4 ms·

It's usually the types of birds that are affected that upset people. Many ideal locations for windmills (in particular mountainous regions, dunno about offshore

It's usually the types of birds that are affected that upset people. Many ideal locations for windmills (in particular mountainous regions, dunno about offshore) happen to also be ideal places for threatened or endangered large raptors. Likewise, there's the (unproven) connection with noise generated by offshore wind farms disturbing wildlife migration and movement, especially among whales. It'd be nice to know that we're not replacing one disaster with another, though I'm out of date on my personal research as to whether any of these concerns still warrant further investigation.

triceratops 2y ago
> Many ideal locations for windmills...happen to also be ideal places for threatened or endangered large raptors. The person I replied to was making a quantity-of-birds argument. Not an endangered species argument. > there's the (unproven) connection with noise generated by offshore wind farms disturbing wildlife migration and movement Do they make a lot more noise than giant cruise ships? Luxury yachts? I don't see much of a movement to ban those. It's almost like people decide the things they want to have for themselves (undisturbed views), then make up whatever noble-sounding reasons (whales, birds) will preserve those things.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  > Bringing up bird welfare to oppose wind turbines is bullshit. If people cared about birds or wildlife we wouldn't be in this mess at all. Your comment seems to be a blanket opposition to bird welfare in general, not a limited critique of quantity harmed. I do think the distinction remains important, hence why I made my post. > Do they make a lot more noise than giant cruise ships? Luxury yachts? Given that the ships are itinerant and their turbines are much smaller, I do believe the type of noise pollution they generate is qualitatively less harmful. I imagine the scale is something along the lines of: 1. windmills 2. sonar 3. marine vehicle engine and turbine noise Windmills take the top spot for being a constant barrage over a large area. Sonar gets the second for the extreme volume some ships (esp. military) are capable of producing, though there are far fewer of them. Marine vehicles come last. There's a greater danger of animals being hit by fast moving boats (for example, manatees) than discombobulation from engine and turbine noise.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > Your comment seems to be a blanket opposition to bird welfare in general I don't know how you got that. I just think a lot of fake bird lovers come out of the woodwork to oppose wind turbines because of $MADE_UP_REASON. Real wildlife lovers recognize that clean energy is good for wildlife.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > I imagine the scale is something... Do you have sources for this scale? > Windmills take the top spot for being a constant barrage over a large area. They're also static, so animals can just avoid them. Their blades spin a hundred feet above the water. Ships move around so their sounds can be anywhere. Their propellers spin in the water. And there are way more large ships than offshore windmills.

triceratops 2y ago

> Many ideal locations for windmills...happen to also be ideal places for threatened or endangered large raptors. The person I replied to was making a quantity-of-birds argument. Not an endangered species argument. > there's the (unproven) connection with noise generated by offshore wind farms disturbing wildlife migration and movement Do they make a lot more noise than giant cruise ships? Luxury yachts? I don't see much of a movement to ban those. It's almost like people decide the things they want to have for themselves (undisturbed views), then make up whatever noble-sounding reasons (whales, birds) will preserve those things.

zdragnar 2y ago
> Bringing up bird welfare to oppose wind turbines is bullshit. If people cared about birds or wildlife we wouldn't be in this mess at all. Your comment seems to be a blanket opposition to bird welfare in general, not a limited critique of quantity harmed. I do think the distinction remains important, hence why I made my post. > Do they make a lot more noise than giant cruise ships? Luxury yachts? Given that the ships are itinerant and their turbines are much smaller, I do believe the type of noise pollution they generate is qualitatively less harmful. I imagine the scale is something along the lines of: 1. windmills 2. sonar 3. marine vehicle engine and turbine noise Windmills take the top spot for being a constant barrage over a large area. Sonar gets the second for the extreme volume some ships (esp. military) are capable of producing, though there are far fewer of them. Marine vehicles come last. There's a greater danger of animals being hit by fast moving boats (for example, manatees) than discombobulation from engine and turbine noise.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > Your comment seems to be a blanket opposition to bird welfare in general I don't know how you got that. I just think a lot of fake bird lovers come out of the woodwork to oppose wind turbines because of $MADE_UP_REASON. Real wildlife lovers recognize that clean energy is good for wildlife.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > I imagine the scale is something... Do you have sources for this scale? > Windmills take the top spot for being a constant barrage over a large area. They're also static, so animals can just avoid them. Their blades spin a hundred feet above the water. Ships move around so their sounds can be anywhere. Their propellers spin in the water. And there are way more large ships than offshore windmills.