311–320 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Compared to ripping the tops of mountains Or consider nuclear, which is much cleaner, safer and lower coast than all other energy sources
How is nuclear waste clean? How is a possible reactor meltdown safe or cheap?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AU has had a stable government since it started at Federation, and it's had a first-world government since the definition of 'first-world' started in the '40s. There are few countries as stable as AU has been. > This makes sense only if your starting position is that creating nuclear waste makes sense. The waste is being created, regardless of whether or not you think it makes sense. You can pretend that there's some…
You missed the point of my questions: > How long does nuclear (fission) waste need to be managed? > How long do you believe that AU has had a stable, first-world government? Federation was (to a rounding error) a century ago. Some would argue that it's been stable since then -- I'd argue it hasn't, but the boom/bust left/right vacillation so common in western ersatz democracies evidently is what counts as stable thes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and the documented bird deaths are awful[2]. Stop quoting this bullshit "fact." It is a meme made up by conservative think tanks to discredit wind farms. As other posters have already pointed out, other human-related factors such as domestic cats, buildings and towers, and most importantly pollution and loss of habitat are far more significant dangers to birds. If you actually care about birds, take your cats to th…
'Conservative think tanks' like the Audobon Society? It's not necessarily the raw numbers of birds killed, it's the type and the impact on their population. If your cat kills 1000 pigeons, the pigeon population won't notice. A handful of golden eagles every year or two though, and we get closer to losing another species. [1] http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Conservative think tanks' like the Audobon Society? It's not necessarily the raw numbers of birds killed, it's the type and the impact on their population. If your cat kills 1000 pigeons, the pigeon population won't notice. A handful of golden eagles every year or two though, and we get closer to losing another species. [1] http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-...
And yet the Audubon society, after considering all the various risks to birds, is pro-wind turbines, as you can tell from the angry commenters attacking them for this stance in the article you linked.
Vaclav Smil has written extensively on the embodied chemistry of Wind-turbines, I figure it's worth sharing here because it seems relevant to the conversation. Chemical, petroleum, and nuclear engineers are scarce in Silicon Valley..... "Wind turbines are the most visible symbols of the quest for renewable electricity generation. And yet, although they exploit the wind, which is as free and as green as energy can be,…
He might as well note that fossils will still be supplying our dinosaur exhibits in museums.
And this is the same dude that's influenced Bill Gates to use his fame to talk down pragmatic attempts to solve climate change with the tech we have now. And I still hate him for trying to kill the web in order to make himself richer despite being born into extreme wealth, so I'd prefer he didn't provide cover for the people making themselves richer by destroying human civilisation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet the Audubon society, after considering all the various risks to birds, is pro-wind turbines, as you can tell from the angry commenters attacking them for this stance in the article you linked.
As is the original commenter, who nevertheless got attacked for quoting a "bullshit fact".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As is the original commenter, who nevertheless got attacked for quoting a "bullshit fact".
It is a bullshit fact, just like "80% fat free" is a bullshit fact that plays on human bias. Just because one side is talking about bird deaths doesn't mean it has the moral high ground on that issue. It is in fact a standard political move to attack your opponent on your weak point. And the less motivated listener just says "well they're both bad", even if one is clearly better.
At least over here in Germany the organisations working to get more renewables deployed and studying these things massively overlap (e.g. nature clubs lobbying/advertising for renewables, and at the same time providing the boots on the ground counting dead birds). It has been recognized as a problem and is now managed, just as other environmental influences of new construction projects are (e.g. evaluating a new location includes a comparison with known migratory patterns/populations and restrictions and monitoring requirements can be set accordingly)
I live in a school bus, traveling the country. I think wind turbines are absolutely beautiful; I always marvel at them when we drive by. Does anybody here know how to break into this industry, working on a mobile, on-site basis? Maybe with embedded tech?
Unrelated to wind turbines, but related to living on the road - do you have no permanent address? What were the most difficult adaptions to make from living in a static location to living a vehicle like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed the point of my questions: > How long does nuclear (fission) waste need to be managed? > How long do you believe that AU has had a stable, first-world government? Federation was (to a rounding error) a century ago. Some would argue that it's been stable since then -- I'd argue it hasn't, but the boom/bust left/right vacillation so common in western ersatz democracies evidently is what counts as stable thes…
But it is burning coal, which is far worse at this point. That's what I'm getting at - Australia is uniquely well equipped for nuclear power and has not substantial begun moving away from fossil fuels. If solar is cheaper than nuclear, then by all means build that. But if not? Why not move to nuclear energy?
But just because we have access to relatively cheap Uranium doesn't mean we should be digging it up and processing it.
One of the reasons I rail against the suggestion that AU has a 'stable long term government' (ie. that could be said to be sufficiently grown up to handle fissile waste) is that right now that same government is very publicly committed to fossil fuels, despite the leader of same being on record only a few years ago asserting - loud and wide - that green energy should be our priority, and we should be moving away from fossil fuels. Append usual concerns about the various people involved in getting us to, and then maintaining, this unfortunate situation.