The incedental killing is not acceptable. The horrible death that bats die from is caused by the pressure variations from the spinning turbine blades. This very same pressure variations is what caused the ill effects on some nearby residents. Animals are sensitive to the pressure flucuations, but they do not have a voice to complain so we must do this for them. Stop putting up the turbines would be my suggestion.

ReasonableIntellectual calls tens of thousands of bird deaths 'a small handful', as though it was not a significant number of deaths. I agree that that his/her username is not at all appropriate. However, it's very true that wind and solar energy processes are the answers to our world's energy problems, when operated properly and responsibly.

Well, now we know that your username is false. The costs that you quoted are for installation of a unit that is supposed to produce 100% of what they are supposed to produce. Because of the 16% efficiency, you have to build 6.25 (100/0.16) times the number of turbines in order to reach the amount of expected production.

And, you still don't take into account the fact that wind doesn't blow continuously.

Let's simplify this down to the cost of new electricity:

http://gomarcellusshale.com/forum/topics...

Right now, natural gas is cheapest, followed by wind, then coal, then nuclear. The smart utility money is currently planting wind farms everywhere they are economical to site, and backing them with natural gas plants. Thanks to shale gas, the biggest problem of natural gas (price fluctuations) won't be an issue for the foreseeable future. But the reality is that wind is free infinite fuel, natural gas and coal are not - when you run out of natural gas and coal, you run out.

So the question of a handful of birds (less than one tenth of one percent of man-made bird deaths) isn't really a significant issue. If they can minimize if further, that's a bonus. Otherwise if it really bothers anyone, eliminate 1% of the feral cats in the United States, and you can build all the wind you want and still end up ahead on the bird count.

It's up the owner of a any operation to prevent it's operation from knowingly harming or killing people, animals or the environment. The federal government needs to turn the tables on the wind turbine owners by enforcing that principle. I'm sure that the wind turbine owners have a few good ideas on how to operate their equipment without killing birds, bats, people, etc. The feds need to sue any one owner for the killings, and, once a lawsuit is successful, the precedent will be a very powerful deterrent for allowing the senseless killings to continue.

lpc, comparing apples and oranges. The 16% efficiency for wind power has to do with the energy production produced versus the possible energy production. In other words, the wind doesn't always blow or it blows too hard or there are mechanical problems that prevent running the turbines. The efficiency you are looking at for coal power is the efficiency of lost heat in the process. At least a coal-fired power plant produces electricity at 31% efficiency day in and day out, with or without wind.

Your discussion on peak oil is interesting, but what is the cost of replacing all of the loss of oil production with the exceptionally inefficient wind and solar? And if you think 16% efficiency is bad for wind, how about the 50% you lose right off the bat from solar, because, well, the sun doesn't shine brightly 24/7, does it? It will remain a niche means of production.

Again, "inefficient" when compared to what?
According to Hans-Dieter Schilling (Energie-Fakten), the average efficiency of all coal power stations in the world currently stand at around 31%, leaving a vast potential to reduce coal consumption and CO2 emissions. (http://www.euractiv.com/energy/analysis-...)

Nuclear may stack up against the rampant fossil-fuel combustion we see today, but only by a factor of 12. This means that if nuclear power were taken as the major option over the next forty years or so, we would be in no better a position in terms of emissions and reliance on a single major source of energy than we are today given the enormous growth nuclear required over that timescale. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...)

Energy analysts at Bernstein say the marginal cost of oil production, already $92 per barrel, is nearing $100 per barrel.

The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. Assuming another double digit increase this year, marginal costs for the 50 largest oil and gas producers could reach close to US$100/bbl.

Their analysis does not include OPEC or former Soviet Union producers. But this does not matter. Since the former SU and OPEC aren't going to grow their production fast enough to meet rising world demand the marginal cost of the other producers will determine at what price rising demand and market price will meet.

This rapidly rising marginal cost of production is what Peak Oil looks like. Peak Oil is going to happen because marginal cost will go too high for the world economy to afford to pay what it takes to boost production. At that point oil production will start falling. I originally expected peak production to happen at a much higher price for oil. But the European debt crisis, the deceleration of Chinese economic growth, and the continued weak US economic recovery make me think peak global oil production will happen at a price not much higher than current oil prices. (http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008...)

Fossil fuels are coming to their natural end and we must have something in place. Instead of complaining, what can you do to increase efficiency of green energy? Private investment and government research together can place the US of A back at the top of science and engineering worldwide, where we ought to be.

lpcmom,

Renewables are in their infancy. Hmm, let's explore that a moment.

The photovoltaic effect was first discovered in 1839. For those of you that are counting, that's 173 years ago. To be fair, the first silicon cell was introduced in 1954 by Bell Labs. So, with 68 years of development, solar cells are still nowhere near cost effective. That is, unless you subsidize it greatly, or have a bunch of underpaid Chinese people make them. Take your pick.

Now, let's think about wind. Hasn't it been blowing about as long as the sun has been shining? The first windmill generating electricity was built in 1887. So, in this infancy stage, we've gotten all the way to 16% efficiency.

How much money do you suggest that we waste on inefficiency while we spend the next 125-175 years developing these "new" technologies?

At Realism and others. Our government subsidizes ALL infrastructure; especially nuclear powers plants (ask Japan how that's working for them!), coal fired plants (ask New England what they think about acid rain) and, yes, wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and other "green" or renewable energy sources.

As for turbines running at 16% efficiency, they are STILL not polluting and toxifying whole ecosystems. We WILL run out of coal (meant as a filter for groundwater, now a huge source of pollution), oil (ditto) and other fossil fuels. We must be the scientific, moral, economic, and technological leaders in this or we will fall further behind. We can wish all we want that life will go on as you want it, but the reality is, we have only one planet, with finite resources. The more renewable sources we have for energy, the better we will come out in the end. Yes, green energy is in it's childhood technologically. Look at 3-Mile Island and tell me you would accept such an antiquated reactor in YOUR backyard! All industries develop and become more efficient over time. It DOES take R&D funds to do that. Think beyond your own moment and wishes to see the future.

Reasonableintellectual, your final paragraph is comparing apples and oranges, isn't it?

Wind turbines generate electricity. Cats, cars, the vast majority of buildings and pesticides don't generate electricity. So, let's compare the number of bird/bat deaths per megawatt of electricity generated. When you get that data together, let us know. Otherwise, don't try to minimize a problem, using statistics that mean nothing.

The greens use stats like this when it suits them, but if it was some form of power generation that they didn't like, 10-40K bird deaths a year would be the end of the world.

To be clear, the Government gives tax breaks to all segments of fuel used in power production - here's a link explaining it in more detail (it's some lefty site, but the facts are technically accurate):
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/20/wind...

The reason wind turbines tend to impact wildlife is that it's only economical to build in areas with an average wind speed of 13mph. Unfortunately for Wisconsin (which has surprisingly limited wind resources relative to neighboring states), the only places where this is achievable is the wind corridors used by migratory birds and bats.

To put things in perspective though:
"Domestic cats kept as pets cause far more bird deaths – about one billion each year in the U.S. alone. Buildings and windows apparently cause 550 million bird deaths each year, cars cause 80 million, pesticides take the lives of 67 million birds each year, and radio and cell towers cause 4.5 million annual bird deaths, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wind turbines are estimated to cause between 10,000 and 40,000 bird deaths a year."
http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/20...

And the crickets chirp. Hear it?

The government gives tax dollars to companies to build wind generators because it's not economically feasible to build them otherwise.
The government gives wind power companies artificially high rates for the power they generate because it's not economically feasible to produce power otherwise.
The government is spending tax dollars to try and prevent birds and bats from getting killed by the wind power generators.
Do you see a trend here?

No name calling old badger. It further discredits your incorrect data.

realism101 - 1
old_badger - 0

oldbadger, I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but Germany's burning of coal has increased 4.9% since Merkel announced the shuttering of their nuclear plants. They are in the process of building something like 23 coal-fired power plants. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-19...

The reason Iceland is able to produce so much renewable energy is because of geology. They are producing GEOTHERMAL energy, not wind, not solar. This is because the country sits on top of a couple of hundred volcanoes, and they have high temperature steam fields and hot springs all over the place. You are not comparing apples to apples.

In Sweden and Norway, it is hydroelectric.

Do your homework, before you call anyone else backwards.

Long term studies of wind farms in Germany show that they are approximately 16% efficient. In other words, they produce 16% of the possible power that they could produce, if they were running 24/7 and at full speed. This inefficiency is due to, surprise, lack of wind, mechanical failure and so on.

Now, we're talking aobut SLOWING DOWN wind turbines, because they kill bats. You just can't make this stuff up.

You backwoods morons. Look at what is happening in the world. You think we are falling behind, you are right.
.
Renewable energy is important for our national security and it is possible. Iceland get 80% from renewables, Sweeden 46%, Norway 43%,... We aren't anywhere close to being on the top ten list. Germany has plans to be close to 100%.
.
We talk about the future of our country, well let us think about energy independence with the help from renewables and conservation. No I don't think we will supply 100% from renewables but we are far from being anywhere close. We are suppose to be the nation of technology of can do attitude. What has happened?
.
This article is about bird protection and wind power. Yes, this may be a problem but we have the intelligence in this country to figure this out.

I have a plan....stop with fluffy ideas that only sound good such as wind turbines with Taiwan made components, and build nuclear power plants and drill for oil. While were at it lets realize the things that really hurt our planet--individuals. These turbines are a joke....study it if you don't believe me. When our economy falls....if Obama some how gets re-elected....these turbines can keep our enemies smiling.

I thought the Federal Government had already abandoned eco-dangerous bat-unfriendly wind power in lieu of trendy solar power from prosperous companies like Solyndra, and converting our food crops into gasoline (Obama's version of the President's Physical Fitness Program).