sources, 2009. Note: When a range of estimates has been given, the figure presents only data
for the lowest end of that range.
Among the big lies that windbaggers like to spread about wind energy, there are 2 that come up a lot.
One is that wind turbines kill a lot of birds, relative to other human activities.
The other is that windbaggers give a damn about birds.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority:
There are many ways to classify the impacts of electricity generation on wildlife. Effects can be direct and/or indirect; acute or chronic; individual or cumulative; and local, regional, or global. Each type of effect was explored in this study. Acidic deposition, climate change, and mercury bioaccumulation are identified as the three most significant and widespread stressors to wildlife from electricity generation from fossil fuels combustion in the NY/NE region.
Risks to wildlife vary substantially by life cycle stage. Higher risks are generally associated with the resource extraction and power generation stages, as compared to other life cycle stages. Overall, non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind. Based on the comparative amounts of SO2, NOx, CO2, and mercury emissions generated from coal, oil, natural gas, and hydro and the associated effects of acidic deposition, climate change, and mercury bioaccumulation, coal as an electricity generation source is by far the largest contributor to risks to wildlife found in the NY/NE region.
Journal of Integrative Environmental Studies:
..wind farms are responsible for roughly 0.27 avian fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while nuclear power plants involve 0.6 fatalities per GWh and fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 9.4 fatalities per GWh. 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.
To recap, about 46,000 avian mortalities were associated with wind farms across the United States in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 458,000 and fossil-fueled power plants almost 24 million, estimates illustrated by Figure 2. Figure 2 also reveals how the number of absolute birds killed by wind energy pales in comparison to other causes such as
windows and cats. Regardless of where the wind turbines are located, by minimizing reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power, they prevent the death and injury of wildlife that would otherwise occur across the world’s coal mines, uranium tail
ponds, oil refineries, natural gas facilities, uranium acidified forests, polluted lakes, and habitats soon to be threatened by climate change.
Although most evaluations of the beneficial effects of wind-generated electricity, including the present one, have addressed the degree to which they reduce (through displacement) atmospheric emissions, other important effects are potentially displaced as well. For example, obtaining fossil fuel through mining, drilling, and chemical modification of one form to another (e.g., gasification of coal) has a variety of environmental effects including loss of habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species.
Operation of thermal (energy generation units), which generate heat to drive turbines, produces heated water, either from cooling or in the form of steam to drive the turbines, or both. If the energy from the heated water is not recovered, the water is usually discharged into the environment; in closed cooling systems, its heat is discharged. All forms of generation have associated life-cycle emissions and wastes along with other environmental effects that are affected by the design, materials provision (including mining), manufacture, construction, transportation, assembly, operation, maintenance, retrofits, and decommissioning of the generators and their associated infrastructure. Some of these stages of the life cycle—most notably, mining—have adverse effects on human health as well.
So here is how we count nuclear deaths. If there isnt a dead human with a fuel rod in his hand, it doesn’t count.
Here is how we count wind energy deaths. A bird flew into a blade and was killed.
And somebody complained of wind turbine syndrome and thats bad. Well they didnt die, but it was almost as bad.
Besides they ruined the view from my golf course.
Hey cap, d0 stillbirths due to uranium mining count? Naw, no smoking gun.
Speaking of smoking, that’s a pretty good analogy. Nobody ever died of smoking either. Not a single documented case. I mean, come on, can you prove that it was Chesterfields, not Winston?
Another report, Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia, conducted by the University of Sydney in 2008 produced the following results: nuclear = 60-65 g CO2/kWh; wind power = 20 g/kWh; solar PV = 106 g/kWh. The likely range of values from this study produced the following results: nuclear = 10-130 g CO2/kWh; wind power = 13-40 g CO2/kWh; solar PV = 53-217 g CO2/kWh. Furthemore, the study criticised the Vattenfall report : “it omits the energy and greenhouse gas impacts of many upstream contributions”.[12]
From the same source, Wikipedia. You cherry picked. Are all the results against nuclear power biased?
as expected and despite several very intelligent replies to my comments (yes that’s sarcasm) the discussion has degenerated in competing claims based on partizan maths.
that’s why we don’t allow pickpockets free if they argue Madoff has stolen way more money.
The only meaningful question is if wind power technology can be made to kill fewer and fewer birds.
Again “context”
So you’re saying let the nuke industry and fossil fuel industry kill as many birds as they like, but oh boy if just one bird so much as loses a feather to a wind turbine, that’s one too many.
?!?
And again, you’re position is at odds with that of the RSPB (Royal Society for Protection of Birds).
You don’t get to pick what’s meaningful to everyone else.
If you want to ignore all other sources of bird deaths, that’s your choice but you can’t and won’t be allowed to make that the only choice for others.
My point is that it is absurd to “defend” the wind power industry by saying “others kill more birds”. Likewise it would be absurd to defend the nuke/coal/gas/solar power industries by saying “others do more this” or “others do more that”.
It is a very simple concept accepted in every legal framework, perhaps from the times of Hammurabi.
In this case, killing birds is wrong and every industry should do their best to reduce figures to zero or anyway something negligible.
Now you’re backtracking from your “only meaningful question”; that’s progress of a sort, I guess.
But, what is “negligible” and who gets to decide that?
What happens to industries and power plants who can’t meet that goal and what is considered their “best”?
Backtracking? It’s the same question. Or do I have to add a disclaimer at every point specifying to what else the question applies?
I prefer to stick to the post’s subject.
In case you’re not able to find your previous posts:
“The only meaningful question is if wind power technology can be made to kill fewer and fewer birds.”
and
“In this case, killing birds is wrong and every industry should do their best to reduce figures to zero or anyway something negligible.”
The latter is much more “meaningful” than the other and you still have quantified what’s an industry’s best effort or what you, as someone who’s “not the one who doesn’t care about killing birds” considers a negligible amount of bird kills.
By the way, I’m curious as to what you know about Hammurabi’s Code as there are many things in it I find absurd and there is, by modern standards, a disturbing lack of equality in how the code was to be applied and the punishments meted out, which depended greatly on the social status of offender and victim.
And in your examinations of legal frameworks, you may have overlooked the concept of selective prosecution.
Finally, in your judgment, who among the nefarious slaughterers of birds should have their hands cut off and who should pay 2 shekels of silver?
How about if we ignore each separate industry and say society should kill as little wildlife as possible? Then once you consider that Altamont alone is responsible for something close to half of all US wind generated bird kills (that’s from memory; correct me if I’m wrong) and newer generators are designed and sited better already, that the wind industry kills very little other wildlife, (as opposed to nukes and fossils which both kill considerably more of everyone) and that wind has had roughly 20 years as an industry (being generous) and nukes more than 3 times that, and fossils many times that to reduce harmful effects. the proper actions to take become clear. First, reduce energy use–efficiency, conservation and changed lives. Second, switch to solar and wind, and third, improve wind as much as possible–higher, slower, purpler, whatever works. Fourth, research and deploy other sources of energy that do even less harm, if we can find any.
Agriculture kills birds and more. Cars kill; making medicine kills; drinking water kills. To live is to kill; while we certainly should get that as small an effect as we can, to single out one item on the list (one of the least harmful, especially) and insist it alone reduce to zero is not being honest.
To be honest, one would have to admit that the idea of windmills as more dangerous than nuclear reactors and coal, gas and oil is utterly absurd. The very fact that it can even be mentioned without being dismissed as loony attacks by a fringe element out of touch with reality speaks to the money and power behind fossil fuels and nukes and the moral and emotional bankruptcy of media.
And the wind industry already has. Altamont, an early site, killed some birds, although still less than coal, its only serious competitor. Later wind farms have been designed better and sited better so have killed far fewer and further improvements are being researched and implemented to reduce this tiny number even more. So the figures used in studies of wind energy include obsolete desgns not being used anymore; while coal, oil, gas, nukes continue to kill millions of birds, millions of people, and uncountable other beings. Your arguments are ridiculous and must be simply attempts to confuse, and distract from the truth. That’s a classic strategy used by the tobacco industry, evolution deniers, climate-denying delayalists, ecological science deniers and others of similar ideology. Why you’re doing it I can only guess; climate science is so certain at this point, and the solutions–efficiency, wind, solar,reforestation, permaculture–are so obvious to those paying attention that those spreading lies and confusion are only delaying the inevitable. Maybe the delay will be just long enough for humans to become extinct, but not long enough to change the truth. So congratulations on your success so far.
On the other hand, if you really want to join the rest of the conservatives (LSHICB) and save birds, insist we switch to wind and solar, and use as little energy as possible.
So here is how we count nuclear deaths. If there isnt a dead human with a fuel rod in his hand, it doesn’t count.
If there isn’t a dead human period, it certainly doesn’t count.
Hey cap, d0 stillbirths due to uranium mining count? Naw, no smoking gun.
I’m happy to count them, if you have actual evidence. I propose your own standard of evidence: an actual citation of a peer-reviewed paper.
Nobody ever died of smoking either. Not a single documented case.
I’m sure you know that’s not true, and if you want I can provide a dozen peer-reviewed sources. As could you. Your problem is that science works fine for you when it shows something you already believe (such as, that smoking causes cancer), but when sciences fails to show something you already believe (such as, that nuclear power is dangerous to birds, or to humans) then suddenly you don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.
Are all the results against nuclear power biased?
Since you’re trying to change the subject from bird deaths to CO2 emissions, may we assume that you’re conceding the point that Sovacool’s analysis is in fact flawed, as I originally asserted?
http://www.zreportage.com/zReportage.html?num=zrep469
Story Summary: All of India’s uranium comes from a few miles around Jadugoda, a tribal district of East Singbhum, the site of the oldest uranium mine in the country. Jadugoda is estimated to have more than a third of India’s total mineral wealth. For years, the local population has suffered from the extensive environmental degradation caused by mining operations, responsible for the high frequency of radiation related sicknesses and developmental disorders found in the area. Increases in miscarriages, impotency, infant mortality, Down’s syndrome, skeletal deformities, thalassemia have been reported. With raw radioactive ‘yellow-cake’ production to increase and more than 100,000 tons of radio-active waste stored at Jadugoda the threat to the local tribal communities is set to continue.
Oct. 4, 2012 – Jadugoda, Jharkhand, India – LAXMI DAS has lost eight children within a week of their births. Her ninth child, Gudia, survived but succumbed to cerebral palsy. Gudia passed away recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandoned_Uranium_Mines
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=abandoned-uranium-mines-a
“and only a tiny fraction of uranium production was ever done by open pit.”
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Mining-of-Uranium/Uranium-Mining-Overview/#.UZupFJU6kW8
Without going into details, this source shows 12% open pit mining of uranium. The third, fifth, and eighth largest sources are open pit. A little loose with the facts, there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlit
“… and killed nobody.”
Two workers missing since the natural disasters of 11 March have now been found dead in the turbine building of Fukushima Daiichi unit 4.
Kazuhito Kokubo and Yoshiki Terashima, aged 24 and 21 respectively, were found in the ‘-1’ level of unit 4’s turbine hall.
One worker also died at Fukushina Daini after suffering serious injuries and becoming trapped in the crane operating console of the exhaust stack of one of the units during the earthquake.
But those don’t count. But bird deaths do. Right.
“And yet somehow you haven’t actually documented even a single bird.”
A South Australian government taskforce will examine a huge spike in the number of birds killed at the Olympic Dam uranium mine, after more than 100 were found dead over four days in late December 2004.
The deaths were recorded at the mine’s tailings dam in outback South Australia, which spans 400ha and is where solid and evaporated acid liquid waste from some of the uranium mine’s operations is stored.
“Unfortunately the tailings system contains chemicals and that is what causes harm to birds,” WMC spokesman Richard Yeeles said. (Australian Jan. 11, 2005)
There is your single documented bird death.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopauod.html
”Oh yea, why do nuclear plants have those high smokestacks?”
“They don’t. Those are cooling towers that have zero emissions.”
1P – Stack shared by the Unit 3 and Unit 4 reactor building exhaust system. Air from the reactor buildings is discharged from this stack during normal operations. During accident conditions, a system within the reactor building routes air through a charcoal filter system before sending it to the stack for discharge. The primary containment is vented through the reactor building charcoal filter system before flowing through the lines to the stack.
Fukushima does not have cooling towers. It cooled through ocean water, not cooling towers. The exhaust stacks are for discharging gases due to an accident. Did not do any good.
“loose with the facts”
– an excellent description of your approach:
1. The deaths you describe at Fukushima Daiichi were earthquake and tsunami deaths – as you must know. But you present them anyway, even though they completely fail to counter the point made.
2. Olympic Dam is primarily a copper mine. Tailings with significant chemical contamination are characteristic of copper working. You know this, yet present bird deaths there as due to uranium mining.
Essentially, Christopher, you don’t care whether what you say is accurate. You don’t care whether you address the point made or just make some noise in return. Big blocks of text, that’s your measure of success, it seems.
But then you don’t even care enough to make a WordPress account and actually use the reply facility so that some sort of debate is possible.
“but when sciences fails to show something you already believe (such as, that nuclear power is dangerous to birds, or to humans) then suddenly you don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.”
There is abundant evidence from studies of Chernobyl that shows bird deaths. I gave that already. Why did you ignore it? Does that not count? Or did you bother to even check the reference?
“Since you’re trying to change the subject from bird deaths to CO2 emissions, may we assume that you’re conceding the point that Sovacool’s analysis is in fact flawed, as I originally asserted?”
You seem to be intent on proving Sovacool’s analysis is flawed. I am more concerned with your sweeping generalizations and mistakes. Please admit when you have made mistakes, it credits you, if you do. Otherwise, you look like a denier. You were badly mistaken about Fukushima and cooling towers and I proved it. I made a number of statements that clearly showed your factual errors. I also proved that uranium mining has at least 12% open pit sources and yet you claimed a tiny fraction. Don’t just gloss over them. I think we need to be clear, however, that the subject of Peter’s article is not bird deaths at all. It is really that coal and nuclear have been given a free pass on bird deaths and wind has been hypercritically examined. I pointed out that there are plenty of unaccounted bird deaths due to nuclear. (with references both peer-reviewed and from newspapers) The point is well made merely by showing the dearth of attention to nuclear bird deaths. Most of the scholarly articles about bird deaths are from Chernobyl. It is grossly ironic that bird deaths due to nuclear is the focus of this discussion rather than human suffering and death, however.
I fail to see how I changed the subject from bird deaths. I really only wanted to challenge your assumption that Sovacool had been “known for rather shoddy scholarship”, since he provided the bird death estimates. I don’t like shoddy scholarship, either. You provided Beertens as a reference, and I give you credit for that, but somehow he falls short of proving the appellation “shoddy scholarship”. He does find fault, however. I fail to see how Beerten’s disagreeing with the mix of LCAs is shoddy scholarship. If it is, please make your argument more carefully, and with sound reasoning and further explanation.
I prefer that I, and the readers of this blog become more informed and in an accurate and balanced way.
I thought you might notice that Sovacool is not the only one with similar sentiments, since I provided another paper with similar results. This is not to change any subject. Rather, it is to stick the the original subject, your comment “shoddy scholarship” and in part, the subject of bird deaths due to nuclear. I thought you might notice that if Sovacool’s paper was not the only one with similar results on CO2 comparisons, you might notice that not “all” of Sovacool’s papers were “shoddy”.
I can pile all the evidence in the world and you may still deny it. You already
ignored the deaths at Fukushima, so here’s more.
Stillbirths and nuclear deaths:
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan).
Volume 1181, December 2009
335 Pages
According to the authors, official discussions from the International Atomic Energy Agency and associated United Nations’ agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments.
There is a huge body of evidence regarding impacts of Chernobyl, because there has been enough time to examine some of them scientifically.
The earlier volume, “Chernobyl,” published in Russian, presented an analysis of the scientific literature, including more than 1,000 titles and more than 5,000 printed and Internet publications mainly in Slavic languages, on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.
If you are reading challenged, you can listen to one of them, in entirety, on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXPYbs39D4
The only reason to claim that there are no documented deaths due to Chernobyl or Fukushima, or Chernobyl stillbirths, or any of the many other negative impacts of the nuclear power life cycle, is that one is willfully ignorant, or simply a denier. Most commonly, nuclear apologists choose to ignore mining, mining disasters, nuclear disasters, and waste.
So there are facts, documents, and references. It is not necessary to have a peer-reviewed paper to prove that three workers died or that 100 birds died. But, please, try to find some references and not cherry pick sources. As far as criticism of Sovacool goes, we all know how it works. Some researchers have criticisized some of his methods. Then he gets to respond. Then the other researchers write their paper. Etc, Etc. Etc. That is hardly an open and shut case for your claim that Sovacool is a sloppy researcher.
One criticism of Sovacool is that he cites Van Leeuwen. Van Leeuwen’s paper predictably set off a firestorm of debate because it criticisized nuclear. Nuclear afficionados hate both Van Leeuwen and Sovacool, because they both gore the sacred ox. Predictably, the detractors came from Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI),…PSI is a User Laboratory and runs several particle accelerators.
You can read the back and forth here and decide for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Willem_Storm_van_Leeuwen
Sovacool’s research interests include energy policy, environmental issues, and science and technology policy.[1] He is the author or editor of eight books and more than 130 peer reviewed[citation needed] academic articles on various aspects of energy policy and climate change, and has presented research at more than 60 international conferences and symposia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_K._Sovacool
I find it difficult to believe that all of Sovacool’s research is “shoddy”. By the way, he is a contributor to the IPCC.
Ok. Stop with the Sovacool slander. . Its a ridiculous mix up. I read the entire Sovacool 2009 paper and a 2012 paper. Here is the quote:
Abandoned open pit uranium mines in Wyoming have formed lakes hazardous to wildlife. Uranium-bearing formations are usually associated with strata containing high concentrations of selenium. For example, one of these pits killed 300 birds during a single year (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).
From US Fish and Wildlife
n 1995, the Berkeley Pit proved lethal to over 300 snow geese which used the pit lake as a migratory stopping place.
Abandoned open pit uranium mines in Wyoming also have formed pit lakes.
The claim that Sovacool mixed up a uranium mine with a copper one is at most ambiguous at this point If you bother to read the US Fish report and read the very next sentence, it is quite clear that USFW is saying that
Abandoned open pit uranium mines in Wyoming also have formed pit lakes.
They go on to state that
Pit lakes formed in open pit uranium mines can contain very high levels of selenium in the water. One pit lake in Wyoming contains over 100 parts per million (microgram per Liter [µg/L]) of selenium. Waterborne selenium concentrations greater than 2µg/L are known to impair the reproduction and survival of aquatic birds due to the high potential for dietary toxicity through food chain bioaccumulation.
Shame on you. You cherry picked your response from
http://atomicinsights.com/2013/04/nukes-kill-more-birds-than-wind.html
Then you proceeded to condemn Sovacool by deciding that you know what he meant in the USFW reference, while not reading that last paragraph.
I think it is much more likely that he was making a reference to the high selenium content in open pit lakes, one of which killed 300 geese, and using the USFW report to show that uranium open pit mines cause bird deaths, because they, too, have high concentrations of selenium. It is clear that the subject of the USFW report was selenium and open pit mines. The title is
Contaminant Issues – Pit Lakes
Well that’s a dead giveaway. If you don’t realize the subject is Pit Lakes, you are not paying attention. If you don’t get that selenium is in high concentration at pit lakes and that there are lots of uranium pit lakes, and that pit lakes kill birds, well you get an F on your final grade. Stop scribbling graffiti in the margins of your looseleaf notebook and pay attention.
I have a radical proposition.
If you had any real intentions, you could send Sovacool a letter and ask him. So go ahead. Do it.
I will go back to what Peter said. Now really, answer honestly, do you really give a damn about birds?
The claim that Sovacool mixed up a uranium mine with a copper one is at most ambiguous at this point
It’s not ambiguous at all. Sovacool counted those 300 bird deaths, at a copper
pit lake, against the nuclear ledger. He made a mistake — or a deliberate distortion —
when he did so.
If you bother to read the US Fish report and read the very next sentence, it is quite clear that USFW
is saying that “Abandoned open pit uranium mines in Wyoming also have formed pit lakes.”
I read the USFWS report. Yes, they said that. No, they didn’t say that uranium pit
lakes have caused 300 bird deaths, nor any deaths at all. (Glaring math error by
the USFWS: 1 µg/L is ~1 ppb, not 1 ppm. Thus there are no uranium pit lakes in Wyoming
close to the 2 ppm selenium danger zone. That’s what you get for trusting a website
instead of peer-reviewed science.)
Shame on you. You cherry picked your response from
http://atomicinsights.com/2013/04/nukes-kill-more-birds-than-wind.html
No I didn’t. I just read Sovacool’s paper and found the same obvious errors he did.
In fact, I found a few he didn’t. Which you can verify yourself by reading my
first comment on this thread. Shame on you for making unfounded and untrue accusations.
Then you proceeded to condemn Sovacool by deciding that you know what he meant
in the USFW reference, while not reading that last paragraph.
I know what he actually meant, because he used those very numbers — the copper mine data —
in his analysis. If there’s a mixup here, it’s Sovacool’s.
I think it is much more likely that he was making a reference to the high
selenium content in open pit lakes, one of which killed 300 geese, and using
the USFW report to show that uranium open pit mines cause bird deaths, because
they, too, have high concentrations of selenium.
If that’s the case, then he was being either deliberately misleading, or
unacceptably shoddy in his scholarship, as I alleged originally. Because,
first, those 300 dead geese were at a copper pit lake, not a uranium pit lake;
second, those 300 dead geese died not from selenium, but from copper, cadmium,
and arsenic, which are not associated with uranium; third, Sovacool (and you too)
failed to account for the massive difference in scale between uranium mining
and copper mining; and fourth, Sovacool (and you too) failed to notice the
rather obvious math error in the USFWS webpage, which if corrected makes it
clear that selenium levels in Wyoming pit lakes are not in the danger zone.
Missing all four of those factors, in my view, counts as shoddy scholarship.
Now really, answer honestly, do you really give a damn about birds?
I care about truth, and I care about scholarship. I just wish others did as well.
Seems like I should always explain the minutiae of my comments, as they obviously appear to fly too low for some of you people.
Anyway:
1. Peter’s post is about the anti-wind argument that the blades are bird-choppers
2. Peter makes the argument that coal and nuclear kill more birds than the choppers
3. I reply that this says NOTHING about how “good” wind power is – just as nobody can get to freely pickpocket by telling the judge that Madoff did much worse – just as Verdoux did not have a justification for his killings by claiming Hitler did much worse
So my argument is NOT AGAINST wind. My argument is that it’s absurd to defend wind by claiming it kills birds but fewer of them than other power sources. This is because wind is supposed to be green, and green CANNOT include the killing of birds.
Therefore, the only argument to make in favor of wind energy is about showing how the choppers are being made to chop fewer and fewer birds, as technology improves.
We all know the reason why you rely on trivial argument Maurizio and this one is absurd and moronic beyond belief. Top of the heap.
No, uk-misnomed. As shown by your generic and needlessly insulting reply, completely devoid of any content. Rest assured I am not surprised.
You can also rest assured that my insult was not needless. I read your moronic argument and felt a definite need to insult you.
Feel free to use the internet to deal with your psychological issues
IF the Verdoux-style arguments don’t work it’s because they’re a little-guy defense in a big-guy world.
If you’ve done any reading at all about the mortgage lending crisis and its global repercussions, it should be quite clear that there are arguments that effectively inhibit arrest and prosecution.
Green is about sustainability, not about 100% avoidance of ecosystem impact, which is unattainable.
For people who genuinely are among those who are not the ones who don’t care about birds, there’s a more rational and systematic way to look at the problems of power generation.
That would be to balance total costs, need, benefits and impacts. This is not a trivial undertaking but comprehensive ones increasingly show that the “green” options are the best overall.
Germany’s Energiewende is an example and I had quite a few qualms about their aggressive deployments of wind and solar and phase out of nuclear.
But, so far, they’re doing very well and have one of the strongest economies in the EU despite all the doomsaying about the stupidity of green power and subsidies.
I’m still waiting on a quantitative definition of “negligible” from you with respect to power generation and bird deaths.
That argument doesn’t fly. Pickpockets and Madoff are both criminals who should be stopped because there is no good involved in their actions. Energy is something society will get somewhere, causing some deaths, just like eating does, just like walking does, just like everything we do does. The obvious first choice to kill fewer beings is to reduce energy use as much as possible, something conservatives consistently oppose, thus revealing their true very deep antipathy towards birds and all other living beings. The obvious second choice is to choose those energy sources causing the fewest deaths and illnesses–wind, solar and some other renewables, while making those sources as efficient, productive and safe as possible, which is exactly what people are doing.
The insistence on perfection of wind while ignoring the horrific effects of fossil fuels and nukes is ridiculously bad reasoning at best, genocidal deception and manipulation at worst.
I am not asking for perfection. And I do not have a handy definition of negligible. What I would be looking for, wrt a “green” source of energy like wind power, is some statistics showing the number of birds hit/injured/killed is declining year-on-year, for the same amount of generated energy.
I do not know if such numbers are readily available.
Why are you asking for an already neglibible number which has demonstrably declined to declineto 0 while accepting astronomical losses from other projects, including other energy sources that wind is replacing and will replace? There can be no logical reason, only A. stupidity, B. insanity, C. lying, or D. all of the above.
The complex situation where someone either denies climate catastrophe or knowing it’s true tries to delay the solutions, and the nature of consciousness and unconsciousness, knowledge and willful ignorance mean the only possible answer is D. The soltuion for that is clear, too: simultaneously educate yourself with and about the science, and seek a good therapist. Then come join us in the work to save the biosphere from denying delayalists, breakthrough boys and confusionists.
j4zonian – I have no idea how your rant might have anything to do with my comment. I have not “accept[ed] astronomical losses from other projects”. I strongly recommend you first seek a therapist, and a good one at that.
E. Trolling. He loves the attention he gets from his pseudointellectual rambling.
omno,
You obviously do accept those losses because you’re not here to complain about the millions of birds killed every year by other causes, only the tiny shrinking numbers killed by wind generators. You’re stirring up needless trouble to delay deployment of half the replacement (with solar) for some of the major killers of birds, bats, insects, people, and other beings, and the primary cause of climate catastrophe, which threatens millions of species including ours, with extinction. You’re obviously willing to see the continued murder of millions of birds a year–and much worse–when we could reduce them dramatically and preserve civilization by replacing coal, oil, gas and nukes with wind, solar, and efficiency. Why are you so happy to accept so many bird deaths? Why are you so determined to see genocide, mass extinction and unimaginable suffering?
uknowispeaksense,
Yes, I take that for granted. But it comes under choice D. because anyone who would do that–either delay solutions knowingly or remain militantly ignorant about the solutions while publicly pushing against them has to lack the intellectual-emotional resources to remain grounded in reality. The reality is that in just a few years it’s very likely to be too late to avoid the absolute worst of climate catastophe. We don’t know exactly when but it means we have to pursue the solutions with all possible effort, to make it the top priority for the entire world for the foreseeable future. What do you say to or about someone who’s willing to risk annihilation of uncountable numbers of plants, animals and other beings for the sake of–what? the profits of an infinitesimal number of corporate executives? ideology? (which is to say, the unwillingness to face the pain of self-examination that would lead to a more balanced and reality-based view of the universe)? Convenience? It’s D. All of the above.
j4zonian – I was wondering why you were following uksenseless in his absurdist silliness. Now I understand.
Anyway, for the millionth time, I have shown time and again in this website that I have no reason or willingness to move the discussion to myself (that’s the opposite of what a troll does, and I do it also in a sign of respect for Peter’s openness). I do not crave any attention, to the point that I seldom if ever express any specific thought about the topic at hand, and my interventions are mostly “procedurals”, regarding the robustness of an argument.
Hence you’re mistaken in assuming I felt fine about the environmental impact of conventional power generation.
Once again, the only way to support wind power is by showing it’s getting better and better in protecting wildlife, even from itself. Obviously neither you nor ukwhatchamacallit have any idea if that is happening. I suspect it is, but it’d be nice to have figures about it.
“…for the millionth time…” OK. I guess I missed the other 999,994. (Approximately) Are you as seriously exaggerating the rest of your assertions?
So why are you so willing to encourage the continuation of the immense destruction of fossil fuel and nukes while only complaining about wind, a tremendously more beneficial power source in every way? Where are your million posts about the horrific effects of burning coal, about the necessity of wars for oil, and the contamination of water by fracking and tar sands?
The best way to promote wind power is to truthfully state the advantages it has over fossil fuels. One huge one is that it kills far fewer people, other animals and plants. We not only have an idea that’s true; we’re as certain about it as we can be about anything, and we know that improvements have made since early designs. If you don’t know that, you should inform yourself better.
Dear Mr. Kap – Here is the thing.
You could do yourself credit if you acknowledged the factual errors I pointed out. It would show you had real conviction in finding the truth, not just tit for tat. Then I could believe you are serious. Check out how Potholer54, or Peter Sinclair, or Abraham deal with Monckton, et. al. Potholer actually communicated with Monckton repeatedly. Abraham contacted the sources of papers. That’s how you do it. So I have a problem with your behavior, not just numbers. Sorry for the sarcasm in the last post, I was getting a little too Potholer54.
“It’s not ambiguous at all. Sovacool counted those 300 bird deaths, at a copper
pit lake, against the nuclear ledger. He made a mistake — or a deliberate distortion –
when he did so.”
No. Here is the problem. Proving numbers is easy. Proving intent is hard. That’s why I asked you to contact him. I don’t know what he thinks. I don’t read minds. Its not proof. I could claim he was making a correlation with pit lakes in general, and you could claim he was correlating from a copper mine by mistake. How could one prove either way? If you are serious about doing research, you discuss the probability of errors. You admit that you could be wrong and discuss the limitations of your research.
I credit Sovacool with having done so. You are quite a bit more certain than he is, but you have made many mistakes, and recently, without admitting to have done so.
Here is another problem I have with your analysis. You seem to repeatedly jump to conclusions. Another inference problem. USFW says “one pit mine contains over 100ppm selenium”. It also states “Waterborne selenium concentrations greater than 2µg/L are known to impair the reproduction and survival of aquatic birds”. Then you state without proof that USFW got ug/L versus ppm mixed up. There is nothing that shows that. They just say these pit lakes have over 100pm selenium. That is 0.1 ug/L. 2ug/L is also over 0.1 ug/L, nothing inconsistent there. Its your hasty conclusion that they made a mistake, but there is nothing that proves it in the USFW statement.
On the other hand, you go on to state definitively, without reference that, “there are no uranium pit lakes in Wyoming close to the 2 ppm selenium danger zone.” Sorry, you stepped in it again. Wrong.
Sweetwater uranium mine in Wyoming.
See 2.3, where selenium concentrations were only reduced to 0.05mg/L after treatment, clearly way beyond the 2ug/L set as hazardous to aquatic birds.
http://www.itrcweb.org/miningwaste-guidance/to_insitu.htm
So thank you. You got me to prove definitively that birds mortality is likely to be impacted by uranium pit lakes in Wyoming. It shows the possibility that bird deaths may be under represented and that bird mortality in open pit uranium mines may be higher than Sovacool estimated.