• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wind Turbines Kills Hundreds of Thousands of Birds Each Year

Felis Leo said:
....however unpopular it may be, nuclear energy is a perfectly carbon-neutral source of energy that will be needed in the future.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it's basically too expensive to build new nuclear plants, at least in most Western nations.

For example, South Carolina had a mammoth project to build two state-of-the-art nuclear reactors, and sunk $9 billion of customer's money into the projects, before cancelling it. The reactors were 40% complete when the two utilities working on it realized the plants would cost $25 billion, rather than the $11.5 billion in the original plans.

Plus, the number of nuclear accidents may be small, but the results are devastating when it does happen. The resistance to a nuclear plant, especially one anywhere near a major city, will be much stiffer than putting in wind or water turbines, or solar.

Perhaps someone will successfully build a cheaper, cleaner and safer type of reactor. I'm not holding my breath on that one, though.
 
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors
An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined
Robert Hargraves and Ralph Moir*

(*Moir was a partner with the late Dr. Edward Teller.)

What if we could turn back the clock to 1965 and have an energy do-over? In June of that year, the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) achieved criticality for the first time at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee. In place of the
familiar fuel rods of modern nuclear plants, the MSRE used liquid fuel—hot fluoride salt containing dissolved fissile material in a solution roughly the viscosity of water at operating temperature. The MSRE ran successfully for five years, opening a new window on nuclear technology. Then the window banged closed when the molten-salt research program was terminated.
Click to expand...
 
WCH said:
Movement increases the likelihood of death or wounding as opposed to a still object.
Click to expand...

Seems to me buildings cause quite a few more bird deaths than windmills. Not to mention cats. Compared to the amount of birds it seems like a fairly weak argument against windmills.
 
bubbabgone said:
Since you responded to questions about cost, recycling, conversion to alternate energy sources, land use, and consequences of fracking, you think fracking is //Thread.
But fracking carries no relative negative consequence to those things.
Did you mean to type ?? but forgot the shift key?
Click to expand...

The amount of time, energy, water, chemicals, earthquakes and the disaster it does to the environment requires so much more than any other renewable.
 
Felis Leo said:
The lowering of costs as a result of greater efficiency is certainly a point in favor of solar and wind power, Middleground. But the real question is a matter of utility of the technology. Does it really matter how cheap an electrical source is when you cannot turn the power on at night, or if it is not windy?

If a power source cannot be relied upon to effectively power, say, a hospital 24/7, then I do not think it should be the main method of power generation generally.
Click to expand...

That will come, my friend. There is no doubt that we will develop ways to store energy for those cloudy, non-windy days. Going back to my computer analogy, there was a time when Bill Gates was sure computers would never need more than 18k hard drives.
 
PoS said:
I can fill my tank up in 5 minutes as opposed to sitting around waiting for my Tesla (if I bought one) to recharge in an hour. No contest.
Click to expand...

In a few years, it will be a much different story. Stay tuned.
 
Middleground said:
That will come, my friend. There is no doubt that we will develop ways to store energy for those cloudy, non-windy days. Going back to my computer analogy, there was a time when Bill Gates was sure computers would never need more than 18k hard drives.
Click to expand...

One way to store energy is pumped hydroelectric storage. During period of high generation, excess power can be used to pump water up to high elevation reservoirs. Then, during low generation periods, the water can be allowed to flow downhill through turbines to generate power in the same manner as a dam.
 
Irredentist said:
One way to store energy is pumped hydroelectric storage. During period of high generation, excess power can be used to pump water up to high elevation reservoirs. Then, during low generation periods, the water can be allowed to flow downhill through turbines to generate power in the same manner as a dam.
Click to expand...

Whatever works and whatever is safe for the environment.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The only thing I am guilty of is operating on old information.
Your position is that thorium reactors are vaporware.
I've now showed you examples of sites that, as recently as 2017, were online.
If they're offline, it's a fairly safe guess that is temporary for the simple reason that few if any invest billions into building a reactor just to mothball it permanently, once a proof of concept is established, and that proof of concept was Oak Ridge in the early 1970's.

Therefore, you're not doing a bangup job of proving that thorium reactors, (A) do not exist, (B) never existed, (C) are unworkable, (D) are pure fantasy, and you've utterly failed in proving that they can't work at all because they, in point of fact, HAVE worked, and worked as intended.

You've also failed to reveal whether or not you understand why thorium was shelved, despite my asking you several times, which leads me to believe that you are actively avoiding the question, since most people, after the second request, either answer or make an excuse as to why they won't.

You don't see a reason to start a thread on "nuclear vaporware"? I think you're bluffing.
I see a big reason, you think it's pseudoscience, or junk science.
If you're so sure, put it to the test.

And for the third and final time, do you know WHY thorium was shelved?

By the way, when the term "online" is used, it refers to a plant being connected to the energy grid. Being offline does not mean the reactor is shut down, it just means it is not sending anything to the grid.
Click to expand...

I’m not real interested in ‘learning’ from someone who’s first post was, to put it delicately, totally misinformed.

I mean.. if it was so great, it would be a thing.
 
Visbek said:
:roll:



Riiiiiight. Or....

On every point you've raised, fossil fuels are significantly worse than sustainable options. If you actually cared about wildlife, pollution, land use and other environmental issues, you'd be pushing for sustainable energy supplies. Any claims of sincerity on your part are destroyed by the highly selective nature of the targets of your criticisms. I.e. don't even front.



Your claim is ludicrous and/or ignorant. Take your pick.

• We're not just talking about the US. China is planning to double its electrical generation capacity by 2030. India's electricity generation is growing at 7% per year, and they're still not meeting demand.

• In developed nations, fossil fuel plants are routinely retired. E.g. coal plants typically last 40 years, and 1-2% of US coal plants are retired every year.

• Fossil fuel plants are constantly using fuels, require maintenance, and produce harmful and/or toxic waste.
Click to expand...

Apparently you misunderstood the point.
You said ...
"The complaint about "getting there" is expensive is absurd. Coal and gas plants do not spring out of the soil fully formed; they need to be built, using components that are manufactured and transported. And unlike wind or solar, we need to constantly transport fossil fuels to those plants."
That's why I reminded you that we'd be replacing something that already works on a large scale with something that works on a small scale while scaling it up Nationally at great expense ... that's the huge cost of getting there.

Another thing is that, while I understand why you keep mentioning coal, which has its own unique.problems, we're talking about all fossil fuel, the rest don't have those problems.

Since you mentioned wildlife again, fossil fuel recovery doesn't cause the instant, sudden, and grotesque death of flying wildlife that wind turbines do. Are you aware of the speed those blades can reach?

CO2 is not a pollutant despite what it says in the reading material you've forced yourself to swallow.
To suggest otherwise is ludicrous and people who know anything at all about the Carbon Cycle wouldn't try to run that scam.
 
Middleground said:
The amount of time, energy, water, chemicals, earthquakes and the disaster it does to the environment requires so much more than any other renewable.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't cost effective to capture fuel that way they wouldn't be doing it.
It actually keeps cost down.

Whenever earthquakes occur they're rare and fracking itself isn't likely the cause.
 
bubbabgone said:
If it wasn't cost effective to capture fuel that way they wouldn't be doing it.
It actually keeps cost down.

Whenever earthquakes occur they're rare and fracking itself isn't likely the cause.
Click to expand...

Cost effective for who, the corporations? Who cares? They're not the ones who have to deal with the environmental aftermath.
 
bubbabgone said:
If it wasn't cost effective to capture fuel that way they wouldn't be doing it.
It actually keeps cost down.

Whenever earthquakes occur they're rare and fracking itself isn't likely the cause.
Click to expand...

It's cost efficient when oil is at a certain price. Right now, Alberta is suffering but it's been better this year now that the price per barrel is up.

As for the earthquakes... well, me thinks your reasoning is more like wishful thinking. Fracking is horrible for the environment.
 
PoS said:
I can fill my tank up in 5 minutes as opposed to sitting around waiting for my Tesla (if I bought one) to recharge in an hour. No contest.


Germany's economy is doing well in spite of their silly green misadventure- the point is they would be doing even better if they drop it altogether.



Show me a new battery tech on the market thats more advanced than lithium ion then, go on.


Investors and insurers commit with their emotions, not with their brains- I should know since I worked in finance a long time ago. The fact is nukes are the safest and most environmentally friendly energy source we have, and no one can refute it.
Click to expand...

There isn’t one for cars yet. But liquid metal batteries are running in tests in New England. John Goodenough thinks there’s still a lot of life in lithium ion batteries. And since reliability and capacity are improving as quickly as costs continue to fall, there’s no reason to believe he’s wrong.

There is also work in solid state electrolytes, graphemes supercapacitors.

It really is only a matter of a year or two before electric cars will routinely go 500 miles or more on a charge.

And they won’t be toys, either.

Take a good look at the next F-150

Rivian - R1T
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Humans in the USA alone eat BILLIONS of birds every year.

Context.
Click to expand...

You realize that the birds we kill for food are mostly bred, and not endangered or freely flying around?

Think before you make a reply next time.

TomFitz said:
There isn’t one for cars yet. But liquid metal batteries are running in tests in New England. John Goodenough thinks there’s still a lot of life in lithium ion batteries. And since reliability and capacity are improving as quickly as costs continue to fall, there’s no reason to believe he’s wrong.

There is also work in solid state electrolytes, graphemes supercapacitors.

It really is only a matter of a year or two before electric cars will routinely go 500 miles or more on a charge.

And they won’t be toys, either.

Take a good look at the next F-150

Rivian - R1T
Click to expand...

Let me know when it actually happens.
 
PoS said:
You realize that the birds we kill for food are mostly bred, and not endangered or freely flying around?

Think before you make a reply next time.



Let me know when it actually happens.
Click to expand...

I picked that specifically because Ford just put $500 million into Rivian.
 
TomFitz said:
I picked that specifically because Ford just put $500 million into Rivian.
Click to expand...

It wont mean much if it doesnt sell. Heck, Tesla is supposed to be the king of EVs, but they have yet to turn a profit.
 
bubbabgone said:
Apparently you misunderstood the point ....we'd be replacing something that already works on a large scale with something that works on a small scale while scaling it up Nationally at great expense ... that's the huge cost of getting there.
Click to expand...
If that was your point, you were completely unclear about it. Nor does your clarification actually refute what I said, especially since we are already phasing out coal; other nations need to ramp up generation; and fuel plants constantly need fuel.

By the way, the US more than doubled electricity generation using natural gas since 2002. Were you decrying the wasteful phaseout of coal plants in exchange for NG? Nope. HMMMMM.


Another thing is that, while I understand why you keep mentioning coal, which has its own unique.problems, we're talking about all fossil fuel, the rest don't have those problems.
Click to expand...
Coal makes up 27% of US electricity generation, and higher percentages in some other nations. So yes, we should be talking about it.

Natural gas is around 37% now and growing. CO2 emissions are 50-60% lower than coal, which is good, but is obviously not as low as wind or solar. NG causes lots of environmental problems at every stage. Extraction is often toxic and harmful, and frequently involves fracking, which means pumping a variety of chemicals, often without documenting them, into the ground. NG extraction also often releases methane, which is a more potent GHG than CO2. NG needs to be transported, which requires energy and often involves pipelines which cut through sensitive environmental areas. Natural gas plants last an average of 22 years, which obviously means more waste from maintenance and/or decommissioning plants. It's better than coal, but that's not saying much.

Petroleum-based plants are less than 1% of the total, and are mostly used to fill in gaps in electrical generation.


Since you mentioned wildlife again, fossil fuel recovery doesn't cause the instant, sudden, and grotesque death of flying wildlife that wind turbines do. Are you aware of the speed those blades can reach?
Click to expand...
:roll:

Stop the bull****. You don't care about birds. If you did, you'd bother to look up actual numbers of the sources of bird fatalities in the US:

Collisions with buildings: 600,000,000
Collisions with communications towers: 6,600,000
Collisions with electrical lines: 25,000,000
Collisions with vehicles: 214,000,000
Electrocutions: 5,600,000
Poison: 72,000,000
Cat: 2,400,000,000

How many birds die from colliding with wind turbines? 234,000. The number is NEGLIGIBLE compared to almost every other source of anthropic avian fatalities. Turbines are responsible for a whopping 0.007% of human-caused bird deaths.
(U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Migratory Bird Program | Conserving America's Birds)


CO2 is not a pollutant....
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. That's not open to debate, any more than "cigarettes are carcinogenic."
 
Visbek said:
If that was your point, you were completely unclear about it. Nor does your clarification actually refute what I said, especially since we are already phasing out coal; other nations need to ramp up generation; and fuel plants constantly need fuel.

By the way, the US more than doubled electricity generation using natural gas since 2002. Were you decrying the wasteful phaseout of coal plants in exchange for NG? Nope. HMMMMM.



Coal makes up 27% of US electricity generation, and higher percentages in some other nations. So yes, we should be talking about it.

Natural gas is around 37% now and growing. CO2 emissions are 50-60% lower than coal, which is good, but is obviously not as low as wind or solar. NG causes lots of environmental problems at every stage. Extraction is often toxic and harmful, and frequently involves fracking, which means pumping a variety of chemicals, often without documenting them, into the ground. NG extraction also often releases methane, which is a more potent GHG than CO2. NG needs to be transported, which requires energy and often involves pipelines which cut through sensitive environmental areas. Natural gas plants last an average of 22 years, which obviously means more waste from maintenance and/or decommissioning plants. It's better than coal, but that's not saying much.

Petroleum-based plants are less than 1% of the total, and are mostly used to fill in gaps in electrical generation.



:roll:

Stop the bull****. You don't care about birds. If you did, you'd bother to look up actual numbers of the sources of bird fatalities in the US:

Collisions with buildings: 600,000,000
Collisions with communications towers: 6,600,000
Collisions with electrical lines: 25,000,000
Collisions with vehicles: 214,000,000
Electrocutions: 5,600,000
Poison: 72,000,000
Cat: 2,400,000,000

How many birds die from colliding with wind turbines? 234,000. The number is NEGLIGIBLE compared to almost every other source of anthropic avian fatalities. Turbines are responsible for a whopping 0.007% of human-caused bird deaths.
(U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Migratory Bird Program | Conserving America's Birds)



Yes, it is. That's not open to debate, any more than "cigarettes are carcinogenic."
Click to expand...

Ouch.

That’s gonna hurt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom