logicalview wrote:Wind and solar are anything but efficient and wind isn't even environmentally friendly when you factor in bird kills, noise, pollution generated by construction and environmental costs of disposition. But if all current "environmentally friendy" iniatives were judged this way then no one would drive a Prius either.
Okay. Okay. I really can't stand hearing this same song and dance and please, if you plan to live up to your username, you need to base your argument on a little more or at least bring up some evidence.
I'll approach it point by point.
Kills Birds: Yes, it does, and I hope this is something they can soon fix. But let's put this into perspective, shall we?
According to
http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/pol ... 032212.pdf, an estimated 440,000 birds are killed annually by Wind Turbines in the Unites States of America. That is a whopping number of birds no doubt, and no matter what, it has to come down. But did you know, 80,000 birds are killed every year by airplanes (
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/off ... dogs_N.htm), and between 1 and 9 million birds are killed annualy by flying into buildings in Toronto alone? (
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/world ... d=all&_r=0)
I'm not trying to justify it by any means, just trying to provide some perspective as numbers are just numbers unless you know relatively what they represent. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the United Kingdom feels that appropriately situated Wind Farms pose little threat to birds. (
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/w ... index.aspx)
Noise:
A wind energy trade organization in the UK, "Renewable UK" has said that the noise measured 300 metres from a wind farm is less than that from road traffic or in an office. Where this still might become a problem is even with the quiet sound, some claim it has caused mental and physical complications like vertigo and headaches. I have no sources on this, but I've read it all over the place. The simple solution to this is again, placement. You can't base the noise issues off of complaints from people who have them in their backyard. There are plenty of places we can put wind turbines, and so far the best idea I've seen is large wind farms situated in the ocean many kilometers off the shore in shallow areas to prevent both noise and bird mortality issues.
Pollution (Generated by the construction):
Okay, I really hope you're kidding on this one. You don't even have to read any further to know that any kind of construction creates pollution. This isn't the magical fairy land of far-far-away where some energy sources are pollution-free to build. Let's look at a couple of our alternatives..
- Coal Mines:
"Coal mining can result in a number of adverse effects on the environment. Surface mining of coal completely eliminates existing vegetation, destroys the genetic soil profile, displaces or destroys wildlife and habitat, degrades air quality, alters current land uses, and to some extent permanently changes the general topography of the area mined, This often results in a scarred landscape with no scenic value. Rehabilitation or reclamation mitigates some of these concerns and is required by US Federal Law, specifically the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977."
( U.S. Department of the Interior. 1979. Permanent Regulatory Program Implementing Section 501(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977: Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.)
Here is a beautiful example:
http://thieverycorp.files.wordpress.com ... mining.jpg- Nuclear Power: I don't think I have to go into much detail here. Approximately 10,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste are created every year around the world and must be stored in safe, remote and often geologically deep locations. You can read about it here: Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power. Many would argue that currently it is a very manageable levels as long as it's dealt with responsibly, and there are even methods to reduce the radioactivity down from thousands of years down to hundreds. There is, the obvious construction of these facilities which, no kidding, creates pollution, but apparently that is worth mentioning as you used it as an argument against Wind and Solar...
- Hydro-Electric Power: Again, the construction is quite intensive and with all construction comes pollution. Feel free at any point to indicate what you meant as an alternative when you used this as an argument as I am already annoyed I have to counterpoint it. This is one of the cleaner forms of electricity today, and China has recognized this as they are currently working on something like a dozen or more Hydro-electric projects to reduce their dependence on fossil-fuel powered plants.
The major downsides are that they displace people and wildlife on massive scales. They harm local ecosystems and can devastate fish populations in many situations, depending on location.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... eDam01.jpgI am not sure what you meant by the the "environmental costs of disposition." Feel free to elaborate on that.
In conclusion: If there was an easy answer, we'd already be doing it. You have to look at this with an Investment vs Return attitude. What is it going to cost in regards to money, wildlife, quality of life, pollution, etc.? How much money will it save, how much wildlife will it affect, and how much less pollution will it create in it's lifetime before it has to be replaced? This above-all is the most important thing to look at. It's not black and white and I really dislike how so many treat it that way.