[tvchurch]

That's what I mean. Wind might be generated "for free," but one cost is what it looks like.

Another is how many birds it kills a year. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-w...)

That's not to say we shouldn't build it. Just that we need to consider what it costs before we do.

[ZeroGravitas]

If you check what bird conservation organisations say, they are generally pro wind power, because most of the alternatives are worse for birds.

They do want to avoid building them on busy migration routes though.

Amazingly popular talking point amongst hypocritical fossil fuel industry supporters and semi-professional contrarians though.

[tvchurch]

Sure. Anyone pro- or anti-wind will say whatever argument they can to try to convince people.

All I'm saying is before we decide to build more wind turbines, we should have an honest accounting of all of the benefits and costs laid out. There are locations where they make sense and places where they don't. And there are levels where some government support might make sense, and some levels where they don't.

Even if people support one form of power generation over another, there should always be a limit.

[epistasis]

I don't think that there's an equal distribution of people willing to say whatever in favor of their end goals. Certainly not "anybody." Most pro-wind people are that way because of an honest accounting of the pros and cons, as there's no other reason to be in favor of it. There's not a super-strong political or economic constituency behind it. Those who are anti-wind however...