MN pix: Wind Farm
May. 28th, 2007 01:12 pmEarly in my trip, I stopped at the rest area on I-39 near Rochelle, IL, and I took a few pictures of the wind farm that is near that rest area. It was a warm and hazy day. The jaggy effect on the windmill blades is not a JPEG artifacts -- it is atmospheric distortion.
I don't understand why one of the main public objections to wind farms is aesthetic. While they're not as lovely as trees or mountains, I find them prettier than almost any other works of man -- certainly nicer to look at than cell towers, high-tension power lines, or grain elevators.


In this shot, I was trying to get an interesting effect from the two masts that were lined up in my view.
For any camera geeks reading this -- both of these (and most of my pictures from the trip) were taken with my Canon 20D and Tamron 200-500mm lens. The EXIF information from the first shot is: focal length 277mm, aperture f/9, exposure 1/800, ISO 100. The second: focal length 359mm, aperture f/10, exposure 1/800, ISO 100. (Both images are cropped moderately to improve composition, then reduced in resolution a whole bunch to post on the web.)
Although I didn't take more pictures of them, I was pleased to see at least two more wind farms on my way home through Iowa. Wind energy can't solve all of our problems, but it seems like a no-brainer that we should have a lot more wind power than we do; every kilowatt hour from wind is one less from coal.
I don't understand why one of the main public objections to wind farms is aesthetic. While they're not as lovely as trees or mountains, I find them prettier than almost any other works of man -- certainly nicer to look at than cell towers, high-tension power lines, or grain elevators.
In this shot, I was trying to get an interesting effect from the two masts that were lined up in my view.
For any camera geeks reading this -- both of these (and most of my pictures from the trip) were taken with my Canon 20D and Tamron 200-500mm lens. The EXIF information from the first shot is: focal length 277mm, aperture f/9, exposure 1/800, ISO 100. The second: focal length 359mm, aperture f/10, exposure 1/800, ISO 100. (Both images are cropped moderately to improve composition, then reduced in resolution a whole bunch to post on the web.)
Although I didn't take more pictures of them, I was pleased to see at least two more wind farms on my way home through Iowa. Wind energy can't solve all of our problems, but it seems like a no-brainer that we should have a lot more wind power than we do; every kilowatt hour from wind is one less from coal.
Anti-Wind Legislation Moving in Congress
Date: 2007-05-28 06:36 pm (UTC)More background information, including our written testimony on the bill (we were not asked to testify on it in person) and a list of state wind siting regulations already in place, here (http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Anti_Wind_Provision_in_Rahall_Bill_052307.html). To take action to oppose this misguided legislation, go here (http://capwiz.com/windenergy/issues/alert/?alertid=9773201&queueid=%5bcapwiz:queue_id%5d).
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.awea.org (http://www.awea.org)
risingwind.blogspot.com (http://risingwind.blogspot.com)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-28 11:38 pm (UTC)I like them.
More appealing than VT's other obvious choice which is methane. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-29 03:49 pm (UTC)Great to see you last week. I hope the rest of your trip went well and that you enjoyed your time in Iowa. We'll see you again soon. Real soon. Almost stalkingly soon!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-30 03:14 am (UTC)I, personally, like how they look. Since one may end up about 600 meters from my office, that's a good thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-30 08:10 pm (UTC)How much noise do they make? Would you hear a windmill 600m from your house? Would it be annoying?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-31 08:01 pm (UTC)