Bowsite.com

The short version is "We need to build more nuclear plants."

Oil reproducing as if we will never run out...you can’t be serious? Have you even looked up how long it takes to naturally produce a gallon of crude oil? I’ll clue you in, it’s in the millions of years. Longer than Homo sapiens have been on the earth...lol. See link.

How'd that turn out for the eco-warriors?

I would have zero objection to living next door to a nuke plant. It would definitely be preferable to a wind farm.

I also think that as more studies come out we will find that the low frequency sound pollution from windmills will be found to be bad for human health.

As far as bats, turbines disproportionately kill more bats than birds. The larger tree bats like hoary, red, and silver/haired bats get killed the most. Hoary bats are one is likely the most abundant bats in North America based on estimates. I say likely because we don’t have a great population count on hoary bats because the don’t hibernate in caves. Tough to count. Which may be more scary.

I too would not mind if a nuclear plant was nearby. The risk is worth the huge reward/energy output. So on that we agree.

I really don't want to live near any of them due to the extra people and traffic, but that is an entirely different discussion.

Facts, analysis, exposure to industrial wind energy's real impacts

But like all sources of energy, wind power comes at a cost — one that's too often borne by eagles, hawks, falcons, owls and other birds.

Wind turbines kill more than 573,000 birds each year in the United States, according to The Associated Press, including federally protected species like bald eagles and golden

Even bats are falling victim to wind-turbine blades: The Pennsylvania Game Commission estimates that more than 10,000 bats are killed in the state each year by wind turbines, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Farms producing the clean energy are acting as apex predators in the foodchain by killing predatory birds, which is increasing the density of vertebrates

Tuesday 06 November 2018

Wind farms reduce the number as well as activity of predatory birds.

Wind energy, considered a clean source of energy, does have a carbon footprint and is also known to disturb bird life. Now, a new study done in the Western Ghats has found that wind farms in biodiversity-rich areas can have deeper ecological consequences beyond already known impacts.

The study has found that wind farms reduce the number as well as activity of predatory birds, which in turn, results in an increase in the density of vertebrates like lizard on the ground. And since lizards have less fear of being preyed by birds, they are becoming less stressful. It means wind turbines are acting as new apex predators in the food chain in the local ecosystem, says the study published in journal Nature Ecology & Evolution on Monday.

The predatory bird species affected include Buteo, Butastur and Elanus and the density of lizard that showed an increase in numbers is Sarada superba, a fan-throated lizard endemic to the area.

The study was done in the Chalkewadi plateau in Satara district in the northern Western Ghats which is the site of one of the largest and longest-running wind farms in the region.

Unfortunately, the answer is no. All we have at present are very rough and potentially biased estimates that are based on an accumulation of studies from individual, unidentified wind energy facilities.

In other words, the blovation from those whose livelihood depends on the BS they peddle.

The reason? The wind industry treats these data as trade secrets and generally does not share them with the public or concerned conservation organizations. Some wind energy developers have even sued to hide these data from the public. Hawai'i is currently the only state that requires mortality data be collected by independent, third-party experts and makes the information available to the public on request.

These estimates that are made public — all of which range in the hundreds of thousands of birds and bats killed annually

— are based on non-standardized data that were collected and reported by paid consultants to the wind industry. ie Subsidy Sucklers...........

This is a direct conflict of interest that may lead to a reporting bias in favor of the wind companies (meaning, the numbers of killed birds and bats may be under-reported).

The fact that the energy companies are allowed to self-report their own violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) is a violation of the first principle of scientific integrity — that is, those that have a vested interest in the outcome should not be the ones collecting and reporting their results to regulatory agencies.

those species that are most susceptible to turbine collisions and/or displacement are raptors, night-migrating songbirds, and grassland birds.

.

I wonder if this would make everyone happy?

"A consortium of 28 engineers and scientists has proposed that – instead of building a simple barrier along the approximately 2,000-mile border – the U.S. and Mexico could work together to build an industrial park along the divide that would include desalination facilities, solar energy panels, wind turbines and natural gas pipelines. The plan would not only provide the region with border security – considering it'd be a continuous train of heavily guarded industrial facilities – but also energy, water and jobs."

Again COWARD (a.k.a. slade) you show your ignorance and loud mouth. You focus on turbines killing birds and they kill at magnitudes less then many other sources. Turbines make up less the 0.01% of bird collisions with anthropogenic structures. Calling me a liar and then proven wrong for all the CF to see must if stung quite bit lol. Yep you’re that guy. Back for more embarrassment I guess.

For one thing, a study of cats and what they kill showed that the mortality from cats was something like 10X what had been thought before the study.

One source of deaths from windmills is that birds just run into them. they are built in open areas where birds have migrated for many years without interference. Now there are wind towers and birds run into them (not the blades, the towers).

BTW, why did the wind people seek (and get) and exclusion from federal laws that prohibit killing eagles?

If wind and solar farms had to meet the same environmental guidelines an a new coal or nuclear plant, they would likely never get built. That is the exact goal of putting so many regulations on coal and nuclear - they are trying to prevent any new ones from being built and thereby forcing the acceptance of solar and wind even with all of their problems.

Keep letting your BS spew from your subsidy suckling lips......

And share some more subsidy suckler data from 2002...........................

So you are saying that wind companies intentionally put these wind farms in migratory paths? Really? Henry do you just I.D. Birds but never study thier behavior? You should know the interior migration corridor where the majority of wind farms are, like in the Midwest, it is a broad front migration. That’s why the USFWS manage migratory bids by flyway. The central flyway, for example, is very wide. Birds don’t migrate in a single file line in narrow corridors but in wide expanses. Your statement about wind farms being placed in migratory paths is hog wash. Are there examples of bad companies poorly siting wind farms in areas of higher bird migration. Yep. But the majority do not.

The wind companies did not seek and get an exclusion from the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Do you make this stuff up? The USFWS created an incidental take permitting pathway for eagles because the bald eagle population recovered from the DDT debacle and golden eagle population was stable. The BGEPA incidental take permit pathway is no different than that of the Endangered Species Act. If they created the permit path for any industry it was for transmission lines owned by fossil fuel companies. Eagles have been getting cooked on t-lines since the first day they put up the lines.

On regulations, the wind companies have to comply with the exact same laws as traditional power companies. How do I know? Because I’ve made a 22 year career of helping energy companies navigate the ESA, BGEPA, and MBTA. I started with working with wind companies 10 years. What companies do you think I was working for prior to 10 years ago? It was fossil fuel, oil, gas, pipelines, and transmission line companies. I still work with them. They all have to address impacts to protected biological resources. They all deal with the same regulations. Yes even eagles and the BGEPA.

COWARD/slade- what’s your next argument...”I know you are but what am I?” Or maybe it will be “na nana boo boo.” Sometime you just need to shut up and stop digging when you don’t know what you are talking about. Lol...idiot.

That is a misrepresentation of what I said. Birds migrate everywhere. However Kansas is a major migration route. I can't imagine how they got permission to put all of these towers in the place were the entire central US Whooping Crane population migrates.

"at a rate any more than buildings or cell towers"

Again, that is a misrepresentation of what I said. The fact remains that these towers were not there and now they are. Birds fly into towers. I'm sure that they also fly into blades and that is likely a more important source of strikes than the moving blades striking the birds.

There is a ton of information about how great wind power is. That makes sense because governments have poured billions of dollars into wind and into research designed to convinced the gullible of just how great it is. At the same time, they have promoted the ideas that competing conventional energy sources are the scourge of the earth.

It is all part of the anti-freedom anti-capitalist pro big government "the world will end in 12 years" lies.

Put 1/10 of the resources into improving and promoting conventional energy sources, provide a level playing field, and windmills would disappear as fast as they have appeared. Large scale solar would go away even faster.

From the link "In 2012, breaking the European omerta on wind farm mortality, the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) reviewed actual carcass counts from 136 monitoring studies. They concluded that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly.

Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year!"

VS

Michael Hutchins, Director of American Bird Conservancy's Bird-Smart Wind Energy Campaign, earned his Ph.D. in animal behavior at the University of Washington. Prior to ABC, Michael was Director/William Conway Endowed Chair, Department of Conservation and Science, at the Association of Zoos and Aquariums for 15 years, and Executive Director/CEO at The Wildlife Society for seven years. He has authored over 220 articles and books on various topics in wildlife science, management, and conservation, and has traveled to over 30 countries to pursue his passion for conservation.

References: ABC 2015. Bird conservation group calls for changes in collection of data at wind developments.

Associated Press. 2015. PacifiCorp sues to block release of bird-death data at wind farms. Oregonlive.com.

AWEA. 2017. Birds and wind energy.

Casey, M. 2015. 30,000 wind turbines located in sensitive areas for birds. CBSNews.com. Clarke, C. 2014. It's time for independent monitoring of wildlife kills at renewable energy sites. KCET.

Deemer, B. R., Harrison, J. A., Li, S., Beaulieu, J. J., DelSontro, T., Barros, N. Bezerra-Neto, J. F., Powers, S. M., Dos Santos, M. A., and Vonk, J. A. (2016) Greenhouse gas emissions from reservoir water surfaces: A new global synthesis. BioScience 66: 949-964.

DeGregorio, B. A., Weatherhead, P. J., and Sperry, J. H. 2014. Power Lines, roads and avian nest survival: Effects on predator identity and predation intensity. Ecology and Evolution 4(9): 1589-1600.

Drouin, R. 2014. 8 ways wind power companies are trying to stop killing birds and bats. Mother Jones.

Erickson, W. P., Wolfe, M. M., Bay, K. J., Johnson, D. H., and Gehring, J. L. 2014. A comprehensive analysis of small-passerine fatalities from collision with turbines at wind energy facilities. Plos One.

Grodsky, S. M., Behr, M. J., Gendler, A., Drake, D., Dieterle, B. D., Rudd, R. J., and Walrath, N. L. 2011. Investigating the causes of death for wind turbine-associated bat fatalities. J Mammal 92 (5): 917-925.

Howard, B.C. 2016. River revives after largest dam removal in U.S. history. National Geographic.com.

Hutchins, M., Parr, M. and Schroeder, D. 2016. ABC's bird smart wind energy campaign: protecting birds from poorly sited wind energy development. Human Wildlife Interactions 10 (1): 71-80.

Hutchins, M. 2016. To protect birds from wind turbines, Look to Hawai‘i's approach. Bird Calls blog.

Jackson, T. 2016. Wind farm sues to block bird death data release. Sandusky Register. Johnson, D. H., Loss, S. R., Smallwood, K. S, and Erickson, W. P. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human-Wildlife Interactions 10(1): 7-18.

Lebeau, C.W., Beck, J. L., Johnson, G. D., and Holloran, M. J. 2014. Short-term impacts of wind energy development on Greater Sage-grouse fitness. The Journal of Wildlife Management 78(3): 522-530.

Loss, S. R., Will, T., and Marra, P. P. 2013. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States. Biological Conservation 168: 201–209.

Loss, S. R., Will, T., and Marra, P. P. 2015. Refining estimates of bird collision and electrocution mortality at power lines in the United States. PLoS ONE 9(7): e101565. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101565.

Magill, B. 2014. Wind, solar boosting investment in power lines. Climate Central, Sept. 14, 2014.

Mathewson, S. 2015. Endangered species: Sage-Grouse penned in by power lines. Nature World News.

Robertson, R. 2014. Balance of power and environment in the Sandhills. NET News. Schroeder, M. A. 2010. Greater Sage-grouse and power lines: Reasons for concern. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife report.

Serchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., and Yu, T. 2008. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319 (5867): 1238-1240.

Shaffer, J. A., and D. A. Buhl. 2015. Effects of wind energy facilities on breeding grassland bird distributions. Conservation Biology 30:59–471.

Smallwood, S.K. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality rate estimates among North American wind energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37 (1): 19–33.

Smallwood, K. S. and Thelander, C. G. 2008. Bird mortality in Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area California. J. Wildl. Manage. 72: 215–223.

Steelhammer, R. 2011. Hundreds of migrating birds die at Laurel Mountain wind farm. Charleston Gazette-Mail.

Stevens, T. K., Hale, A.M., Karsten, K.B. and Bennett, V. J. 2013. An analysis of displacement from wind turbines in a wintering grassland bird community. Biodiversity and Conservation 22:1755–1767.

In 2002 when we finished building our house in a rural area that we had to clear some brush and trees out, we noticed something weird. Almost immediately we had birds flying into the screened in porch, leaving tons of holes in it. A few birds were found dead on the ground.

A couple of years ago we replaced all of the screens. No bird collisions yet.

Did the birds learn and change their flying lanes, or did all the birds that used those lanes die off?

Deer adjust to hunting pressure, so my question is very sincere. Eventually do the birds learn and adjust their flyways and so kill rates will drop, and today's observations will be nullified? Thanks.

28.5k is still too much for wind. If we can save just one bird's life, eradicating wind power would be worth it...

So whooping cranes, yes there are wind farms in their migration corridor and there is some risk that one could be killed by a turbine. You can’t believe the government lets wind companies build in the 200 mile wide corridor in the central U.S. So wind farms have been operating in the WC corridor for 15-20 years and not one WC has been killed by a turbine. Hell, sand hill cranes use a similar but wider corridor but rarely are killed by wind turbines. Why? For one, simply the are diurnal migration and can see the turbines. As far as wind, turbine blades occupy an incredibly small amount of the WC corridor airspace which is 200 miles wide and up to 5000ft abgl (WCs typically migrate at 1000-5000ft). Let’s just say it’s 0-5000ft. The odds (statistics) that a WC flies into a turbine is a fraction of hundredths of a percent. But that isn’t zero. True. However, what are the major anthropogenic killers of WCs. It is transmission/distribution lines and hunters shooting WCs. Why are you not wondering why the government is preventing any transmission lines or hunting in the WC migration corridor. Should we end hunting in the spring and fall in the migration corridor? Furthermore, WC are much more susceptible to extinction where they overwinter (Aransas National Wildlife Refuge) or Wood-Buffalo where they breed in Canada. I have been to aransas and toured WC habitat with the USFWS WC experts. I asked them if they are concerned about wind farms in the migration corridor. There response was “ not really considering.” They were much more worried about a toxic spill of tankers shipping hydrocarbons in Aransas Bay or a man made disaster like Deepwater Horizon in or near Aransas Bay. Something like that would wipe all WC out in one season. Over salineation of Aransas Bay was their 3rd major concern. So if you are really concerned about the survival of WC then pressure the USFWS to stop offshore drill, shipping of hydrocarbons in/out of Aransas Bay, or help them buy oil spill booms at Aransas and stop focusing on eliminating wind farms in the corridor cause you don’t like them.

The “ world will end in 12 year lie.” Nobody here is defending a silly statement like that. What about the myth you push that the universe is 6000 years old. That is just as ridiculous of a statement coming from a scientist.

COWARD- ok now it’s me vs somebody else. Just like a coward getting somebody else to do the fighting for you. And what does posting a bunch of references that you have not read or couldn’t comprehend? Yep, your that guy.

HDE- oil and gas was not calculated because the impacts are not direct and chronic. It is very difficult to calculate. The Ericsson paper I linked focused more on direct effects. But there are some models out there that do attempt to calculate the effects of oil and gas. You can look them up. Let’s put it this way, the Audubon Society is no advocate for fossil fuels. Just ask HA/KS, he might be a member. As to your last statement about one birds life is worth no wind farms. Cars kill millions of more birds. I’m sure you will do your part and start walking.

If "renewable" goals are to be met, the number of wind farms will still increase exponentially. They will have to be located in less ideal sites, and the amount of damage will necessarily also increase exponentially.

My basic objection to the mad dash to wind and solar (in spite of what you say, it is without the same scrutiny as would be given to a new coal or nuclear plant) is based on government intrusion into our lives and the attempts by leftists to force us to choose it over more reliable sources of energy whether we like it or not.

We can compare how green energy is treated compared to traditional energy by thinking of how hilary and obama investigations compare to trump investigations. If they got the same scrutiny (and biased press coverage) as trump, hilary and obama would already be sentenced to life in prison if not executed for treason.

Green energy has the almost unlimited government pocketbook promoting and supporting it. Let it stand on it's own and see where that takes us.

I do appreciate that you have openly stated that your livelihood derives from wind power.

"if the conclusions don’t fit your beliefs then you just ignore it. That’s not science." Agreed. AGW and other greenie sacred cows need the light of honest science shone on them.

BTW, good point about diurnal migration of cranes. OTOH, are you aware that hunting is shut down where Whooping Cranes are known to be present?

"kind of the way you are with turbines. But culture shifts take time and pressure."

It is the pressure that I most object to. If it's such a great idea, no pressure is needed.

BTW, how close do you live to a turbine? Would you object to a giant turbine being built next door to where you live?

Obviously, state and local governments can establish their own incentives for renewable energy, which some have done. But federal funding is likely to go away at the end of 2019.

I guess we'll see just how viable wind energy is in 2020 and the years beyond. I believe most of these wind farms are privately owned, so it shouldn't take long for capitalism to take affect. I predict wind energy is here to stay.

Matt

Unfortunately you were toooooooooooo pious to read the links, the authors and their reference were always there.

This from the guy who can't string together a single legible English sentence? LOL!

Matt

While some of the incentives may be phased out, wind farms in Kansas are still mostly exempt from property taxes (compared to millions paid by the other power sources). Also, many states still force utilities to purchase renewable energy even if it is at a price higher than that from other sources.

Another factor is that wind farms that are already in place will probably continue to be in operation because they cost very little as long as they keep working. The jobs are almost all in the pre-construction and construction phases. Once operational they provide very few jobs.

The test will be how long they keep being built if price breaks, tax incentives and other advantages disappear.

KS "By the way HA/KS, I likely owe you a bit of an apology for being so snippy at times."

You might see it as snippy. I call it frank communication. Thanks anyway. Since I never post with malice, I assume the same of others.

From the link "Regulators approve massive wind power line across Kansas"

I think your problem is more with state legislature than it is with the feds.

Matt

Matt

If you assign a value to each bird killed of say $20, coal is still cheaper.

You are still missing the big picture, your socialist, never Trumper ways are keeping you closed minded;-)

The wind industry has been a god-send for the struggling farmers and local economies in my neck of the woods.

Matt

Many things appear to be a godsend to the beneficiaries, but at what cost to the the nation as a whole and many other individuals who don't get the cash. Ethanol has done the same thing. That doesn't make it right.

GG if the information in your link is correct, why do states with the most wind generation have the fastest rising electricity costs?

There are many ways that the cost of wind is made to look cheaper than the actual cost and regulations intentionally increase the apparent cost of coal.

I'm not going to just take your word on that one, HA. Provide some evidence of that claim.

I do know that Colorado is one of the largest wind energy producers in the country, and our electricity rates are well below the national average. Same for Kansas.

Matt

If you did your research, instead of just sticking with an old narrative, you'd find that electricity cost in Kansas actually DROPPED from Jan. 2018 to Jan. 2019.

Matt

The mid-atlantic and mountain regions were the only ones to see a net decrease in electricity costs. Only 17 states had lower residential electricity costs in 2018. Ironically, Kansas had the largest drop of all. So, what are you complaining about?

Matt

As far as new construction goes we are full for this year. Everything we are working up bids on is for 2020 and 2021.

Some of our competitors are booked through next year already.

"The utility company formed by the merger of Kansas City Power & Light and Westar Energy operates with nationally competitive electricity prices that will gradually draw closer to lower retail rates assessed in most neighboring states, a company executive said Tuesday.

Chuck Caisley, senior vice president of Evergy, told a House committee complaints about excessive electric rates in Kansas didn’t take into account massive investment by the Kansas companies in renewable sources of power or compliance with federal mandates on emissions from coal plants. Not all peer states with less costly electricity have confronted these capital investments, he said."

"KCP&L customers to see reduced rates starting in December"

"Caisley said the merger of Westar and KCP&L led to rate reductions of $60 million annually. The merger accepted by the KCC prohibited base rate changes for five years, through December 2023."

Matt

Henry, these high costs can reflect accelerated depreciation methods on those capital investments I would think. Maybe we are not comparing apples to apples?

Kansas has tripled their wind energy capacity in the last 10 years, pulling them into the top 5 producers in the country. 15% of their electricity comes from wind farms. Last year they enjoyed the largest drop in residential electricity costs of any state. Their average electricity cost is well below the national average. I don't think those facts are a coincidence.

You can complain about wind energy all you want, but the reality is Kansas is benefitting from it more than virtually any other state right now, and they will likely continue to do so as they push towards 20% in 2020. I applaud your state, and hope it serves as a model for other states to follow.

Matt

If your theory about tax cuts were true, then every utility across the country would be passing on the same savings to consumers. They haven't.

If Kansas figured out a way to make neighboring states pay for its own capital improvements, good for them. Again, I applaud them for their capitalism.

Matt

Renewables do not have the great "save the Earth" impact that we are told is the reason we must convert to them.

There is still no real evidence that the earth is warming due to human-induced increases in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

In other words, the entire nation's energy use is being forced to change for something that likely does not exist and even if it did would not be solved by building windmills.

This is part of the leftist agenda to cripple free enterprise and freedom in general in America.

Not even close. The national average for residential electricity is 12.47 cents/KWHr. Kansas consumers are paying 10.29 cents/KWHr. That's 17% below the national average.

I'm still not sure what you're complaining about.

Matt

Good grief. If that were true, then why are 4 of the 5 largest wind energy producing states red states?

Matt

“Renewables do not have the great "save the Earth" impact that we are told is the reason we must convert to them.“. And fossil fuels do? At a minimum the supplemental use of renewables will help conserve (the root of conservativism) and expand supplies of a fossil fuels further into the future. That is fact and undeniable.

“There is still no real evidence that the earth is warming due to human-induced increases in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.”. This is also false. There is plenty of evidence to support that theory. Sure there is some evidence that it might not be human caused but the is 100:1 ratio on scientific peer reviewed data that it is human caused. But keep clinging to the Fox News agenda.

“In other words, the entire nation's energy use is being forced to change for something that likely does not exist and even if it did would not be solved by building windmills.“. I guess if you call representatives elected by voters passing incentives “forced.” By the way, the Republican congress passed the last extension of the Production Tax Credit. I guess you should vote Democrat next time.

“This is part of the leftist agenda to cripple free enterprise and freedom in general in America.“ And you think the right is any better? Here is a good litmus test for you. Do you think creationism and/or the Bible should be taught in school? If yes, then that is taking away freedom of religion from non-Christians. Republicans won’t pass gay marriage. Why are they preventing my son from his liberty and pursuit of his happiness? That is taking away his freedom.

Again, please stop spreading falsehoods and generalizing people.

Any and all big corporations seek tax credits. That's how we are able to have big paychecks and the CEO's get coddled.

Matt

Actually, I think several people have said exactly that, including the OP.

Matt

Again..... they are in most cases not only tax supported (to those who it could be argued are the least in need of any tax breaks....) but are MANDATED. Would they even exist without that? In some cases..... mostly systems/homes built from the ground up as off the grid. I've seen several of those that work well. But you're not going to have too many 12v dc apartments with supplemental inverters and their own back-up generators.....

When production systems get to the point of being cost effective and more efficient than conventional systems then they will take over in a wave. Fusion, hydrogen, whatever..... Tech has always worked like that. Again, the LED example. People are not buying and using them because they are forced to.... or tax incentives to do so. They are doing it because they work so much better in pretty much every way. And it's happening in a wave like computers did, laptops, then smartphones.

People aren't "resisting" renewables. But they are being forced by governments and elitists to implement them even as they add cost..... as they are just supplemental energy, not stand alone on demand systems which are necessary. They're only true offset to investment in everything from manufacture, installation, infrastructure costs and maintainence is some fuel savings and possibly maintenance/wear and tear to existing on demand plants. Yet some use numbers obtained in a fantasy world of head to head comparisons. They are not head to head. They are supplemental.... and an added cost ON TOP OF conventional systems.

When those real replacement systems come about.... on demand, cheaper, cost effective and more efficient.... the change will give you whiplash. And those windmills will be piled up in heaps like twisty florescent bulbs......

See link.

A couple months ago I replaced a 500 watt metal halide flood light with an LED fixture that puts out 750 watts of light and uses 150 watts of electricity and about 4+ times the life. Entire fixture for $120, free shipping to HI..... and less than the replacement ballast for the MH light was. It's awesome.... instant on instead of 2 minutes.... when the ballast or bulb goes in the others I'll replace them as well. Replace. Not supplement what is needed to remain already.

That is happening because they are better in every way imaginable. You don't have to mandate, subsidize or need to use fantasyland reality ignoring apples and oranges comparisons to justify them.

Unless one read the small print on the bulbs, most people screwed them into their sockets holding the glass tubes as they had done with the bulbs that had been used for years. After numerous fires were reported, research showed that small cracks in the tubes lead to an imbalance between the gas in the tube and the ballast electronics causing sparks and fires. It is interesting to note that the government took no responsibility for the fires caused, but today it it hard to find one of those bulbs NOT enclosed by a traditional protective bulb.

Even so, the price of LED bulbs has come to the point where the fire starter fluorescent bulbs can be avoided.

"Wind farms require up to 360 times as much land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility, a Nuclear Energy Institute analysis has found. Solar photovoltaic (PV) facilities require up to 75 times the land area."

From: https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants

Not exactly an unbiased source, but it's the info I was looking for.

OTH, wind farms don't have to find a place to store spent fuel rods. I realize the newer plants are much more efficient, but there is still some risk.

I remember 3 Mile Island, we were glad the wind normally blew easterly since we were in Ohio.

That said, I support nuclear over current green energy sources. Natural gas second, but a good guess is that man will keep finding better ways to extract energy from our environment without the pollution currently discharged, so I support continued development. Maybe some government support when "infant industry" status, but we are well past that with wind and solar IMO.