What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
240 Comments
- keysersoze1, on 10/11/2007, -10/+325this is as crazy as banning dihydrogen monoxide, but it wouldn't surprise me if it went through.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+306Nick Rahall (D-WV) is from West Virginia. They produce coal. What do you expect?
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -2/+195Exactly. We need to ban the use of bear energy.
- redrock34, on 10/11/2007, -9/+154I blame the wind industry for not lobbying more often.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+125FTA: "The fact is, of all bird deaths, only .003% are a result of wind turbines, that’s 3 wind turbine related death out of every 100,000 bird deaths. And the wind industry is currently funding many different collaborative research programs to help put a stop to these unfortunate bird deaths."
- How many of all human deaths are caused by bear attacks? - tomgraywind, on 10/11/2007, -1/+123-redrock writes: I blame the wind industry for not lobbying more often.
Good point, but we are still a small industry. Up to this year, our association had only two legislative staff. That's changing, but we'll still be vulnerable to this sort of harassment for a while.
-donkeydrop writes: Oh, wait, wind farms should be held to the same standards as other energy sources? Shock!! You can't be serious!!!!
Actually, this bill would put new wind farms under much stricter wildlife standards than, oh, say, mountaintop removal mining, just to pick a random example. If you think that makes sense, then we disagree. See http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Anti_Wind_Provision_in_Rahall_Bill_052307.html for background info, http://capwiz.com/windenergy/issues/alert/?alertid=9773201&queueid=%5bcapwiz:queue_id%5d to oppose Subtitle D, the anti-wind provision.
Regards,
Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
http://www.awea.org
http://risingwind.blogspot.com - lordmetroid, on 10/11/2007, -2/+97How many bird dies from window collisions on houses and cars? Better ban windows!
- bmartin, on 10/11/2007, -3/+90My parents' cat kills about a dozen birds a year. Better ban cats!
- gormenghast, on 10/11/2007, -6/+85I totally agree. Don't you wish everyone would just shut up and accept federal corruption, instead of trying to expose it? Wouldn't life be easier? Shame on you, Digg.
- kingfoot, on 10/11/2007, -11/+81anyone else notice the bill # is 1 number away from being "leet"?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+64Humans kill more humans than wind turbines kill birds...quick, ban humans!
- NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+60Is this because they "THINK" (no proof whatso ever) That wind turbines might kill a few birds here and there??? Thats not a reason to ban wind power... -_-
Cars kill more birds a year than wind turbines do... and Airplains kill more birds than wind turbines do... and the toxic fumes comming off of Coal plants kill more birds and other animals than wind turbines would ever kill... XD
So shut the ***** up crazy bird lovers, your birds will be perfectly fine... (Somehow I think this is not so much environmentalists against wind power, as it is conventional energy companies against wind power... -_-) - talan64, on 10/11/2007, -8/+64Read the WHOLE thing first:
Sec 103.b.2.B "identify opportunities to improve access to the national electric power grid for generators of renewable energy, such as wind and solar."
Also Read Subtitle D:
In a nutshell, don't put a bunch of wind turbine next to the pond where all the Canadian Geese land when they fly south.
Please just read the whole resolution for yourself don't take someone elses "word" for it! - tomgraywind, on 10/11/2007, -2/+53-loungechair writes: They've already done this where I live (Essex county, Ontario). Apparently the noise from the turbines is just too much for people to handle, and birds are being eviscerated in high numbers after flying into the turbines.
You have to be kidding. References please. There are tens of thousands of turbines installed worldwide, many in densely populated, environmentally sensitive countries like Denmark and The Netherlands.
Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
http://www.awea.org
http://risingwind.blogspot.com - glmory, on 10/11/2007, -4/+54This has to be fake. Even politicians can't be that dumb......
......
......
Seriously though, I would feel a lot better if someone could link me a non blog version of this story. This is the worst idea I have heard in ages, before I send a letter to congress I would like to make sure it is not a hoax. - smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -7/+57This is about the craziest ***** I've seen. I can't wait to watch these jokers on C-SPAN. Bet it passes though.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+45From:
http://tinyurl.com/yqxw9o
“In the United States in 2003, wind generators accounted for only three-thousandths of 1 percent of bird killings — no more than 37,000 birds. That same year, possibly as many as a billion birds died in collisions with buildings, and electrical power lines may have accounted for more than a billion more deaths, the report said. And domestic cats were responsible for the demise of an estimated hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species every year.”
“In the eastern United States, up to 41 bats are killed annually for every megawatt of wind energy generated along forested ridge tops, the report said. In Midwestern and Western states, the number is lower, no more than 9 dead bats per megawatt. Unfortunately, poor statistics about the size of bat populations — which are notoriously more elusive than birds — make it hard to estimate how severely such kills affect bat populations, the report said.” - modifiedbears, on 10/11/2007, -1/+44I'm sure those birds just frolic in the fumes produced by coal.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+51Based on his position on this windfarm proposed for Cape Cod, Teddy Kennedy sure better support this ban if he doesn't wanna be a flip flopper.
- hbweb500, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36This will not pass. As readthis said, this bill was introduced by a politician from West Virginia. West Virginia is a major producer of coal. Obviously this is a local interest, and not the opinion of a large group of politicians in the federal government.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+44
Jesus ***** Christ, we're worried about bat kills?
Tell you what, if they let the wind turbines continue, I promise to stop target shootin the bats in my barn. That's 200-300 bats a year. And I'll stop plinkin the ***** grey squirrels in the backyard, theres another 100 or so varmints for ya. - Syvl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+30from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Impact_on_wildlife
"Onshore and near-shore studies show that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is negligible compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities such as traffic, hunting, power lines and high-rise buildings and especially the environmental impacts of using non-clean power sources. For example, in the UK, where there are several hundred turbines, about one bird is killed per turbine per year; 10 million per year are killed by cars alone.[54] In the United States, onshore and near-shore turbines kill 70,000 birds per year, compared to 57 million killed by cars and 97.5 million killed by collisions with plate glass.[55] Another study suggests that migrating birds adapt to obstacles; those birds which don't modify their route and continue to fly through a wind farm are capable of avoiding the large offshore windmills,[56] at least in the low-wind non-twilight conditions studied. In the UK, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) concluded that "The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds."[57] It notes that climate change poses a much more significant threat to wildlife, and therefore supports wind farms and other forms of renewable energy." - Niten, on 10/11/2007, -1/+30I'm willing to guess that far more birds are affected by pollution from coal plants, than are killed by wind turbines.
- noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -10/+38This is absolutely rediculous. The coal industry needs to quit bitching about progress and maybe focus some effort on the next best thing. Do they not realise how much wind energy they could pump out of those mountains? If they put some money and effort into converting they would never feel any effect from the coal industry cutting back.
- Jayg28, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27Last 4th of July while I was watching the fireworks a dieing bat fell out of the sky right in front of my family and I. I guess we should look into banning 4th of July fireworks too.
- tomgraywind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22Thanks for the good info. Bat kills are a legitimate issue that is currently the subject of a bat research program that is jointly funded by Bat Conservation International, several wind power companies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. More info about this at http://www.awea.org/news/news040303bat.html.
At the moment, the research is focused on testing a sonic deterrent that would warn bats away from wind farms. Much more testing and engineering work needed before it can be declared a solution.
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
http://www.awea.org
http://risingwind.blogspot.com - Branyers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22On a serious note, don't shoot bats. They are harmless and quite beneficial at controlling insect pest populations.
If you have to shoot something, shoot starlings, blackbirds, and pigeons. In all likeness, you're more apt to contract illness from these useless flying ratbirds. - magic6435, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24Thank God someone read the damn thing!
- tomgraywind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20@loungechair
OK, thanks very much for providing the link. I did see this story when it was originally posted, but had forgotten about it. It seemed to me that it was aimed more at small wind turbines. For the record, although there definitely have been complaints about sound from neighbors of some utility-scale wind projects, it's not something we consider a major show-stopper--typically, you can stand at the base of an operating turbine and carry on a conversation with someone in a normal tone of voice. On the issue of birds, there's never been a large-scale migratory bird kill in North America to my knowledge. Also, industry has pushed for what we think are lighting schemes least likely to attract birds (red flashing lights), although certainly a major factor in that has been that those schemes are also least obtrusive to project neighbors. By contrast, the tall communication towers which have been responsible for some large-scale kills have steady-burning lights (which can disorient birds in foggy conditions) and huge lengths of guy wires with which birds can collide.
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
http://www.awea.org
http://risingwind.blogspot.com - MentalHygiene, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21Can anybody blame a wildly rich person for fighting for their view?
As far as bird killings go, the turbine are working on ways to avoid it. The higher capacity turbines are pretty much zero threat to birds.
Anyway, I never hear any millionaires bitching about birds when they charter their private jets. - ChrisTek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18@glmory:
From the Library of Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02337: - tomgraywind, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Good thought, but the fact is that geese are rarely if ever killed by wind turbines. There is something about their behavior that makes this a very unusual event. The offending part of the bill is indeed Subtitle D. More background information, including our written testimony on the bill (we were not asked to testify on it in person) and a list of state wind siting regulations already in place, at http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Anti_Wind_Provision_in_Rahall_Bill_052307.html. To take action to oppose this misguided legislation, go to http://capwiz.com/windenergy/issues/alert/?alertid=9773201&queueid=%5bcapwiz:queue_id%5d">.
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.awea.org
risingwind.blogspot.com - vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16A spinning or rotating wind turbine generates air turbulence. Granted the turbulence (and/or vortices) probably isn't what we see from wingtip vortexes generated by aircraft ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=_vyXkD8TVUQ , http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20051111.htm , http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20060808.htm ), but the birds -- or for that matter, any members of the animal kingdom that are dependent on winged flight -- surely have natural, built-in capabilities to sense and handle disturbances in the air.
So unless a bird or insect is (a) having a very, very bad day, e.g., sensory system malfunction, or (b) dealing with fluid dynamics/mechanics beyond its control, said bird or insect isn't normally going to deliberately fly into, or try to land on, a spinning wind turbine or propeller. For example: What happens to the bird (or winged insect) population when NASA launches the space shuttle? Why they up and fly/move away! Of course they aren't happy with the noise and interruption. However, I have yet to see or hear about any of them deliberately flying into the path of the space shuttle. If there is an encounter between a winged insect/bird and the space shuttle (or aircraft for that matter), it's certainly not because the winged creature desired it -- it just couldn't get out of the way!
Now, common sense dictates that we should not, nay we must not, build wind farms at migration sites, nesting sites, etc. etc. etc. And also there might be height restrictions we need to be sensitive too. But with the knowledge and science we possess today -- come on folks! -- all of things are easily solved. Let's not over-complicate this politically or scientifically which would make this cool technology unnecessarily expensive. Wind farms and wind farming should be readily accessible to anyone.
There's plenty of wind to go around for everyone. And plenty of place to harness it from without stepping on the human or animal or insect "toes" -- or wings. - CedEx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18How many birds does KFC and Popeyes kill?
Better ban fast food chicken places! - xxTazxx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18I wonder what Big Bird would have to say about this topic.
- mckirkus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14My guess is that the corn lobby wants the Dems to push Ethanol exclusively, even though Ethanol is not great for the environment when you look at the energy required to produce it.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20@jcm, this is a House committee. Chairman is in the pocket of the coal industry. And more importantly, Kennedy is a Senator, and will never vote on this particular ban unless there's an equal black-lung proponent in the Senate.
Think first, comment second.
@noahhoward, I think the coal industry would use wind power in the mountains only to the extent it helped power their mountain-clearing digging machines. But alas, those all run on diesel. - TheMadRhino, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Ethanol's only good for one thing, and it ain't energy
- meldroc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15That would be a huge screen, and the screen would likely reduce the efficiency of the turbine.
Personally, I prefer building bigger turbines, with longer blades - that way, they turn more slowly, and birds will be able to avoid them. - ckengel, on 10/11/2007, -7/+19I have a *brilliant* ***** idea.
Why not encase the turbines in a screen-like container like general consumer fans?
The negative aerodynamic impact would be minimal, and the dumb animals would go about their naturally selective paths. - Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I read most of it, and have yet to find anything incriminating; however you know how those sneaky politicians can be.
- foolfromhell, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13http://www.dhmo.org/
Its in all out waterways! - chuyskywlk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Full text of the important section to read: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Exl2Jx:e49470:
Quote: "No person may construct or operate a wind project unless the Director has issued a certification that the project will be constructed and operated in compliance with the standards"
So remember, unless you get expensive wildlife surveys done, set up post-build monitoring equipment to track the number of poor hapless birds that hit your big fan, AND you get Mr. Director to sign off that you've been a good boy about it, you'll be liable for fines up to $50,000 or even a year in jail. - thelastknowngod, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15@ keysersoze1 - you must have also seen the one about how valuable nuclear energy is. ive been thinking for years that we are dumb for not using nuclear power. it would be awesome if both the government and the rest of the us population would realize this. plus its safer and cleaner than mining coal.
- way2muchsense, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Tell ya what. In Hamilton, NY, home of Colgate University, there is a wind farm running along a ridge. Go there and see if you can find any dead birds. Get back to me.
- RonPaulPres2008, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I don't see how it's clever exactly, it is a blatant way to line pockets.
- loungechair, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9@tomgreywind
This is the article that was in the local paper, but you have to pay to register to be able to read more than the first sentence.
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=7bb3fe75-a0c8-40ca-8549-5bf9ac52f7c8
Here's a blog with the full story. I included the first link only so this doesn't look totally illegitimate, since it's just some guy's blog.
http://windsorinb.relyon.ca/?q=node/227
Note that this ban isn't just on large scale wind power farms, you can't even buy a home kit to put up in your yard. Sadly, this isn't the stupidest thing that this municipality has done, but it's the only directly relevant one. - Netrilix, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Silly Cedex, those places don't use real chicken. ;-)
- tomgraywind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9@glmory
Regrettably, it is not a hoax. See http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Anti_Wind_Provision_in_Rahall_Bill_052307.html for background info (this page includes our news release on the bill, a link to our written testimony to the committee considering it (we were not asked to testify in person), and a link to a table that shows how many states already have regulations on siting wind projects. Visit http://capwiz.com/windenergy/issues/alert/?alertid=9773201&queueid=%5bcapwiz:queue_id%5d to oppose Subtitle D, the anti-wind provision.
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
http://www.awea.org
http://risingwind.blogspot.com - tomgraywind, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9@vroom101
The ban referred to is on new wind farms, which cannot be built and operated after the date the bill is passed until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) establishes a certification program. The bill calls for this to happen in 180 days. That doesn't sound terribly onerous, but:
- Imagine that you work for a company that makes towers for wind turbines. At the very least, that is six months with zero revenue. The company will have to lay off you and most of its other employees until the agency acts and new business begins flowing again.
- 180 days, far from being a guaranteed length of time, is in reality a minimum. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which transferred responsibility for regulating offshore wind to the Minerals Management Service (MMS)--another federal agency that, like USFWS, is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior--required MMS to come up with regulations within 270 days (9 months) after enactment. The bill became law in August, 2005. It is now May, 2007--*21 months* later--and the most recent word from MMS is that they hope to be finished by sometime this fall.
- Further, USFWS issued guidelines for avian protection at wind farms in mid-2003. We have been talking with them for the past two or three years about setting up a formal process for reviewing the guidelines, and they've been moving toward one since mid-2005. The first meeting still hasn't taken place--not because they are deliberately dragging their feet, but because of all of the legal hoops and hurdles they have to go through.
- The ban also applies even to existing wind turbines, effective 6 months after a certification program is set up. This means that USFWS will have just 6 months to certify thousands of turbines (the bill also covers ALL wind turbines, including small residential units), or those machines must be shut down.
See http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Anti_Wind_Provision_in_Rahall_Bill_052307.html for more background info, http://capwiz.com/windenergy/issues/alert/?alertid=9773201&queueid=%5bcapwiz:queue_id%5d to oppose Subtitle D, the anti-wind provision.
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
http://www.awea.org
http://risingwind.blogspot.com -
Show 51 - 100 of 241 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is