Drew,
You're right, heavy metal poisons don't just go away when mining stops, and they affect many species besides our own. Air quality is different. Stop mining/burning coal and the air gets cleaner through natural cycles, which argues in favor of stopping burning coal, not continuing. Coal is nasty, no argument here, but it's a different kind of nasty than nuclear nasty, and I wouldn't consider nuclear pollution a good alternative to coal pollution.
Ironically there was a coal mining operation right around here during the turn of the
century. Tiny in scale compared to modern idustrial mining, but really fascinating from
a photographic standpoint. The old tailings are magnificently iridescent on rainy or foggy days, and I frequently hike there in Winter months with the 8x10. Some interesting fossils too. The place is called Black Diamond Mines, and is about a 10,000
acre regional park, but growing with new acquisitions. Big windmill farms out on the Calif Delta can be seen from the hilltops there.
I hate to admit it on a forum like this one, but wind generators and old mines are more visually interesting to me than trees/rocks, etc.
Looks like the Feds are getting involved now.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2891547.story
"There are two dirty words in photography; one is 'art', and the other is 'good taste'." - Helmut Newton
Predictable. Golden eagles tend to fly low right thru these kinds of places. They need
to find some kind of bright paint for the spinning rotor blades which will tip off raptors
to the danger.
Wow, what a cacophony of notions.
There is a lot of data on bird fatalities from various sources with one of the best summaries from Western Ecosystems Technology Inc., Wally Erickson. Listed in % fatalities by source shows:
Buildings and Windows 55%
Cats 10%
Power Lines 8%
Vehicles 7%
Pesticides 7%
Communication Towers 2.5%
Wind Turbines .1 to .2 %
Other 10%
He is generous with Wind Turbines, since most list it as 0.01 to 0.02 %. At any rate the data would indicate a near zero rate due to wind turbines when considered within the frame of all bird fatalities.
It appears though that when the turbines are packed closely together and the number is large the fatality rate is higher - even anomalous such as the Altamont phenomena.
Another good source for the relative cost of energy from the Energy Information Agency, 2011, DOE/EIA. Includes Capacity Factor, Cap. cost, Fixed O&M, Var. O&M, Transmission.
Conventional Coal .095
Advanced Coal .109
Adv. Coal with CCS .136
Natural Gas .063 to .125
Advanced Nuclear .114
Wind .097
Wind Offshore .243
Solar PV .211
Solar Thermal .312
Geothermal .102
Biomass .113
Hydro .086
These are per US$/KWhr and are the costs net to the grid for the installed capacity. Note that terrestrial wind farms are really competitive, with the main hangup being the current dirge of capital funds available for construction. Of course the environmental risks associated with each technology is a highly complex issue in some cases and can quite reasonably be argued.
A good example of the complexity can be found in wind power. In Texas we don't worry about the bird fatalities but what about local climate modification. We intercept humid wind from the gulf and of course take out energy. That humidity in the air reduces the air temperature by evaporating over land in the hot Texas sun. Thus downstream from a large wind farm it will be hotter and dryer which will have an effect on the local crops - grass and cotton among other crops. How much effect is difficult to compute and measure reliably.
Hey ain't technology wonderful; but it's tied directly to our grand standard of living and allows us the freedom to play with our imaging toys!
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
Thank you for posting some facts Nathan.
It's been a very long time since this thread had anything to do with picture taking.
Is it time to move it to the lounge?
I have enjoyed the postings and have laughed my ass off by some of the participants to this funny thread.
Many have absolutely not a clue about the econmy and the benefits of alternative energy but solely base it on assumptions rather than real knowledge.
Now don't stop it here but i really believe it belongs in the Lounge.
There is quite a bit of squabble between the different agencies and data sets depending on who is being paid by whom. There's a career category termed "biostitutes" known for skewing wildlife data in favor of energy interests or developers, and a similar crowd called "geostitutes". The loss of a number of golden
eagles is dramatic since they are relatively uncommon and reproduce slowly, and you
you can't blame kitty cats for any of their deaths (they eat cats). In this area in particular, there's a tremendous amount of fighting even between the different public
agenices, along with perpetual court battles. Each side picks their own slice of evidence.
There are many reactions to this thread, and politics in general. Some have a knee-jerk reaction based on no evidence or thought, and some have the reaction of a jerk that thinks he/she knows everything because they are in a related industry. Certainly there wouldn't be much conversation on even photography in this forum if we only left comments to Kodak and Nikon technicians.
Ouch! How has this thread escaped the axe?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks