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.
Member Profile
Chris Cooper
Latest Comments view all 31
-
-
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
- Joined September 2, 2005
- Last Visit December 1, 2005
RSS Feed