Select to expand quotekato said..
Birds don't have an issue
How many birds are killed by wind turbines in the world?
There are a few studies estimating bird mortality resulting from wind turbines.
Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that there are around 140,000 and 500,000 turbine-related bird deaths in the US each year.
Studies in 2013 and 2014 provide similar estimates, but it's agreed that the true figure today is probably higher, as there are more wind farms.
Globally, it's predicted that bird deaths resulting from wind turbines will increase to over 2 million per year by 2050.
But, again, this figure is hotly debated, as a study from Spain suggested that turbine-related deaths in Spain alone likely exceeded 6 to 18 million per year.
Several other studies measured bird deaths per turbine, with findings ranging between 40 and 800 or so birds.
There is huge variation in the data, and it remains extremely difficult to tell exactly how menacing turbines are for bird populations.
Do Wind Turbines Kill Birds? (How, Statistics + Prevention) | Birdfact
Numbers vary wildly, which makes sense cause it s not very easy to measure.
But perhaps its good to put things into perspective..
Notwithstanding the above, measures are being put in place to lower bird collisions. (offshore) Windfarms have been equipped with bird radars integrated in the control system of the wind farm,which allows the system to identify the type of bird, track and predict its trajectory and shut down turbines on the bird's path. This is then mostly aimed at protected species. In this context, the Ecowende project in The Netherlands is worth checking.
"The only problem we have with our wind farms in the UK, is that they are all run by private companies, foreign owned or based overseas. And it would be better if they were state owned."
Basher they're called rent seekers they would never build them without the subsidies because they are uneconomic.The other problem is they are made in China so again you are losing your energy security to an untrustworthy source its like getting gas from Russia.
Well expect power prices to keep rising as renewables demand more subsidies.The price squeeze on minerals and materials is dominated by
CHINA.
Anyone that protests against this has to finally wake up. I can't believe how many people like these protesters still don't get it, Australia is so far behind the rest of the world, it's almost ridiculous. So you don't be care about the environment but do care are about a few birds getting killed, right!
Would you rather have an offshore wind park that you don't see or hear, or a polluting coal plant in your backyard? I would get it if you protests against the latter.
environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/9/20/watch-thrown-to-the-wind
Take from it what you will but Big Wind is in control.
Wind farms kill whales, 100 million birds...I wonder who funds these studies...
And who defends the industries which are poluting, CO2 producers, and using resources which are clearly in a limited supply
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
It is the sun that is the source of heat not carbon dioxide.
Oh gods, I cannot stand ignorance: it is the reflection from the Moon that warms earth! Don't you see how far the sun is, how can it warm earth!?
But you are right about Carbon Dioxide. First, how can a gas warm anything!!!! and second, it is actually heavier than air. It stays on the ground where it helps vegetation. It is the wind farms, with all the rotating blades, that move it in the atmosphere and damage plants!
Like any new technology the business case tends to be a bit rubbery. For example where is the whole of life costing? It might well be in the documents approved by governments, but goes unremarked. Well we are at the cutting edge dealing with uncertainty. I would think actuarial work would give a nice read out, but that is above my pay scale. For the moment I would be happy just to know more about the plans to decommission the first generation of wind turbines (or solar panel farms for that matter). All part of the industry bringing the people along for the journey.
If we are really serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, we will have to embrace nuclear since wind and solar will require hundreds of years to catch up to current and future demands for energy. Hydro is already saturated.
You read about nuclear waste and wastewater, and you read about of Bhopal. Chemical and petroleum industries kill and pollute much more than nuclear, but don't seem to generate the level of pathological fear that nuclear does.
Only when we all decide that the risk of nuclear is less than the specter of carbon dioxide effects on climate will we move forward with nuclear.
There is no other realistic solution. So, what'll it be, folks? Climate change? Or nuclear? Take your pick.
Select to expand quotesegler said..
There is no other realistic solution. So, what'll it be, folks? Climate change? Or nuclear? Take your pick.
It's good that you have thought this through for us. What was your/our conclusion?
Does your nuclear option take care of the full life-cycle of the nuclear fuel and storage? I am not sure how you cost something for tens of thousands of years.
I am sure people downplay nuclear accidents, but when was the last time someone knew they were going to have a nuclear meltdown? Never. Everyone thinks its perfectly safe until it isn't because of some unforseen circumstance.
Renewable energy seems like the right direction. We just need a storage medium whether it is batteries or hydrogen or some other renewable fuel.
This planet needed 100% consensus, about 30 years ago, from every human on it, as to the course of action required to save it.
Select to expand quoteOrange Whip said..
This planet needed 100% consensus, about 30 years ago, from every human on it, as to the course of action required to save it.
That sounds about right, probably not quite 100%, just100% of those in power with the will to do something.
So in effect you're saying, things are going to get progressively rougher, we can only limit how rough, by our combined actions.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Never mind the obvious dangers to birds.
The pylons are difficult to dispose due to their size.
We do not need these things blighting the landscape for a problem that does not exist.
It is the sun that is the source of heat not carbon dioxide.
You are a fossil fuel shill. How much are they paying you?
I believe we are on borrowed time as we know it . It's in our DNA to breed and want more. Banning plastic straws isn't going to fix it. I give us 200 years max , probably closer to 100 
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
That sounds about right, probably not quite 100%, just100% of those in power with the will to do something.
So in effect you're saying, things are going to get progressively rougher, we can only limit how rough, by our combined actions.
In the late 1980's the US was the only country to oppose an international fund to reduce ozone depleting CFCs. Eventually they came around an CFC use was greatly reduced through the Montreal Protocol. Around 30 years later the ozone hole is almost back pre-industrial times. Southern Australia and South America were major beneficiaries of this international intervention.
Nuclear is definitely part of the solution. There is new tech coming via small modular reactors which have removed the melt down worry with some only lasting 8 years before they need replacement
Select to expand quoteOrange Whip said..
This planet needed 100% consensus, about 30 years ago, from every human on it, as to the course of action required to save it.
Is that meant to be 'doom and gloom'?
The way I see it, I think the earth can change a lot with regards to temperature and has been hotter in the past. Whether we are affecting it or not, it has been hotter, so we can try and influence it. Will it make a difference? We don't know. Will it get hotter anyway? We don't know.
So why not start to change it incrementally now, not 30 years ago, which we obviously cannot change?
Select to expand quoteremery said..Pcdefender said..
Never mind the obvious dangers to birds.
The pylons are difficult to dispose due to their size.
We do not need these things blighting the landscape for a problem that does not exist.
It is the sun that is the source of heat not carbon dioxide.
You are a fossil fuel shill. How much are they paying you?
He will not understand irony or sarcasm, even if he bothers to read someone else's point of view.
Select to expand quoteremery said..decrepit said..
That sounds about right, probably not quite 100%, just100% of those in power with the will to do something.
So in effect you're saying, things are going to get progressively rougher, we can only limit how rough, by our combined actions.
In the late 1980's the US was the only country to oppose an international fund to reduce ozone depleting CFCs. Eventually they came around an CFC use was greatly reduced through the Montreal Protocol. Around 30 years later the ozone hole is almost back pre-industrial times. Southern Australia and South America were major beneficiaries of this international intervention.
All 10 million sq kms of it at the moment, no one knows the pre industrial size.
Not suggesting banning cfc's was'nt neccessary but it was easily an achievable goal unlike net zero 2050.
Select to expand quotesegler said..
.... since wind and solar will require hundreds of years to catch up to current and future demands for energy. Hydro is already saturated.
...
what you mean with hundreds of years?
It'll be the ocean view folks heading the opposition. Worried about house prices. If they hadn't poisoned all the coast banksias, coast t-trees and coast wattles they wouldn't be able to see the windmills from the bathroom window and it wouldn't be a potential problem.
But they seem to tolerate all the coal ships at anchor 2 or 3 km offshore?.
My conclusion: go nuclear right now. Today. We could shut down every fossil fuel power plant (in the USA anyway) and replace it with nuclear within 10 years. Yucca Mountain in Nevada has the capacity and safety and geological stability to store all the nuclear waste FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD for millions of years.
Chernobyl, ****ushima, and 3-Mile Island have done orders of magnitude LESS damage to the environment and to people's health than the world's chemical plants and petroleum refineries. Sure, there are risks with nuclear, but they are miniscule compared to risks in other energy industries.
Calculate the world's energy demands. Then calculate what can be provide by current and future projections of wind and solar. Hundreds of years to replace fossil with wind and solar.
Have you noticed how France has not cried crocodile tears about Russia cutting off natural gas supplies to western Europe? They are already something like 70-80% nuclear. Germany has their head in the sand.
Again, only when we all decide that the risk of nuclear is less than the specter of carbon dioxide effects on climate will we move forward with nuclear. How long will the global angst about climate change take to move the needle to nuclear? How long before the public pathological fear of global warming exceeds that of nuclear? I say now. Hydro is saturated, hydrogen requires energy, fossil is warming the earth, and nuclear is already here and ready. Just do it.
When I windfoil on the Columbia I watch 2 or 3 coal trains per day going downstream to China. Then I watch wind turbine blades and pylons on big trucks going upstream from China. What a waste!
Select to expand quotesegler said..
My conclusion: go nuclear right now. Today. We could shut down every fossil fuel power plant (in the USA anyway) and replace it with nuclear within 10 years. Yucca Mountain in Nevada has the capacity and safety and geological stability to store all the nuclear waste FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD for millions of years.
Chernobyl, ****ushima, and 3-Mile Island have done orders of magnitude LESS damage to the environment and to people's health than the world's chemical plants and petroleum refineries. Sure, there are risks with nuclear, but they are miniscule compared to risks in other energy industries.
Calculate the world's energy demands. Then calculate what can be provide by current and future projections of wind and solar. Hundreds of years to replace fossil with wind and solar.
Have you noticed how France has not cried crocodile tears about Russia cutting off natural gas supplies to western Europe? They are already something like 70-80% nuclear. Germany has their head in the sand.
Again, only when we all decide that the risk of nuclear is less than the specter of carbon dioxide effects on climate will we move forward with nuclear. How long will the global angst about climate change take to move the needle to nuclear? How long before the public pathological fear of global warming exceeds that of nuclear? I say now. Hydro is saturated, hydrogen requires energy, fossil is warming the earth, and nuclear is already here and ready. Just do it.
When I windfoil on the Columbia I watch 2 or 3 coal trains per day going downstream to China. Then I watch wind turbine blades and pylons on big trucks going upstream from China. What a waste!
100% agree - well put 
Select to expand quotesegler said..
My conclusion: go nuclear right now. Today. We could shut down every fossil fuel power plant (in the USA anyway) and replace it with nuclear within 10 years. Yucca Mountain in Nevada has the capacity and safety and geological stability to store all the nuclear waste FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD for millions of years.
Chernobyl, ****ushima, and 3-Mile Island have done orders of magnitude LESS damage to the environment and to people's health than the world's chemical plants and petroleum refineries. Sure, there are risks with nuclear, but they are miniscule compared to risks in other energy industries.
Calculate the world's energy demands. Then calculate what can be provide by current and future projections of wind and solar. Hundreds of years to replace fossil with wind and solar.
Have you noticed how France has not cried crocodile tears about Russia cutting off natural gas supplies to western Europe? They are already something like 70-80% nuclear. Germany has their head in the sand.
Again, only when we all decide that the risk of nuclear is less than the specter of carbon dioxide effects on climate will we move forward with nuclear. How long will the global angst about climate change take to move the needle to nuclear? How long before the public pathological fear of global warming exceeds that of nuclear? I say now. Hydro is saturated, hydrogen requires energy, fossil is warming the earth, and nuclear is already here and ready. Just do it.
When I windfoil on the Columbia I watch 2 or 3 coal trains per day going downstream to China. Then I watch wind turbine blades and pylons on big trucks going upstream from China. What a waste!
One of the many problems with that idea is :- where will the necessary uranium come from?
The World Nuclear Association says "The world's present measured resources of uranium (6.1 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years."
Since current electricity generation from nuclear is about 10%, we'd run out of uranium before all the required reactors could be built.
Select to expand quotesegler said..
My conclusion: go nuclear right now. Today. We could shut down every fossil fuel power plant (in the USA anyway) and replace it with nuclear within 10 years. Yucca Mountain in Nevada has the capacity and safety and geological stability to store all the nuclear waste FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD for millions of years.
Chernobyl, ****ushima, and 3-Mile Island have done orders of magnitude LESS damage to the environment and to people's health than the world's chemical plants and petroleum refineries. Sure, there are risks with nuclear, but they are miniscule compared to risks in other energy industries.
Calculate the world's energy demands. Then calculate what can be provide by current and future projections of wind and solar. Hundreds of years to replace fossil with wind and solar.
Have you noticed how France has not cried crocodile tears about Russia cutting off natural gas supplies to western Europe? They are already something like 70-80% nuclear. Germany has their head in the sand.
Again, only when we all decide that the risk of nuclear is less than the specter of carbon dioxide effects on climate will we move forward with nuclear. How long will the global angst about climate change take to move the needle to nuclear? How long before the public pathological fear of global warming exceeds that of nuclear? I say now. Hydro is saturated, hydrogen requires energy, fossil is warming the earth, and nuclear is already here and ready. Just do it.
When I windfoil on the Columbia I watch 2 or 3 coal trains per day going downstream to China. Then I watch wind turbine blades and pylons on big trucks going upstream from China. What a waste!
Why are those who make the most noise about climate the most against nuclear?I don't get it.
Chernobil, ****ushima, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Zaporozie next...Then the South Australia's test site and the ones they've hidden from us.
Australia does not seem capable of storing medical nuclear waste. Let alone the nuclear submarine waste. So where to store the nuclear power plant waste?
Maybe adopt the European model where they pay mafia to take it over, and sink it "accidentally" in the Mediteranean Sea?
Would you like a nuclear powerplant near your house?
Or will that be another "Wind Farm" issue - "great , but build it somewhere else".
Having said that, a Fusion based nuclear would be great. It's a shame it does no work, except on the Millenium Falcon
..and Interesting autocorrect doesn't like "****ushima" and repalces it with stars
Select to expand quoteObelix said..
Chernobil, ****ushima, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Zaporozie next...Then the South Australia's test site and the ones they've hidden from us.
Australia does not seem capable of storing medical nuclear waste. Let alone the nuclear submarine waste. So where to store the nuclear power plant waste?
Maybe adopt the European model where they pay mafia to take it over, and sink it "accidentally" in the Mediteranean Sea?
Would you like a nuclear powerplant near your house?
Or will that be another "Wind Farm" issue - "great , but build it somewhere else".
Having said that, a Fusion based nuclear would be great. It's a shame it does no work, except on the Millenium Falcon
..and Interesting autocorrect doesn't like "****ushima" and repalces it with stars
No one cares on holiday in France.
Since when was a nuclear bomb the same tech as a power station its just heating water to make steam.
