The right-wing media are fond of cherry-picking reports of bat and bird deaths in order to attack wind energy. Their selective outrage never seems to extend to the far more serious effects of energy from fossil fuels. For example, the offshore Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill, which killed thousands of animals including birds, dolphins and whales, and sea turtles, many of which are endangered.
Well, it turns out that wind farms do not cause long-term damage to bird populations, according to a major new study published in the Journal of Applied Ecology. The authors of the study did find that precautions in the construction of wind farms were needed to avoid impacts on bird habitat.
“It shows that there can be serious species-level impacts in the construction phase, so construction in the right place is absolutely key. But what it hasn’t shown is that wind farms are ‘bird blenders’. There is no impact from the turning of the blades,” said Martin Harper, the RSPB’s UK conservation director.
Wind is indisputably the cheapest source of energy. Now that their bogus talking point has been discredited, what will the right-wingers do? They could go with a zombie lie strategy, or try to think up a new irrational reason to oppose wind power.
#1 by Sponge Bob on April 12, 2012 - 11:38 am
Windpower’s future in this economy..once the subsidies go…true for all forms of energy..
#2 by brewski on April 12, 2012 - 11:38 am
Source please. And not some web consultant living in his mother’s basement.
#3 by Richard Warnick on April 12, 2012 - 1:27 pm
brewski–
I said “indisputably” because nobody disputes this fact. You are welcome to try, of course. Is Bloomberg a credible source in your opinion?
#4 by brewski on April 12, 2012 - 2:29 pm
No. This is classic Richard crap. I have been working in the energy industry for 20 years, including wind, solar and conventional, and no one, I mean no one, thinks wind is the cheapest. If you make outlandish unsupported statements, then you need to back it up.
Gee where have I heard that before?
You also might want to read your own attachment. It does not say that wind is the cheapest form of energy. In fact, it is quite specific that it is not.
A few points:
1. This study says wind is EUR 6 / MWH more than combined cycle gas. More means more. Not less.
2. This study was in 2011 and the price of gas since then has dropped in half, thus making everything else relatively more expensive.
3. This study takes worldwide electricity prices which are not the same all over the world. Combined cycle gas fired electricity in europe is a lot more expensive than in the US due to the abundance of gas here. In europe they have to pipe it in from Russia. So one comparison of wind in europe is not relevant to the comparison in the US. The cost of gas is 600% higher in europe than in the US.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/03/clean-energy-and-the-challenge-of-low-cost-natural-gas
So much for “indisputable”.
#5 by Richard Warnick on April 12, 2012 - 4:30 pm
brewski–
You have to look ahead, as if you were deciding now what to build. Can you say 3 cents per per kilowatt-hour? Compared to at least 4 cents for natural gas.
The “fracking” boom is way over-hyped. Those commercials on TV claiming 200 years of supply are nonsense. The U.S. will likely become a net importer of methane within two decades, says MIT.
#6 by cav on April 12, 2012 - 5:00 pm
I’ve got a majorly astute comment chocking the “The Right’s Obama’ thread. Please juggle the handle.
#7 by cav on April 12, 2012 - 5:04 pm
The right doesn’t believe in science – it ain’t exactly scriptural – so by all means – debunk away.
#8 by brewski on April 12, 2012 - 5:32 pm
You said “is”. You did not say “might be in the future depending on the future price of gas”. Big difference.
#9 by Shane on April 12, 2012 - 8:32 pm
The real issue is that brewskis “cost” doesn’t include actual costs. Let’s refigure all energy costs around true total cost. What is the cost of oil after we charge enough per barrel to clean up after it? After the oil company welfare is removed? After the health costs are counted?
But I am sure, expert that he is in the field of energy, he has those numbers at his fingertips…
#10 by brewski on April 12, 2012 - 8:42 pm
Yes.
Actually lots of people look at questions like that. The most simple cost which is not figured into the basic calculations are the negative externalities from pollution. That is exactly why I have proposed taxing pollution many times on this site, as I am sure you recall.
http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/OtherIssues/True-Cost-Electricty-Generation.html
#11 by cav on April 12, 2012 - 10:30 pm
How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense
Report looks at methods of corporate abuse, suggests steps toward reform.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html
#12 by brewski on April 13, 2012 - 7:11 am
So as Shane correctly points out, fossil fuels have lots of hidden costs which are not reflected in their price. So the way to internalize those externalities is to impose a pollution tax. Al Gore suggested such a thing. I suggested such a thing. The Europeans do this. But somehow I am wrong.
#13 by Shane on April 13, 2012 - 8:26 am
No brewski, you are not wrong, you are just an ass.
I do actually recall at least once, and believe more that you asked for that. Just as I know you would like to close loopholes in tax matters, which I agree with. I disagree that it matters in any way which happens first, loop hole closing, or rates shifts. Both have to happen. But you can never even adjust your position a millimeter, or even admit where your position overlaps others.
You could have taken this post as a chance to point out the costs you are now discussing. You could have looked at the actual substance of the post and agreed with it. You could have used it as a post where everyone here would agree with you and something constructive could be done.
Instead you found the only thing in the post it would be possible to disagree with (if only through some pedantic bullshit) and choose to write about that. You are like the kid who is given a $100,000 birthday party and bitches because the balloons are the wrong color. You are a complete ass.
It is bad enough that you spend most of your time here making personal attacks, only to whine about the personal attacks that inevitably come when you wear out your welcome. It is worse that you live in an alternate reality where everything that has eve been documented as done by the right is the fault of a liberal. It is unbelievably childish that you can skip over hundreds of posts criticizing Obama and dems to claim no one here criticizes them. It truly staggers the imagination that you can miss the point of every post every single time (only you could be capable of reading a post that says we should do everything we can to stop actual abortions from happening as being pro-abortion) even after they are explained to you.
But even when you understand and agree with a post you choose instead to bitch about it.
I can’t even imagine more troll like behavior. Is it possible, say maybe just one day a week, that you could behave like a human being? Could you let us know what day that will be? I would like to go back to filtering your posts the other 6 days.
#14 by Richard Warnick on April 13, 2012 - 9:07 am
If we’re going to count the externalities, can I point out that we’ll never have to send the U.S. Army halfway around the world to secure our wind energy supply?
#15 by cav on April 13, 2012 - 9:20 am
Richard, I see the military and all of the empiric over-reach not so much as an externality, as the actual central plank of our economy en toto. The ultimate, and certainly most reliable JOBS program – we just sort of latched onto it, capitalizing with malicious, drunken fervor.
#16 by brewski on April 13, 2012 - 9:51 am
Shane,
You are full of negative Chi.
#17 by Shane on April 13, 2012 - 2:46 pm
Good try Richard, but when the world stops turning and we have to go halfway around the world for sun, and the wall we build to keep out the evil fureigners stops the wind from blowing, you won’t be laughing then!
#18 by cav on April 13, 2012 - 3:00 pm
Ha! The oceans will never sit still for that, they’ll rise up in Tsunami!