🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jym Dyer" <jym@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.wzllmhx430.fsf@econet.org...
> > There probably is no perfect solution.
>
> =v= Sure, perfection is impossible, by definition.  Not siting
> these things in a bird migration route seems like a better
> approach than a design that doesn't kill "as many birds" (still
> a vague, unspecified quantity).
>
> > At the same time a letter writer to the Mercury News from
> > Stanford pointed out that the bird kills by windmills is very
> > small compared to all bird kill for example from windows.
>

I think you need to pick your battles. Either we use pollution prone
coal/oil/natural gas power plants, or we use nuclear power plants, or we
harvest wind energy. 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.

There is no perfect energy source that we know about. Wind energy is very
inefficient, but it is clean. I think that fuel cell technology will be
coming soon to a home that you can live in, but until that time comes, you
will have to weigh the risks and benefits of whatever is used instead. If
you find the bird risk to be unacceptable, then you will have to stop
bitching about coal or natural gas fired power plants. If coal and gas are
bad, then wind must be acceptable. You can not expect energy to flow into
your house, and have absolutely no impact whatsoever anyplace else.




> =v= I missed this letter, which is too bad, since it sounds like
> it actually discusses quantities.  Unfortunately, it's utterly
> meaningless to compare plentiful, undendangered yardbirds
> smacking into windows with threatened and endangered migratory
> birds running into windmills.
>     <_Jym_>