3 ms·

Most studies indicate between 2 and 3 bird strikes per wind turbine, with far more birds being killed by cats, buildings, glass, cars, etc. Turbines are also b

Most studies indicate between 2 and 3 bird strikes per wind turbine, with far more birds being killed by cats, buildings, glass, cars, etc. Turbines are also below 500m, which typically is the floor for the path of migratory birds. The noise for the wind turbine comes from mostly the gearbox, though there are efforts under way to reduce that, including completely eliminating the gearbox from the design. But at this point, I think debating with you on point to point is a little... pointless, so I'll just leave this: On earth, there are 5 sources of energy. Unlike in 1900, we now have a pretty damn good understanding of physics to know that this is all we get. - We have energy coming from the Sun. There's a fair bit of it, and there might be enough to sustainably allow us to live. This gives us Wind / Solar power. - We have energy coming from the moon. Tidal power does work in some places, but it's magnitudes smaller than the energy from the Sun. - We have carbon fuels - We have nuclear fuels - We have geothermal energy... though efforts to tap that has produced only earthquakes so far. That's all we get, unless someone goes out and develops cheap fusion power (highly unlikely situation - fusion reactions produce a lot of neutrons which are very difficult to deal with). I don't think there is any other "alternative energy sources".

ScotterC 16y ago
I hope you understand that fission was the first time we have ever created energy. All other forms are just scavenging it from the sun. Nuclear fusion is unlikely but nuclear fission has been proven over the last 60 years and as Bernard Cohen lays out, could provide us with enough energy for millions of years (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html).
- miratrix 16y ago
  And I hope you stop putting words into my mouth. I just said that there are 5 sources of energy (solar, lunar, geothermal, nuclear, and fossil fuels) on earth. Also, you're also factually incorrect regarding the Sun being the only energy source. The lunar / tidal energy is due to the gravity between the earth and the moon, and the geothermal energy is due to the gravity of the earth itself. Fact of the matter is that there is no silver bullet that'll solve all our energy problems ala Star Trek unless there's a breakthrough in something like nuclear fusion. The paper you cite assume 100% uranium recovery from uranium contained within the Ocean waters, which holds most of recoverable uranium on Earth. The Japanese have some interesting research that they're doing to recover the seawater Uranium using a giant sponge like device, but it hasn't been proven yet whether it's possible to extract uranium from seawater in net-energy-positive manner, not to mention most of the seawater being fairly inaccessible. I don't understand your hostility, as I've mentioned over and over again that I am in agreement that Nuclear power has gotten the short end of the shaft, and that more investment is needed. All I was trying to do is to say that there are benefits of investing in pure renewables like wind and solar - wind energy is already almost cheap enough to compete with other conventional energy sources even without the PTC. And as a working engineer in a tiny startup struggling to fix the very issues that you bring up (and completely re-imagine the wind industry as it exists if we succeed), I'm not a mouth piece of this large wind power conglomerate that you seem to make me out to be. I'd highly recommend reading David MacKay's "Without the Hot Air" which is available free on PDF at http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/ . David is much more eloquent than me and has done far more research into the issues at play here.
  - ScotterC 16y ago
    Sorry, If I appeared hostile. You seemed to be quite the renewable-only supporter and hadn't taken into context alternative nuclear fuels. I'm not a fan of wind or solar as a form of large scale energy production. They have there place in certain locations but I think it is downright dangerous how a large majority of people seem to think that they can satisfy our energy needs. Loved DavidMacKay's book.

ScotterC 16y ago

I hope you understand that fission was the first time we have ever created energy. All other forms are just scavenging it from the sun. Nuclear fusion is unlikely but nuclear fission has been proven over the last 60 years and as Bernard Cohen lays out, could provide us with enough energy for millions of years (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html).

miratrix 16y ago
And I hope you stop putting words into my mouth. I just said that there are 5 sources of energy (solar, lunar, geothermal, nuclear, and fossil fuels) on earth. Also, you're also factually incorrect regarding the Sun being the only energy source. The lunar / tidal energy is due to the gravity between the earth and the moon, and the geothermal energy is due to the gravity of the earth itself. Fact of the matter is that there is no silver bullet that'll solve all our energy problems ala Star Trek unless there's a breakthrough in something like nuclear fusion. The paper you cite assume 100% uranium recovery from uranium contained within the Ocean waters, which holds most of recoverable uranium on Earth. The Japanese have some interesting research that they're doing to recover the seawater Uranium using a giant sponge like device, but it hasn't been proven yet whether it's possible to extract uranium from seawater in net-energy-positive manner, not to mention most of the seawater being fairly inaccessible. I don't understand your hostility, as I've mentioned over and over again that I am in agreement that Nuclear power has gotten the short end of the shaft, and that more investment is needed. All I was trying to do is to say that there are benefits of investing in pure renewables like wind and solar - wind energy is already almost cheap enough to compete with other conventional energy sources even without the PTC. And as a working engineer in a tiny startup struggling to fix the very issues that you bring up (and completely re-imagine the wind industry as it exists if we succeed), I'm not a mouth piece of this large wind power conglomerate that you seem to make me out to be. I'd highly recommend reading David MacKay's "Without the Hot Air" which is available free on PDF at http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/ . David is much more eloquent than me and has done far more research into the issues at play here.
- ScotterC 16y ago
  Sorry, If I appeared hostile. You seemed to be quite the renewable-only supporter and hadn't taken into context alternative nuclear fuels. I'm not a fan of wind or solar as a form of large scale energy production. They have there place in certain locations but I think it is downright dangerous how a large majority of people seem to think that they can satisfy our energy needs. Loved DavidMacKay's book.