oh the irony. wind power project sued for violating endangered species act

#1

droski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
21,914
Likes
3
#1
The suit accuses the Obama administration of failing to protect endangered birds and whales in approving the Cape Wind project, a set of 130 wind turbine generators to be installed on Nantucket Sound. The suit would mark the first legal challenge to the project since it was approved April 28 by Obama administration officials, who lauded it as a model of renewable energy production.

Wind turbine lawsuit; Cape Wind project - latimes.com
 
#2
#2
I was thinking during his gawd awful speech about windmills to prevent future oil spills how many damn birds are killed by windmills. You can wipe oil off a bird; you can't reassemble them after they've been sliced and diced.
 
#4
#4
I also heard a discussion over the radio recently that companies, like Wal Mart, in places where the switch to wind power energy was being used would expect to pay roughly twice as much for the same amount of energy than they do now.

Couple this with the danger they pose to wildlife and wind energy is neither safe enough, nor very practical economically at this point. I understand the need to make a switch to cleaner and more renewable sources but the price is simply too high and not practical at this point.
 
#5
#5
they are trying to do this with la department of water and power. they want to mandate 20% of all power come from those sources, yet it will raise out electricity bill by 50%.
 
#7
#7
Since there are so many bird stikes on aircraft. Should we shut down all air travel and take the train?
 
#9
#9
I was thinking during his gawd awful speech about windmills to prevent future oil spills how many damn birds are killed by windmills. You can wipe oil off a bird; you can't reassemble them after they've been sliced and diced.

I've seen some rough numbers concerning bird deaths, but I have also seen some numbers that don't seem that bad. It's hard to say where the truth lies.

On a semi-interesting side-note...the cradle to grave carbon footprint of wind and nuclear are actually quite similar, both driven by the steel and concrete required for construction...
 
#13
#13
I'm not an enviro nut, but transferring to renewable energy is a good thing. If it makes economic sense we should do it. However, this concern over windmills killing birds while we have a legit ecological disaster in the gulf is beyond silly. Darwin can take care of birds running into windmills, he can't do much about oil spills.
 
#14
#14
I just want them to put it there because those people would be the first to try and stick a wind farm up in your neighborhood.
 
#15
#15
I'm not an enviro nut, but transferring to renewable energy is a good thing. If it makes economic sense we should do it. However, this concern over windmills killing birds while we have a legit ecological disaster in the gulf is beyond silly. Darwin can take care of birds running into windmills, he can't do much about oil spills.

I agree, but have you seen the subsidies going to "green energy"? The only green involved is the amount of tax dollars being thrown at it.
 
#16
#16
American Thinker: Wind Energy's Ghosts

why try to figure out what goes on in the minds of the enviro-fascists? They support energy systems that are proven failures.

Ried to try to sneak in c & t.

Harry Reid's high-stakes climate bill gamble - Coral Davenport and Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com





I'm not an enviro nut, but transferring to renewable energy is a good thing. If it makes economic sense we should do it. However, this concern over windmills killing birds while we have a legit ecological disaster in the gulf is beyond silly. Darwin can take care of birds running into windmills, he can't do much about oil spills.

Ya think darwin could do anything for delta smelt??
 
#17
#17
the primary problem is that it generates power when we least need it.

The bigger problem is exactly what you point out in your OP. The places with the best wind are also places that environmentalists won't allow development of this kind. IIRC, the best inland wind east of the Mississippi is along the tops of the Appalachian Mtns. The best wind period is offshore.

Law suits would pour down on any effort to use either.

The basic response of liberals seems to be "let them eat cake".

It would be comical if it weren't so maddeningly hypocritical. If the climate/environment alarmists were honest and consistent with their ideals, they could make sufficient personal changes to dramatically reduce America's "carbon footprint". As is typical, they find it much more pleasant to blame others than actually do sacrifice themselves.
 
#18
#18
Darwin can't help birds and neither can Darwinism. Even if his theory worked, there are hard limits on how much species can vary before going extinct.

Wind power is "romantic" but it isn't practical.

I'd like to see more work in thermal and tidal power production.

The best option we have right now is nuclear... even better than fossil fuels if liberals wouldn't demagogue it to death.
 
#19
#19
Darwin can't help birds and neither can Darwinism. Even if his theory worked, there are hard limits on how much species can vary before going extinct.

Wind power is "romantic" but it isn't practical.

I'd like to see more work in thermal and tidal power production.

The best option we have right now is nuclear... even better than fossil fuels if liberals wouldn't demagogue it to death.

:good!:

1. We need to stop pretending that wind power is ever going to be more than a marginal producer.

Wind presently produces 1.3% of US electrical needs yet receives subsidies 25 times as much per megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of electrical production combined.

Wind produced energy has been a miserable failure everywhere it has been tried on a large scale.

Wind is never ever going to be a major producer of electricity and our future projections are unrealistic in the extreme. Insane. It has nothing realistically to do with getting America off fossil fuels or ending our dependency on foreign oil.

2. We havn't brought on line a new nuclear energy plant in over thirty years.

China starts a new one every three months on the average and France gets 80% of it's electricity from nuclear plants.

In over sixty years the US Navy hasn't lost one sailor to a nuclear accident and there have been zero deaths from US commercial nuclear reactors producing electricity.

If proliferation is supposed to be the problem with using nuclear thechnology to produce energy in America then consider that Pakistan, North Korea and India have nuclear arms and it looks as if Iran will have them shortly.

Both Brazil and Venezuela, among others, are talking about using nuclear energy in the near future and none of the above has any more than zilch to do with the USA using proven nuclear energy technology to produce cheap, pollution free electricity.

3. We have 19 million acres in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, it would not hurt to use a few hundred or even a few thousand acres on it's edge to drill and recover oil from that vast reserve of oil. Wildlife would not be endangered one whit. It is a crime against the people of America that this hasn't been done already.

Any mishap such has recently occurred in the gulf wouldn't be a big problem.

4. Rescind the insane ethanol mandates that caused food riots in 20+ countries the year after it started. (Note, poor oppressed Palestine wasn't one of those countries.)

It is itiotic in this day and age to take good farm land out of food production and use it for energy production.

5. Quit kowtowing to enviowackos that take the central valley of California, one of the most productive farming areas in the world, out of production, bankrupting the farm owners and putting thousands out of work to do what?? Protect delta smelt?? If you're worried about delta smelt build a delta smelt hatchery, release millions each year and sell the excess like canned sardines.

6. Tell the followers of darwin to f..k off, it's high time we reintroduced sanity into what is going on these days.
 
#20
#20
I've seen some rough numbers concerning bird deaths, but I have also seen some numbers that don't seem that bad. It's hard to say where the truth lies.

On a semi-interesting side-note...the cradle to grave carbon footprint of wind and nuclear are actually quite similar, both driven by the steel and concrete required for construction...

Does that include uranium mining?

I love nuclear. But I don't see the nuclear renaissance actually occurring without a carbon tax.
 
#21
#21
Does that include uranium mining?

I love nuclear. But I don't see the nuclear renaissance actually occurring without a carbon tax.

That's a very good question. I didn't see the study because it was verbally communicated to me a few days ago. I think that perhaps even more damning to the carbon footprint of nuclear than mining or processing the ore would be enriching the fuel to 3% 235 or so. That is a VERY energy intensive process - so its hard for me to believe wind would exceed it. Therefore, my thought is that the number assumes the fuel comes from down-blended uranium. However, like I said, I haven't seen the study..maybe the carbon footprint from steel in wind is nuts ...
 
#22
#22
:good!:

Wind presently produces 1.3% of US electrical needs yet receives subsidies 25 times as much per megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of electrical production combined.
Yes. And this is where the plot really thickens. The corporations that get the subsidies turn around and donate to the politicians AND the environmental lobby In short, a few connected investors, politicians (typicaly Dems but GOP as well), and the environmentalists get what they want... and the taxpayer foots the bill.

Any mishap such has recently occurred in the gulf wouldn't be a big problem.
If it had occurred on the continental shelf it would not have been a big issue either. The leak would have been stopped within a week.

The biggest problem here is that the environmentalists and ironically the tourist and fishing industries pushed drilling out beyond sight and fishing areas. Now it so deep that we can't get divers down there to work on it.

4. Rescind the insane ethanol mandates that caused food riots in 20+ countries the year after it started. (Note, poor oppressed Palestine wasn't one of those countries.)

It is itiotic in this day and age to take good farm land out of food production and use it for energy production.
Partly right... and you'll love this one...

I live in the Missouri in farm country and learned about the Federal Gov't's CRP program when I moved here. Basically, it is supposed to conserve land while providing a price support to ag prices. In 2009, over 31 million acres of farm land was idled while the owners were paid over $50 per acre NOT TO FARM IT. The payouts alone without considering administration costs were well over $1.5 billion. An acre of corn produces about 150 bushels or so... about 450 gallons of ethanol.

Pretty convoluted, huh?

Even worse, investors (many times people with political ties) got some real sweet heart deals for investinng in ethanol plants. One guy I know (a loyal and connected Dem in the area) invested in a start up plant. He told me the way the gov't mandate was written.... his principle was guaranteed. He couldn't lose money no matter what happened. All he had to do was have more than the $25K in cash.
 
#23
#23
The whole notion of a carbon tax is ridiculous and based on pseudo-science. However, nuclear is cleaner and cheaper. It will happen if enviro-nuts will get out of the way.
 
#24
#24
It would be comical if it weren't so maddeningly hypocritical. If the climate/environment alarmists were honest and consistent with their ideals, they could make sufficient personal changes to dramatically reduce America's "carbon footprint". As is typical, they find it much more pleasant to blame others than actually do sacrifice themselves.

That's a broad brush. For every Al Gore, there is a granola-loving hippie who rides to work on their bike and refuses to own a television or turn on the AC.
 
#25
#25
That's a broad brush. For every Al Gore, there is a granola-loving hippie who rides to work on their bike and refuses to own a television or turn on the AC.

Maybe you have a poll or statistics... but my experience is completely contrary to what you said.

When I lived near Seattle, you almost never saw those types doing those things. They were no slower to hit the AC when the temp got to 80 than anyone else. Seattle has a very, very temperate climate. It rains but not really like you might think. Most days are cloudy with occasional mistings. King Co is overwhelmingly left wing on environmental issues... but they definitely didn't live it.

Saw the same things in Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, and various other places I've visited.

It is a good part of the reason the left wants to tax carbon... to impose behavior change on everyone since it would be "unfair" for them to do it alone.
 

VN Store



Back
Top