Agreed - I'm just not sure where it falls - is it like wind farms, where iirc if properly done, the impact on wildlife is less than what currently exists from conventional power plants but that's still used as an argument against, or is it a bigger issue that needs to be addressed? I just hope that a real environmental impact study that isn't biased either way can be done (but these days, I always kind of consider studies biased one way or another, which I guess is human but makes science more difficult...).

(True thanks again for giving me the counterpoint, btw.)