Tweets,

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, suggests,
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 determined
to stop private enterprise from utilizing the lands that they actually own.

As a people, and a nation, we have made the same mistakes over and over. We
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 sensitive
species.

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 saying
we didn't have the data necessary at the time, then we turn around and do it
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 generation
vs. wind vs. hydro vs. nuclear, but what about other green alternatives like
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 and
may in fact be more relevant and important than tower kills in the long run.

We don't know. That is the point, we don't know. How can we say it is OK and
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 local,
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 up
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 a
small number of hydrocarbon generation plants and these could go away if we
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 River
to those states. Let California and Arizona develop, and figure out their
own alternatives. It is interesting that in Arizona there are municipalities
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 power,
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 will
be worth it; and, if I produce extra power, I will sell it to California and
Arizona. Hopefully I can eventually have a large portion of my current home
using solar energy instead of hydro power too. I guarantee that it will have
a far smaller impact than a 300' tall turbine in the shrub-steppe.

Cheers

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