Hi All -- Given the recent dialogue about energy sources, I have been wondering about the potential ecological impacts of wind power. Everything comes at a cost, and in planning for future energy sources, we need to identify and qualify these costs and decide which ones we are best able/willing to incur.
I have recently heard a number of arguments against wind power, ranging from impacts on birds and bats, aesthetic impacts on Appalachian ridgelines, noise impacts on nearby residents, large footprints associated with the construction of wind turbines and associated energy distribution lines, etc. In particular, I have heard arguments for the need to conduct scientific studies to determine the best placement and densities of turbines (to minimize ecological impacts) before rushing to install thousands of turbines and then later realizing that they could have been placed in a more ecologically-friendly manner. I was wondering what the opinions are within the ecological community about wind power, associated ecological impacts and how we might address the concerns listed above. I'd be happy to compile responses and post back to the listserv. Thanks, Lori Blanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blacksburg, VA > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Bryant > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 4:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Carbon offsetting > > Geoff, > > You took the words right off my keyboard! ;-) > > If we had the subsidies for solar/wind that nuclear did in > 1970 we would not be having this discussion now. > > Now that we have viable solar and wind power, largely thanks > to environmental entrepreneurs and their European customers, > we can go > forward with a much less dangerous, and less expensive solution. > Ironically it is the same one that we were trumpeting 30 years ago! > > David > > David Bryant > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 978-697-6123 > > On Feb 20, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Geoffrey Patton wrote: > > > Certainly, it was people consuming in an uncontrolled manner that > > increased greenhouse gases - not environmentalists concerned about > > radioactive waste. > > > > Trading one long-term mess for an even longer-term mess is > > irrational. There still is no solution to radioactive waste. > > > > We're talking thousands to hundreds of thousands of years of > > contamination, rather than just the centuries involved with global > > climate change. It comes down to externalization of costs and how > > long before that piper returns to collect his due. When > will we learn? > > > > Geoff Patton > > Wheaton, MD > > > > Paul Cherubini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't believe I've heard anyone mention nuclear energy in the > > carbon offsetting discussion. > > > > The other day on another forum Professor Bruce Walsh of the > University > > of Arizona offered this insight: > > > > "Is global warming a serious enough of a problem for us to > go nuclear? > > Remember, the folks that shut down new nuclear power plant > > constructions made a major contribution to increased greenhouse > > gases." > > > > Paul Cherubini > > El Dorado, Calif. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > The fish are biting. > > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. > > David Bryant > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 978-697-6123 >
