🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jym Dyer" <jym@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.wzekrz1hlt.fsf@econet.org...
> > Each has its inherent risks, and a few birds lost to
> > save all of the other birds that are at risk of pollution
> > hazards is (or should be) an acceptable risk.
>
> =v= Your oversimplification obscures the situation.  It's
> not "a few birds" -vs- fossil and/or nuclear and "all of the
> other birds."  It's threatened and endangered birds, which by
> definition means that the loss of "a few" could be devastating
> to the species and damaging to their habitats -vs- locating
> windmills in a more ecologically benign location.
>

But Jim, birds can go anywhere, so no matter where you put a windmill, there
will be birds put at risk. There is no such thing as an ecologically benign
area when all of the various species are taken into consideration. We might
find a place where there are no birds, but these areas will be home to a
kangaroo rat or other endangered species. No matter what the topic or cure,
there is going to be a complaint or casualty.

Which brings us back to what I first said, we need to pick our battles. If
there are a few birds that get taken out, but we avoid coal and gas fired
power plants in the exchange, then maybe this is an acceptable trade off.


> =v= It is in no way inherent to wind power that it must be
> sited in the migration paths of threatened and endangered
> species.
>     <_Jym_>

Well, this might be true. But no matter where you put a windmill there will
be one complaint or another.

Wind power is by its nature very inefficient, so it takes lots of windmills.
In this age of high fuel costs, we have thousands of idle windmills in the
San Gorgonio Pass outside of Los Angeles. One would think that these
windmills would be spinning 24/7/365, but they are not. Obviously, they need
to be taken off line for maintenance, and some will simply breakdown and
screech to a halt, but there are thousands of them that are doing nothing,
and this can not be the result of maintenace or broken parts. The point is,
windmills must be located in places where there is constant (or near
constant) and reliable winds, and these places generally make poor places
for birds to fly, so good places for windmills are generally not places that
make good migratory routes for birds. Sure, there are exceptions, but there
are ALWAYS exceptions, so no matter where we put a windmill, there may be a
passing bird. We can only put the windmills where there is the least
likelihood of birds, or we can abandon wind energy altogether - and I don't
think that is a very good idea.