Wow dood. Thanks for this post. I sometimes worry I'm too long-winded. After reading this I don't feel that so much.
It really really helps if you use the quote function so we all know what you're referring to, rather than have to open another page in another tab and keep switching back and forth. So here, I'll merge them for you this time...
As one who is not at all versed on the inside baseball of green energy, let me forward a hypothesis about how regular people see this. I believe everyone wants to do what is right for the planet, but the pace of technology is so fast that many of us fear any of these new systems will be obsolete before they are done being installed. Batteries are getting better every day(or so we are being told), solar efficiency is increasing every day(or so we are being told), and fusion is right around the corner negating any need for the previous two. Windmills are killing a lot of birds and don't seem to have to follow the same environmental protocols oil companies or fishermen do when it comes to the environment. Remember that oil soaked pelican during the bp oil spill? What if someone showed a tractor trailer sized mound of dead birds that the windmills did in?
so many regular people say I think I will just wait a bit. Solyndra and the new governor of Virginia make a lot of us think this is just another scam to get our money in the name of the world coming to an end, again. Please forgive us our ignorance.
For the curious it's not hard to find this stuff out. How much is "a lot"? Some perspective:
Man-made structure/technology -- Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)
Feral and domestic cats ---- Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
Power lines ---- 130 million to 174 million [source: AWEA]
Windows (residential and commercial) --- 100 million to 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
Pesticides -- 70 million [source: AWEA]
Automobiles --- 60 million to 80 million [source: AWEA]
Lighted communication towers -- 40 million to 50 million [source: AWEA]
Wind turbines ---- 10,000 to 40,000 [source: ABC]
>> Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of a percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year. << (table and text from
this page)
No, wind turbines are not subject to the same environmental regulations as oil -- of course not. They don't pollute. That's the whole point. That, and not needing fuel.
Pogo, "we have met the enemy and they is us" A very apt statement for many on this board.
I've never made that statement. You did. I know where you're taking it from but it's got nothing to do with any of this. Moving on...
Your post on the birds is such a softball thrown my way I can't resist, even though I don't have anything against windmills, in fact when seen up close they are technological marvels. Where I get very upset in this debate is when we creat an environmental two tiered justice system which means we have no justice at all.
If you want to have dueling statistic debates check out bald eagles and windmills, that is if you are curious enough. One article has the combined bat and bird mortality at 1.4 million, a far cry from forty thousand, oh and don't forget that mortality statistics for windmills are compiled by the wind power people.
Actually that number is from the American Bird Conservancy. It's right there in my link. If anything I would think the bird conservancy would have an interest in conserving birds, so I wouldn't expect their figures to be on the light side. And the table as a whole came from the site "How Stuff Works", which again isn't a wind advocate but AFAIK a neutral site.
I don't know, or have a way to know, what the accurate relevant numbers are. I just think the concern needs a bit more exactitude than "windmills are killing a lot of birds". And I'm a birder myself btw.
The question of a "two-tiered justice system" is exactly what I was going after there. We hear the mantra "wind turbines are killing a lot of birds" (they're turbines, not windmills) but have we ever heard the same about power lines? Or pesticides? How many cell phone towers have gone up in the last 20 years? Why did we never hear the concern that "towers are killing a lot of birds"? That makes me wonder about who's leading the conversation -- and what they would have to gain from leading it this way or that way.
Bald and golden eagle mortality does not even include the worst offender in California. Ok and now let's extrapolate if the wind industry increases ten fold or even 100 fold like all you guys want. That means using your lowball figures we would go to 400,000 and then to 4 million mortality, but you guys will probably claim climate change will kill more birds than that.
Whoa, hold up Homer. I didn't take a position on either wind generators or climate change. You're quick on the assumptions. I'm asking questions that need to be asked. Maybe you should be too?
Now, let's,point out one of your tactics, which I totally agree with. You claim that the amount of birds killed is insignificant in the scheme of things,rightly insinuating that any form of energy production will have some collateral damage.
That wasn't really the point; it's part of the point, but the main thrust of that post is to compare "apples to apples". If wind turbines kill X amount of birds, or destroy X amount of habitats, we don't know what that means absent a comparison of how many birds those cellphone towers and those power lines and pesticides --- technologies that we have
already accepted and integrated into our world -- are already killing. We already know we're dangerous to wildlife; we already know we encroach on Nature and have been doing so since the Industrial Revolution. What I'm looking for here is
context. And when I hear such a question brought up that was never brought up for those other technologies, even though we already know the effect exists, that's when I start getting suspicious and looking for answers.
That sounds sane except that it doesn't work that way I real life. If the govt doesn't like you they want a 100 per cent survival rates, and I don't need to cite any sites because I have lived with this kind of govt overreach for decades as a shrimper. The govt has devasted gulf coast communities by de facto shutting down rec fishing for red snapper and grouper. The rec red snapper season in fed waters is 9 days, 9 DAYS. What a joke. And this is after twenty years of fed management. Needless to say there are beaucoup snapper out there.
I have no possible comment here; I know nothing about shrimping except that it's a tough job, so my hat is off to you for your work.
I did start a thread on a somewhat related area that I'd love to see your opinion on and I'll edit a link to it. But your greater point is governmental control over these things so we continue...
The point I am making is that whole portions of the economy can be shut down for environmental reasons, but if is the presidents pet project all the environmental rules can go by the wayside. Just plain lawlessness.
This is kind of a vague statement, and I'm not even sure what it means. You're saying the President can waive envrironmental regulations?
Killing an eagle is against the law. 250,000 fine and possible two years in jail. Not if you are getting huge subsidies from the taxpayer and building wind farms.
Not sure what this last sentence means either but the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits "the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import", and Take" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb". Have you "killed" an eagle that flew into your wind turbine blade? Have you
actively "killed" a bird that flew into your window or got taken out by your cat? Has the power company "killed" the eagles that fly into its power lines? These are the top three bird killers according to those figures (
here's another article on power lines).
And about those "getting huge subsidies from the taxpayer".... you know who else got huge subsides from the taxpayer (WAY huger)? The nuclear power industry. And I believe Big Oil. And a lot of other things in the world of infrastructure. Let's not pretend this is something new, K? Government subsidizes a LOT of things (including the Coast Guard in your workplace) and sometimes, if it's to nurture a new technology that might be poised to benefit the greater good, it needs to. Again, looking for
context here.
Another fallacy of your post pogo is that windmills kill a disproportionate amount of the raptor class birds. So we can introduce environmental dogma which says when you remove the predators at the top of the food chain you radically change the wildlife dynamic.(see post under environment about Yellowstone wolves). So maybe you get too many prairie dogs or mice. No one knows what the unintended consequences will be. Do giant wind farms alter the behavior of birds or other animals? Do new power lines run to windmill sites kill even more birds? Do any wavelengths created by windmills run off big game? Could giant wind farms change precipitation patterns? Who knows.
No shit. That's my purpose in asking the same questions.
I said nothing about raptors; that was Flacaltenn. I'm not maintaining that wind turbines do or do not kill a significant number of raptors. That's part of the questioning process of fleshing out the vague statement "windmillls kill a lot of birds". That's just not nearly specific enough for me.
So pogo I am not against clean energy or windmills at all. But there must be a level playing field. If a law is good enough for me then it is good enough for everyone else or we don't need that law. If green energy is just going to be a taxpayer funded slush fund for democratic donors then we don't need it. If wind and solar and ethanol can't stand on their own two feet then their time has not come yet. I have total faith that with time technology will solve our problems if we let technology find its own way without govt controls, but everyone has to play by the same rules.
"Taxpayer funded slush fund for democratic [sic] donors"? Wtf are you talking about? We're not even talking about 'laws' yet, let alone the politicians who would make them, let alone the donors who support
them; you're getting waaaay ahead of yourself here. We haven't even established what's up with the birds, pun intended. Someone seems to have an agenda in his pocket.
P.S. Another point I should have included in the previous post is that the cost of the new home energy technology is coming down so fast the average guy says again, I'll just wait til it is cheaper, and postpones the purchase.
I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable like Spoonman on that. I love what Spoon is doing with his home, taking responsibility for his own energy. I like decentralized.
I originally came to this thread to wag my finger at the naysayers who bend over backward to find fault with any new idea with the tired old "it'll never work" mantra. You raised the bird question, and I figure if we're going there we should know exactly what we're talking about before we start making judgments on the question. "That will never work" and "these are killing a lot of birds" are two statements that I find wholly unsatisfactory. I need to know
why and
why not.
Thanks for your thoughts on this Shrimpbox. I'll come back and edit the related article I referred to.
Edit:
Here's the article I referred to. And I know shrimp aren't scallops
but would invite your thoughts over in that thread. Cheers
