Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 413 posts

Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling

#21

Post by kapnap »

jeffbee wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Incredibly false.

A typical "large" rig will need a 100m x 100m drill pad, roads to access which are often highly controlled during the design phase.

A drilling rig will remain on location for MAYBE 30-40 days if it is a deep well (2000m-7000m).

A completions rig (aka service rig) will come out afterwards to complete the well (install downhole equipment / frac / get the well ready for production). Lease may be a bit bigger if large frac. Been a drilling engineer for 15+ years so haven't really seen too many fracs.

Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling

#22

Post by sunshinesnacks »

beaeglebeached wrote: post #8
yellow_lead wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there have been campaigns and articles for years attacking wind energy on the basis of protecting birds.

Of course, if your neighbor has a good turbine spot and you don't, you have to look at it while his property's utility rises over yours. That, cannot be tolerated. They're free to move to industrial zoned land if they want to be a power plant. (Neither the ag-backwoods voters controlling their zoning nor capitalists installing them are hyper concerned about sparrows getting chopped up. It's a ruse.)

> That, cannot be tolerated.

Why, exactly?

Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling

#23

Post by CapitalistCartr »

kapnap wrote: post #21
jeffbee wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Incredibly false. A typical "large" rig will need a 100m x 100m drill pad, roads to access which are often highly controlled during the design phase. A drilling rig will remain on location for MAYBE 30-40 days if it is a deep well (2000m-7000m). A completions rig (aka service rig) will come out afterwards to complete the well (install downhole equipment / frac / get the well ready for production). Lease may be a bit…

So 2-1/2 acres plus roads, instead of 5 acres, and you address how long, which OP didn't mention, in no way disputing him. Not a basis for leading with "incredibly false."

Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling

#25

Post by SamBam »

The local birds killed by oil drilling aren't even what we should be comparing to. Even if that number were zero, bird populations world still be better off in a world powered by wind turbines than oil and gas.

Global warning is coming for birds too. Global warming poses an "existential threat for two thirds of North American bird species" [1] and obviously a similar proportion of bird species around the globe.

1. https://www.audubon.org/climate/survivalbydegrees

Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling

#26

Post by tasty_freeze »

adastra22 wrote: post #2

What a weird comparison. Nobody is saying we should drill oil and gas instead of wind turbines.

I don't know where you are, but in the US there is a large percentage of the population who claim to believe that, who claim that "green coal" is a thing, and they vote like they believe it.

Former President Trump has repeatedly stated that wind turbines are terrible for birds. I'm no mind reader, but it is also a fact that he owns a coastal golf course and sued to prevent development of a wind farm because he didn't want his golfers experience to be affected by seeing offshore wind turbines.

2016: https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/trumps-hot-air-on-wind-ene... 2018: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/trump-again-overblows-risk... 2019: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/23/trump-bizarr... 2020: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-wind-energy-kills-... 2023: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-thousands-bald-eagle...

I'm sure if I looked beyond the first page of search results, I could fill in the other years.

Some information about the lawsuit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Golf_Club_...

Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling

#27

Post by beaeglebeached »

sunshinesnacks wrote: post #22
beaeglebeached wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, if your neighbor has a good turbine spot and you don't, you have to look at it while his property's utility rises over yours. That, cannot be tolerated. They're free to move to industrial zoned land if they want to be a power plant. (Neither the ag-backwoods voters controlling their zoning nor capitalists installing them are hyper concerned about sparrows getting chopped up. It's a ruse.)

> That, cannot be tolerated. Why, exactly?

If you search zoning meeting wind turbine Google images it will be revealed quickly. Scan the demographic. Old people who've already gotten theirs with mostly invented blame for ailments. It's all downside for them, to see their landscape change and plant a tree who's shade they'll never see.

Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling

#28

Post by ceejayoz »

delegate wrote: post #24

> their blades can spin at well over 200km per hour. It is easy to imagine careless birds getting chopped to bits. Interesting use of the word 'friendlier'.

That's the article's introduction; the rest of the article goes on to indicate why that imagined concern isn't as bad as imagined, especially when compared to the impact on birds of fossil fuel production and use.

Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling

#29

Post by osigurdson »

janmalec wrote: post #4
yellow_lead wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there have been campaigns and articles for years attacking wind energy on the basis of protecting birds.

May I introduce you to our lord and saviour nuclear energy.

It blows up though.

Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling

#30

Post by gumby »

onionisafruit wrote: post #10

I want to believe, but this article is less than convincing without reading detail about the study’s methods. I didn’t see a link to the paper on my first read. When I decided to go back and get the author’s name, Economist’s paywall kicked in. If anybody can see the full article, it would be lovely if you put the name of the researcher in the comments so I can read the original paper.

This comment has the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38968302
Post reply on HN