You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Clean Air and Wind Power Get the Kiss of Death
2005-07-09
Two of the major tenets of the environmental movement were given the kiss of death recently. The kiss was not dissimilar from what Vito Agueci gave Joseph Valachi in 1961 in that no one saw it coming. For years, the enviros have been preaching the benefits of reducing air pollution and harnessing power from the wind. Two pretty good ideas right? We all enjoy clean air and wind is free.

So we thought.

So we have been told all these years. Well, it appears we have all been wrong.

Reducing pollution levels in the air could lead to much higher levels of global warming, researchers have warned.

Reducing aerosols - small particles and droplets in the air produced by cars, chemical emissions and smoke - would allow more of the sun's heat to enter the atmosphere.

This would speed up the warming process, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Care for more?

Another well-known cog in the wheel-o-green is the constant banter for the development and use of alternative forms of energy.

If Pacific Gas & Electric would build more hydroelectric facilities, we wouldn't be so dependent on fossil fuels.

If General Motors would build a hydrogen fuel cell, we wouldn't be so dependent on fossil fuels.

If more energy producers embraced wind power, we wouldn't be so dependent on fossil fuels.

If we weren't so dependent on fossil fuels, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Sorry, different topic.

The energy producers listened and for the past few decades, so-called wind farms have sprouted up all across the surface of our nation. One of the earliest windolectric facilities I can remember is on top of Altamont Pass in Alameda County, California. Altamont Pass seemed as if it were destined for use as a wind farm as it is located at the divide between the San Francisco bay area and California's great central valley. On days when the valley gets hot, as it has been doing for the past week, ambient air from the bay tries to fill the areas depleted by the rising hot air in the valley. The result is a strong westerly breeze that rushes across the top of Altamont Pass, through thousands of turbine generators and into the valley where the hot breeze hits my house and causes my PG&E bill to soar like Lanius ludovicianus.

The Heartland Institute opines...

Giant wind turbines at Altamont Pass, California, are illegally killing more than 1,000 birds of prey each year, according to a lawsuit filed January 12 by the Center for Biological Diversity. The suit demands an injunction halting operation of the turbines until and unless protective measures are taken and highlights increasing concerns regarding a power source long hailed as environmentally friendly by environmental activist groups.

"Altamont has become a death zone for eagles and other magnificent and imperiled birds of prey",said Jeff Miller, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Birds come into the pass to hunt and get chopped up by the blades."

Owners of the wind turbines assert they have gone to great measures to protect birds from being sliced up by the turbine blades, but the technology simply does not exist to generate wind power without sacrificing an immense number of birds each year.

"It's so unfair to say we have not been actively trying to do anything," said Steve Stengel, a spokesman for Florida Power & Light Company, which owns many of the turbines. "WeÂve done everything from installing perch guards to painting rotor blades."

Miller, however, was skeptical wind power generators are doing all they can to ameliorate bird deaths.

"We're asking the judge to throw the book at them," said Miller. "We're not suggesting they're going to be shut down. We are suggesting turbine owners out there need to take some measures to reduce bird kill, and that they come up with some adequate mitigation or compensation."

Once again, the antagonists just lob grenades at the issue and offer no attempt to provide a solution.

What'll they think of next? Reducing air pollution is bad or something like that?
Posted by:Flegum Thravinter3661

#25  Just a quick note on Altamont Pass: AFAIK the main problem there is created by a specific model of vertical-axis wind turbine.

If those in particular were replaced there probably wouldn't be that many bird kills.

The question remains, though, whether it would stop the lawsuit.

I have some ideas of my own about this, but I haven't been able to get contact information for the operators of the farm.

(At least until the latest wave of lawsuits and the associated publicity. Now all I need is time).
Posted by: Phil Fraering   2005-07-09 22:55  

#24  There is a who class of lawyers in the SF area that leech off of you and me through the "compensation" angle Wiskey Mike.

I say we open season on them, they are pure and simple greed heads.
Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom   2005-07-09 21:46  

#23  The last sentence caught my eye: "We are suggesting turbine owners out there need to take some measures to reduce bird kill (okay so far), and that they come up with some adequate mitigation or compensation."

What will be adequate? People like Miller are unlikely to come up with any useful suggestions. And who gets the compensation? Sounds like a squeeze to me. Just another way to bilk others (us) out of cash.

On an entirely separate note, I can't get "Preview" to work anymore. Something change?
Posted by: Whiskey Mike   2005-07-09 20:17  

#22  Once upon a time most duck and geese migrated from Canada down to Mexico.

Mexico has no hunting laws. Now most geese and ducks that still migrate do so from Canada to Texas or Lousinia or FL. The new flocks are huge

Survival of the adaptors.

The Raptors will adapt or die. Only a short term problem. Greenpeace Lawyers are a different story.
Posted by: 3dc   2005-07-09 19:57  

#21  A massive chunk of the cost of building nukes is sunk in the regulatory process both overtly through the regulatory bureaucracy and resultant public and private litigation and covertly through changes required by regulators in each new facility that made every single nuke in the US different from every other thereby causing costs to skyrocket. The Bush administration has, apparently without anyone really noticing, greatly streamlined that process. E.g. (and IIRC): previously certified sites need not be re-certified (read "re-litigated") for new construction; operating permits are now to be issued in advance at the same time construction permits are issued which will greatly assist in preventing multi-billion dollar boondoggles that are litigated out of existence before providing their first kW; there is a move to pre-approve standardized nuclear plant designs sparing each new plant the necessity of starting from square one of the regulatory process, the arbitrary 40 year life imposed on nuclear facilities by federal regulators has been stretched with new 20 year license extensions allowing capital costs to be amortized over a much longer lifespan, etc. All of these things contribute greatly to nuclear power's newly-found economy.
Posted by: AzCat   2005-07-09 18:30  

#20  DPA, I didn't drill in the methodology used to get the 10X factor. I was just quoting it. The study is based on existing power plants and the cost of most nuclear power plants has been depreciated almost to zero. The majority are over 30 years old. Were the capital cost of new plants to be used I am sure the numbers would be different. However, improved technology would make new plants considerably cheaper to run. France the only developed country that has continued to build new nuclear plants, is now the world's largest exporter of electricity by a big margin and this is despite the high costs of distributing electricty over distances. This is becuase electricty from nuclear in France is so much cheaper than from any other source.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-07-09 18:28  

#19  NT - I'd assumed as much - if we wish to wean from the oil-tick tit, I'm all for that, but that should be a visible part of the equation and I stand corrected
Posted by: Frank G   2005-07-09 18:14  

#18  Think again, Frank. There's a federal tax credit.
Posted by: Neutron Tom   2005-07-09 18:08  

#17  that seems a bit high, R, but close, and in inflated $ - say 10 yr escalation. I'd guess that's close, within $1-2 billion ...
Posted by: Frank G   2005-07-09 18:07  

#16  Assuming of course that these companies have the cash to build a new plant, requiring no gov't input. What's it cost to build one of those things nowadays, $8 bil? Not cheap.
Posted by: R   2005-07-09 18:03  

#15  economically the turbines make sense - in certain locations. In East San Diego County, right before the mountain elevations drop to teh desert floor, they are setting up test towers to determine the economic feasibility of putting in turbine farms...Same thing in Tehachapi, where they have long established turbine farms....it's not subsidized here
Posted by: Frank G   2005-07-09 17:59  

#14  phil_b... 10 times more for coal though? huh? That's simply not even close to true. It's just a little cheaper and when you count in distribution costs etc the difference in price becomes negligable.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2005-07-09 17:59  

#13  And phil_b is right... nuclear is by far the cheapest and most secure source of power currently known. The reason it is not flourishing is companies can't get permits to build.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2005-07-09 17:55  

#12  oil is massively subsidized... more than wind, solar and ethanol combined in both absolute and relative terms. The true price of oil has been estimated by the GAO to be well over $100/barrel when you count in subsidies to the industry, grants and loans to foreign oil producing countries and security for oil supply.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2005-07-09 17:52  

#11  It just goes to show that it isn't possible to please everybody. Clean air, dead raptors. Live raptors, dirty air.

Take your pick, guys.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-07-09 17:25  

#10  Who builds the (nuclear) power plants? What the f@@@ does it matter who builds them. Get the Canadians to build them along the border and export the electricity. Oops! Too late, they do that already. From the south side of Lake Ontario you can make out tall chimneys about 30 miles east of downtown Toronto. Thats the Pickering nuclear facility, one the largest in the world. From memory it has 5 reactors.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-07-09 17:23  

#9  Iran, North Korea...
Posted by: Neutron Tom   2005-07-09 17:16  

#8  No, not yet. Who builds the (nuclear) power plants?
Posted by: R   2005-07-09 17:11  

#7  Nuclear power is far and away the cheapest source of electricity. This study states electricity from coal costs ten times as much as electricty from nuclear. Since then the cost of coal has risen substantially (about doubled). The cost of nuclear has of course not changed. It goes on to state that were environmental costs included, the cost of electricity from coal would double relative to nuclear. So today electricity from coal costs around 50 times that of nuclear. Oil and gas are even more expensive. This is without factoring in the costs of Kyoto and global warming (were it to occur).

Care to retract that statement, R?
Posted by: phil_b   2005-07-09 17:03  

#6  The ultimate leftwing solution:

Keep the wind farms going and feed the dead birds to the poor. Problem solved.
Posted by: badanov   2005-07-09 15:05  

#5  Florida Power & Light Company, which owns many of the turbines
WTF? My cue for a stock bail.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-07-09 14:22  

#4  Hmmm, nuclear power without a gov't subsidy...well ok I guess. But I can't afford it yet, that's for sure.
Posted by: R   2005-07-09 13:28  

#3  Tom - that would be never. :-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2005-07-09 13:27  

#2  Wind and sun are free. It's the wind turbines and the solar cells that have long paybacks.

If wind power is the answer, it wouldn't require massive government subsidies. If solar power is the answer, it wouldn't require massive government subsidies. If ethanol is the answer, it wouldn't require massive government subsidies. When will the whacko environmentalists learn that it's not a solution unless it can be reasonably priced without a government subsidy?
Posted by: Neutron Tom   2005-07-09 13:10  

#1  I hate to say "I told you so" but....

Actually, no, I don't.

I TOLD YOU SO, you idiot "environmentalists."
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2005-07-09 12:32  

00:00