# A cruel wind blowing at MWW



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

BigR said:


> I guarantee if the turbines were proposed for Shiawassee you would be crying your eyes out about that, but until then, don't worry and try to make decisions for things that you have no business worrying about.


what a great land marker for the birds to associate us with. hopefully they build them big enough to be seen from the bay! nothing like a giant stop sign saying this is where i ate all that food and loafed in that water by that HUGE tower last year.

seriously. keep up the personal attacks, its really selling your cause. i post a fact to your lie, yet you continue to try and belittle me.


----------



## thedude (Jul 20, 2004)

build 'em. any bird killed by one is just darwin at work. they turn at what like 1 revolution every couple minutes? Wood ducks could land on the blades. I bet i've already seen more dead mallards on the side of the road hit by cars in the last 2 weeks than we'll ever see from getting smacked by a moving turbine blade.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

thedude said:


> build 'em. any bird killed by one is just darwin at work. they turn at what like 1 revolution every couple minutes? Wood ducks could land on the blades. I bet i've already seen more dead mallards on the side of the road hit by cars in the last 2 weeks than we'll ever see from getting smacked by a moving turbine blade.


so i went and read up on mortality and studies done. Although not much has been done on the current windmills (since 2000) as they are the bigger, slower versions....they basically said the same thing.



> In the United States, cars and trucks wipe out millions of birds each year, while 100 million to 1 billion birds collide with windows. According to the 2001 National Wind Coordinating Committee study, &#8220;Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States," these non-wind mortalities compare with 2.19 bird deaths per turbine per year. That's a long way from the sum mortality caused by the other sources.


and heres a link with some information, decide for yourself.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Wow did this go into the toilet. :evilsmile

I'm not even going to talk about mortality due to these generators, because I've been there, and unless they have "elves" out cleaning up the slaughtered carcasses in the middle of the night, it ain't happening.

But to me this isn't so much about mortality...it's about aesthetics...what it looks like to the million-dollar homeowners along Lake Michigan. Yeah, no one wants to see a ton of these things. But my point was just like in ND, we here will get used to the view. In fact I'd hazard a guess that after a few years, they will DRAW tourists...they do in ND! FACT!

Whether these things will create a ton of jobs is also irrelevant...they will create some...no one can argue that. And the fact is we need the energy...no matter how much they provide. Again, no one can argue that we need more clean energy sources.

So we're down to the NIMB (not in my backyard) argument, which is bull to me. Would I rather look out the window and see 10 of these in the distance, or a belching coal plant like in Shi Kids photo? No brainer in my book.


----------



## anon12162011 (Jun 9, 2009)

NIMBY or Not in my back yard

This isn't what I'm saying necessarily, asthetics aside, I feel they could find better places to place them than the mentioned sites.

Heck, if I was a landowner here in Michigan and had 4 or 5 big cornfields, I don't know if I would be opposed to one or two going up if it meant some money to cover my taxes and I don't think it would bother me a bit.

With the waste water's case, you have a Refuge that hosts literally every specie of waterbird including sea ducks, every specie of raptor, including golden eagles and snowy owls, and just about every neotropical migrant songbird you can imagine.

There are 2 huge holding ponds, several hundred acres in size. The proposed sites for the turbines are directly south of the lagoons on top of the landfill site and directly east of the lagoons on an old fly ash hill. Like I say, off all the county sites that could be chosen, its terrible judgment on the Waste Water and Countie's part. 

To answer TNL's and other's question about how it will effect hunting...The USFWS, MDNRE, some Universities and other groups have all cautioned the county against choosing those sites to build the wind farms and what the potential ramifications would be if some federally threatened or endangered birds end up dead at the bottom of them or what exclusionary factors the turbines might provide to resting birds in their migration. The county isn't hearing it and are pushing onward. There have been off the cuff remarks from the county of, "well so what if there are a few birds killed by these, how many does the managed waterfowl hunt account for every year" and other remarks along the lines of, "well we allow the public to hunt here and if people oppose it, I guess there might not be a hunt this year".


----------



## Sampsons_owner (Dec 30, 2005)

just ducky said:


> Wow did this go into the toilet. :evilsmile
> .


Aw come on JD this is the new soap opera " As the Wind Blows". Kinda funny to read. And hey Dude they turn at 14 rpm. There is a cool video of one in the Netherlands where the brake fails and it turns out of control until it explodes. Steve


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Sampsons_owner said:


> ...There is a cool video of one in the Netherlands where the brake fails and it turns out of control until it explodes. Steve


Guess I'll have to search YouTube for that one...must be cool!


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

BigR said:


> ...The USFWS, MDNRE, some Universities and other groups have all cautioned the county against choosing those sites to build the wind farms and what the potential ramifications would be if some federally threatened or endangered birds end up dead at the bottom of them or what exclusionary factors the turbines might provide to resting birds in their migration. The county isn't hearing it and are pushing onward. There have been off the cuff remarks from the county of, "well so what if there are a few birds killed by these, how many does the managed waterfowl hunt account for every year" and other remarks along the lines of, "well we allow the public to hunt here and if people oppose it, I guess there might not be a hunt this year".


Not saying NONE will be killed. But as others have said, automobiles driving down the highway probably kill more. Last winter I hit a friggin' hawk that flew across the highway right into the path of my truck. All I'm saying is there are no "mass slaughters" happening due to these turbines. 

I've never personally been to MWW. Been past it, but not into it. But I guess I'm asking you why you say "off all the county sites that could be chosen, its terrible judgment on the Waste Water and Countie's part" What makes it the worst? Would it be an eyesore there, or is there some other reason? I assume they picked those sites for the wind patterns? Just saying when I'm ND, I've seen huge flocks of waterfowl swirl right in by them, so it apparently doesn't really screw up their flight paths. Food is food, and if they want in, they come.


----------



## eyecatcher (Feb 2, 2004)

I don't know all that much about wind power. I have seen many in Iowa. ND and in the MI thumb. I have not heard about or seen any dead birds around any of these. I hunted pheasants in Iowa in the same fields where there first wind mills were located, we killed plenty of birds. While talking to the locals they were very happy with them. I think the mortality argument is nothing more then a red herring. The question I have and no one has answered. How much usable energy do they produce? I have read that we can expect to get 3 to 5 percent of our energy needs from them. Does anyone really know? I personally am not fond of they way they look on the landscape.


----------



## mcfish (Jan 24, 2010)

It is interesting that people for the windmills are usually from afar and people opposed are usually local. I cannot make up my mind either way but I want guarantees on jobs, electric bill savings, and environment issues. Those areas are owned by the public and the public should reap a big chunk of the pie. I want to do away with coal plants as much as the next guy, but once the windmills are in there is no going back. Comparing west michigan/lake michigan to north dakota just doesnt hold water.


----------



## highcaliberconsecrator (Oct 16, 2009)

Out of boredom riding in a car last year in ND. I did a rough calculation of the tip speed of a blade on a turbine I saw. It came out to be in the 220mph range. Not saying they shred birds any time one comes close...but they ARE responsible for the death of birds. Anything with a light on it in the middle of the night too. i.e.-cell phone tower. I'm real curious as to what will come of the studies in the near future.

And kid, curious to where your getting your info...in particular where can I find electrical distribution stats for _that_ town. Feel free to pm if necesary as I already know the town well.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

Yes, they will quickly use them as navigation markers, bringing birds to that area.
The RPM's are slow enough to minimize kills.

That being said: is it windy enough over a mean average year to offset the costs to build and maintain?

That should determine if they are viable and income producers.

The ones I see on Lake Erie are idle almost every time I've fished there.

Pretty expensive statues.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

Is it wrong for me to just say that "I don't like windmills?" I've been all over the country. I've seen windmill farms from the hills west of Sacremento California to the high plains in Wyoming, and the fields of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. I don't like the way they look ANYWHERE I've seen them. Every time I see them it makes me depressed. Wind farms draw your eye when you're looking out towards the horizon. You no longer see the ridge in the distance, but rather the windmills ON the ridge. For me, it's kind of an Aldo Leopold thing: How many vistas do we have to wreck, before we realize what we've lost? Once an area is used for a wind farm, it's unlikely it will ever have clean sight lines again. To me it's sort of like plowing up the native prairie or cutting down the white pine forests of Michigan, or damming up the rivers. These things were done in the name of progress to feed, build, and power a growing country, but now we look back and realize that we lost something important in the process. 

But.....as in the past.....people need jobs, and we need the power they generate, and they're greener and cleaner than burning coal. I just wish there was another way.... Perhaps offshore windmills in the Great Lakes is a good idea, but can't they put them far enough offshore so that they won't be seen from the beaches?


----------



## Rubberband Express (Mar 4, 2010)

Being a layed off sheetmetal worker I would love to have one of the thousands of jobs they keep harping about with these farms. honestly every time i go to a union meeting its a joke all the jobs they promis turns out to be a hand full. As far as the wind mills, I live a couple of miles from Shiawassee flats and if it pays for taxes , lights and heats my house ill clear a couple acers for them to build on bout the worst it could do is scare the birds off like mojo's do in the feilds:lol::lol:


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

Rubberband Express said:


> bout the worst it could do is scare the birds off like mojo's do in the feilds:lol::lol:


Yes, maybe they could paint them and put Mojo wings on the blades:lol:


----------



## wavie (Feb 2, 2004)

Now, if they only could harness the hot air blowing on these forums in the off season.

On a serious note, i could see it being a migratory bird hazard at night, look at the effect sky scrapers have in bigger cities. Maybe in a focused area for migratory birds such as the MWW it wouldnt be such a great idea, but money talks. 

Wouldnt want to be hunting next to this.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o"]YouTube- Nordtank (Vestas) wind system fail and crashes.[/ame]


----------



## anon12162011 (Jun 9, 2009)

Here is a likely scenario that was layed out by my ex girlfriend who works for the US Geological Survey and has spent a tremendous amount of time assesing the environmental impacts of wind turbines.

An honest assessment of wind from an engineer's perspective: 1)Natl Renewable Energy Labs of DOE reported in Jan2010 that 22K miles of new transmission lines must be built to reach 20% wind penetration for East Coast energy needs. http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/publications.html 20% penetration is the goal set by the DOE and this administration. Lines require 200 ft cleared right of ways. This translates to 500,000 acres of land which gets sprayed with herbicides annually to eliminate CO2 absorbing woody plants. The loss of 500,000 acres is forever. Name any other energy source where it is acceptable to destroy half a million acres of land? If nuke or coal plants were built at existing sites, they would use existing transmission infrastructure. Wind requires a smart grid and destruction of half million acres of habitat if one does the math on the US Dept of Energy. How can anyone call wind green? 2) The utility will require an Environmental Impact Statement. This document will reveal endangered species. The half million acres will most likely require &#8220;off set&#8221; land to protect the endangered species. The rate payer will most likely give the US Fed government money from rates to buy from private land owners at least 500K acres of land which will be removed from tax roles, removed from production, and will increase the power of the Federal government. 3) Wind turbines require .6 MW of gas turbines for each MW of wind. The cost of wind should include the cost of these gas turbines as well as the cost of the transmission system to make the entire system work. The cost of wind to the end consumer is much higher than published. Include these cost and do the math. 4) All energy sources as well as all human activities have negative consequences. Wind is more costly and more environmentally destructive than other sources of energy when all items are accounted for.

What this country does not need more is additional taxes or additional subsidies. It also doesn't need wind turbines on nearly every square mile of non-urban America from sea to shining sea. For example, to replace one 1,000 MW coal fired plant, it would take 2,222 GE 1.5 MW turbines (assuming 30% capacity factor) to replace it. This is simple math that can be nuanced, of course. However, even if you did replace the power plant with that huge number of turbines, you are still replacing baseline reliability with an unpredictable, unreliable, intermittent, grid destabilizing power source. Now, take those 2,222 turbines and spread them out in a an area, remembering that the recommended spacing is 5 times the blade diameter so they don't interfere with one another. That will be more than 10,000 acres of your industrial wind site versus 100 acres for the baseline plant. I could go on and on. Maybe some who read this will get the point and do the research. Others, have so committed to this ideal that will add trillions of dollars in taxpayers subsidies to the already $13 trillion national debt and add hundreds of dollars per year for ratepayers for your carbon tax and for the privilege of paying extra for electricity that is inefficiently produced.



Here is a nice depiction from the wind energy company that plans to try and develop near Pentwater of what the proposed farm would appear as. Norwegian company, using turbines assembled and built OUTSIDE of the U.S., and using workers from outside the state of Michigan...all the while ROLLING in the stimulus money and tax breaks. I just shake my head and figure someday it will be tough to tell future generations of sites that I once saw when I was young. I figure by the time I have children that are my age now, the only untouched places left will be National Parks and it will be similar to visiting an amusement park or museum for a glimpse of raw nature.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

It would seem 1 small reactor could generate more power than that monstrosity.

Thanks for posting that shot.

But, there was a nuclear accident once, and since technology is frozen in 1979, I guess they're too dangerous.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Shlwego said:


> Is it wrong for me to just say that "I don't like windmills?" I've been all over the country. I've seen windmill farms from the hills west of Sacremento California to the high plains in Wyoming, and the fields of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. I don't like the way they look ANYWHERE I've seen them. Every time I see them it makes me depressed. Wind farms draw your eye when you're looking out towards the horizon. You no longer see the ridge in the distance, but rather the windmills ON the ridge. For me, it's kind of an Aldo Leopold thing: How many vistas do we have to wreck, before we realize what we've lost? Once an area is used for a wind farm, it's unlikely it will ever have clean sight lines again. To me it's sort of like plowing up the native prairie or cutting down the white pine forests of Michigan, or damming up the rivers. These things were done in the name of progress to feed, build, and power a growing country, but now we look back and realize that we lost something important in the process.


your not wrong to say you don't like them at all. matter fact i can agree with your reasoning wholeheartedly.

but if i was to pick the lesser of the evils...i'd take wind power over the coal fired, nuclear...etc...if it takes 5000 windmills to match power of 1 nuclear plants...then obviously i would have to rethink. I don't know the answer to that tho.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

TSS Caddis said:


> Yes, maybe they could paint them and put Mojo wings on the blades:lol:


i have witnessed a duck running into my spinner wings....he survived long enough to die to my shotgun after. you may be on to something.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shlwego said:


> Is it wrong for me to just say that "I don't like windmills?" I've been all over the country. I've seen windmill farms from the hills west of Sacremento California to the high plains in Wyoming, and the fields of Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. I don't like the way they look ANYWHERE I've seen them. Every time I see them it makes me depressed. Wind farms draw your eye when you're looking out towards the horizon. You no longer see the ridge in the distance, but rather the windmills ON the ridge. For me, it's kind of an Aldo Leopold thing: How many vistas do we have to wreck, before we realize what we've lost? Once an area is used for a wind farm, it's unlikely it will ever have clean sight lines again. To me it's sort of like plowing up the native prairie or cutting down the white pine forests of Michigan, or damming up the rivers. These things were done in the name of progress to feed, build, and power a growing country, but now we look back and realize that we lost something important in the process.
> 
> But.....as in the past.....people need jobs, and we need the power they generate, and they're greener and cleaner than burning coal. I just wish there was another way.... Perhaps offshore windmills in the Great Lakes is a good idea, but can't they put them far enough offshore so that they won't be seen from the beaches?


In general, I wish our world was different, and we didn't have to see coal plants, nuke plants, large landfills, Canadian garbage trucks coming across at Port Huron, OR wind turbines. But I guess I'm just a realist...we humans have created this monster, and now we have to feed it.

I have to say I had the same thought about the vistas when I first saw these thing in ND. But ya know now I really don't even notice them out there. Kinda like my mind ignores them. Not saying that's good or bad, but they just don't stand out to me now.


----------



## Quakstakr (Nov 3, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i have witnessed a duck running into my spinner wings....he survived long enough to die to my shotgun after. you may be on to something.


Although I'm still having trouble believing that these things are going to chop up many birds.

Do you think we would have to include those accidental kills in our daily take, if you were hunting a field with one of those towers. :lol:

Come to think of it, after they got clocked and were flying around dizzy, my bird take might increase. :idea:


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

Nuclear energy, its stupid to consider anything else.

As far as building all the windmills out in the lake, give me a break. People smash into freakin piers every year, several a year. Could you imagine how many of these mills would be plowed into, killing people and possibly destroying the windmills themselves. Not to mention the astronomical costs which will only become profitable after years and years, IF projections are correct. I just don't think the positives outweigh the negatives

As far as our gov't predicting how many jobs will be created, yeah right. They predict those numbers about as well as our DNR counts deer. 

What is getting out of hand, is anything with the label 'green'. If its 'green' it is automatically assumed as a perfect answer, beneficial for the environment. In reality, most of them are just ploys. When handled properly, nuclear energy is as clean as anything, and off the charts more efficient. However, since its not 'green', and has been given a bad name, it is automatically excluded as a power source. Instead of educating the public about its benefits, the gov't and big companies profit off the misconceptions the public already has about anything 'green'. 

Sadly, most of the people financially supporting the 'green' campaign have never set foot outside of the city in their pitiful lives to begin with. Having to look at these eye sores would not be 'green' at all- but those living in high rise apartments, funding these types of projects, would never have to look at them anyway. Even if they did, they would probably think they were just goofy looking trees anyway.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> if it takes 5000 windmills to match power of 1 nuclear plants...then obviously i would have to rethink. I don't know the answer to that tho.


I'm not sure either, but my guess is that one nuclear facility could easily out-power 5000 windmills. Anybody know for sure?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Quakstakr said:


> Although I'm still having trouble believing that these things are going to chop up many birds.
> 
> Do you think we would have to include those accidental kills in our daily take, if you were hunting a field with one of those towers. :lol:
> 
> Come to think of it, after they got clocked and were flying around dizzy, my bird take might increase. :idea:


one of the things i did not know was pointed out in the link i posted earlier. very interesting for sure. you could end up 29,993 birds over your limit.



> *Lighted communication towers* turn out to be one of the more serious problems for birds, especially for migratory species that fly at night. One study began its conclusion with, "It is apparent from the analysis of the data that significant numbers of birds are dying in collisions with communications towers, their guy wires, and related structures."5 Another report states, "The main environmental problem we are watching out for with telecommunication towers are the deaths of birds and bats."6
> 
> This is not news, as bird collisions with lighted television and radio towers have been documented for over 50 years. Some towers are responsible for very high episodic fatalities. One television transmitter tower in Eau Claire, WI, was responsible for the deaths of over 1,000 birds on each of 24 consecutive nights. A "record 30,000 birds were estimated killed on one night" at this same tower.7 In Kansas, 10,000 birds were killed in one night by a telecommunications tower.8 Numerous large bird kills, while not as dramatic as the examples cited above, continue to occur across the country at telecommunication tower sites.
> 
> The number of telecommunication towers in the U.S. currently exceeds 77,000, and this number could easily double by 2010. The rush to construction is being driven mainly by our use of cell phones, and to a lesser extent by the impending switch to digital television and radio. Current mortality estimates due to telecommunication towers are 40 to 50 million birds per year.9 The proliferation of these towers in the near future will only exacerbate this situation.


now they did not say what kind of birds (guessing some sort of small bird) and i'm sure a correlation can be drawn to wind mills. is this what your trying to say BigR?


----------



## anon12162011 (Jun 9, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> one of the things i did not know was pointed out in the link i posted earlier. very interesting for sure. you could end up 29,993 birds over your limit.
> 
> 
> 
> now they did not say what kind of birds (guessing some sort of small bird) and i'm sure a correlation can be drawn to wind mills. is this what your trying to say BigR?


Something along those lines...Telecom towers have been studied in Michigan for quite some time, a lady by the name of Joelle Gehring has received national recognition for her research in bird collisions with towers, most of the mortalities result from the wires that hold the towers up for support and the phenomenom of migrating birds at night being attracted to the flashing lights on the tower. I know its been recognized for 40 or 50 years that those sort of towers can cause some pretty nasty numbers. I know in college I went to 3 different towers with Joelle and every single one of them we found birds under dead and this was just for a class, but how do you even begin to mitigate that problem. Most of the kills were songbirds, however, there were a fair number of hawks and owls found dead or injured as well, as a result of coming around to go after the injured birds flopping on the ground. Wind turbines haven't been studied 1/nth of other things out there and it is a fair assumption to think once you start congregating these more and more, something is bound to happen, but ya never know. The whole theory behind bird/radio tower collisions is pretty fascinating, about how birds navigate based on the stars very often and the associated theories of them becoming mesmorized with the towers. I know some studies have been done by altering the frequency at which the tower blinks, if it blinks at all, color of light used, strobes, etc. and there have been some promising things for the future for the cell towers and lowering bird mortalities.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

Muskegon County is thirsty for money. It was a boomtown twice, once during the lumber era when we denuded Michigan of all it's old growth timber and during WWII. Huge foundrys cluttered the lakefront and employed 10s of thousands of workers at a decent wage. Starting in the early seventies, nearly every large plant - if not EVERY plant has moved or closed it's doors. NORGE, Lakey, Teledyne, Sealed Power, Sappi, Brunswick, CWC, Dana, Bennet, and the list goes on and on. The Cobb coal fired plant is slated to go offline soon, the county has the property, and it really doesn't give a damn about long term enviromental implications. They need jobs and $$$. That's the bottom line.

For those of you that have never been there, Muskegon is situated on Muskegon Lake. It's a world class walleye lake at the mouth of the Muskegon River where it empties into Lake Michigan. On both sides of the pier heads are singing sand beaches that stretch for over a hundred miles in each direction. This lake is the same lake that lumber barons brought their wood to market, the same lake that foundrys and chemical companies contaminated, the same lake that holds so much promise in becoming a true destination if it's done right.

It's clear that we have to go after the tourism dollar. The auto industry ain't comin back. Our beaches, our fishing, people who simply just want to get away from looking at things like windturbines ... and even our bird watchers put big coin back into the economy. The County Comissioners are too short sighted to see this, and thus, begins a new era of pimping the resources again.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

just ducky said:


> I was thinking the same as Shi Kid. Where we go in ND is one of the largest wind farms in the state. I mean huge suckers. We were there the year they put the first couple up, and the locals had many of the same fears as you, AND a ton of other concerns. They were really concerned it would permanently mess up their waterfowl migrations right through the heart of the Prairie Pothole region. But they were also concerned about what they would look like. Heck, it's so flat out there you can see these things from 20 miles away. But ya know what? A few years after the first ones were built, they found no adverse effects, all the concerns were basically unfounded, and the little town embraced them big time, to where now they have an annual festival all centered around the wind farms. They even have a local website for them, which I won't post for fear that I'd be giving cyberscouters a break :yikes::yikes: But it's really big for them, and it did create lots of jobs, and some farmers in prime locations made out on the property too. So in hindsight now, maybe 15 years later, they're happy as can be. On a personal note, since you can see these things from so long away, I now use them as landmarks when I'm tracking flocks of feeding birds :evilsmile Makes it really easy for me to tell where the birds are and which direction to run after them.
> 
> Now having said that, do I think they'd look nice out on Lake Michigan? Not really. But ya know what? We'd get used to looking at them just like they did out west. I'd be more concerned about navigational hazards on the lakes for boaters/freighters.


Those windmills ARE a good reference point to figure out your location. I've been twisted up directionally and always found my way using them. 

However, West Michigan is not NoDak. We depend on our views on the water to attract visitors. Most of our economic dollar comes from tourism these days. Our charter captains bring in people from all over the world (can you imagine trying to troll long lines through that maize with all the other boats?). We have mini cruise ships that stop here each year. There are festival upon festivals that make or break many businesses. FISH (F***n Illinois Sh**Heads) come her every weekend to shop and eat; some buy vacation homes. It's that way up and down the coast. Wind turbines don't fit into that equation.


As for the ducks, I hunted that area in NoDak of which you speak. Never hunted under the damn things because I didn't see the birds under or near them like I did away from them.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

TNL said:


> ...However, West Michigan is not NoDak. We depend on our views on the water to attract visitors. Most of our economic dollar comes from tourism these days...


Trust me I get that. But as much as we all would like things to remain the same, the fact is just what you said...this area needs jobs, and the dollars that come from them. In past decades, when something outlandish like this was proposed, it was easy to say no. Okay maybe not "easy", but you could easily argue against it. Not so much anymore. Michigan, and much of the midwest is fighting economic issues that we've not seen since the great depression...some say worse than that. As much as I hate it, I'm a realist...we need jobs; we people and their dollars; we need a sustainable economy again; we need clean, economical energy (you notice I didn't say "green" because I'm not sold on that term either). All of these are forces that cannot be denied. Gov. Engler was a proponent of lots of things like slant drilling the great lakes for oil, and I expect that our next administration in Michigan (likely Republican) will once again be pushing those same issues. So I'm not saying I agree with throwing up wind turbines...just saying I'm realistic enough to believe it will be damn near impossible to stop. 

My proposal is to turn the Ren Cen in downtown Detroit into a giant wind turbine, and combine it with an amusement ride, like the do in Vegas on the buildings. Produce some energy, bring in some additional tourists and their dollars...yeah, that's the ticket.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

just ducky said:


> Trust me I get that. But as much as we all would like things to remain the same, the fact is just what you said...this area needs jobs, and the dollars that come from them. In past decades, when something outlandish like this was proposed, it was easy to say no. Okay maybe not "easy", but you could easily argue against it. Not so much anymore. Michigan, and much of the midwest is fighting economic issues that we've not seen since the great depression...some say worse than that. As much as I hate it, I'm a realist...we need jobs; we people and their dollars; we need a sustainable economy again; we need clean, economical energy (you notice I didn't say "green" because I'm not sold on that term either). All of these are forces that cannot be denied. Gov. Engler was a proponent of lots of things like slant drilling the great lakes for oil, and I expect that our next administration in Michigan (likely Republican) will once again be pushing those same issues. So I'm not saying I agree with throwing up wind turbines...just saying I'm realistic enough to believe it will be damn near impossible to stop.
> 
> My proposal is to turn the Ren Cen in downtown Detroit into a giant wind turbine, and combine it with an amusement ride, like the do in Vegas on the buildings. Produce some energy, bring in some additional tourists and their dollars...yeah, that's the ticket.


not bad idea there. how about we just plop down wind turbines on the empty city blocks as they clear out. didn't they close like 50 schools? knock'em down and put down some turbines.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> not bad idea there. how about we just plop down wind turbines on the empty city blocks as they clear out. didn't they close like 50 schools? knock'em down and put down some turbines.


If you clear enough rubbish...er, I mean old buildings out of the way, you may have enough wind to generate some energy? Yeah...I think our next Governor ought to study this...clear Detroit out and create wind farms


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

...and be dismantled during the night and sold for scrap.

And no one would know what happened. Remember, in the 'hood, snitches get stitches.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

waxico said:


> ...and be dismantled during the night and sold for scrap.
> 
> And no one would know what happened. Remember, in the 'hood, snitches get stitches.


Yeah, you're right Waxico..."windmill? what windmill? I ain't seen no damn windmill?"


----------



## FullBody (Nov 4, 2008)

waxico said:


> ...And no one would know what happened. Remember, in the 'hood, snitches get stitches.


That made my day! LOL.....:lol: 

Brings me back...:coolgleam


----------



## waterfowlhunter83 (Aug 10, 2005)

Ok, now say if this was proposed for the areas that you guys frequent would your sentiment be any different (please be honest)?

Unfortunately this state is in such a bad spot, financially, that anything that is going to generate jobs, money, tax rev, etc (no matter how small or few)...it is going to be acted on. Funny that this story comes out the same time Muskegon basically gets the OK to put a casino outside of town. But I think going forward; we will see in this state the natural resources being put on the "back burner" for ANYTHING that "may" help the state financially.



Chad


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

Research SNR's, the latest in nuclear power generation. Very small physical footprint, 100% power yield versus waiting for the wind to blow. I just read it in the WSJ today. And. I'll beet it's costs are similar for the same measured total output.

But, in this state, we know who runs it politically, and who is in their back pocket.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

...when the Tanker trucks will start hauling our water south.

We get broke enough, I would hasten a guess we'd sell anything.


----------



## KLR (Sep 2, 2006)

waxico said:


> ...when the Tanker trucks will start hauling our water south.
> 
> We get broke enough, I would hasten a guess we'd sell anything.


Thats OK. We'll just take it out of Indiana's corner, they'll never miss it.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

waterfowlhunter83 said:


> Ok, now say if this was proposed for the areas that you guys frequent would your sentiment be any different (please be honest)?




Honestly? Hell no I wouldn't want it where I hunt. But all I'm saying is change is inevitable. Just think of cell towers, and how friggin ugly they are. And at night with the lights...even more ugly. But ya know what, I now have 3 within sight of my house. And one of my favorite little marshes in mid-Michigan has 4 within a couple mile radius. I hunt by them all the time, but I no longer even realize they're there at all. That's what I was trying to say about Nodak...once you get over the initial shock of seeing them, you soon forget they're even there. But do I like 'em? Hell no.

Take a look at the pic that Shi Kid posted earlier of the coal plant in the distance (Bay City). Now think back 50-60 years to the guys that were hunting that area of the bay then (maybe a few on this site were them?...eyecatcher maybe for one?). Do you think those hunters liked the idea of a coal plant stack belching out smoke/steam in the distance? You all know the answer to that...hell no they didn't. On a clear day you can see the Bay City stack all the way up by Wigwam Bay on the west side, and all the way over by the middle grounds on the east side. I hardly notice it when I'm hunting up there. But it's there. Why? Because we humans needed power. This is really no different. I hardly think that picture that was posted of them standing like fence posts will become reality...no one, even the power companies, would want that. But will we see a bunch of them like in Nodak? I think we will.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

I amazed how many people I've never seen at MWW who have opinions on this matter. Kind of hard to say "it ain't going to be a big deal" when you couldn't tell me what zone to hunt on a stiff east wind if you didn't want to set up decoys as you needed to get to work by 9.

Put them on top of the ash pond and the dump and you can pretty much rule out any thing higher than zone 36 for birds. Probably will keep the feeders from flying south too, unless the bail out over 36/37 and head down Moorland or skirt 41 and 48 and head towards the radio tower.

Having hunted MWW over 50 times in the last three years, I can say I've killed birds in every zone to the south except 45 (including 50 - find that on your map) so some prime hunting will probably be buggered up. Had some excellent pass shooting for geese (let's say 20 gauge 2 steel limit DOA) in 42 when the birds were coming over the dump so low they almost had trash in their toes.

This ain't Nodak. The birds don't need a #@%$ wind tower to find the lagoons, they seem to do that OK on their own. But you have upwards of 30k birds on 1.5 square miles of water (granted 15k are ruddies and shovellers that never leave - I think they burrow into the bottom of the lagoons for 10 months) and you're going to bracket it on two sides, the most travelled sides for birds hopping out to feed on and off the refuge? It's not like the birds can shift over a couple miles and use something else. 

As we're hunting on the county's land as a courtesy, we're probably pure out f'd on this one. You could tell last year they were making every effort possible to make hunting difficult, from the crop harvest schedule to the more or less non stop harrassment from the cops and county trucks while scouting. 

My daughters spend days up there scouting with me, and Andrea's been on 4 hunts up there already. I was hoping to watch her kill her first birds up there, as God forbid I don't want her to cut her teeth on the Todd Farm like I did. Still need therapy......


----------



## thedude (Jul 20, 2004)

i don't hunt MWW but do hunt within 10 miles of there. Put 'em up.:lol:


----------



## fowlme (Jun 19, 2009)

Is there a way to find out how many birds have been killed by the wind mills that are near Mackinaw City? I don't know how many bird migrate thru there, and by now means I am saying put them at MWW, I am just asking a question.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> I amazed how many people I've never seen at MWW who have opinions on this matter. Kind of hard to say "it ain't going to be a big deal" when you couldn't tell me what zone to hunt on a stiff east wind if you didn't want to set up decoys as you needed to get to work by 9.....


If you were aiming part of that at me (because I admitted I'd never been there), then you missed my point entirely. Don't have to have been there to know that these things won't affect the flight paths. I hunt the bay, shiawassee river, Lake St. Clair, and lots of other smaller marshes. Check out any of these maps from the state energy office http://michigan.gov/energy/0,1607,7-230-54285-101765--,00.html 

or go to this one and see where they consider "excellent" locations at 50m...

http://michigan.gov/documents/windpower3-1-1pwr50_105253_7.pdf

take a look at the bay, specifically the east side (Fish Point and the middle grounds area). Guess what? Yep...apparently "excellent" location. They're going to pop up there some day too. Birds will still fly...and guys like me (and you) will still be hunting. Even if it looks like hell. My point was, just like when cell towers started popping up everywhere, I hate 'em. But go right ahead and pop them up at the bay (which based on these maps, I'm sure is going to happen soon enough), or at Shiawassee River, and I'll still be hunting there. And ya know what...after a couple of years, I'll forget they're even there. 

Let's stop fooling ourselves...this is all about aesthetics (the visuals), because we hate the sight of these suckers. And no one here is arguing that they're damn ugly!!!

Now as the cops say..."let's move along folks" :evilsmile


----------



## carsonr2 (Jan 15, 2009)

waxico said:


> Research SNR's, the latest in nuclear power generation. Very small physical footprint, 100% power yield versus waiting for the wind to blow.


We have one of the highest concentrations of nuclear power plants in the Country with 3 within a 60 mile radius of Charlotte, NC and I would much rather view these plants then the thousands of wind turbines that it would take to replace them. I agree with you completely. These plants also employ thousands of workers.



> Let's stop fooling ourselves...this is all about aesthetics (the visuals), because we hate the sight of these suckers. And no one here is arguing that they're damn ugly!!!


Yes, a large argument is based on the aesthetics, and why shouldn't it be? The coastline of Lake Michigan doesn't need these, and there are better alternatives.

No matter how you put it West MI is not Nodak or Iowa so the backing of that argument needs to go. I would venture to say that MI tourism is a draw for the aesthetic quality of the State versus either of these States. There is no where near the number of people visiting Nodak or Iowa for the aesthetics versus Michigan. You guys that don't mind them in Nodak don't go for the scenery you go because it is one of the largest concentrations of waterfowl in the U.S. at that time of year. Hunters would set up in the middle of a dump if that is where the waterfowl were concentrated.



> just like when cell towers started popping up everywhere, I hate 'em


How can one compare cell towers to wind turbines? Cell phone towers are spaced *much further* apart then turbines would be. A series of turbines would be much more appalling then cell phone towers dotting the landscape.

I don't know how anyone could look at the imposed image of the wind turbines in Lake Michigan and think that this is the answer.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Hey I didn't even get into Waxico's argument about nuclear power, because frankly I've been saying the same thing for at least 20 years...it is the best answer. So I'm agreeing with everyone that said we should be looking at them instead. But our lame-ass politicians at both the federal and state level will never go for an expansion of nuclear power...they're too afraid of putting their necks out there against the opponents and voters.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

...just who would oppose such a cheap, efficent source of power.
And why.

Remeber, there are hundreds in Europe. When is the last time you heard of an accident?

Chernoybl was 1986.


----------



## carsonr2 (Jan 15, 2009)

just ducky said:


> But our lame-ass politicians at both the federal and state level will never go for an expansion of nuclear power...they're too afraid of putting their necks out there against the opponents and voters.


Not trying to personally attack you in the last post by anymeans. 

I agree, the politicians need some motivation in the form of removal from office. I would love to return home to Michigan as I sorely miss it, but with the economic crisis up there it would be like shooting myself in the foot leaving the position I have now. I hope it can turn around for everyone's sake.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

We miss ya up here, and your tax $$$!

Thanks for weighing in as someone who would know first hand.

We need more eyes on the ground to state the truth.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

waxico said:


> ...just who would oppose such a cheap, efficent source of power.
> And why.
> 
> Remeber, there are hundreds in Europe. When is the last time you heard of an accident?
> ...


I'm agreeing with you that they are safe. Lot's of opposition to Nuclear power using scare tactics over safety concerns...a Google search would find it. Unfortunately our politicians listen to the squeaky wheels. I do have a concern over what to do with the by-products. But where there's a will there's a way.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

carsonr2 said:


> Not trying to personally attack you in the last post by anymeans.
> 
> I agree, the politicians need some motivation in the form of removal from office. I would love to return home to Michigan as I sorely miss it, but with the economic crisis up there it would be like shooting myself in the foot leaving the position I have now. I hope it can turn around for everyone's sake.


No offense taken. Politicians listen to the squeaky wheels, and the lobbyists agains nuclear are loud. Scare tactics about safety concerns. I wish our politicians on both sides of the aisle, at both the state and federal levels, would grow a set and vote their conscience and sense, not their party alliances :evilsmile


----------



## carsonr2 (Jan 15, 2009)

waxico said:


> We miss ya up here, and your tax $$$!
> 
> Thanks for weighing in as someone who would know first hand.
> 
> We need more eyes on the ground to state the truth.



I'm still giving back to the MI economy in the form of MSU loans. :lol:

I make it up there at least 2-4 times a year to fly-fish and hunt, and always support the local businesses when I do.

Don't let the southern outdoors shows fool you, the hunting/fishing at least here in Western NC doesn't have a thing on Michigan. I have had some good diver and swan hunts on the coast though.

Now resume regularly scheduled debate.ne_eye:


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

A cell tower is a tower. A, one, singular, no big spinning blades.

2 turbines on top of the dump at MWW (which you've seen, right?) is a fence blocking all flight through a narrow corridor.

The bay, fish point, and all that I would assume don't have as tight of a flight lane as you have at MWW. I've seen 4000 geese come out of MWW and they all hit the same datum +/- 50' on the way out. (Which I happened to be under that night). You can't tell me this won't change the patterns up there.


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

Put the dam things where all the city slickers live. They want them, put them in view of them, and leave the remote areas alone. 

Dam right it is a astetics thing. Nobody wants to look at that in the background when calling in a flock of ducks. If you do, you probably have never hunted in an area where the view is unspoiled. 

I am in support of something that brings jobs and dollars to MI, but why does it have to be at our expense ? Money is not the only expense.....


----------



## thedude (Jul 20, 2004)

this is great - half of this whole argument is how a turbine will make a poop water plant look worse. Its a giant hill covered w/ razor wire and asphalt - theres 10 million seagulls crapping all over it and you can smell it from miles away on the right day. Furthermore, a turbine right smack dab downtown muskegon would frankly be an upgrade to what they have currently.:lol:


----------



## eyecatcher (Feb 2, 2004)

just ducky said:


> I hunt the bay, shiawassee river, Lake St. Clair, and lots of other smaller marshes. take a look at the bay, specifically the east side (Fish Point and the middle grounds area). Guess what? Yep...apparently "excellent" location. They're going to pop up there some day too. Birds will still fly...and guys like me (and you) will still be hunting. Even if it looks like hell. My point was, just like when cell towers started popping up everywhere, I hate 'em. But go right ahead and pop them up at the bay (which based on these maps, I'm sure is going to happen soon enough), or at Shiawassee River, and I'll still be hunting there. And ya know what...after a couple of years, I'll forget they're even there.
> 
> Let's stop fooling ourselves...this is all about aesthetics (the visuals), because we hate the sight of these suckers. And no one here is arguing that they're damn ugly!!!
> 
> Now as the cops say..."let's move along folks" :evilsmile


I agree with you completely they are a real eye sore. drive east of Bay port there is a big wind farm being built between Pigeon and Elkton. it was started a couple of years ago. I would really like to know what percentage of usable electricity we get from these monstrosities. I dont like nuclear plants however they may be the best investment for clean usable power. They make a lot of sense so teh government won't allow anymore of them to be built. I have watched the Fermi plant down river and I don't think it has ever reached it's full generating capacity. I wonder if they are afraid it will breakdown or leak radio active materials? T Boone Pic kens was touting wind power then he got off it. The dollar return wasn't enough for his investment. so now he's pushing natural gas which he just happen to have a major investment in. wind power is a Hugh investment and from every thing I read it will not supply enough usable power to return the investment. Like most everything the government pushes it maybe another bad idea. I dont have a clue to the answer but I know that neither does congress or anyone in the government.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

thedude said:


> this is great - half of this whole argument is how a turbine will make a poop water plant look worse. Its a giant hill covered w/ razor wire and asphalt - theres 10 million seagulls crapping all over it and you can smell it from miles away on the right day. Furthermore, a turbine right smack dab downtown muskegon would frankly be an upgrade to what they have currently.:lol:


OMG now that there is funny :lol:


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

This wind thing is just the flavor of the month. If people were serious about energy, you'd see more talk about nuke. Hell, we already HAVE two nuke plants on Lake Michigan - South Haven and Charlevoix. Big Rock ran flawlessly for over 40 years before being decomissioned. You want "green"? Use the same land and put in a new one!

Chernobyl incident happened as a country was literally imploding upon itself. Russia had no money, no real oversight, and the infrastructure was suffering horribly.

The 3000 jobs is a pipe dream. What happens once they're up? A couple crews to do maintenance. Great.

At one time they thought about putting the damn things in the middle of the lake and spacing them out over a mile in a straight line. It would have been over the horizon, an 'out of sight, out of mind' sort of thing. But it's obviously cheaper to put them closer and more shallow.

And yes, the MWW hunting will suffer. The geese are very particular. They want to roost in those lagoons as do other waterfowl and non-huntable species. 11,000 acres isn't much land when you consider the size and spacing of these machines. The County lets us hunt there as a courtesy. They don't charge a thing. I'm sure we're not real high on their list of prorities.


----------



## thedude (Jul 20, 2004)

nuclear power is nice - but at least if something goes wrong with a turbine - it just stops spinning or maybe falls over. It doesn't, on the other hand, leave a 100 mile diameter span of death and destruction that lasts for a generation. 

We cherish our great lakes water supply so much - yet a mishap like that would render it useless for decades. I know these plants are extremely safe and tragedies like Chernobyl don't exactly happen all the time - but its certainly possible and something to consider when forecasting the use and conservation of the planets largest accessible fresh-water supply.


On the plus side however, it would probably solve the Asian carp problem.:lol:


Point is - there's a place for both. you can't be married coal and nuclear power forever. A diversified network of power inputs to the grid is the best thing we can hope for. Wind power is cheap, scalable and (other than being an eye-sore) has little environmental impact.


----------



## waterfowlhunter83 (Aug 10, 2005)

Screw the wind turbine idea...lets just pave the MWW and throw a Wally's World, Sam's Club, Dollar General, Family Dollar, a couple of liquor stores, maybe a couple of all you can eat buffets...that will be a better return on investment for the local economy.


----------



## waxico (Jan 21, 2008)

I found this a while ago, but you haven't been on in a while.
You can have it for your avatar if you want.
Kind of a riff on the Shepard Fairly/Obyebye thing.

My take on the whole thing:
No wind = no power
Nuke = 100% yield 24/7/365


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

waxico said:


> My take on the whole thing:
> No wind = no power
> Nuke = 100% yield 24/7/365


No one want's Wind, Coal, Nuclear. What does that leave us with? Geothermal, Solar, ...

Everyone want's electricity, but they don't want the means to produce it in their back yard.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

TSS Caddis said:


> No one want's Wind, Coal, Nuclear. What does that leave us with? Geothermal, Solar, ...
> 
> Everyone want's electricity, but they don't want the means to produce it in their back yard.


i say build them in canada and make canada ship it to us for free....we can threaten to give back jenny if they don't comply? wait...that would be a bargain for them....


----------



## SlimPickkens (Nov 4, 2009)

So funny...We, in our magnanimous stewardship of God's creatures. Blah, Blah, Blah. This entire thread is basically a copy-and-paste from every other sportsman's site on the web, anyway.
Makes me laugh outloud to read about the concern for bird kills and habitat degradation if wind farms are allowed. What, we should ban progress in the name of wildlife conservation? Why? So there are more birds for us to kill? LOL! Hypocrites, all of us.
As for the West Michigan shoreline, who cares!! The OP himself said the place is basically lost. I have not been there in years, but have heard horror stories about the toilet that entire area has become from Benton Harbor all the way to Muskegon. 
A sewage treatment plant is just that. A place that human and industrial waste products go to die. The fact that waterfowl of every feather find it a nice place to visit, is an entirely moot observation.
The birds can (and will) flourish in a new home.


----------



## casscityalum (Aug 27, 2007)

As someone who lives insight of the windmills back home(Elkton/Ubly) area I personally dont mind it. It doesnt bother me one bit to look at um. heck there producing power at some point. Its just a fad. There will be more things that will come out in the future. We have many many tourist that come to Caseville and port austin and most enjoy going out for a country drive and seeing them. There not out in the water yet, but talk has been about putting them out towards Charity Island. Thats fine by me.

to be honest, the only reason I would have any input on to put them up or not would be change in flight patterns, deaths etc. if nothing shows bad impacts then by all means go ahead..

Unlike a landfill or some of the other things being used in todays world, a windmill can always be taken down and all your missing is a few piles of dirt and grass where the platform was put..for the picture in the lake..say they put them up..but in 20 years down the road, something new and better comes out to produce fuels for us. The windmills lose value and can just be taken down and wham..back to the old lake....

Far as looks..I may be the oddball but I sorta like stopping and looking at them..Heck this past Feb, my friends cuz came up from dewitt for the shanty days up in Cville and it was 2 am leaving the Riverside..while we had to go to Elkton to get some fuel and she wanted to drive and look at the windmills in the dark..little did my young brain pick up on the other reasons for us stopping and watching  :lol:

It may be the fact that Im a deer hunter slowly converting over to waterfowl, but some of my best deer hunting is in the subarbs and city type hunting. Ya its not upnorth and great views, but in my mind that deer loves those houses all close knit and tight..And Im happy to death to be looking for him while cars go zoomin by :coolgleam


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

casscityalum said:


> she wanted to drive and look at the windmills in the dark..little did my young brain pick up on the other reasons for us stopping and watching  :lol:


now if that isn't the best selling point i've seen yet.....you should be a salesman!


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

waxico said:


> ...just who would oppose such a cheap, efficent source of power.
> And why.
> 
> Remeber, there are hundreds in Europe. When is the last time you heard of an accident?
> ...


Yesterday. 

http://www.wptz.com/news/22942281/detail.html

Not a big deal like Chernoybl was.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

casscityalum said:


> ....she wanted to drive and look at the windmills in the dark...


Um...casscityalum, now you said you're going to MSU (or maybe already graduated) right? I'm not the brightest bulb in the world, but I did manage to graduate (more appropriately survive :evilsmile) from several fine institutions of higher education, and EVEN WAY BACK IN THOSE DAYS I could've figured that one out. :lol: Did she also ask you to go snipe hunting that night? What are they teaching you down here at Moo U? You know I'm just joshing of course...


----------



## casscityalum (Aug 27, 2007)

haha oh duck, my brian was not thinkin right that night cause..well its my roomates cuz and i didnt know she had an interest  in the beginin it was "hey lets just drive down the roads and look"..but ure right soon as she asked to stop my mind was a racing :lol: 

and ya i know your joshin..i live on internet sarcasm and dont get riled up anymore


----------

