Windmills along the lake

[shore things]

I would be very curious about what the output potential for some of the windmills shown would be, particularly if used in the vicinity of the broads. I'd also be curious about clearance radius needed. It would seem the "mariah" type would need the least clearance particularly as it would not need to pivot if the wind direction changes.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

I have no idea whom granitebox was referring to in his post, but people who hold the extreme position that near unanimous research conclusions by climate scientists are bogus in my mind fit the criteria above.

Which "near unanimous research"? The one that supports the concept that humans are creating global warming and there is something we can do to alter it, or the one that supports the concept that any changes in the environment are not directly attributed to human interaction with the planet and that there are no realistic alterations humans could make to affect the course of events?

The global warming debate is quite frankly much like the evolution/intelligent design debates. Both sides have lots of "evidence" and "unanimous conclusions" by respected individuals to support their theories. And, neither side is really interested in changing their views as much as they are interested in trying to change the views of everyone else to coincide with their own.

[fatlazyless]

Looks like the Gilford ZBA decided yesterday that a waterfront home on Smith Cove facing Pig Island and Locke's Island will not need a variance to put up a wind turbine. Just a building permit will be required.

Article in Oct 22 Laconia Daily Sun.

By lowering the height of the tower from 52' down to 38 1/2', the tower and wind turbine will conform to existing Gilford zoning rules. "The town zoning ordinance requires that wind turbines must be set back from property lines by a distance equal to or greater than 150-percent of the height of the system, including the tower and vanes."

Accordng to the Union Leader's 7/27/08 article: "For homeowners, powering with wind mills a tall order," the average wind needed to make it pay is 12-mph, so it's anyone's guess if a shoreline wind turbine can be a money-maker.

Sure, the large wind mills look to be very large.....make that giant industrial size.....while the smaller home owner models seem to resemble an olde fashioned whirly-gig......where a whirling propeller powers up a rower, rowing two oars in a boat, or a farmer milking a cow, or a crow pecking corn...or something.....you get the picture.

Big question here....will these new-fangled wind mill, whirly-gigs ever make your electric meter spin backwards?

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by shore things

I would be very curious about what the output potential for some of the windmills shown would be, particularly if used in the vicinity of the broads.

The wind velocity that appears in ZIP code forecasts is nearly always half of the reality on the lake. This forum's weather guys can elaborate better, but our local winds near the water are shaped (and their velocity increased) by the mountain ranges around us.

[SAMIAM]

I'll probably get tossed for this....but I'll say it anyway. When Exxon had their oil spill, they were fined millions for the death of all the waterbirds. Shopping centers, roads, bridges and condominium projects are stopped immediately if they stumble on a single osprey nest....or an eagle or a spotted owl shows up. ACLU lawyers, with beards and Birkenstocks are all over the airwaves in vein popping rage.............but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

[Just Sold]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

..but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

SAMIAM that is a pretty impressive statement but I have never seen any reports of thousands of birds being killed every day by anything anywhere. I can't believe your statement to be true - I cannot even google any info that supports your statement. Better check your facts and provide confirmation of them unless you are just trolling regarding this subject.

[trfour]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I'll probably get tossed for this....but I'll say it anyway.When Exxon had their oil spill,they were fined millions for the death of all the waterbirds .Shopping centers,roads,bridges and condominium projects are stopped immediately if they stumble on a single osprey nest....or an eagle or a spotted owl shows up.ACLU lawyers,with beards and Birkenstocks are all over the airwaves in vein popping rage.............but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles,hawks and owls every single day,and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

Sam, read on; http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways...omment-page-1/

[Whimsey]

Sadly, Samiam's assertions are accurate. See the article in the Wall Street Journal six weeks ago:

Windmills Are Killing Our Birds -- WSJ article 9-7-2009

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.

Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.

The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies.

"Somebody has given the wind industry a get-out-of-jail-free card," Mr. Fry told me. "If there were even one prosecution," he added, the wind industry would be forced to take the issue seriously.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the industry's trade association, each megawatt of installed wind-power results in the killing of between one and six birds per year. At the end of 2008, the U.S. had about 25,000 megawatts of wind turbines.

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to be producing 20% of its electricity from wind. Meeting that goal, according to the Department of Energy, will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, a 12-fold increase over 2008 levels. If that target is achieved, we can expect some 300,000 birds, at the least, to be killed by wind turbines each year.

On its Web site, the Wind Energy Association says that bird kills by wind turbines are a "very small fraction of those caused by other commonly accepted human activities and structures—house cats kill an estimated one billion birds annually." That may be true, but it is not much of a defense. When cats kill birds, federal law doesn't require marching them to our courthouses to hold them responsible.

During the late 1980s and early '90s, Rob Lee was one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's lead law-enforcement investigators on the problem of bird kills in Western oil fields. Now retired and living in Lubbock, Texas, Mr. Lee tells me that solving the problem in the oil fields "was easy and cheap." The oil companies only had to put netting over their tanks and waste facilities.

Why aren't wind companies prosecuted for killing eagles and other birds? "The fix here is not easy or cheap," Mr. Lee told me. He added that he doesn't expect to see any prosecutions of the politically correct wind industry.

This is a double standard that more people—and not just bird lovers—should be paying attention to. In protecting America's wildlife, federal law-enforcement officials are turning a blind eye to the harm done by "green" energy.

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by Whimsey

See the article in the Wall Street Journal six weeks ago:

Note that this is not an article by a Wall Street Journal reporter, but in the "opinion" section of the Journal written by: Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"

Not to say that he isn't accurate, but just to make sure the source is clear...

cheers -PIG

[Argie's Wife]

I would hazard the guess that automobiles, sliding glass doors, and domestic cats kill many more birds a year than the wind turbines. Maybe we should have no windows, keep indoor cats, and stop driving our cars?

Before someone blows a gasket.... My point isn't that I don't like wildlife and especially birds, but that everything has an unanticipated or unintended consequence on the enviroment in some way. Think about it.

And yes, of course I think that the turbine engineers could do a better job of protecting wildlife and perhaps there's some deterrent they could design so that birds, bats, and butterflies aren't endangered. Fining the companies won't help, though, as guess who really ends up paying those fines? Yup. The consumer.

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

SAMIAM that is a pretty impressive statement but I have never seen any reports of thousands of birds being killed every day by anything anywhere. I can't believe your statement to be true - I cannot even google any info that supports your statement. Better check your facts and provide confirmation of them unless you are just trolling regarding this subject.

I read it recently in either Smithsonian or National Geographic and have since thrown them out. I didn't believe it either.....It had to be the Sept or Oct mag.....probably can be seached on their website.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

I would hazard the guess that automobiles, sliding glass doors, and domestic cats kill many more birds a year than the wind turbines. Maybe we should have no windows, keep indoor cats, and stop driving our cars?

Before someone blows a gasket.... My point isn't that I don't like wildlife and especially birds, but that everything has an unanticipated or unintended consequence on the enviroment in some way. Think about it.

And yes, of course I think that the turbine engineers could do a better job of protecting wildlife and perhaps there's some deterrent they could design so that birds, bats, and butterflies aren't endangered. Fining the companies won't help, though, as guess who really ends up paying those fines? Yup. The consumer.

AW: I'm afraid you have veered into some Common Sense. BUT..We don't need no Common Sense when talking about GW .....or Wind Turbines. It just screws up the argument. Just sayin. NB

[fatlazyless]

Say, didn't that airplane which was ditched onto the Hudson River last January go down due to canada geese clogging both jet engines.

Ya know.....it's never too late for NY Attorney General Cuomo to go and indict that "hero on the Hudson" pilot for birdy manslaughter....or birdslaughter.....7 days incarceration for each dead birdy....operat'n a plane without birdy safety protection in use........ there otta be a law!

After all, birds are better than people!

[Just Sold]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I read it recently in either Smithsonian or National Geographic and have since thrown them out.I didn't believe it either.....It had to be the Sept or Oct mag.....probably can be seached on their website.

Unfortunately neither of these sources have any articles on electric power windmills killing birds that I could easily find on their web sites. Not even Mr Robert Brice's "Opinion" published in the Wall Street Journal (not an article by the WSJ) contained the claim you stated. Prior to my previous post I did search quite extensively in response to your statement "but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles,hawks and owls every single day" and only found the WSJ "Opinion" by Mr. Brice.

I encourage and enjoy everyone's opinion even when it differs from mine but I get irked when people make wild and unsubstantiated claims as some, including you, have made on this site of late. There is enough misinformation to be had elsewhere so please be sure of your sources and facts when making such claims.

FYI: There is a draft report (June 2009) on the birds killed and no Eagles are listed in that report and you can review it here. Even a newspaper article in 2004 did not even come close to the accusation made in Mr. Brice's "Opinion".
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/m...l_kb_study.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...4/ai_n9722887/

[Cobalt 25]

Well put, Just Sold!

Also, weather is not climate, so dismissing global warming because it was colder than normal last Tuesday in Peoria, Illinois, doesn't make much sense.

Peter

[SAMIAM]

I have no axe to grind on this subject, Justsold.......and I don't like your suggestion that I'm playing loose with the facts. You clearly have some kind of an agenda...........I googled up "Birds killed by windmills" and got so many pages, there is not even room to quote them. Thousands of golden eagles have been killed, as well as hawks and owls.
And please don't whine about feral cats.......don't think they could take on an eagle.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I googled up "Birds killed by windmills"

So did I just now, and found this from the top hit:

"Studies at more recently designed wind farms tell us that bird mortality at windmills is very low. A summary indicates that the average number of birds killed annually across North America is between one and two per turbine. "

[SAMIAM]

Read on....Birds and Windmills
The Whirling Blades of Wind Turbines Can be Deadly to Birds
© Rosemary Drisdelle

Oct 25, 2006
Windmills, especially older ones, in the wrong places can cause many bird deaths. Newer technology and thoughtful location of wind farms can minimize the death toll.

Anyone who has investigated the issue of bird mortality and windmills has heard of Altamont Pass, an area of rolling grasslands near San Francisco studded with 4000 wind turbines. Marching across the landscape in platoons and columns, the turbines, each with its whirling blades, resemble supersize barbed wire fencing. Estimates put the number of birds killed annually at Altamont Pass at 4,700, about 1,300 of them raptors (Golden Eagles, hawks, Burrowing Owls and other birds of prey).

Yet Altamont Pass seems to be the worst of the worst. The environment here supports high populations of ground-squirrels, and consequently high numbers of birds of prey. It is also situated in a migratory bird flyway. And because many of the turbines at Altamont are older models, with small rapidly turning blades, any birds that do fly near are more likely to meet with a sudden violent end. New windmills are much taller, lifting the blades above the flight paths of many birds, have larger, more slowly turning blades, and can do the work of four of the smaller turbines



Read more: http://birds.suite101.com/article.cf...#ixzz0V35oM6MG

[SAMIAM]

Those of you who like windmills are welcome have them.....but, please don't try to tell us that they are harmless to birds. You are culling the few stories by supporters that claim the opposite, but anyone can view the information that is out there..........

Windmills Are Killing Our Birds: One standard for oil companies, another for green energy sources.

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont

I've noticed your quotes are mainly about Altamont, CA wind turbines. Ever seen it or been out there? I have. It's huge - to say the least. It's one of the oldest sites of its kind in the US and engineering issues were realized after the installation/implementation of the site. It's been used to study the problem with the impact on birds in the area (and of course all the birds in CA are protected with a migratory bird act.) (Source HERE) I believe engineers today are avoiding doing that again - it's not been good and is supposed to be re-designed in the near future.

There have been design changes to windmills since the installation of Altamont. (Source HERE.) Oh, and they do mention that cats are a bigger threat to birds than windmills, but that windmills are more of a threat to bats than to birds. (So... set up some sonic deterrent that only bats will hear and problem solved...) There's no "whining" there, Sam, just facts.

I seriously doubt that we'll see anything like Altamont in the LR and I'm not going to.... dare I say it?... get my feathers ruffled about a couple of wind turbines in the area that aren't even in place yet. This is a science that's still developing and there's much to be learned. Personally, I think it's great that other resources are being realized and explored.

[ishoot308]

Hi Samiam;

You are 100% correct in your assessment of the Altamont wind farms. The number of bird deaths quoted are actually considered conservative and most likely are quite higher!

Yes, Altamont is the worse by far and the reason for this is it is in a migration route for birds. It was quite stupid to allow wind generating turbines to be used in such a sensitive area. The newer wind farms which are not in migration routes are not nearly as deadly to birds.

FWIW;

Dan

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Read on....Birds and Windmills
The Whirling Blades of Wind Turbines Can be Deadly to Birds

You seen to cite multiple references to the fact that one of the first, oldest, and largest windmill installations has yielded data that shows poorly planned and installed large scale installations can be problematic.

Reading further, there seems to be much agreement that the generation of windmills being installed currently has learned much from these early sites to greatly reduce the impact to bird populations.

[SAMIAM]

Brk-Int......That me be true....I certainly hope so. I don't mean to harp on this so much, but I just don't think it's worth hurting any wild life to power up our homes when there are so many other sources. I'm all in favor of other sources of alternative energy. Solar is great and doesn't anything.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Brk-Int......That me be true....I certainly hope so. I don't mean to harp on this so much, but I just don't think it's worth hurting any wild life to power up our homes when there are so many other sources. I'm all in favor of other sources of alternative energy. Solar is great and doesn't anything.

Understood. I think though that you might be comparing direct measurables, like dead birds on the ground, to less direct factors.

Solar cell manufacturing is a messy, chemical-ridden process. Both for the solar panels, and for the batteries that sit behind them to provide energy storage for when it is dark out. That has a lot of environmental side affects that people don't directly concentrate on.

Coal or natural gas plants have environmental side effects, and so on.

The fact is that there is no "clean" way to power our lives. Electricity is not a naturally occurring phenomenon (eliminating lighting or things that can't be properly harnessed or predicted). The only way to get electricity is to convert some element (wind, sunlight, gas, coal, etc.) into electron movement. Then, we have to carry those electrons through hundreds of miles of cable (made of metals mined from the earth) and through transformers (made of more metal, with various fluids in them), and so on.

To mangle an old Internet meme, every time you load a web page, the power company kills a kitten.

I agree that we should try to minimize the impact we make on the world with our electricity generation and distribution, but we should look at the full impact of various power options, not just the right-in-front-of-your-face impact, which does not always tell the whole story.

[Shedwannabe]

Getting back to a previous Side topic in this thread...

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers". Everyone there (except one person, who was courageous to speak up) firmly accepts that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that humans are causing global warming. The person who disagreed admitted global warming was happening, but was unconvinced how much was due to human activity and how much to natural processes. I spoke with several teachers who were exasperated with people trying to tell their kids to take it on faith that global warming wasn't happening, or who were using "quack scientists" - i.e - those without formal training in climatology - as supposed "experts" . One presenter (I forget his name) works with students and challenges them to a debate about global warming - he allows the students to dispute any part of his presentation, with the only caveat being they have to back up their dispute with scientific evidence. He reports many students do put a lot of energy into preparing for the debate, but then despair because all their points against global warming turn out to be hearsay (or "quackery" directly contradicted by scientific research. Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.

Anyway, science teachers (there) were near unanimous that climate change is one of the most important topics facing youth today, and that appropriate teaching is a high priority. They mostly see "appropriate teaching" as "relying on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that shows climate change is human caused, and needed responses now, before it is too late.

I met one teacher who countered the argument that we can't afford the disruptions to our economy caused by taking action for climate change by noting that changing to a sustainable, green economy would be much better for our economy, when you take into account there would be less pollution control costs, less health costs due our current practice of to not taking into account the health effects of our system of economic production, and less spent on wars designed to continue our inexpensive access to fossil fuels.

So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming...

[Pineedles]

You are a troll!

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Getting back to a previous Side topic in this thread...

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers". Everyone there (except one person, who was courageous to speak up) firmly accepts that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that humans are causing global warming. The person who disagreed admitted global warming was happening, but was unconvinced how much was due to human activity and how much to natural processes. I spoke with several teachers who were exasperated with people trying to tell their kids to take it on faith that global warming wasn't happening, or who were using "quack scientists" - i.e - those without formal training in climatology - as supposed "experts" . One presenter (I forget his name) works with students and challenges them to a debate about global warming - he allows the students to dispute any part of his presentation, with the only caveat being they have to back up their dispute with scientific evidence. He reports many students do put a lot of energy into preparing for the debate, but then despair because all their points against global warming turn out to be hearsay (or "quackery" directly contradicted by scientific research. Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.

Anyway, science teachers (there) were near unanimous that climate change is one of the most important topics facing youth today, and that appropriate teaching is a high priority. They mostly see "appropriate teaching" as "relying on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that shows climate change is human caused, and needed responses now, before it is too late.

I met one teacher who countered the argument that we can't afford the disruptions to our economy caused by taking action for climate change by noting that changing to a sustainable, green economy would be much better for our economy, when you take into account there would be less pollution control costs, less health costs due our current practice of to not taking into account the health effects of our system of economic production, and less spent on wars designed to continue our inexpensive access to fossil fuels.

So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming...

I wanted to make sure you couldn't "edit out your last post. This says it all--teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers". Don't worry Shedwannabe, I overcame the lies that my children were told and they're children will also overcome the lies that "educators" like you try to infuse into our grandchildren. You will lose this battle for our children's minds eventually!

[The Phantom Gourmand]

.....nobody mentions nuclear power. I believe that it is the main source of electric power in many European countries. Are they wrong about it, or are we?

[Cobalt 25]

Thoughtful and informative post, Shed. I'll bet you didn't think your point would be proven so quickly!

In my opinion, the loss of some birds pales in comparison to what is happening right now on our planet. The issue is just a distraction thrown up by obstructionists. We need a variety of alternative sources of energy. I almost can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe we should look closer at nuclear power as well. THAT'S how important this issue is!

Peter

[trfour]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

.....nobody mentions nuclear power. I believe that it is the main source of electric power in many European countries. Are they wrong about it, or are we?

Still seems to be a + - . Kind of an easy known, lookout for the fallout! #1. "Waste Containment, A Big? ! " #2. To attack us and commit mass destruction! Since 911, security, and into the future has taken on a totally new consideration.

Okay, back to # 2! "We need to neutralize al qaeda and any other extremists that are bent on executing innocent people in the world." I am a 65 year old veteran and will very happily re-up to help in the fight!

Not so easy answers in this day and age and God knows that I don't know many of them, I do know that I will continue the fight to bring the best to my loved ones and my beloved United States Of America and what I can!

[Acres per Second]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...Boater, that was a great and thoughtful response..."

It was excellent, and can be read again here.

Originally Posted by NoBozo

"...Portsmouth has plenty of wind.... overlooking Narragansett Bay...the Sailing Capitol of the world..."

Annapolis, MD, might argue that point.

Originally Posted by NoBozo

"...The town "Voted" to do this project. I voted against..but have since become a supporter..."

This could become a trend.

It's troubling to read that France has nearly 60 Chernobyl-style nuclear plants, but no citizen actually voted for them: popular opinion, though largely favorable to nukes, was driven by Government-paid "Info-mercials".

Originally Posted by jmen24

"...Electric solar panels that are large enough to power your home and hopefully backfeed the grid are super expensive including all the components to go with them..."

My BIL (the Maytag repairman) did his roof in solar panels in northern California last year. (Doing some of the installation himself). I've emailed for an update, but I recall that his electric meter often runs backwards—and he spends months RV-camping the US during the "hottest" generating periods that peak the grid best.

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...Those of you who like windmills are welcome have them.....but please don't try to tell us that they are harmless to birds..."

1) Huge bird kills were recorded years ago at the newest TV towers, so even our newest digital TV reception has had unintended consequences. (And the number of towers is increasing!)

2) Two recent oil spills off New England's SE coast killed 600 Loons, so even conventional fossil fuel energy doesn't come without bird-loss costs.

3) Logging in May and June accounts for large numbers of lost birds during the breeding season.

4) I've saved even-worse accounts of bird kills, but quite a few are no longer supported on the Internet.

Originally Posted by travaler18

"...once we run out of oil, its gonna be windmills and sailboats everywhere..."

1) Our Canada and Mexico neighbors are finding new fields, but require more expensive technologies for extraction.

2) We're not going to run out of oil, but we can't $ustain our annual 4% increa$ed u$e of it!

3) Just last week, a sailboat crossed the Atlantic in three days and used no oil. (Hitting 53-MPH ).

The future looks less oil-dependent and, with a planet nearing 7 Billion (7,000-million) people, it's not too soon for wind power, tidal power, solar power and a new look at nuclear.

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

"...So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming..."

...and...

Originally Posted by Pineedles

"...You will lose this battle for our children's minds eventually...!"

ETA:
I think member shore things "nailed it" Wednesday morning—at 4:30 AM!

Illustrator Norman Rockwell stepped away from his usual Americana themes to state MY view best in his work titled, "Russian Schoolroom". (Vicariously, that's "me", the student 2nd-from-right).

[Argie's Wife]

Is anyone else seeing the irony of this thread going 'round and 'round and 'round... like a windmill...?

[SAMIAM]

So much fun......started with windmills and now we're getting the global warming preachers. Next they'll be telling the school children that cro-magnon climate abuse caused the dinosaurs to go extinct.

[Redwing]

I do not see the "Thank you" option on these post, so please suffice it to say that I thank both SAMIAM and PINEEDLES for their insightful responses on this thread.

[Shedwannabe]

As to the idea that there is not consensus on global warming:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements." Wikipedia (Bold added)

For more info on the controversy over global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

(I realize these are just Wikipedia pages, but I doubt anyone wants to read the IPPC report or the RealClimate rebuttal of "deniers"

As to PineNeedles character, he took the time to send me a private email which is as follows:

"Get out of town troll!

Not a respectful message to a fellow Forum user... I realize you do not like your viewpoint being contradicted, but that is not cause to post a disrespectful private message.

[Redwing]

For the sake of a healthy discussion, I wanted to share the following link about Global Cooling, which as many of you may be aware was a great concern in the late 1960s/1970s (you may have to copy and paste into your web-browser).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker17.html

[Pineedles]

And you think calling us and our belief quackery, is respectful?

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Getting back to a previous Side topic in this thread...

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers".
Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.

This post by Shedwannabe is disturbing. It seems as though it is an organized effort to brainwash our kids. What right does a teacher have to countermand a what a parent teaches their child? Next, we'll have kiddie police spying on their parents to report environmental crimes.............Jeesh
Um.....would it be too much to ask, since we are paying you, to stick to teaching and leave politics alone?

[ITD]

I think the only chance the Global Warming movement has of survival is through fear, intimidation by name calling. Any scientist who declare the science is settled is suspect in my book.

One look at the proposed "cap and trade" solution shows that it is actually a huge tax and makes the Al Gores of the world rich while making an insignificant decrease in the supposed greenhouse gases. The impact on our economy and the poorest among us will be devastating if this junk legislation is passed.

Fortunately many if not most of us realize this and are calling out these Global Warmists.

Shed's post about some teacher's personal agendas being pushed in schools should be an eye opener to people without kids in school. It's a confirmation of what I've seen as my kids navigate through the school system. I teach my kids that there are some not so bright and some very bright people who will do and say many things true and false to push their agendas. I teach them to rely on their own instinct and common sense to separate the truth from the BS, it's amazing how resistant they are to the BS.

We're on to you and we're not falling for your fairy tales.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

And you think calling us and our belief quackery, is respectful?

Well, Pineedles, I didn't know that I had accused you of quackery, nor did I know what it mean for sure, so I went and looked it up.

"Dictionaries define quack as ... "one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed." [This] definitions suggest that the promotion of quackery involves deliberate deception, but many promoters sincerely believe in what they are doing. "

"Unproven methods are not necessarily quackery. Those consistent with established scientific concepts may be considered experimental. Legitimate researchers and practitioners do not promote unproven procedures in the marketplace but engage in responsible, properly-designed studies. Methods not compatible with established scientific concepts should be classified as nonsensical or disproven rather than experimental. Methods that sound scientific but are nonsensical can also be classified as pseudoscientific."

So, while I didn't call you this, the definition of quackery fits my understanding of the position you are taking on global warming. Just like the idea cigarettes were not definitely connected to cancer deaths turned out to be a promotion of various parties who had a lot to lose if they were found out, I think the evidence is pretty clear that the idea that global warming isn't definitely a (or the) major problem facing us turns out to be a promotion of various groups (US Chamber of Commerce, fossil fuel firms, etc.) who have a lot to lose if we start listening to and acting on the recommendations of impartial scientists.

My original statement in my first post on this thread was that I found it fascinating that there were still people who admitted they denied that global warming was real. I'm still fascinated.... and amazed... and deeply saddened at what increasingly appears to me to be "stick-head-in-sand" behavior. I find it hard to believe anyone reading (or knowing about) the US Academy of Sciences position, the UN's position, the position of every Academy of Science of every major country with an active research establishment can somehow say "it feels colder this winter, global warming must be bunk". I certainly don't have a degree in climatology, but when all of them are in agreement, worldwide, I trust the scientific research their discipline does, and the conclusions they reach.

[Boater]

Oh no, that evil Chamber of Commerce again. What a nerve they have disagreeing with you and the President. What a nerve they have trying to do what they think is best for small business. They must be stopped. I know they're on Obama's ememies list. Maybe you can outlaw them.

Shed, sarcasm aside please step back a minute and try to understand our skepticism. We're not scientists but we didn't just fall off the turnip truck either. We're not experts but we believe that both sides of this debate should have an open and fair hearing. We don't like being insulted and demeaned just because we reach different conclusions than you. Despite what you say, there are 2 sides to this. The question is not settled simply because you DECLARE it is.

We've watched both An Inconvenient Truth AND The Great Global Warming Swindle. We've noticed that many experts say that Algore's movie is riddled with inaccuracies and fiction. The pictures of Polar Bears in distress are not what they seem. In fact the Polar Bear population is at the highest level ever measured. They are thriving. The cataclysmic scenes in AIT are taken from fictional movies. Many of the cornerstones of Algore's argument are quickly and easily debunked. Much of the "truth" the masses are fed is flawed at best.

We also notice that your predictions are based heavily on computer models. As we know models are based on the data used (garbage in garbage out) and are often wrong. Ever see all the models of which way an approaching hurricane will go? They are all over the place. After Katrina the AGW worshipers predicted that we were entering a period of many horrific hurricanes because of AGW. We couldn't help but notice that those models were wrong too. And we are supposed to blindly believe your long term models?

We also notice many articles like "The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat" published by your friends at NPR. You put a network of thousands of fancy ocean sensors around the world sure that they will show that the oceans are warming. Instead they show the opposite. Instead of pulling back a little and reconsidering your hypothesis you guys say "we must have misinterpreted the data". That shows how politically and ideologically driven this is. Your minds are closed. Ours are open.

This would all be a fun little debate except that you Liberals want to impose huge taxes, bureaucracy and regulation on every business and citizen of this country in the name of AGW at a time when our economy is near collapse (yes, the worst is yet to come). The emerging economies of the world are just not going to go along with this. We'll cripple our economy and the climate will be unaffected.

In my other post I mentioned all the scientists that are now very skeptical of the IPCC conclusions. Even some members of the IPCC are backing away. Lots of climatologists are skeptical. I've spoken to a few. I guess they are all trolls and extremists too. The fact is that only in Liberal organizations like the IPCC is there "near unanimous agreement" and declarations that "the debate is over". The rest of the world is very much split on the issue.

America has really done a fantastic job of cleaning up our act. LA used to have daily smog alerts and now they have almost none. We've cleaned up our rivers and harbors. Even Boston Harbor is now clear. Our cars are efficient and clean. I just replaced my home heating system and increased my efficiency by 80%. We've shut down the smokestacks. We're getting "greener" every day. How about focusing on China and the other real polluters instead of talking like we're the ones that must be punished?

By the way, it appears that you are losing the PR battle. The chart below is from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. It shows that not only people on this site are starting to question this. The doubts from people from all parties is growing. Don't worry though, I'm sure that your friends in the White House are working on ways to IMPOSE massive taxation and bureaucracy on us in the name of AGW despite the concerns of us trolls and extremists. It won't solve AGW, but will make you feel good and help fund even more handouts.

[NoBozo]

LIBERALS are much like The BORG. They are programmed from assimilation, and are not influenced by, or susceptible to Reason or Common Sense. They have no Original Thoughts. To them such concepts do not exist. They don't even recognize the Possibility....They are however, able to Mimic their creators. (Looking in the mirror.) Trying to reason with them is FUTILE. NB

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

I spoke with several teachers who were exasperated with people trying to tell their kids to take it on faith that global warming wasn't happening

I hope you and your buddies keep getting exasperated. The ignorant masses are rejecting your political BS. And while we are on the topic of faith, I guess you and your buddies reject God because it is based on faith?

One presenter (I forget his name) works with students and challenges them to a debate about global warming

Pineedles: Oh good, a college graduate debates K-12th graders on a topic that the teacher is prejudice about! Nice role model! I had a science teacher in 8th grade who presented all the theories of the creation of the universe, including his self admitted own, creation, but I chose to support the Big Bang in a paper. I wasn't penalized for being out of sync with what the teacher believed. I guess that's not the case today, huh Sheddy?

Pineedles: Your exultation of your "most excellent seminar" continues with more of "your Hero's" even more poignant abuse of our children.


Shedwannabe: - he allows the students to dispute any part of his presentation, with the only caveat being they have to back up their dispute with scientific evidence. He reports many students do put a lot of energy into preparing for the debate, but then despair because all their points against global warming turn out to be hearsay (or "quackery" directly contradicted by scientific research. Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.

I spent way too much time on this troll. I don't need to debate, I need to find a way we can fire teachers like you.

[Acres per Second]

My BIL has responded from northern California regarding his solar panels—emphasis mine:

"...The pay-off for the panels will be about 10-11 years and so far this has been 5 years without a bill and a small positive due to our long trips.

"The initial investment was 25k and between the fed and the state we were paid $9000..."

Some thoughts I left off before:

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

"...I have no idea whom granitebox was referring to in his post, but people who hold the extreme position that near unanimous research conclusions by climate scientists are bogus in my mind fit the criteria above...The vast majority of American's are (rightly) worried by the inaction by governments on steps to combat global warming. An influential (and loud) minority work to block efforts to respond, such as at the Copenhagen UN conference this December..."

1) Dr. Morrison's "study" is fatally flawed since extreme views were held by those prone to an addiction.

They receive unwarrented support from addicts who are like-minded. The results would have produced the same result whether caffeine, nicotine or if dopeheads were studied. (Or maybe even those "addicted" to foreign oil)!

Peer pressure would account for "a reluctance in continuing to express their extreme views". (While not changing their views at all).

2) The use of the word "rightly" indicates a mind closed to alternatives. Some examples:

"Nazi Germany was entitled (rightly) to "Lebensraum" in 1938".

"Our present day economy demands that "Keynesian Economics" (rightly) be applied".

3) In our written medium, we can be influential, but not "loud". If it appears loud—it's because one dismisses the minority view.

4) Climate scientists (and their universities) receive paychecks!

("Follow the money". )

Originally Posted by shore things

"...I would be very curious about what the output potential for some of the windmills shown would be, particularly if used in the vicinity of the broads..."

At the old Wolfeboro airport, members Rattlesnake Gal and shore things have reported seeing the 100 acres of the now-defunct "Grandview Commons" development.

That property receives the usual strong NE wind that sweeps nearly the full length of the Broads to arrive there. Now that GC is under foreclosure—and never had much of a "grand" view anyway—a windmill farm seems like "a natural" for there. (And would still keep the present "dog park" atmosphere).

[shore things]

I'm not "on the clock" right now so let me preface this by saying I'm speaking solely for myself at this moment and not my employer.

First, thanks to Redwing for suggesting the concept of having a "healthy discussion". Can we try that?

Second, there is no consensus on global warming. There is consensus that, globally, climates are changing. How the climate is changing depends on your geographic location. Some places are in fact cooler and wetter. While I cannot think of any well known scientist or scientific organization that would dispute that human impacts are complicating the global climate equation. There is certainly debate with regards to just how much of a factor human impact really is given the complexity of the system. As someone who works in the environmental science field I question how anyone can speak in absolutes on this issue. There are too many variables involved. We can't conclusively model the track and intensity of an active hurricane more than a few hours in advance and yet people will speak in absolutes about where the global climate will be in 50 years? To attribute climate change solely to the impacts of human activity is just as irresponsible as it is to say we have no impact. Science has not eliminated all other possible causes for change. We lack the capability to test and prove the theory at this point. When we become so sure of ourselves that we become close-minded (a condition similar to having one's head stuck in the sand...) and forget that we might be wrong (not like it would be the first time...) we stop being scientists and we need to be challenged. Good science does not fear being questioned. Good science is grounded in questions and the ability to tested by them and withstand them. Any scientist that responds to questioning of their work with derisions and insults deserves suspicion.

Causes aside, we know that the climate has changed in the past and it will continue to change in the future. We cannot stop change from happening. If we allow ourselves to believe we are solely responsible for climate change we can then delude ourselves into thinking change is avoidable or reversible, and then we risk failing to be prepared to address changes as they occur. This does not seem like an issue on which we can afford to drop the ball.

Third, why does everything have to be about climate change? There are plenty of other good reasons to explore alternative power. Oil is not a renewable resource; it will run out. It's getting more expensive and money is tight. It funds certain governments that don't like us all that much. It contributes to acid rain. Pick a reason...

Ok…. Done ranting …Can we go back to talking about windmills now?

[Redwing]

The fact is that we don’t know whether the world will cool or warm. If you feel yourself believing confidently in Global Warming, remember that you would have believed in Global Cooling just as strongly in 1975. That climate pendulum is unpredictable and cyclycle.

[Cobalt 25]

shore things,

you stated, "Any scientist that responds to questioning of their work with derisions and insults deserves suspicion."

Does that also apply to members of this forum responding, " I hope you and your buddies keep getting exasperated. The ignorant masses are rejecting your political BS. And while we are on the topic of faith, I guess you and your buddies reject God because it is based on faith?"

and, "I spent way too much time on this troll. I don't need to debate, I need to find a way we can fire teachers like you."

not to mention the previously quoted PM.

I have a bias, of course, but it seems to me that Shed is being much more civil than most of his/her critics. I also believe that the topic of windmills is an excellent opportunity to discuss global warming. I doubt very many peoples' opinions have changed as a result of the discussion, but at least we have a chance to share ideas.

Peter

[shore things]

If it is going to be a discussion then both sides need to keep an open mind and attempt to be respectful. As this thread shows, once one side is disrepectful of the other it becomes personal and escalates, or perhaps degenerates is a better word. The merits and flaws of the real issue are then either forgotten or ignored in favor of easier targets.

[Pineedles]

Ok, I'll try to be respectful. I find it difficult though when one side flaunts their position in influencing our children with their doctrines as absolute. Personally, I would like to see windmills in use more, as well as solar panels. I support alternative energy to make it cheaper though and not because the sky is falling. As for another alternative energy source, natural gas, we have plently of it in the US and therefore as a bridge to oil independence I would like to see this developed.

[birchhaven]

Here is an interesting letter that seems like a good read for this debate, I will just say I am not a scientist but these guys seem to know there stuff
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=164002

also it is important to look at the signatures
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

[Woodsy]

Lots of hostility....

I am with Shore Things on this... we can debate ad nauseum the causes of global warming but no doubt it is real and climate change is happening FAST. Climates are constantly changing, but this usually occurs over thousands of years... sometimes millions of years! We have seen a rapid warm up over the span of less than 100 years!

To think that a population of 7 BILLION humans doesnt have some effect on the planets climate is silly. Millions of tons of pollutants (organic and man made)are spewed into the atmosphere every day... even more from developing countries like China and India who dont have the same environmental concerns & controls we Americans have in place.

The only thing we can do is to strive to minimize the human effect on the planets atmosphere. The US Govt has spent BILLIONS on studying the atmosphere... I have worked on a few of the satellites designed for this.

Solar, Wind, Tidal and Nuclear are all choices that should be on the table! We need to use fossil fuels as a bridge to cleaner energy.


Woodsy

[trfour]

Cow burps, known in polite circles as eructation, emit 200 to 400 quarts of methane gas (each) per day, or 50 million metric tons per year.

Read on; http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...ths-atmosphere

I am 100% for wind power.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

One big reason to not burn up all the oil is we won't be able to make all the plastic stuff we are gonna want in the future. I would have much preferred the stimulus went to green energy projects instead of using up more oil to make all the highways even blacker (to absorb more heat).

Please don't get me wrong, I would have much preferred no stimulus at all.

[JPC]

Did anyone watch Chronicle this evening? They did a segment on the Lempster NH wind mills. I didn't know it but there are 13 wind towers there. It was quite interesting.

[Acres per Second]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

How about a farm at the witches? We could set a good example for the cape and islands.

Writing about "Cape Wind", which is off the shore of the Kennedy and Cronkite compounds at Nantucket, SAIL magazine writes this excerpt:

"...There have been many proposals for offshore wind farms on the U.S. coast, but none to date are operational; Cape Wind is the closest to fruition. So far, U.S. energy companies have opted for land-based wind farms, whereas offshore farms are common in Europe..."

...and...

Cape Wind is supported by the Audobon (sic) Society.

The magazine notes that the Cape Wind permitting process began eight years ago.

[Cobalt 25]

I have been following the Cape Wind fiasco since it's inception. When it was first proposed, my first reaction was that it must be a joke- there's no way it could be approved because it would ruin the Sound.

After reading more about it, I changed my opinion. The objections raised by the antis (The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound) were truly bogus. One by one, the studies during these past 8 years showed that a wind farm at that location would not be detrimental to the environment at all. Yet the Alliance introduced lawsuit after lawsuit in a successful attempt to delay the process.

I have been a big supporter of Ted Kennedy, and this was the only issue upon which I disagreed with him. He has, in my opinion, done a lot for our country, but his position on this issue seemed self-serving. I wish he had changed his position on this before he passed away.

Shameful. In my opinion, shameful is the only word that can describe the obstructionism shown by the antis. And the latest? The permitting process is again on hold because the Wampanoag Tribe claims the windmills will prevent them from being able to practice their religion because they will block out the sun! Their casinos apparently don't count if you are standing on the west side of them in the morning. There is soon going to be a very important ruling on this latest bogus claim in the courts.

8 years. It is amazing what a small group of zealots can do to prevent something like this from happening. Getting Audubon Society approval should be the ultimate testimonial to the value of this project.

Windmills on Winni! A great way to be a leader in new technology to help improve the environment! They're coming folks, like it or not.

Peter