"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
news:6g9ds295hfup3safka1nj94aujh3vgk2ep{at}4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 01:34:12 GMT, Jeffrey MacHott
>  wrote:
>
> >Dennis (Icarus) wrote:
> >> "Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >> news:f4b7s2ta264pav38btnevcmft3opciinr1{at}4ax.com...
> >> 
> >>> Wind turbines, nuclear plants, cellulosic ethanol, PEM fuel cells,
> >>> plug-in hybrids, geothermal heat pumps, and basic conservation
> >>> measures are more than adequate to avert the most serious
consequences
> >>> of greenhouse gas emissions. Far from causing an economic disaster,
> >>> the implementation of those technologies would add little to our
> >>> energy costs -- but only if we start now.
> >>>
> >>> It is nothing less than criminal that that is not being
done -- that
> >>> George Bush went back on the promise he made to the American people
> >>> six years ago -- and that ideologues and corporations continue to
> >>> confuse the public with their pseudo- and anti-scientific rot.
> >>
> >> There are folks trying to do something. Heck, there are folks trying to
> >> establish a wind farm off Nantucket and they're running into all kinds
of
> >> resistance.
> >>
> >> Dennis
> >
> >IIRC, one problem with wind farms is that windmills make surprisingly
> >good bird swatters, because birds like to perch on the supports for the
> >windmill, but when they attempt to take flight, the wind blows them into
> >the blades.
>
> Not a problem anymore, as I understand it.
>
> The problem with Nantucket is different: this particular wind farm
> would blight a rare national treasure. Its an example of the right
> idea in the wrong place, the equivalent of erecting a skyscraper in
> Yellowstone National Park or the Grand Canyon.

And there you hit on one of the problems. Pretty much regardless where you
put the windfarm or nuclear power plant, someone who lives there will
consider it to be a blight.

Dennis


.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32