Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
It is estimated that domestic cats kill between 1.4 billion and 4 billion birds a year.
4 -
I can read thanks and provided the link 😜bobmunro said:queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
It is estimated that domestic cats kill between 1.4 billion and 4 billion birds a year.
But I thought we were talking about the pro's and cons of wind turbines, rather than cats1 -
The upper estimate on that link is 18 birds per year per wind turbine. So 1.5 birds per month, per turbine. It does predict that would mean 5m worlwide per year, you are correct. But the numbers dont show that wind turbines are, as you said, "very good at killing birds of prey". In reality, 5m per year is a really small number when compared to other threats to bird populations.queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
From the same link, figures from the US only about bird killed by hazards:
Cats 2400million
Buildings 599m
Cars 200m
presticides 67m
Power lines 28m
communication towers 6.6m
Wind turbines 1.2million
Then of course there is climate change, which could kill many more than even domestic cats. As a bird lover myself, I dont like that wind turbines kill any birds, but its easy to see that the "collateral damage" is, unfortunately, worth it.
3 -
you can read, but can you read it and make a well rounded opinion based on all the information you found?queensland_addick said:
I can read thanks and provided the link 😜bobmunro said:queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
It is estimated that domestic cats kill between 1.4 billion and 4 billion birds a year.
But I thought we were talking about the pro's and cons of wind turbines, rather than cats0 -
Fewer birds of prey upsets the balance of nature. Fewer mice and voles will get eaten by them, leaving more for the cats, who won't need to kill as many birds having changed their diet to eating more small students, so it sort of balances itself out in the end 😉queensland_addick said:
I can read thanks and provided the link 😜bobmunro said:queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
It is estimated that domestic cats kill between 1.4 billion and 4 billion birds a year.
But I thought we were talking about the pro's and cons of wind turbines, rather than cats
4 -
Curiosity got me there so I googled it. On the first page. Probably not the best of websites or very scientific but nevertheless a read.cantersaddick said:
Which is why the diversification point is important. No one is saying we are there yet but it's good to recognise how far we have come. Once we get a few tidal generators up and running plus a bit more geographical diversity to wind we could be well onnthe way to decarbonising the grid.Dansk_Red said:But Europe is suffering from the lack of wind during the last month, so much so that LPG tankers are being divert to Europe as the price is better than the original destination.
The key thing in my opinion is cracking solid state batteries. From what I was reading about the Toyota Samsung research project (that was previously using university of Durham research phacilities but moved to China when the last govt cut research funding for anything "green") they were about 2 years away from having a version ready to bring to market and that was a year ago. So hopefully we aren't that far away.
These will be genuinely revolutionary. Far less resource intensive, not mineral dependent in the way that lithium ion batteries are, massive capacity compared to lithium ion and the potential to go much bigger. None of the safety concerns of lithium ion either. The solid state part is interesting too as in the future they will simply be built into houses or rather parts of the house will be made out of battery, or the chassis of the car will be the battery! Should be a lot cheaper too.
Once these take off a small box in a house could store enough electricity to last a couple weeks or even longer of they develop further. We could get localised grids with batteries connected. This would massively remove the dependence on electricity generation in that moment and so it needing to be sunny or windy somewhere right now becomes less of an issue. And when there is an excess we can charge the batteries and export the rest.
In my view large scale rollout of solid state batteries should be the final piece in the decarbonisation of the grid. We can get along way there in the meantime but something along those lines will be needed for that last piece
https://www.topspeed.com/mercedes-600-mile-solid-state-battery-breakthrough/
A while ago I did read and article about a company that fitted a dual battery system in a Tesla. Basically a quick charge battery for short journeys and another one that was tuned towards distance. They drove it at an average of 60 mph for nearly 1000 miles. I don't think in anyway it was practical, cost, size or whatever but it did show technology moving in the right direction.
Up until 2015 I worked in the Chemical Engineering department for a well known university. They where doing research on hydrogen fuel cells amongst others. I don't know how they have got on, most research fails, but they did attract a lot of money so probably had some good ideas. They did also empty a few fire extinguishers.0 -
I was about to make exactly the same point 🤣swordfish said:
Fewer birds of prey upsets the balance of nature. Fewer mice and voles will get eaten by them, leaving more for the cats, who won't need to kill as many birds having changed their diet to eating more small students, so it sort of balances itself out in the end 😉queensland_addick said:
I can read thanks and provided the link 😜bobmunro said:queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
It is estimated that domestic cats kill between 1.4 billion and 4 billion birds a year.
But I thought we were talking about the pro's and cons of wind turbines, rather than cats0 -
Struggling to make sense of this thread. Is there a suggestion to tie a domestic cat at the end of a wind turbine to scare away birds and prevent their deaths?6
-
Thank you.arthur said:
The upper estimate on that link is 18 birds per year per wind turbine. So 1.5 birds per month, per turbine. It does predict that would mean 5m worlwide per year, you are correct. But the numbers dont show that wind turbines are, as you said, "very good at killing birds of prey". In reality, 5m per year is a really small number when compared to other threats to bird populations.queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
From the same link, figures from the US only about bird killed by hazards:
Cats 2400million
Buildings 599m
Cars 200m
presticides 67m
Power lines 28m
communication towers 6.6m
Wind turbines 1.2million
Then of course there is climate change, which could kill many more than even domestic cats. As a bird lover myself, I dont like that wind turbines kill any birds, but its easy to see that the "collateral damage" is, unfortunately, worth it.
Finally someone with a little bit of integrity and honesty !0 -
I think, based on the data that @arthur has explained, that "buildings" kill far more birds than wind turbines.Friend Or Defoe said:Struggling to make sense of this thread. Is there a suggestion to tie a domestic cat at the end of a wind turbine to scare away birds and prevent their deaths?
Therefore, the obvious solution is to put a wind turbine on top of every building.2 - Sponsored links:
-
I believe so.arthur said:
you can read, but can you read it and make a well rounded opinion based on all the information you found?queensland_addick said:
I can read thanks and provided the link 😜bobmunro said:queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
It is estimated that domestic cats kill between 1.4 billion and 4 billion birds a year.
But I thought we were talking about the pro's and cons of wind turbines, rather than cats
Can the proponents of Wind Turbines do the same ?
0 -
Its ok, you were right on that, I had been thinking UK based rather than worldwide. But more importnatly, do you remember any of the bits that aren't in bold? are you able to concede that of all the dangers to birds in this world, that wind turbines are of reasonalby low concern? Obviously more concern than either you or I personally, I think I've hit with my car, 2 pigeons, 1 magpie and two blue tits which chased each other into my windscreen about 15 years ago and I still feel sad about it.queensland_addick said:
Thank you.arthur said:
The upper estimate on that link is 18 birds per year per wind turbine. So 1.5 birds per month, per turbine. It does predict that would mean 5m worlwide per year, you are correct. But the numbers dont show that wind turbines are, as you said, "very good at killing birds of prey". In reality, 5m per year is a really small number when compared to other threats to bird populations.queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
From the same link, figures from the US only about bird killed by hazards:
Cats 2400million
Buildings 599m
Cars 200m
presticides 67m
Power lines 28m
communication towers 6.6m
Wind turbines 1.2million
Then of course there is climate change, which could kill many more than even domestic cats. As a bird lover myself, I dont like that wind turbines kill any birds, but its easy to see that the "collateral damage" is, unfortunately, worth it.
Finally someone with a little bit of integrity and honesty !1 -
of course there are more buildings than turbines. But buildings dont move so maybe educating birds about glass would go a long way.Chizz said:
I think, based on the data that @arthur has explained, that "buildings" kill far more birds than wind turbines.Friend Or Defoe said:Struggling to make sense of this thread. Is there a suggestion to tie a domestic cat at the end of a wind turbine to scare away birds and prevent their deaths?
Therefore, the obvious solution is to put a wind turbine on top of every building.3 -
arthur said:
of course there are more buildings than turbines. But buildings dont move so maybe educating birds about glass would go a long way.Chizz said:
I think, based on the data that @arthur has explained, that "buildings" kill far more birds than wind turbines.Friend Or Defoe said:Struggling to make sense of this thread. Is there a suggestion to tie a domestic cat at the end of a wind turbine to scare away birds and prevent their deaths?
Therefore, the obvious solution is to put a wind turbine on top of every building.
2 -
I shouldn't bite at your ridiculous trolling, but it was a simple statement that you have chosen to interpret incorrectly.queensland_addick said:
Who? Why didn't you quote him ?ME14addick said:
It wasn't a meaningless figure, someone else was making a false claim about wind generation. I looked at the National Grid LIVE figure and quoted the current figure, meaning at the time of posting.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
Someone joked about Wind Turbines specifically not making a useful contribution.
But you posted figures for all renewable energy ( not just Wind Turbines) so how is anyone supposed to know who you are responding to or what point you are trying to make?
This is a thread about climate change, renewable energy is a big part of mitigating against it.
I'm not going to engage with your pathetic trolling any more.5 -
Apparently not in any significant numbers.queensland_addick said:
They are very good at killing Birds of Preycafcnick1992 said:First day in decades that wind turbines are actually making a useful contribution
The birds are smart enough to avoid them. Not surprising when they can spot a mouse from 2 miles away.
Many are electrocuted.1 -
Thanks, but it's highly indicative of CL that you're post got 6 likes, whilst you have generously and honestly admitted that you actually got it wrong, and that I was in fact correct.arthur said:
Its ok, you were right on that, I had been thinking UK based rather than worldwide. But more importnatly, do you remember any of the bits that aren't in bold? are you able to concede that of all the dangers to birds in this world, that wind turbines are of reasonalby low concern? Obviously more concern than either you or I personally, I think I've hit with my car, 2 pigeons, 1 magpie and two blue tits which chased each other into my windscreen about 15 years ago and I still feel sad about it.queensland_addick said:
Thank you.arthur said:
The upper estimate on that link is 18 birds per year per wind turbine. So 1.5 birds per month, per turbine. It does predict that would mean 5m worlwide per year, you are correct. But the numbers dont show that wind turbines are, as you said, "very good at killing birds of prey". In reality, 5m per year is a really small number when compared to other threats to bird populations.queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
From the same link, figures from the US only about bird killed by hazards:
Cats 2400million
Buildings 599m
Cars 200m
presticides 67m
Power lines 28m
communication towers 6.6m
Wind turbines 1.2million
Then of course there is climate change, which could kill many more than even domestic cats. As a bird lover myself, I dont like that wind turbines kill any birds, but its easy to see that the "collateral damage" is, unfortunately, worth it.
Finally someone with a little bit of integrity and honesty !
It's a pity that such honesty is in such short supply by so many posters on CL these days!
Regarding the rest of your post I do mostly agree with you, however as a huge bird lover who has kept and bred Parrots, and rehabilitated injured birds, any death is one too many for me, and 5 million is a very significant amount.
So I would therefore far rather Green Energy was produced by other less damaging methods.3 -
Different stats for birds of prey.Chizz said:
Let's not allow turbine bird strikes to be used as an argument against an increase in the use of wind turbines.Stig said:queensland_addick said:
They are very good at killing Birds of Preycafcnick1992 said:First day in decades that wind turbines are actually making a useful contribution"Climate change poses the single biggest threat to birds and other wildlife. Current science suggests that one third of all land-based species could be committed, by 2050, towards eventual extinction if extensive action is not taken to reduce our carbon footprint. This means that low carbon energy sources like wind turbines play a significant role in saving nature". RSPB
There's stuff that can be done to minimise bird strikes. Apparently painting blades black reduces bird strikes by 70%. Let's not use the comparatively small number of deaths caused by turbines as a red herring to put people off of wind power. The number one priority now is to get carbon emissions under control. When we've done that, then will be the time to really focus on other possibilities.
0 -
If we're going to start drawing attention to the fate of birds and small mammals, this thread will soon disappear down a rabbit hole.MrWalker said:
Apparently not in any significant numbers.queensland_addick said:
They are very good at killing Birds of Preycafcnick1992 said:First day in decades that wind turbines are actually making a useful contribution
The birds are smart enough to avoid them. Not surprising when they can spot a mouse from 2 miles away.
Many are electrocuted.
And aren't we forgetting birds killed by fossil fuelled planes in the comparisons.
2 -
Yes, probably. But I was responding to Stig's comment about birds.MrWalker said:
Different stats for birds of prey.Chizz said:
Let's not allow turbine bird strikes to be used as an argument against an increase in the use of wind turbines.Stig said:queensland_addick said:
They are very good at killing Birds of Preycafcnick1992 said:First day in decades that wind turbines are actually making a useful contribution"Climate change poses the single biggest threat to birds and other wildlife. Current science suggests that one third of all land-based species could be committed, by 2050, towards eventual extinction if extensive action is not taken to reduce our carbon footprint. This means that low carbon energy sources like wind turbines play a significant role in saving nature". RSPB
There's stuff that can be done to minimise bird strikes. Apparently painting blades black reduces bird strikes by 70%. Let's not use the comparatively small number of deaths caused by turbines as a red herring to put people off of wind power. The number one priority now is to get carbon emissions under control. When we've done that, then will be the time to really focus on other possibilities.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
Estimating the exact number of birds of prey killed by wind turbines annually in the UK is challenging due to limited comprehensive data. However, available information provides some insight:Scotland: Between 2008 and 2014, there were 71 recorded raptor deaths resulting from collisions with onshore wind turbines.Barn Owls: A study indicated that the mortality rate for Barn Owls due to wind turbines is approximately one death per turbine every 53 years, suggesting a relatively low impact.
18 million pheasant, 5.9 million partridge are shot annually in the UK; and 5,300 red grouse, daily.Two comments on this.
1. It seems that the number of birds of prey killed by wind turbines annually in the UK falls very short of "millions".
2. I offer sincere and complete apology for the use of the phrase "relatively low impact".1 -
I generously admitted I was thinking about birds killed in the UK only, based on your post that millions get killed but which wasn't specific about it being worldwide. Thats more of a misunderstanding that didnt last very long and were are on the same page now on that. Maybe those 6 people were also thinking you meant Uk so it's important that all readers of your post werent also thinking that millions are killed by UK wind turbines only, and then hundreds of millions worldwide. That's a much worse situation that I'm sure you werent trying to suggest.queensland_addick said:
Thanks, but it's highly indicative of CL that you're post got 6 likes, whilst you have generously and honestly admitted that you actually got it wrong, and that I was in fact correct.arthur said:
Its ok, you were right on that, I had been thinking UK based rather than worldwide. But more importnatly, do you remember any of the bits that aren't in bold? are you able to concede that of all the dangers to birds in this world, that wind turbines are of reasonalby low concern? Obviously more concern than either you or I personally, I think I've hit with my car, 2 pigeons, 1 magpie and two blue tits which chased each other into my windscreen about 15 years ago and I still feel sad about it.queensland_addick said:
Thank you.arthur said:
The upper estimate on that link is 18 birds per year per wind turbine. So 1.5 birds per month, per turbine. It does predict that would mean 5m worlwide per year, you are correct. But the numbers dont show that wind turbines are, as you said, "very good at killing birds of prey". In reality, 5m per year is a really small number when compared to other threats to bird populations.queensland_addick said:
Around 5 million globally according to estimates:arthur said:
not as meaningless as claiming that "millions" of birds are killed by wind turbines.queensland_addick said:
Why did you post a meaningless figure?ME14addick said:
Why make the comment then? The site shows live figures, you are becoming more and more ridiculous with your comments.queensland_addick said:
You did indeed, and I'm sure you weren't really trying to suggest that renewables account for nearly half of the UK's power supply (other than for the past 5 minutes maybe 🤔)ME14addick said:
I said CURRENTLY that is the live figure, nothing misleading about it.queensland_addick said:
That looks like a current daily figure, very misleading.ME14addick said:
If you look at the "All" tab, it says 22%, or the "Weekly" tab, it says 19% renewables
Who cares what the number is at this very second, it's irrelevant.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/wind-power-bird-deaths
From the same link, figures from the US only about bird killed by hazards:
Cats 2400million
Buildings 599m
Cars 200m
presticides 67m
Power lines 28m
communication towers 6.6m
Wind turbines 1.2million
Then of course there is climate change, which could kill many more than even domestic cats. As a bird lover myself, I dont like that wind turbines kill any birds, but its easy to see that the "collateral damage" is, unfortunately, worth it.
Finally someone with a little bit of integrity and honesty !
It's a pity that such honesty is in such short supply by so many posters on CL these days!
Regarding the rest of your post I do mostly agree with you, however as a huge bird lover who has kept and bred Parrots, and rehabilitated injured birds, any death is one too many for me, and 5 million is a very significant amount.
So I would therefore far rather Green Energy was produced by other less damaging methods.
It's ok to think that wind turbines kill too many birds, because, in a perfect world, none would be killed but its a unrealistic target to set for a technology that is going to help save far more in the medium and long term. Hopefully other green energy can become more popular to restrict reliance on wind power in the future. However, who is to say that these other green energies wont effect other species in a similar way? But IMHO, it's clear that the overall colatteral damage will be worth it to not cause huge losses in species due to climate change.3 -
Will be revolutionary. Maybe hydrogen cells will be better for cars but for homes a battery may be more important than solar once solid states take off. Its very much accepted that lithium ion has been taken as far as it can and is not the solution.charltonkeston said:
Curiosity got me there so I googled it. On the first page. Probably not the best of websites or very scientific but nevertheless a read.cantersaddick said:
Which is why the diversification point is important. No one is saying we are there yet but it's good to recognise how far we have come. Once we get a few tidal generators up and running plus a bit more geographical diversity to wind we could be well onnthe way to decarbonising the grid.Dansk_Red said:But Europe is suffering from the lack of wind during the last month, so much so that LPG tankers are being divert to Europe as the price is better than the original destination.
The key thing in my opinion is cracking solid state batteries. From what I was reading about the Toyota Samsung research project (that was previously using university of Durham research phacilities but moved to China when the last govt cut research funding for anything "green") they were about 2 years away from having a version ready to bring to market and that was a year ago. So hopefully we aren't that far away.
These will be genuinely revolutionary. Far less resource intensive, not mineral dependent in the way that lithium ion batteries are, massive capacity compared to lithium ion and the potential to go much bigger. None of the safety concerns of lithium ion either. The solid state part is interesting too as in the future they will simply be built into houses or rather parts of the house will be made out of battery, or the chassis of the car will be the battery! Should be a lot cheaper too.
Once these take off a small box in a house could store enough electricity to last a couple weeks or even longer of they develop further. We could get localised grids with batteries connected. This would massively remove the dependence on electricity generation in that moment and so it needing to be sunny or windy somewhere right now becomes less of an issue. And when there is an excess we can charge the batteries and export the rest.
In my view large scale rollout of solid state batteries should be the final piece in the decarbonisation of the grid. We can get along way there in the meantime but something along those lines will be needed for that last piece
https://www.topspeed.com/mercedes-600-mile-solid-state-battery-breakthrough/
A while ago I did read and article about a company that fitted a dual battery system in a Tesla. Basically a quick charge battery for short journeys and another one that was tuned towards distance. They drove it at an average of 60 mph for nearly 1000 miles. I don't think in anyway it was practical, cost, size or whatever but it did show technology moving in the right direction.
Up until 2015 I worked in the Chemical Engineering department for a well known university. They where doing research on hydrogen fuel cells amongst others. I don't know how they have got on, most research fails, but they did attract a lot of money so probably had some good ideas. They did also empty a few fire extinguishers.2 -
As with most things to do with ecological sustainability, I'd suggest that the State of Nature Report is probably the best place to go to first. If anyone wants a read, pages 84-7 are where it discusses wind turbines. It doesn't give a breakdown of bird numbers, but it does place an emphasis on seabirds being the most impacted. It stresses a need for further research and for careful placement of turbines to ensure that they are not sited in known flightpaths. Nowhere does it state that there shouldn't be turbines or that the danger they pose outweighs the positives of decreasing our reliance in fossil fuels. It also mentions a potential increase in fish species (surely a benefit for those seabirds) as a result of the reefification (my word, not theirs) of the turbine support structures.3
-
Also need to take into account the damage and disturbance to the seabed involved in the installation of these huge turbines, and whether that is having an adverse effect on marine animals such as Whales and Dolphins and their highly sensitive sonar systems.Stig said:As with most things to do with ecological sustainability, I'd suggest that the State of Nature Report is probably the best place to go to first. If anyone wants a read, pages 84-7 are where it discusses wind turbines. It doesn't give a breakdown of bird numbers, but it does place an emphasis on seabirds being the most impacted. It stresses a need for further research and for careful placement of turbines to ensure that they are not sited in known flightpaths. Nowhere does it state that there shouldn't be turbines or that the danger they pose outweighs the positives of decreasing our reliance in fossil fuels. It also mentions a potential increase in fish species (surely a benefit for those seabirds) as a result of the reefification (my word, not theirs) of the turbine support structures.1 -
Was out on a boat off Tenerife recently with a marine mammal expert, surveying the resident nursery population of Pilot Whales
The whales' home territory is the sea channel between the west coast of Tenerife and the east coast of neighbouring island La Gomera.
It was 3 Celsius warmer throughout 2024 than 8 years ago when he started work there.
1.5 to 2C ocean temperature rise supposedly critical to global climate?
That ship has sailed
3C rise in 8 years in open ocean.
But there's nothing to worry about boys'n'girls, the planet's 2nd largest emitter of climate warming pollution is set to 'drill, drill, drill' while winding back any responsible measures already in place.
My generation may not yet actually be fcuked by the weather but the next one should be worried and the one after that...5 -
This thread really has become a text-book study in how to derail an important discussion. We are now deep into cross-evidence about bird kills when we already have the information right there that it is a really low number. Nobody seems to be asking why we aren't preventing cats killing the 55 million per year.5
-
queensland_addick said:
Also need to take into account the damage and disturbance to the seabed involved in the installation of these huge turbines, and whether that is having an adverse effect on marine animals such as Whales and Dolphins and their highly sensitive sonar systems.Stig said:As with most things to do with ecological sustainability, I'd suggest that the State of Nature Report is probably the best place to go to first. If anyone wants a read, pages 84-7 are where it discusses wind turbines. It doesn't give a breakdown of bird numbers, but it does place an emphasis on seabirds being the most impacted. It stresses a need for further research and for careful placement of turbines to ensure that they are not sited in known flightpaths. Nowhere does it state that there shouldn't be turbines or that the danger they pose outweighs the positives of decreasing our reliance in fossil fuels. It also mentions a potential increase in fish species (surely a benefit for those seabirds) as a result of the reefification (my word, not theirs) of the turbine support structures.
Onshore baby, onshore
0 -
Because we know the answer to that. It's to fit bells on their collars.Wheresmeticket said:This thread really has become a text-book study in how to derail an important discussion. We are now deep into cross-evidence about bird kills when we already have the information right there that it is a really low number. Nobody seems to be asking why we aren't preventing cats killing the 55 million per year.3
