Windwatch.org ? Here's a little bit about the driving force behind that site: http://www.aweo.org/about.html<quoted text>
WOW! You both need to quit drinking the battery acid. To confuse that question when put in context with the points I made today, there would be no way one could take that as "coal does no harm to the envirnoment," when I clearly stated it does- over and over.
"How do you propose we acquire our energy that does no harm to the environment?"
Translated, "how can we get energy that is harmless to the environment?"
Should we not use coal at all?"
Translated, "Should we discontinue it's use?" (because it does some harm)
My God, how else could I repharse it to be understandable?
Wind??? You think wind is less harmful?? Think again. If you like birds and bats, and natural habitat, as I do, you would know how destructiive wind farms are to avain life. Not only that, wind farms don't leave. Land is destroyed permanently, and birds are killed continually- unlike the mines that leave the land to regenrate.
Industrial-scale wind energy is widely promoted as a clean and sustainable source of energy. It brings, however, many adverse impacts of its own which are often ignored or even denied. Of most immediate concern for communities targeted for wind power facilities are their huge size and unavoidable noise, and strobe lights day and night, with the consequent loss of amenity and, in many cases, health.
People concerned with the environment are increasingly aware of the negative impacts of the giant machines and their additional supporting infrastructure (including heavy-duty roads, transformers, and powerlines) on wetlands, birds, bats, beneficial insects, and other wildlife — both directly and by degrading, fragmenting, and destroying habitat for their erection.
Considering these and other impacts, the construction of industrial wind energy facilities cannot be justified in the rural and wild places that developers usually target. They do more harm than good.
How much good do they actually do? The claims of reducing pollution or greenhouse gases appear to be greatly exaggerated. Wind is a diffuse and fickle resource that does not follow demand. Despite decades of experience and substantial installations in Denmark, Germany, and Spain, the giant turbines have not been shown to reduce the use of other fuels on the electric grid — such as natural gas, coal, and nuclear — let alone gasoline for transport and oil for heating. For this reason, their ability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming or pollutants that cause acid rain and health problems is doubtful, despite their tremendous size and sprawl.
Not only is it clear he was already a NIMBY guy, all the things he complains about could easily be applied to other forms of energy. Look, I never said wind was perfect, but to make an argument that it's just as harmful as mountaintop removal is a stretch.