Washington Votes Forum

 I don't know where some of these politicians have been (yes I do, back East), but in Washington state we've had renewable energy since the 30s.  It's called hydroelectricity (where the east and middle west doesnt have hydroelectric), but wouldn't it be a better use of time and energy to try and get hydroelectric classified as a renewable source.  It makes more sense to do that  then spend the money upgrading the turbines then to spend money on things (wind energy) that might need to be torn down a 20 years due to the fact that the greenies find too many birds under the blades of the turnbin, a bird nesting on one, or the constant thumping of the blades distrurbs the lizards in the area.

As it stands, this bill is just a rate-hike waiting to happen (once again don't these dems know there is depression going on and people are out of work?), because you don't think the utilities will connect to the renweables for free do you?  Perhaps this is just another way to californicate Washington?

DK

Hmmm...thought the Energy Independence Act was modified to include hydroelectricity..could be wrong. Anyway, from most folk's perspective, energy from water is renewable. However, dams and barrages are not the best way to get that energy because of the enormous cost associated wtih building, operation, maintenance, and environmental impacts. Looking for other ideas. Where do you get the data that wind turbines are torn down every 20 years due to excessive bird strikes (reference?) - or this is new news to me. 

Finally, what is wrong with a diversified portfolio for domestically produced clean energy sources? In other words, why put all your eggs in one basket? Betting all your money on one horse? Nah, try a few.  Diversification is the key - a little hydro, a little natural gas, some wind, some nuclear, maybe some biofuel....who knows, solar tech is getting better every day.

 Nope hydroelectricity didn't make the renewable list.

As for your statement about wind turbines, since the new-generation turbine isn't twenty years old yet, I may have been exaggerating, but not by much.

Remember this:

Federal Approval Still Required For Construction Of 130 Wind Turbines
In Nantucket Sound

Except Ted Kennedy didn't want it because it spoiled his view.

Cape Cod wind farm plan stirs up controversy  reuters 10/18/02

Will Media Report Gore's Stake in Electricity Conversion?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/18/will-media-report-gores-stake-electricity-conversion

Wind whips up health fears

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

How too much wind power could actually hurt salmon

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

Troubled wind?

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/303824-3/MaineNews/Troubled_wind/

Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html

Citizens group sues to block Skamania wind farm
Information from: The Columbian, http://www.columbian.com

Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm

So with all this opposition does it really stretch the imagination that in a generation or two (after all Grand Coulee was built in the 30s and people are against it now), people will be against the wind turbines in their backyard or spoiling their view? 

I am with you, to have a balance approach but, we don't have that, Gregoire doesn't have that (and I think that word is foreign to her).  It is up to the population to let their will be known, first in letters to our representative, then later with our voting.  What is killing things are the partisianship politics, so much so that the politicians that are engaging in this, are keeping us, the normal everyday people from looking at what's really important.  It's another case of misdirection, something the current batch of politicians have become quite adept at.

DK

Well, I beg to differ about I-937, the Energy Independence Act. Passed in 2006, it was modified in 2007. Here is a link. Modificaitons include definitions to renewable resources and adding the information about "eligible renewable resource" (which references Incremental electricity produced as a result of efficiency improvements completed after March 31, 1999, to hydroelectric generation projects...but does not result in new water diversions or impoundments.) 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.285.030

But I am in agreement with you - a balanced approach of energy resources, using a well planned out portfolio, is best for our state's resources and generations to come. I cannot support anything else. Not after our over-dependence on oil.