in the thread you criticize me for calling the opposition in Ferndale NIMBY, as if there is something wrong with being NIMBY.
So which is it Ed? Is it a bad thing to be a NIMBY? If not, then why take exception to the use of the term?
December 28, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Ben Schill
I’ll bet that no one on this blog… including Eric… has ever been on Bear River Ridge. It is a magnificent area and the thought of windmills there breaks my heart. If you drive up Monument Road from Rio Dell, you will follow the ridge over to the Wildcat road and then back to Ferndale. A truly beautiful drive. Check it out.
December 28, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Eric Kirk
Many times Ben. But we either develop alternative energy, or we live with fossil fuels and nuclear power. There’s probably no town or city which wasn’t more beautiful before something was built. And if everyone wants to tear down their homes and live in tents, well, you first!
Back to the topic at hand, here is a TS op-ed piece in support of the proposal.
http://www.times-standard.com/opinion/ci_19614145
December 28, 2011 at 11:07 pm
edsvoice
This is what you posted for this thread Eric:
“there is a formidable coalition of environmentalists and conservative NIMBY’s in opposition”
Those are your words Eric, not mine. And you never answered my first question, what is wrong about being “NIMBY”?
It was you Eric that called the opposition to this project “NIMBY”. You use the word to express contempt or distaste for people in opposition to a project, e.g. detractor.
The people that label other people as “NIMBY” are the proponents of a project. You have no dog in this fight, but you call their opposition “NIMBY”, why is that? Do you know these people?
I don’t have anything against any people being “NIMBY”. More people need to be “NIMBY”. I am more of a NIABY kind of person, i.e. I oppose river bar bottom feeders and their NPO Corporation partners that lease property to them. All in the name of “Community”, you know what I mean?
Why not put all this alternative energy at the old nuclear power plant site?
December 29, 2011 at 9:37 am
Anonymous
why not put this project in erics backyard? and all of his neighbors backyards? :->
December 29, 2011 at 10:50 am
Just a Poor Doe
Wind power essentially isn’t very economically efficient in the transmission of electricity. One has to speculate why Shell, besides the obvious sunk costs of image and brownie-points, is investing all over the West in these projects. Several months ago there was an excellent article written about building the security of energy and watersheds. The article described, in detail, how wind turbines can (and will) be used to pump from watersheds as the water table continues to drop, becoming increasingly more saline, and global warming progresses.
In a nutshell, in twenty or thirty years, the energy companies will have privatized access to our watersheds if the above holds true.
December 29, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Eric Kirk
It was you Eric that called the opposition to this project “NIMBY”. You use the word to express contempt or distaste for people in opposition to a project, e.g. detractor.
I did? Evidence?
I don’t have anything against any people being “NIMBY”.
Then what’s your issue?
Why not put all this alternative energy at the old nuclear power plant site?
I’m not an engineer. Why don’t you put the question to them? I assume they are choosing location based upon the availability of wind and space to exploit it.
why not put this project in erics backyard? and all of his neighbors backyards? :->
If my backyard could collect enough wind, I might install one on my own. I don’t know if the program’s still in effect, but it used to be that PG&E had to pay you for the electricity you introduced into their grid. They hated it and lobbied against it, and I haven’t seen very many windmills installed that way since, so I wonder if they killed it.
Wind is alternative energy folks, and the technology is improving every day. If we don’t develop alternative energy, then we’ll have to continue to rely on petrol, coal, and nuclear. Or you should set an example for the rest of us and give up energy use and your cars. If I see you posting, I’ll know you’re cheating.
Wind power essentially isn’t very economically efficient in the transmission of electricity.
That’s the line oil companies have been selling for decades, but it’s seriously outdated.
One has to speculate why Shell, besides the obvious sunk costs of image and brownie-points, is investing all over the West in these projects.
To make money? Duh.
December 29, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Just a Poor Doe
It is a strategy, duh. And one that is laced with power and control as well as money. And one that won’t be very consumer friendly. With a bit of foresight those “rights” can be managed. The farmers down in Marin saw it “blowing” their way and called the company on it. They backed out of the contracts originally. Don’t know if they mediated something to a resolution in the long run though. Getting excited about alternative energy is a good thing. Being stupidly giddy about it to the point of being blind is another thing.
December 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Eric Kirk
That’s all fine. Corporations have to be checked. But it’s pretty much true of everything you buy, whether it’s energy or the Internet service you purchased to access this blog. They have their bottom line and so you have to deal with them at arm’s length.
The exciting news is that the technology has reached the point where wind power is profitable, and that bodes well for the future. But no matter what we do, there is always going to be some environmental impact and trade-offs. This plant will ostensibly power 22,000 Humboldt County homes. That’s significant.
December 29, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Matt
Not every alternative energy project is going to be feasible or “good” simply because it’s alternative energy.
It’s also true that we need much more alternative energy, and projects like solar, wind and hydro are site-specific, while nuclear and fossil fuel plants can be built anywhere.
December 29, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Anonymous
ya just gotta love how eric is always ready to trade off the environment.
December 29, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, since we’ve abandoned graphite cooling in nuclear power (small favors to be thankful for), nuclear power does have to be near water. And I agree, that not every alternative energy project is going to be “feasible or good.” But every single one is going to take some environmental toll, as each of us do every day of our lives when we start a car or flip on a light.
But we have to balance. How many birds are killed by windmills as opposed to oil spills? Pretty small ratio I’m told, and that the Exxon Valdiz spill killed more birds than all of the state’s existing wind power will kill in the next millennium (about 250 thousand birds killed in the spill). That’s assuming no further developments in mitigation technology. I don’t know how many were killed in the more recent gulf spill, nor how many were poisoned by Japan’s nuclear accident. Nor how many are killed by motor vehicles each year.
ya just gotta love how eric is always ready to trade off the environment.
Well, you’re trading off right now, by reading this and typing your inevitable response.
December 29, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Ernie's Place
Just for the record, I agree with Eric, no energy is perfect. If we had about five billion fewer people in the world, we could use just about any kind of energy harmlessly.
America needs energy, otherwise we buy products built by factoties in country that don’t give a rat’s ass about the environment. (Literally)
December 29, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Jim
Eric, it is called net metering when you sell your extra power back to PGE, they didn’t kill it and there were bills passed this year that make it stronger.
Shell is pursuing these projects because the state has mandated utilities obtain 1/3rd of their power from renewable resources in the next ten years (they only barely made the required 20% this year, a year late), so there is a captive market to buy renewables. It would stay in the area, due to the import issue mentioned on Heraldo’s post, so there should be a good number of customers in the area who would put their energy sources where their ideologies are.
I’ve been up on the ridge, too bad solar wouldn’t work well so close to the coast, because that would have fewer impacts.
Please don’t start relying on Marin for examples or anything else, it’s like a higher order Godwin’s Law (the first person to invoke Marin in an internet conversation has already lost the argument).
December 29, 2011 at 9:15 pm
edsvoice
This summer, I switched out all my CFL and Incandescent light bulbs to LED bulbs and wow, what a shock, my bill dropped by over 60 %. I also started doing my Laundry after 8pm (220v dyer & 110v washer) My PG&E this time of year use to be between $48-$55 a month and now its $18-19 a month. It was only after I changed out the bulbs to LED, that I saw the big drop in PG&E.
This is what made me switch:
http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html
And you are wrong Eric. anyone can use alternative energy without effecting the environment.
December 29, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Matt
“But we have to balance. How many birds are killed by windmills as opposed to oil spills?”
Again with the inaccurate birds argument, when the main opposition is the city of Ferndale not wanting all the equipment going through town…
December 29, 2011 at 10:55 pm
tra
What’s the big deal about the equipment going through town?
Whatever the transportation issues are, wouldn’t those issues just be temporary, whereas the benefits would last much longer?
If the short-term traffic impacts of bringing the equipment through Ferndale really are the “main” reason for opposition to this project, then I doubt most people are going to think that’s enough to outweigh the long-term benefits of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and/or nuclear power, both of which involve much more harmful and more lasting impacts.
December 29, 2011 at 11:50 pm
edsvoice
Eric asked: “I did? Evidence?”
You want evidence Eric? This is a non-factual blog, you don’t need evidence here, just make it sound good, make it believable, make it pop and talk down to people if they ask too many legitimate questions. And of course my all time favorite is how you make shit up, your usage of plausible deniability and adding words to a post that doesn’t exist. The more I think about it, it sounds more like a personal injury lawyers persona.
,
December 30, 2011 at 12:07 am
Eric Kirk
In other words Ed, you don’t know what you’re talking about. As usual.
And you are wrong Eric. anyone can use alternative energy without effecting the environment.
Please name an energy source usage which does not affect the environment, alternative or otherwise.
December 30, 2011 at 12:08 am
Eric Kirk
What TRA said. Ditto.
December 30, 2011 at 1:10 am
edsvoice
Eric asked “Please name an energy source usage which does not affect the environment, alternative or otherwise”
Geothermal Energy: Renewable Energy and the Environment
William E. Glassley, The Energy Institute, University of California, Davis, USA and Geologisk Institut, Aarhus University, Denmark
December 30, 2011 at 9:19 am
Anonymous
on last nights news cast a woman from a npo about birds, said that 440,000 birds are killed per year by wind turbines.
eric, i am talking about installing one of these turbines in your backard, and those of your neighbors. one with each propeller as long as a football field. not one of the little wind generators you are probably thinking about.
while every energy source has a burden, finding the source with the least burden, would have to be solar.
December 30, 2011 at 9:28 am
Ben Schill
The idea that windmills are OK because they kill fewer birds than oil spills is bizarre… Think about it. Windmills are extremely noisy. If they were not, every homestead with wind would have one, they are far cheaper than solar panels. One windmill on the Nielsen Ranch subdivision, drove the neighbors nuts and those are 60 acre minimums. The noise rises and falls with wind speed and would be a problem for more wildlife than just birds. Even grazing cattle (the site is a cattle ranch) would surely be affected.
Trucking the equipment to the ridge is a problem because of size. Even moving it through Ferndale at night would be difficult and the developers admit the transportation problem. Eric, I’m glad to hear you have been up there many times. I’m sure you must be aware what a magical place it is…
December 30, 2011 at 10:43 am
Just a Poor Doe
Eric I agree with you in premise but not in project. If the project is powering 22,000 homes but originally generates (wind power after transferring on the grid is about 10-40%) enough power to work 60,000 homes–the inefficiency is quite costly for what is being delivered.
I, like you, am a fan of alternative energy but this project doesn’t sit well with me.
December 30, 2011 at 12:01 pm
edsvoice
Please post this one Eric:
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html
December 30, 2011 at 1:57 pm
solarsurfer
Hi Eric,
I’d like to clear up some misconceptions I’ve seen on this issue.
1. these wind machines are not noisy. here is a link
mind the comments he says: this is an older version and is louder than newer ones.
The small machines Ben mentions are indeed very noisy, and is one of the main complaints about them. By small I mean 1000 watts or so.
The machine in the video is 500,000 watts, the ones in Bear Ridge 1.5 million watt I believe.
2. bird kills from wind machines.
Here is a study that puts a lot in perspective. For example it mentions 440,000 killed from wind, and 50 million killed on tall guyed towers. But how many die from global warming?
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/pif/pubs/McAllenProc/articles/PIF09_Anthropogenic%20Impacts/Manville_PIF09.pdf
3. CFL vs LED.
LED at best are 50% more efficient. Lots of other benefits: longer life, no mercury, quick on, works in the cold etc.
4. Power loss: Transmission losses affect all power transmission, but this is a short transmission line, just 10′s of miles. Loss’s even at full output would be 5-10% at most, when operating at lower power outputs losses will be < 3%. It would depend on where the production meter was located as PG&E isn't going to pay for watts they didn't get, and Shell isn't going to lose money with wire loss of 60-90%.
December 30, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Matt
“What’s the big deal about the equipment going through town?”
The people in the town don’t want it to go through their town.
December 30, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Eric Kirk
Sorry Ed. Geothermal energy harvesting also involves negative environmental impacts.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/geothermal-energy/5
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_environmental_impact_of_using_geothermal_energy
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/environmental-impacts-of.html
Try again?
December 30, 2011 at 4:40 pm
tra
tra asks: ““What’s the big deal about the equipment going through town?”
and Matt answers: “The people in the town don’t want it to go through their town.”
If that’s the “main reason” for their opposition, they’re going to have to articulate why trucking the equipment through town is such a big deal. “We don’t want it..because, well, we just don’t want it” is not a very compelling argument.
December 30, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Anonymous
a bit of a ridiculous question/comparison, asking how many birds killed by global warming. we can at least affect the bird kill in our neighborhood by NOT having wind turbines that have propellers that are the length of a football field. and when the propellers turn, they make noise.
December 30, 2011 at 4:44 pm
tra
Any toddler can tell you that they want what they want, and don’t want what they don’t want, but most folks expect grown adults to be able to provide some kind of explanation for their preferences.
December 30, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Anonymous
why isn’t we don’t want it because we don’t want it compelling? people in southern humboldt use it all the time.
December 30, 2011 at 5:32 pm
edsvoice
“Sorry Ed. Geothermal energy harvesting also involves negative environmental impacts” “Try again?”
No Eric, I shall not try again. You win, I was wrong again and you are right as always. Did you know the 2nd & 3rd links are the same paper?
Good luck with that water grab and EIR that involves negative environmental impacts. I’m sure you will find a way to have your cake and eat it too.
December 31, 2011 at 9:53 am
Eric Kirk
a bit of a ridiculous question/comparison, asking how many birds killed by global warming. we can at least affect the bird kill in our neighborhood by NOT having wind turbines that have propellers that are the length of a football field. and when the propellers turn, they make noise.
I believe that solarsurfer addressed the noise issue, but if you really don’t want energy harvesting to happen anywhere, you should set the example for the rest of us by refusing to use electricity. So again, why are you online? Why do you have a computer? Do you know how much energy was used to make it? How much noise was generated? Somewhere a bird is dying because of your habit!
December 31, 2011 at 10:07 am
Anonymous
there are people who do have solar power eric, not only for ones computer, but the entire house. what a concept that must be for you, washer, t.v. etc. i am one of those. there is no noise generated, and a bird is not dying because of it. i know the energy burden of everything i use on a daily basis. i walk or ride my bike.
it is sad to learn that you really are a putz. i hope that your jokes ease your mind, because i think deep down you know you are a hypocrite, a moron, you have no integrity, no conscience, and i believe you do not have the ability to see truth if it smacked you in the face. no wonder you are on mckees christmas card list.
December 31, 2011 at 10:17 am
Eric Kirk
Actually, birds do die because of it. What do you think happens to the batteries when you finish? How do you think your equipment was produced? How were the materials extracted? Transported?
Sorry, but as long as you are using electricity in any form, you are complicit in the killing of birds.
December 31, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Steak n Eggs
Ha, ha…listen to you people argue…”my alternative energy is cleaner than yours…mine does’nt kill birds”. Gimme a break! Talk about putz’s, its no wonder our country (and california in particular) cannot get anything done. Many of you need an undergraduate class in environmental ethics. We all wanna save some species we personally value, or that society has taught us to value.
December 31, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Just a Poor Doe
Solarsurfer–the local power exchange (Rio Dell?) in the area isn’t set up to handle this load. The associated costs with the energy transfer are not being fully calculated or considered.
December 31, 2011 at 9:14 pm
pipeandapancake?
It just seems so bizarre to sacrifice living beings so we can keep watching crap on television.
I am sorry that someone who thinks you can sacrifice birds for economic development is on the board of the community park.
December 31, 2011 at 9:22 pm
pipeandapancake?
“But what the brilliant English economist discovered was a principle that could be applied to the greater energy efficiency of all fuel resources. “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth”, says Jevons. He adds, “As a rule, new modes of economy will lead to an increase of consumption according to a principle recognised in many parallel instances.” In short, Jevons laid down the proposition that increasing the efficiency with which a fuel resource is used tends to lead to a greater, not lesser, consumption of that resource.”
January 1, 2012 at 12:14 am
Eric Kirk
Well pipeandapancake, stop posting. You’re killing birds!
January 1, 2012 at 3:38 am
Matt
TRA – why don’t you read the article and find out what Ferndale is against the project?
January 1, 2012 at 3:42 am
Matt
http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_18811803
January 1, 2012 at 9:49 am
Anonymous
eric, do ya think your arrogance and vanity will ever allow you to accept that we humans do not have the right to always roll over nature?
January 1, 2012 at 10:52 am
edsvoice
Eric had said: “Actually, birds do die because of it. What do you think happens to the batteries when you finish? How do you think your equipment was produced? How were the materials extracted? Transported?” “Sorry, but as long as you are using electricity in any form, you are complicit in the killing of birds”
Does that same theory apply to the MATEEL “Solar Stage”?
January 1, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Just a Poor Doe
The problem being P&P that is seems reasonable to fund 100,000 hamsters running happily (with rest breaks) on a treadmill if the total cost (including associated costs) is cheaper. After all they are both alternative power sources and therefore both could, in theory, be consumed in greater quantities.
It is a time thing. When funds are abundant bigger risks and investments can be taken. When funds are more scarce, investment is still prudent, but the risks should be more prudent.
Happy New Year.
January 1, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Anonymous
CNN) — For the second year in a row, dozens of blackbirds died overnight Saturday in Beebe, Arkansas, apparently after being startled by New Year’s Eve fireworks, an official with the state’s Game and Fish Commission said Sunday.
Tests will be conducted to determine the official cause of death, said Ginny Porter with the Arkansas Game and Fish commission. Porter said between 50 and 80 birds were reported dead.
Beebe, about 40 miles northeast of Little Rock, is an area through which the birds migrate and is home to a large roost. The fireworks set off Saturday were located near the south side of the roost, according to Porter. Blackbirds have poor night vision and do not typically fly at night, according to the game commission.
A much larger bird kill was reported in Beebe last New Year’s Eve when about 5,000 birds were found dead in a square-mile area. The cause of death was determined to be blunt force trauma after the otherwise healthy birds became disoriented and flew into stationary objects such as trees and buildings.
January 1, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Eric Kirk
eric, do ya think your arrogance and vanity will ever allow you to accept that we humans do not have the right to always roll over nature?
So again, why are you online? You’re computer is on as you post and read mine. You’re killing birds.
Sorry to repeat myself, but there’s a point here and some serious denial. You’re “rolling over nature” right now.
Ed – it applies to all uses of electricity. You cannot have zero impact on the environment. The minute you urinate, you’re killing bacteria in the environment.
Unless you exist in a closed system, you can’t eliminate your impact. You can only reduce and mitigate it. Wind power is essential to the grid being able to power your computer, with the best mitigation possible. You have to make choices. I opt for wind as part of a mitigating solution. It’s really not rocket science.
Now, if you want to discuss taking the grid down entirely then fine. But get off the Internet, because it is powered by the grid.
January 1, 2012 at 7:25 pm
edsvoice
Thank god you posted the “Louie Schwartzberg – Gratitude” video.
Could you elaborate “I opt for wind as part of a mitigating solution”
And maybe you could explain using the criteria at hand:
15370. Mitigation
“Mitigation” includes:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21002, 21002.1, 21081, and 21100(c), Public Resources Code.
Discussion: This definition of the term “mitigation” adopts the definition contained in the federal NEPA regulations. The federal definition is used so that this term will have identical meanings under NEPA and CEQA for projects which are subject to both acts.
January 1, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Eric Kirk
Here is the definition of mitigation from Webster’s.
1.
the act of mitigating, or lessening the force or intensity of something unpleasant, as wrath, pain, grief, or extreme circumstances: Social support is the most important factor in the mitigation of stress among adolescents.
2.
the act of making a condition or consequence less severe: the mitigation of a punishment.
3.
the process of becoming milder, gentler, or less severe.
Currently about 40 percent of the grid’s power comes from petroleum plants. Natural gas is another 20 to 25 percent. Coal is about 20 percent. Nuclear power accounts for another 10 percent. The renewal sources combined, which includes wind, solar, hydro, and your vaunted geothermal, accounts for under ten percent of the power. Those percentages have to change. We need more wind power. Lots more. Or we can continue to rely upon fossil fuels and nuclear. However many birds are killed by windmills, the damage to bird, and all other life, of the other sources, are much worse. Ergo, wind power will mitigate the impact of our electricity consumption.
Rocket science, I know.
January 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm
moviedad
You kids do go on.
January 1, 2012 at 9:07 pm
edsvoice
As we both know Eric, Webster does not define “mitigation” under CEQA or NEPA as I quoted above. I think you are wrong about wind. People need to do more to “mitigate” their own consumption. The idea of weaning America off fossil fuels and coal may sound like a plan to you, but in the real corporate world, its not going to happen unless the fossil fuel and coal corporations can make more money from renewable energy world wide, that is when things will change.
That’s why every couple of million years the earth starts over. The end of the world doesn’t mean the end of the earth, only to life as we know it will end, then it can start all over again.
January 2, 2012 at 9:38 am
Anonymous
solar is the only way to go eric. windmills kill in perpetuity.
by the way, my computer is coming on 17 years old. my batteries are closing in on 20 yrs., and will be recycled when needed. same with my solar panels.
if you must have your windmills, put them somewhere where there are no creatures.
stop the capitalistic way of life, and you mitigate all sorts of consumption issues.
January 2, 2012 at 10:06 am
Anonymous
Eric,
Where did you get your info on energy sources? How current is it?
This is from 2009. I find it hard to believe things have changed that much in a few years.
In 2009, U.S. electricity generation by source-
Coal=44.9%
Natural Gas=23.4%
Nuclear=20.3%
Hydro-electric Conventional=6.9%
Other Renewable=3.6%
Petroleum=1%
January 2, 2012 at 10:36 am
Eric Kirk
Eric,
Where did you get your info on energy sources? How current is it?
My information is also a few years old. Let me see….
Here it is.
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.html
The EIA definitely contradicts your info.
solar is the only way to go eric. windmills kill in perpetuity.
Unfortunately, there is no way that solar alone can even begin to meet our needs for decades to come, if ever.
And solar energy presents some difficult environmental issues of its own.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/science/article_37811382-9d69-5936-adeb-5db1395225e3.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/environmental-impacts-of.html
http://solareis.anl.gov/guide/environment/index.cfm
As we both know Eric, Webster does not define “mitigation” under CEQA or NEPA as I quoted above.
Yeah, but I don’t care about legal definitions. I care about what will mitigate global warming and other very serious consequences of fossil and nuclear energy.
I think you are wrong about wind.
I’m not quite sure what you think I’m “wrong” about, however, the environmental damage and risks are considerably lower than fossil and nuclear.
People need to do more to “mitigate” their own consumption.
We cannot sustain the Internet on geothermal power alone. In fact, to switch over to renewable sources, including wind (which is really only being attacked right now because we have a specific proposal which locals don’t like – even geothermal plants will be opposed by some in their neighborhoods), we would have to pretty much limit our power use to lights, and maybe even cut down on that use. No appliances. No computers. No manufacturing of outboard motors.
The idea of weaning America off fossil fuels and coal may sound like a plan to you, but in the real corporate world, its not going to happen unless the fossil fuel and coal corporations can make more money from renewable energy world wide, that is when things will change.
And they certainly can’t do it if renewable sources are opposed even by the environmentalists and fair-weather environmentalists who promote them until a specific proposal is made.
January 2, 2012 at 11:58 am
Anonymous
Back in the ’80′s I read somewhere that if we did not use clothes dryers
then we would not require the power equal to all the nuclear plants we already had! This captured my imagination enough to renounce clothes dryers and to hang my laundry outside in the summer and by the wood heater in the winter. Solar, wind and conservation in one simple practice.
January 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Anonymous
Cool. Now you just have to convince 300 million other Americans to get themselves yards and do the same.
January 2, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Anonymous
It’s already too late for that.
February 1, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Matt
Wind power: Renewable resource, or another corporate scam?
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/01/wind_power_renewable_resource_or_another_corporate_scam/singleton/
February 9, 2012 at 4:36 pm
lostcoastcyclist
Industrial scale wind powered electricity generating turbines are hazardous to the environment, wildlife, livestock and humans. Check the web. Start with windwatch, windaction, windworriers, windtoons, windfallthemovie.
Conservation is key!
Save the Lost Coast from urban development!
Support small-scall independant electricity generation and above all conservation.
You can save 20-60% in electricity use with simple modifications to homes and businesses. Do a search on how to save on your electric bill and you will find really simple things you can do.
Destroying on piece of the environment at a time will only destroy the whole earth. Saving the environment involves saving each bit of it.
There is more discussion at Lost Coast Outpost and Humboldt Herald.
Ban Industrial Wind!
Support Conservation!
Support Preservation!!!
February 9, 2012 at 4:38 pm
slughugger
The world is my backyard.
The Lost Coast should remain rural and free of industrial development.
NIMBY?
N.O.P.E.
Nowhere On Planet Earth!
February 13, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Let Them Know
Please help protect the Lost Coast from industrial development.
Individuals representing themselves as Shell Wind Energy propose to install industrial wind turbines on Bear River Ridge.
Please contact the individuals & agencies listed on this page and
let them know that there are serious environmental & economic
concerns regarding the proposed project by Shell wind energy for Bear
River Ridge. Some of the concerns include erosion; landslide; water,
air, noise, vibrational & light pollutants; CO2 emissions from
concrete production; diminished wildlife habitat, reduced livestock
& wildlife breeding capacity; loss of life for wildlife &
humans; wind-turbine-syndrome; transportation disruption; lowered
recreational, tourist & real estate values; wildfire; hazardous
materials spills; & overall diminished quality of rural lifestyles.
Please urge these agencies & individuals to oppose this project
& instead to support preservation & conservation. Thank you.
NORTH COAST CITY COUNCILS
Arcata
Susan Ornelas, mayor;
Michael Winkler,, vice mayor
Alex Stillman, Shane Brinton, Mark Wheetley, councilmembers
City Hall, 736 F St.
Arcata, CA 95521
Phone: 822-5953
Fax: 822-8018
Blue Lake
Sherman Schapiro, mayor;
Karen Barnes, mayor pro-tem;
Lana Manzanita, Kevin Benjamin, Michelle McCallWallace, councilmembers
City Hall, P.O. Box 458
Blue Lake, CA 95525
Phone: 668-5655
Fax: 668-5916
Crescent City
Charles Slert, mayor;
Kathryn Murray, mayor pro-tem
Kelly Schellong, Donna Westfall, Rich Enea, councilmembers
City Hall, 377 J St.
Crescent City, CA 95531
Phone: 464-7483
Fax: 465-4405
Ferndale
Jeff Farley, mayor;
Stuart Titus, vice mayor;
Niels Lorenzen, Ken Mierzwa, Jon ‘Max’ Maxwell, councilmembers
City Hall, P.O. Box 1095
Ferndale, CA 95536
Phone: 786-4224
Fax: 786-9314
Eureka
• Mayor:Frank Jager
Phone: 441-4172
• 1st Ward: Marian Brady
Phone: 441-4169
• 2nd Ward: Linda Atkins
Phone: 441-4168
• 3rd Ward: Mike Newman
Phone: 441-4170
• 4th Ward: Melinda Ciarabellini Phone: 441-4167
• 5th Ward: Lance Madsen
Phone: 441-4171
City Hall, 531 K St.
Eureka, CA 95501-1165
Phone: 441-4172
Fax: 441-4138
Fortuna
Doug Strehl, Mayor;
Ken Zanzi, mayor pro tem;
Mike Losey, Sue Long, Dean Glasser, councilmembers
City Hall, 621 11th St.
Fortuna, CA 95540
Phone: 725-7600
Fax: 725-7610
Trinidad
Kathy Bhardwaj, mayor;
Julie Fulkerson, Mayor Pro-Tem;
Tom Davies, Dwight Miller, Mike Morgan, councilmembers
City Hall, 409 Trinity
Trinidad, CA 95570
Phone: 677-0223
Fax: 677-3759
Rio Dell
Judy Woodall, mayor;
Richard ‘Bud’ Leonard, Marc Barsanti, Melissa Marks, Jack Thompson, councilmembers
City Hall, 675 Wildwood Ave.
Rio Dell, CA 95562
Phone: 764-3532
Fax: 764-5480
PERMITTING AGENCIES FOR SHELL WIND ENERGY
BEAR RIVER RIDGE PROJECT
Michael Van Hatem, CEQA Review
California Department of Fish and Game
619 Second Street
Eureka, CA 95501
James Bond
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1655 Heidon Road
Arcata, CA 95521
John Miller
Humboldt County Planning Division
3015 H Street
Eureka, CA 95501
707-268-3781 Phone
707-268-3792 Fax
jpmiller@co.humboldt.ca.us
Billie Blanchard
PURA V Project Manager
Energy Division-Transmission Permitting and CEQA
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3298
Alison Dettmer
Energy and Resources Unit
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Ferndale City Council
City Hall
PO Box 1095
Ferndale, CA 95536
707-786-4224 Phone
707-786-9314 Fax
February 13, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Let Them Know
Other Lawmakers and Their Contact Information
President
Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Phone: (202) 456-1414
Fax: (202) 456-2461
president@whitehouse.gov
U.S. Senate
Dianne Feinstein
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 331
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
San Francisco: (415) 393-0707
http://feinstein.senate.gov/
Barbara Boxer
Hart Senate Office Building
Room 112
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3553
San Francisco: (415) 403-0100
Fax: (415) 956-6701
http://boxer.senate.gov/
U.S. Representative
Mike Thompson
Cannon House Office Building
Room 415
Washington D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3311
317 3rd St., Suite 1
Eureka, CA 95501
Eureka phone: 269-9595
Fax: 269-9598
http://mikethompson.house.gov/
Governor
Jerry Brown
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 445-4633
mailto:governor@governor.ca.go…
State Senate (Del Norte)
Doug Lamalfa
State Capitol Building
Room 3056
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-3353
Fax: 445-7750
senator.dlamalfa@sen.ca.gov
February 13, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Let Them Know
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
Humboldt County Courthouse
825 Fifth St., Room 111
Eureka, CA 95501
• 1st District: Jimmy Smith Phone: 476-2391 jrsmith@co.humboldt.ca.us
• 2nd District: Clif Clendenen Phone: 476-2392 rrodoni@co.humboldt.ca.us
• 3rd District: Mark Lovelace Phone: 476-2393 jwoolley@co.humboldt.ca.us
• 4th District: Virginia Bass Phone: 476-2394 vbass@co.humboldt.ca.us
• 5th District: Ryan Sundberg Phone: 476-2395 rsundberg@co.humboldt.ca.us
Del Norte County Board of Supervisors
• 1st District: Leslie McNamer llmcnamer@co.del-norte.ca.us
• 2nd District: Martha McClure mmcclure@co.del-norte.ca.us
• 3rd District: Michael Sullivan
msullivan@co.del-norte.ca.us
• 4th District: Gerry Hemmingsen ghemmingsen@co.del-norte.ca.us
• 5th District: Dave Finigan dfinigan@co.del-norte.ca.us
Board of Supervisors
981 H St., Suite 200
Crescent City, CA 95531
Phone: 464-7204
February 27, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Save
This is an industrial project that will likely do more harm than good.
It requires massive amounts of concrete. Producing one ton of concrete produces one ton of CO2. So I don’t see how wind turbine dependant on concrete really help reduce CO2 emmissions. Plus the transport and construction create CO2 emmissions.
It seems counterintuitive to tear up a mountainside to create an industrial project in a remote area in order to “save the planet”.
How is putting industry in a rural area “green”. Industry is inherently brown. The folks hiding behind corporate labels have “green-washed” the concept of industry. Marketing brainwashing people into thinking that if you stick a green logo on something, then it must be eco-friendly. It’s malarkey. Creating these industrial installation uses up resources faster than they renew.
The materials are procured by mining (and don’t we all understand the negative environmental impacts of mining?) are oil dependant (each turbine needs 500 or so gallons which leaks–pics at wind-watch.org) are largely not recylclable (so current installations are turning into junkyards as turbines collapse or catch fire) and destroy landscapes, watersheds, airshed, the animals that inhabit the areas. Oh and they are harful directly to humans (workers and residents).
There are sensitive watersheds in the area. How is it “green” to brown the waters. These projects have a terrible environmental track record. You can see evidence of erosion, slides and water pollution at wind-watch.org. Don’t people drink water? If we have to spend energy treating water and cleaning up after these installations how does that offset the energy they create?
Small scale wind power is a much better option, Or better conservation, than is tearing up a mountain ridge, digging trenches through the mountains and constructing new transmission lines.
If we really want to save the planet we actually have to save it, not just find new ways of using it. Save means to not spend–to not use.
February 28, 2012 at 1:05 pm
gaiachild
Shell has yet to earn a reputation as a good neighbor. Aren’t they being sued for backing torture in Nigeria?
March 22, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Rural Conservative
The public is invited to a free showing of “Windfall” the movie in Ferndale at the Veteran’s Hall on April 11th at 7pm. Thank you.
April 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm
for_the_kids
Public input survey available at
http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/innovation/wind/projects/bear_river/survey/
April 10, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Eric Kirk
I voted to support the project. Thank you for the link.
April 20, 2012 at 10:01 am
savetheearth_save ourselves_happyearthday
W.T.F.
Wind Turbines Fail
wind watch
wind action
wind turbine syndrome
wind turbine fire
wind turbine collapse
wind turbine livestock impacts
wind turbine wildlife impacts
wind turbine human impacts
wind turbine deaths
wind turbine oil needs
wind turbine coal dependent
wind turbine grid dependent
wind turbine subsidy dependent
wind turbine detergent needs
wind turbine bat kill
wind turbine bird kill
wind turbine noise
wind turbine low-frequency pollution
wind turbine landslide
wind turbine concrete needs
wind turbine erosion
search it…find it…know it