> with the exceptions of Alaska and Hawaii
What is it about these places that made them effect the bird population?
Did it negatively effect it?
Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling
201–210 of 413 posts
Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling
#202Wind turbines are not very friendly at all to oil-and-gas drilling!
Direct competition, why would they be?
Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling
#203The 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 t…
[flagged]
Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling
#204Why does nobody talk about the real issue with wind and solar? It's ugly. It distracts from the landscape.
Yes, I also prefer the beautiful oil rigs, and the nice smell of coal in the air. Anyway, all the buildings made by humans are so nice to look at, except for the really really ugly solar and wind installations!
Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "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".
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.
That ship sailed 40 years ago. I get it - if Chernobyl didn't happen we would be in way better shape. But it happened, and expertise in nuclear plants rotted for 4 decades because of it.
It's now behind. Basically no one wants to fund new nuclear plants. They're incredibly risky considering how front-loaded the cost is.
Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling
#206If 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 a…
or maybe she has, quite rationally, developed “epistemic learned helplessness”?
edit: forgot to add the link ( which was reposted to HN earlier today) https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...
Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling
#207Earlier 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?)
Big projects overrun on time and budget. I've never seen anyone take the Berlin airport as evidence against airports.
Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling
#208It's estimated that cats kill 1.3–4 billion birds each year in the U.S. alone, with 69% of these kills attributable to feral or unowned cats: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/faq-outdoor-cats-and-thei...
Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling
#209Earlier 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.
No in my world we don't delay the process of stopping to destroy our planet over some minor concerns that are typically raised by people who argue against this because they want to continue burning stuff and slow down the demise of the fossil fuel industry. These people don't actually care about our planet, the environment, or any of this. And I suspect your concern is disingenuous.
Re: Wind turbines are friendlier to birds than oil-and-gas drilling
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
[flagged]
Those cooling towers are just large hollow hyperboloids. There's nothing in there that would "shred" a bird. And since they don't move, it's not likely that a bird would collide with one (though maybe that happens from time to time)