Case Against Renewable Energy

[ChristineM]

Probably because they are much smaller and not
nearly so many of them.

Windmills pumping water for cattle on western ranches
is scenic, the sounds they make pleasant.

Not so with wind farms.

 

[Audie]

Well isn't it?

Yes, they were marvellously perceptive.

 

[Audie]

Those aren't due to windmills though.
I blame our covering the planet with pavement, farms, cities & law offices.
We should attack that last one first.

Hey, be nice!

 

[Brickjectivity]

I reiterate that the video promotes nuclear power, not fossil fuels. Several replies seemed to reflect a fossil fuels vs renewables future. The presenter says energy costs in France are low, because they get 75% of their power from nuclear reactors and spends a good deal of time talking about how they take up less land, require less concrete and steel than renewables and are not so dependent upon the availability of water.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey, be nice!

What could be nicer than attacking lawyers?

 

[Shad]

View attachment 27655

Do note the cloth fins

 

[ChristineM]

Do note the cloth fins

Ever noticed how cloth is so flexible? That is why they had timber to stop it flopping about

 

[Shad]

Ever noticed how cloth is so flexible? That is why they had timber to stop it flopping about

Metal fins vs cloth fins. Think about it.

 

[wandering peacefully]

"We can". Yeah, I guess.
Have you red about declining insect populations
world wide?
Somehow I do not have a good feeling about that.

I've been watching that for years. It's almost to the point of being rare to see bugs other than ants and ticks, in the woods! Even the ants seem less plentiful but certainly all of the other critters are less than they were. I worry about that also. Not certain what would happen when such a keystone species vanishes. We may see a planet devoid of all critters other than ourselves and our pets. I guess it wouldn't bring on the end but it sure would be weird.

 

[joe1776]

The question which energy solution is best involves far more research than I'm willing to give it since I won't be making the policy decisions anyway. But I do wonder why I hear so little about the most obvious solution to the problem: How can we reduce the need for energy?

A national program to restructure jobs so that people can work from home by computer will reduce commuting time, energy use and pollution. There is some of this going on but only enough to scratch the surface of the potential savings. The automobile industry will suffer, but the overall advantages are obvious.

 

[Audie]

I've been watching that for years. It's almost to the point of being rare to see bugs other than ants and ticks, in the woods! Even the ants seem less plentiful but certainly all of the other critters are less than they were. I worry about that also. Not certain what would happen when such a keystone species vanishes. We may see a planet devoid of all critters other than ourselves and our pets. I guess it wouldn't bring on the end but it sure would be weird.

It is hard not to notice. What are we doing, that even
insects cant take it?

The fewer species, the more wildly unstable
ecosystems are going to be.

 

[charlie sc]

I wouldn’t really take much faith in TED Talks. Wikipedia is far more informative, objective and comes with references.

 

[dianaiad]

I assume you have never been to Holland?

No. However, Holland's windmills are not the same as windfarms in California. Not even remotely close. For one thing, the Tehachapi windfarm, very close to where I live, has, quite literally, four times as many wind turbines as in the whole of the Netherlands. When you combine that number with the Altamont Pass windfarm, it surpasses the number of turbines proposed by the Netherlands off shore farms by six times. ....and that's just two of the windfarms in California. When you add in all the windmills in California, you have TEN TIMES the number of turbines in Holland, and Texas has considerably more than California does.

Perhaps it was because the "Burn fossil fuels now and screw green energy brigade" didnt exist back them

Being bloody stupid hardly qualifies as typical, most wind farm design takes migration paths into account.

No, actually, the existing windfarms did not take migration paths into account. I see that you have done very little research into this matter. NEW ones will try to take migration paths into account. That's one of the solutions that wind farm owners are looking at. You would have learned this had you bothered to read the post to which you are responding.

Who is pretending, how about NOT ignoring the fact that i have children who will have children of their own in a world screwed by relying on fossil fuel.

So...you would rather have a world that is making entire bird species go extinct because you don't like fossil fuels? How does that make you any different from the people you obviously despise? Denying that your favorite energy production method has problems doesn't help you any more than denying that fossil fuels have problems helps anybody else. Just...acknowledge the problem, and also acknowledge that there needs to be a solution to it.

That solution need not involve eliminating wind farms, but I don't see how trading the evils of fossil fuel for the evils of destroying the ecology is an acceptable solution to our energy needs.

What i see is that green energy is the better of 2 rapists.

I would prefer neither rapist, thank you. Acknowledge the problems. Fix them. How is that a horrible thing?

Yes windfarms can be destructive to wildlife, fossil fuel is destructive to the world.

You really sound like the very worst of the right wing global warming deniers. How in the world can you say that 'wildlife' isn't part of the world? Something that is destructive to wildlife IS destructive to the world. Perhaps you can tell me how having a smog free sky without birds in it is better than the other way around?

Didnt read this paragraph, too much text in one block for me

Given that this paragraph addressed all the criticisms and snarks you have issued here, you really should have made the effort to read it. Responding to a post without reading it causes problems. One can end up responding with stuff that makes one look...well...hmn.

And i wish the far right would admit the world is in trouble rather than milking it more and more to increase profits at the expense of the future

And I wish the far left didn't sound exactly like the far right, on the other end of the spectrum. The IDEA, Christine, is to find, acknowledge and SOLVE the problems. In the paragraph that you didn't bother to read, you would have found out that wind farm owners are trying to do exactly that. Attitudes like yours aren't helping.

 

[charlie sc]

No. However, Holland's windmills are not the same as windfarms in California. Not even remotely close. For one thing, the Tehachapi windfarm, very close to where I live, has, quite literally, four times as many wind turbines as in the whole of the Netherlands. When you combine that number with the Altamont Pass windfarm, it surpasses the number of turbines proposed by the Netherlands off shore farms by six times. ....and that's just two of the windfarms in California. When you add in all the windmills in California, you have TEN TIMES the number of turbines in Holland, and Texas has considerably more than California does.



No, actually, the existing windfarms did not take migration paths into account. I see that you have done very little research into this matter. NEW ones will try to take migration paths into account. That's one of the solutions that wind farm owners are looking at. You would have learned this had you bothered to read the post to which you are responding.



So...you would rather have a world that is making entire bird species go extinct because you don't like fossil fuels? How does that make you any different from the people you obviously despise? Denying that your favorite energy production method has problems doesn't help you any more than denying that fossil fuels have problems helps anybody else. Just...acknowledge the problem, and also acknowledge that there needs to be a solution to it.

That solution need not involve eliminating wind farms, but I don't see how trading the evils of fossil fuel for the evils of destroying the ecology is an acceptable solution to our energy needs.



I would prefer neither rapist, thank you. Acknowledge the problems. Fix them. How is that a horrible thing?



You really sound like the very worst of the right wing global warming deniers. How in the world can you say that 'wildlife' isn't part of the world? Something that is destructive to wildlife IS destructive to the world. Perhaps you can tell me how having a smog free sky without birds in it is better than the other way around?





Given that this paragraph addressed all the criticisms and snarks you have issued here, you really should have made the effort to read it. Responding to a post without reading it causes problems. One can end up responding with stuff that makes one look...well...hmn.






And I wish the far left didn't sound exactly like the far right, on the other end of the spectrum. The IDEA, Christine, is to find, acknowledge and SOLVE the problems. In the paragraph that you didn't bother to read, you would have found out that wind farm owners are trying to do exactly that. Attitudes like yours aren't helping.

You seem to be overreacting Environmental impact of wind power - Wikipedia look at ecology.

It references studies and it appears it’s not nearly as bad as you said. Wiki is a good starting point but not an end. Tho I don’t see you citing studies. Tall building seem to kill birds a whole lot more. So, I guess we should get rid of tall building first?

 

[Audie]

You seem to be overreacting Environmental impact of wind power - Wikipedia look at ecology.

It references studies and it appears it’s not nearly as bad as you said. Wiki is a good starting point but not an end. Tho I don’t see you citing studies. Tall building seem to kill birds a whole lot more. So, I guess we should get rid of tall building first?

Tall people. For one thing they always look down on me.
And I am sure they are bad for birds.

 

[dianaiad]

I am always skeptical of those hawking the number of birds killed by windmills. What are the numbers of birds killed by the toxins released by burning coal or other fossil fuels?

So tell me: if one method of producing energy kills birds, and you dislike that method, and a method you do like ALSO kills birds, does that mean that it's OK that the method you like kills birds? How does that make you any different from the 'pro-coal people?"

The lesser of two evils is still evil. acknowledge the problems, and try to fix those problems. Don't decide that one method of killing off the wildlife is more politically correct than another and do nothing. The birds still die.

And sure, solar energy production is - amazingly - dependent on sunshine. How about battery tech?
How about a combination of answers, rather than the false dichotomies that, for example, the pro-coal people spit out?

And their 'false dichotomy' is different from yours, how, precisely?

I mean, really....I'm seeing "well, so what if windmills kill birds....that's just FINE. They are, after all, windmills and renewable energy and can do no wrong."

What SHOULD be happening is "yes, wind farms are detrimental to wildlife. How can we solve that problem?" And then go see if that problem can be solved. Wind farm owners are working on it using many different ideas. Those ideas aren't proving all that successful yet, but that doesn't mean we have to...as another poster in here said, accept the lesser of two rapists. Just keep working on solutions until some are found that work. Siting, turbine styles, even painting the 'wings' (or vanes) different colors or using radar is being looked at. One of these things, or a combination, or something entirely new might even work.

But don't decide that we don't need to work on those solutions because you deny that there is a problem.

 

[dianaiad]

You seem to be overreacting Environmental impact of wind power - Wikipedia look at ecology.

It references studies and it appears it’s not nearly as bad as you said. Wiki is a good starting point but not an end. Tho I don’t see you citing studies. Tall building seem to kill birds a whole lot more. So, I guess we should get rid of tall building first?

WIKIPEDIA????

Great googly moogly.

If that is the level of your research.....

never mind.

 

[charlie sc]

WIKIPEDIA????

Great googly moogly.

If that is the level of your research.....

never mind.

As facetious as your reply is, it’s shows how much you suddenly lost your position. Perhaps you didn’t understand, they cite scientific studies and wiki is generally good at summerising.

Now if you really desire, I can actually examine the literature they cite and I can look further into other studies, because I have access to it, but I don’t think I need to do that. You seem to lack any evidence that affirms your fervent stance.

 

[charlie sc]

Tall people. For one thing they always look down on me.
And I am sure they are bad for birds.

Yes

 

[Earthling]

Windmills DO kill birds. We call them 'bird quizenarts" around here...and we have a lot of windmill 'farms.' They are ecological disasters, quite frankly. Nothing can live where they are, and when they quite literally cover entire mountains, as they do here, the impact upon the local ecology is blatant.

....and believe me, putting mesh around them is not a viable option.

I don't know about the problems that solar farms have; we have a great many of those, too. Perhaps the problems that come with disposing of the old and worn out panels are huge. I don't know. I DO know that where they are, the poppies don't grow.

So...what do we do about it? Frankly, I don't know. Those of you who know me at all know that I'm not exactly 'left' on anything much. I am, however, for renewable energy and taking care of the planet we live on. When I see something with this level of unintended nasty consequences, I have to wonder about them.

Oh....and I do have solar panels on my roof. They have cut my electric bills to darned near nothing; in fact, some months I produce more electricity than I use. I LIKE that.

But I am having a few second and third thoughts about the gigantic solar and wind farms that are sprouting up all over the place out this way.

That, the point on farms, is what it's about. Solar panels work for you then why not for everyone? Not some farm that produces energy and leaves the masses subject to their power (pun intended)? But then you get to the point where you have to ask where does the material for those things come from? Petroleum based, no doubt. Nearly everything is.