Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Whirling Blades of Death

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

Rick Webb, co-author of the Virginia Wind website and foe of wind farms along Allegheny Mountain ridge tops, summarizes the costs and benefits of wind power based on the findings of the latest National Academy of Sciences report.

Installed wind generating capacity will amount to between 19 to 72 GW of installed onshore wind generation capacity by 2020. That will equal two percent to seven percent of total U.S. installed generation capacity, but, due to intermittency of wind, only 1.2 percent to 4.5 percent of actual U.S. generation. That wind power development will offset CO2 emissions by only 1.2 percent to 4.5 percent.

For those benefits, in just the PJM Interconnection Queue, which includes Virginia, these Cusinards on Stilts would slaughter anywhere between 10,372 and 44,999 birds per year, and 58,997 to 110,665 bats per year.

Tough trade-off. Sounds like a lot of dead birds and bats. Trouble is… compared to what? How many birds and bats are out there? How does this compare to other sources of bird/bat mortality, such as habitat loss, disease and… cats. Yes, house cats are responsible for more carnage among our feathery friends than kitty lovers would care to admit.

Here’s my humble suggestion: Offset the mortality to birds (if not bats) by culling Virginia’s population of felines. As a bonus, think of all the money people would save on cat food, not to mention the reduction in landfill mass to hold untold tons of kitty litter.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

12 responses to “Whirling Blades of Death”

  1. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Is the body count National or Virginia.

  2. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I suppose the question is whether the methane produced by the decomposition of critters outweighs the production of CO2 by power plants.

    As a chemist, and for a WAG, without any other data, my guess is that there is no contest.

    Besides, reducing the competition amog bats and birds, will only result in more production.

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Jim Bacon:

    I detect a little animosity towards felines in your comments.

    At the risk of seeming a little on the Gay side, I have to say, I’m a cat person. The reason being that cats are far more adaptable to life on board boats, where dogs are, frankly, a pain in the butt.

    I understand why people hate cats, just as I understand why people hat blacks and immigrants. Cats can easily seem to be from aother planet: aloof, and hard to reach.

    The cat personality is far more subtle, in some respects, tan the dog personality. as a starting point (breeds aside) the dog is predisposed to gain your atttention.

    Apparently, the cat could care lesss. For a starting point, the cat is your baic whore: I will let you pet me, if you feed me.

    The dog, on the other hand, will starve to death next to you, and lick you hand as he dies.

    My experience with cats is far different. I have had cats that follow me around like a shadow. Cats that would fetch, like a dog, and cats that would come when called.

    I have never had a cat that would kill on command, but I have had dogs that would. I like my dogs, and I like my cats. I recognize that they are both murderers, in their own world.

    Margaret gets upset that the cats attack birds at the feeders. I tell her. “Listen, the cats only catch the birds that are stupid.”

    Likewise, the dogs only kill the groundhogs and squirrels that are stupid.

    Or, maybe, sometimes the cats and dogs get lucky.

    At the bootom line, it is all a matter of transportation and land use.

  4. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    This really is a classic enironmental question.

    We need to get a lot smarter in order to answer it.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    When I see … from any organization or people who fly the environmental banner for their cause – a MATRIX of various options of providing power (benefits) vs the impacts and show where the turbines fit in on the continuum – I’ll give them due credence.

    Otherwise, the “stop the killing of the poor little critters” argument is pretty bogus …

    It bothers me also that the folks who use the “critters are killed” context .. either don’t know or don’t acknowledge that it’s the habitat or lack of habitat that drives the numbers because mother nature always produces more young than will survive to replace the older critters that ultimately die through whatever means…

    If the concept is that critters dying from the “slice/dice” method is MORE “wrong” than say the critters (including bats and birds) who succumb to vehicles on I-95.. then I don’t need to hear more.

    In the end – the “birding killing machine” argument – will actually do harm to the cause I believe.

    and that’s my main objection.. don’t use bogus arguments to deal with substantive issues….because once you – as a group – lose your credibility – you’re literally spitting in the wind after that.

  6. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    The answer to James Atticus B’s question is “PMJ Interconnection Queue” but what geography is that? How much territory.

    “Yes, house cats are responsible for more carnage among our feathery friends than kitty lovers would care to admit.”

    Perhaps, but how many bird is that? In what geography?

    “Here’s my humble suggestion: Offset the mortality to birds (if not bats) by culling Virginia’s population of felines.”

    The guy behind the tree’s cats go first?

    “As a bonus, think of all the money people would save on cat food, not to mention the reduction in landfill mass to hold untold tons of kitty litter.”

    If people wanted to save money, they would not have the cats in the first place.

    Do not the majority of cat owners live in municiplaities and/or HOAs with leash laws?

    What would the bird mortality rate be if the laws were inforced?

    Why does any of this matter? Shouldn’t citizens be looking for ways to cut consumption, not ways to add to the supply of energy, the majority of which is wasted?

    In that context, “tradeoffs” between cats and birds is not the issue.

    EMR

  7. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    EMR:

    Good comment.

    Also with regard to geography, wont power genertion in remote areas mean more power lines?

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ONce again, Bacon offers half-assed uninformed opinion and solution. Despite preaching in other articles that agencies and organization should not consider transportation proposals in isolation, his solution to let bats and birds die and just cut back on cat ownership, does exactly that.

    I guess Bacon assumes that birds and bats and exist in isolation of everything else? I guess the pounds of mosquitos and other bugs these critters consume is of no matter?

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    supporting wind power – as an alternative to coal power plants is not the same as supporting wind power as a way to provide MORE energy.

    That’s why I think such discussions are not on target at all.

    If we implemented SMART meters and charged the actual cost of power (which would include the cost of mercury pollution – either clean-up and/or removal)…

    But the turbine issue should be thought of this way:

    For an area around a turbine – what would be the NET LOSS of critters in the surrounding habitat?

    I would assert that in many species cases – it would be ZERO – because the one’s killed would be replaced by mother-natures efforts to provide more newborn young that are needed…. in general.

    Now… compare wind power to mercury (coal) power and look at the harm to humans – kids and pregnant women who eat critters contaminated with methyl-mercury.

    I’m not saying.. that it’s a clear cut choice but I am suggesting that there are trade-offs and that the purpose of public policy discussions is to .. at the least .. be informed about the trade-offs and to refrain from emotionally-laden advocacies.

  10. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Anonymous 11:50, You better be careful before you run off and label someone’s writing as “half-assed, uninformed opinion.” Quite aside from the fact that insulting someone’s opinion does absolutely nothing to refute it, you’ve mistaken my tongue-in-check observation to cull the cat population as something quite serious indeed. It was a joke, dude, a joke! I own two cats (they came with my wife — part of the package). If I tried culling the cats, my wife would cull me.

  11. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Er, Jim….,

    it was you who threw cats into the equation.

    Energy conservation and alternative energy sources is not a jokeable topic.

    What is a joke is the ads by the energy companies suggesting that they are doing what they can (and that this is enough) so not to worry, just go shopping and buy a big new car and buy a big new scattered dwelling and take a better job in one place and live in another….

    EMR

  12. Rick Webb Avatar
    Rick Webb

    The focus on birds and wind turbines is a distraction, and it is not the real basis of my concern about Appalachian wind development. Neither is it the main focus of the National Academies’ report on environmental effects of wind projects.

    The issue real issue for me is whether the potential electricity and pollution offset that might be provided by Appalachian wind development is worth the tradeoff, environmental and otherwise.

    The unfortunate truth about wind development in this region is that the only places with exploitable wind resources are those ecologically sensitive areas that represent the best of what remains of our wild landscape, our mountain ridges –and it will require a lot of ridgeline development to amount to only a very little bit in the way of electricity and other benefits.

    Consider, for example, that it would take about 9,000 modern turbines to match the August electricity production of Dominion’s Mount Storm power plant. That would require about 1,000 miles of ridgeline development. Each 400-foot turbine would require 3 to 5 acres of clearing, as well connecting roads and transmission corridors.

    The real issue for the National Academies committee was the need for a systematic or coordinated way of evaluating, permitting, and siting proposed wind projects and evaluating their effects. We don’t have that kind of review, and meanwhile wind industry trade groups are doing their best to convince the public that the issue is all about cats versus turbines.

    The National Academies report did address the bird mortality issue, and pointed out the importance of spatial and temporal factors in evaluating the effects of wind turbines on bird populations, including a consideration of local geology, seasonal bird abundances, and the species at risk. It also pointed out the need to consider possible cumulative effects if the use of wind energy increases according to projections.

    For perspective consider that about 100 golden eagles are killed by collision with turbines every year in the Altamont area of California. How many golden eagles are killed by cats?

    Finally, I encourage your readers to actually read my summary statement based on the National Academies report. Better yet, read the report (see http://www.vawind.org).

Leave a Reply

Read More