What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
72 Comments
- dinglebutt, on 05/16/2009, -4/+27It only kills the stupid ones. In a way, we're helping them.
- inactive, on 05/15/2009, -12/+33Well no *****, Sherlock. Oy, environmentalists give a bad rap to protecting the environment. I swear, it baffles me. I consider myself a fairly ecologically-minded guy, but yet time and time again, I find myself at odds with so-called environmentalists whose ideas seem more based on superstition than science, and which in many cases are actually harmful to the environment. I don't get it. I'm not even one of those "Oh leave it alone, it'll take care of itself" types, either. Eh, whatever.
- StaticThunder, on 05/15/2009, -3/+23Yes, I would very much like a nuclear reactor and an electric car please.
- TheOrion, on 05/16/2009, -3/+20 Bird deaths caused by:
Utility transmission and distribution lines: 130 to 174 million per year
Tall building and residential house windows: 100 million to 1 billion
Automobiles and Trucks: 60 to 80 million
Agricultural Pesticides: 67 million
Cats: 39 million
Wind Turbines: 2.19 birds/tower
Source: http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html - inactive, on 05/16/2009, -1/+16Every year several birds die when they accidentally crash into windows in my house. I don't see anyone suggesting we get rid of windows.
As long as we share space with wildlife, some animals will collide with our stuff (even our stationary stuff). - yerdaddy, on 05/16/2009, -2/+16That's almost funny. Coal mining just blows up the ***** mountain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_m ... - Psygnosis, on 05/16/2009, -2/+15How many bats and birds get hit by cars?
- cfuse, on 05/16/2009, -0/+10Think of the ecosystem that will form around the base of the tower from all that fresh meat dropping from the sky.
- ontain, on 05/16/2009, -2/+11overtime the ones that are smart enough to avoid the turbines will survive and reproduce.
- linagee, on 05/16/2009, -0/+7Sorry. Too busy bailing out an industry that makes internal combustion engines, with your tax dollars.
- urbanetruth, on 05/16/2009, -3/+10The fake environmentalists who want wind power -- just not near their beach homes or cabins -- usually turn to the bird argument as their last desperate attempt to try and play green. There is plenty of research out there that supports the conclusions in this article.
- ChadN, on 05/16/2009, -2/+8Don't know what you are griping about. Surely the environmentalists want *more* wind power generators, and less fossil fuel plants, right? Maybe bird lovers aren't enamored with windmills, but this study could help change minds, perhaps.
- twomeyw23334, on 05/16/2009, -0/+6There are some real environmentalists, then there are the people who just loving being angry. Doesn't matter what we do, they'll find some reason to be pissed about it.
- bitterbug, on 05/16/2009, -0/+6JrtD said: "I don't see anyone suggesting we get rid of windows."
Just look for any story on Ubuntu or visit Slashdot.org :P - rento, on 05/16/2009, -0/+4The British bird protection group has recentely backtracked the anti-windmill approach and is now pushing the government for more large scale wind farms.
Saying that they want the wind farm no to be in certain aereas where large groups of migratory birds may transit. - norman619, on 05/16/2009, -1/+5How many bugs and such are killed everyday by the simple act of walking?
- dsfjvhbd, on 05/16/2009, -1/+5Spills are not that rare. Big spectacular events like the Valdez are rare. And even they might be big enough to affect the statistic.
- diggydougie, on 05/16/2009, -5/+9Finally a rational comeback to the anti-windmill crowd.
But some of his arguments are weak. He mentions transmission lines for example. Any method of electrical power production uses transmission lines, so that part can be taken out of the equation.
Also while his point is valid about things such as acid rain I don't think it's really fair to use such a broad effect as climate change. It's impossible to calculate how many birds are damaged by this, and how much of the climate change is from power plants. But you can certainly argue that the wind turbines don't create acid rain or carbon. So while he is right it is hard to quantify. - linagee, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3African or European?
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3Seconded.
- Trent1492, on 05/16/2009, -0/+3I do.
- fishbeef33, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2More proof that we need to ban cats.
- inactive, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2i really don't know what you're trying to say with this response.
- norman619, on 05/16/2009, -1/+3How often does this happen? It's like asking how many people were effected by the Chronobyl meltdown. The only meltdown to occur during the decades nuclear power has been in use. Spills like the Valdez are rare. Care to try again?
- suntzusputnik, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2die
- jizmak, on 05/17/2009, -0/+2@norman619: You are completely ignorant about energy... Most of the electricity is the USA is generated using fossil fuels. There is no difference between "using electricity" and "fossile fuels" in the majority of instances.
- scoottie, on 05/16/2009, -8/+10Nuclear power plants are simply better not just for birds
- Junkyarddawg, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2god damn spammer
- linagee, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Is a turkey or chicken a bird? Why no facts on that one?
People eating tasty birds: Hundreds of Billions. - norman619, on 05/16/2009, -2/+4How many fools make up claims like yours here on digg? I owuld wager the number is staggering.
- Gonthim, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Just a note, this is a serious, honest, question. Maybe one of you can explain something to me.
I've never been able to understand why people think wind turbines are ugly and unsightly.
I think they are gorgeous marvels of human ingenuity, technology, and advancement, and represent something beautiful. We can cleanly harness a virtually unlimited power source. It doesn't release polluting particulates or fly ash like coal. It doesn't require dangerous and environmentally damaging mining or drilling for coal, oil, or uranium like nuclear and fossil fuels require. We can create something we need with a significantly decreased affect on the planet we live. If I could put one up in my front yard I probably would. Seeing them scattered about on mountains is a beautiful sight for me because I know they are creating electricity in a way that is sustainable and doesn't harm the environment nearly as much as other methods.
To the rest of your post:
As for your personal experience, I honestly don't know what to say. Yes, coal has powered the USA for century's and has supplied the area you live in with a long lasting and steady job source. Will the current generation be able to continue making a living at it? Probably yes, because it will take a while for solar, wind, tidal and other 'green' energies to gain traction and become a viable alternative. However, coal is a very polluting and dangerous energy source. Mining and burning detrimentally affect the surrounding environment and the people living there with acid rain, increased asthma and lung problems, and other health issues. Eventually fossil fuels will be phased out because of their environmental impact and dangerous working conditions. I would hope that even the people directly affected by the change would want to see humanity move towards a cleaner, more environmentally friendly, and less dangerous energy source. - twomeyw23334, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Don't worry, he is probably paid by the big oil companies to make comments like that.
- xGORDOx, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2The only thing wind turbines kill are liberals ocean views. cough*TedKennedy*cough
I say contruct them, put them up everywhere! - inactive, on 05/16/2009, -0/+2Wind turbines can be beautiful in a developed setting, but many people find them incompatible with "natural" or rural landscapes precisely because they represent a *human* impact, and an incredibly visible one at that.
It also isn't just the issue of turbines (although that is by far the main factor) because wind farms also require transmission lines, access roads, etc., and when you consider the impact of what is basically industrial development on areas that have had a rural and/or semi-wilderness character for hundreds of years, it is very easy to see them as destroying both a location and a way of life. - ahawks, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1but... but... the article has a *picture* of birds with turbines, so clearly its more important! There's no picture of fossil-fuel plants killing birds ;)
- norman619, on 05/16/2009, -1/+2nageroc:
As is the radioactivity from Chernobyl. Are you saying re should no longer ship oil because one oil taker crashed and spilled its contents? Nice try but that logic is very fualty. - fishbeef33, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1I've been advocating the boycott of windows for years. Right after toothbrushes, coniferous trees, and pants. Did I mention I live in a mental institution?
- dsfjvhbd, on 05/16/2009, -1/+2Read the article. They are slightly worse than wind turbines.
- majormajor42, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1River cooled power plants kill many fish by either sucking them up into the cooling water intakes or by thermally polluting the river. Non-river cooled power plant have banks and banks of cooling fans that are large and also kill birds. The other option is the large Simpsonish Cooling tower. I don't know what enviro impact they have besides using lots of fresh water and being ugly. Frankly, as a neighbor of Indian Point Nuke power plant, I'm glad that they don't have one of those absurdly large cooling towers, but that's me. But the impact on fish is severe. So what is more important to you, us, everyone - the birds or the fish? I think far more livelihoods are based on fishing than birding. Oh, and birds love to eat fish too.
- Junkyarddawg, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1Yeah, he compares ACTUAL kills by wind turbine rotorblades to HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE kills by climate change. That is bad.
Comparing wind turbine kills to the vastly greater number of birds killed by, say, flying into windows or hitting cars, would put the actual kills by wind turbines into perspective without resorting to propaganda tactics. - theskillwithin, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1wind turbines take up much more land.
renewable like solar energy wastes tons more water to clean the panels.
land is also expensive, and wind power doesn't hold a match to nuclear power. - nageroc, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1I guess this makes me a real environmentalist. I would love a windmill in my neighbourhood. I would give up a portion of my backyard for it. There is something hypnotic about the spinning blades; I could sit and watch it for hours. As for the noise, I slept in a room next to the furnace for many years. The white noise it generated really helped me to fall asleep, and I eventually learned to ignore the loud clicking of it turning on and off. I can't imagine a windmill would be any more noisy.
- nageroc, on 05/16/2009, -2/+3It doesn't need to happen often. The Exxon Valdez spill is still killing birds (and other wildlife) to this day, and will continue to do so for years to come.
- Rudegar, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1put some of those stickers on the windmills
http://www.nixalite.com/windowalertdecal.aspx
and hope the wings will not get shot by too many hunters :P
seriously the country I live in get 20% of our electricity from windmills
and dead birds have never been an issue - Junkyarddawg, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1Holy tendentious statistics based on made-up data, Batman!
If they wanted to show that the relative impact of wind turbines is low, they should've compared to the billions of actual birds killed by flying into highrise building windows, not estimated possible future deaths from estimated possible future climate change. - ontain, on 05/17/2009, -0/+1homeless people show just move there to get free food.
- MWeather, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1Yeah, but only a few thousand square miles of mountaintop.
- Stewdean, on 05/16/2009, -0/+1Lots. In the US there are a lot of vested interests that if they can't have oil they'll have something else they can control. Bio Fuels and more recently Hydrogen are two examples. Only way to go is electric only cars (rather than a car with an underpowered electric and underpowered petrol engine), nuclear power with as much renewable sources as is possible. Ideally all governments should support micro generation, grown your own electricity (the US has the land to do this - Germany currently leads the world in this).
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is