Clean Power = Bird Blender

Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey

[M]assive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.

After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy.

So, where else could the turbines be put? Apparently, nowhere. Cape Cod was considered, but people in the area claim it will cause "visual pollution" (ruin the view, which they pay so much for). Of course, many in cape cod want wind power, but not in their backyard.
So, nice places are off the list.

What about unused/useless places, like the Flint Hills of Kansas, which has apparently seen very little development? Not that, either, as that area is "one of America's few remaining stands of native tallgrass prairie and harm habitats of migrating prairie birds".
So, useless, undeveloped places are off the list.

I know, what about in the ocean, which has no real landscape and where there is no precious, native prairegrass? Nope, that may ruin prime fishing spots. If you put the turbines closer to the shore, and thus not in prime fishing areas, people complain that the turbines ruin the view of the ocean.

Additionally, making the windmills taller would be more expensive, and it's speculative as to whether or not such measures would prevent the shredding of birds.


So, current windmills kill too many birds. Taller windmills are more expensive and may not be different. And, different locations must be preserved because locals don't want their view to be spoiled, or because some unknown and worthless vegetation will be slightly effected. Thus, windmills can not be used on land, higher in the sky, or over the oceans. It seems to me that the only place left to put windmills is underground; sadly, windmills are useless underground, because they are WINDmills.

Dear god, the environmentalists are practically at war with each other! All of their petty, short-sighted, tunnel-vision aided, issues are conflicting with one another. Of course, this has been going on for years, and I noted it before when commenting on an article describing how some humanitarian groups prevent efforts that would improve the lives of tens of thousands of impoverished people (Foreign Policy article, NGOs: Fighting Poverty, Hurting the Poor, is here, and recommended. Free registration required). Foreign Policy magazine has an interesting article by Colin Powell in their January/February 2005 edition, by the way.


What's he lesson from this story? After a bit of research, I find that nuclear power isn't really cheaper than coal, and that coal is getting quite clean. America is believed to have 250 years worth of coal left, if not more, so there is no chance of us running out any time soon. I'm all for renewable energy and a clean environment, but there are limits. My definition of a "clean environment" means no smog, clear, clean air, clean water that doesn't glow uranium-green, and low concentrations of toxins (many of which are natural). However, the US shouldn't cripple itself with BS environmental regulations based on the phantom fear that humanity will run out of resources tomorrow, and that every chemical produced by modern industry is bound to kill people.