Appal Energy wrote:
> Robert,
>
> I know. When a person counters a rabid nuker they are an
> environmentalist.
> When a person counters those who express environmentally enclined
> sentiments
> they are a troll. ;-)
All I was doing was asking a question. . .
> "And unlike the wind farm in the Altamont Pass east of San Francisco,
> where
> smaller, low-power turbine blades have killed an estimated 22,000
> birds,
> High Winds' turbines rotate more slowly, so few birds get caught."
I read through this article, and the above statement comes without
any documentation at all. The California Energy Commission studied this
problem at the Altamont Pass in the late 80's and early 90's. According
to an article in Home Power magazine (Issue 46, page 31), the CEC found
108 bird deaths between 1984 and 1988. Between 1989 and 1991, they
found 183 bird deaths--a rate of roughly 49 bird deaths per year. Of
these, 55% were found to be collision related, 11% related to wiring, 8%
electrocutions and 26% were unknown. (These may not be related to the
turbines at all, but may be "normal" morbidity for birds.) Total
incidents included a 66% mortality rate for raptors. At that rate, in
order to arrive at the 22 000 bird death figure quoted in the article,
the Altamont wind farm would have to have been operating for 449
years. This is why I find the quoted figures inflated and completely
misleading.
While there is no evidence that rotating blades are responsible for
these bird deaths, though slowing down the blade rate seems to have a
positive impact on raptor mortality figures. Several years ago, the FAA
mandated flashing lights, rather than steady state lighting, for turbine
towers, a move which may be making wind farms less appealing for birds.
Also, turbine manufacturers have redesigned their towers, nacelles and
support wiring to minimize, or eliminate altogether, potential perches.
All of these features appear to significantly decrease the threat to
birds in general, and raptors in particular.
>
> h
> tp://www.n-jcenter.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Enviro/03FloridaENV01010404.htm
>
> Don't know precisely where they got their reference from.
Neither do I, but I remain exceedingly skeptical.
> But me thinks that such a number from but one wind farm, albeit a
> windfarm
> first built in the days of yore, represents more than just a "few."
> Fact is
> that this problem was, is and will continue to remain a problem of
> consideration in siting wind turbines.
Personally, I find wind farms aethstetically appealing. However,
not everyone shares my sentiments in this matter. Large wind farms,
however, do not really address the root of our energy problem. We
simply use too much, and depending on large, centralized electricity
generating facilities only perpetuates the myth among average people
that we can "solve" our energy problems by building more power
plants--whether they are fossil, nuclear, hydroelectric or wind powered.
>
> That's the "perspective" (Alan's post) that it has to be placed in.
> Trying
> to rationalize away reality or numbers until a situation fits our
> "perspective" is not the most intelligent of approaches. That's the
> type of
> behavior that a pro-nuker would exhibit - throw out the high
> (Chernobyl) and
> the low (pick one) and count everything else as relative.
I hope you realize that I'm not rationalizing away the concern.
Everything we do carries both environmental risk and cost. Blanket
statements, such as "turbines kill birds", oversimplify complex issues.
The bird kill problem has been largely eliminated, yet the perception
among uninformed people that wind turbines are "cuisenarts of the air"
may prevent further progress with very promising wind turbine
technology. I would like to see a mix of resources contributing to a
more sustainable energy future, and wind turbines have a role to play in
that scenario. Dismissing them out of hand, especially for some
ridiculous, scam investment, basement nuclear reactor pipe dream, seems
much more unintelligent than what I am advocating.
> That's also the mindset out of which "acceptable risk" was born and
> how
> words like "significant," "insignificant" and "addressed" assume
> levels of
> import far beyond what they should be allowed.
Who decides what is significant , insignificant, and how far the
import of such statements should be allowed? You are bringing up a
critical point with this. How many deaths must we have before the cost
becomes too high? We tolerate a great deal of highway carnage here in
North America, but few people advocate outlawing the personal
automobile. I think, however, that exploring this issue in depth is
tangental to the current discussion with respect to small, roof mounted
wind turbines. Hence, the contribution from other forum members
concerning house cats. (Mine is now 15 years old and STILL kills
birds!)
> They are all affiliated in the process of dismissal and denial, not
> reality,
> honesty and/or truth.
I agree that such analysis is often used this way, but we perform
risk / benefit analyses daily. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're
not. But is it intellectually honest to dismiss wind turbines
altogether because "turbines kill birds"? Shouldn't an intelligent
person seek clarification for such a blanket statement?
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel
Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
