Posted by: Debby Durkee | February 1, 2010

Hmmm…wind power doesn’t work in harsh winters.

Debby's Web Finds
Hmmm…wind power doesn’t work in harsh winters.

How often do taxpayers have to suffer from environmentalists? Let me count the ways. Wind power is in the news of late. Here’s the latest fallout as documented by Rosslyn Smith over at The American Thinker:

It seems two favorite green technologies favored by the coastal elites don’t work very well in the harsh conditions in parts of flyover country.  First came news that energy saving LED traffic lights can’t be seen after a snowstorm, a condition that caused at least one fatal accident and which has resulted in additional costs to municipalities who have to pay maintenance crews to remove the snow.  Now comes the news of wind turbines that are going to need to be retro fitted with heaters if they are to keep spinning when the temperatures get really cold.  From KSTP-TV

The Minnesota Municipal Power Association bought 11 turbines for $300,000 each from a company in Palm Springs, Calif.

Special hydraulic fluid designed for colder temperatures was used in the turbines, but it’s not working, so neither are the turbines.

There is a plan to heat the fluid, but officials must find a contractor to do the work. 

Hmmm…that’s what happens when the ideas of liberals become reality. The plan is just to get something in place, whether it works or not (sound familiar in the wake of Obamacare?) Then, they’ll tweak it or move on to something else. Who cares if the taxpayers or the consumers have to pay for their haste and idiocy? They’re the smart ones. They’re going to tell the rest of us what to do, and we get to pay for it and for the fixes when it doesn’t work. So, get used to it. “We won!”

You’ve got to wonder what the group “Minnesotans for Global Warming” is thinking about now. 

You can read all of Rosslyn Smith here:

That dovetails nicely with the problems associated with wind power and the effects on human beings, specifically loss of sleep and the irritable sound the turbines make leading to nausea. Residents of Maine are having problems with this right now. This is from

“The wind industry is in denial about human suffering caused by turbine noise, just as the tobacco and asbestos industries were in denial about the health effects of their products,” says Steve Thurston, of Maine’s People’s Task Force on Wind Power. “There is no excuse for this industry to torment citizens who desire nothing more than a good night’s sleep and to enjoy the peace and quiet of their rural environment.” To that end, a group of Maine citizens just sued First Wind (see “A Mighty Wind,” page 10) and several other parties; they say the noise generated by turbines negatively affects property values and quality of life.

It looks likely that we’ll be seeing liberals fighting liberals in the wind power wars. Many rich liberals (ala now deceased Ted Kennedy) don’t want those turbines near them, and I’m sure the trial lawyers will look at this as a ripe area for lawsuits. So stay tuned. Read more:

In other areas where wind might have liberals fighting liberals is the land use of wind turbines as well as the problem with birds and their habitats. This is from Brian Sussman at The American Thinker website:

The amount of land dedicated to the Energy Department’s wind wish is beyond comprehension. Hardcore greenies shudder at the thought of the development of thousands of square miles; plus the turbines will drive animal rights activists bonkers.

Those of us who live in the San Francisco Bay Area know a little something about this.

In the 1970s, just east of the San Francisco Bay, the world’s largest concentration of wind turbines was constructed. Some 4,500 windmills are ensconced atop 50,000 acres of grassy hills, presently generating a modest 576 megawatts of power. Officially known as the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, one would suppose the wind farm is an icon of greenness. But instead, Altamont Pass is the poster girl of eco-infighting.

As soon as the multitude of three-bladed rotors were installed, animal rights advocates began counting the carcasses of thousands of dead birds. Since then, numerous lawsuits have been filed and millions of dollars spent procuring studies to track the bird body count in an effort to determine how to address the problem. The result has been a sorely undermaintained, underutilized, cost-ineffective alternative energy source that many activists would like to completely shutter.

Sussman’s article also looks at what might be a compromise between Dems and Republicans – giving Republicans the green light on “Drill, Baby, Drill” while the Dems get going with more wind projects. In the middle of it all is the radical environmental lobby which would just as soon turn Americans back to the stone age where energy is concerned.

For the environmentalists, the answer is not really blowing in the wind. I believe their real desire is to see America use less energy — period.

Whatever happens in the wind wars, you can be assured that environmentalist will put up more and more roadblocks to any energy source while we all freeze in the dark. Read it all here:


Bookmark and Share



  1. Ted mentioned, in his post below this one of yours, the unintended consequences of acting rash and not thinking it through and looking for all the things that could go wrong. But that’s been the voices that have had the ear of our leaders for quite some time and for the right price, they will give them what they want to keep their vote. They don’t care about the unintended consequences, just the money and the power.

  2. Exactly, Beth. I think more and more people are beginning to see that rather than solving problems, liberals only want the power to tell you what to do. Up is down and wrong is right with these people.

    Critical Theory — is a Marxist idea which basically means — criticize everything culturally and socially. That basically leads to chaos and the tearing down of traditional values.

    I actually think that is what Obama and Gibbs are doing with the KSM trial thing — where they’re basically saying, “oh, he’ll be found guilty and get the death penalty.” Well, that just ruins the jury pool and will allow a defense lawyer grounds to get him off. Now if it doesn’t happen that way — does that set a precedent? If a judge disallows the defense motion and goes ahead with the trial anyway, does that screw with “traditional” trial law? Chaos?

  3. Just some of those unintended consequences that arise out of radical ignorance of governmental bodies to force improvements on the world without doing their due diligence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: