<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>A few days ago when I commented that nuclear is cleaner than ground-based solar, I may need to clarify on the terminology. Environmental impact is bit of a slippery concept. These kinds of solar concentrating schemes scorch birds and may interfere with tortoises:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703804579379230641329484">http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304703804579379230641329484</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>On the other hand, they are good for a lot of other reasons. I like birds, not so much the turtles for two reasons: there aren’t very many of them anyway, and we have plenty. So I am in the tortoises-schmortoises camp. But I do partially buy in to the theory that birds are attracted to the solar concentrator tower. There is one in the southern California desert; I can confirm that one can see one of those things a long ways off, tens of kms easily. It is believable to me that birds are confused by and attracted to the bright object, perhaps interpreting it as a lake, which is a welcome sight to a soaring bird.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Note that the bird argument also applies to PVs to some extent. It doesn’t cook the birds, but it might attract them by the looks-like-a-lake phenom. The birds land, then they can’t take off.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If Keith’s vision ever flies, the yahoos are going to argue that space based solar is bad for wildlife.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Nuclear is looking better from a Greenie perspective all the time. I keep being reminded that if a major nuclear accident takes place, it creates a wildlife habitat.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In any case, I switched over this week to LED lighting, and I am pleased with it. I don’t have a power bill yet, but in general the un-diffused LEDs are about 10 times more efficient compared to incandescent, and the spectrum-adjusted LEDs (the devices that intentionally mimic the visible color spectrum of incandescent) are about 3 times more efficient. Do it!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>