So here is the video I mentioned the other day in class. Since I completely forgot to do it before now, I will finish this blog post after class today and comment on the video. Feel free to comment on it too!
Okay, so now I've done a little research (thanks Wikipedia) as to why this particular video is just a terrible example of a really great thing. First of all, the energy used to make a wind turbine is given back within a few months after the turbine begins working. Second, they consume no fuel or energy to run and emit NO air pollution (CO2, SO2, Hg, other particulates, etc). For off shore turbines, according to one manufacturer (Vestas), the initial CO2 emissions "pay back" within nine months.
Next, the land usage is not nearly as detrimental as, say, a coal mine. Wind farms are generally built on land that has already been effected by land clearing.
BIRDS: I can't sum this up appropriately so here is a direct quote from wikipedia: "A study[30] estimates that wind farms are responsible for 0.3 to 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. The study therefore states that fossil fuel based electricity causes about 10 times more fatalities than wind farm based electricity, primarily due to habitat alteration from pollution and mountain-top removal for coal mining. In Denmark, where wind turbines generate 9% of electricity, wind turbines kill about 30,000 birds per year.[31] In the United States, turbines kill 70,000 birds per year, compared to 80,000 killed by aircraft,[32] and 500 million killed by cats every year. Even greater numbers of bird deaths are attributed to collisions with buildings.[32][33] Other studies have stated that 57 million are killed by cars, 97.5 million killed by collisions with plate glass,[34] and hundreds of millions killed by cats.[35] An article in Nature stated that each wind turbine kills an average of 4.27 birds per year.[36]"
So, should we eliminate cats? Buildings? Aircraft?
Anyway, clearly we all now know where I stand on the subject of turbines. What do you guys think? I still am thinking about Morton's quote, "Why is a wind turbine less beautiful than an oil pipe? Why does it 'spoil the view' any more than pipes and roads?"
I think that wind turbines are one of the most beautiful man made things in so many ways. I can't help but think of how many ways it's better for Earth than all of this oil drilling business. Then, you can look at it as a sort of art form. It's just a peaceful producer of energy. It's almost like a "strange stranger" in a way. We know it's there. We live on the same planet as them. But, we really don't know what they do. We just know what they look like. Oh yeah, and if you don't like wind turbines, don't build a house by them...or move into a house by them. -Laura
In response to Morton’s question, I don’t think that he is against wind turbines, but I feel as though he is asking the question to those who do disagree with them...I think that with all the information about wind turbines, it is hard to disagree with the fact that they are a cleaner and safer source of electricity that fossil-fueled power stations.
“Virtually everyone wants their electricity to be generated by clean renewable wind power – unless that windmill is in their backyard......For example, in West Virginia, many of the same environmentalists who oppose Appalachia’s high-sulfur coal mines are now protesting wind turbines – and they have some high-powered support. Democrat congressmen Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall say installing wind farms on the state’s mountain ridges would kill birds and bats and spoil West Virginia’s scenic beauty. So that project is stalled” (http://www.awb.org/articles/environment/don_t_put_that_windmill_in_my_backyard.htm).
Later in the same article, Cape Wind’s President Jim Gordon is quoted saying, “These fat cats with waterfront estates go to cocktail parties and claim they're all for renewable energy, but when it comes to their own views, it is pure nimbyism — not in my backyard."
It is interesting how so many people seem to be “fair-weather fans” for environmentalism. We can all be the good plastic bottle recyclers, but as soon as a movement for change comes, if it is discomforting in the slightest, then it is definitely “Not In My Back Yard.”
I love that these congressmen from WV are anti windmills. Two quotes I found from different articles: "U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Congressmen Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan, both D-W.Va., have introduced legislation that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases for two years." "Mollohan received $179,750 in donations from the mining industry between 1989 and 2010. Rahall has received $125,000 from the mining industry since 1989." Both sources are from 2010, so I'm sure things haven't changed much!
It is so interesting to me to see where peoples’ motivations come from---so much of it seems to be who gives who money. Obviously, if mining companies are giving these Congressmen money, then Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan are most likely not going to speak out against the industry, or at least in a way that is going to put them out of business, make people turn against them, or offering better solutions in contrast with the mining. Both Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan have both expressed their environmental standpoints by voting in favor of the following (full descriptions and other voting history can be found on http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Nick_Rahall_Environment.htm for Nick Rahall, and http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Alan_Mollohan_Environment.htm for Alan Mollohan): 1) $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program, 2) protecting free-roaming horses and burros, 3) environmental education grants for outdoor experiences, 4) $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. So, why would two men, obviously in favor of the promotion of assisting an environmental movement, “introduce legislation that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases for two years”?
This reminds me of Robert Flaherty, who directed The Louisiana Story, when his funding came from an oiling company. Whether it is obligatory or not, when Flaherty directed The Land previously, (you see where he stood on the environmental issue), and turns around to make a film which gives the sense of environment and industry can work together happily, you get this sense of “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.”
Okay, so now I've done a little research (thanks Wikipedia) as to why this particular video is just a terrible example of a really great thing. First of all, the energy used to make a wind turbine is given back within a few months after the turbine begins working. Second, they consume no fuel or energy to run and emit NO air pollution (CO2, SO2, Hg, other particulates, etc). For off shore turbines, according to one manufacturer (Vestas), the initial CO2 emissions "pay back" within nine months.
ReplyDeleteNext, the land usage is not nearly as detrimental as, say, a coal mine. Wind farms are generally built on land that has already been effected by land clearing.
BIRDS: I can't sum this up appropriately so here is a direct quote from wikipedia:
"A study[30] estimates that wind farms are responsible for 0.3 to 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. The study therefore states that fossil fuel based electricity causes about 10 times more fatalities than wind farm based electricity, primarily due to habitat alteration from pollution and mountain-top removal for coal mining. In Denmark, where wind turbines generate 9% of electricity, wind turbines kill about 30,000 birds per year.[31] In the United States, turbines kill 70,000 birds per year, compared to 80,000 killed by aircraft,[32] and 500 million killed by cats every year. Even greater numbers of bird deaths are attributed to collisions with buildings.[32][33] Other studies have stated that 57 million are killed by cars, 97.5 million killed by collisions with plate glass,[34] and hundreds of millions killed by cats.[35] An article in Nature stated that each wind turbine kills an average of 4.27 birds per year.[36]"
So, should we eliminate cats? Buildings? Aircraft?
Anyway, clearly we all now know where I stand on the subject of turbines. What do you guys think? I still am thinking about Morton's quote, "Why is a wind turbine less beautiful than an oil pipe? Why does it 'spoil the view' any more than pipes and roads?"
What do you guys think?
I think that wind turbines are one of the most beautiful man made things in so many ways. I can't help but think of how many ways it's better for Earth than all of this oil drilling business. Then, you can look at it as a sort of art form. It's just a peaceful producer of energy. It's almost like a "strange stranger" in a way. We know it's there. We live on the same planet as them. But, we really don't know what they do. We just know what they look like. Oh yeah, and if you don't like wind turbines, don't build a house by them...or move into a house by them. -Laura
ReplyDeleteIn response to Morton’s question, I don’t think that he is against wind turbines, but I feel as though he is asking the question to those who do disagree with them...I think that with all the information about wind turbines, it is hard to disagree with the fact that they are a cleaner and safer source of electricity that fossil-fueled power stations.
ReplyDelete“Virtually everyone wants their electricity to be generated by clean renewable wind power – unless that windmill is in their backyard......For example, in West Virginia, many of the same environmentalists who oppose Appalachia’s high-sulfur coal mines are now protesting wind turbines – and they have some high-powered support. Democrat congressmen Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall say installing wind farms on the state’s mountain ridges would kill birds and bats and spoil West Virginia’s scenic beauty. So that project is stalled” (http://www.awb.org/articles/environment/don_t_put_that_windmill_in_my_backyard.htm).
Later in the same article, Cape Wind’s President Jim Gordon is quoted saying, “These fat cats with waterfront estates go to cocktail parties and claim they're all for renewable energy, but when it comes to their own views, it is pure nimbyism — not in my backyard."
It is interesting how so many people seem to be “fair-weather fans” for environmentalism. We can all be the good plastic bottle recyclers, but as soon as a movement for change comes, if it is discomforting in the slightest, then it is definitely “Not In My Back Yard.”
I love that these congressmen from WV are anti windmills. Two quotes I found from different articles:
ReplyDelete"U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Congressmen Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan, both D-W.Va., have introduced legislation that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases for two years."
"Mollohan received $179,750 in donations from the mining industry between 1989 and 2010. Rahall has received $125,000 from the mining industry since 1989."
Both sources are from 2010, so I'm sure things haven't changed much!
It is so interesting to me to see where peoples’ motivations come from---so much of it seems to be who gives who money. Obviously, if mining companies are giving these Congressmen money, then Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan are most likely not going to speak out against the industry, or at least in a way that is going to put them out of business, make people turn against them, or offering better solutions in contrast with the mining. Both Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan have both expressed their environmental standpoints by voting in favor of the following (full descriptions and other voting history can be found on http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Nick_Rahall_Environment.htm for Nick Rahall, and http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Alan_Mollohan_Environment.htm for Alan Mollohan): 1) $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program, 2) protecting free-roaming horses and burros, 3) environmental education grants for outdoor experiences, 4) $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. So, why would two men, obviously in favor of the promotion of assisting an environmental movement, “introduce legislation that would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases for two years”?
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of Robert Flaherty, who directed The Louisiana Story, when his funding came from an oiling company. Whether it is obligatory or not, when Flaherty directed The Land previously, (you see where he stood on the environmental issue), and turns around to make a film which gives the sense of environment and industry can work together happily, you get this sense of “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.”