Wednesday, February 6, 2013
On Wind Turbines and Birds
Yes, house-cats kill far more birds than windmills (there are a hell of a lot more cats than windmills for one thing). But cats do not kill eagles, hawks, falcons, condors. owls and other raptors (many of which are included among endangered species). The fact that the wind industry is presently killing thousands of these types of birds and skating is an outrage (especially after the oil industry got fined exorbitantly for killing 85), I think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Not surprising ... but a drop in the bucket of the billion birds killed each year flying into built structures in general. Still clutching at straws, or do you want to be consistent and level Manhattan?
Lots of unused subway tunnels to live in....
Our yard hosted a Peregrine Falcon a couple days back. Their population sank to 11 breeding pairs in 1970 Idaho. They have struggled back from near extinction since DDT was banned in the US in 1972.
Humans are hard to live with.
How 'bout we don't fine anybody? And I really don't think that eagles, hawks, falcons, condors and owls hang out much in downtown Manhattan.
An example of Liberal hypocrisy? This dmarks fellow seems not to agree, however. Must be a Liberal.
Barlowe has me pegged, that's for sure.
Say what?
Seriously, Barlowe, this is about the right of private landowners to build windmills on their own land without being harassed with frivolous lawsuits. And without being given any special advantage, subsidy, or consideration by government. Especially in comparison to other energy sources which are more viable, plentiful, and sensible (oil, gas, coal).
Is that liberal or conservative?
dmarks,most areas have zoning laws....I mean you cant put an oil well in your back yard.
With a proper buffer in case of leaks/accidents, lights off at night and no noise at night, and other containment, I don't see why not, Rusty.
I'm not saying that these people should get millions of dollars or anything remotely that. But I do think that they should get the fair market value of their homes, medical expenses, and maybe a little help in moving would also be nice.......And I'm not saying that these things shouldn't be built. I would just prefer that they be a) AT LEAST 1,500 meters from houses, b) built with a minimal cutting down of trees, and c) constructed absent any tax payer funds.
And some of these projects are at least a little suspicious. In one community they had a height limit on structures of 2 and a half stories and then they turn around and OK a wind farm that puts up structures 40 stories high.......And I still don't like the double standard on endangered species (not just birds of prey but bats as well).
Will: I'm with you on the above comments. Nice large buffers? Fine. And to add to no taxpayer funding, 'no tax breaks'.
As for height limits, I tend to think those are a bad part of zoning, overall. In terms of buildings, story height limits only encourage a lot of land waste by flat buildings that cover a lot of land.
Yeah, I'm not saying that the 2 and half story limit was smart (the Bennington Battle Monument is huge and awesome and today it probably couldn't be built), just that there was a double standard.
These looked pretty cool:
http://www.mynorth.com/My-North/November-2009/A-Wind-Turbine-All-Your-Own-Made-in-Manistee/
But you can see right there all the special advantage from the government to mask the real cost: no free market here.
And if the dealer list is up to date, they are still going.
But they really should get rid of the special advantage. Let them survive on the free market for $9000 each.
Good ideas have a tendency to survive on their own, you're right.
Post a Comment