Live data from Hacker News

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

economist.com

191–200 of 413 posts

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

#191
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.

I think it's pretty clear if we cared much about anything we'd be doing a lot of things. But instead, we have this: We have a conversation like this one, I had it with my sister. We agree on this statement you've made in that conversation. Sister goes and buys a new gigantic SUV that gets 20 mpg. Understands we were just talking about how bad that is, but make a thousand excuses as to why she using the bad thing is an exception to the rule.

We're a few billion exceptions to the rules walking around, very few people want to give up their fun. I've had this conversation with gun owners, oversized truck owners, people interested in public transit it always comes down to something they want everybody else to have to do but not them.

We're not going to give up our toys til we're dead.

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

#192
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wind is probably less likely to run out like the oil rig did.

Exactly. Replace the turbine with another turbine when it reaches EOL.

I just read about it and here the foundations are usually removed. At least that is what they claim.

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

#193
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP is pointing out that most pearl-clutching about the effects of wind turbines comes from people who don't care about birds in any other context. It's solely a way to continue fossil fuel production, using the language of environmentalism. A serious discussion of the safety of birds would sound very different, but that isn't the goal. The goal is to talk about anything other than reducing fossil fuel production.

Ridiculous argument. Why on earth would people care about the birds in the context of natural processes compared to unnatural processes? This is a monumentally stupid apples and oranges “gotcha”.

> natural processes

I'm curious, what are you thinking of when you say 'natural processes'? I hope it's not cats.

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

#195
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mislieading to use "politically acceptable" like "quick to deploy". What's "politically acceptable" is something we shape with every word we say and which differs accross countries. Speaking of countries, I could reduce this answer to one word, which refutes every single point you make: France.

France have done better than most, largely due to building their fleet before Chernobyl, but even they have long term maintenance and cost overrun problems that led to shortages: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/08/26/edf-s-n... And the EDF reactor project in the UK is of course overrunning on time and budget. (when is the next French nuclear reactor new build scheduled to come on line?)

Not just that, rivers overheating is becoming a real problem now in places that were perfectly fine 40 years ago.

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

#196
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…

Are you unconsciously keeping nuclear energy out of the equation, or why is nuclear not an option in your mind - where then bird populations will be better off, and where solar also isn't destroying the surface environment where life and forests could otherwise thrive [if we're talking about having energy generated locally, then most of the world doesn't have convenient desserts nearby, which arguably we could also turn green if we wanted]?

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

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Both are to blame, but meat is more delicious than oil, so ppl prefer, with all the reason in the world to dunk on big oil. First we go and kill big oil, after that we can talk about killing big meat.

[flagged]

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

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elaborate. Haven’t stood next to either. My curiosity is piqued. What should I be expecting when I find myself so lucky?

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQksc1-5Zoc imagine living with that 12 hours a day. like a drop of water hitting your forehead every few seconds. forever.

Lol, thats it? This is the downside compared to the oil and coal?

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

#199

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.

I mean, the title is in response to the specific, observed phenomenon of people in oil/gas/coal producing areas arguing for environmental restrictions on solar/wind/nuclear, but not arguing the same for oil/gas/coal.

In the context of "what is a reliable, clean and affordable energy source?", we need to address that whatever we pick will necessarily hurt somebody's bottom line, and they will dig in and fight tooth and nail to prevent that happening, even if their livelihood is at the expense of the species. So rationally addressing a bad faith argument against many options that answer your question is, I think, worthwhile.

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

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cats are a scapegoat to deflect the incalculable damage done to wildlife by humans themselves, their industries and habitat expansion.

They're not a deflection, the domesticated cat is in fact one of the incalculable harms done to the environment by humans. They're an extreme environmental problem that humans created and are solely responsible for.
Post reply on HN