Windmill Cancer Survivor Found

Windmills are being fitted with radar to see if flocks of birds are coming and shut them down til birds pass. They are especially important when bird migrations are occurring.
 
countryboy said:
This one's a little more accurate.

baow-clip.jpg
Click to expand...

Pandering to emotion by posting a picture of a dead owl is not scientific, does not compare relative risk levels, and more importantly it is deceptive and manipulative. You should be above that kind of manipulation.

The fact is that wind power is vastly safer for avian species than fossil fuels and nuclear.

And when I say "vastly safer" it is not even a contest. They are not even remotely in the same ballpark. Wind is so much safer, they cannot even be compared.

Avian deaths per year (Wind power): 7,193
Avian death per year (Fossil fuels): 14,5000,000 (14.5 million)
Avian death per year (Nuclear power): 327,483

Avian deaths per GWh (Wind power): 0.269
Avian death per GWh (Fossil fuels): 5.18
Avian death per GWh (Nuclear power): 0.416

hCN6HBl.jpg


source data: "Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity", Benjamin K. Sovacool, Ph.D., Energy Policy Volume 37, Issue 6, June 2009, Pages 2241-2248 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.011


Should we make wind farms as safe as possible for avian life and bats? Yep. Goes without saying.
 
Cypress said:
Pandering to emotion by posting a picture of a dead owl is not scientific, does not compare relative risk levels, and more importantly it is deceptive and manipulative. You should be above that kind of manipulation.

The fact is that wind power is vastly safer for avian species than fossil fuels and nuclear.

And when I say "vastly safer" it is not even a contest. They are not even remotely in the same ballpark. Wind is so much safer, they cannot even be compared.

Avian deaths per year (Wind power): 7,193
Avian death per year (Fossil fuels): 14,5000,000 (14.5 million)
Avian death per year (Nuclear power): 327,483

Avian deaths per GWh (Wind power): 0.269
Avian death per GWh (Fossil fuels): 5.18
Avian death per GWh (Nuclear power): 0.416

hCN6HBl.jpg


source data: "Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity", Benjamin K. Sovacool, Ph.D., Energy Policy Volume 37, Issue 6, June 2009, Pages 2241-2248 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.011


Should we make wind farms as safe as possible for avian life and bats? Yep. Goes without saying.
Click to expand...

Crypiss posts a bullshit study from 2009 and claims that proves his point, fucking arsehole!
 
Grumpy said:
I agree about the cancer thing but we have just scratched the surface on cancer causes. Just look at the medical strides that have been made in cancer treatment during our lifetimes. When we were younger cancer was almost a death sentence.
Click to expand...

True, we've done well in fighting the disease and with new breakthroughs with genetics it's only going to get better. That being said, petroleum and petroleum additives have known carcinogens. Burning coal releases many into the atmosphere and environment. We all know what happens when a nuclear reactor goes rogue. So far hydro has proven safe for humans but not so great for salmon and other stream-dwelling creatures.

In the end there is no free lunch, no "free" energy -- it all comes at a cost.
 
countryboy said:
Yeah, get back to me when libs quit pandering to emotion. You sir, or madam, are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Your evidence was a picture of a dead owl. With no way for us to verify how or why it was actually killed.

I provided data, peer reviewed science, and statistics.


Fossil fuels and nuclear kill vastly more birds than wind farms. It's not even in the same ball park.

Which suggests to me, your alleged "concern" about bird wildlife fatalities was completely fake - otherwise you would have complained first and foremost about avian fatalities due to fossil fuels and nuclear power, which kill millions more birds than wind farms ever have or ever will.

Here is a 2013 study that provides the same conclusion: compared to fossil fuels and nuclear, wind farms are vastly more safe for avian wildlife and bats. By a country mile.

The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences vol. 9, no. 4, December 2012, 255-278 (June 2013)

Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farm-related avian fatalities equated to approximately 46,000 birds in the United States in 2009, but nuclear power plants killed about 460,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 24 million.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2198024
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Your evidence was a picture of a dead owl. With no way for us to verify how or why it was actually killed.

I provided data, peer reviewed science, and statistics.


Fossil fuels and nuclear kill vastly more birds than wind farms. It's not even in the same ball park.

Which suggests to me, your alleged "concern" about bird wildlife fatalities was completely fake - otherwise you would have complained first and foremost about avian fatalities due to fossil fuels and nuclear power, which kill millions more birds than wind farms ever have or ever will.

Here is a 2013 study that provides the same conclusion: compared to fossil fuels and nuclear, wind farms are vastly more safe for avian wildlife and bats. By a country mile.
Click to expand...

You might want to do a little more research before posting things that have been found quite in error: https://atomicinsights.com/nukes-kill-more-birds-than-wind/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top