[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Response to Stewart Brand interview on green energy alternatives in The Sun  

Credit:  By Cathy Taibbi, www.examiner.com 4 September 2011 ~~

I was at first thrilled then dismayed to read the Stewart Brand interview on green energy alternatives, and especially his poorly supported conclusion that wind farms are ‘less intrusive’ to the environment’ than solar, are ‘beautiful to look at’ – ‘ and that at least cattle don’t seem to mind them’. (Sept. 11 Interview Environmental Heretic, Stewart Brand On Nuclear Energy, Genetically Modified Foods, and Climate Engineering, issue 429, by Arnie Cooper.)

To quote: “Wind farms are far less intrusive. At least, cattle can put up with them. Though I don’t think people want to live under turbine, the farms are beautiful to visit. The problem is we haven’t figured out how to store all the energy, and it’s just a fraction of what we need.”

Gracious alive – to begin with, wind ‘farms’ (actually large industrial installations) devastate MILES of critical habitat (as do solar installations), routinely slaughter millions of flying creatures (from condors to bats) each year and are even associated with ‘wind turbine syndrome’ human health issues (http://www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html) – as well as the recorded deaths of cattle in areas where such installations been forced upon the populace. (See just one reference here: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/one-third-of-the-dairy-herd-died-since-the-turbines-began-operation-wisconsin/)

Advertisement


Even if cattle weren’t dying and people weren’t suffering, the countless examples of wildlife mortality cover-ups by the wind industry (including the denial of significant endangered condor and other bird-of-prey blade-strike casualties – //www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAAzBArYdw), would be bad enough.  In fact, wildlife workers are having to use feeding stations now to try to keep free-flying condors away from the deadly whirling blades in part because of the availability of food (carcasses of other avian victims) which tempts them too close to the installations.

The whirling blades also create wind turbulence that explodes bat lungs (//www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRqu4WiLQfk); the tall structures scare off prairie chickens and other sensitive open-space species; ocean turbines not only attract (because they appear to be perching areas) then guillotine soaring birds but disrupt and destroy clam beds and fisheries . . .

The list of calamities is far too extensive to list, but the short take on it is that wind energy, in its current unreliable and very inefficient incarnation, is one of the worst so-called ‘green’ energy alternatives on the planet – yet it is supported by politicians catering to this big, oil-industry arm.

Oh, and NO, Fukushima can not be likened to a mere dam break. What is he thinking?

I’m afraid even so-called ‘visionaries’ like Brand will have to start doing some bigger, more innovative imagining. We have not come across the right solution yet but it is not a question of ‘either/or’. We need entirely new ideas.

With those great big clever brains we’re all so darned proud of, we should be able to think of something better.

Sincerely,

Cathy Taibbi

**More specific data on current wind industry technology, and concerns from wildlife biologist and wind industry activst Jim Wiegand:

“The new propeller-style wind turbines reach 400- 500 ft into the sky and have a kill zone 45 times the area of the famous eagle killing turbines built at Altamont Pass. Now, a wind farm of just 50 turbines is equivalent to 2250 of theses early turbines. With 12 ton blades, the blade tips rip through the air at 220-240 mph when spinning at just 20 rotations per minute. This is creates a tip speed that is twice as fast as the old turbines and over three times the speed of a major league baseball bat swing.
 
Looking at a spinning propeller style wind turbine it creates an illusion that fools most people. They spin at around 20 rpm and it looks slow. But the tips or these huge turbines are traveling at over 220 mph feet per second.  This illusion of the slow turning blades also fools birds and wherever these turbines are installed, the bird species that use the habitat are killed. No species of bird is safe around these turbines.
 
The old-model, small turbines at Altamont Pass rotated at about 80 rotations per minute but their tip speed was much slower at around 110-120 mph. Yet this was still enough to dismember Golden eagles.”
Source:  By Cathy Taibbi, www.examiner.com 4 September 2011

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter