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

121–130 of 413 posts

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

#121

Post by firebat45 »

itsoktocry wrote: post #114
jillesvangurp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to believe. The massive ecological destruction caused by the oil and gas industry is well documented. Whatever downsides there are to wind mills, pale in comparison to that.

> Whatever downsides there are to wind mills, pale in comparison to that. So in your world we're going to do whatever because it can't be as bad? Sounds like a terrible plan.

So in your world, we make no attempt to improve anything unless we can achieve 100% perfection? Sounds like a terrible plan.

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

#122

Post by red1reaper »

m0llusk wrote: post #78

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 beneficia…

> 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?

Absolutely, 100% yes, fuck eagles, who needs them when windmill can go brrrbrbrbrbrbrbr, in fact it would be even better to manually hunt them before even installing the windmills so that they do not damage them.

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

#123

Post by ajross »

swader999 wrote: post #118
SamBam wrote: post #25

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. ht…

[flagged]

Because they migrated or are in hibernation, adaptations that exist precisely to accommodate the particular climate of your area. Disrupt that and you mess up their ecosystem. I really fail to understand how this kind of glib response persists even in forums like this one where people claim to be good at reasoning.

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

#124

Post by throwaway5752 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #111
foxyv wrote: post #105

If we cared about birds we would be talking about reducing car traffic and saving more areas for wildlife. The argument against Solar and Wind with regards to wildlife preservation is almost always a distraction.

If we cared about birds we'd be aggressively controlling the cat population.

deleted

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

#125

Post by ajross »

codingdave wrote: post #97
l5870uoo9y wrote: post #88

The title is symptomatic for the climate discourse; either for or against oil/coal and wind/solar. I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.

Affordable is the trick, though - while I totally understand why that is important, sometimes it seems like we're going to end up saying: "Sorry we are going extinct... staying alive wasn't profitable." I know that is both an idealistic and hyperbolic take on things. The bigger point is that when people say "affordable", they often really mean "profitable". But we cannot afford not to fix the problems.

To be fair, though: wind power is cheap as dirt, which is why we're building it out like crazy basically everywhere with real estate for the turbines. Which is also why it's being opposed with weird canards like "But Birds!" and not practical arguments about power grid management.

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

#126

Post by marcosdumay »

pjc50 wrote: post #117
l5870uoo9y wrote: post #88

The title is symptomatic for the climate discourse; either for or against oil/coal and wind/solar. I find the question "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" much more relevant and productive.

> "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?" "Clean" and "affordable" map immediately and obviously onto wind and solar; what then happens is people engage in a lot of wrangling around "reliable" to push nuclear, requiring bending both "clean" and "affordable" quite a bit and running into an invisible other criteria of "quick to deploy" and "politically acceptable".

Well, "quick to deploy" is absolutely essential. "Politically acceptable" is a red herring.

But the OP's question is loaded too. We don't need "reliable" right now. Fossil fuel can cover the reliability gap on the short term perfectly well. Until the question becomes "well, we replaced all the peak consumption with renewables, now what?", asking for reliability is status-quo propaganda.

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

#127

Post by pjc50 »

awiejrilawej wrote: post #90
janmalec wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm genuinely curious, why are there so many extraordinarily pro-nuclear people on this forum? And how many of them have greater than zero experience with nuclear anything? I worked in the nuclear power industry for a decade and people in the industry are not as maniacally pro-nuclear as the people in this forum.

It's weird, isn't it? There's a lot of nuclear cheerleaders, and it makes me suspicious when they're also anti-renewables rather than "yes, and".

Essentially everyone has forgotten the arguments of the nineties: nuclear weapons proliferation, waste dumping, and covering the entirety of western Europe in a thin layer of airborne radioactive particles. As well as the more practical cost overruns. Personally I think it would be worth someone giving SMR a go, but in a different country from me and at their own expense.

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

#129

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

itsoktocry wrote: post #110
locallost wrote: post #59

I am not a conspiracy theorist, it's just a simple case of "follow the money". The fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar per year business and their interest is to keep it this way. So poisoning the well is a good strategy for them. If you thought about it, it was clear the bird argument was always just a talking point nimby types were fed with, so they have something alarming to repeat and to get outraged, witho…

> "follow the money". The fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar per year business and their interest is to keep it this way. Meanwhile, the green energy industry is not-for-profit, volunteer, altruistic and unbiased. That's incredibly naive. If you don't think the global capitalists are moving towards a green transition, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Newer industries are at least not that monopolistic and politically "connected".

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

#130

Post by red1reaper »

beaeglebeached wrote: post #27
sunshinesnacks wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

bah, old people is the reason why we are climatically bad in the first place, its a downside they are going to have to accept.
Post reply on HN