Sometimes green solutions are not entirely green.
We learn today that wind turbines cause low pressure, leading to barotrauma and internal hemorrhaging in bats. This causes them literally to explode. Bats ordinarily play an important role in the ecosystem because they limit insect populations.
Apparently, there is the potential to lose millions of bats due to this phenomenon.
The operators have to turn the turbines off when wind speeds are slow to reduce this effect on bats; but this cuts energy production, and some bats even then are still killed.
This represents a potential spat between two groups of progressives. Which of the two should win on this conflict? Those that push green energy alternatives; or those that protect biodiversity and the viability of animal populations at all costs?
Perhaps we ought to let them fight this one out.
Holy Kilowatt Batman. It's the Joker and the Penguin . Yikes , they got a a wind turbine.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 24, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Just another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Posted by: Ken Hill | March 24, 2009 at 07:03 AM
I think it's safe to say, we should stick with fossil fuels. Mine Earth down to hell. We really shouldn't even consider wind energy, solar energy, or any other hippy liberal bs. It's a waste of time when we have fossil fuels. Seriously, we shouldn't even look into alternative energy. What's the point? ----Mr. Guarino, what is the point you are trying to make with posting this article? I'm having trouble reading between the lines. Help me out if you don't mind because the way I see it, we now have the technology and the means to experiment with alternative energy that is renewable and doesn't contribute to cancer. Are we wasting our time?
Posted by: brandonB | March 24, 2009 at 07:49 AM
Anon, thanks for making us smile with your comment.
Ken, you are absolutely right. If the wrong group of regulators were in place, it appears this problem could knock the establishment of wind turbine farms out of contention.
BrandonB, I think we need to make preparations for finding and using more domestic sources of fossil fuels until alternatives become more feasible from an economic standpoint-- and also from a practical standpoint. We need more nuclear. There is ample reason to believe wind and solar may not be feasible for providing base load power for electric utilities, at least as of yet:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lo,+a+smart+grid!+The+Left%27s+energy+miracle+turns+out+not+to+be+that.-a0194279910
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 24, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Joe,
Excellent link. It is easy to glibly talk the green talk but much more of a daunting task to walk the walk.
Posted by: Fred Gregory | March 24, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Fred, no action requiring massive development or environmental alteration will be without a reaction. If you install solar panels over many square miles of land, even in the desert, ecosystems will be disrupted, and members of various species will be killed of because of loss of habitat. Certain species might theoretically become endangered.
Public policy requires weighing all the pluses and minuses-- not merely swaying according to the most recent trends.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 24, 2009 at 12:55 PM
"Public policy requires weighing all the pluses and minuses-- not merely swaying according to the most recent trends."
Not if your first priority is to support some bogus political, social, or economic agenda item.
We've seen numerous examples of that kind of policy advocacy at work on several threads here these last few days.
We've also seen several examples of poor comprehension skills in those examples too.
It's not coincidental.
Posted by: Bubba | March 24, 2009 at 01:20 PM
The wind turbine problem can be solved by putting them in the seas and oceans far from bat territory. Solar can be solved by putting them on rooftops as individual generators of power.
And what says we have to go with wind or solar? There are entire cities in Europe producing their own power from their own trash.
More nuclear? now that they have finally gotten Yucca Mountain closed down where are the spent fuel rods to be stored? In many cases the concrete containers are eroding which will cause leakage into the environment.
There are no problems that can not be overcome if we want to. There are just so many possibilities other than the two we have now. BB
Posted by: Brenda Bowers | March 24, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Who says we can't survive off of less electricity like 90 percent of the world has done for the last, I don't know, 60 million years. I'm not saying move to Emerson Lake, I'm saying, do we really need all this crap?
Posted by: brandonB | March 24, 2009 at 02:29 PM
Brenda, I agree there are all sorts of possibilities. But there are technical limitations on the one hand, and regulatory limitations on the other hand, affecting the viability of various alternatives' making a huge difference.
BrandonB, no, we certainly don't need all we have that requires electricity. I am not sure, however, that Americans have collectively decided we will voluntarily have our their standard of living decline.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 24, 2009 at 05:30 PM
"standard of living decline."
So the less useless crap we all have, the lower our standard of living? Gotta keep an open mind is all I'm saying. Believe me, I've wasted piles of cash on shoes, restaurants, whiskey and women. I don't need any of it, and I feel better without it. How can I justify spending $100 on shoes when there are children in my city who don't have any shoes that fit? How can I justify having 5 tv's in a house of 4 when a man dies sleeping in the cold? I can no longer justify that brand gluttony with this country, and the entire world, in the state that it is in today.
Posted by: brandonB | March 24, 2009 at 05:58 PM
I don't argue with your point, Brandon, from a philosophical standpoint. We have and use a lot more than we need to. I think, however, that is not quite what has been sold politically by the national Democrats. They have not disclosed their agenda is to reduce what we can have and afford and consume. (Arguably, that is the net effect of their program, but they do not come out and make the specific argument you have).
But it is inescapable that all of these things you regard as superfluous are part of what constitutes the American standard of living.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 24, 2009 at 06:26 PM
""But it is inescapable that all of these things you regard as superfluous are part of what constitutes the American standard of living.""
--Especially the lifestyle of our political and economic leaders. It's not that they don't have the stones to say "hey america, save your money, invest in your community." They would look like total hypocrites; which vexes me because they already do.
Posted by: brandonB | March 24, 2009 at 06:32 PM
It's not a perfect world. People that insist on perfect solutions really have nothing to offer but more problems. Where there's a will there's way. I'd be working on finding a way to envelope the towers with and EMF that repels bats. Something. It's too good of a technology to abandon for the stated reason.
Posted by: Bud | March 24, 2009 at 06:32 PM
Bud, I think wind can be a part of the mix, but I am concerned it may not be sufficient, for various reasons, to be a BIG part of the mix.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 24, 2009 at 06:44 PM
"I am concerned it may not be sufficient, for various reasons, to be a BIG part of the mix."
--I feel the same way about fossil fuels. I am undecided on how large a part nuclear energy should play. I would love to explore the possibility of smaller scale grids, but I don't think Duke would be down.
Posted by: brandonB | March 24, 2009 at 07:03 PM