Debate Over Wind Power Creates Environmental Rift

NY Times ^ | June 6, 2006 | FELICITY BARRINGER

[neverdem]

OAKLAND, Md. — Dan Boone has no doubt that his crusade against wind energy is the right way to protect the Allegheny highlands he loves. Let other environmentalists call him deluded at best, traitorous at worst. He remains undeterred.

For four years or more, Mr. Boone has traveled across the mid-Atlantic to make every argument he can muster against local wind-power projects: they kill birds and bats; they are too noisy; they are inefficient, making no more than a symbolic contribution to energy needs.

Wind farms on the empty prairies of North Dakota? Fine. But not, Mr. Boone insists, in the mountainous terrain of southwestern Pennsylvania, western Maryland or West Virginia, areas where 15 new projects have been proposed. If all were built, 750 to 1,000 giant turbines would line the hilltops, most producing, on average, enough electricity to power 600 homes.

Wind projects are in the midst of a huge growth spurt in many parts of the country, driven by government incentives to promote alternatives to fossil fuels. But Mr. Boone, who wields a botanist's trowel and a debater's knife with equal ease, wants to slow them down with community activism, regulatory action and legal challenges.

His crusade harks back to the campaigns against nuclear power plants, toxic-waste dumps and dams on scenic rivers that were building blocks of the modern environmental movement. But the times, and the climate, are changing. With fears of global warming growing more acute, Mr. Boone and many other local activists are finding themselves increasingly out of step with the priorities of the broader movement.

National groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club used to uniting against specific projects are now united for renewable energy in general. And they are particularly high on wind power — with the caveat that a few, but only...

[neverdem]

Wind-Power Projects Halted - Supporters See Political Motive Behind Defense Dept. Study

Andrew Councill for The New York Times
The 44 wind turbines near Thomas, W.Va., have been lethal to bats. The turbines are owned FPL Energy, the wind industry’s dominant player.

Andrew Councill for The New York Times

Dan Boone wants to slow the growth of wind-power projects.

[Candor7]

The science of fluid dynamics demands that the only continuous source for adequate wind source is the collective rectal sphincter of the Dimocrap party.

Flatulance HO!

Thats why Sen-rator Chapequidic has (w)hole reams of wind towers planned for off shore Cape Cod.

Someone should tie a wind generator over his mouth.

The latest generation of nuclear power plants would be much more timely and efficient, for example the ceramic encased spherical collective piles ans opposed to rods, and increased circulation capacity of coolent fluid is so ignored today.

[finnsheep]

Bats are the single largest cause of death due to rabies in the USA outside of organ transplants. Check with the CDC. If a bat has been found in the room with a person who was asleep or under the influence of something or if a child says they saw a bat, CDC recommends getting the full series of rabies shots.

Bites by bats can be invisible and kids may be reluctant to admit they touched the bat.

[goldstategop]

Liberals are against alternative sources of energy too. Because it spoils the beautiful view. So, how would we power our homes and businesses? The electricity must come from somewhere.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[StevieB]

Liberals are against alternative sources of energy too. Because it spoils the beautiful view. So, how would we power our homes and businesses? The electricity must come from somewhere.

Liberals are OK with electricity coming from somewhere -- just as long as it's somewhere else.

[Wonder Warthog]

"If all were built, 750 to 1,000 giant turbines would line the hilltops, most producing, on average, enough electricity to power 600 homes."

This has GOT to be a mis-quote.

[Onelifetogive]

Liberals are OK with electricity coming from somewhere -- just as long as it's somewhere else.

Not always. A suprising number of liberals are Tad Kazynski (sp?) types who want the rest of us to live third-world-type lives "in harmony with nature". Those are the same people who got DDT banned KNOWING that a side-effect of the ban would be the death of hundreds of million of poor, colored people. They saw the death of those people as a "benefit" because they were (and still are) concerned about overpopulation of the world.

[Onelifetogive]

This has GOT to be a mis-quote.

Why? Re-read it. It seems to imply that each turbine would power less than one home. It is intentionally deeceptive. Most would power 600 homes EACH. Some, I suppose, would power more. That ends up being somewhere in the neighbothood of 750,000 homes.

[ThirstyMan]

For four years or more, Mr. Boone has traveled across the mid-Atlantic to make every argument he can muster against local wind-power projects: they kill birds and bats;

So?

We have a phrase, road-kill, which is an assumption that small furry things are going to get hit on our roads. Has it caused extinction of the populations of those furry things? Should we ban car travel because a percent of the furry population gets hit?

No

So we'll have to coin a new phrase, air-kill. Big deal!

Darwin has prepared us for this, assuring us that each species' diverse genome is equipped to adapt to local changes in the environment. Some stupid furry things with wings will die but others, the able, will adapt, survive and flourish.

Wind power is a no-brainer!

Liberals are so anal!!!

[libstripper]

Curiously enough, the greenies do have a point on this issue. However, the corollary, that nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, least environmentally disruptive power source available, something the Frogs (!!!) understand, has completely passed by the limited "intellects" of the pea brained greenies.

[Trteamer]

I don't believe that one windmil will power 600 homes.

[Grut]

Should we ban car travel because a percent of the furry population gets hit?

Ill-advised question of the month! ;^)

[Tribune7]

This guy sounds like a man. A big man.

[SES1066]

I have this sneaking hunch that if you scratch the average eco-lib, you will find a Luddite who has a Rousseau-like fixation that humankind is a cancer on the biosphere. The extremist edge of this philosophy is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement which desires the disappearance of the human race from the Earth. At these edges, who cares if there is no power? The more 'moderate' spend as little time on considering alternatives as it generally hurts their self-esteem in that they know there have to be trade-offs.

[Fruitbat]

Am I the only one that doesn't think that these things are anything even approaching a major blight on the landscape? Big deal, some relatively quiet wind-turbine generators. What's the fuss over aesthetics, other than in perhaps only a few spots?

As well, is there a huge shortage of bats and birds in our world? They're all going to die from something. Prolly better knocked unconscious unknowningly by a WTG than to get eaten by a larger predatory bird with the smaller bird going thru far more agony than a quick whack on the noggin.

[brushcop]

Yeah, well, I don't like the damned things marching across our West Texas mesas either. They remind me too much of maggot infested hippies with rheumy eyes in VW buses.

This is not woo-woo technology, you can do the math over what they produce and figure the efficiency or inefficiency and it has created an industry in itself, which is the American way. But we've had the Edsel and AMC Pacer too, go figure!

What is so laughable is the split among the enviro-wackos, now THAT'S what I do like. It gives one ammunition to throw back in their faces.

Remember, these people place critters above human beings, so there's good argument over birds of prey and others being whacked by the rotors. You are aware of the bat-mania sweeping the country lately aren't you?

[BlazingArizona]

New turbine designs are larger and rotate more slowly, which means they don't harm birds and generate more power. Instead of regarding energy as a zero sum game, we need to make energy independence a national priority. Let's ALL be free to build our respective solutions. Let the ancient Darwinian market sort out which energy sources are best.

[Fruitbat]

What is so laughable is the split among the enviro-wackos, now THAT'S what I do like. It gives one ammunition to throw back in their faces.

Yeah, it's great!

You are aware of the bat-mania sweeping the country lately aren't you?

I trust that you're joking here.

As to aesthetics, it still wouldn't bother me to see them on "the mesas." Could be me however. Now if they were on top of Mt. Rushmore, that's a different matter.

[george76]

[mmercier]

If it were possible to locate wind farms in minority districts, like hazardous waste processing facilities, there would be no problems.

Unfortunately the prime real estate where farms can be sited is owned by the elite; therefore no wind farms.

They can still go out and bitch about our addiction to foreign oil while simultaneously blocking any domestic oil/gas production and the siting of any LNG transfer terminals or refineries. Do not even consider siting a nuclear facility.

The nitwits that are their political base were educated in their public schools and are too stupid to rub two sticks together to start a fire. In the opine of the left it is someone else's responsibility to start the fire that warms their ass; as long as they do so without producing any evil profit.