next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0A93_01D077B1.D9B7EA10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Nick & All, Apr 15, 2015
I agree almost entirely with your analysis Nick.=20
In the real world, most choices involve selecting the lesser of two =
evils and, given available options, I have felt for decades that wind =
was way better than alternatives and should be quickly developed to the =
maximum possible.
=20
Nuclear however may make a comeback eventually. The great =
disadvantage of conventional Nuclear Power has been the production of =
radioactive waste (unless you happen to want the waste for potential =
production of dirty atomic weapons). But an alternative based on =
Thorium, in addition to modular design advantages, leads to 95% less =
nuclear waste.=20
But that is for the distant future and, meanwhile, ways to cut =
carbon emissions so climates and ecosystems do not enter an interactive =
death spiral should be top on the agenda. Without meaningful cuts in =
carbon emissions there will be no distant future for many species in =
much of the world.
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nicholas Hill=20
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] wind turbines
This isn't an apology for wind farms but context. What are we to use =
for power?
If we use fossil C then the impact on climate and variability of =
weather patterns are more pronounced.
If we use large scale hydro we get large impacts on the functionally =
important and biodiverse riparian zone. Major use of forest for biomass =
energy will have widespread impact on forest soils their carbon reserves =
and on forest diversity.
Nuclear is an option that few appear to support.
Given the lineup, as naturalists one might think we would look on wind =
more favorably than the others from a habitat and biodiversity =
viewpoint.=20
having been part of an assessment of impacts of wind turbines on =
wetlands and privee to the process of assessing impacts on birds, I was =
impressed at the scrutiny exercised by DNR wildlife division. These are =
complex issues and none, save major reduction in energy use, are without =
impacts. It is good that naturalists show their concerns over these =
choices.
Nick
n Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Fred Schueler <bckcdb@istar.ca> =
wrote:
>
> On 4/15/2015 11:19 AM, Laviolette, Lance (EXP) wrote:
>
>> Lastly, the last time I looked at the guidelines for conducting =
bird inventories at potential sites they appeared to be inadequate. =
Determining whether there was a risk to migrating birds by censusing a =
site 2-3 times during the fall migrating period just doesn't cut it. =
That was a while ago so perhaps they've now been improved.
>
>
> * back in the 19th Century, Uncle Henry David affirmed that to =
understand a landscape we need one full-time recording naturalist for =
every six miles (each 10km square in modern parlance).
>
> I've never seen any evidence that he was wrong about this.
>
> fred.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
> Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
> Vulnerable Watersheds - http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/
> Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
> RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
> on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
> (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
> ------------------------------------------------------------
On Apr 15, 2015 2:40 PM, "Fred Schueler" <bckcdb@istar.ca> wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:19 AM, Laviolette, Lance (EXP) wrote:
Lastly, the last time I looked at the guidelines for conducting =
bird inventories at potential sites they appeared to be inadequate. =
Determining whether there was a risk to migrating birds by censusing a =
site 2-3 times during the fall migrating period just doesn't cut it. =
That was a while ago so perhaps they've now been improved.
* back in the 19th Century, Uncle Henry David affirmed that to =
understand a landscape we need one full-time recording naturalist for =
every six miles (each 10km square in modern parlance).
I've never seen any evidence that he was wrong about this.
fred.
------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
Vulnerable Watersheds - http://vulnerablewaters.blogspot.ca/
Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
(613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4331/9535 - Release Date: =
04/14/15
------=_NextPart_000_0A93_01D077B1.D9B7EA10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Hi Nick & All, =
=20
=
Apr=20
15, 2015</DIV>
<DIV> I agree almost entirely with your analysis Nick. =
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In the real world, most choices involve =
selecting the=20
lesser of two evils and, given available options, I have felt for =
decades that=20
wind was way better than alternatives and should be quickly developed to =
the=20
maximum possible.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Nuclear however may make a comeback eventually. =
The=20
great disadvantage of conventional Nuclear Power has been the production =
of=20
radioactive waste (unless you happen to want the waste for potential =
production=20
of dirty atomic weapons). But an alternative based on Thorium, in =
addition=20
to modular design advantages, leads to 95% less nuclear =
waste.=20
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> But that