The problem is that you can't look at it solely from an environmental perspective. Wind energy is not economical without significant subsidies ...
I very clearly stated earlier that wind energy's contribution is not economic. I admitted that coal and hydro are cheaper. Please re-read my posts.The problem is that you can't look at it solely from an environmental perspective. Wind energy is not economical without significant subsidies and even if it were, turbines can only spin when the wind is blowing and that's doesn't always coincide with peak demand. Until technology allows for electricity to be stored in large quantities, solar and wind are not viable solutions.
Another issue is the sheer amount of wind farms that would be needed to meet energy demands. The typical onshore windfarm can produce about 6 million kWh per year. The US's current demand is around 4 billion kWh per year. Which would equate to over 65,000 windfarms operating with 0 downtime to meet demand.
You may want to check your glass, as it may have some kool-aid in it from the "Big Green Energy" industry.
The last commercial nuclear power plant in the USA has already been built. There is no appetite for it and with current regulations, the cost is actually above that of wind power, so the LEAST economical method of power creation.Natural gas and nuclear.
Natural gas is not a viable source of commercial power generation. There is not enough. Here and there, maybe, but not as a replacement for coal, hydro, and wind.
TROLL...So now it's not birds, now it's something else? It's not wind, it's batteries and solar power? You have a difficult time staying on topic.
Here is the situation. You can take your airplane and point it straight down, and when you land, there will be nothing left. That's Coal. That's nuclear. That's most hydro.
Or, you can glide the plane down. It might hit hard, and you might get hurt. But it's the better option than pointing it straight down. That's wind energy.
If you think these other forms of electricity generation are environmental disasters, it's because you're drinking the Kool-Aid that Big Industry is serving you. Because your statements are, simply, objectively, false.
Once again...you are WRONG.The last commercial nuclear power plant in the USA has already been built. There is no appetite for it and with current regulations, the cost is actually above that of wind power, so the LEAST economical method of power creation.
......................... How many acres of shrub steppe habitat was flooded and destroyed by those reservoirs? How many acres of land was cleared and irrigated to grow crops? There is probably a bigger foot print in fruit packing plants in Grant County than there is from all of the windmills in WA state combined. Anyone who is familiar with the area could tell you without the slightest clue what those actual numbers are that the footprint on shrub steppe habitat in eastern WA from those two industries is astronomically higher than wind farms.
How do the eastern Washington farmers feel about prolonged drought seasons? Think they would be willing to trade wind farms for irrigation water?
I don't think you understand water law, the Columbia River watershed and the relationships to droughts.
The answer is no, because it is a water RIGHT, and the Columbia River watershed is so large that river flows hardly ever are affected. Did happen during the 1930's though.
There is an issue with drought and the Yakima basin every decade or so, the proposed solution to that by west-side Democrats is to tap the Columbia River. That gives you some indications on the Columbia River flows.