(05-22-2016 05:36 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Those windmills kill birds, it is disgusting.

So do windows. So does plastic waste. So do pesticides. So do coal and gas.

Do you selectively hate wind, or do you hate all those things too?

The problem is not how many birds windmills do or don't kill. The problem is that at the end of the day, wind is not a very reliable source of energy. It's fine when the wind is blowing, not worth a damn when it isn't. Just like solar is good when the sun is shining, not worth a damn when it isn't. And neither wind nor solar has the capability to replace a significant amount of oil without further technological developments.

The problem is not that alternatives aren't sufficiently subsidized. The problem is that alternatives, at least those identified to date, aren't sufficiently good.

To be clear, I'm not saying don't subsidize alternatives. We need some alternative to work, and subsidies are the only way that we are going to be able to find one that does. But to be blunt, we haven't found the one that works yet.

They are fairing far far better than anyone would have thought even 5 years ago.

(05-24-2016 09:21 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  They are fairing far far better than anyone would have thought even 5 years ago.

Not really. There are more of them, but the inherent problems haven't been solved.

My son works in the area and, like me, is a huge proponent of wind. But like me, he also realizes the limitations. There are actually a bunch of windmills out there right now that are turning and generating power, but the power isn't going anywhere because there are no transmission lines to carry it. But they get the subsidies for being built, and that is enough to drive the building right now.

(05-23-2016 01:17 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I don't think they went overboard either with the fish either. You are talking about restoring a primary level consumer. The base of a food chain, then when I looked up these bird killing machines they have 1/10th the impact of cell phone towers. Get real people.

How many windmills are there? How many cell towers? What's the ratio of kills per windmill to kills per cell tower?

My own position is that windmills are important enough, and the number of birds killed is small enough, that you build windmills and put up with the bird kills. Just like cell towers. But if the number of bird kills became more significant in relation to the total bird population, that's a position that I would consider changing.

I'm taking 15 hours of grad courses this summer, so I'm going to back off of this thread an others for awhile, but I want to add. Who cares about the damn birds. They are not being threatened. Do you want to start up a program killing feral cats? Enough about bird kills. It's a red herring.

(05-24-2016 09:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm taking 15 hours of grad courses this summer, so I'm going to back off of this thread an others for awhile, but I want to add. Who cares about the damn birds. They are not being threatened. Do you want to start up a program killing feral cats? Enough about bird kills. It's a red herring.

You'll have to do it on the sly or else be ready to face PETA. You know, the same people that will take you to court for killing a cat but won't do a thing about solving the problem except "educating" you.

I like hydro.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(05-24-2016 09:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm taking 15 hours of grad courses this summer, so I'm going to back off of this thread an others for awhile, but I want to add. Who cares about the damn birds. They are not being threatened. Do you want to start up a program killing feral cats? Enough about bird kills. It's a red herring.

I swore I was done with this thread but come on Mach, you're trying to deflect with the "birds" argument. When I originally posted this I was specifically talking about bald eagles, an endangered species, not every sparrow.

To repeat, the Feds changed their rules to allow the killing of 4200 bald eagles each year. And there is an estimated population of 70,000.