모두
← Back to Squawk list
FAA:No wind farm near Roanoke
Up to 25 wind turbines would pose a “presumed hazard” to aircraft navigation from their perch atop North Mountain, the Federal Aviation Administration has determined. The turbines, proposed to stand up to 549 feet tall on top of a Botetourt County ridgeline, would exceed the FAA’s obstruction standards and create “an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace,” the agency found after a preliminary study. (www.roanoke.com) 기타...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
So, the FAA thinks the turbines may be a hazard to more than just the feathered flyers.
For sake of clarity on the title, this is 17NM SE of Hot Springs, VA (KHSP) and not near Roanoke.
If there was no taxpayer money involved I wonder what the payback is on these things.
I sold my AC a few years back to a fellow who was in charge of maintenance on one farm Said if you want a good steady job work on them as they are really POS money grabbers and need constant maintenance. The big money grab is tax incentives not the power they produce only when the wind blows not when its needed.
Always new it was a taxpayer ripoff and money grab. Just kind of wondered how much $ is generated vs cost (including maintenance). I'm sure it's bad but how bad?
The problem, fundamentally, is that there are certainly regions where wind is in abundance (plains states, mountainous areas, etc. - see the following link to the Energy Information Administration website https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4630).
The fundamental problem isn't so much the existence of renewables subsidies, but rather their poor targeting and design, which promotes gimmicky projects that don't generate as much energy as better designed projects. As far as the government subsidies are concerned, a wind turbine built in super calm central New Jersey will earn as much in incentives as an equally large project in eastern North Dakota, even though the latter is, in real terms, a significantly better investment. The problem is that since both receive the same federal support, it dampens the market incentive to target the best locations and project designs.
The easy solution here is to tie the tax credits to productivity - higher yield/$ spent means better tax credits.
The fundamental problem isn't so much the existence of renewables subsidies, but rather their poor targeting and design, which promotes gimmicky projects that don't generate as much energy as better designed projects. As far as the government subsidies are concerned, a wind turbine built in super calm central New Jersey will earn as much in incentives as an equally large project in eastern North Dakota, even though the latter is, in real terms, a significantly better investment. The problem is that since both receive the same federal support, it dampens the market incentive to target the best locations and project designs.
The easy solution here is to tie the tax credits to productivity - higher yield/$ spent means better tax credits.
The applied solution seems to be that the credits are more tied to developers who rent the approving officials or their higher ups.
Fed mandates subsidization of wind, solar and ethanol. Most Americans don't want anything subsidized.
