Unavailable for comment.

*sigh*

Not this crap again. Unless the turbines are in the middle of a migration path there is little to worry about. Each day plenty of birds are hit by cars, fly into buildings or are killed by house cats. Turbine deaths are nothing compared to what house cats kill.

In other news, rich folk don't want their view spoilt by triumphs of modern engineering.

wind farm + tornado = temporary power spike?

At least in MA everyone knows the real reason there are no wind turbines is becuase it'll decrease the property value of the ultra-rich, and they are more important than the rest of the state combined.

NE PA has them on top of the mountains. I think it is one of the most amazing things I've seen.

How in the hell would wind turbines even theoretically "impact fresh water inflow"?

Yes, it would be more prudent and safer to build a coal plant in the sea instead of those messy wind farms.

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" -- Hosea 8-7

Devilish wind farm contraptions.

WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

FTA:

Jim Blackburn, of the Coastal Habitat Alliance, told KRIS 6 News, "Waa bawlieve it waal impact fresh waater inflow into the Waagunwaa Waadre and waause seriwaas damwaage and it waal also kill a waat of birds."

/inflow into?
//as opposed to inflow out of?

By the way, they tried building a wind farm on the South shore of Long Island, New York. Someone actually wrote to the newspaper against building it, because it could kill a seagull, causing the bird to fall into the ocean, and set off a feeding-frenzy of sharks, that would then attack people swimming in the area.

I went to college in Southern New Mexico, which happened to be near several very viable locations for geothermal power.

The "environmental" groups on campus would routinely protest and petition in an attempt to block any exploration.

Clean power, virtually no pollution? I'm against it. But please drive to the protest meeting, and sign our computer generated form on bleached white paper.

I'd like to start this discussion by pointing out that, as something of a tree-hugger myself, I don't know of a single environmentalist that opposes wind power. We understand that for every bird stupid enough to fly through a turbine, a million more will die from the pollution emitted by coal power. For every drop of lubricant a turbine leaks into the ocean, a hundreds of gallons of crude oil get dumped in the process of transferring it between vessels or the occasional wreck. For every "ruined scenic vista", you have dozens of strip-malls and condo complexes going in at any given time.

The sad environmentalist-parodies you see protesting these things work as shills for the likes of Ted Kennedy. Follow the money - When it comes to the actual legal proceedings to block proposed wind farms, you'll always see a list of the local millionaires club, concerned that a little metal stick 20 miles away will lower their property values.

Mnemia: How in the hell would wind turbines even theoretically "impact fresh water inflow"?

Dark magik

ever get the feeling that big oil or the coal industry is having fun using these environmental impact studies against windpower? its like sweet sweet revenge for all the years that they had to put up with it.

How come Al Gore isn't building a wind farm next to his multi-million dollar mansion?

When I think "ranch" I think:

1) Yummy yummy salad dressing
2) Single story house
3) Big freaking open spaces with cows

Since I'm guessing this "War and Peace, Special Edition Ltd." article didnt mention it that we are referring to (3) here and as such likely located on a single entities property.

The owners could probably bulldoze the whole damn thing flat and put in 10,000 units of McMansion living without having to endure a court challenge - or at least the judge would be more likely to throw the case out.

In my mind the "environmentalist" movement of named groups is just one giant clusterfark and the only real progress on environmental issue is being accomplished by "normal" people with no affiliation to any of these batshiat crazy groups.

"A local environmental group has filed an injunction in federal court to stop the construction of the wind farm project."

Wow, an environmental group against a wind farm, this almost deserves the ironic tag. It's probably more of a snobbish "we want wind farms, but we don't want them near our city" attitude.

Ironic it is called "Kenedy Ranch". Ted Kennedy has been holding up the large offshore wind farm off Cape Cod for 7 years because it spoils his view. No other reason.

We all want renewable forms of energy, but we cannot risk our water, birds or torna...WHAT?

Yoda's Pen Is: wind farm + tornado = temporary power spike?

Haha Yoda! I was thinking the exact same thing. Subby makes it sound like attracting a tornado is a bad thing ;P

Here's a wind turbine in a high wind

Environmental regulations exist to limit competition, not to "save" the environment. All the major environmental battles in the the USA have been won. Regulations just prevent start-ups from competing with established companies by raising the initial costs of doing business. While I don't agree with bongmiester, he has a good point that is in line with the first sentence in this paragraph.

Yoda's Pen Is: wind farm + tornado = temporary power spike?

Actually I think it's more along the lines of this.

I had a dream last night that I hit a whole flock of birds with a car. Feathers flying and everything.

I like animals but of all animals birds are pretty low on the list.

It was disturbing and exilerating at the same time.

I just thought I would share that cause I am very pro wind mills and maybe it was esp about reading this article.

they are calling these idiots enviromentalist?

I'm willing to bet that if we could ask the birds if they are willing to give a few cold blooded feathery lives to have less smog they would take that in a hummingbird heartbeat. Thats what it means to be cold blooded.

I'd have to say that a tornado is pretty bad, but a tornado with a dozen blades the size of tractor-trailers would be considerably worse.

/I support the wind farm efforts here in Illinois.

My sibs and I own 500 acres of windy-as-hell South Dakota land, and I'm dying for somebody to offer to put up turbines so that I can live off the rent.

I remember there was one Texas company talking about it.

/Enron

ShivaHVishnu: All the major environmental battles in the the USA have been won.

Uh, no.

Reminds me of our area. Environmentalist Wacko fights to stop natural gas pipeline into the area for "environmental reasons". Then the same person files a lawsuit to stop a coal plant from being built because natural gas is better - but because of his prior protests, unavailable at a reasonable price. Same wackjob files lawsuit against huge windfarm because it is not going to be putting out the same megawatts as origionally stated in press releases - mainly because the turbines were not available in the larger size so the power company had to use what was available for the near (ten year) term.

mlloydm
I went to college in Southern New Mexico, which happened to be near several very viable locations for geothermal power.

The "environmental" groups on campus would routinely protest and petition in an attempt to block any exploration.

Clean power, virtually no pollution? I'm against it. But please drive to the protest meeting, and sign our computer generated form on bleached white paper.

Nothing at all surprising about this; clean power with no pollution is environmental groups' worst nightmare, they jump instantly on any remotely conceivable impact and try to blow it as much out of proportion as possible.

If they can't find any (as in the first few days after "cold fusion" was announced and thought a real and immediately practical phenomenon), they whine that the energy should not be produced simply because conservation should be encouraged instead.

The fact that they ignore the option of adding conservation as well, reducing the need for more polluting power sources, shows their real agenda is continuing the problem, or at least a perceived problem, and thus their own political influence.

turkey_baster: Yoda's Pen Is: wind farm + tornado = temporary power spike?

Haha Yoda! I was thinking the exact same thing. Subby makes it sound like attracting a tornado is a bad thing ;P


Gairloch: Yoda's Pen Is: wind farm + tornado = temporary power spike?

Actually I think it's more along the lines of this.


That is why I specified a temporary power spike.

/Mother Nature does not care how many stress tests you performed in the lab.

Environmentalists will complain about everything. They need a purpose, a cause to feel full filled. One day we will hear these crazies complain about clean water being bad for the environment.

Mnemia, what have I missed?

Don Quixote to the rescue!

SwiftFox:
If they can't find any (as in the first few days after "cold fusion" was announced and thought a real and immediately practical phenomenon), they whine that the energy should not be produced simply because conservation should be encouraged instead.


That's one thing I really don't understand at all - the idea that conservation is what's important - at least in terms of energy usage. I'm fully behind the idea of preserving natural resources and spaces BUT:

Suppose I had a magic box that when hooked to the power grid would supply limitless pollutionless power - at that point what would really be the purpose of conservation of energy? Think about how much more nature could be preserved if we didnt have to mine coal, or drill for oil or transport all of the above?

I'd go with the solar powered Stirling engines.

Fizpez: Suppose I had a magic box that when hooked to the power grid would supply limitless pollutionless power - at that point what would really be the purpose of conservation of energy?

Nothing. But then you don't have that magic box now, do you?

SwiftFox: Nothing at all surprising about this; clean power with no pollution is environmental groups' worst nightmare, they jump instantly on any remotely conceivable impact and try to blow it as much out of proportion as possible.

If they can't find any (as in the first few days after "cold fusion" was announced and thought a real and immediately practical phenomenon), they whine that the energy should not be produced simply because conservation should be encouraged instead.

The fact that they ignore the option of adding conservation as well, reducing the need for more polluting power sources, shows their real agenda is continuing the problem, or at least a perceived problem, and thus their own political influence.

Yeah, and they burn babies, and detonate dirty bombs in the aquifers! It's fun to attack imaginary caricatures.

ShivaHVishnu: Mnemia, what have I missed?

Coal burning power is still a huge environmental problem in this country, raining mercury and other toxic byproducts onto the land and oceans. CO2 emissions are a huge environmental problem that we have not even begun to address. Loss of biodiversity due to the expansion of human activity and population and subsequent loss of habitat is a huge environmental problem. Water shortages have been a huge environmental problem in some parts of the country for a long time, and they're becoming a huge problem almost everywhere (and increased human demands for water are becoming a big problem for the environment as well as people).

I could go on, but these are some of the big ones. The fact that you actually don't think we have any real environmental problems is amazing to me.

Mnemia: I could go on, but these are some of the big ones.

You might even say, "huge".

Fizpez: That's one thing I really don't understand at all - the idea that conservation is what's important - at least in terms of energy usage. I'm fully behind the idea of preserving natural resources and spaces BUT:

Suppose I had a magic box that when hooked to the power grid would supply limitless pollutionless power - at that point what would really be the purpose of conservation of energy? Think about how much more nature could be preserved if we didnt have to mine coal, or drill for oil or transport all of the above?

Why would you not understand this? It's always going to be more efficient to conserve energy than to produce more (because you have to produce the "extra" power PLUS the amount lost to inefficiency in the system like transmission loss, etc). Conservation should always be the first step taken before adding more energy production, especially if the conversation can be accomplished relatively painlessly.

Could you imagine a flock of geese flying through one of those things? Nothing left but beaks and feathers.

From the Texas Observer


"And just when you thought wind, the leading energy alternative to fossil fuels, was squeaky clean we learn, not so much...

The Coastal Habitat Alliance, which is fighting a massive wind farm proposed for the Kenedy Ranch in South Texas, has raised some troubling, not terribly well-studied problems with wind power - namely it may take a toll on wildlife.

As it happens, the Kenedy Ranch is smack dab in the middle of one of the most important corridors for migratory birds in the U.S., a sort of feathery superhighway. You've heard of radioactive fallout, but how about bird fallout? It's when migratory birds, exhausted from travel, make an emergency pit stop for water, food, and rest. The Lower Laguna Madre and the Kenedy Ranch are a key fallout spot for birds passing through Texas.

All the related infrastructure for the Kenedy wind farm - roads, concrete pads, the giant transmission line - threaten the critical habitat for the fallouts as well as indigenous species, according to the Alliance. (Here's a map.) A filing with the Public Utility Commission by the Coastal Habitat Alliance, which includes the Audobon Society and the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation, reads:

The proposed transmission line will have negative ecological impacts throughout this undeveloped region and beyond. Ecological fragmentation and the impacts to migrant and resident species will be felt in adjacent ranches such as the Armstrong Ranch and King Ranch and will affect birding groups that view these species as well as those that use the Laguna Madre. The impacts associated with construction, maintenance, and operation of the transmission line must be considered, irrespective of the secondary impacts of the wind generation facilities themselves.

This is a tricky spot for these environmentally-minded groups to find themselves in. All sources of energy have trade-offs. On one hand, each new wind turbine arguably displaces a carbon-intensive, polluting coal- or natural gas-fired plant. And there's probably no greater threat to the very existence of wildlife than climate change. On the other hand, scaling up wind to the level needed to truly make a difference could mean serious negative impacts on habitat and species. The Alliance, except the King Ranch, has made a point of saying its members are not opposed to wind power on other sites. In fact many of the individual groups have wholeheartedly thrown their support behind the burgeoning industry. They just object to this particular (sensitive) location.

"There are plenty of places in the state of Texas that have plenty of wind that don't have the endangered species problem, that don't have the migratory bird problem, that don't have the wetlands problem," said Elyse Yates, spokeswoman for the Alliance. "This is just a horrible site."

At this point the Alliance's demands are pretty simple - before the PUC grants a permit to build the 21-mile, high-voltage power line, they want a study commissioned on the impact to the birds, bats and bees. So far the PUC has turned the Alliance down, but an appeal is set to be heard on October 17."

0Icky0: You might even say, "huge".

Yep. They're building windfarms here in Montana, and I see semis hauling blades all the time. Two blades on one looong ass lowboy. Those things are ginormous.

Saying a windmill attracts high winds is like saying if a lot of people in a town buy cars, suddenly a gas station will appear out of nowhere.
wait...

0Icky0: You might even say, "huge".

I did overuse that word a bit, sorry. I haven't had my coffee yet.

Mnemia: Coal burning power is still a huge environmental problem in this country, raining mercury and other toxic byproducts onto the land and oceans. CO2 emissions are a huge environmental problem that we have not even begun to address.

Mercury...Activated Carbon Injection removes 90+% of what is barely there. Not burning the rocks in the coal removes the rest.
SOx...Scrubbers remove 98%
NOx...SCRs remove 90%
Particulate...ESPs and Baghouses remove 99+%
CO2...oxy combustion, sequestration, ultra supercritical cycles are all viable options.

Coal isn't nearly as dirty as people think, the problem is all of our plants are 50+ years old and they're difficult to retrofit.

Mnemia: I did overuse that word a bit, sorry. I haven't had my coffee yet.

Have a huge cup on me :-)