morfe
|
Re: Wind farms v Birds
Jan 28, 2004, 15:26
|
|
FW, am confused, how was that misleading?
|
Lord Lucan
|
Re: birdcage
Jan 28, 2004, 15:54
|
I see what you and 4W are saying, but it doesn't seem to me like anyone's even tried to see if this or anything like it would work. I might be wrong there, but it doesn't look to me like it's even been researched.
Also, it strikes me that there's an outcry when these things which are visible to humans because they're on land have adverse effects on wildlife. But how much destruction do the propellers of all the ships and boats in the world create to wildlife in the sea? Out of sight, out of mind.
|
Nat
|
Save the fish!!
Jan 28, 2004, 15:55
|
Awww aren't you sweet!!
Save the fish!!
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Wind farms v Birds
Jan 28, 2004, 16:13
|
I said ...
"People who think that wind power is just part of a solution to green issues are being grossly misled."
i.e. They are being misled that it is all about green issues and emmissions.
It is about providing power in the future when the oil is gone.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: birdcage
Jan 28, 2004, 16:15
|
|
The most likely solution would be some sort of deterent rather than a shield. Ultrasound or something daft like that. Or even a big sign. Birds ain't totally stupid ... see the parrot thread on HH forum :-)
|
morfe
|
Re: birdcage
Jan 28, 2004, 16:27
|
I hear you LL. Marine pollution is a thing I'm personally really active about, and yes, propellers are just one thing, add to that the gazillions of litres of untreated sewage ejected by sealiners, and there's already a backlog of major problems without starting on other industrial pollutants.
Everything is a trade-off, and wave/tidal power is still in infant stage. Research figures that 0.1 of tidal energy, if harnessed, could provide 5 times the current global electricity demand. Of course, we've heard this before (annexe a desert with solar cells) and I'm guessing that 0.1 of the worlds oceans is a MASSIVE area. The cost of building, maintaining and distributing such 'farms' is most likely infeasible, but I hate that word. One day we'll hopefully reach the 'lesser evil' option, but I don't think for one minute that it will be a one option solution. Unless GotWorld (TM) develop an awesome sci-fi infinite energy machine that we must all suckle from.
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2003/nuclear-power/Zneutrons.html
Where's that Grufty gone? I'm splashing in the water here :-)
More figures on bird chopping:
Q. Don't windmills kill birds?
A. While one can not underestimate the significance of reducing the impact of wind turbine bird collisions, it is important to put the problem into perspective.
"The following is the estimated annual avian collision mortality in the USA:
- Vehicles: 60 million - 80 million
- Buildings & windows: 98 million - 980 million
- Power lines: 10,000 to 174 million
- Communication towers: 4 million - 50 million
- Wind turbines: 10,000 - 40,000 "
http://greengold.org/wind/faqs.php
(I don't know where they get their figures from, there's little left of a smal bird after collision, and they get eatened up pronto)
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Wind farms v Birds?
Jan 28, 2004, 16:33
|
|
Peolpe are so stoopid aren't they? Put a screen on it idiots! Then you don't kill any red kites...
|
morfe
|
w***power
Jan 28, 2004, 16:40
|
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Wank_20Power!#1073697261
Plenty of half-baked and interesting ideas on this forum for alternative energy :)
|
morfe
|
nooooo..
Jan 28, 2004, 18:41
|
Hey FW,
You said "And they are being misled by people who quote figures like the ones your source above uses."
The figures in the quote I included highlighted the futility of current trends for windpower in the face of industrial growth, which also highlights that the 'green' argument is being misleading in that respect. Which, if i understand correctly, is more in line with your reasoning? I agree that we are not being told enough that fossil fuels are already the relics of the near future (??! arghya!), but I can't se how you highlighted the above quotes as being exemplary of mileading arguments, when they were esentially arguing just the same:
As in: "Given the uncontrolled growth of road traffic, the erecting of turbines is a futile exercise"
That may be a hard stand-alone truth, but how is it misleading with regards to your point?
( I may be stupid)
|
grufty jim
|
Re: Wind farms v Birds
Feb 02, 2004, 13:23
|
Check out this site:
http://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htm
All of these studies have been done across the pond; however they demonstrate that wind turbines do not need to cause (many) bird fatalities *IF* care is taken to situate them outside of bird migratory and flight patterns.
I would also argue that generating power using fossil fuels results in *FAR* more bird fatalities. It's just they are indirect deaths caused by pollution, climate changes, etc. and therefore don't have an obvious causal connection to a gas or coal burning plant.
For the record, i'm a major advocate of wind power (in conjunction with a huge reduction in total power consumption) and feel the potential dangers to small numbers of birds (which can be minimised, but probably not eliminated entirely) is outweighed by the benefits.
|
