Can these be placed out in the water since, it seems, they aren't friendly to the land?
Like this?
(That’s off the coast of Massachusetts)
Can these be placed out in the water since, it seems, they aren't friendly to the land?
i wished they invested 300m in the U.S.
This.
People thinking they're saving the environment driving electric vehicles, meanwhile adding 4800KW a day to coal-fired emissions are just plain stupid.
Climate change is really about government control, otherwise they would understand that at this moment we could do away with coal plants in entirety and use pure nuclear energy (put the plants in safe places away from earthquake zones and tsunami zones). This would drastically reduce emissions, probably make electricity cheaper in the long run, and encourage more electric vehicle adoption.
agree 100%. Is it a crisis? Don’t know, but if it is, and I will say it is for the sake of argument, start using nuclear right now. Really, no time to waste and all that. Forget accords and agreements—start doing something. Now. Going nuclear will do a hell of a lot more than 12-year-old crossing the Atlantic in a friggin rowboat. Or whatever.This.
People thinking they're saving the environment driving electric vehicles, meanwhile adding 4800KW a day to coal-fired emissions are just plain stupid.
Climate change is really about government control, otherwise they would understand that at this moment we could do away with coal plants in entirety and use pure nuclear energy (put the plants in safe places away from earthquake zones and tsunami zones). This would drastically reduce emissions, probably make electricity cheaper in the long run, and encourage more electric vehicle adoption.
I’m in Illinois. I believe we have a functioning plant in Zion. The odds of it “exploding “ are slim. If climate is such a crisis, go nuclear. There is literally no time to waste, right? RIGHT?They're not stupid. It depends on the state you live in. If you live in a state that uses primarily coal for power than yeah, you're not helping the environment at all. But if you live in a state that uses renewable energy (I'm in Illinois and I switched my electric supply to 100% renewable) you're literally helping save the planet.
Nuclear energy is super cool until something 'splodes.
I’m all for clean renewable energy. However, it cost more money and energy to process, build, ship and maintain each of these windmills than they produce or save.
And the earth warming is a big problem for us... Don't get me wrong I like birds, but not so much that they can't take one for the team in order for us to continue our species.That's a different topic, and they are all problems that need to be resolved. Just don't sell utopia. Wind farms are a big problem for birds.
Are you a vegan?Please, don't give me that cats thing which is utter BS. of course 300,000 static wind turbines kill less than 700,000,000 cats. Also, that's like saying that violent crime is not a problem because it kills less than car accidents (and for cats birds are mainly food).
And no, it's not the coal industry that I am looking at. I am looking at Smithsonian, Audubon Society, NatGeo and so on, that is environmental friendly sources. It's a carnage.
Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe For Birds?
Here are some of the solutions the industry is testing to reduce bird deaths.www.audubon.org
How Many Birds Do Wind Turbines Really Kill?
The giant spinning turbines are basically bird death traps - and often they cut through prime flying space making the carnage even worsewww.smithsonianmag.com
BirdWatching
www.birdwatchingdaily.com
Wind turbines kill up to 39 million birds a year! | CFACT
Not only has the wind industry never solved its environmental problem, it has been hiding at least 90% of this slaughter for decades. In fact, the universal problem of hiding bird (and bat) mortality goes from bad to intolerable beyond the Altamont Pass boundaries, because studies in other areas...www.cfact.org
Why the F is Apple not doing this in California?!?
Please, don't give me that cats thing which is utter BS. of course 300,000 static wind turbines kill less than 700,000,000 cats. Also, that's like saying that violent crime is not a problem because it kills less than car accidents (and for cats birds are mainly food).
And no, it's not the coal industry that I am looking at. I am looking at Smithsonian, Audubon Society, NatGeo and so on, that is environmental friendly sources. It's a carnage.
Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe For Birds?
Here are some of the solutions the industry is testing to reduce bird deaths.www.audubon.org
How Many Birds Do Wind Turbines Really Kill?
The giant spinning turbines are basically bird death traps - and often they cut through prime flying space making the carnage even worsewww.smithsonianmag.com
BirdWatching
www.birdwatchingdaily.com
Wind turbines kill up to 39 million birds a year! | CFACT
Not only has the wind industry never solved its environmental problem, it has been hiding at least 90% of this slaughter for decades. In fact, the universal problem of hiding bird (and bat) mortality goes from bad to intolerable beyond the Altamont Pass boundaries, because studies in other areas...www.cfact.org
I’m in Illinois. I believe we have a functioning plant in Zion. The odds of it “exploding “ are slim. If climate is such a crisis, go nuclear. There is literally no time to waste, right? RIGHT?
Not wind farms, they are slaughtering birds to an unprecedented level.
Also unfounded fear mongering that is not true: https://www.ge.com/reports/post/92442325225/how-loud-is-a-wind-turbine/Noise pollution.
Why the F is Apple not doing this in California?!?
You understand that the will be no life left if we keep on the path we are on. Wind, Solar, Tidal etc will all help us get out of this mess.That's a different topic, and they are all problems that need to be resolved. Just don't sell utopia. Wind farms are a big problem for birds.
I would think that it would have been easier and cheaper just to buy the company when it was still small.I remember a Sixty Minutes Story about a U.S. Wind Turbine company that had minimal growth. Then China came knocking and their growth was immense. They built large warehouses for their new needs. Then China stole the tech inside the turbines and left him high and dry.
I wonder who's technology is in those turbines.?.
Honestly interested, do you have a reliable source for this statement? If not, it's not a problem.
Also it directly addresses the question of habitat lossOn average, 8.2 ± 1.4 birds (95% C.I.) were killed per turbine per year
Which translates to a possible habitat loss of 1.6 nests per wind turbine.On average, total habitat loss per turbine was 1.23 ha, which corresponds to an estimated total habitat loss due to wind farms nationwide of 3635 ha. Based on published estimates of nest density, this could represent habitat for ~5700 nests of all species. Assuming nearby habitats are saturated, and 2 adults displaced per nest site, effects of direct habitat loss are less than that of direct mortality.
That's just Toronto, in the downtown core. Thus it's pretty safe to conclude that buildings (with lights on at night and no other bird deterrent) are a much greater threat to the bird population.The FLAP Canada volunteers collected and recorded a total of 3034 bird collisions in 2009 and 4934 bird collisions in 2010. The total number of BWCs (Bird-Window Collisions) retained for the analysis was of 3924 (1719 for 2009 and 2205 for 2010)
Also a Canadian study illustrated further validity for some other complaints.For average noise exposure, the GDG conditionally recommends reducing noise levels produced by wind turbines below 45 dB Lden, as wind turbine noise above this level is associated with adverse health effects. To reduce health effects, the GDG conditionally recommends that policy-makers implement suitable measures to reduce noise exposure from wind turbines in the population exposed to levels above the guideline values for average noise exposure. No evidence is available, however, to facilitate the recommendation of one particular type of intervention over another.
But are you still on a grid that provides power at night? Otherwise you would need a battery.It's great that we're moving towards renewables. But wind is crap. We have wind farms in my area and our energy costs kept INCREASING. The reason? Wind power "isn't productive enough" and they don't see it paying for itself anytime soon. We've had them for 8 years. And we live in a pretty windy area. So it's not like there's a shortage of "fuel" on average. They have been so unproductive and cost unfriendly that they are considering taking them down. We have installed solar panels throughout town over the last few years and they are ALREADY showing a profit.
I would much rather see more solar over wind. We're getting a win-win for solar. No one wanted the panels on open areas because they environmentalists didn't like the idea of tearing up ground for it. All plans in our area involved tearing up grass, replacing it with gravel, and then fencing around the panels. Those plans didn't go over well. So we put them on rooftops and in parking lots. Generate energy and be able to park in the shade! Works great!
Which is more effective? Wind, solar, etc., or nuclear? If your life depends on it you take the risk. That is the whole point of the idea of "crisis." Three Mile Island, Fukishima, Chernobyl. Bad BUT....statistically rare. If there is an emergency, a crisis, an existential crisis, even, you take risks and do whatever it takes. Period.It is a crisis. But why go nuclear when we can go wind, solar, hydro? No chance of another Three Mile Island. Nuclear is bigger than us and we still have no idea how to make it 100% safe. Until we do, I'm not interested.
How many people have died in the past 50 years due to accidents at nuclear plants vs. car accidents?It is a crisis. But why go nuclear when we can go wind, solar, hydro? No chance of another Three Mile Island. Nuclear is bigger than us and we still have no idea how to make it 100% safe. Until we do, I'm not interested.
They also have been documented to produce low frequency vibrations that are disturbing to the health and comfort of humans and wildlife who are located nearby.
Source 1
Source 2 This source shows that there are different studies that make it more of a gray area, with some research showing no health effects. Others indicate annoyance and resulting sleep disturbances and mental health effects could be a result. But there’s not solid data on mental health effects. However, a few years ago I read in other articles of people abandoning homes too near wind turbines.
~~~
I’m not saying we shouldn’t displace some highly polluting sources of power with wind turbines, but we need to be realistic about the fact that so far some of our popular new solutions also come with a cost and toll on the environment. We will need to find a way to mitigate these damages, too.