by beetree on 17 October 2018 - 21:10
This article I have provided for with a link, I think is an intelligent read. While being written by the American Bird Conservancy, it does seem to strive to be realisitic in what is really happening between the need for clean energy alternatives, climate change and unintended collateral damage of bird deaths. We shouldn't decide to stop using wind energy because of bird deaths. We need to be "Bird-Smart".
Bird-Smart wind energy:
- ensures turbines are located away from high bird collision risk areas;
- employs effective (tested) mitigation to minimize bird fatalities;
- conducts independent, transparent, post-construction monitoring of bird and bat deaths to help inform mitigation; and
- calculates and provides fair compensation for the loss of ecologically important, federally protected birds.
by 1Ruger1 on 17 October 2018 - 22:10
by Prager on 13 November 2018 - 18:11
The main point is what people do not realize and that is that wind "mill/turbine" energy in totally economically inefficient and if not subsidized by your money ( tax) it could not stand on it's own. On top of it you can NOT store wind energy efficiently so it can not replace fossil fuel or nuclear energy. So the killing of millions of birds, bats and other animals it totally useless. Wind energy at this time is just feel good bull sh1t subsidized by our tax dollars or it will lead to exorbitant prices of electricity. Pick one up.
Personally, I think while developing alternative energy resources through economical means ( natural competition and not subsidies) we ought to concentrate on efficient pollution control of existing powerplant and other pollutants - which at this time in USA and Western Europe is on very good level. The problem are third world countries who can not afford better pollution control and China who does not give a sh1t.
by beetree on 14 November 2018 - 14:11
Can you imagine how your argument to not use public resources including manpower, innovation and money would mean to the world dating back to the dawn of history?
If electricity costs are (becoming) exorbitant it is because the infrastructure is already old and inefficient compared to our consumption. I love the irony of an electric company a few years back in their argument to get the state to raise its rates, claimed the increase was necessary because the citizens were heeding electricity conservation messages and being successful in reducing its use.
I would want to fire every single exec who could only complain they could not make money if they ran the business efficiently.
by Prager on 15 November 2018 - 18:11
betree:Wind as an energy source is so constant and plentiful, if it were tapped for USA energy needs, there would be no need to store it.
Prager: Interesting concept. When you figure out how to do it well, then let me know. Also, you did not say how you would deal with the cost of the towers which cast more then energy they will produce at present cost of electricity and maintaining such infrastructure more efficiently than it is done by current production of energy based on Nuclear power and fosil fuel power AT THIS TIME. In Germany they are fazing out use nuclear of power in favor of wind and solar and the cost of energy growing tremendously. That is a real world example. Wind or sollar at this time are just functioning because of subsidies. Germany's biggest energy group E.ON reported a record loss of 3.2 billion euros last year, stemming from costs triggered by the need to radically restructure in order to accommodate the phasing out of nuclear power. At a total of 22.3 billion euros last year, the surcharge so far represents the lion's share of the cost of Germany's energy revamp.'
There is also a push to add more alternative energy sources such as wind power and biomass to the national mix, which will again boost costs.
The increase will now probably translate into higher power bills for consumers in a country where electricity prices are already steep compared with other Western nations.
The rise in the surcharge led to German business lashing out at economic minister Sigmar Gabriel accusing him of not having the costs of the Energiewende under control.
Ulrich Grillo, who heads the powerful Federation of German Industry, said the increase "endangered our industries".
I am all for wind and solar. It is the future. But rrightnow it is just an economically impractical and premature way to go.
by beetree on 15 November 2018 - 23:11
I don't need to know how to figure out how to solve the harnessing of renewable energy to understand that that is what needs to be accomplished. There are much more brilliant scientific minds that can answer those details for you and I believe in your own ability to google or search them out should you really require them to understand that this thread is about the BIG PICTURE.
The BIG PICTURE is about moving forward with better and more efficient technologies that will make the old technologies obsolete. Now, YOU will then want to follow the money and come to your own conclusions why roadblocks such as you have zero'd in on with Germany... (who was talking about Germany, oh, never mind, if we must we will talk about Germany! Let us talk about the whole world, then, too!) ... well, why the cost of supporting old technology just to make its own support paramount to a better way of doing business, and how this must and will become a bad investment.
by Prager on 03 January 2019 - 04:01
by Hundmutter on 03 January 2019 - 09:01