GreekIslandGirl wrote:Some research shows that you could minimize birds/bats flying into wind turbines by painting them different colours.
Early days - no need to panic and throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Every year in Spain alone — according to research by the conservation group SEO/Birdlife — between 6 and 18 million birds and bats are killed by wind farms. They kill roughly twice as many bats as birds. This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. And these figures may be conservative if you compare them to statistics published in December 2002 by the California Energy Commission: ‘In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et al (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden.’
... bats approach the turbines in pursuit of insect prey. Now, a new study suggests that simply changing the color of wind turbines to hues less attractive to insects could reduce the number of bugs that congregate around the turbines, which could in turn reduce bat deaths.
GreekIslandGirl wrote:... bats approach the turbines in pursuit of insect prey. Now, a new study suggests that simply changing the color of wind turbines to hues less attractive to insects could reduce the number of bugs that congregate around the turbines, which could in turn reduce bat deaths.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... finds-wind
cyprusgrump wrote:georgios100 wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:georgios100 wrote:There are many people like you, that object to subsidizing wind energy, I can see a good point there.
Additionally, irrigation windmills were installed by the millions all over the planet. these windmills kill birds too, while
pumping water from the borehole to produce the vegetables you consume every day. Are you opposing these as well?
If there is a better/cheaper/safer alternative the answer has to be an emphatic 'YES!'
But if it is the only solution available then it makes sense (although I'd have to say that water pumps tend not to be hundreds of meters high)...
Man has the most amazing ability to innovate, as you chose irrigation I am reminded of a report that I read recently (I'll find it if you like)...
All this done without subsidising the new technology...
The Cypriot farmers get all kinds of subsidizing from taxpayer money, including huge amounts for irrigation water.
How do you explain 67% of Cyprus water resources consumed by farmers, while farming is only 5% of Cyprus GDP?
Water related subsidies account to approx 5 million Euros in the last 5 years... a heck of a lot more than wind turbine subsidies!
I urge you to look into the farmer subsidies prior to responding back to me.
Last thing we need in CF is a bias opinion on selected subsidies... we should examine all subsides without exceptions
I would guess that 'we' have subsidised (and continue to subsidise) the wind farms much more than €5M over the past five years...
However, that is irrelevant...
Any subsidy distorts the free market and is not in the interest of anybody except the person in receipt of the subsidy... The consumer (and taxpayer) spends far more than would otherwise be the case if the free market was left to itself..
But my point remains valid... the free market provides food for seven billion on the planet using less land than would otherwise have been the case... there is the possibility of a huge return of land for recreational use...
And guess what is the main reason why the land to be returned is not much, much larger...? Biofuels - another ridiculous market intervention...
I'm not for subsidising Cypriot farmers or anybody else - we'd all be much better off if the market was left alone...
georgios100 wrote:Subsidizing is a necessary evil. A good example is the carbon subsidy at the Dominican Republic vs Haiti. These two countries share the same island.
The Dominicans subsidized the price of home propane tanks by 50% but the Haitians did not. After many years, the Haiti landscape is bare ground, no trees to talk about
resulting in soil erosion, floods, loss of top soil for crops etc. In contrast, the Dom. Rep. is well treed with lots of fertile ground.
The Haitians could not afford high propane cost so they cut all the trees and used the wood for cooking, boiling hot water etc.
The U.N. ranks the Dominican Republic 90th out of 182 countries on its human-development index, which combines a variety of welfare measurements; Haiti comes in at 149th. In the Dominican Republic, average life expectancy is nearly 74 years. In Haiti, it's 61. You're substantially more likely to be able to read and write if you live in the eastern two-thirds of Hispaniola, and less likely to live on less than $1.25 a day.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... z2HMJiherT
supporttheunderdog wrote:but Grump not if consumption of trees outstrips the ability to regenerate even with planting schemes and especially if the soil is washed out so there is nothing to grow more trees in.
This is a big problem in many impoverished areas where (apart from local natural sources) there is no other energy supply of any sort such as gas or electricity. In such places looking at renewables such as hyrdo, solar or wind are probably the most cost effective way of providing an alternative to deforestation/desertification that follows from stripping out too much natural vegetation.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest