I'm fairly sure it was never true for wind turbines, and it hasn't been true since the earliest solar panels, though I'm sure it would be possible to cherry pick a specific example to support a myth. I haven't read Greer's book, so I don't know the source of his argument- does he cite the studies? Given the subject of the book, maybe he was talking about off-grid systems, where most of the embodied energy is in the batteries?
Poor siting of any built structure can be disastrous for birds, it has little to do with them being wind turbines. And Altamont pass is not typical of the risks to birds, but even there the numbers are not large compared to other things like communications towers (it's about 1 bird/turbine/year), most of the concern seems to be about the specific species involved. Again, proper siting as it relates to birds and bats is important, but that's true of any construction. Same goes for lighting- where proper lighting as it relates to birds could mean no lighting. I do understand what you're saying- yes, one does need to support alternatives and those alternatives need to work at the scale of the thing they replace. When people use arguments against wind and solar like the ones you mentioned, one of two things is probably happening. One is that they are misinformed and might change their mind based on fact. The other is that they are opposed to them for some other reason (which might not be rational), and are looking for any excuse to support their position. Facts don't really help in that case. The "ruins my view" issue is completely subjective which is in some ways easier and some ways harder to deal with, and it is really the classic case of NIMBY: "I support wind power, just not in my back yard." Besides addressing the specific facts that I understand aren't your main point, my response is that we should be careful about dismissing a particular solution just because there is loud opposition to it based on questionable arguments. -- Rich 2009/11/24 Eric Banford <[email protected]>: > The book I am almost done with "The Long Descent" by John Michael Greer > mentioned that some studies showed that solar panels and wind mills took more > energy to make than they produced over their life. Maybe that was true and > isn't anymore? I know advancements are being made, hopefully a breakthrough > will bring the cost of production way down. > > And poor siting of a wind turbine can be disastrous for birds (Altamont > Pass), intensive studies of a site need to be done before building, and > proper lighting is important. But that's my point, people SAY that wind > mills kill birds and that they ruin their view, and aren't willing to have > one in their "back yard". John Rancich has been trying to build one in > Enfield and has come up against all kinds of opposition. > > We can't just say no, we need to be saying yes to alternatives. And > aggressively! > Eric > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Rich Bernstein <[email protected]> >> To: Sustainable Tompkins County listserv >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 3:36:00 PM >> Subject: Re: [SustainableTompkins] becoming YIMBYs >> >> The statement that "wind mills and solar panels take more energy to >> create than they produce over their life" is simply not true. Also, >> bird deaths from wind turbines are on par with or lower than other >> built structures such as buildings, communications towers, power >> lines, etc. >> >> -- >> Rich _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins Questions about the list? ask [email protected] free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
