Fatal Impact: The effect of windmills on birds and bats

[Jot the Dot Dot]

For those environmentalists who tout windmills as an alternative source of energy, our flying friends might have a different view: http://bit.ly/birdblender http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRqu4WiLQfk I am amazed at how so many celebrities keep calling for alternative 'renewable' resources, yet few of them are willing to start up a windmill farm themselves. One doesn't even have to be a farmer or own one; all one has to do is approach a farmer and offer to sponsor the costs of refurbishing their farm with windmills. It's like the old bromide we keep hearing: "The reason why we do not have solar energy is because Exxon does not own the sun". Put two and two together; The reason why Exxon does not own the sun is because, apart from tall buildings (which comprize a minute segment of the Earth's inhabitable surface) and tall trees (which, last time I checked, are part of the enviornment), there is nothing standing in the way of a houseowner supplimenting his/her electricity with solar panels. So then, why aren't these rich celebrities going into the business of marketing solar panels? Sad truth is, there is nothing Mankind can do to increase the velocity of the Earth's wind, or the strength of sunlight on the Earth's surface. Even the much touted electric car raises the question: What will be the source of electricity that supplies the vehicle with juice? Coal-fired hydro plants? Natural Gas? Nuclear power?

 

[michiruwater]

So we should just totally give up, right? What's the point? Screw it, let's just burn coal for everything and litter the streets cause those celebrities ain't spending the cash to make windmill farms, and if they do all the birds and bats will die.

 

[Jot the Dot Dot]

No, just apply a little scientific research before jumping headlong into fashionable green 'solutions'. Read "The Health Hazards Of Not Going Nuclear" by Peter Beckmann. And before you say "Three Mile Island" or "Chernobyl", look at France. 75 % nulcear powered.

 

[barbk]

How about let's try real, meaningful conservation efforts rather than simply jumping on the latest green technology? Insulating and weatherstripping all Pre-1980 residences and apartments in the US wold do more to reduce demand for energy than the current craze for solar, and be a lot more environmentally friendly to boot. That's where the subsidies ought to go.

And JottheDotDot -- while I'm not philosophically opposed to nuclear plants, I have yet to see even one decommissioned for anything even close to the amount that was included in the rate base, making me very, very suspicious that the true cost of nuclear power is much higher than proponents have suggested.

 

[Dragonlady]

There are studies which indicate higher incidences of cancer in communities close by these nuclear plants, and amongst their workers. And the thorny issue of disposing of spent rods.

JottheDiot has no knowledge whether those advocating cleaner power have solar panels or are otherwise living off the grid. He/She just assumes they don't. Many of those advocating clean energy do walk the walk. They just don't run tours and rub it all in everyone's face all of the time.

In the 1970's some houses were built in Toronto which use solar heated water to heat the house, as well as solar generated electrical and rainwater collection. The houses live independent of municpal utilities save sewage. One of my friends lives next door to these houses and their neighbours gave us a tour one evening. One of the heating panels in the house is a glass wall with water flowing through it. With lighting, it was a stunning architectural feature. After taking this tour, I wanted one of these houses. Total annual utility bill $70.

 

[antmanb]

Won't somebody think of the biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirds

 

[Andora]

I really like the idea of upgrading homes to be more energy efficient. I think Canada had some sort of rebate to help home owners replace old appliances and toilets and such. The friend who works for the wind power company claims they have a refrigerator recycling program to help people avoid the cost of taking it to the dump. I hope these programs continue and grow, as they seem to help in the short AND long term.

I grew up about 20-30 minutes away from a nuclear power station. I imagine we didn't hear much about the potential negatives to the plant because it spent so much money on the town itself. We had more ammenities than most small towns, and it provided a very stable economy with plenty of jobs-- almost everyone in the area works at the plant. Plus, we all knew if things went wrong, it would be over fast. A history teacher spelled it out graphically once, even. I think I'll always be torn over whether nuclear power is this awful beast or great option.

Interestingly enough, the area just south of the plant is known for being a hotbed of windmill power. A friend of mine works for the wind power company (as he calls it). At one point they were researching turning waste into power, but lost the funding when the stock market crashed. They're awfully busy with wind power at the moment, because they have had endless protests from the community over the windmills. A nurse in the area claims they cause/worsen migraines. Others bring up the unfair pricing, where windmill power costs more but gets a priority vs. the nuclear plant for useage and such. Some people simply complain about them being an eyesore.

Before reading anything about windmills, I thought they made sense for my hometown area. It's a ridiculously windy area, and damage due to wind isn't uncommon at all. I used to bike everywhere, and the wind was a huge thorn in my side. Always seemed to be biking into it, no matter what. That was before I cracked a newspaper or science book on the subject, but I still think they're a decent option.

 

[Gazpacho]

So then, why aren't these rich celebrities going into the business of marketing solar panels?

Yeah, it's typical of celebrities to talk the talk but not walk the walk. That's why I don't give celebrities much credence.

So then, why aren't these rich celebrities going into the business of marketing solar panels? Sad truth is, there is nothing Mankind can do to increase the velocity of the Earth's wind, or the strength of sunlight on the Earth's surface.

But there is a lot Mankind can do to harvest a greater percentage of the energy available from wind or sunlight.

The bigger problem in my opinion is that we consume too much energy. If we didn't consume so much energy, we wouldn't need to find alternative sources.

Even the much touted electric car raises the question: What will be the source of electricity that supplies the vehicle with juice? Coal-fired hydro plants? Natural Gas? Nuclear power?

I too don't find electric cars to be a good "compromise".

 

[Jot the Dot Dot]

You could see this coming: http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x345569257/Windmills-to-shut-at-night-following-demise-of-rare-bat . Runaway environmentalism always had this soft spot for any species except people!

 

[jl]

There are studies which indicate higher incidences of cancer in communities close by these nuclear plants, and amongst their workers. And the thorny issue of disposing of spent rods.

JottheDiot has no knowledge whether those advocating cleaner power have solar panels or are otherwise living off the grid. He/She just assumes they don't. Many of those advocating clean energy do walk the walk. They just don't run tours and rub it all in everyone's face all of the time.

In the 1970's some houses were built in Toronto which use solar heated water to heat the house, as well as solar generated electrical and rainwater collection. The houses live independent of municpal utilities save sewage. One of my friends lives next door to these houses and their neighbours gave us a tour one evening. One of the heating panels in the house is a glass wall with water flowing through it. With lighting, it was a stunning architectural feature. After taking this tour, I wanted one of these houses. Total annual utility bill $70.

There is a problem for now, though, that energy demand is only going to go up, period, for the foreseeable future in the world. As the developing world develops and until the world's population evens out (which is estimated to be around 2050), the trajectory this path heads is only upwards.

Sustainable technologies tend to require either a lot of investment or very rare minerals (many of the new high-efficiency batteries require rare earths that are being mined slowly), such that it's really not possible to reduce the whole grid in that fashion cold turkey.

In developed nations, particularly the US and Canada, I agree that energy conservation and better methods to reuse it can be done - thermodynmically, the principal loss of energy is through heat and its recapture towards other sources could be better made, whether it be through better insulation, more efficient heat transfer materials, or through revamping systems or simply being ingenious in other methods (for instance, some of Japan's buildings take the human waste and ferment it beneath the building; the resultant heat is then strained from the nitrogenous waste and then recycled in the building).

That being said, given the growing population demographic, I personally think the advisable path to trying to increase sustainability is to try to increase the use of bridge fuels. Though natural gas, coal bed methane and nuclear are both limited in quantity and in the latter case, carries a nasty reputation, the average environmental footprint through the use of these fuels is far less than their predecessors (coal, oil). There are inherent risks in using some of these technologies but I think that they have to be taken. Otherwise, you have highly dirty energy-production or, IMO, your transition to complete green can't be done at a pace to currently match growing demand for power. Minimizing energy use is an important piece of the puzzle but would require the developing nations to really get onside, which I don't see them doing, either for their self-interest (short term unfortunately always overrides the long term) or in interests of fairness, unless the developed nations really take the initiative on this, either by making free license of environmental technology or by supporting the developing world in some other way, or really tamping down on its own wastes (which, unfortunately, didn't work... see Kyoto).

 

[Rogue]

Regarding nuclear power, I say we hold off a few years and study the impact of the natural disasters which damaged the plants in Japan. With entire towns evacuated and expected to be unlivable for at least a generation plus hot spots showing up in unlikely places, we need to make sure more safeguards are in place before developing any more plants.

 

[Dragonlady]

You could see this coming: http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x345569257/Windmills-to-shut-at-night-following-demise-of-rare-bat . Runaway environmentalism always had this soft spot for any species except people!

Are you not aware that things which impact on the life of animals, ultimately affects the lives of people? In your first post you lamented the push to windpower was killing birds and bats, and now you're pissed that the windmills are being shut down at night to protect the endangered bats.

I guess we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 

[Jot the Dot Dot]

Are you not aware that things which impact on the life of animals, ultimately affects the lives of people? In your first post you lamented the push to windpower was killing birds and bats, and now you're pissed that the windmills are being shut down at night to protect the endangered bats.

I guess we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I was noting the irony: Wind mills keep getting touted by environmentalists as a 'green friendly' source of energy, yet here they are faced with animal-rights legislation that notes their negative impact on the animal population. Last time I checked, animals were part of the environment, right?

There is a free market solution to the problem of rare animals, in this case, privately funded bat sanctuaries or farms ("To the BatFarm, Robin!"). The popularity of environmentalism is so widespread that such projects should have popular support.

 

[Morry Stillwell]

So we should just totally give up, right? What's the point? Screw it, let's just burn coal for everything and litter the streets cause those celebrities ain't spending the cash to make windmill farms, and if they do all the birds and bats will die.

To start: Bat radars work just as well at night as it does in daylight. However, if you think windmills will repace more efficient methods of generating energy,those who do so, should join the Don Quiote brigade.

 

[Jot the Dot Dot]

Latest threat to our fine, feathered friends? Solar plants! http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/solar-plants-are-burning-birds-wings. Not enough that these much-touted 'green' solutions are getting birds sliced and diced, they are now getting them grilled as well! Anyone for Batsteak And Kidney Pie?

 

[elka_sk8]

I was noting the irony: Wind mills keep getting touted by environmentalists as a 'green friendly' source of energy, yet here they are faced with animal-rights legislation that notes their negative impact on the animal population. Last time I checked, animals were part of the environment, right?

There is a free market solution to the problem of rare animals, in this case, privately funded bat sanctuaries or farms ("To the BatFarm, Robin!"). The popularity of environmentalism is so widespread that such projects should have popular support.

There are going to be positives and negatives for any energy resource/production- none is perfect. There ARE ways to reduce impacts of windmills on birds. I'm not sure what regulations are for putting windmills on farms as you mention, but for potential large scale, offshore wind farms, many states are initiating research to investigate conflicts with natural resources in preparation for an EIS (environmental impact statement). This includes modeling seabird populations- managers can then see where higher bird densities are likely to occur and strategically place windmill in areas with lower use.

Coal and gas production can have pretty devastating impacts of their own on wildlife, so I for one am glad that renewable resources are being explored.

 

[AliasJohnDoe]

Kagoshima Nanatsujima Mega Solar Power Plant in Japan: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...finds_beauty_in_renewable.html?wpsrc=upworthy

It went into operation on November 1st. I think it looks beautiful.

 

[Jot the Dot Dot]

New report again confirming the negative impact solar panels have on birds: http://news.yahoo.com/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air-054013072.html . How long before the EPA shuts them down?

 

[kedrin]

I suppose they're going to have to tear down all those skyscraper things that birds crash into as well, no?

 

[Jot the Dot Dot]

I suppose they're going to have to tear down all those skyscraper things that birds crash into as well, no?

As I stated in previous posts on this thread, it's the irony of runaway environmentalism's right hand not knowing what it's left hand was doing. Solar Energy (not the $2 solar powered lawn lights you find in people's front yards) and Wind Energy will always have such a low comparative output that they will remain a marginal source of electricity. And when they do get constructed, we see in some cases how they become a threat to - the environment!

 

[kedrin]

Yes- I got your point. Mine is about the hypocrisy of anti-environmentalists feigning concern over the damage done to the environment by environmental measures while remaining screamingly silent over the damage done by- everything else.

 

[Jot the Dot Dot]

Well, you could see this coming too. A solar energy company subsidized with tax dollars to the tune of $100 million, and that was not enough to save it from bankruptcy. I will applaud any advancements in technology to make solar power viable (re: my thread on Smart Flower Solar towers), but so far they have yet to hit mainstream. http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/12/another-solar-boondoggle-goes-belly-up

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

Wow.
It is 2017 and there are people who still don't understand why switching to renewable energy is not just "enviroment friendly" but vital to the survival of civilization

 

[MacMadame]

Even the much touted electric car raises the question: What will be the source of electricity that supplies the vehicle with juice? Coal-fired hydro plants? Natural Gas? Nuclear power?

The electricity in CA is pretty green and electric cars in CA have a net positive impact on the environment. And that's true in a lot of places.

I think this particular talking point is designed to confuse people and make them throw up their hands and say "it's not worth me doing anything."

 

[overedge]

You don't have to be an "environmentalist" to think that alternative sources of energy might be a good idea. As it is, the purpose of your post seems to be not to discuss the collateral damage of energy production, but instead to bash "environmentalists" using any premise you can lay your hands on.

 

[DORISPULASKI]

The electricity in CA is pretty green and electric cars in CA have a net positive impact on the environment. And that's true in a lot of places.

I think this particular talking point is designed to confuse people and make them throw up their hands and say "it's not worth me doing anything."

No, it is just the facts. Someone buying an electric car should, indeed, think twice about the source of the electric power and the emissions from that source, in the state where he or she drives, primarily. For example, in Block Island, Rhode Island, an electric car is a great idea.
It's electricity is primarily from wind:
http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-first-offshore-wind-farm-diesel-plant-block-island-2017-5

Probably in Wyoming, a not so good idea. They use lots of coal, and are planning to ban wind and solar.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willia...bition-on-solar-and-wind-energy/#73b4e81c6f44

 

[Aussie Willy]

Solar is becoming increasingly popular in Australia. I have a solar hot water system which has a gas booster. So in summer my gas usage works out to about $5 (excluding supply charges). But then I have gas heating which costs a lot in winter.

My dad has solar panels on his roof and they have literally saved thousands on their power bills. In fact they got a refund from the electricity company because while they are still making regular payments, they have overpaid and are about $700 in credit. He lives in Mildura which is extremely hot in summer.

If I built a place, I would get solar panels and have a battery system to save it. Technology is developing in this area and getting more effective and cheaper all the time.

 

[Jot the Dot Dot]

Wow.
It is 2017 and there are people who still don't understand why switching to renewable energy is not just "enviroment friendly" but vital to the survival of civilization

Can't one switch to renewable energy without asking taxpayers to fund multi-million dollar boondoggles? That is the problem with all corporate welfare, including the tax-subsidization of solar-electricity producing companies; without the discipline of the profit-and-loss system, a company has no mechanism to determine if one's production is economically viable in the long run. People should have every opportunity to set up their own solar power, whether on their personal property, or on a joint venture for mass production.

The electricity in CA is pretty green and electric cars in CA have a net positive impact on the environment. And that's true in a lot of places.

I think this particular talking point is designed to confuse people and make them throw up their hands and say "it's not worth me doing anything."

No, just do it without asking taxpayers to fund it. I don't know what the regulations are for allowing competition with the local utility companies, but they should be rewritten as to not penalize John or Jane Q. Homeowner for installing solar panels on their roofs, etc. And by all means allow for any Green Energy company to set up their own endeavours. And if they work I have no problem with that, as that is the free market. Trial and error will be part of the process. But how is one to discover 'error' if one has all one's losses subsidized by taxpayers? That's why the example I cited was to illustrate the wrong way to construct green energy: Corporate welfare.

Solar is becoming increasingly popular in Australia. I have a solar hot water system which has a gas booster. So in summer my gas usage works out to about $5 (excluding supply charges). But then I have gas heating which costs a lot in winter.

My dad has solar panels on his roof and they have literally saved thousands on their power bills. In fact they got a refund from the electricity company because while they are still making regular payments, they have overpaid and are about $700 in credit. He lives in Mildura which is extremely hot in summer.

If I built a place, I would get solar panels and have a battery system to save it. Technology is developing in this area and getting more effective and cheaper all the time.

I'm glad for your Dad's success and savings, and wish all future endeavours turn out good. That is where technology will be essential for Green Energy. When you see those Solar Lawn lights being sold at Dollarama for $2, one can only wonder what the future holds for a free-market driven Solar Industry.

 

[agalisgv]

In related news, MI voters voted against proposals to expand wind farms.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...higan-thumb-voters-reject-wind-farm-proposals

NextAir was suing several towns in MI and OK who tried to restrict zoning or permitting for wind farms. OK is looking to rescind tax credits for wind because of massive budget shortfalls.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

Can't one switch to renewable energy without asking taxpayers to fund multi-million dollar boondoggles? That is the problem with all corporate welfare, including the tax-subsidization of solar-electricity producing companies; without the discipline of the profit-and-loss system, a company has no mechanism to determine if one's production is economically viable in the long run. People should have every opportunity to set up their own solar power, whether on their personal property, or on a joint venture for mass production.

Are you kidding me? Taxpayers? Economically viable? Bats? Birds?

Do you seriously not understand, that once the climate changes beyond repairable and/or the oil/coal/gas reserves are depleted (whichever comes first) you will not HAVE an economy? You seriously think that this issue is about money, and you have a damn choice to decide whether and when the sources of energy are changed?

Let me spell it out for you, please. This issue is about the survival of civilization and quite possibly the human race, or life on the Earth in general. And according to some 95% of scientists, we are talking about at most 50 years before the effects are devastating enough to make most of the planet uninhabitable (unless we are lucky and the oil runs out before, then it's just back to the Stone Age). With some luck, most of this forum will not live to see the glorious results of the approach "economy before ecology", but the next generation will - if, of course, we're not all wiped off the planet before due to catastrophic effects, such as famine, droughts, change in ocean flows, mass extinction of species etc. But then again, next generation - screw those guys, what have they ever done for me?

And you f*n ranting about f*n birds and bats and taxpayers money!!!
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR