Robert, Not that I disagree with you. If I could have my druthers, I'd care to see several thousand turbines dotting the land and oceanscape. One heck of a prettier sight a windfarm on Nantucket sound is than the smoke belching generating station on the island already.
> 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. All depends on who's doing the analysis, who has what to gain and who has what to lose..., which is and was precisely my point. It boils down all too often to a matter of spin and influence, a matter of sacrifice - who gets sacrificed and who gets to perform the ritual. I wouldn't exactly say that the California Energy Department is an unbiased source of information. If it was, then the pro-nukers wouldn't be using the bird kill (and service-tech kill) argument so frequently in their pursuit of a new generation of power plant construction, as it could be easily dismissed - a result completely counter to their intent. More likely there's a middle ground of reality, somewhere between the lows of CED and the highs of whomever put out the numbers on the other end of the spectrum. > How many deaths must we have before the cost > becomes too high? You tell me. If that death is you? If it's your wife? Your daughter? Your three year old? Maybe if it's a neighbor's it starts to become more okay? Maybe if it's someone in another state or country it's becomes distant enough as to relegate to the point of non-existant? Seems that there are thousand of industrial aspects that aren't good enough for white folks but "acceptable" for others. Domestically it's call "toxic racism." Internationally it's called "exportation." I'm sure there are thousands of industry spin doctors who could generate in a heart beat or less a CBA (cost benefit analysis) in favor of mercury from coal fired power plants or lead from municipal waste incinerators. > We tolerate a great deal of highway carnage here in > North America, but few people advocate outlawing the personal > automobile. Yes. Few do. But there's a wee tad of difference between being largely in control of one's own fate (emphasis on largely) and having First Energy and the NRC in bed together and deciding the fate of the masses. You remember Davis-Bessie...the Ohio nuke that NRC let inspection slide in order to accomodate the owner/operator, only to find a large grapefruit-sized hole bored through the outer containment vessel. Well, the two are at it again in the re-start phase. Maybe they should be let to make the same poor decisions for the same unbalanced reasons all over again? And again? And again? And again? And...? Most people have relatively little problem with suffering the consequences of their own actions. It's suffering consequences as a result of decision making of others that is problematic. > I think, however, that exploring this issue in depth is > tangental to the current discussion with respect to small, roof mounted > wind turbines. You're probably right. It should be altered to "turbines kill cats," as mine would certainly be up on the roof ridge and get their head clipped off or jaw caved in nosing around a whirling vertical turbine. > 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. And quite often "we" are intentionally and/or knowingly wrong. That's the part to be painfully aware of. > But is it intellectually honest to dismiss wind turbines > altogether because "turbines kill birds"? No. Nor is it intelectually honest to dismiss the reality that they do. Certainly those involved in site planning of turbines don't. There must be sumptin' to it. > Shouldn't an intelligent > person seek clarification for such a blanket statement? Yup..., from multiple sources, with those that support our own perspective being the ones of least or perhaps last import. Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: "robert luis rabello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] RE: turbines kill birds > > > 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.ht m > > > > 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 > 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 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/
