Thread: A Convenient Fiction

We still are no where near numbers of birds that cats kill. Cat kills are in the billions world wide. Wind turbine kills aren't. Bats - sorry no answer to that. As I am no scientist, would it not be possible to put a light weight grill (pretty much as your desktop fan) to stop this without causing too much drag and affecting efficiency of the turbine?

I really am sorry to say that if one of the reasons to stop having wind turbines is bird/bat kills then there isn't much hope for us all. There are always winners and losers. Perhaps we should ban driving cars because they kill more foxes every year than hunting ever did.

The Birdchaser: Cats Kill Over 1 Billion Birds Each Year in U.S.
Feral Cats Kill Birds: The Issue of Feral and Roaming Domestic Cats and the Birds That They Kill
On the prowl
http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/.../predation.pdf

taking it further it is pure NIMBYism. I don't mind being close to turbines but admit I wouldn't personally want them right on top of me. It is the same with nuclear power stations. I wouldn't want one in sight but don't mind the one 10 miles from my parents' house.

What are the main alternatives:

Solar
Wind
Tidal
Hydro
Nuclear
Bio-mass

I am sure that I have missed some off.

Solar seems too inefficient and too expensive and no doubt there would be too many complaints about the siting of the panels. Wind suffers NIMBYism and not efficient enough. Tidal - possibly as long as the Severn Estuary and other such places are not destroyed in the process. Hydro - possibly but then this suffers from too many complainers ever to get through planning. Nuclear - too much NIMBYism and then there is the problem of how to dispose of spent fuel, let alone planning problems. Bio-mass is still too new I suppose but is a possibility although I will have to look into the pros and cons of them.

We are going to have to make choices. Those that want to save the planet from huge CO2 rises , might have to have a wind turbine or nuclear power station in their back garden and not complain about it. I presume, as I am constantly being told that AGW is pretty much a consensus and that the doubters are in a huge minority, that the majority of those that object to turbines/nuclear actually believe in AGW but are not really interested in helping stop it if they have to make a small sacrifice. Slight double standards.

First of all CO2 is not going to destroy the planet, second the only real energy sources are: Oil, Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear. The rest are expensive, unreliable and inefficient. Wind Power is a government subsidized and funded pipedream with the only thing being more useless = solar.

How many cats are there compared to Wind Turbines? Now imagine 100% of all your electrical generated by unreliable Wind Power and the thousands and thousands of Wind Turbines necessary to replace those reliable Coal, Natural Gas and Nuclear Power Plants, then multiply by known bird kills and the number goes up real fast.

The point is we do not have to sacrifice at all since we already have reliable power generation.

You can recycle Nuclear Fuel:

Nuclear Energy is Safe, Clean and Recyclable
Radioactive Waste Recycling No Longer A Pain In The Ash (Science Daily)
Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can’t Oui? (FOX News)

AGW is NOT a Consensus...

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..."
- Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

31,000 Scientists Prove No 'Consensus’ on "Man-Made" Global Warming (OISM)
- Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM)
- Art Robinson: A Scientist Finds Independence (American Spectator)
- Qualifications of Signers (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
1500 Scholars, Policy Experts and Theologians sign the 'Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship' (Cornwall Allliance)
1100 Climate Realists sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change' (ICSC)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (The Heartland Institute)
400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
187 Climate Experts sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change' (ICSC)
170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign an open letter to the signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (Cownwall Alliance)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)

- Wind Power is intermittent and cannot meet the timing of electricity demands (wind farms must rely on conventional power plants to back up their supply)
- Wind Power costs twice as much as electricity generated from fossil fuels (the levelized cost of a kilowatt hour is 3.53 cents for coal, 5.47 cents for gas, 5.94 cents for nuclear and 6.64 cents for wind unsubsidized)
- Wind Power is not economically feasible without subsidies (subsidized at 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour in the United States)
- Wind Power equals only about 0.28% of the United State's energy supply (40% Oil, 23% Coal, 23% Natural Gas, 8% Nuclear)
- Wind Energy cannot be stored
- Wind Farms are often located in remote locations, far from cities where the electricity is needed (this increases trasmission costs)
- Wind Farms can effect weather patterns (the turbulence from large wind farms creates warmer, drier conditions at the surface)
- Wind Farms can be eyesores
- Wind Farms can produce noise pollution
- Wind Farms can interfere with radar
- Wind Farms have a devastating effect on birds (44,000 birds have been killed over the past two decades by wind turbines in the Altamont Pass, east of San Francisco)
- Wind Farms need 100 times more land area than conventional power plants (to produce 1,000 MW of power, a wind farm would require approximately 300 square miles; a nuclear plant needs less than 2.65 square miles; and a coal powered plant takes up about 3.05 square miles)
- Wind Turbines have to be shut off in high winds or temperatures (wind turbines shut off in over 50mph winds or 100 degree temperatures)
- Wind Turbines can be dangerous (turbines can collapse, catch fire and the blades can break off)

Loss of Wind Causes Texas Power Grid Emergency (Reuters)
When the wind doesn't blow (BBC)

Lackawanna NY Wind Turbine Gear Failure
Living Next Door to a Wind Farm, Australia

Catch the Wind, Change the Weather (The New York Times)
Energy Answer is Not 'Blowing in the Wind' (The Heartland Institute)
Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Hot Air and Wind (Cato Institute)
Greenpeace Opposes Wind Farm Plan (BBC)
More Failures of Wind Energy (Hawaii Reporter)
Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power (Energy Tribune)
Poverty fears over wind power (BBC)
Problems With Wind Power (National Center for Policy Analysis)
Report blows hole in wind power plan (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Switch to windpower could add £6 billion a year to fuel bills (The Times, UK)
The True Cost of Electricity from Wind Power And Windmill "Availability" Factors (Glen R. Schleede, Minnesotans For Sustainability)
Urban wind turbines 'may be waste of time' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
US gets ready to blow its economy away (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
When the wind stops - the other side of the wind turbine argument (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Energy Will Not Reduce US Oil Dependence (Glen R. Schleede, Minnesotans For Sustainability)
Wind Farm Claims Are So Much Hot Air (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Farms fail to deliver value for money, report claims (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Farms, hot air and spin (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests (The New York Times)
Wind Farms: One of the great deceptions of our time (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Jammers (The Wall Street Journal)
Wind Power: Economic insanity of the Government's renewable energy strategy (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Power: Red Not Green (National Center for Policy Analysis)
Wind Power will push up household electricity bills (The Daily Telegraph, UK)

Eyesore:
Blow Back Over 'Eyesore' Wind Farms (ABC News)
Wind Farm? Not Off My Back Porch (ABC News)
Wind Farms Worst Eyesore in UK (BBC)

Noise:
Are wind farm turbines making people sick? Some say yes (The Kansas City Star)
Family says wind farm noise made them sick (Fort Frances Times Online)
Flicker noise from turbines a worry for Montreathmont plans (Brechin Advertiser, UK)
Wind Farm Noise 'Harms Health' (Yorkshire Post, UK)
Wind Farms 'Make People Sick Who Live Up to A Mile Away' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind turbines 'are ruining our quality of life' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Turbine Syndrome (Nina Pierpont, Ph.D. Population Biology, M.D. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine)

Radar:
Wind Farm Blow to Radar Systems (BBC)
Wind Farm Fears For Ships' Radar (BBC)
Wind Farms 'A Threat to National Security' (The Times, UK)
Wind Farms Disrupt Radar Images (BBC)
Wind Farms 'Grounded By Air Safety Fears' (The Times, UK)
Wind Farms Threat to MoD Radar (The Press Association)
Windmill Projects Stilled For Now (USA Today)

Unsafe:
The Dangers of Wind Power (BusinessWeek)
Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart
Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart
- Danish Climate Minister Demands Explanation for Violent Wind Turbine Collapse (The Jutland Post, Denmark)

242-foot Wind Turbine Snaps in Half, Killing a Worker at Top, Oregon (The Oregonian)
Big Chunk of Turbine Blade Shears Off (West Morning News, UK)
Blazing Turbine Falls Into Field, UK (BBC)
Danger Claim As Turbine Blade Snaps Off, UK (Berwickshire News)
Fire Damages Wind Turbine Near Garner, Iowa (Globe Gazette)
Man Dies After 100ft Turbine Fall, UK (BBC)
Spinning to destruction (The Guardian)
Two Giant Vestas Wind Turbines Collapse, UK (off-grid)
Unexpected Shrapnel From A Wind Turbine, UK (Habitat21)
Wind Farm Fears As Blade Snaps, UK (The Times, UK)
Wind Farm Fire Caused Blackout, Australia (NEWS.com.au)
Wind Turbine Catches Fire: Mount Storm, West Virginia (West Virginia Firefighters)
Wind Turbine Falls Near Weatherford, Oklahoma (The Oklahoman)
Wind Turbine on Fire, California
Wind Turbine on Fire

Poptech,thanks for such a detailed post which borders on the realms of brilliance.

Go nuclear is still the cry for the future in England,and why not?

Its still the cleanest and most reliable and safest way to provide the countries energy needs for the long and distant future.

Pop - far too many links to plough throw when at work good job

The CO2 bit was TIC, but I do agree with what you say, and it is a shame that this country has delayed building more/new nuclear reactors for so many years.

Although I am pro nuclear I am concerned by the spent fuel rods. You say that it can be recycled and it is, but there is still a highly radioactive fuel rod at the end (which is less radioactive than the American unprocessed ones) which still involves storage. I have no idea what the various half lives are of the different processed rods are but no doubt they are all several thousand years. And the storage sites are not always secure.

Radioactive waste leaking into Champagne Water Supply | Greenpeace International
Champagne Threatened By Radioactive Leak — Alliance For Nuclear Responsibility