Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?



--
LSMFT

On 2/4/2011 10:13 AM, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?


The whirling blades scare the fish, frogs and salamanders.

TDD

On 2011-02-04, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

Maybe they're afraid you're stealing water.

nb

On Feb 4, 11:13*am, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

--
LSMFT

stream floods...
undermines foundation of windmill
windmill falls over...

???

Mark

On Feb 4, 10:13*am, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

--
LSMFT

Maybe they fear birds the windmill kills will pollute the stream

On Feb 4, 11:13*am, LSMFT wrote:

Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

They might care how close any building is to the stream. Wetlands
conservation and all that.

R

LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?



They leak sound , lots of it, like
screach/wap,screatch/wap repeated all day and night long.

On 2/4/2011 10:33 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:13 AM, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?


The whirling blades scare the fish, frogs and salamanders.

TDD


LMAO! good one.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

LSMFT wrote in news:UAV2p.111744$Vd1.7623
@newsfe19.iad:

Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?
(One of the) First uses of windmills was to pump water from a lake into a
canal. This was before steam power.

So the first question to ask is what is the purpose of the windmill?
If the gadget is for generating power from wind, maybe they want to just
keep it away from unrelated places, keep the stream area more pristine.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Feb 4, 8:13*am, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

They may kill birds, like the giant wind turbines, which have a bad
rap in that regard. I stayed at a salmon camp in Alaska some years
ago, where the group leader took us on a tour of the local wind farm,
and told us they pick up dead birds all the time.

HB

On 2/4/2011 11:13 AM, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

Aside from placing any structure too near, streams are in the lowest
land around (that old water running downhill bit), not a good location
for a windmill.

Jeff

On Feb 4, 11:58*am, Sjouke Burry
wrote:
LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

They leak sound , lots of it, like
screach/wap,screatch/wap repeated all day and night long.

Don't agree with that at all. Our county has hundreds of wind tower
generators and none are within a thousand feet (or some large number)
of a house. Even close up the sound level is very low. By my estimate
the sound level is about 2% of the racket from a high school kid's car
radio.
It's a good idea to know what the facts are before making a statement.

Joe

Sjouke Burry wrote:
LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?



They leak sound , lots of it, like
screach/wap,screatch/wap repeated all day and night long.

That sounds like a distortion. At least, all the anti windmill idiots here claim
they hardly ever turn.

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:13 am, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

They may kill birds, like the giant wind turbines, which have a bad
rap in that regard. I stayed at a salmon camp in Alaska some years
ago, where the group leader took us on a tour of the local wind farm,
and told us they pick up dead birds all the time.


Of course, housecats kill far more birds than windmills.

On Feb 4, 3:30*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:13 am, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

They may kill birds, like the giant wind turbines, which have a bad
rap in that regard. *I stayed at a salmon camp in Alaska some years
ago, where the group leader took us on a tour of the local wind farm,
and told us they pick up dead birds all the time.

Of course, housecats kill far more birds than windmills.

But unlike wind farms, they generate no energy. In fact, they expend
only the minimum required to drag themselves to the food dish and back
to bed.

HB

Jeff Thies wrote in
:

On 2/4/2011 11:13 AM, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

Aside from placing any structure too near, streams are in the lowest
land around (that old water running downhill bit), not a good location
for a windmill.

Jeff


sometimes,valleys channel winds.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 2/4/2011 1:00 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:13 am, wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

They may kill birds, like the giant wind turbines, which have a bad
rap in that regard. I stayed at a salmon camp in Alaska some years
ago, where the group leader took us on a tour of the local wind farm,
and told us they pick up dead birds all the time.

HB

Yeah, it's not like there's not another one where that one came from.
Now if we could get the windmills to whack a few hundred thousand deer also.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

?
"LSMFT" wrote
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?


Probably restrictions on building anything close to a stream or wetlands.

In article ,
Bob F wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:13 am, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

They may kill birds, like the giant wind turbines, which have a bad
rap in that regard. I stayed at a salmon camp in Alaska some years
ago, where the group leader took us on a tour of the local wind farm,
and told us they pick up dead birds all the time.


Of course, housecats kill far more birds than windmills.

The most lethal man-made bird killer, on the order of 20,000 birds/year:
pane of glass.

Ban Windows!!!

m

In article ,
LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

There are a number of obstructions you may encounter: leaking grease,
killing bats, descecrating a riparian zone, disturbing nesting birds. But
your biggest problem is going to be dealing with the North American Nimby.
If you want really have fun, claim it's a wifi antenna with decorative
fan. Or a SmartMeter, again, with decorative fan.

m

On 2/5/2011 2:30 AM, Fake ID wrote:
In ,
Bob wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:13 am, wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

They may kill birds, like the giant wind turbines, which have a bad
rap in that regard. I stayed at a salmon camp in Alaska some years
ago, where the group leader took us on a tour of the local wind farm,
and told us they pick up dead birds all the time.


Of course, housecats kill far more birds than windmills.

The most lethal man-made bird killer, on the order of 20,000 birds/year:
pane of glass.

Ban Windows!!!

m

Agreed, but unless you live in a reflective glass skyscraper (which
apparently are close to invisible to birds under some conditions),
residential window strikes usually only kill common back yard birds.
(Even with the big raptor stickers on the sliding doors, I have to sweep
up 3-4 a year.) The giant windmills kill the high-flying big impressive
birds that have good PACs.

Windmills not an issue here- not enough consistent wind to make them
cost-effective at current energy prices. Over by the big lake, they have
been pondering a small wind farm for several years, with usual NIMBY
issues. I'd be more worried about noise issues than ruined views, but I
do understand why people get upset when they paid a bazillion dollars
for the view. Maybe if somebody invented a system that could produce
significant power without being hundreds of feet up, and a cheap
reliable storage system to go with it, people could have their own small
ones.

Aren't we supposed to be able to buy a B&D Mr. Fusion down at the
big-box by now? :^/

--
aem sends...

On Feb 5, 2:44*am, (Fake ID) wrote:
In article ,

LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

There are a number of obstructions you may encounter: leaking grease,
killing bats, descecrating a riparian zone, disturbing nesting birds. *But
your biggest problem is going to be dealing with the North American Nimby..
If you want really have fun, claim it's a wifi antenna with decorative
fan. *Or a SmartMeter, again, with decorative fan.

m

There are certainly some potentially legitimate issues locating a
windmill
or any other structure for that matter, close to a stream. In many
cases
areas immediately adjacent to streams are protected and you can't
build on them.

However, when it comes to windmills, they are a good example of the
empty promises of the tree huggers. One of their cherished answers
to meeting our energy needs is wind power. Yet, in EVERY case I've
heard of, as soon as someone actually proposes to build some of
them, the same environmental extremists show up with a long, long
list of how harmful it will be to the environment..... The birds,
the noise,
the fish, where the power lines will go......

In many cases, they further hide their true intentions by demanding
endless study and review, only to have that process repeat itself
so that nothing ever gets built. Which is exactly what they want.

One of the most recent examples of this kind of stupidity is here in
NJ. Gas companies want to build an offshore liquified natural gas
dock so that tankers can unload 13 miles out at sea off
central NJ A pipeline would run back to land. The usual
suspects are all on board
opposing that too. One of the principle complaints, even bought
into by some ignorant politicians, is that it could foul the beaches.
WTF? It's LNG, not oil. And which would you rather have? That
tanker off loading 13 miles at sea, or coming into NY harbor?

Here's a project that brings energy and jobs, and as usual, it will go
nowhere. Even Christy is against it.

On 2/5/2011 8:11 AM, aemeijers wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:30 AM, Fake ID wrote:
In ,
Bob wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:13 am, wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

They may kill birds, like the giant wind turbines, which have a bad
rap in that regard. I stayed at a salmon camp in Alaska some years
ago, where the group leader took us on a tour of the local wind farm,
and told us they pick up dead birds all the time.


Of course, housecats kill far more birds than windmills.

The most lethal man-made bird killer, on the order of 20,000 birds/year:
pane of glass.

Ban Windows!!!

m

Agreed, but unless you live in a reflective glass skyscraper (which
apparently are close to invisible to birds under some conditions),
residential window strikes usually only kill common back yard birds.
(Even with the big raptor stickers on the sliding doors, I have to sweep
up 3-4 a year.) The giant windmills kill the high-flying big impressive
birds that have good PACs.

Windmills not an issue here- not enough consistent wind to make them
cost-effective at current energy prices. Over by the big lake, they have
been pondering a small wind farm for several years, with usual NIMBY
issues. I'd be more worried about noise issues than ruined views, but I
do understand why people get upset when they paid a bazillion dollars
for the view. Maybe if somebody invented a system that could produce
significant power without being hundreds of feet up, and a cheap
reliable storage system to go with it, people could have their own small
ones.

Aren't we supposed to be able to buy a B&D Mr. Fusion down at the
big-box by now? :^/


Several years ago there was an article in St. Pete Times about survey
done radio towers and bird kills. Survey was by U. of Fla., I
believe. Not many towers were included in the study, but the dead-bird
count was in the thousands per year for each tower. 35,000 at the
worst? I'm not a fan of windmills ) They will have their own impact,
but, then, it's better than freezing.

(Fake ID) wrote in news:4d4cfc93$0$10598
:

In article ,
Bob F wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:13 am, LSMFT wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

They may kill birds, like the giant wind turbines, which have a bad
rap in that regard. I stayed at a salmon camp in Alaska some years
ago, where the group leader took us on a tour of the local wind farm,
and told us they pick up dead birds all the time.


Of course, housecats kill far more birds than windmills.

The most lethal man-made bird killer, on the order of 20,000 birds/year:
pane of glass.

Ban Windows!!!

m

Where I worked for years there were suspended glass catwalks between
buildings. Birds were always hitting them. They would drop outside the
ground level catwalk and you would see them. Come by a bit later and they
were gone.

The crows would just sit on the nearby roof edge and wait. Bang! Crows
comes down and cart them off.

wrote in
:

snip

There are certainly some potentially legitimate issues locating a
windmill or any other structure for that matter, close to a stream.
In many cases areas immediately adjacent to streams are protected and
you can't build on them.

However, when it comes to windmills, they are a good example of the
empty promises of the tree huggers. One of their cherished answers
to meeting our energy needs is wind power. Yet, in EVERY case I've
heard of, as soon as someone actually proposes to build some of
them, the same environmental extremists show up with a long, long
list of how harmful it will be to the environment..... The birds,
the noise, the fish, where the power lines will go......

In many cases, they further hide their true intentions by demanding
endless study and review, only to have that process repeat itself
so that nothing ever gets built. Which is exactly what they want.

One of the most recent examples of this kind of stupidity is here in
NJ. Gas companies want to build an offshore liquified natural gas
dock so that tankers can unload 13 miles out at sea off central NJ. A
pipeline would run back to land. The usual suspects are all on board
opposing that too. One of the principle complaints, even bought
into by some ignorant politicians, is that it could foul the beaches.
WTF? It's LNG, not oil. And which would you rather have? That
tanker off loading 13 miles at sea, or coming into NY harbor?

Here's a project that brings energy and jobs, and as usual, it will go
nowhere. Even Christy is against it.


Let's not start talking about Christie (spelling?). He's a populist
rabblerouser who will not get done what needs to be done (such as more
public transportation).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 08:27:35 -0500, "
wrote Re Wind mill:

Several years ago there was an article in St. Pete Times about survey
done radio towers and bird kills. Survey was by U. of Fla., I
believe. Not many towers were included in the study, but the dead-bird
count was in the thousands per year for each tower. 35,000 at the
worst? I'm not a fan of windmills ) They will have their own impact,
but, then, it's better than freezing.

It's an even worse idea than solar. What will we do in the winter at
night and when there is no wind?
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Caesar Romano wrote in
:

It's an even worse idea than solar. What will we do in the winter at
night and when there is no wind?

With all due respect, IMO you're nuts. Windmills as power generators do
have their place. But they should be were there is relatively continuous
wind, and where they can easily "ship off" their generated power. That
means in flat plains, atop hills or mountains and offshore, near existing
or easily built transmission lines. Or they may be atop skyscrapers
(perhaps, we don't have a heliport atop the PANAM building in NYC anymore,
not only because it was renamed, but because the helos had accidents.

IOW, be reasonable where and when to build those wind power generators.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Caesar Romano wrote in
:

It's an even worse idea than solar. What will we do in the winter at
night and when there is no wind?

With all due respect, IMO you're nuts. Windmills as power generators do
have their place. But they should be were there is relatively continuous
wind, and where they can easily "ship off" their generated power. That
means in flat plains, atop hills or mountains and offshore, near existing
or easily built transmission lines. Or they may be atop skyscrapers
(perhaps, we don't have a heliport atop the PANAM building in NYC anymore,
not only because it was renamed, but because the helos had accidents.

IOW, be reasonable where and when to build those wind power generators.

But, even in those areas (this is the High Plains here, one of the
highest wind areas in the US) and the Gray County wind farm has produced
at only 40% of installed capacity over the 8 years since installation
based on EIA production data. The highest monthly production in those 8
years has barely exceeded 50% and the average during Feb and Aug is in
the mid-20% range as the wind doesn't blow as much even here during
those changing-seasons periods.

So, that means that on average there has to be 2.5X times the installed
capacity to meet a given load demand and that there also has to be
spinning reserve to make up for the shortfall when the wind doesn't blow
to maintain a high reliability for the overall grid. Both of those are
expensive propositions as well as it is still double the cost/MWe on the
grid for the wind power as compared to conventional generation.

It simply isn't a panacea some would wish it to be nor will it ever
become so...

--

wrote in message

stuff snipped

Several years ago there was an article in St. Pete Times about survey
done radio towers and bird kills. Survey was by U. of Fla., I
believe. Not many towers were included in the study, but the dead-bird
count was in the thousands per year for each tower. 35,000 at the
worst? I'm not a fan of windmills ) They will have their own impact,
but, then, it's better than freezing.

Yes, windmills kill a lot of birds, but there are also a lot of birds that
DON'T fly into windmills (and windows). What will eventually happen is that
the birds that die hitting windmills will not reproduce but the ones that
live will. Eventually, the surviving birds (which now have more food and
habitat available as a result of reduced competition) will reproduce and in
general, the species will now consist of individuals that are smart enough
to avoid the hazard of windmills. Whether they do it by sound, smell, sight
or ESP doesn't matter. It's just how evolution works. Sometimes threats
are so serious that almost entire populations die out but the few remaining
individuals with resistance or avoidance abilities survive and the
population levels usually return to whatever the habitat supports. Those
individuals will pass whatever traits that enabled them to survive to their
offspring.

I was at an immunlogy conference with my MD friend once and the speaker said
that humans have allergies and runny noses as a result of having survived
plagues and epidemics where a "positive flow" respiratory system expelled
the germs and parasites that killed other, drier nosed individuals. So when
you're suffering with red eyes and a runny nose in the spring or fall,
remember, that inconvenience to you now probably saved your great great
great great great great great great great great grandmother from dying from
the plague or some other type of disease.

Blood antibodies work in much the same way, "remembering" diseases that you
or your ancestors have encountered. It's why many of the native Americans
(both N. and S.) died off by the tens of thousands when they first became
exposed to diseases of the European continent.

The bottom line is "survival of the fittest" and birds now have to include
"ability to avoid windmills" in their fitness.

--
Bobby G.

dpb wrote in
:

Han wrote:
Caesar Romano wrote in
:

It's an even worse idea than solar. What will we do in the winter at
night and when there is no wind?

With all due respect, IMO you're nuts. Windmills as power generators
do have their place. But they should be were there is relatively
continuous wind, and where they can easily "ship off" their generated
power. That means in flat plains, atop hills or mountains and
offshore, near existing or easily built transmission lines. Or they
may be atop skyscrapers (perhaps, we don't have a heliport atop the
PANAM building in NYC anymore, not only because it was renamed, but
because the helos had accidents.

IOW, be reasonable where and when to build those wind power
generators.

But, even in those areas (this is the High Plains here, one of the
highest wind areas in the US) and the Gray County wind farm has
produced at only 40% of installed capacity over the 8 years since
installation based on EIA production data. The highest monthly
production in those 8 years has barely exceeded 50% and the average
during Feb and Aug is in the mid-20% range as the wind doesn't blow as
much even here during those changing-seasons periods.

So, that means that on average there has to be 2.5X times the
installed capacity to meet a given load demand and that there also has
to be spinning reserve to make up for the shortfall when the wind
doesn't blow to maintain a high reliability for the overall grid.
Both of those are expensive propositions as well as it is still double
the cost/MWe on the grid for the wind power as compared to
conventional generation.

It simply isn't a panacea some would wish it to be nor will it ever
become so...

I'm considering the possibility that that low % is because of either
contracts specifying how much has to be bought from other sources, or
competitive prices of other sources.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Robert Green" wrote in
:

The bottom line is "survival of the fittest" and birds now have to
include "ability to avoid windmills" in their fitness.

I agree but that is a tough assignment for the birds ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
dpb wrote in
....

So, that means that on average there has to be 2.5X times the
installed capacity to meet a given load demand and that there also has
to be spinning reserve to make up for the shortfall when the wind
doesn't blow to maintain a high reliability for the overall grid.
Both of those are expensive propositions as well as it is still double
the cost/MWe on the grid for the wind power as compared to
conventional generation.

It simply isn't a panacea some would wish it to be nor will it ever
become so...

I'm considering the possibility that that low % is because of either
contracts specifying how much has to be bought from other sources, or
competitive prices of other sources.

8-yr averages are all very similar showing the patterns consistent w/
weather. Feb and Aug are both high demand months in cold and hot
weather, respectively. Given the consistency over that long an
operational period, I'm convinced it is at significantly
production-limited by lack of wind.

I've not been able to get information from the producer about the
limitation they're having in selling product; they've been unwilling to
share same. And, unfortunately, there's no publicly available data site
for windspeed information in a convenient-enough format I've gone to the
trouble to try to correlate with. The closest NWS official recording
station is Dodge City which is 30+ miles but it would still be of some
interest as country out here is quite open and long-term trends would be
of at least corroborating if not conclusive. But, the download formats
are either too detailed or too coarse to be practical given my
limitations with dialup and access to have been worth the effort, at
least so far. I'd surely like to have access to the site data, but
they're not amenable to sharing anything at all, unfortunately.

IMO, if that _IS_ the issue, that's damning evidence prima facie that
they only exist owing to government mandates and cost-share/subsidies
and that it is _NOT_ a cost-effective solution.

If you're interested and would like to see the data (it is interesting
to see), e-mail me off list and I'll forward the spreadsheets I've
prepared. bozarth dot d is the gmail addy; let me know if you do as I
don't check that address on a regular basis.

--

In article ,
Robert Green wrote:
...snipped...
Yes, windmills kill a lot of birds, but there are also a lot of birds that
DON'T fly into windmills (and windows). What will eventually happen is that
the birds that die hitting windmills will not reproduce but the ones that
live will. Eventually, the surviving birds (which now have more food and
habitat available as a result of reduced competition) will reproduce and in
general, the species will now consist of individuals that are smart enough
to avoid the hazard of windmills. Whether they do it by sound, smell, sight
or ESP doesn't matter. It's just how evolution works. Sometimes threats
are so serious that almost entire populations die out but the few remaining
individuals with resistance or avoidance abilities survive and the
population levels usually return to whatever the habitat supports. Those
individuals will pass whatever traits that enabled them to survive to their
offspring.
...snipped...
The bottom line is "survival of the fittest" and birds now have to include
"ability to avoid windmills" in their fitness.

--
Bobby G.



By that theory passenger pigeons should have evolved tha capability
to avoid hunters.


--
When the game is over, the pawn and the king are returned to the same box.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org

On Feb 5, 8:45*am, Han wrote:
wrote :

snip







There are certainly some potentially legitimate issues locating a
windmill or any other structure for that matter, close to a stream. *
In many cases areas immediately adjacent to streams are protected and
you can't build on them.

However, when it comes to windmills, they are a good example of the
empty promises of the tree huggers. * One of their cherished answers
to meeting our energy needs is wind power. * Yet, in EVERY case I've
heard of, as soon as someone actually proposes to build some of
them, the same environmental extremists show up with a long, long
list of how harmful it will be to the environment..... * The birds,
the noise, the fish, where the power lines will go......

In many cases, they further hide their true intentions by demanding
endless study and review, only to have that process repeat itself
so that nothing ever gets built. *Which is exactly what they want.

One of the most recent examples of this kind of stupidity is here in
NJ. * Gas companies want to build an offshore liquified natural gas
dock so that tankers can unload 13 miles out at sea off central NJ. A
pipeline would run back to land. * The usual *suspects are all on board
opposing that too. *One of the principle complaints, even bought
into by some ignorant politicians, is that it could foul the beaches.
WTF? *It's LNG, not oil. * And which would you rather have? *That
tanker off loading 13 miles at sea, or coming into NY harbor?

Here's a project that brings energy and jobs, and as usual, it will go
nowhere. * Even Christy is against it.

Let's not start talking about Christie (spelling?). *He's a populist
rabblerouser who will not get done what needs to be done (such as more
public transportation).

Spoken like a rabblerouser who doesn't live here. He's already got
the
budget under control by cutting spending, which is EXACTLY what
needs to be done. Just wait until all the union contracts come up for
renegotiation.....

"Larry W" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Robert Green wrote:
...snipped...
Yes, windmills kill a lot of birds, but there are also a lot of birds
that
DON'T fly into windmills (and windows). What will eventually happen is
that
the birds that die hitting windmills will not reproduce but the ones that
live will. Eventually, the surviving birds (which now have more food and
habitat available as a result of reduced competition) will reproduce and
in
general, the species will now consist of individuals that are smart
enough
to avoid the hazard of windmills. Whether they do it by sound, smell,
sight
or ESP doesn't matter. It's just how evolution works. Sometimes threats
are so serious that almost entire populations die out but the few
remaining
individuals with resistance or avoidance abilities survive and the
population levels usually return to whatever the habitat supports. Those
individuals will pass whatever traits that enabled them to survive to
their
offspring.
...snipped...
The bottom line is "survival of the fittest" and birds now have to
include
"ability to avoid windmills" in their fitness.

--
Bobby G.



By that theory passenger pigeons should have evolved tha capability
to avoid hunters.

Different situation entirely. PP's nested in huge flocks that made them
easy prey for hunters. What had been a positive adaptation that protected
them from their previous natural predators became a serious liability when
humans arrived. PP's were killed by the tens of thousands because their
huge flocks (like the huge herds of buffalo) made it very easy for humans to
slaughter them en masse. Windmills pose no such threat as they don't kill
entire flocks of 50 to 200 thousand individuals they way human hunters did.
Windmills represent exactly the kind of threat that evolution can deal with.
Some birds obviously DON'T fly into windmills or windows and that allows
natural selection to operate. Crows don't fly into windows (that I know of)
and eat the dead birds that do. Sometimes, you need brain power to survive.

Slaughtering all the individuals means no one survives, neither the fittest
nor the weakest. In this case, evolution was "saying" congregating in huge
flocks was once a survival mechanism but became a liability as new threats
evolved.

Take the dodo, for example. Limited population, overwhelming threat. The
dodo evolved in isolation from significant predators and had no fear of
humans and could not fly, making it easy prey for humans. Humans also
brought hitherto unknown predators like rats, pigs, dogs and cats whose
sudden introduction overwhelmed the dodo.

Windmills will never be so ubiquitous that they would be capable of killing
all birds. Windows, as others have pointed out, have not managed to extinct
the house wren, and they're far more common than windmills. Besides, the
dodo wasn't much of a bird in that it couldn't fly. Nor could it escape the
island of Mauritius to find a new, less dangerous habitat. Their loss of
flying ability was a negative adaptation and as such, they paid the price
for giving up their wings: Extinction.

There's a reason we're the top predators on the planet. We're very good at
predation on a large scale, even upon ourselves. Yet creatures like the
cockroach and the rat have resisted everything we've thrown at them.
Perhaps it's because they don't congregate into huge swarms like the PP's
did or don't approach humans fearlessly (and fatally), like the dodo did.

--
Bobby G.

On Feb 5, 2:59*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Larry W" wrote in message

...





In article ,
Robert Green wrote:
...snipped...
Yes, windmills kill a lot of birds, but there are also a lot of birds
that
DON'T fly into windmills (and windows). *What will eventually happen is
that
the birds that die hitting windmills will not reproduce but the ones that
live will. *Eventually, the surviving birds (which now have more food and
habitat available as a result of reduced competition) will reproduce and
in
general, the species will now consist of individuals that are smart
enough
to avoid the hazard of windmills. *Whether they do it by sound, smell,
sight
or ESP doesn't matter. *It's just how evolution works. *Sometimes threats
are so serious that almost entire populations die out but the few
remaining
individuals with resistance or avoidance abilities survive and the
population levels usually return to whatever the habitat supports. *Those
individuals will pass whatever traits that enabled them to survive to
their
offspring.
...snipped...
The bottom line is "survival of the fittest" and birds now have to
include
"ability to avoid windmills" in their fitness.

--
Bobby G.

By that theory passenger pigeons should have evolved tha capability
to avoid hunters.

Different situation entirely. *PP's nested in huge flocks that made them
easy prey for hunters. *What had been a positive adaptation that protected
them from their previous natural predators became a serious liability when
humans arrived. *PP's were killed by the tens of thousands because their
huge flocks (like the huge herds of buffalo) made it very easy for humans to
slaughter them en masse. *Windmills pose no such threat as they don't kill
entire flocks of 50 to 200 thousand individuals they way human hunters did.
Windmills represent exactly the kind of threat that evolution can deal with.

The problem with that theory is the timeframe. Do your really expect
windmills
to be around for the next 50,000+ years? Windmills will be long gone
before
any species evolves to deal with them.

wrote in
:

On Feb 5, 8:45*am, Han wrote:
wrote
innews:9a1c895f-0330-4c98-ad15-d463fe40c385@f
30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

snip
snip

Here's a project that brings energy and jobs, and as usual, it will
go nowhere. * Even Christy is against it.

Let's not start talking about Christie (spelling?). *He's a populist
rabblerouser who will not get done what needs to be done (such as
more public transportation).

Spoken like a rabblerouser who doesn't live here. He's already got
the
budget under control by cutting spending, which is EXACTLY what
needs to be done. Just wait until all the union contracts come up for
renegotiation.....

I have lived in Bergen county for the past 12+ years. OK, my daughter
and son-in-law are high school teachers in South Orange and Paterson.
Our town is now having trouble making ends meet, as are many towns. I
agree that there are many things where cuts eed to be made, not the least
of them pensions calculated on the amount of overtime in the last years
of employment. And if you would want your kids being taught by 35K/year
teachers and have the legislators and administration give money to their
friends, yes, then I'm a rabble rouser.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

The bottom line is "survival of the fittest" and birds now have to
include "ability to avoid windmills" in their fitness.

I agree but that is a tough assignment for the birds ...

Sometimes, when I can't sleep at night, I think about all the travails my
ancestors had to survive in order for me to lie there in bed, safe but
sleepless. Life is unfortunately no different for the birds. I remember my
teary-eyed grandfather telling me how his grandfather had to dig his own
grave before he was shot to death by the Red Shirts in Italy. We've got it
sooooo easy now.

--
Bobby G.

On 2/5/2011 8:17 AM, wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:44 am, (Fake ID) wrote:
In ,

wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

There are a number of obstructions you may encounter: leaking grease,
killing bats, descecrating a riparian zone, disturbing nesting birds. But
your biggest problem is going to be dealing with the North American Nimby.
If you want really have fun, claim it's a wifi antenna with decorative
fan. Or a SmartMeter, again, with decorative fan.

m

There are certainly some potentially legitimate issues locating a
windmill
or any other structure for that matter, close to a stream. In many
cases
areas immediately adjacent to streams are protected and you can't
build on them.

However, when it comes to windmills, they are a good example of the
empty promises of the tree huggers. One of their cherished answers
to meeting our energy needs is wind power. Yet, in EVERY case I've
heard of, as soon as someone actually proposes to build some of
them, the same environmental extremists show up with a long, long
list of how harmful it will be to the environment..... The birds,
the noise,
the fish, where the power lines will go......

In many cases, they further hide their true intentions by demanding
endless study and review, only to have that process repeat itself
so that nothing ever gets built. Which is exactly what they want.

One of the most recent examples of this kind of stupidity is here in
NJ. Gas companies want to build an offshore liquified natural gas
dock so that tankers can unload 13 miles out at sea off
central NJ A pipeline would run back to land. The usual
suspects are all on board
opposing that too. One of the principle complaints, even bought
into by some ignorant politicians, is that it could foul the beaches.
WTF? It's LNG, not oil. And which would you rather have? That
tanker off loading 13 miles at sea, or coming into NY harbor?

Here's a project that brings energy and jobs, and as usual, it will go
nowhere. Even Christy is against it.

About 20? years ago, I read a very chilling thriller novel about that
very concept- terrorists bring an LNG tanker into a harbor (forget which
one) that fronted a wide river that happened to have enough cliffs and
such to make a natural bowl to contain a gas cloud, and somehow vent it
off without the safeties kicking in. They also timed it for the exact
worst possible weather conditions (hot muggy still day, etc) so wind
would not disperse it. I can't remember how it came out- the hero
probably pulled off a save at the last second or something- but they
claimed even a small LNG tanker could produce a gas cloud big enough,
that if it could be kept intact long enough to light off, would do
similar damage to a small nuke.

Author coulda been speaking out of his ass for all I know, but the data
presented seemed consistent with my limited knowledge of pyro and
explosives and flammable gases.

--
aem sends...

On Feb 5, 9:20*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 2/5/2011 8:17 AM, wrote:





On Feb 5, 2:44 am, (Fake ID) wrote:
In ,

*wrote:
Why would the town care how close a wind mill is to a stream? Do they
leak grease or something?

There are a number of obstructions you may encounter: leaking grease,
killing bats, descecrating a riparian zone, disturbing nesting birds. *But
your biggest problem is going to be dealing with the North American Nimby.
If you want really have fun, claim it's a wifi antenna with decorative
fan. *Or a SmartMeter, again, with decorative fan.

m

There are certainly some potentially legitimate issues locating a
windmill
or any other structure for that matter, close to a stream. *In many
cases
areas immediately adjacent to streams are protected and you can't
build on them.

However, when it comes to windmills, they are a good example of the
empty promises of the tree huggers. * One of their cherished answers
to meeting our energy needs is wind power. * Yet, in EVERY case I've
heard of, as soon as someone actually proposes to build some of
them, the same environmental extremists show up with a long, long
list of how harmful it will be to the environment..... * The birds,
the noise,
the fish, where the power lines will go......

In many cases, they further hide their true intentions by demanding
endless study and review, only to have that process repeat itself
so that nothing ever gets built. *Which is exactly what they want.

One of the most recent examples of this kind of stupidity is here in
NJ. * Gas companies want to build an offshore liquified natural gas
dock so that tankers can unload 13 miles out at sea off
central NJ * *A pipeline would run back to land. * The usual
* suspects are all on board
opposing that too. *One of the principle complaints, even bought
into by some ignorant politicians, is that it could foul the beaches.
WTF? *It's LNG, not oil. * And which would you rather have? *That
tanker off loading 13 miles at sea, or coming into NY harbor?

Here's a project that brings energy and jobs, and as usual, it will go
nowhere. * Even Christy is against it.

About 20? years ago, I read a very chilling thriller novel about that
very concept- terrorists bring an LNG tanker into a harbor (forget which
one) that fronted a wide river that happened to have enough cliffs and
such to make a natural bowl to contain a gas cloud, and somehow vent it
off without the safeties kicking in. They also timed it for the exact
worst possible weather conditions (hot muggy still day, etc) so wind
would not disperse it. I can't remember how it came out- the hero
probably pulled off a save at the last second or something- but they
claimed even a small LNG tanker could produce a gas cloud big enough,
that if it could be kept intact long enough to light off, would do
similar damage to a small nuke.

Author coulda been speaking out of his ass for all I know, but the data
presented seemed consistent with my limited knowledge of pyro and
explosives and flammable gases.

--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LNG is lighter than air when it vaporises. May be a little hard to
contain it like that to get enough built up to do that kind of damage.

Jimmie