[W:190] What is it with Trump and windmills?

Moderate Right said:

All of the things you mentioned would add more to our debt than what Trump and the Republicans have done. So, don't try to claim that Republicans are bad on the national debt - implying that you would be better. You won't. You would be worse.

Click to expand...

Where did I make such an argument? Let me know when you want to actually address the content of my post. This response is incredibly lazy.

Moderate Right said:

I know Democrats don't care about the national debt. They want to spend 93 trillion dollars on the Green New Deal (they say that is just the beginning), have Medicare for all, pay reparations to slave descendants, forgive student loans, spend trillions on infrastructure, and give free college education. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, none of those are adding to the national debt, it's investing in our future.

Click to expand...

You must have lost your mind when Trump proposed a $1.5 trillion infrastructure spend. Or did you?

beefheart said:

Nothing beats simplistic anectdotal quasi-evidence, right?

Oh, and did you know that when windmills get old, the paint chips and they look icky?

Click to expand...

That's nothing compared to all the cancer they give us. That noise, I tell you. Cancer causing!

Praxas said:

Oh I am more scared about getting cancer from the noise. :lamo

Click to expand...

Do you know what the half life is on windmill noise?

AlbqOwl said:

The President didn't say 'piles of bald eagles' but that a lot of them are being killed which is true.

Click to expand...

It really isn't.

As already discussed in this thread, the threats to birds by windmills are vastly exaggerated. Pet cats and cell phone towers do far more damage to birds than windmills. Not to mention that the people who scream about "windmills kill birds!!!" apparently do not give a **** about conservation efforts for any wildlife under any other circumstances.

I sure hate seeing scenes like this that are becoming more common all the time....

Click to expand...

Oh, so does that mean you prefer scenes like this?








Nothing is zero-impact. However, there is no question that the impact of windmills on the environment and wildlife is a TINY FRACTION of the damage caused by fossil fuels.

Visbek said:

It really isn't.

As already discussed in this thread, the threats to birds by windmills are vastly exaggerated. Pet cats and cell phone towers do far more damage to birds than windmills. Not to mention that the people who scream about "windmills kill birds!!!" apparently do not give a **** about conservation efforts for any wildlife under any other circumstances.



Oh, so does that mean you prefer scenes like this?

Nothing is zero-impact. However, there is no question that the impact of windmills on the environment and wildlife is a TINY FRACTION of the damage caused by fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

The fact that other things kill birds does not change the fact that wind turbines kill birds. I posted a link with at least one set of stats of how many. The fact that mining operations, factories, plants, energy facilities etc. as well as oil drilling and production and oil spills alter and have impact on the landscape and wild life does not change the fact that wind turbines alter and have impact on the landscape and wild life.

Oil spills, especially in sensitive habitat, are terrible but are fairly rare. Wind farms are constant.
Mining operations, factories, energy facilities can be ugly but are pretty well localized. Wind farms can go on for ten, twenty, thirty miles and more making it more difficult for migrating birds to steer clear of them.

So the real question is, considering the significant carbon footprint to manufacture, erect, and maintain them, and their impact on their surroundings, are wind turbines really the most efficient and effective means of reducing carbon in the environment and cost effective overall compared to other forms of energy?

Praxas said:

Bull****, you can't praise Trump enough for the "great job" he's done according to you. Spending us into debt and giving tax cuts to the wealthy is REALLY a great job so no, you don't give a **** about the debt so quit lying.

Click to expand...

No president does good at everything. Overall, he's done a great job. I'm not happy about the deficit but I'm not about to vote for someone who wants to spend the country into total oblivion, like most Democratic candidates are talking about.

TrueScotsman said:

Where did I make such an argument? Let me know when you want to actually address the content of my post. This response is incredibly lazy.

Click to expand...

Your post was full of the spending you want to do. And don't give me any crap that it isn't spending, it is investing.

beefheart said:

OK, first Dr. Trump claims that windmills cause cancer, now he claims to have seen piles of dead bald eagles underneath them:



Link to story is here:Trump claims he’s seen piles of dead bald eagles underneath windmills: ‘You see them all over the place’


And before you all get pissed off about the source, the video of him saying this is also at the link.


Non Compos Mentits

Click to expand...

I don't know if they're all eagles but there have been reports for years of wind farms killing scores of birds. Take this link with however many grains of salt you choose. Looks like the solution is to get rid of your cat and put up a wind farm - it's safer for birds. :lamo

Moderate Right said:

No president does good at everything. Overall, he's done a great job. I'm not happy about the deficit but I'm not about to vote for someone who wants to spend the country into total oblivion, like most Democratic candidates are talking about.

Click to expand...

LOL the right during the Obama admin was nothing but doom and gloom. Remember the idiotic "fiscal cliff" the lying cons kept talking about? Now you approve anything Trump spends on and will vote for him . Pathetic liars is what the Republican politicians are and Republican voters are just lying their asses off now to support Trump.

I don't want to hear a damn complaint from you for the next Dem president with all the **** you've have excused away with Trump. I'll just consider any criticism of a Dem president to be you lying. With all the spending Trump has done, there is nothing moderate about you. You are as liberal as they come.

Praxas said:

LOL the right during the Obama admin was nothing but doom and gloom. Remember the idiotic "fiscal cliff" the lying cons kept talking about? Now you approve anything Trump spends on and will vote for him . Pathetic liars is what the Republican politicians are and Republican voters are just lying their asses off now to support Trump.

I don't want to hear a damn complaint from you for the next Dem president with all the **** you've have excused away with Trump. I'll just consider any criticism of a Dem president to be you lying. With all the spending Trump has done, there is nothing moderate about you. You are as liberal as they come.

Click to expand...

Most of the Democratic candidates are talking about spending the country into oblivion. I mean, just on the Green New Deal alone, they want to spend 93 trillion dollars and say that is just the beginning. Total insanity.

Moderate Right said:

Most of the Democratic candidates are talking about spending the country into oblivion. I mean, just on the Green New Deal alone, they want to spend 93 trillion dollars and say that is just the beginning. Total insanity.

Click to expand...

You should stop listening to right wing propaganda.

How Much Will the 'Green New Deal' Cost? - FactCheck.org

Moderate Right said:

Your post was full of the spending you want to do. And don't give me any crap that it isn't spending, it is investing.

Click to expand...

Where did I object at increasing the national debt and spending? I don't want to raise it by 100s of trillions of dollars though, and I would bet neither do most Democrats which is why the most popular candidate, Biden does not advocate it. I think Right Wingers in America have an obsessively bad view of Government, as essentially vampiric on the economy except when it comes National Security. I think this a very incomplete picture of what society needs in a complex 21st Century urbanizing environment in which we at risk of ecological collapse. The market isn't enough, and when the next recession hits people will have likely had enough. When need incremental change or progress, in these volatile times or you will get some radical change. Trump is in many ways an expression of that frustration of nothing getting done in government, though of course from the side that essentially wants to destroy government. Conservatives I just think haven't done a proper accounting of where we are headed, they're too busy with this petty out of touch cheerleading in the present. That is likely why they will lose in 2020, probably to one of the relatively moderate candidates.

Moderate Right said:

Most of the Democratic candidates are talking about spending the country into oblivion. I mean, just on the Green New Deal alone, they want to spend 93 trillion dollars and say that is just the beginning. Total insanity.

Click to expand...

One person wanting to spend on the green bill is not going to make it happen. What a bunch of chicken little nonsense. You would rather have the most corrupt, lying, and incompetent idiot Trump that will increase the debt bigger than Obama.

AlbqOwl said:

Oil spills, especially in sensitive habitat, are terrible but are fairly rare. Wind farms are constant.

Click to expand...

There is no question whatsoever that oil spills do more harm to the environment and wildlife than wind farms.

Spills are becoming less frequent and less damaging. However, the damage from just the Deepwater Horizon incident is on a scale that utterly dwarfs any possible harm caused by wind farms. Nor is it rational to believe an incident of that size could never happen again.

Mining operations, factories, energy facilities can be ugly but are pretty well localized.

Click to expand...

They're more "localized" than wind farms? Try again.

Wind farms can go on for ten, twenty, thirty miles and more making it more difficult for migrating birds to steer clear of them.

Click to expand...

Alta Wind Energy Centre is one of the largest wind farms in the world, and it's 3200 acres. Mountaintop removal mining has destroyed over 1 million acres of Appalachian forests. Tell us again which one is worse for the environment?

So the real question is, considering the significant carbon footprint to manufacture, erect, and maintain them, and their impact on their surroundings, are wind turbines really the most efficient and effective means of reducing carbon in the environment and cost effective overall compared to other forms of energy?

Click to expand...

Yes. Hands down. No question. The carbon footprint of wind, over its total lifecycle, is a fraction of oil and coal.

Do you really not understand that fossil fuels need to be extracted, transported, refined or processed, often transported again? Then you have to do something with all the waste, which in the case of coal means dumping tailings and ash -- yaay, pollution!



Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization | Energy Analysis | NREL

Visbek said:

There is no question whatsoever that oil spills do more harm to the environment and wildlife than wind farms.

Spills are becoming less frequent and less damaging. However, the damage from just the Deepwater Horizon incident is on a scale that utterly dwarfs any possible harm caused by wind farms. Nor is it rational to believe an incident of that size could never happen again.



They're more "localized" than wind farms? Try again.



Alta Wind Energy Centre is one of the largest wind farms in the world, and it's 3200 acres. Mountaintop removal mining has destroyed over 1 million acres of Appalachian forests. Tell us again which one is worse for the environment?



Yes. Hands down. No question. The carbon footprint of wind, over its total lifecycle, is a fraction of oil and coal.

Do you really not understand that fossil fuels need to be extracted, transported, refined or processed, often transported again? Then you have to do something with all the waste, which in the case of coal means dumping tailings and ash -- yaay, pollution!

Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization | Energy Analysis | NREL

Click to expand...

Maybe if I simplify it you might get the point I have been trying to make?

A single mine, power plant, oil rig, pump jack takes up so much room. There are lots of them all.

A single wind turbine takes up so much room. There are lots of them. There might be many more of them than there are mines, power plants, oil rigs, or pump jacks. We can argue which is better or worse for the environment but that is not the argument I have been making and that is not the topic of this thread.

As you travel east on I-40 from New Mexico, you come up on the caprock just east of Adrian TX. Soon from that point you see the wind turbines just north of the Interstate, layered in rows three or four deep that extend eastward without any breaks for the next 50 or so miles. The point I have been making was in regard to the migrating birds that likely have a tough time flying through all that without a lot of them getting mangled.

The only other thing I have been arguing is that given their relatively short life span--seems to be about 20 years or less--and given the very large carbon footprint left from manufacturing and erecting a wind turbine, and the fact that there are precious few, if any of them, that are built without taxpayer subsidy, is that the most efficient and effective way to produce energy AND to help the environment?

Now if you will just focus on what I have argued, we can have a discussion. I have acknowledged that other forms of energy production have their issues and problems and those might be greater than those posed by wind farms. But this thread is about wind farms that also have their problems and whether the President is correct is at least questioning whether they are worth the cost to the birds, to the environment, to the taxpayer. Do we really realize enough benefit over the long haul to defend them regardless of how bad coal mining, oil production, etc. is?

veritas1 said:

My article says the numbers are underestimated. I just find it amusing to see the whacky environut types defending it. Hey, when you can go back to 6th century technology it's worth the effort, I guess.:lamo

Click to expand...

We liberals look on the bright side. It is a good thing that conservatives are finally concerned about the enviornment. First step just birds, next they'll show support for the entire endangered species act, and, if they care about windmills, they might soon worry about pesticides that also harm birdies, and even hurt human farmworkers. Welcome, welcome to the good fight. First compassion for birds, can concern for humans be far behind?

AlbqOwl said:

As you travel east on I-40 from New Mexico, you come up on the caprock just east of Adrian TX. Soon from that point you see the wind turbines just north of the Interstate, layered in rows three or four deep that extend eastward without any breaks for the next 50 or so miles.

Click to expand...

Try again.

You're talking about Spinning Spur 2, which is a whopping 16,000 acres. It's about 12 miles long. There are a handful of smaller wind farms in that general area which are miles apart. There isn't 50 continuous miles of windmills 3 rows deep in that area.

Plus, just because windmills exist, that doesn't mean they are actually a huge threat. It all depends on where they are sited, how they are designed, migration patterns and more. E.g. Western Texas / Eastern New Mexico is in fact outside of the Central Flyway, meaning it's a better location for windmills than Central or Eastern Texas.

As to comparisons to other energy generation? Surprise! Fossil fuel plants likely kill 20 times more birds per gigawatt-hour than wind turbines.
The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power by Benjamin K. Sovacool :: SSRN

No one is saying that wind has zero impact. However, there is no question that wind has much, much, much less impact on wildlife and the environment than fossil fuels.

And yes, other sources of bird deaths unrelated to energy generation are relevant here as well. When windmills kill at most 300k birds per year, and cats kill billions of birds, and the opponents of windmills say nothing about cats killing birds, then it is obvious that they don't actually care. They are just scrambling for ways to attack windmills.

The point I have been making was in regard to the migrating birds that likely have a tough time flying through all that without a lot of them getting mangled.

Click to expand...

The point that I'm making is that fossil fuel usage does significantly more damage to birds than windmills; and that the damage done by windmills, while real, is vastly exaggerated and taken out of context by those who don't like windmills, almost entirely for political reasons.

The only other thing I have been arguing is that given their relatively short life span--seems to be about 20 years or less--and given the very large carbon footprint left from manufacturing and erecting a wind turbine, and the fact that there are precious few, if any of them, that are built without taxpayer subsidy, is that the most efficient and effective way to produce energy AND to help the environment?

Click to expand...

The answer is yes. The carbon footprint of windmills, over its total lifecycle, is a FRACTION of fossil-fuel plants. Go back to my previous post. Look at the chart. Follow the link.

this thread is about wind farms that also have their problems and whether the President is correct is at least questioning whether they are worth the cost to the birds, to the environment, to the taxpayer. Do we really realize enough benefit over the long haul to defend them regardless of how bad coal mining, oil production, etc. is?

Click to expand...

The President is absolutely and categorically wrong. He is either delusional or a liar.

The impact of fossil fuels on wildlife and the environment is orders of magnitude worse than the impact of windmills.

The costs of wind to the taxpayer are negligible. Wind is now cheaper than coal, which is one reason why you see all those windmills in Texas.

Trump doesn't give a **** about the environment. He hates windmills because, in his opinion, they wrecked the view of one of his golf courses. That is not an exaggeration, that is LITERALLY the reason why he is against them. He has also proven, again and again, that he doesn't care about the truth or about facts, thus he is happy to manufacture or repeat lies about windmills.

j brown's body said:

Nuclear waste is your friend.

Click to expand...

Nuclear waste can easily be dealt with. That is a non-issue. There have been fewer deaths caused by nuclear power than just about any other power source and the one big melt down at Chernobyl was due to a poorly constructed Soviet plant with no cooling facility. Ironically, people live all around that area now with no detectable ill effects. In fact, the radiation levels there are much lower than normal background radiation in many parts of the world. The left has made a successful scare and smear campaign against nuclear power and we are the worse off for it.

Nickyjo said:

We liberals look on the bright side. It is a good thing that conservatives are finally concerned about the enviornment. First step just birds, next they'll show support for the entire endangered species act, and, if they care about windmills, they might soon worry about pesticides that also harm birdies, and even hurt human farmworkers. Welcome, welcome to the good fight. First compassion for birds, can concern for humans be far behind?

Click to expand...

Yea, I wonder how long it'll take before we can summon up the kind of concern that ignores thousands of homeless people laying all over CA, WA, OR and other places. Or that ignores the opioid epidemic or the Chicago murder epidemic or advocates for abortion up to delivery day. It must take a special person to exhibit such compassion.

Visbek said:

Try again.

You're talking about Spinning Spur 2, which is a whopping 16,000 acres. It's about 12 miles long. There are a handful of smaller wind farms in that general area which are miles apart. There isn't 50 continuous miles of windmills 3 rows deep in that area.

Plus, just because windmills exist, that doesn't mean they are actually a huge threat. It all depends on where they are sited, how they are designed, migration patterns and more. E.g. Western Texas / Eastern New Mexico is in fact outside of the Central Flyway, meaning it's a better location for windmills than Central or Eastern Texas.

As to comparisons to other energy generation? Surprise! Fossil fuel plants likely kill 20 times more birds per gigawatt-hour than wind turbines.
The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power by Benjamin K. Sovacool :: SSRN

No one is saying that wind has zero impact. However, there is no question that wind has much, much, much less impact on wildlife and the environment than fossil fuels.

And yes, other sources of bird deaths unrelated to energy generation are relevant here as well. When windmills kill at most 300k birds per year, and cats kill billions of birds, and the opponents of windmills say nothing about cats killing birds, then it is obvious that they don't actually care. They are just scrambling for ways to attack windmills.



The point that I'm making is that fossil fuel usage does significantly more damage to birds than windmills; and that the damage done by windmills, while real, is vastly exaggerated and taken out of context by those who don't like windmills, almost entirely for political reasons.



The answer is yes. The carbon footprint of windmills, over its total lifecycle, is a FRACTION of fossil-fuel plants. Go back to my previous post. Look at the chart. Follow the link.



The President is absolutely and categorically wrong. He is either delusional or a liar.

The impact of fossil fuels on wildlife and the environment is orders of magnitude worse than the impact of windmills.

The costs of wind to the taxpayer are negligible. Wind is now cheaper than coal, which is one reason why you see all those windmills in Texas.

Trump doesn't give a **** about the environment. He hates windmills because, in his opinion, they wrecked the view of one of his golf courses. That is not an exaggeration, that is LITERALLY the reason why he is against them. He has also proven, again and again, that he doesn't care about the truth or about facts, thus he is happy to manufacture or repeat lies about windmills.

Click to expand...

Since that stretch of I-40 is between us and our son and his family, we travel it a lot, and I know what I see with my own eyes and those wind turbines stretch non stop across the landscape for most of 50 miles, maybe more as they go west of the city and you can't see them once you get into Amarillo. And you can argue on an "I hate all things Trump" agenda to your hearts content and it does not change the fact that wind power does kills birds, which is what the President said. It does not change the fact that most of the data of the cost of wind power does not include the tens of billions of government subsidies necessary to make it profitable for those putting up the wind turbines, and the only reason wind is cheaper than coal to produce is because of those subsidies and tax credits which means it is not cheaper than coal and without those subsidies nobody would be putting up wind turbines. Finally, as we are now past the 20+ year mark of the wind energy experiment, we are just now seeing more and more problems as the wind farms outlive their usefulness and are abandoned to decay on the landscape. Also coal is not the only other source of energy we use.
News Flash: Wind Power is Not Cheaper than Coal - IER

It is also telling that those who most advocate for wind power won't allow wind farms be put up anywhere that the turbines would spoil THEIR view. Let the little unimportant people deal with that.

You don't know what the President hates or how he thinks. But he has consistently that he is a pragmatic kind of guy who looks for things that work instead of what is politically correct. Neither of us oppose wind energy but use honest data and real numbers.

I have made my argument. If you want to continue it with me, try to cool the I hate Trump rhetoric and use real verifiable data that includes the government subsidies and the downsides of wind energy including what happens when the wind doesn't blow. I have read a lot on all sides of this issue but I don't claim to be an expert and I am willing to be educated with honest information.

veritas1 said:

Yea, I wonder how long it'll take before we can summon up the kind of concern that ignores thousands of homeless people laying all over CA, WA, OR and other places. Or that ignores the opioid epidemic or the Chicago murder epidemic or advocates for abortion up to delivery day. It must take a special person to exhibit such compassion.

Click to expand...

Liberal cities do quite a lot for the homeless. Lots of services where I live in Berkeley, but astronomical housing costs make it tough, tho we have started to build vertically. Bet you will find lots of compassion, concern and programs for addicts here SS well, and liberals' steps in Illinois to try to deal with violence in Chicago, but where do you get the notion that us on the left support 9th month abortions?

Nickyjo said:

Liberal cities do quite a lot for the homeless. Lots of services where I live in Berkeley, but astronomical housing costs make it tough, tho we have started to build vertically. Bet you will find lots of compassion, concern and programs for addicts here SS well, and liberals' steps in Illinois to try to deal with violence in Chicago, but where do you get the notion that us on the left support 9th month abortions?

Click to expand...

Did you miss the law passed in NY? It allows an abortion at any time "to protect a woman's life or health". That leaves open a wide field for interpretation. "Health" could include mental heath as well as physical well being. It basically allows abortions at any time for pretty much any reason.

Moderate Right said:

Your post was full of the spending you want to do. And don't give me any crap that it isn't spending, it is investing.

Click to expand...

Do you call the thousands of perfectly usable military aircraft parked up in Arizona, a good investment? How many trillions of dollars are sitting there, wasted?

YouTube