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/)
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:
URL to article: https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/09/04/response-to-stewart-brand-interview-on-green-energy-alternatives-in-the-sun/