It seems that there are some people who are environmentalists who question the rote assumption that wind power is the bestest greaterestic most fabulacious perfectivistically form of energy ever discovered anywhere at any time.
I guess very little respect is paid to Archimedes, who toyed with this business more than 2,000 years somehow never causing people
not to dig coal.
http://www.naturaloregon.org/2010/03/12/wind-farms-sage-grouse-and-loopholes/">Wind Farms, Sage Grouse, And Loopholes.
Bob Sallinger with the Portland Audubon Society told the council that changing the rule is necessary to protect the environment of Eastern Oregon from expansive wind farm development. “These projects are rapidly changing our landscape. We’re developing wind energy projects at a rate that’s unprecedented and in places where we never anticipated they would go,” he says. “They’re probably going to change our landscape more than any other development aspect over the next 20 or 30 years.”
The environmental groups are particularly concerned about the Greater Sage Grouse. Recently, the Interior Department said the sage grouse is in so much trouble, it deserves the protection of the Endangered Species Act. But it put off listing the bird because there are so many other species of wildlife that are in worse shape.
The projects are "changing our landscape?"
No? You're kidding?
Recently I've been hearing in this space from a rote dogmatic anti-nuke who claims that
nuclear power is endangering species, although anyone with a mind or a brain, can tell you that
another way in which nuclear power is vastly superior than everything else - although hardly perfect in
every way - is that its land use profile derives from it's enormously high energy density.
The low energy density of so called "renewable" energy is, conversely the reason that it was abandoned in the early 19th century and people began to use the extremely dangerous practice of
digging coal and is why its land use profile, well, sucks.
Digging coal has destroyed lots of species of course, but now we have the dangerous fossil fuel apologists trying to finish off what's left, at least among birds and bats, with wind plant development "in places we never anticipated they would go?"
All the wind and solar facilities on the entire West Coast have not been able to produce as much
energy as the Palo Verde nuclear plant, which operates in a surface area that can be captured in a single camera lens.
![](http://images.topix.com/gallery/up-KPJVJL81VGJSFJUK.jpg)
Oh, by the way. You see that body of water in front of the nuclear plant? It consists entirely of water recovered from Arizona
sewage treatment plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_StationIt's um, cleaner than a lot of water in the Appalachians running off the abandoned coal pits our anti-nukes couldn't care less about.
Unlike a single wind facility in all of the west, Palo Verde generated in 2007, 29,223
million kwh, 0.105 exajoules, again, all within the focusing power of a single camera lens.
By contrast, all of the wind plants in the entire state of California - allegedly a renewable energy paradise, but really just another dangerous natural gas waste dumping ground - was 5,606
million kwh, or 0.020 exajoules.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/ELECTRICITY_GEN_1997-2008.XLSNote too, that the alleged
growth of wind energy in California was a startling 0% from 2007 to 2008.
So much for the contention that California has any intention whatsoever to phase out dangerous natural gas.
Of course, we are about to hear from delusional anti-nuke that the operational cost of delivered power from Palo Verde is
not cheaper than coal, not cheaper than gas.