6 ms·

wind turbines do kill some birds. they are not a first or even second order bird killer though. and newer wind farms pose less of a threat for various reasons.

wind turbines do kill some birds. they are not a first or even second order bird killer though. and newer wind farms pose less of a threat for various reasons. size, etc. https://images.app.goo.gl/SABJs5GkQsGFJC1d7 https://images.app.goo.gl/SABJs5GkQsGFJC1d7

eikenberry 7y ago
Anyone know of similar stats on bat deaths?
briandear 7y ago
Of course they aren’t a first order bird killer because there aren’t that many turbines compared to the first order bird killers. Nuclear power is far more “green” than solar and wind, but for some reason, environmentalists are stuck in wind and solar as saviors. In California, they just declared that hydro doesn’t count as “renewable,” despite it being exactly that. The push for wind and solar is political more than practical. We already have an incredibly green, practically limitless energy technology already available, it’s called nuclear, but instead we want to debate sticking windmills on every patch of ground and covering everything with inefficient solar panels.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  If 100% of US power was wind, turbines would still not be the #1 bird killer. Can you point out the new hydro plants that we can build? As a California resident, I'm happy that the state isn't spending extra to buy nuclear.
  - petre 7y ago
    At least California residents are lucky enough to benefit from vast geothermal resources, which could be used for base load instead of nuclear. Hydropower utilities are mostly peaker plants.
- shaki-dora 7y ago
  > The push for wind and solar is political more than practical. It's fascinating how you're accusing others to be emotional instead of rational, while answering a post providing data for one specific question regarding wind power with an unspecific rant.
- flukus 7y ago
  How many birds, bats and insect that they feed on are killed (or never get to live) by uranium mining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ranger_3_open_pit.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ranger_3_open_pit.jpg ?
  - dTal 7y ago
    Per watt, I'm willing to bet (without evidence) that the ratio is quite favorable. Yeah the open pit looks bad, but uranium has a simply stupendous amount of energy. And the damage is well localized (while renewables tend to need a lot of area).
- imtringued 7y ago
  Nuclear power still requires water as coolant so it's environmental impact is still as bad for the local fish as a coal plant.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    I don't see how that follows - even with lacking care to mix exhaust hot water with cold to make it warm. That would at worst cause localized fish kills and algae blooms as opposed to lasting damage. Nuclear plants are usually located with abundant water for cooling and contamination is more of a concern than evaporation.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Read someone mention that some reactors in France are limited by river temperatures in the summer. Or else they'll start cooking fish. Me I think we're in the harm reduction phase of industrial civilization. Nothing we do isn't going to have some negative impact.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  Nuclear has problems which humanity hasn't found an answer yet: 1) what to do with the waste that has to be kept safe for thousands of years, war-, theft- and natural-disaster-proof? Recycling or breeding can be done but nowhere near the volume that is required. For early attempts at long term storage we have problems getting the waste out of there. 2) how to operate nuclear power in a capitalist society safely? Operators will always have the incentive to cut corners and bypass regulations for profit, leading to security issues and accidents. Hell even communism has failed there, e.g. in Chernobyl or that lake (?) where they dumped their old submarines. 3) how to make a reactor disaster-proof? This includes geology (earthquakes like in Japan), water, fire, terrorism, operator negligence, ...
- 7952 7y ago
  Imagine if nuclear killed a similar number of birds and bats. Would you suddenly say that it wasn't green enough? Of course not, that would be stupid. Wind and solar are green enough. The environmental damage caused by either source is trivially small. Also, any complex project will be subject to politics. That is just reality. If you want to defeat climate change (a political objective) you have to put forward projects that will be approved by government.

eikenberry 7y ago

Anyone know of similar stats on bat deaths?

briandear 7y ago

Of course they aren’t a first order bird killer because there aren’t that many turbines compared to the first order bird killers. Nuclear power is far more “green” than solar and wind, but for some reason, environmentalists are stuck in wind and solar as saviors. In California, they just declared that hydro doesn’t count as “renewable,” despite it being exactly that. The push for wind and solar is political more than practical. We already have an incredibly green, practically limitless energy technology already available, it’s called nuclear, but instead we want to debate sticking windmills on every patch of ground and covering everything with inefficient solar panels.

greglindahl 7y ago
If 100% of US power was wind, turbines would still not be the #1 bird killer. Can you point out the new hydro plants that we can build? As a California resident, I'm happy that the state isn't spending extra to buy nuclear.
- petre 7y ago
  At least California residents are lucky enough to benefit from vast geothermal resources, which could be used for base load instead of nuclear. Hydropower utilities are mostly peaker plants.
shaki-dora 7y ago
> The push for wind and solar is political more than practical. It's fascinating how you're accusing others to be emotional instead of rational, while answering a post providing data for one specific question regarding wind power with an unspecific rant.
flukus 7y ago
How many birds, bats and insect that they feed on are killed (or never get to live) by uranium mining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ranger_3_open_pit.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ranger_3_open_pit.jpg ?
- dTal 7y ago
  Per watt, I'm willing to bet (without evidence) that the ratio is quite favorable. Yeah the open pit looks bad, but uranium has a simply stupendous amount of energy. And the damage is well localized (while renewables tend to need a lot of area).
imtringued 7y ago
Nuclear power still requires water as coolant so it's environmental impact is still as bad for the local fish as a coal plant.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I don't see how that follows - even with lacking care to mix exhaust hot water with cold to make it warm. That would at worst cause localized fish kills and algae blooms as opposed to lasting damage. Nuclear plants are usually located with abundant water for cooling and contamination is more of a concern than evaporation.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Read someone mention that some reactors in France are limited by river temperatures in the summer. Or else they'll start cooking fish. Me I think we're in the harm reduction phase of industrial civilization. Nothing we do isn't going to have some negative impact.
mschuster91 7y ago
Nuclear has problems which humanity hasn't found an answer yet: 1) what to do with the waste that has to be kept safe for thousands of years, war-, theft- and natural-disaster-proof? Recycling or breeding can be done but nowhere near the volume that is required. For early attempts at long term storage we have problems getting the waste out of there. 2) how to operate nuclear power in a capitalist society safely? Operators will always have the incentive to cut corners and bypass regulations for profit, leading to security issues and accidents. Hell even communism has failed there, e.g. in Chernobyl or that lake (?) where they dumped their old submarines. 3) how to make a reactor disaster-proof? This includes geology (earthquakes like in Japan), water, fire, terrorism, operator negligence, ...
7952 7y ago
Imagine if nuclear killed a similar number of birds and bats. Would you suddenly say that it wasn't green enough? Of course not, that would be stupid. Wind and solar are green enough. The environmental damage caused by either source is trivially small. Also, any complex project will be subject to politics. That is just reality. If you want to defeat climate change (a political objective) you have to put forward projects that will be approved by government.