The problem is that most people who are against wind power are comparing it to nothing, when they should really be comparing it to existing electrical power plants that burn fossil fuels. Those facilities are causing much more severe and long-term damage to these species than the wind turbines that would replace them. The problem is that the relatively few casualities that result form turbines are direct and immediate. But folks need to be smarter than that when analysing the true cost-benefit of renewable energy sources like wind power.
All 31 comments by...
Chris Cooper
-
-
This is only true if that cost-benefit considers what the alternative energy sources are. Where are the Bat Conservation International studies that document bat mortality as a result of air pollution and ecological desturction wrought by filthy fossil fuel and nuclear consumption. As for the "small amount of energy produced by wind," you are parroting (wrong) talking points of the same industries that are responsible for the ecological damage you deride. In fact, a Stanford University study over 5 years ago found a global wind energy potential 40 times (40!) the amount of electricity currently consumed word wide. There are vast …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Dear Marnie: 1. I claim, accurately, that untapped wind resources can replace fossil fuel-burning ELECTRICTY plants and that any accurate cost-benefit analysis of wind must compare it to the ecological degradation wrought by these inefficient combustion systems. 2. Your claim that a huge amount of plants are needed to produce a small amount of energy is flat out wrong. First, you ignore the Stanford University study that finds there is enough wind energy potential to power the Earth 40 times over. Second, a study by none other than our own Department of Energy reveals that, less than 6/10th of ONE percent …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
It seems you're holding wind energy to higher standards than all other forms of production. And that is my point. If we require renewable energy production to be perfect, we will always resort to the status quo - a system that is a greater threat to rural and wild landscapes, is much more inefficient and much more costly than new alternatives. 1. I think your stats are either unreliable or old...the most recent statistics (2004) on modern turbine design show that they are capturing upwards of 85% of available wind energy. And remember, even if we can only capture 1/40th of …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
I have to question your motives for even posting such pablum, Marnie. CLEARLY, as I've posted, even WITH the coal generation as back-up, we're talking about wind production REPLACING electricity that would OTHERWISE have to be produced through 100% coal combustion. So how is wind "driving" an expansion of coal? That's absurd. It's hard to tell from your post if what you are advocating is expanded natural gas or nothing. Wind power should not have to be a panacea in order for it to be a clear alternative to our current lethal, laughably inefficient and horribly expensive systems of energy porduction. …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Let's review: 1. According to Stanford and our own DOE, there is more than enough wind energy potential in the U.S. to power the entire country. That, of course, means we would have to expand wind power generation. 2. If we powered even half the country with wind, that is power that would not OTHERWISE be generated by burning nuclear or fossil fuel, which have detrimental impacts on the environment (bats, bird, etc). Wind generation REPLACES dirty combustion. That is a measurable, positive impact on the environment, not some "abstraction" that is a "sign of madness." 3. On-site electrolytic hydrogen production …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
This is not rocket science. It's pretty simple. Any power generated through wind is power NOT generated through the combustion of fossil fuels or from nuclear ractors. And the fact that there has only been a small amount generated through wind (your "to any worthwhile degree" comment)is not a reason to reject wind, but a reason to EXPAND it. And, finally, in the absense of a better alternative, your rejection of wind is a defense of more combustion...which is worse for the environment, bats, and ultimately everyone's wallet. That is my definition of madness.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
I agree that bats serve important ecological functions. That's why I'm concerned about the ecological damage to their environments from the mining and combustion of fossil fuels in the central Appalachian mountains. I have yet to see groups concerned about bats call for a study into the far greater devestation wrought by these forms of energy production.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
I'm not sure how many times I can repeat and you can ignore the argument that every mW of electricity generated by wind is a mW NOT generated by fossil fuel combustion. I do not need to prove that every mW of wind led to a DECREASE in a mW from fossil fuels to claim accurately that there is a very significant displacement affect. Where else did the energy come from?? AND...you're just wrong about Denmark. A commitment to wind energy allowed the Denmark to commit to the highest level of CO2 reduction under Kyoto and that commitment led, in turn, …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
By that logic, Marnie, folks are consuming energy simply because it's there. Do you think for one second that, if consumers demanded more energy, fossil fuel and other dirty industries wouldn't be fighting to provide it? We're not talking about a society that ONLY drives to school in the morning and afternoon. They are CONSTANTLY driving! And any walking at ALL would be a marked improvement.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
If your (now convoluted) analogy is trying to argue that there's an "if you generate it, they will consume it" mentality...then all the more reason to generate energy from green, renewable resources. Because, in their absense, all of that energy would come from dirty sources. It's not as though increased demand would just go unmet or that tehre would not be increased demand simply because there was limited supply. That's just silly. One can be FOR green energy alternatives AND for energy efficiency and conservation at the same time, you know.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
And it's your analogy that proves my point. If you are driving all the time...all day every day...then every mile you are driving via wind power is a mile you are NOT driving by burning gasoline. I don't have to prove that turning to wind means you give up your car in order to prove a very significant trade-off between wind and fossil fuel combustion. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the only determinental effect of combustion facilities is the facicilities themselves ("industrializing the landscape" as you put it). Hardly. There are many other environmental effects, not the …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Wait...so NOW your argument is that wind power is a bad idea because it produces TOO much energy?? First, the situation in Denmark hardly applies to the U.S. where any "excess" wind-generated power on the grid can displace power generated through the combustion of fossil fuels (dump the bad energy, keep the good...pretty simple). Second, it seeems your real agument collapses back to "variability". But you've already admitted that on-site electrolytic hyrdogen production solves that problem without the need for a huge hydrogen infrasturcture. By acting as a universal storage mechanism, hydrogen can "store" the "excess" energy produced by wind and …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Ah...so the truth is out...what you're REALLY advocating then is what I've suspected all along - expanded combustion methods and "clean" coal technology (an industry-created euphemism if there ever was one), technologies that, among other things, require vast amounts of extractive mining that, no doubt, bats find terribly disruptive. I think we can do better than that. Electrolytic hydrogen produced through renewable sources (like wind) is no Jetson-era wishful thinking. This is relatively simple technology that we are entirely capable of implementing today. For someone casting aspersions on another's lack of knowledge about wind technology, you sure make some counter-intuitive claims: …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
What *is now* has never been a very good argument against what *could* or *should* be. Perhaps wind energy doesn't replace bad energy NOW because there isn't enough of it. Or because people listen to argments like yours above. Or because there are very powerful corporate interests that stand in its way. Or because an obscene amount of public subsidies favor combustion methods. In answer to your question...how about this: Let's you and I and everyone else out there that cares about it be the ones who insist on implemententing on-site electrolytic hydrogen storage systems...to "the industry", it's enablers, policymakers, our …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
I've heard someone mention the idea of ultrasonic beacons on blade tips that would alert bats to the danger of flying into turbines. I'm sure there are several ways to manage the problem - cooperate to expand clean, renewable wind power and protect the species already threatened by dirty, combustion energies that befoul the air, water and land where these animals reside.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
...which I think most reasonable people can agree are less than those threatened by our current ways of generating energy.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Here we are again. By that logic we will NEVER transition to a clean, renewable energy economy because there will ALWAYS be transition costs before benefits are realized. That sounds like a very dumb way of 'investing' in any type of sustainable energy future. YES, there are costs. Whether they are worth it requires a projection of future benefits based on the EXPANSION of clean, renewable energy, not on a snap-shot of any one single project. That's akin to saying, well, this ONE coal-burning power plant isn't causing global climate change. (No, but....)
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Who is shunning debate?? FPL *should* allow bat research at its facilities. But the original point is that evidence of bat mortalities at wind facilities should not be reason to reject expanded wind power (especially without corresponding research into the bat mortalities resulting from mining and combustion of fossil fuels). That research, hoever,should be used to find ways to EXPAND wind power and still protect bat populations, not to reject wind power in favor of a status quo that is surely less environmentally sound. Indeed, THAT would be shortsighted.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Erm, no. I say the research should be done and compared to similar research on the deleterious effects of fossil fuels on bat (and other) environments. Only then can we know if wind is any better. "Better"...means compared to something else, not compared to nothing.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
I think you're the one shifting. Why do you want to re-hash the arguments we just had about capacity and variability, etc.?? The question still remains - which energy future is worse for bats (and other species): one that relies on mining and burning large amounts of fossil fuels or one the relies on harnessing the energy of the wind, the sun, and the sea?
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
So everyone agrees that a better energy future is one of expanded wind power, where siting and design decisions take into consideration bats (and other species)? Funny...I thought you were arguing to scrap wind in favor of "clean" coal and more of the same.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
I'm listening...but you just keep repeating youself. Wind HAS had benefit and will have even MORE if expanded. Again, the fact that it has not YET replaced a significant amount of fossil fuel consumption is a reason to EXPAND wind, not reject it, especially in the absence of any alternative other than MORE combustion.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Oh dear gawd...about 20 posts ago we had this exchange about how every Mw generated through wind power is one NOT generated through fossil fuel combustion and that problems of variability are solved through on-site electrolytic hydorgen production that allows energy generated when the wind is blowing to be stored for when it is not...eliminating the need for dirty back-up generation from even more fossil fuel combustion. The expansion of this kind of power generation can eventually make the need for extractive mining and filthy combustion of fossil fuels unecessary. That's a pretty huge benefit. The fact that it hasn't happened …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Reminder (since we've been here too): What IS is a poor indicator of what SHOULD be.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Amen! Now let's get to work changing what IS, shall we?
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Finally, a reasonable argument. I agree that accurate information about capacity and bat mortality (etc.) should be used to determine the best place to cite expanded wind generation, rather than to dismiss wind power out of hand.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
This "back-up generation" argument is just flat-out wrong. You must be thinking of wind turbines from the 1970's or something. Wind power is VARIABLE, not unreliable. Modern turbine designs adapt to fluctuations in the amount of wind supplied and can anticipate seasonal and daily supply fluctuations. These advanced modifications mean that most turbines can operate 98% of the hours in any year. Guess what? That is a better availability than ANY OTHER form of electricity generation, including fossil fuel-fired combustion plants!! It's true.
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
FYI - no less than our own Department of Energy has debunked the "back-up generation" myth. ZERO back-up generation is required for installing new wind-energy capacity. Go here for the facts: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37657.pdf
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
First, the "study" you site from E-ON is from the folks who control the grid arguing why it's difficult for them to utilize the in-feed from wind generation. The grid monopolies may have every reason to reject wind energy because their entire system was deisgned around fossil fuel-fired centralized generation facilities. Second, the problems cited here are more problems with the grid then problems with wind. There is very little (if any) explanation in the E-ON report as to WHY only 2,000 MW out of 48,000 MW would replace conventional fuel combustion. If the answer is "back-up", again I think you …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
-
Your argumanets are counterintuitive...converting to electric heat in order to use more wind-generated electricity is a "wasteful" use of fossil fuels??? (It's as if you continuously confuse "the grid" with "fossil fuels" and have no vision beyond it). I'm not sure what "developers" you're talking about. But wind power (either centralized OR distributed generation) has enormous advantages over fossil fuel combustion. Manipulation of central electricity grids by entreched monopolies does not mean wind is not advanageous. At best it means that there are vested interests trying to stand in the way of wind's real advantages. The only question is: are you …
Posted to Shooting Down the Breeze
Return to Chris Cooper's profile
- Joined September 2, 2005
- Last Visit December 1, 2005
Other Profiles
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Ignoring Outrage, Obama Set to Expand Pentagon Presence in Colombia
- 9.
- 10.
RSS Feed