Appal Energy wrote:
> 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.
In this area, we have a natural gas power plant proposed for Sumas,
Washington that is "generating" a LOT of controversy because of the
"tonnes of pollution" it will emit. Since the plant is located in the
U.S., many Canadians have jumped on the "evil corporate American
environmental destruction" bandwagon, rather than really examining the
energy use and pollution problems on BOTH sides of the border. It seems
most people in this area enjoy bashing the proposed power plant (mostly
because it's an American project), but refuse to downsize their
automobiles, work to eliminate sprawl, and yet complain about the
provincial air quality checks that our vehicles are mandated to go
through every two years.
I wonder what people would say about a wind farm in this area. We
have a fairly good wind resource in the valley below my residence. Even
up here on the hill, I could probably generate a good percentage of my
annual electricity use with a residential turbine--but the "quality"
covenants in my subdivision prohibit me from doing this. (No towers
allowed!)
> 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.
>
Indeed. But in all of this, informed citizens have to make some
kind of stand. Blowing the bird kill problem out of proportion only
serves the cause of the status quo. The quote: "Turbines kill birds" is
a perfect illustration of how mindless this debate has become.
>
> I wouldn't exactly say that the California Energy Department is an
> unbiased
> source of information.
The California Energy Commission is the same group that advocated
the Diabilo Canyon nuclear power plant. The appropriately named
facility was constructed on top of a known earthquake fault. They
advocate "big power", so there WILL be a need for their research to
minimize the extent of the problem. (And I concede that point to you!)
Every source has its bias, and every study will have its
bias--according to whomever is paying for the research. I posted
figures from an article where research had actually been done and birds
had been counted, and I stated who had done the counting. The newspaper
article in Florida quoted a number unsubstantiated by any source, and no
research. I would like to read some support for that position before I
give it ANY credibility.
> 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.
I think that argument could be dismissed as a counter to their
intent anyway. The nuclear power industry keeps bringing up the bird
kill problem for the same reason the oil industry quotes Pimental, and
people seem to believe whatever the "experts" say without a critical
thought.
> 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.
We won't know this unless we can examine the source of both figures,
right? What if the 20 000 bird death rate is misquoted? What if it's
totally unsubstantiated? We can't check unless we know the source of
the information.
> > 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."
My family is originally from Brasil. I know exactly what you're
talking about.
<snip>
> 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.
We really need regime change in our country, don't we?
> 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.
That's why we have to accept constraints on our freedom. The old
axiom of "my freedom ends where yours begins" requires a degree of
sensitivity to the needs of other citizens that we seem to have
misplaced in our democratic journey. This, coupled with the need for
personal responsibility, has been abandoned wholesale in our society.
Keith, and others in this forum, seem to believe that some innate
goodness exists in humanity. I keep looking for it, but most of the
time what I see is simply innane!
> > 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.
Maybe that's one reason Hakan was advocating vertical axis turbines!
> > 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.
Ah, but I was not dismissing that reality. I even quoted from an
article that acknowledges bird kills related to turbines. What I really
decry in this discussion is the knee jerk reactionism and blanket
statements that blur the complexity of the issue into "sound bite"
slogans. I have more of a mind than that, and I'm confident you do as
well.
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 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/
