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

71–80 of 413 posts

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

#71

Post by ajuc »

adastra22 wrote: post #2

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

There's currently a big public debate in my country regarding relaxing building restrictions for wind turbines, and all the FUD about noise levels, killing birds etc is very much in use.

Current law is so harsh that you can build a coal powerplant closer to peoples' houses than a wind turbine :)

That's despite the fact we have the worst air pollution in EU and the wind turbines would replace coal powerplants...

TL; DR: you're wrong.

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

#72

Post by jeffbee »

gumby wrote: post #34
kapnap wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t like oil drilling but even without your experience it’s clear GP’s assertion is nonsense. There are still oil wells all over Los Angeles in parking lots and tucked between buildings, which is a contradicting existence proof. I can imagine in a big oil field like in Midland, TX they have a lot of sprawling operations that take up a lot of room. But that doesn’t have to be the only way.

Even the drill site in Beverly Hills on W. Pico is 2 acres. But the wildlife impact of drilling for oil in Beverly Hills is zero, whereas the wildlife impact of drilling for oil in the middle of nowhere is higher.

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

#73

Post by User23 »

forward1 wrote: post #38
imafish wrote: post #7

[flagged]

[flagged]

The alternative to domesticated animal use isn’t happy cows prancing through the prairies, it’s the extinction of those species.

Yes, factory farming is awful. But a pasture raised cow has a pretty nice cow life all things considered. Sure it comes to an abrupt end and becomes food, but so what? Coming to an abrupt end and becoming food is the fate of all living things. There’s no avoiding it.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

gumby wrote: post #34
kapnap wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t like oil drilling but even without your experience it’s clear GP’s assertion is nonsense. There are still oil wells all over Los Angeles in parking lots and tucked between buildings, which is a contradicting existence proof. I can imagine in a big oil field like in Midland, TX they have a lot of sprawling operations that take up a lot of room. But that doesn’t have to be the only way.

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by cinntaile »

audunw wrote: post #54
forward1 wrote: post #32

[flagged]

You can look up numbers for the White-tailed eagle population around Smøla wind power plant in Norway, if you want a concrete example. You have a study there where they looked at bird deaths before and after painting a wind turbine blade black btw. Quite interesting. The population in the area has been increasing . We know that the wind turbine sometimes kill eagles. But now that we aren't actively hunting them to ex…

> We can put radar and camera systems on them to turn them off when birds come nearby.

I very much doubt it's a feasible strategy to turn off a wind turbine every time a bird comes nearby, that would even further exacerbate the variability of wind energy...

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

#76

Post by kapnap »

jeffbee wrote: post #61
kapnap wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sheesh. That's insane. My understanding is that East California is like that too. Not sure the status as of today and if this is still permitted or not? Look up some images from LA in the early oil boom - crazy. Here's an example of them in Alberta (where I am familiar): https://maps.app.goo.gl/73x4uKZxWKbZkgD76

In 2023 California almost halted drilling permits, but mainly because the governor has national office ambitions and he was starting to get some criticism from the hypocrisy of having overseen 10000+ new oil permits during his tenure.

"Everything in moderation, including moderation" comes to mind.

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

#77

Post by audunw »

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.

That's a "yes, and" kind of thing. We can't build nuclear fast enough yet. So we need both. I'd argue that wind and solar is much more important at this point since the growth of those is now faster than nuclear has ever been. And fast growth of non-fossil energy sources is priority #1 right now. We can free up some land later with nuclear. Wind and solar isn't going to push any species to extinction, so any damage is reversible.

Though I'm a bit wary of nuclear given there are studies indicating that the heat energy added by thermal power plants contributes surprisingly much to global warming. If we can replace all thermal power plants with renewables that's a nice contribution to reducing global warming. On the order of CO2 emissions from planes if I remember correctly.

I'm sure we could "afford" the heat from thermal power plants if we didn't have so many greenhouse gases. But when we're already so close to the edge of the cliff, every little bit counts.

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

#78

Post by m0llusk »

This is broken logic. Working primarily with averages leads directly to repeating the mistakes of the statistician who drown in a lake that was an average of three feet deep. Currently one of the notably large wind farms being operated is in the Altamont Pass in California which also happens to be the preferred spawning site for golden eagles. Does it make sense to assert that since wind farms are generally beneficial that we should not worry about drastically reducing or even eliminating golden eagles in California? The issue isn't wind farms or fossil fuels, it is exactly how we should build and maintain these wind farms and where. Using the critically needed energy transition to wipe out species of wild animals may not be an appropriate strategy.

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

#79

Post by ceejayoz »

forward1 wrote: post #70
ethanbond wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, suggesting that we should slow/stop the transition to alternative fuel sources due to bird deaths in turbines is absolutely fossil fuel propaganda. The real danger to birds (and humans, and all other wildlife) is not flying into turbines, but systemic failure caused by extremely rapid environmental changes. You know, the kind that fossil fuel consumption is causing.

[flagged]

> It is well known agriculture (and we really mean animal agriculture) produces more greenhouse gases than the fossil fuel industry.

Agriculture is a fossil fuel industry. The fertilizer it depends on comes from fossil fuel, the machines that till the fields run on fossil fuel, etc.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82194/err-224....

"The food system accounts for a large share of fossil fuel consumption in the United States, and energy accounts for a substantial and highly variable share of food costs."

It's also not an either/or scenario. Both fossil fuel use and cow farts cause said climate change.

Post reply on HN