Before and After Pics of the Construction of the Wind Farm at Cefn Croes Wales.

[NNadir]

Wind Energy has an energy density problem, and 100% of the time, energy density problems become environmental problems.

The following text, and the pics below come from the website that mournes the destroyed habitat, much as we mourn, or should mourn, Glen Canyon, destroyed by another type of so called "renewable energy" scheme:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/">THE CEFN CROES PHOTO-GALLERY: Rape of an upland plateau

Prior to this, and during the development period, hundreds of thousands of trees - many of them premature crops - had been felled. From February 2004, up to 25 huge excavators, earthmovers, "peckers", rock-grinders, and other heavy plant machinery were on site, as new access roads were made, existing forestry tracks widened, gradients levelled, drainage channels dug, huge foundations excavated, peat bogs ripped up, and new "borrow pits" (quarries) opened up to gain roadstone and aggregate. The base sections of the turbine towers were set in steel-reinforced concrete, ready for the turbine towers - imported from General Electric's factory in Northern Germany. The thousands of tons of concrete were made on-site in a plant which was not part of the original planning application.

Before:



After:



Before:



After:



Before:



After:




After:



After (That's a turbine base being installed):



The original site conveys the anger of a local on what has been done to this once beautiful area with captions and more pictures.

The sad thing is that 20 years from now, the turbines pictured therein are going to be useless chunks of abandoned metal.

[Kali]

1. without judgment on the "whole"

I would contend that the "after" pictures are better labeled "during" pictures. After to me would be a finished project along with say at least a growing season or two recovery time.

[thunder rising]

2. Yep, looks like a troll to me.

[jpak]

56. troll!

shut your mouth...

:D

[Atman]

3. Not only that, they're really not "before" and "after" unless they're actually of the same location

One picture shows a wide open meadow with a fence...the "after" shows a non-descript closeup of some debris, in an obviously different place --- but we can't tell because of the fog. One "before" shows a drainage culvert which doesn't look all that natural to begin with, the "after" shows a different place. For these to emotionally sway me, I'd like to see the actual same location, before and after, not just illustrative examples. And as Kali says, "during" is not "after." Have you ever seen the construction of a simple house? "Before" is a lot with grass and trees and stuff, "during" is a disaster area with dumpsters, trash piles, heavy equipment, dirt piles. But "after" as a finished product, quite different from the "before" but nothing like the "during."

.

[NNadir]

4. Um, you could open the link and see as many pics as you want.

I invite you to come back in 20 years as well, when all this useless shit is abandoned hunks of metal, sort of like these babies:



These babies are in Hawaii.

You don't, I suspect, give much of a fuck about the future.

[Kali]

5. I don't know what your problem is, although you seem to have an agenda.

I run almost 200 photo transects here and simply made an observation about claiming photos during the construction phase of anything. They are NOT "AFTER" shots, but merely "during"

When a gas line or road construction occurs near me, I take "during" photos too, as I am always interested in seeing what degree of recovery will happen AFTER.

I have a hell of a lot of rusty metal around here - some of it still works, some of it just sits - it isn't hurting a thing, some of it is even providing habitat for various organisms. A dead windmill (or several) is hardly an environmental disaster.

I don't have a fully formed opinion on windmills yet. Like all controversial subjects the truth obviously lies somewhere near the center and you are obviously of the "no good whatsoever" extreme. Others are at the "it will save us all" extreme. I am pretty sure neither one is fully the truth.

Your suspicion about what I give a fuck about is wrong too.:hi:

[kestrel91316]

63. That person's agenda is "rah rah rah for nukyular!!!!!" and "BOOOOO!!!"

for EVERY other form of electricity production. Agenda, indeed. Quite rabid.

[Beartracks]

10. WTF happened to this wind site in Hawaii? n/t

[kristopher]

11. It was renovated and new turbines are either in place or due to be placed.

The OP is a crusader against wind power.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Are you sure about that? nt

[kristopher]

15. Yes

[Dead_Parrot]

16. So, you have a cite?

Just so we can all share the certainty, you understand.

[kristopher]

17. So, do you have fingers and a keyboard?

Do it yourself.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. Well, there's the thing...

I can see them building the new turbines at Pakini Nui
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=18.971356,-155.688554&spn=0.006544,0.009602&t=h&z=17

But there seems to be be fuck all happening at Kamaoa
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=18.991758,-155.667552&spn=0.003272,0.004801&t=h&z=18

These photos of Kamaoa are two weeks old:
http://www.techhui.com/photo/albums/kamaoa-wind-farm

So if you've got any evidence that Kamaoa "was renovated", let's see it: Otherwise, it rather looks like they've decided to say 'Fuck it, let's just build some new ones down the road and and not worry about it', and you're just making shit up.

(Edit to fix link)

[kristopher]

21. Well, here is REALLY the thing...

If you are able to do all that complicated googling, then you are quite capable of going to the owner's website and reading about what is going on.

Instead...

[Dead_Parrot]

22. I did

They're called Tawhiri power, and they don't mention Kamaoa at all. Most informative.

So. to return to the point:
Beartracks: WTF happened to this wind site in Hawaii?
Kristopher: It was renovated and new turbines are either in place or due to be placed.

Your statement appears false: There is plenty of evidence that the site is still abandoned, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.

What I'm trying to establish is whether this falsehood is from ignorance or an attempt at deception - although I'm still open to any evidence the site has been renovated, should you have any.

[kristopher]

23. The site was closed in 2006, sold and new owners are refurbishing.

I don't give a fig if you can't confirm it, reality is reality.

What is pathetic is that you actually think your incompetent research skills prove you right.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. Thank you

That answers my query nicely.

[FBaggins]

25. So much for "ignorance" eh?

n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

26. And "evidence". Hey ho... nt

[FBaggins]

19. As sure as he is about anything else.

Which, of course, isn't to say that he's right. He usually isn't.

The Kamaoa Wind Farm was shut down a few years ago and was not refurbished/renovated or reopened.

A new wind farm (Pakini Nui) was constructed a mile or two down the road. Instead of 37 turbines producing a peak of about 7.5MW, the new farm can produce nearly three times as much with 14 turbines.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. But it's on the same island

Which is evidently good enough.

It's fascinating to watch his thought processes, though. We should be hitting the excuses-&-goal-post-moving stage any minute.

[kristopher]

27. The new owners of Kamaoa refurbished the turbines

They used parts from some of the nonfunctional turbines to continue operation of the remainder of the 20 y/o fleet. That continued until very recently when they shut them all down. The towers are in good shape and will be reused, the company is in negotiations right now to put 750KW turbines on them to triple the output.

If you weren't able to glean that from google, you are either incompetent or you don't want to. Probably a bit of both.

[FBaggins]

28. You're incorrect. (Again)

They used parts from some of the nonfunctional turbines to continue operation of the remainder of the 20 y/o fleet.

No... they were canibalizing parts from some turbines to keep others running several years ago. By 2004 they were almost cut off (and, IIRC, on the tax roles with a lien for nonpayment). By 2006 they were shut down. Apollo tried to get them running again but really didn't generate anything and all of them were disabled in 2008)

That continued until very recently when they shut them all down.

The photos were taken after the farm was shut down and you claimed that AFTER that they were refurbishing and reopening. In fact you claimed that it had ALREADY been renovated.

You were wrong.

The towers are in good shape and will be reused, the company is in negotiations right now to put 750KW turbines on them to triple the output.


Nope (which makes you following google comment particularly hilarious). They've already finished that by opening a new farm down the road (just as I posted above and you've been provided a link to the images). They have plenty of room for more turbines, but that's it for now because it's all the transmission lines to the area can handle. There is NO plan to place new turbines on the old towers.

[Dead_Parrot]

29. Well, dammit, that's good enough fo me!

Everybody else says they were shut down on Aug 15th, 2006 and abandoned ever since, but what do they know. You're the expert, and I know this because you told me so.

[kristopher]

30. .

Ok, if you have at least done that much...

http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/wwg/history.html

[FBaggins]

31. Lol!

Might you look a LITTLE less foolish if you could find a page that's less than eight years old?

That plan was scrapped years ago and replaced with the one you've seen described here several times.

:rofl:

You might have gotten a clue if you had clicked on their "find out more in the current projects section" only to find that it isn't listed.

[Dead_Parrot]

33. Dammit, you beat me. :) nt

[FBaggins]

34. Oh... but it gets better.

Kris's own post from January documents that his fantasy world has few congruent points with reality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=225743&mesg_id=225761

[Dead_Parrot]

35. Yeah, I reviewed that looking for links a wile back

Funnily enough, there didn't seem to be any. Not that say what he's saying, anyway...

[joshcryer]

49. Amazing.

Especially amazing how I was so against nuclear back in Jan, but the dishonest poster forced me to research and at least be on the other side of the fence marginally (I still think a decade is still far too long to go from planning to power generation).

[kristopher]

65. You've been promoting nuclear from Day One.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. That IS an interesting page, isn't it? Have looked at the bottom of it?

This Page was last modified on 04/15/2002.

Anything else you'd like to share?

[kristopher]

36. Did you read the entry?

When did Apollo purchase the "retired" wind farm?

The entire premise of what you are debating is can only be characterized as stupid. A company doesn't buy site like that to let it sit; grow the fuck up.

[Dead_Parrot]

37. wow

So your entire argument is, that they must have rebuilt the windfarm because you think they should have?

And yet there it is, rusting quietly.



Weird, isn't it? It's almost as if wishing for something really hard doesn't always make it come true.

(Note to self: Buy lotto ticket)

[FBaggins]

39. Yes... that's his argument.

He doesn't look at reality and mold his worldview around what he sees. He creates his own worldview and then molds reality to fit it.

[Dead_Parrot]

40. Nice trick if you can pull it off

I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony. I do have a pony...

Fuck.
No pony.
:(

[kristopher]

41. You have some straw in your hair from that last post...

I said they had refurbished the wind farm and are in the process of repowering that already developed site.

But hey, have it any way that makes your day. If you think they spent the money for a great wind site with existing usable infrastructure in order to let it just sit there, that reflects only on your grasp of reality.

Given that you think nuclear power is a green and cheap, the delusion about wind farm economics is the least of your problems.

[FBaggins]

42. Sigh.

I said they had refurbished the wind farm and are in the process of repowering that already developed site.

Yes... and you were wrong. They never refurbished the wind farm (it slowly died away), and they never repowered the existing site (they moved down the road to a better one).

More to the point.. no... what you actually said (sucks that DU won't let you edit the error away at this point) was that they alread HAD renovated it.

You also said the company was "in negotiations right now" - which is as true as your other statements (which is to say, not at all).

If you think they spent the money for a great wind site with existing usable infrastructure in order to let it just sit there, that reflects only on your grasp of reality.

You would look less foolish (if only slightly) if you actually read what you replied to before placing your e-foot in your i-mouth.

They didn't spend the money to let it sit there... they bought it and tried to keep it running and could not. If you were to take a look at the satelite photos that were provided for you, they didn't even "let it sit there" when they gave up on these units. They built the new ones right over on the ridge precisely because of the existing infrastructure (the transmission lines).

[Dead_Parrot]

44. Evidently, Pakini Nui is a figment of our imagination. nt

[Dead_Parrot]

43. And yet, they *haven't* refurbished the wind farm.

This is sort of a key point, since it's the reason for this entire sub-thread. Karamoa hasn't been touched in years, which is why it's on the list of abandoned energy projects.

Repeatedly saying "Why would they do that!?" with a confused expression on your face doesn't actually change that.

[kristopher]

45. They did refurbish it.

When they cannibalized the parts to keep it running AND when they put up the additional turbines down the road that is "refurbishing" the site.

Apparently you think that any lag between the shutdown of worn out equipment and the installation of the replacement turbines is a cause to say the site is abandoned. That is idiocy of the first order that only someone that simply doesn't care about the truth would put forth.

Tell you what, here is a way to make money off of your beliefs. Go to Hawaii and see if you get away with claiming ownership of the property you claim is abandoned. If you are right, then you should be able to pick up a fantastic wind site for next to nothing.

Good luck and be sure and let us know how you make out.

[FBaggins]

46. Just keep trying the spin kris

I'm sure SOMEONE will buy it.

But hey! We may have discovered a reliable source of power. We can just hook you up and take advantage of all the spinning. Bound to be less intermittent than most wind turbines. Near as I can see, you only stop while sleeping.

:rofl:

Nobody cares about the SITE... Mother Nature did just fine. It's the people who put up windmills that now are worthless... THAT's what the post is about.

When they cannibalized the parts to keep it running AND when they put up the additional turbines down the road that is "refurbishing" the site.

Nice try. Nah... heck... it isn't even a good try. All of this took place years before the photos that you replied to claiming that those towers had been renovated. And no... it is in no way "refurbishing the site" - Rather than refurbish anything they built an entirely new wind farm. They were better off starting over from scratch rather than use ANY of the towers/turbines/footprints/etc.

You said that it was sold in 2006 and the new owners ARE refurbishing. That's not true. Apollo has owned the location for many years and were just about done with the new site at this point... and "ARE" not currently refurbishing anything.

You know very well that you tried to leave readers with the impression that the photos displayed do not reflect the current conditions where those photos were taken. In reality, the only change is a little more rust. You were given photos from just a couple weeks ago.

[oldhippie]

55. kristopher's Kredibility Krashes ......

.... and Krumbles to yet new lows.

[Dead_Parrot]

47. That's an angle I hadn't considered...

...redefining "refurbished" to mean "cannibalised and then abandoned" and that's why they look like that. Kind of like movie mafia slang:

"What shall we do with Don Alonzo's car, boss?"
"'Refurbish' it!"
"Right boss." Bang bang smash rip....

Let me know when you find it in a dictionary, I'll start using it.

And since you have trouble grasping the concept, the land and the windfarm are not the same thing. I've abandoned my old potato patch, but that doesn't mean you can stick a shed on it.

Finally, Kamaoa and Pakini Nui are two different sites. The clue here is that they are in different places and have different names: Check the maps in #18, you'll figure it out.

Meanwhile, of course, the turbines Beartracks was asking about are still sat in a field, rusting.

[joshcryer]

50. Abandoned = refurbished.

Black = white.

I'll let my friends know that all those cars in the junkyard that I cannibalised to refurbish my 1974 Torino are actually "refurbished."

[FBaggins]

54. No no no... You just don't get it.

The owners of the junkyard also own a new car parking lot down the street (so they didn't have to pave a new one from town) and recently replaced the gate at the junkyard. THAT'S how you know that the cars IN the junkyard were refurbished.

[joshcryer]

60. Oh duh, I should have realized that.

I can't believe I didn't realize such common sense reasoning.

[kristopher]

57. Kamoa and Pakini Nui are part of the same package.

Both are owned by Apollo Energy and both are still "wind sites". Waiting to have new turbines installed doesn't equal abandoned no matter how many times you say it.

There are two simple concepts that disprove you claims. First is the fact that wind is locational - good wind sites are not abandoned. That would be exactly the same as abandoning a profitable oil well with unlimited capacity just because a pump wore out. Continuing our analogy gives us our second point. Even if it were far less productive a site than it is, the economics would be favorable because the basic infrastructure is already in place, minimizing the capital investment required to bring the site back oline.

Your premise is stupid.

[FBaggins]

58. The same "package" now?

Two separate wind farms are really the SAME wind farm because they are owned by the same company adn are close together?

Tell me that you realize how foolish you look but you just have a great sense of self deprecating humor.

Waiting to have new turbines installed doesn't equal abandoned no matter how many times you say it.

Sure... but that isn't reality. Or shall we claim that Chernobyl was never abandoned... they're just waiting for a new reactor?

There are two simple concepts that disprove you claims.

Let us know when you get around to addressing the claims AT ALL. Building a straw man and then addressing it is not at all the same thing. Nobody said that the LAND was no longer usable.

Even if it were far less productive a site than it is, the economics would be favorable because the basic infrastructure is already in place,

Lol... wouldn't a 2nd grader be able to tell you that IF that were so, they would have DONE this? They obviously considered it (back in 2002 as you found) and rejected the idea. It was cheaper to start over from scratch than reuse those towers.

The infrastructure "already in place" (The transmission lines) can only handle about the output from the new turbines. That's why you'll note that the 2002 proposed repowering is similar in output to the new turbines. They had a choice between reusing the exiting towers, and starting over from scratch. They started over.

You were wrong... you need to get over it... because it happens constantly.

[FBaggins]

38. Did you?

When did Apollo purchase the "retired" wind farm?

They didn't. They were the ones who retired it. They bought it years earlier and couldn't keep it running. At the time of the document you linked (2002) they were considering replacing the turbines since cannibalization was steadily cutting their production. They decided that it was better to give up on these units and build new ones instead... which is what they did. Every time they went out to the new site they drove right down the middle of these older towers and ignored them.

The entire premise of what you are debating is can only be characterized as stupid. A company doesn't buy site like that to let it sit; grow the fuck up.

You had better take a big dose of that medicine before you ever try prescribing it to others doc.

They didn't buy the SITE to "let it sit"... the SITE is fine. It's the equipment ON the site that was ignored.

[geckosfeet]

6. Agreed.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. Happily, Cefn Croes was completed in 2005

So we do have "after" pics. here's one from 2008:



Try hunting around Panaramio for some more.

[DCKit]

7. As someone who's seen much responsible logging and construction in forested areas...

and the resulting recovery over more than three decades, I'm happy to unrec this post.

But I'll give you the kick you unrepentant Nnnewculur spokesmodel.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. How much recovery takes place when it's kept clear?

The sites management plan includes keeping it clear of anything taller than grass.

[kristopher]

12. How much rcovery do the sheep and cattle need?

6.0 Prescriptions
Structure of the prescriptions
6.1 To achieve the stated objectives, a series of tasks (or prescriptions) will be
necessary in order to translate the required outcomes into actions that can be
carried out and monitored. The following basic actions are considered:
• Tree removal
• Vegetation establishment and planting
o Tree planting
o Seeding
• Vegetation and Stock control
o Seedling removal
o Mowing
o Burning
o Grazing
o Fencing
• Impede drains
• Create Features for Benefit of Species

<snip>

Vegetation establishment and planting
Prescription 5: Retain checked areas of first and second rotation conifers
Prescription 6: Retain broadleaved species
Prescription 7: Plant broadleaved trees
<snip>

Prescription 13:
Graze open spaces with sheep and Welsh Black Cattle

[Dead_Parrot]

14. They count as trees, do they?

Edit: Actually, it would be far more fun to calculate the methane emissions from the cattle & sheep, and compare it with the carbon sunk by the trees.

[joshcryer]

52. Burger factories!!!

:rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

53. Or a brothel. This is Wales, after all...

:hide:

[joshcryer]

59. Nice.

:rofl:

[Kali]

48. um, the actual sites seem to be above treeline already

or at least it was pretty treeless in the "before" picture





slightly different angle but the closest I could clearly identify as a before and after of an actual photopoint

[Dead_Parrot]

51. The area felled was 312 ha...

according to http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Englishversion1-160.pdf/$FILE/Englishversion1-160.pdf. That's a little over a square mile: I can't find any satellite photos from 'before', but here's a square mile marked out on the finished site



The pale blue lines are the windfarm access roads. So no, it wasn't clearing a contiguous forest - but it's not just a couple of trees, either.

[joshcryer]

61. Any idea what that greenery is? Low shrubs?

In the ground pictures I can't tell if it's trees or what. The turbines don't give me a good enough perspective (if they're trees the turbines are way taller than I ever imagined).

[Dead_Parrot]

62. They're not small turbines...

There's a pic in the OP with some earth-moving kit that should give an idea of scale for the trees.

[kestrel91316]

64. I smell sockpuppets.