Wind Farm Slaughter

[jeb]

In the US windmills kill 573,000 birds per year, cats kill 500 million, one billion are killed running into windows,

The point is, obviously, the double standard. If the other energy producers are getting fined for killing birds, the supposedly green sources should be held to the same standard.

[Justin Spencer]

The point is, obviously, the double standard. If the other energy producers are getting fined for killing birds, the supposedly green sources should be held to the same standard.

I agree if it is in the case of negligence.

[Tim Smith]

It's appropriate for this thread to have already run toward silliness. To say wind isn't a viable energy source simply isn't true. Wind turbines produced an average of 17% of the energy produced by our major energy utility in Colorado during 2011. They had a peak production day of 57% in 2012. The state average is 9.3%.

It's true that wind energy production is only competitive in the current market because of tax breaks, but given the incredibly low environmental impacts, those tax breaks are worth it and should be renewed.

Yes, some wind turbines cause problems with bird kills. Put them in an Appalacian (or Ozark) mountain pass where birds and bats are funneled toward them and they're going to be killers.

Put them on the high plains with no cover in sight and almost NOTHING gets killed.

I'm aware of one study tracking bird kills in Eastern Colorado with monthly surveys for bird kills that hasn't produced a dozen carcasses over the last 3 years.

Windmills that are properly sited don't cause problems.

[jeb]

I agree if it is in the case of negligence.

So what about the power companies getting fined for birds killed by electrical wires?

Should be applied equally, plain and simple.

[Feathers and Fins]

Don't have time to dive into this completely but from a contractors perspective the only thing that belongs on a roof is shingles, I have seen the damage solar panels and anything else put on roofs cause. The benefits of solar energy do not offset the cost of the damages when they occur. I know they are a viable product but need to be put someplace that will not damage the property.

There are so many products available now to make your house environmentally friendly but the cost is high and from most the journals I have read it can range between 10 and 25 years to just break even in compare to non-green building. There is a lot to take in to consideration in those numbers without doubt and it is up to the buyer to make the choice of is it worth it. My suggestion is if the person is in the 30's buying the house and it will be the last place they buy then yes it is worth it as when you hit retirement age you will have broke even and now are saving money and living cheaper. But if you are going to move again don't waste the money.

[Justin Spencer]

So what about the power companies getting fined for birds killed by electrical wires?

Should be applied equally, plain and simple.

I'm not sure what fines you are talking about, I assume with oil companies you are talking about oil spills. These are preventable an are ecological disasters that deserve fines for reasons much worse than killing birds. I don't agree with fines for power lines killing birds, and if a structure such as a windmill is approved for a certain location I don't think they should be fined either, they must look at where they put them and not set them up in an area that funnels migrations.

Don't have time to dive into this completely but from a contractors perspective the only thing that belongs on a roof is shingles, I have seen the damage solar panels and anything else put on roofs cause. The benefits of solar energy do not offset the cost of the damages when they occur. I know they are a viable product but need to be put someplace that will not damage the property.

There are so many products available now to make your house environmentally friendly but the cost is high and from most the journals I have read it can range between 10 and 25 years to just break even in compare to non-green building. There is a lot to take in to consideration in those numbers without doubt and it is up to the buyer to make the choice of is it worth it. My suggestion is if the person is in the 30's buying the house and it will be the last place they buy then yes it is worth it as when you hit retirement age you will have broke even and now are saving money and living cheaper. But if you are going to move again don't waste the money.

That's exactly the reason we need to REQUIRE solar or wind in new construction. You make ita requirement for the whole country so the playing field is leveled, these companies start raking in the money which leads to their subsidies being lowered. Prices should also continue to decrease on this equipment and technology will improve. I won't pretend to know anything about the problems with roof installation, but with the great minds in this world it is surely a problem that can be overcome, if not we are in big trouble because it can't be that tough.

Sure people will complain about this for a few years, but the requirement will soon become an afterthought, and lower power bills and a cleaner environment will be the payoff. Seems like a win, win, win, situation (unless you are an oil, gas or coal tycoon).

[Terrierman]

_{I want to see the link to fines being applied for bird strikes on power lines.}

[Wayne SW/MO]

Tim the first report I read many years ago was from the Tehachapis mountains in CA. They are on barren mountain tops and the report wasn't about a few, nor are the mills in WY hidden. The wind mills seem to get an exorbitant amount of the subsidies and the size of the corporations involved can't dispel a sense of greed over benefit. One thing that is lacking in your figures and others trying to pain a rosy picture is the bottom line. Even if the farms produced 100%, the fuel driven power plants would have to remain active to be on standby. For all of those who have observed wind farms, think about how many were inoperable. They aren't nearly as efficient as GE would have you believe.

F& F I can't see where solar panels or water heating units would damages roofing. I'll be the first to admit I might be overlooking something, but it would seem that properly installed panels would actually offer protection in the long term. Given the fact that lighting is not dependent on specific voltage, lighting loads would be great candidates for individual solar plants. I suspect that water heating when combined with solar preheating would also be a good candidate. While solar farms may be profitable and have some impact on the environment, individual units on roofs should recoup cost easier than any other form that comes to mind.

In a country that can accomplish what this one does it's hard to believe that nuclear isn't more prevalent. All of the nuclear accidents could have been avoided with a little more engineering. The main byproduct of nuclear is steam and the fact they can be built in a desert shows that cooling water isn't a big barrier either.

[Terrierman]

Solar has similar issues to wind relating to generation not corresponding well with demand. There's a lot of R&D going into energy storage systems. Some overlooked issues with nukes include mining impacts, waste storage, and decommissioning costs. There's just no easy button. Darn the luck.

[Justin Spencer]

Solar has similar issues to wind relating to generation not corresponding well with demand. There's a lot of R&D going into energy storage systems. Some overlooked issues with nukes include mining impacts, waste storage, and decommissioning costs. There's just no easy button. Darn the luck.

Exactly right,all the more reason to keep developing sources, with any luck we can solve the storage puzzle and then the timing issue will be less of a problem.