[Tweeters] RE: Wind Power
godwit513 at msn.com
Sun Aug 17 16:26:59 PDT 2008
Hello Doug, Mike, and Scott,
It is an education the information you all wrote up about Windpower versa
Solar.Mike Dennis told us years ago about all the windmills are planted and
how bad it is for our birds.I find there is not an end for this destruction
what effects all our lives in so many ways.I hope that all tweeters will
read all what Mike Doug and Scott wrote and give us all an input where we
standing.It is going to be harder and harder to find any birds.
Cheers Ruth Sullivan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Schonewald" <dschone8 at donobi.net>
To: <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 1:46 PM
Subject: [Tweeters] RE: Wind Power
> I am against wind power for several reasons.
> 1. There are other less intrusive options available
> 2. Impact research is sketchy in spite of all that has been said. I think
> Scott summed it up best with words like probably, maybe, doubtful,
> and the like
> 3. Large tracts of public lands are being dramatically changed forever by
> private enterprises, while the same groups that espouse this are
> to stop private enterprise from utilizing the lands that they actually
> As a people, and a nation, we have made the same mistakes over and over.
> have lots of data on kill rates and such for all kinds of towers, but we
> have no idea whether this is acceptable or not because we don't have the
> data that tells us whether it is detrimental to populations or not.
> Basically if you can't prove it will harm anything right now its OK to do,
> even if you can't prove it won't harm the ecosystem, habitats, or
> We build stuff based on data that doesn't mean much, or is incomplete, and
> some years later realize it was a mistake and justify the decision by
> we didn't have the data necessary at the time, then we turn around and do
> all over again.
> Where is the comparative data for Solar vs. Wind vs. hydro vs. ? I believe
> that the data for comparisons exists for hydrocarbon fired power
> vs. wind vs. hydro vs. nuclear, but what about other green alternatives
> solar or Hydrogen fired? Where is the data that shows that all of the
> turbines being built in our shrub-steppe (one of the fastest disappearing
> habitats on the continent) will not impact the unique species that utilize
> the habitat. This data should be totally separate from tower kill rates
> may in fact be more relevant and important than tower kills in the long
> We don't know. That is the point, we don't know. How can we say it is OK
> then say we are not sure in the same breath.
> I have also tired over the years of governmental agency biology that is
> often tainted with politics, or so narrow minded as to be impotent. I also
> tired of the old axiom of 'We need to do something even if it might be
> wrong'. This knee-jerk reaction is best exemplified by the initiative of
> which Scott speaks. This types initiatives promote the types of reactions
> from agencies that I have come to expect: Just do something, anything
> Where are the incentives for private citizens to install solar? Where are
> the incentives for private industry to install solar? Why aren't the
> state, and federal governments promoting solar? As the rest of the world
> begins to turn away from wind (with the notable exception of Denmark which
> has all its eggs in one basket) and moves toward solar I wonder how we can
> have such good inside information as to move in the opposite direction?
> I do not have all the answers. I wish I did. But as I watch the towers go
> I cannot help but wonder when I will see my last Sage Sparrow, Brewer's
> Sparrow, or Sage Thrasher. The sage-grouse will probably disappear in my
> lifetime (yes Scott there are still sage-grouse in the Quillomene, or were
> not too many years ago, though they are damn few and very far between and
> likely doomed even without the towers). They and the Dusky Grouse are in
> trouble directly due to some agency biologists idea that Wild Turkey is an
> easier and more viable species than these. They are in trouble because
> someone thought that a plethora of roads, vehicles, towers, and people in
> the area is a good thing and will harm nothing. I could go on and on about
> the 'biological' decisions that have been made by agency biologists that
> backfired and upset the apple cart.
> Lastly I must argue with Scott about power needs. The PNW does not need
> power. We have a huge amount of inexpensive power available. We have only
> small number of hydrocarbon generation plants and these could go away if
> did not send 1/3 of our available power elsewhere or gave industry an
> incentive to switch to hydrogen. I do not see why we need to destroy the
> rich shrub steppe of Washington or Oregon to supply power to California or
> Arizona any more than we should send half of the water in the Columbia
> to those states. Let California and Arizona develop, and figure out their
> own alternatives. It is interesting that in Arizona there are
> that have building covenants that do not allow solar panels on private
> citizens homes. I wonder why that is? They are the ones that need the
> not us.
> What am I doing beside bitching? I just built a garage which will be
> completely powered by solar power. It will take time and money, but it
> be worth it; and, if I produce extra power, I will sell it to California
> Arizona. Hopefully I can eventually have a large portion of my current
> using solar energy instead of hydro power too. I guarantee that it will
> a far smaller impact than a 300' tall turbine in the shrub-steppe.
> Doug Schonewald
> Moses Lake, WA
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.3/1614 - Release Date: 8/15/2008
> 5:29 PM
> Tweeters mailing list
> Tweeters at u.washington.edu
More information about the Tweeters