Wind turbines: This seems to be overblown. Everything we erect kills birds. From buildings to radio towers to, yes, wind turbines. This study shows that somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 birds are killed each year by wind turbines. Similar death estimates involving outdoor cats put the bird kill count in the *billions.* In short, 300,000 birds sounds like a lot, but it's chump change next to the death toll from other human activities.
What you conveniently neglect to mention is how damaging those turbine sites are to wild land. For obvious reasons (i.e. wind speeds are higher at altitude), you want to build your turbines atop mountain ridges. Where I live (and I’m sure many other areas as well), mountaintop ridges are hard to develop, are usually forested, and have long been some of the wildest areas, with small and large game abounding. Now, a commercial-scale windmill is a BIG thing: just one blade requires an “oversize load” placard to transport. So, to build and maintain (just one) turbine, you need to carve an access road into the mountain big enough to handle an oversized tractor-trailer…basically, you need to bulldoze Bambi and Smokey’s backyard. (And because they will need periodic maintenance, you have to KEEP Bambi’s backyard bulldozed for the forseeable future.)
AS someone who feels “wild lands >> CO2 concentration,” it’s a no-brainer: windmills simply aren’t worth it! (Hydro electric isn’t worth it, either, for pretty much the same reason.) As for “dirty coal,” you have the option of putting a new plant on a reclaimed brownfield…actually it’s more practical. No need to stick it smack dab in the middle of Creation!
EDIT: I do give you credit for excellent use of a pun, however. Keep up the good work!
No.you do not need extremly high speeds for wind turbines,you need steady strong wind,that doesnt change direction very often,that is free from turbulence from surrounding obstructions(one reason high ridges are ideal,unfortunately the mtn passes that are suited for steady strong wind are also,the very places migratory birds frequent)most people despise wind power for the wrong reasons,the main reason I no longer support wind power is because(besides being ugly)it doesnt seem to be viable economically,yes I would live in a wind tower(like people used to live in windmills)but if the govt has to subsidize,it shouldnt even be in contention.One reason why all subsidies for fossil fuels should be eliminated(isnt it amazing as other forms of transport are starting to come online,the price of crude has fallen and large and hideous trucks(mostly uneeded) are skyrocketing.Yesterday I was running close to the speed limit and 3 SUVs passed Me(5-6000# vehicles)didnt look real close,but I think each one had one occupant.
Make no apology for" big fossil" they will be the last ones that starve.
What you conveniently neglect to mention is how damaging those turbine sites are to wild land. For obvious reasons (i.e. wind speeds are higher at altitude), you want to build your turbines atop mountain ridges.
Tell that Bunkerhill Community college…they have two…right near downtown Boston.
Another place is in the Ocean.
Regarding birds and turbines vs cats- I doubt Fluffy is killing eagles, falcons, or hawks. Turbines are, by the thousands
I don’t know how the turbines could kill ANYTHING. It takes about 20-30 seconds per revolution. The Eagle would have to time it perfectly to commit suicide.
Being an advocate of wind power doesn’t mean that you think wind power should be slapped down everywhere.
There are hundreds of wind turbines in Iowa. No mountains there. They sit on farmland, which is also an ecological disaster, but one which has been a disaster for more than 100 years and will continue to be one whether the turbines are there or not.
I think the problem is that people tend to take an all or nothing approach to power generation. Wind works very well for Iowa and similar places because there isn’t much nature left to destroy thanks to farms gobbling it all up, and there’s a ridiculous amount of wind there. That should not be construed to say “wind is perfect everywhere, and everywhere should have turbines.”
Mike, wind turbine bird kills is a well-known problem, always has been. Read more here:
http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html
I was being facetious. I know that the Wind farms have killed birds. The two at Bunker Hill community college don’t pose a threat.
My point was that no 'harmless' options exist to provide the huge amount of energy we demand.
That does NOT mean we can’t LOWER …and we shouldn’t even try. If energy is the ONLY concern…then lets build Chernobyl like reactors remove all EPA restrictions. There’s a thing called compromise…which many people in the power industry (aka oil/gas and Coal) REFUSE to do. They fight anything and everything that eats into their profits…even the slightest decreases in pollution outputs are fought.
I don’t see why we can’t have high energy output AND lower people and environment impact. But as long as the coal industry and oil/gas stand firmly against any change what-so-ever…it’s going to be extremely difficult to get there. That’s the MAIN (actually ONLY) reason why we have the us against them attitude.
Hey Coal companies and oil/gas companies…let’s sit down and discuss how you can help clean up the environment.
Oil/ gas and coal companies response. “What problem. There is no problem. In fact we’ll spend MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars funding junk research to PROVE there isn’t a problem.”
The people that purchased these cars thought they were doing the right thing by purchasing fuel efficient, and supposedly clean emission cars. Now they are driving around (by no fault to them ) in a car that says just the opposite. So I wonder if dealers are getting request by TDI owners to have the TDI badging removed? I think I could see some owners wanting the badging removed.
BIC will serve as the holding site for all the Minnesota VWs that are part of the recall. The vehicles will remain there until VW finds a fix for them or determines what to do with them, he said, and there could eventually be 5,000-6,000 vehicles there.
The settlement was approved by a federal court in California on Oct. 25, 2016. Volkswagen is required to pay $2.9 billion into an environmental mitigation trust fund to be shared among the states.
Minnesota expects to receive $47 million from the trust between 2017 and 2027, the MPCA reported.
“The money will be used to offset the excess air pollution caused by VW’s actions,” the MPCA reports. “Separate parts of the settlement would require Volkswagen to spend $10 billion to buy back affected vehicles, terminate leases early, or repair the vehicles. Additionally, Volkswagen is required to invest $2 billion over 10 years in zero emissions vehicle infrastructure, access, and awareness-building for Zero Emission Vehicles. VW, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and California will administer these parts of the settlement.”
So the truth comes out. What was really important was the money and the trust fund. This is nuts. Has nothing to do with clean air. It’s just like the mad cash grab from the tobacco companies. Saliva running down their chins at the thought of all the extra money.
