Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development

[AntZ]

Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development

By William La Jeunesse

Published August 16, 2011 | FoxNews.com




As California attempts to divorce itself from fossil-fueled electricity, it may be trading one environmental sin for another -- although you don't hear state officials admitting it.

Wind power is the fastest growing component in the state's green energy portfolio, but wildlife advocates say the marriage has an unintended consequence: dead birds, including protected species of eagles, hawks and owls.

"The cumulative impacts are huge," said Shawn Smallwood, one of the few recognized experts studying the impact of wind farms on migratory birds. "It is not inconceivable to me that we could reduce golden eagle populations by a great deal, if not wipe them out."

California supports roughly 2,500 golden eagles. The state's largest wind farms kill, on average, more than 80 eagles per year. But the state is set to triple wind capacity in the coming years as it tries to become the first state in the nation to generate 33 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2020.

"We would like to have no bird deaths and no bird injuries. But, once again, we have to balance all the needs of society. All the people who want to flip their switch and have electricity in their homes," said Lorelei Oviatt, Kern County planning commissioner.

Kern County has identified some 225,000 acres just north of Los Angeles as a prime wind resource area. Unfortunately, the area's rolling hills and mountains are prime hunting grounds for raptors and a layover spot for migratory birds traveling between Canada and Mexico. The updrafts enjoyed by birds of prey are ideal for generating power.

"I'm not against wind power -- it is a viable form of energy generation -- but it needs to be developed more carefully," Smallwood said.

Case in point: In the Bay Area, when activists in the 1980s demanded a cleaner planet, the state responded with the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The state-approved wind farm, built with federal tax credits, kills 4,700 birds annually, including 1,300 raptors, among them 70 golden eagles, according to biological reports generated on behalf of the owners.

Smallwood said replacing the small, older turbines with larger blades has cut some species fatalities roughly in half.

Oviatt said Kern County is trying to learn from Altamont's mistakes.

"We're requiring full environmental impact reports, which take at least 12 to 18 months," Oviatt said. "Can I promise that a bird will never be injured or killed? I can't. But again, we have this tradeoff in society, between the things we need to function as an economy and the fact that we wanna make sure we have an environment for future generations."

Pine Tree is one of the wind farms in Kern County and is operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. According to an internal DWP bird and bat mortality report for the year ending June 2010, bird fatality rates were "relatively high" at Pine Tree compared to 45 other wind facilities nationwide. The facility’s annual death rate per turbine is three times higher for golden eagles than at Altamont.

"Politics plays a huge role here," Smallwood said. "Our leaders want this power source so they're giving, for a time being, a pass to the wind industry. If you or I killed an eagle, we're looking at major consequences."

Smallwood and others say it is almost inconceivable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, hasn't acted.

"There's a big, big hypocrisy here," Sue Hammer of Tehachapi Wildlife Rehab in Kern County said. "If I shoot an eagle, it's a $10,000 fine and/or a vacation of one to five years in a federal pen of my choice."

She's not far off from the reality.

In 2009, Exxon pleaded guilty to causing the deaths of about 85 migratory birds in five states that came into contact with crude oil in uncovered waste tanks. The fine for this was $600,000.

Likewise, PacifiCorp, an Oregon utility, owed $10.5 million in fines, restitution and improvements to their equipment after 232 eagles were killed by running into power lines in Wyoming.

And in 2005, the owner of a fish hatchery was ordered to serve six months in a federal halfway house and pay a $65,000 fine for shooting an eagle that was feeding at his uncovered hatchery.

Wind power in the U.S. generates 41,400 megawatts of electricity. California represents just a fraction of that total, suggesting the number of raptor kills is considerably higher nationwide. Yet according to records, USFWS has not prosecuted a single company for violating one of the many statutes protecting threatened and endangered birds.

[JoeyB]

This is foxnews trying to do a backdoor dig on alternate energy power. Also, this is not 'new' news. I can tell you I've been active in trying to have safer wind power options for years now. It's a well known problem. Some solutions include better markings on the blades, isolating wind farms away from migratory bird paths, and of course, just plain isolation. Deserts make for great wind farms, if placed correctly to bypass concentrated bird populations and to take advantage of prevailing wind patterns.

EDIT: I also think that solar and even tide-generated water energy are better solutions, overall.

[DemonGeminiX]

A bird once committed suicide by flying head first into the side of my house.

[Griffin]

While golfing I teed off and got a birdie.

...I was still 2 over for the hole though.

[AntZ]

This is foxnews trying to do a backdoor dig on alternate energy power.

I have seen this story trumpeted by every news organization, and by ALL the "not in my backyard" left-wing protesters including the Kennedy family when they used the bird excuse to keep wind turbines from the Martha's Vineyard coast line. When bloated Ted didn't want them to taint his favorite sailing area.

And your first words are an attack on Fox News? :lol:

[Muddy]

I have seen this story trumpeted by every news organization, and by ALL the "not in my backyard" left-wing protesters including the Kennedy family when they used the bird excuse to keep wind turbines from the Martha's Vineyard coast line. When bloated Ted didn't want them to taint his favorite sailing area.

And your first words are an attack on Fox News? :lol:


He's right, homer.. And it's a predictable post from you... :razz:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Wind turbines are expensive to build, they are a blight on the land because they are hideously ugly as well as dangerous to birds, and they are one of, if not THE most inefficient form of 'renewable energy'. At the maximum, a wind turbine only operates at 59% efficiency (and that's under the most optimal of conditions, the ones in the field run way lower than that).

But hey, it's green energy, right? :rolleyes:

[Muddy]

Wind turbines are expensive to build, they are a blight on the land because they are hideously ugly as well as dangerous to birds, and they are one of, if not THE most inefficient form of 'renewable energy'. At the maximum, a wind turbine only operates at 59% efficiency (and that's under the most optimal of conditions, the ones in the field run way lower than that).

But hey, it's green energy, right? :rolleyes:

Just a little devils advocate for you...

I sell a lot of the controls used on these things... I'd wager it puts an extra 5k in my pocket from the commission alone... I love them. :mrgreen:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Just a little devils advocate for you...

I sell a lot of the controls used on these things... I'd wager it puts an extra 5k in my pocket from the commission alone... I love them. :mrgreen:

I hope you donate that money to the needy....people before profits :hand:

[Muddy]

I hope you donate that money to the needy....people before profits :hand:


I do... I donate it to my kids... They are very needy... :D

[JoeyB]

I have seen this story trumpeted by every news organization, and by ALL the "not in my backyard" left-wing protesters including the Kennedy family when they used the bird excuse to keep wind turbines from the Martha's Vineyard coast line. When bloated Ted didn't want them to taint his favorite sailing area.

And your first words are an attack on Fox News? :lol:

Not an attack, statement of fact and intention.


He's right, homer.. And it's a predictable post from you... :razz:

Thank you MuddyGut.


I do... I donate it to my kids... They are very needy... :D

Daddy?

[Jezter]

I definitely support wind energy, but like people have said here, it needs to be developed more and more. To be more efficient and to save the wildlife better aswell. I wonder if they can use some super high pitch sound human's can't hear or magnetic field or something to make sure they don't come too near. Im sure there are ways to make them safer, but as always; money. It is needed for development.

As for eyesore...there are alternative designs too that actually look pretty cool and imagine lots of telephone poles outside your house with many wires strung between them and the occasional transformer on the poles...well, you don't have to imagine them cuz they are there now! Along with those massive constructions along the scenery to carry it from the plants to the local electricity stations etc...They are an eyesore too, but we are so used to them already we don't even notice them anymore.

I think this design is pretty cool:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qp2VAkZDb_c

[AntZ]

Not an attack, statement of fact and intention.



Absolutely! At least you're being fair! I sure do remember you pointing out the extreme left wing bias from every posted news article when the subject in conservative leaning such as gun control, immigration enforcement, and attacks on the tea party!

Your record speaks for itself!

[AntZ]

I definitely support wind energy, but like people have said here, it needs to be developed more and more. To be more efficient and to save the wildlife better aswell. I wonder if they can use some super high pitch sound human's can't hear or magnetic field or something to make sure they don't come too near. Im sure there are ways to make them safer, but as always; money. It is needed for development.

As for eyesore...there are alternative designs too that actually look pretty cool and imagine lots of telephone poles outside your house with many wires strung between them and the occasional transformer on the poles...well, you don't have to imagine them cuz they are there now! Along with those massive constructions along the scenery to carry it from the plants to the local electricity stations etc...They are an eyesore too, but we are so used to them already we don't even notice them anymore.

I think this design is pretty cool:




You know what also happens with these wonderful green wind farms?

It becomes so important for the perception of green energy, power companies will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get the power created from remote wind farms and transport it hundreds of miles so some asshole can say that their house has green energy. But in the process, they will destroy established upper middle class communities with the most dangerous power lines in the country! Wiping out equity people spent years building and wrecking dreams of raising families in clean safe neighborhoods.

Ask Porky, he'll tell you all about it!


FUCK YOU SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON!!!!!!

http://i51.tinypic.com/apix6x.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/29xy9f8.jpg



These 500 KV lines are the largest allowed in the US and have never been installed within a housing development, do we really want them running through a residential neighborhood?

I suggest you inform yourself with some of the facts regarding this project.

1. The proposed towers will be double the height of the existing towers (which, by the way, have not been energized for the last 30 years) yet the exiting easement size will not change. Homes will eventually have to be condemned and removed.

2. Look at the number of homes for sale right now near the easement! People are jumping ship with the hopes of making this someone else's problem, yet little do they know if they don't disclose this project in their disclosure statement, they WILL be liable for any damages including rescission of contract. Home values WILL decrease (even more)during and after the project.

3. There are a number of homes within a few feet of the exiting right-of-way. Many of those homes are pool homes. There have been (successful) lawsuits in the past regarding "stray voltage" induced into water. I doubt there has ever been any study done with these types of lines running within a few feet of a pool.

4. OSHA requires farm workers to stay at least 100 ft away from these high voltage lines, yet occupied homes are allowed to be closer. How does that make sense?

5. Firemen are required to stay at least 200 ft away from these lines. How would have that effected the recent fire storm through the canyon and the general vicinity of those lines next to these homes?

6. These lines are noisy! Every walk along Chino Hills Parkway in the foggy morning? That noise you hear coming from those power lines is "leakage" into the conducting fog. You WILL hear these lines (even without fog)! They will be as loud as a motorcycle at 30 ft away. That "hum" will be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year!

7. Although these lines will be new, they WILL sag in the high temperatures of Chino Hills in the summer time resulting in a much closer then expected distance between the ground and the lines.

8. There have been numerous connections with EMF and diseases such as childhood cancer, Leukemia, breast cancer, Infertility and much more. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...agnetic-fields)

9. Many of the existing homes have Wrought Iron Fences along the easement. These fences (and any type of metal objects such as Pool Poles) can energize strictly from the EMF created from the lines (i.e. Electrocution).

10. You think you have bad TV or Cell phone reception now in Chino Hills? Just wait until these lines go up! In most of those homes along the easement YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE YOUR CELL PHONE in your own home!

I will close with this. If the existing lines have not been energized for the last 30 years, why is it all of a sudden necessary to replace them with BIGGER lines?


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-SCE-Power-Lines-in-Chino-Hills/177745945614678

[FBD]

let's spend a shitload of money on something that will only generate power at certain time, which we will have no control over; when it gets too much we'll have to either dump it cheap or use still way too expensive storage systems; when we need power and its not there, rely on the conventional means that we've been 'trying to get rid of'; needs to be replaced every 10-15 years, while other sources easily last 50, 60 years...

and just for some extra efficiency, let's put each one successively in the other's wake :lol:

http://ict-aeolus.eu/images/horns_rev.jpg



we shouldnt be spending any more than .02% of our energy budget on crap like this.

[Muddy]

These projects are also a learning experience and an experiment into what works, what doesn't, and how we improve it... It all adds up... We cant solely always rely on burning tar for our energy.

[FBD]

that's what fusion is for :dance: once that is viable, we'll laugh at wind turbines and wont build any more of them :D

[Muddy]

Fusion could potentially be a pipe dream... You cant count on that, just like you cant count on the lord to solve all of your problems.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

To be more efficient ...

That's just it, they can't be more efficient


Betz's law is a theory about the maximum possible energy to be derived from a "hydraulic wind engine", or a wind turbine such as the Éolienne Bollée (patented in 1868), the Eclipse Windmill (developed in 1867), and the Aermotor (first appeared in 1888 to pump water for cattle, and is still in production). Decades before the advent of the modern 3-blade wind turbine that generates electricity, Betz's law was developed in 1919 by the German physicist Albert Betz. According to Betz's law, no turbine can capture more than 59.3 percent of the kinetic energy in wind. The ideal or maximum theoretical efficiency n max (also called power coefficient) of a wind turbine is the ratio of maximum power obtained from the wind to the total power available in the wind. The factor 0.593 is known as Betz's coefficient (from the name of the man who first derived it). It is the maximum fraction of the power in a wind stream that can be extracted.

power coefficient = Cp =( power output from wind machine) / (power available in wind )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27_law

[Muddy]

Congrats on the 1000 posts btw, Fbd.. :thumbsup:

[Acid Trip]

While golfing I teed off and got a birdie.

...I was still 2 over for the hole though.

I killed a bird teeing off too. It was a dove so I put it in my bag and cooked it later. Waste not want not.

[FBD]

Fusion could potentially be a pipe dream... You cant count on that, just like you cant count on the lord to solve all of your problems.

Fusion is only a matter of time - "we just keep having these technical hurdles" :lol:

&thx :thumbsup:

[Jezter]

We can't solely rely on renewable energy, but it should most definitely be a bigger part of the whole energy policy. It needs to be resarched and developed . No-one can honestly say it is all well and fine to burn fossil fuels and pump more nuclear waste into Mother Earth.

[Acid Trip]

I definitely support wind energy, but like people have said here, it needs to be developed more and more. To be more efficient and to save the wildlife better aswell. I wonder if they can use some super high pitch sound human's can't hear or magnetic field or something to make sure they don't come too near. Im sure there are ways to make them safer, but as always; money. It is needed for development.

As for eyesore...there are alternative designs too that actually look pretty cool and imagine lots of telephone poles outside your house with many wires strung between them and the occasional transformer on the poles...well, you don't have to imagine them cuz they are there now! Along with those massive constructions along the scenery to carry it from the plants to the local electricity stations etc...They are an eyesore too, but we are so used to them already we don't even notice them anymore.

I think this design is pretty cool:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qp2VAkZDb_c

Imagine if every house had just one of those. There would be no need for the massive wind farms we see now. We keep thinking of renewable energy on a massive scale because that is how corporations think. A couple solar panels and a single wind turbine on every house would make a much bigger impact. Too bad the shit is so damn expensive.

Did you know they now make roof shingles with solar cells built in? Again, very expensive to get right now.

[Jezter]

Imagine if every house had just one of those. There would be no need for the massive wind farms we see now. We keep thinking of renewable energy on a massive scale because that is how corporations think. A couple solar panels and a single wind turbine on every house would make a much bigger impact. Too bad the shit is so damn expensive.

Did you know they now make roof shingles with solar cells built in? Again, very expensive to get right now.

Yeah, solar panels are coming everywhere. There are even some cellphone covers now with solar panels... and car roofs can have them. They are coming as the technology goes forward and components and manufacturing becomes cheaper. That is only a good thing! Also these little turbines to provide electricity for homes/streetlights and so on are a step forward too.

[Muddy]

I think the major drawback in solar is they haven't made an efficient solar cell yet...

[Jezter]

I think the major drawback in solar is they haven't made an efficient solar cell yet...

That is changing very very rapidly as the technology has gone forward and manufacturing has become cheaper and easier. And they can be put in more versatile places. Plus, they now have some nano-antennas in them that can gather power from infrared during nighttime with well over 40% efficiency. So day and night it will be pumping free energy into your home. Neat!

[Muddy]

I heard a solar paint may be in the works soon... Just paint a side of the garage and connect some anodes...

[Jezter]

I heard a solar paint may be in the works soon... Just paint a side of the garage and connect some anodes...

Yep, they have this thing called "Light-Absorbing Dye" that makes it easy and cheap.

[Acid Trip]

Yep, they have this thing called "Light-Absorbing Dye" that makes it easy and cheap.

That's the complete opposite of the paint I have. It's called Insuladd® Thermal Barrier and you add it to regular paint to give it heat/light reflection properties. My summer cooling bills dropped about $20 a month.

[JoeyB]

Your record speaks for itself!

My 'record', how accusatory. But, it does and thank you!

[Deepsepia]

This is foxnews trying to do a backdoor dig on alternate energy power. Also, this is not 'new' news. I can tell you I've been active in trying to have safer wind power options for years now. It's a well known problem. Some solutions include better markings on the blades, isolating wind farms away from migratory bird paths, and of course, just plain isolation. Deserts make for great wind farms, if placed correctly to bypass concentrated bird populations and to take advantage of prevailing wind patterns.

EDIT: I also think that solar and even tide-generated water energy are better solutions, overall.

thumbsup to JoeyB for nailing the spin of this story and adding accurate facts.

You will search through the Fox Nation forever to find, for example, a report on the impact of habitat destruction on birds.

In this case, greens like wind power, turbines do kill some birds, Fox wants a "slur o'the day" for renewable resources, and thus you get this story.

As JoeyB also notes, there are plenty of places to stick windfarms that have relatively small bird populations in the first place (in the Southern California desert, near Indio, comes to mind).

In my state, wind is now generating a lot of power -- 1.9 gigawatts, with another 800 MW under construction . . . looking at what's built and under construction, you've got power equal to 3 of the largest nuclear power plants. There's probably another 10 gigawatts or so of practical windfarms you could do here.

We're also very big in hydro (the Grand Coulee dam produces 7 Gigawatts of power) -- I believe we're the largest "exporter" of electricity, almost all of it generated by renewable resources.

[JoeyB]

thumbsup to JoeyB for nailing the spin of this story and adding accurate facts.

You will search through the Fox Nation forever to find, for example, a report on the impact of habitat destruction on birds.

In this case, greens like wind power, turbines do kill some birds, Fox wants a "slur o'the day" for renewable resources, and thus you get this story.

As JoeyB also notes, there are plenty of places to stick windfarms that have relatively small bird populations in the first place (in the Southern California desert, near Indio, comes to mind).

And I was only pointing out the bias. If I really wanted to slam fox news I would have suggested the ideal place for a wind farm would be their studios, what with all the hot air blowing about.

[Acid Trip]

thumbsup to JoeyB for nailing the spin of this story and adding accurate facts.

You will search through the Fox Nation forever to find, for example, a report on the impact of habitat destruction on birds.

In this case, greens like wind power, turbines do kill some birds, Fox wants a "slur o'the day" for renewable resources, and thus you get this story.

As JoeyB also notes, there are plenty of places to stick windfarms that have relatively small bird populations in the first place (in the Southern California desert, near Indio, comes to mind).

In my state, wind is now generating a lot of power -- 1.9 gigawatts, with another 800 MW under construction . . . looking at what's built and under construction, you've got power equal to 3 of the largest nuclear power plants. There's probably another 10 gigawatts or so of practical windfarms you could do here.

We're also very big in hydro (the Grand Coulee dam produces 7 Gigawatts of power) -- I believe we're the largest "exporter" of electricity, almost all of it generated by renewable resources.

"Of all the impacts that caused extinctions of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead, dams were the most significant. And the most significant of the dams, at least in terms of the number of known runs that were extinguished, is Grand Coulee. The dam wiped out runs that spawned in tributaries that drained into the Columbia from that point, river mile 596, to the headwaters, a distance of 645 river miles."

http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/grandcouleeimpactsonfish.asp

I think the whole point is that green energy isn't as green as it's made out to be. Dams destroy fish populations and wind turbines kill birds. Are these losses acceptable for the overall gain? That's the real question and highly debatable.

[Muddy]

"Of all the impacts that caused extinctions of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead, dams were the most significant. And the most significant of the dams, at least in terms of the number of known runs that were extinguished, is Grand Coulee. The dam wiped out runs that spawned in tributaries that drained into the Columbia from that point, river mile 596, to the headwaters, a distance of 645 river miles."

http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/grandcouleeimpactsonfish.asp

I think the whole point is that green energy isn't as green as it's made out to be. Dams destroy fish populations and wind turbines kill birds. Are these losses acceptable for the overall gain? That's the real question and highly debatable.

It's probably an acceptable loss seeing as the thirst for oil has killed millions of people. Birds or people? hmmm.

[Deepsepia]

"Of all the impacts that caused extinctions of Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead, dams were the most significant. And the most significant of the dams, at least in terms of the number of known runs that were extinguished, is Grand Coulee. The dam wiped out runs that spawned in tributaries that drained into the Columbia from that point, river mile 596, to the headwaters, a distance of 645 river miles."

http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/grandcouleeimpactsonfish.asp

I think the whole point is that green energy isn't as green as it's made out to be. Dams destroy fish populations and wind turbines kill birds. Are these losses acceptable for the overall gain? That's the real question and highly debatable.

Nothing is without tradeoffs, but the Fox News slur o'the day is a non stop shill for fossil fuels, and the dirtiest technologies.

The Columbia Dams did dramatically reduce the salmon runs (though recently they've been surprisingly large). But they're clean -- Columbia River water isn't polluted as it would be from, say, coal mining or oil sands development (compare what's happening in Canada with the Athabasca -- which will be destroyed-- to the Columbia, which has lots of fish, lots of waterfowl, lots of good hunting and fishing for sportsmen. There are many salmon and steelhead runs in the Northwest . . . those on the Columbia are diminished by the dams, no doubt, but when the Columbia River reaches the Pacific its not a sludge pit, and so you have many fine and healthy runs.

So while neither hydro nor wind power are pristine --nothing is pristine-- they are vastly cleaner than the alternatives.

And of course, they employ lots of Americans, including tens of thousands to construct them at the height of the Depression, and don't deplete some limited resource, and don't result in us paying middle Eastern countries billions .. .

[Acid Trip]

And of course, they employ lots of Americans, including tens of thousands to construct them at the height of the Depression, and don't deplete some limited resource, and don't result in us paying middle Eastern countries billions .. .

You could say the same thing about nuclear power. Energy creation is like cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol. What side effects are we willing to deal with and which are unacceptable?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

You know what also happens with these wonderful green wind farms?

It becomes so important for the perception of green energy, power companies will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get the power created from remote wind farms and transport it hundreds of miles so some asshole can say that their house has green energy. But in the process, they will destroy established upper middle class communities with the most dangerous power lines in the country! Wiping out equity people spent years building and wrecking dreams of raising families in clean safe neighborhoods.

Ask Porky, he'll tell you all about it!






http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-SCE-Power-Lines-in-Chino-Hills/177745945614678

This is what I get for going green :(

[Deepsepia]

You could say the same thing about nuclear power. Energy creation is like cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol. What side effects are we willing to deal with and which are unacceptable?

I support nuclear power for that reason. It has to be done very carefully, and with a permanent waste repository, and a continuing investment in improving the technology but on an environmental cost/benefit basis it looks like a good deal.

Fukushima does give me some pause-- we've now had meltdowns or near-meltdowns in the US, Russia, Japan . . . doesn't make me feel great about the risk, but I think its still a relatively young technology (and the reactors that failed of now very-old designs)



Energy creation is like cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol. What side effects are we willing to deal with and which are unacceptable?

No, with cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, the costs are paid by the individual, not society. You want to smoke-- there's very little impact on me. Same with drinking, smoking a joint.

Perfectly reasonable to allow individuals to choose their own risk/pleasure tradeoff.

Energy is different-- there's no way for me to choose solar and you to choose shale oil.

[Acid Trip]

Energy is different-- there's no way for me to choose solar and you to choose shale oil.

Sure there is. I've seen entire house powered by solar and/or other alternative forms of energy. The downside to them is that they usually have massive battery stores to hold excess energy until it's needed. The rare earth materials used in batteries aren't exactly green in how they are extracted (see China).

I happen to know that my house is powered by coal. I could choose to not use public utilities and go at it on my own. Like I mentioned before, alternative energy is exceedingly expensive and not something I'm ready to take on. I could cover my roof in solar panels and produce approx 60% of my energy needs but it'll set me back $75k. I'm sure I could find the other 40% in wind but who knows how much that would add to the tab.

For now I'll stick to my coal powered, utility company driven electricity (100% American made) until a more viable option is available. Getting away from natural gas for heat is another story in itself.

[Deepsepia]

Sure there is. I've seen entire house powered by solar and/or other alternative forms of energy.

And if this solar power house is in the Powder River basin in Wyoming, it'll be trashed by the coal industry.

This individual choice doesn't insulate the individual from the pollution caused by others, so we need systemic responses. Energy infrastructure can have some "micro" components, but big things are systemic, not individual:

You can't build a dam "on your own" on a major river.

These are systemic choices with systemic costs and benefits.

You choosing to smoke -- so long as I don't have to breathe it or pay for it -- is your business.

Deciding whether we want more coal, or more hydro is the nation's business.

[Acid Trip]

And if this solar power house is in the Powder River basin in Wyoming, it'll be trashed by the coal industry.

Your individual choice doesn't insulate you from the pollution caused by others.

You can't build a dam "on your own" on a major river.

These are systemic choices with systemic costs and benefits.

You choosing to smoke -- so long as I don't have to breathe it or pay for it -- is your business.

You have a choice to not live in the Powder River basin in Wyoming correct? Or is your argument that one coal plant affects the entire planet in an undesirable way and is therefore unacceptable?

Coal power was the first mass produced form of energy that lead the way to innumerable technological advances. We'll eventually get away from it but that will take time. Like I tell the few liberal friends I have "Rome wasn't built in a day". We get more energy from green sources today than any other day in history. We are slowly headed in the right direction.

The more the green people force the issue the more backlash they'll get. Look throughout history and that's a common theme.

[Deepsepia]

You have a choice to not live in the Powder River basin in Wyoming correct? .

What if its where you live?

Folks move to places like Wyoming because they're pristine. So you move there, build your solar powered house, and a massive coal project trashes the place you moved to and destroys the amenity you valued.

This is a case where libertarianism "individual choice" model doesn't make sense.

There are always going to be environmental trade offs, but they have to be made at a systemic level, individual choice doesn't get you anywhere.

[Jezter]

I
Fukushima does give me some pause-- we've now had meltdowns or near-meltdowns in the US, Russia, Japan . . . doesn't make me feel great about the risk, but I think its still a relatively young technology (and the reactors that failed of now very-old designs)

And solar/wind/tidal/geotherm isn't!?