The wind mills are killing the Salmon. No Really

http://www.katu.com/news/33967994.html

COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE - Wind turbines are the hottest rage in 'going green' but the technology has a dangerous side for endangered salmon in the Columbia River. No one is saying wind power is bad by any stretch - it will play a huge role in producing sustainable, green energy. For example, the new Rattlesnake Road Wind Farm at the eastern end of the Columbia River will produce enough power to light 30,000 homes and will prevent the annual emission of 70,000 tons of carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to taking 7,000 cars off the road. And the blueprint for wind energy in the Northwest, known as the Wind Integration Plan, calls for even more wind power online by 2009. But while all that sounds great, it is important to understand that there are serious concerns to consider. You see, when the wind is really blowing and the farms are operating at maximum capacity, the present system will not be able to handle all of that electricity, which ultimately affects fish. This isn't just a theory - it actually happened recently. At the end of June, there was an unexpected surge in wind power and too much energy was created for the regional grid to handle. To compensate, the dams cut their power by spilling more water. Spilling more water is dangerous for fish because water plunging from the dams into the river becomes saturated with air. Air is mostly nitrogen and salmon do not like nitrogen saturation. "I think it caught us just a little bit off guard because the rate of growth of wind has been so fast," said Elliot Mainzer with the Bonneville Power Administration. He's in charge of strategies for balancing the electricity needs and supplies of the future....

that is an engineering problem. Something needs to be done about diverting the extra water to places that need it except saturating the "salmon" water. Or something needs to be done to the grid so it can handle all that power. Considering most engineers don't have common sense, I'm sure an solution will arise that won't make sense to any of us.

Wait, can't they just take the extra power and arc it off? That'd be sweet.

Just like in the old Frankenstein movies!!

Use the excess power to generate hydrogen stupid! Geeze.

why not regulate the output of the wind turbines, which is probably a lot more variable than the output of the hydroelectric, so that the total doesn't exceed grid capability? ie keep the river flow constant so as to not disrupt the fishies. seems pretty reasonable to me.

automotive analogies:

1. my AC compressor has a clutch on it. when AC is not wanted, the clutch freewheels and the compressor does not spin. when AC is wanted, the clutch is engaged and the compressor spins.

2. my engine makes 500 lb-ft and my diff can only handle 250. my current tires break loose if i hit them with 225, so my diff is safe. therefore, to keep from blowing up my diff, i don't install stickier tires.

-1 to whomever came up with the control system for the wind power in the above story.

therex wrote: Wait, can't they just take the extra power and arc it off? That'd be sweet.

I always wondered why they don't do that (jk, it's a massive waste, even if it looks cool)

What's at fault here is the design of the electrical grid. It will have to be totally overhauled so that instead of opening the dam, some coal plants on the other side of the continent are throttled back.

Hmm what they could do it alter the pitch of the blades so that they point right into the wind and they turn at a negligible speed. AFAIK the direction and blade pitch is computer controlled anyways (someone in here works on wind turbines, was it gamby or alex?). A clutch on a windmill would be a major hassle.

Maybe they could hook up an extension cord to walterj's house. His wife and kids are experts at wasting electricity.

Wally's link prompted me to find this article:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1218250522129010.xml&coll=7

And a Google-search found these:

http://www.awea.org/faq/noise-lf.html

http://www.bwea.com/ref/lowfrequencynoise.html

Both the pro-turbine articles preceeded the OregonLive piece by at least two years.

Maybe more research is deserved.

The article author didn't understand electrical generation or dams at all. For he is wrong in his claims. Hopefully, he just misunderstood and isn't simply dumb as a brick.

Dams do not reduce their power by dumping water from behind the dam. You close the valves in front of the turbines you want to stop spinning. That's all.

The water level behind the dam is regulated by the gates. It has nothing to do with power production levels. When you get a lot of rain upriver, you dump water over the dam or along side it. No big deal.

You balance the water coming down the river with the water going through the turbines and the water going through the gates. There's nothing more to it.

As for the claims about nitrogen saturation such, either the author is pulling your leg, or his leg was pulled. Rather reminds me of the old black hawk story (see a/r stories about crows).

therex wrote: Wait, can't they just take the extra power and arc it off? That'd be sweet.

I've driven by these new wind farms many times on my way down to Portland, they are also becoming more popular here in the valley where I live as we have some mighty strong winds (one area 30-40 mph winds are "normal").

I have some pictures I've taken of them somewhere I'll have to see if I can find them.

Its not uncommon to drive by and see several turbines in the row "locked down" so that particular unit is not producing any power.

EDIT: I had some in my photobucket account Oh and for those that want to see a few more pics of the Columbia River Gorge http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v497/spyder_718/Nature/Columbia%20River%20Gorge%200508/?albumview=grid

holy crap they ruined the windows xp "default" background image.

DirtyBird222 wrote: holy crap they ruined the windows xp "default" background image.

haha I never noticed the similarities of that image to the XP background

I like how blame the death of salmon on something complete different.

Did you know that man driving in reverse in western Ohio indirectly killed a baby seal in southern Australia?

oldsaw wrote: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1218250522129010.xml&coll=7

Wind turbine syndrome my ass. That's NIMBY syndrome, a much more serious but well-understood disease.

To find out if the low-frequency sound is really causing the problem, they should run an experiment where one person has to live near an actual windmill, and another has a windmill sound played back from the same distance, but with the inaudible frequencies cut off. A great number of subjects would have to be tested to make the psychological effect of NIMBYism/anti-environmentalism statistically insignificant since it would be impossible to hide the source of the sound. Different results, the low-frequency sounds are causing problems. Similar results, some people don't like noise (they should keep a good few miles from any major road). It might be interesting to note that the people having these problems live in remote areas, possibly because they don't like noise, so surprise surprise add noise and they are upset.

Reminds me of a group in the states that wanted public WiFi to be banned because they thought it was causing them health problems. When these "radio-sensitive" people were tested it turned out to be all in their heads.

I have "tired of listening to people whine syndrome". Is there anyone I can sue?

I have seen that NIMBY syndrome too many times to count. The problem: the wacko greenies don;t want humans ANYWHERE and they will seize any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to stop humans from going anywhere or doing anything.

There was a hospital project somewhere in California which was opposed by a couple of environmental groups, they shut the thing down by claiming they had found one fly which was an endangered subspecies. Or the guy who owned the vineyard which unfortunately for him had two mudholes which contained a fairy shrimp which another group claimed could not be found anywhere else. the guy couldn't even grade his driveway.

Jensenman wrote: I have seen that NIMBY syndrome too many times to count. The problem: the wacko greenies don;t want humans ANYWHERE and they will seize any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to stop humans from going anywhere or doing anything. There was a hospital project somewhere in California which was opposed by a couple of environmental groups, they shut the thing down by claiming they had found one fly which was an endangered subspecies. Or the guy who owned the vineyard which unfortunately for him had two mudholes which contained a fairy shrimp which another group claimed could not be found anywhere else. the guy couldn't even grade his driveway.

A few years back I heard of a guy in Canada who wanted to deforest part of his own land (he had many, many acres) but he couldn't because it was a habitat for an ("endangered") cryptozoological creature - the Sasquatch. Nobody's sure if they exist, but if they do, they're rare and around this area.

Almost makes HOAs look good.

I want to say this happened in Louisiana, but there was a case some years back where some woman wanted to prune trees or bushes or something, when she started doing it one of her neighbors called US Fish & Wildlife who informed her that her property was part of a migratory bird path and MIGHT be used by some bird or other as an overnight resting area. USF&W issued a cease and desist order. With this hanging over her head, she couldn't even sell the land. Allegedly she got a real lowball verbal offer from her neighbor for the property. Hmmm.

therex wrote: Wait, can't they just take the extra power and arc it off? That'd be sweet.

What? And quick fry the spotted owls that might be flying by?