Robert, The source of the "22,000 bird kills at Altamont Pass" statement appears to come from a study done for CEC (California Energy Commission) and NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab). By whom I haven't yet been able to determine.
What is curious is how both "sides" of the argument reference this report, yet the numbers bandied about are strikingly at odds in many cases. The CleanPowerNow page goes to great length to diminutize the numbers and impact. That actually backfires for anyone with a calculator. One kill per year for 5,400 turbines yields a 400% increase in the numbers from the elusive CEC/NREL report. And 0.05 raptors killed per turbine per year yields a 600% plus increase relative to the report's estimates. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001819155_windfarm19.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A25818-2003Dec23¬Found=true http://www.darrylmueller.com/altamont%20complaint.pdf ("raptor matics") A bit of a difference in accounting between the above and this http://www.cleanpowernow.org/birdkills.php ("cuisinarts of the air") Somewhere in the mix of these articles some 1,600 wind turbines are "missing," the difference between 7,000 and 5,400, and the number of kills seem to jump from ~22,000 to ~108,000 plus in the blink of an eye (CleanPowerNow page). No doubt Arthur Anderson would be proud. In all totality, the truth lays in the errors amassed at Altamont and probably is best expressed in the "raptor matics" page and the Washington Post and Seathl Times articles. My guess is that Altamont Pass is increasingly becoming the poster child of how not to produce wind power and that it might serve the industry very well to dismantle the most destructive turbines (those in the canyons) immediately and with some haste consolidate and replace the old low-output turbines with megawatt models. 'Course those old lattice towers will find there way into other niches in the industry. Hmmmm....... I smell a wind industry garage sale in the making. Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: "robert luis rabello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 11:34 PM Subject: Re: Turbines kill cats was Re: [biofuel] RE: turbines kill birds > > > 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/ > > > 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/
