4 ms·

The American Bird Conservancy estimates that "In the United States alone, outdoor cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds every year." [0] Although it's true

The American Bird Conservancy estimates that "In the United States alone, outdoor cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds every year." [0] Although it's true that everything we do as a species / society has an impact on the environment, I think it's still important to look at things like this with perspective. Unfortunately, even green/renewable energy sources have a negative impact on the environment; wind isn't the only one. Not sure I really disagree, though, just wanted to mention that the wind impact isn't really that (relatively) bad. [0] https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/ https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/

arcticbull 6y ago
Nuclear energy doesn't kill any birds, though, and is the safest form of energy in terms of (human) deaths per terawatt hour. This kind of data should inform our decision making.
- jbay808 6y ago
  I bet a nuclear power plant (and its associated uranium mining) kills many more birds than a cat does.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    You think it kills more than 2.4 billion birds per year in the US alone? Or did you mean more than a single cat? Did they forget to put on the upper biological shield? To be clear there are 98 reactors in the US, so that would be almost 25,000,000 birds per reactor per year, or 67,000 per day, or 2,800 per hour, or 46 per minute. That's nearly one bird per second. It would probably be hard to hear over all that racket.
- j-pb 6y ago
  Yet... I'm all in for nuclear, once we know how to get rid of the waste products. It's never been about reactor safety, we have a storage problem, that hasn't been solved yet. Without that we're just slithering into the next "waste product that we don't know how to get rid of" cycle. Also even if we had solved it, it's too late to go nuclear now. The next 20 years will be crucial when it comes to stopping climate change. We simply don't have the time to waste 7.5 years on building new reactors. What we need to do is ramp up the production of existing tech to the max. It's much easier to scale the current renewable production capacity horizontally than scale vertically with nuclear.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    “It’s never been about reactor safety” - except that was the excuse during the 90s and 00s when we should have been building. Storage is still an imaginary pile of what-if “issues” while the world fucking burns. The scale of the issue of nuclear waste storage orders of magnitude smaller than climate change. Yet we still talk about it while burning nat gas and goal.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Not to mention we can just drop it all into Yucca Mountain and never think about it again. I'm surprised given this project was abandoned by the Obama administration, Trump hasn't reversed it on principle.
  - isodude 6y ago
    AFAIK, we have enough material on land to power for quite a while in the future, if you use gen4 facilities.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > Nuclear energy doesn't kill any birds It kills a lot of birds in fact, even if some species manage to survive somehow https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/07/chernobyl-hits-birds-hard https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/07/chernobyl-hits-birds... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22321986/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22321986/ This does not change the fact that wind energy would benefit of a redesign
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I'm not sure it's worth even looking at Chernobyl data as an example of the impact of nuclear energy in a forward-looking way. I too can pick worst-case numbers [1] but I wouldn't be doing so in good faith. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      Yes, there are a lot of things that kill birds. We all know it. Nuclear is still one of them, and the previous claim than nuclear doesn't kill any birds is still false. In any case, a flood is safer for birds than radioactivity. Most of them can fly and will lay a second clutch of eggs. All ends in hours or days, not in 1000 years so, what is the point here? This is not a dichotomy.

arcticbull 6y ago

Nuclear energy doesn't kill any birds, though, and is the safest form of energy in terms of (human) deaths per terawatt hour. This kind of data should inform our decision making.

jbay808 6y ago
I bet a nuclear power plant (and its associated uranium mining) kills many more birds than a cat does.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  You think it kills more than 2.4 billion birds per year in the US alone? Or did you mean more than a single cat? Did they forget to put on the upper biological shield? To be clear there are 98 reactors in the US, so that would be almost 25,000,000 birds per reactor per year, or 67,000 per day, or 2,800 per hour, or 46 per minute. That's nearly one bird per second. It would probably be hard to hear over all that racket.
j-pb 6y ago
Yet... I'm all in for nuclear, once we know how to get rid of the waste products. It's never been about reactor safety, we have a storage problem, that hasn't been solved yet. Without that we're just slithering into the next "waste product that we don't know how to get rid of" cycle. Also even if we had solved it, it's too late to go nuclear now. The next 20 years will be crucial when it comes to stopping climate change. We simply don't have the time to waste 7.5 years on building new reactors. What we need to do is ramp up the production of existing tech to the max. It's much easier to scale the current renewable production capacity horizontally than scale vertically with nuclear.
- kortilla 6y ago
  “It’s never been about reactor safety” - except that was the excuse during the 90s and 00s when we should have been building. Storage is still an imaginary pile of what-if “issues” while the world fucking burns. The scale of the issue of nuclear waste storage orders of magnitude smaller than climate change. Yet we still talk about it while burning nat gas and goal.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Not to mention we can just drop it all into Yucca Mountain and never think about it again. I'm surprised given this project was abandoned by the Obama administration, Trump hasn't reversed it on principle.
- isodude 6y ago
  AFAIK, we have enough material on land to power for quite a while in the future, if you use gen4 facilities.
pvaldes 6y ago
> Nuclear energy doesn't kill any birds It kills a lot of birds in fact, even if some species manage to survive somehow https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/07/chernobyl-hits-birds-hard https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/07/chernobyl-hits-birds... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22321986/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22321986/ This does not change the fact that wind energy would benefit of a redesign
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I'm not sure it's worth even looking at Chernobyl data as an example of the impact of nuclear energy in a forward-looking way. I too can pick worst-case numbers [1] but I wouldn't be doing so in good faith. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    Yes, there are a lot of things that kill birds. We all know it. Nuclear is still one of them, and the previous claim than nuclear doesn't kill any birds is still false. In any case, a flood is safer for birds than radioactivity. Most of them can fly and will lay a second clutch of eggs. All ends in hours or days, not in 1000 years so, what is the point here? This is not a dichotomy.