HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Science » Science (Group) » A Minor Problem For Sound...

Wed Sep 27, 2017, 08:39 PM

A Minor Problem For Sound Science of the Effect of Offshore Windfarms on Seabirds: There Isn't Any.

I've just been leafing through a wonderful book that one wishes didn't have to be written.

It's um, this one: Why Birds Matter

One of my scientific interests is material flows in which I focus on particular elements in the periodic table, and I've collected and read a great deal of literature on that subject. One very important element is the element phosphorous, on which the real "green revolution" - that would be the fertilizer revolution in the 1950's and not the absurd scheme to lace the world with wind turbines and solar cells - depended.

Why Birds Matter is written for our times, inasmuch the argument consists of a great deal of comment on the economic importance of birds, and what it would cost to the human economy if they ceased to exist, and they may cease to exist; many species have already done so, and more are sure to follow.

The only thing we really, really, really care about is, um, money, right and left.

And one of the big economic drivers on this planet is, um, food.

We absolutely must have phosphorous, to feed humanity and for that matter, all living things, whether or not we decide that the only people who should eat are those who can pay for it.

It turns out that one of the most important sources for phosphorous on this planet is, um - well there's no nice way to put it - bird shit. And this is the topic of chapter 9 in "Why Birds Matter."

The island nation of Nauru once had the highest per capita income in the world because it was the chief exporter of bird shit, or what bird shit had become after a few million years, phosphate rock. After Nauru, a small country, dug up all the bird shit on the island and exported it to Australia and New Zealand and elsewhere, the government decided to "invest" all the money, and all the investments went bad, and now Nauru is a very poor country with no resources, very little remaining phosphate, a population with a diabetes problem and an economy based on warehousing Islamic refugees who tried to make it to Australia but who were intercepted by the Australian Navy.

So Nauru needs seabirds to shit on it again. But seabirds are in trouble.

And one of the big trouble for seabirds is, um, wind farms, which are often, to my personal regret, described by people on our end of the political spectrum as "green" and good for the environment.

They are no such thing. I was recently challenged here to produce some um, "peer reviewed" literature (which isn't by the way, magical) on the negative impact of wind farms on the environment, and I pulled some stuff out of my files, and poked around the recent literature on the topic. Here is my response to the challenge: Sure, I'd be pleased to...

After poking around a bit for some more updated stuff than what's in my files, I came across this nice piece: Lack of sound science in assessing wind farm impacts on seabirds (Green et al, Journal of Applied Ecology 2016, 53, 1635–1641) I believe it may be open sourced, so you can read it yourself if you're not in a library. (I'm in a library as I write, so I can't tell if it's open sourced, but I think it is.)

Some text from the paper:

Electrical power generation from wind farms has grown rapidly in the UK and European Union (EU) in the last decade and is set to grow further. By 2020, the EU proposes to source 20% of energy from renewable sources (Directive 2009/28/EC). Wind energy is expected to provide 9–14% of global electricity generation by 2050 (IPCC 2011). This may eventually reduce climatic change and its negative impacts on biodiversity, but there are also several poorly quantified negative effects on wild species of renewable energy generation, including wind turbines. For example, birds and bats are killed by colliding with turbine blades or towers and there may be effects of wind farms on mortality and reproductive rates of a wide range of species from avoidance and displacement. Birds may incur additional costs or forego benefits because of reduced transit or foraging within or near to wind farms (Drewitt & Langston 2006; Searle et al. 2014). Depending upon the strength of density-dependent compensatory processes, these effects could reduce the population to a lower stable level or cause its extinction (Wade 1998; Niel & Lebreton 2005)...


And...

Estimates of the effects of wind farms on seabird demographic rates are neither robust nor validated

Collision risk models (CRMs) are used to predict the number of fatal collisions of flying birds with wind turbines and per capita additional mortality rates. In the UK, the most widely used CRM is that of Band (2012) (see review by Masden & Cook (2016)). The model requires estimates or assumptions about bird numbers and ages at the wind farm, attribution of birds at the wind farm to source populations, sizes and age structure of source populations, flight behaviour and avoidance rates. Data specific to the project and species being assessed are usually collected on seabird numbers and flight heights, judged by eye, but these estimates are subject to substantial uncertainties, variability and potential biases (Johnston et al. 2014), including:

1.accuracy of input variables is rarely quantified, is often poor, and the CRM outputs are highly sensitive to the values used, including flight speed (Masden 2015), and avoidance rate estimates;
2.in many cases, birds at risk are not attributed to source populations because recently developed tracking technologies are either not deployed at all or not on a sufficient scale for robust estimation;
3.count and flight height data are usually insufficient in quantity and quality for precise estimation of seasonal variation, age structure and age differences (Band 2012).

Total avoidance rates used for CRM calculations for seabirds, including within-wind farm avoidance of individual turbines and macro-avoidance by movement of birds around the turbine array, are most often based upon judgement or extrapolation from other contexts rather than pertinent data. Empirical values are only available from a few species (mostly gulls and terns) and usually extrapolated from studies of onshore wind farms, where different circumstances prevail (Cook et al. 2014). Robust direct estimates of within-wind farm avoidance rates are lacking for seabird species frequently present in and near planned and consented offshore wind farms in the UK, such as northern gannet Morus bassanus and black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla (Cook et al. 2014). Macro-avoidance and displacement rates have been estimated using radar, visual surveys and imaging, but robust quantitative estimates...


By the way, birds and bats are only part of the reason that the wind industry sucks, but it is, I think, an important part.

The wind and solar industries are nothing more than fig leafs for the dangerous gas industry, and the dangerous natural gas industry is killing us as surely as the dangerous coal industry is.

This post won't get the more than 60 recs a post on this website got for a poorly reported blurb about how wonderful the wind industry is for, um, mussels, but I think if we cannot question our own assumptions, cannot rethink our biases, we will not serve humanity.

Don't be rote. Think.

Have a nice day tomorrow.


38 replies, 8916 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Minor Problem For Sound Science of the Effect of Offshore Windfarms on Seabirds: There Isn't Any. (Original post)
NNadir Sep 2017 OP
Eko Sep 2017 #1
hunter Sep 2017 #2
NNadir Sep 2017 #3
Eko Sep 2017 #4
hunter Sep 2017 #6
Eko Oct 2017 #11
NNadir Sep 2017 #5
Eko Sep 2017 #7
Eko Sep 2017 #8
hunter Oct 2017 #10
Eko Oct 2017 #12
hunter Oct 2017 #13
Eko Oct 2017 #14
hunter Oct 2017 #16
Eko Oct 2017 #19
hunter Oct 2017 #20
Eko Oct 2017 #23
Eko Oct 2017 #15
hunter Oct 2017 #17
Eko Oct 2017 #18
hunter Oct 2017 #21
Eko Oct 2017 #22
hunter Oct 2017 #24
Eko Oct 2017 #25
Eko Oct 2017 #26
hunter Oct 2017 #27
Eko Oct 2017 #28
hunter Oct 2017 #29
Eko Oct 2017 #30
hunter Oct 2017 #31
Eko Oct 2017 #32
hunter Oct 2017 #33
Eko Oct 2017 #34
hunter Oct 2017 #35
Eko Oct 2017 #36
hunter Oct 2017 #37
Eko Oct 2017 #38
Eko Sep 2017 #9

Response to NNadir (Original post)

Wed Sep 27, 2017, 09:14 PM

1. Some new stuff.

Predicting the impacts of wind farms on seabirds: An individual-based model
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12996/full

Offshore Wind Farms Alter Seabird Behaviour
http://www.biosphereonline.com/2017/01/17/offshore-wind-farms-alter-seabird-behaviour/

Solar and wind renewables are great! We need more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Original post)

Thu Sep 28, 2017, 02:42 PM

2. The trouble is that people see wind turbines as a symbol of progress...

... much as smokestacks were frequently seen as a symbol of progress in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.



http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/90716345/

Most people don't see wind turbines as industrial litter.

Smokestack industries were romanticized in a similar way.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 28, 2017, 04:35 PM

3. I hadn't thought of it that way but you're right.

The real problem though is that not only is this junk aesthetically disastrous, but it is environmentally destructive in land use, material use, and waste.

We may include in land use habitat destruction, and as noted in actual destruction of populations of organisms.

It is nice however to see that the scientific community is increasingly aware of these dynamics. There's a lot being written and researched. I'm reading a number of monographs addressing the lazy handwaving nonsense driving this tragedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 05:50 PM

4. Wow

I shouldn't be surprised but I am. Conflating smokestacks and wind turbines is absolutely laughable,,,,
Here are two smokestacks that would be at least a somewhat closer association even though it would still be a dishonest comparison but nowhere on the level you surmised.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 11:43 PM

6. I live in California. The hills are littered with dead Enron-era wind turbines...

... dozens maybe more dead turbines for every newer monster wind turbine. The access roads are ugly too.

Pardon me if I don't see the beauty in the newer monster turbines, or the old dead turbines.

I think there are better ways than windmills to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

These giant wind turbines encourage major capital investments in a type of natural gas generated electricity that may not be desirable.

Sure, these gas/wind hybrid power systems are "better than coal," but most ways of generating electricity are better than coal.

When we install these wind turbines are we overlooking other ways of reducing fossil fuel use? Are we committing ourselves to power sources that may not be desirable in the long run?

I liken fossil fuels to smoking. To quit smoking you have to quit smoking. To quit fossil fuels you have to quit fossil fuels. These hybrid wind/gas systems are the equivalent of the old "light" cigarettes that were heavily advertised in the 'seventies. Switching to "light" cigarettes may not have had any health benefits at all, certainly not those of actually quitting smoking.

It's possible I'm too fond of birds and bats and windy hillsides unscarred by human industry.

If we are building wind turbines to power the air conditioners of big box stores, or immense computer server farms tracking "consumers" and pushing targeted advertising, then maybe we're going about things in the wrong way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #6)

Sun Oct 1, 2017, 05:38 PM

11. What do you mean by dead turbines?

"I think there are better ways than windmills to reduce our use of fossil fuels."
Yes, you have told us what your ideas for this are, unfortunately they are not workable nor desirable for the rest of us.
"These giant wind turbines encourage major capital investments in a type of natural gas generated electricity that may not be desirable."
Yes, there is a study that suggests this "Bridging the Gap: Do Fast Reacting Fossil Technologies Facilitate Renewable Energy Diffusion?", but they also state this "Verdolini emphasized this merely describes the past — not necessarily the future. That’s a critical distinction, because the study also notes that if we reach a time when fast-responding energy storage is prevalent — when, say, large-scale grid batteries store solar or wind-generated energy and can discharge it instantaneously when there’s a need — then the reliance on gas may no longer be so prevalent."
You using this argument creates a question.
If we didn't have the renewable energy to use when we can what would they use instead? The obvious answer is more Natural gas plants as Nuclear is unfortunately in the decline worldwide.
"When we install these wind turbines are we overlooking other ways of reducing fossil fuel use? Are we committing ourselves to power sources that may not be desirable in the long run? "
I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
"I liken fossil fuels to smoking. To quit smoking you have to quit smoking. "
Plenty of people quit slowly, or using the patch which would be a good analogy to renewable energy vs fossil energy. The patch is better for you, better for the environment and still fulfills the need.
"It's possible I'm too fond of birds and bats and windy hillsides unscarred by human industry. "
Yes, and I hate the birds and bats and hillsides unscarred by humanity, I want to kill and destroy all of them. What a junk argument. What should we do? Get rid of electricity all together? Go back to our sewage going into rivers untreated? Use horses and unpaved roads? Have archaic hospitals with no electricity?
"If we are building wind turbines to power the air conditioners of big box stores, or immense computer server farms tracking "consumers" and pushing targeted advertising, then maybe we're going about things in the wrong way. "
You know what they are also building them for, people like you and me to use things called computers or phones or tablets that can write things and send them to huge server farms that then connect to websites where we can debate things like this. Right here.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 07:58 PM

5. Here, too, is another picture from Nature, of the realities of the wind industry.

?w=444&h=307

lanthanide processing facility in China. From Lim, Nature 520, 426–427 (23 April 2015)[1]

XiaoZhi Lim, Nature Vol. 520 Issue 7548 (2015) pp. 426-427

...So although Beijing said that it was just trying to clean up a particularly dirty sector of its mining industry, the cutback sent rare-earth prices soaring and raised the spectre of major economic disruptions...


Even the Chinese find the lanthanide industry "particularly dirty." And let's be clear, without lanthanides, the wind industry would even be more useless than it already is, and it is useless. Climate change is getting worse, not better, since people began squandering resources on this trash.

Our bourgeois types who are so in love with this awful industry, the wind industry - to the point that no amount of information can actually make them question themselves - of course, couldn't care about the conditions under which Chinese mine, refine and isolate the lanthanides for their useless and trivial "green" scam.

The absurd thing is that the capacity utilization of the wind industry is garbage, which means that these materials are being used inefficiently. There is a difference between a generator with neodymium ferrite boron magnets connected to a turbine that runs at maximal capacity and one which runs maybe 30% of the time, requiring yet another redundant generator from a gas plant to be there when the wind isn't blowing, a generator which will also require even more neodymium (or dysprosium) to be mined.

The justifications for this horrible investment in waste, the consequences of which are, as usual, dumped on the poorest of the poor, fully delineates the ethical universe in which these people live.

What is worse than what they are doing to our contemporaries in China however, is what they are doing to all future generations with their fantasy.

The wind industry is not progress. It's a useless scam which after 50 years of cheering, can't even match for all the average continuous power it has assembled since the 1970's, the yearly increase in the use of natural gas.

It didn't work; it isn't working; and it won't work. It's trash.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to NNadir (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 30, 2017, 12:24 AM

8. Here you go, way awesome.


More than a hundred thousand tons of nuclear waste stored in the tailing ponds is constantly producing large amount of toxic gases and nuclear radiation that contaminate the environment. The dumped nuclear waste remains radioactive and dangerous for millions of years.


Suffering from congenital deformity, Mohan, 19, has six toe fingers. His father, a miner in the uranium mines, died of lung cancer.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/gallery/indias-nuclear-graveyard-haunting-images-10871818

Great stuff we have there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 1, 2017, 01:37 PM

10. The toxic wastes of a careless high energy industrial society suck.

By total volume, there's more toxic non-radioactive industrial waste, crap that has a half life of FOREVER.

Failure to acknowledge this makes one an unwitting shill of the fossil fuel industry.

Maimed or dead from radioactive waste is no different than maimed or dead by non-radioactive waste.

I don't have any religious beliefs about nuclear power or radioactive waste. Your images are very evocative of Christian images of hell.



My personal religious crusade is against automobiles. I could post pictures of people ruined in car wrecks, I could post pictures of people dying of cancers caused by particulate pollution they inhaled, of jungles opened up and destroyed by fossil fueled vehicles and chain saws... etc... etc...

...but I won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 1, 2017, 05:46 PM

12. Yup,

Dead is dead. There is plenty of waste that can kill us all around. I never said there wasn't. I just dont like to sit by while someone acts like nuclear waste's shit don't stink also. I would be interested to hear about these non nuclear wastes that have a toxic half life of forever. Seriously, if you answer one question from me I would like that one answered.
Well, you have your own personal crusade, that's fine. You say you wont post those pictures, but you did post some equating wind turbines with smokestacks from 1876.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #12)

Sun Oct 1, 2017, 07:09 PM

13. How about arsenic? Arsenic has a half life of forever.

It's in your rice.

Blame human industry. Arsenic was used as a pesticide, it's in coal, it occurs naturally in some water, and it's often present in wastewater from the oil and gas industry.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/01/how-much-arsenic-is-in-your-rice/index.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic_poisoning

The recycling of automobile batteries containing lead and arsenic has contaminated many places around the world.

http://www.okinternational.org/lead-batteries/Recycling

If we choose to build an electric grid powered by natural gas and large scale hydroelectric projects run in environmentally irresponsible ways, supplanted by huge wind turbines and solar projects built on previously undisturbed landscapes, then let's be honest about what we are doing. You can't look at a giant wind turbine and ignore the gas or hydro plant behind it.

If such power grids are successful (and they appear to be) they will cause an expansion of the natural gas industry and the building of new hydroelectric projects. These are both negative things, damaging to what's left of the earth's natural environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 1, 2017, 07:57 PM

14. Nope.

Estimates of the half-life of arsenic in soil varied from 6.5 years for arsenic trioxide to 16 years for lead arsenate (NRCC 1978).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjs686Mz9DWAhUHrlQKHSu8AFM4ChAWCD0wBQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pwrc.usgs.gov%2Feisler%2FCHR_12_Arsenic.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1JUFPOoKHteNJhe-oPaz-u

(Spent Nuclear Fuel) will have U-233, with a half-life of 159,200 years.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 10:34 AM

16. Seriously? You think the arsenic goes away?

Where does it go?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 05:03 PM

19. Well, Im sure

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is wrong and you are correct. Somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #19)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 05:17 PM

20. The same sorts of processes that decrease the bioavailability of toxins like arsenic and lead...

... also apply to long lived radioactive toxins.

But these toxins don't magically go away, except for the highly radioactive ones like Iodine 131, which has a half life of eight days.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 07:02 PM

23. This was your statement.

"Arsenic has a half life of forever".
I showed where the half life was not forever. Get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 1, 2017, 08:11 PM

15. I would ask you to take a second

or even a few min and think about why you stated something that was not true. It was obviously not done from knowledge, so that leaves emotion. How much of what is the foundation of your argument has relied on emotion instead of logic and knowledge. Every time Nadine posts something critical of renewable energy and I counter back that Nuclear (which Nadine thinks is the only answer) is not any better you come on here and basically use the same argument to me. It always relies on your personal experiences and then uses the nirvana fallacy argument. Why do you feel the need to do this? Do you really think that solar and wind energy are bad? Ok, then what is your alternative?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 11:37 AM

17. I'm some kind of quixotic Luddite and evolutionary biologist.

I'm here on this planet watching a consumer economy powered by "clean burning natural" gas cause a mass extinction.

There's nothing clean about gas. Using it as fuel, at any rate, only adds to carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere.

I think your giant windmills are ugly ineffective bling on the natural gas industry, like some garish $100 protective cover on a brand new iPhone. That's not progress.

Unlike NNadir, I've no hostility toward neighbors who install solar panels on their roofs -- they are probably powering my 20 watt internet ramblings whenever the sun shines. I don't oppose solar installations over parking lots and such, provided the panels are manufactured in environmentally responsible ways, which many are not. But I still see them as consumer goods.

The only way out of this hole we've dug is to reverse human population growth and that can only be accomplished by education and birth control, starting with the people who are the most active participants in the high energy consumer economy. Supporting agencies like Planned Parenthood, and encouraging the education and empowerment of women worldwide is the most effective action an environmentalist can take.

I'll go back to a premise I've stated many times here: Economic "productivity" as we now define it is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to what's left of the earth's natural environment and our own human spirit.

If monster windmills are economically justified in our consumer economy, that's probably a bad thing.

I'm not buying what you are selling.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 05:00 PM

18. Yes you have said that many times.

There's nothing clean about gas. Using it as fuel, at any rate, only adds to carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere.
Why do you bring this up? I never said it was clean or a good thing at all.
I think your giant windmills are ugly ineffective bling on the natural gas industry, like some garish $100 protective cover on a brand new iPhone. That's not progress.
If we didn't have them we would just be using more natural gas, is that better?
Unlike NNadir, I've no hostility toward neighbors who install solar panels on their roofs -- they are probably powering my 20 watt internet ramblings whenever the sun shines.

Probably? You don't know? Where are you getting your energy from?
The only way out of this hole we've dug is to reverse human population growth and that can only be accomplished by education and birth control, starting with the people who are the most active participants in the high energy consumer economy.
Well, that sounds really good. I believe we need to do that for quite a few reasons. But while we are trying to get our own country to do that (we are down from 2% in the 60's to 1.17% now) how are we going to get other countries to do that in enough time? Also, realize we are the highest energy users in the world. It is the reason our standard of living is so high. How are we going to get other countries to have a lower energy usage per person than us and accept a lower standard of living? By force?
If monster windmills are economically justified in our consumer economy, that's probably a bad thing.

I'm not buying what you are selling.

Windmills dont enable natural gas, without windmills we would just use more natural gas. Windmills decrease the use of natural gas. Its that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #18)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 06:36 PM

21. Except they don't reduce the use of gas.

If hybrid wind/gas electric grids work, if they are profitable, more will be built and the overall consumption of natural gas will increase.

There are billions of people on this planet who haven't yet been invited to participate in the affluent high energy industrial consumer economy.

As an affluent person it's immoral to say I get to burn the gas, but you don't.

My own electricity comes from Pacific Gas and Electric. PG&E's greenhouse gas emissions are in the low range for the industrial world. Yeah, 24% is nuclear.

Furthermore, PG&E rates our household a "smile" emoji for energy efficiency, that in spite of the 24/7 pumps of our water garden. (The water for these gardens is waste from our reverse osmosis system... we are totally first world affluent in some ways. I like to watch birds and fish. Occasionally birds eat the fish, but more often it's raccoons.) I guess the LED lighting and my disdain for central heating and cooling make up for the energy used by the pumps. But I'll never convince my wife we could live without the refrigerator, even though I've lived without one for long periods myself, as a kid and young adult.

Another way of reducing one's environmental footprint is to avoid meat, but we're total hypocrites about that because we have animal shelter rescue dog family and don't expect them to be vegetarians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 06:57 PM

22. Gas is profitable without wind.

But I guess its nice that you have come up with the answer to getting rid of gas electricity, just get rid of wind and solar. Sure, that will work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #22)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 05:24 PM

24. You'd be okay with more gas. I get it.

You believe gas fracking wastes and global warming are not so scary as nuclear waste and the potential for nuclear accidents.

Is there anything you'd like to add?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #24)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 08:17 PM

25. Wow.

Notice how you just swept aside what I said and then accused me of something that I have never stated or even insinuated. Here, Ill say it again Gas is profitable without wind, Ive done everything I can to show you exactly what you just swept aside. I'm not OK with anything that creates pollution thank you very much. But the freaking world doesn't give a rat's ass what I am OK with and reality especially doesn't give a rats ass what I am OK with. Im going to ask you one last question, do you actually believe that getting rid of solar and wind would actually cut down on using natural gas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 6, 2017, 09:29 PM

26. So what?

No answer? Here is the question just in case you missed/forgot it.
Do you actually believe that getting rid of solar and wind would actually cut down on using natural gas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #26)

Sat Oct 7, 2017, 01:47 PM

27. Your enthusiasm for solar and wind augmented gas power plants is clear.

I didn't say I'd get rid of solar or wind, I'm saying solar and wind augmented gas power plants are undesirable, most especially large solar and wind projects built on previously undisturbed landscapes. An example of an undesirable and environmentally destructive solar augmented gas power plant would be the Ivanpah Solar Facility.

The dead wind turbines littering the hills of California were likewise part of a solar and wind augmented gas power grid.

I'm not complaining about solar panels on my neighbor's roofs or over the parking lots of my local college. This post is probably solar powered at my end, thanks to neighbors and a sunny day.

Nevertheless, if everyone is using gas as their fallback fuel when the wind isn't blowing and the sun is not shining then catastrophic civilization-busting global warming is inevitable. When you do the math you can't neglect the billions of human beings who are not yet fully participating in the high energy global consumer economy.

The rate of gas use doesn't matter, it's only a matter of who we are abandoning to the storms, our children, or our grandchildren.

If you can figure out how to maintain a standard of living that's acceptable to you without fossil fuels, then do it. If you live in an off-the-grid solar house I guarantee you'll learn to loathe batteries and long stretches of cloudy weather. These problems don't go away at any scale. Throwing in some nimble gas power plants, or hydroelectric plants run in environmentally irresponsible ways, brings you right back to the original problem: a growing and ultimately unsustainable consumer economy, and increasing use of natural gas and environmentally destructive hydro projects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #27)

Sat Oct 7, 2017, 07:16 PM

28. Yes, because somewhere I am sure

(nowhere) do I say anything good about gas power plants, eco augmented or not. You keep putting words in my mouth, just stop it.
I never said you said you wanted to get rid of solar and wind. I asked a simple question twice and you didn't answer it. Here is the question for the third time, do you actually believe that getting rid of solar and wind would actually cut down on using natural gas? Its a simple yes or no question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #28)

Sat Oct 7, 2017, 08:45 PM

29. I'd happily see Ivanpah removed, and the landscape restored to the best of human ability.

Ivanpah is a huge effort for a small amount of electricity. Thankfully the plant is a turkey, otherwise more would be built.

Nothing is going to cut down on natural gas consumption worldwide other than outlawing it.

"Successful" solar and wind augmented gas power systems will only increase the use of natural gas worldwide. There are literally billions of people on this planet who are eager to join the high energy industrial consumer lifestyle. They are even willing to use coal to do it. If solar and wind augmented gas power systems enable them to do that with less obvious environmental costs than coal, they will jump at the opportunity.

You look at monster windmills and solar plants as "progress." I do not.

Progress would be people discovering low energy, satisfying lifestyles that do not require the use of ANY fossil fuels, or any further destruction of remaining natural landscapes.

A society powered entirely by "renewable" energy, or even nuclear energy, looks nothing like the high energy industrial consumer society many of us now enjoy.

It's apparent gas is a desirable energy source for many people, even anti-nuclear activists, thus we are witness to a mass extinction event, which will include the extinction of this fossil fueled world economy, probably much sooner than we expect.

There is no simple "yes or no" answer.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #29)

Sat Oct 7, 2017, 10:48 PM

30. Natural gas is successful without solar and wind.

Here are the two scenarios.
1. More gas plants with solar and wind.
2. more gas plants.
If each equal 100.
Then 1. is what, 70% more gas and 2. is 100% gas with each new plant opened.
You choose. You can say whatever you want to say, we should do this or that, but this is what is happening. Right now we are buying time. Solar and wind gives us that time. Without it we have less time. Hopefully it gives us the time to figure this out, because we have to. I just want to add, for some reason countries are growing in solar and wind at a large percentage, and they are not with Nuclear. I am sure it is because of the large scale demonstrations against nuclear across the world. Could it be because it economically doesn't make sense compared to renewable energy and gas energy? I mean, we know that energy companies are real sensitive to the prevailing thought and don't follow the money. As I have stated before, I havenothing against Nuclear energy, I just don't think that it is necessarily better than solar and wind. Both have their pro's and con's. I am in the camp of lets do what is best for humanity but to ignore Nuclear problems while bashing solar and wind is the height of ignorance.

I lied, I just want to add one more thing, you put this in your post "It's apparent gas is a desirable energy source for many people, even anti-nuclear activists," and I am really tired of you insinuating that is what I believe. I am really tired of you putting words in my mouth. I just want any jury to read this entire thread before you judge what I am about to say, Hunter, you are a despicable excuse for a human. You continue to ascribe things that I have never said to me, insinuate that I am anti-nuclear, pro-gas when all I have done is argue the benefits of solar and wind while accepting the problems those pose while pointing out the problems Nuclear poses are at least equal, You use republican talking points against renewable energy and are generally just a fucking twat. You cant even answer a simple yes or no question because you know it will show your hypocrisy. If I didn't know any better I would think you were a PR person for the Nuclear industry. If you aren't, you should be, you would fit in perfectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #30)

Sun Oct 8, 2017, 01:26 PM

31. We are not "buying time."

It seems no magic power source is coming along to replace natural gas, especially if you dismiss nuclear power.

It doesn't matter if all the known gas "reserves" are burned in fifty years or a hundred. The end is the same.

We are witnessing a planetary extinction event and it's NOT because of nuclear power.

Your insults do not hurt my feelings. I am a jackass amateur scientist with some formal training in evolutionary biology, a radical environmentalist, and some kind of Luddite who believes humans can be happy without automobiles and giant solar projects in the desert, or monster wind turbines on the hills; "renewable" energy sources that are there merely to power the lights and air conditioners of suburban parking lot big box stores, build more cars, or power the internet servers determining which advertisements you see while surfing the web.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #31)

Sun Oct 8, 2017, 04:44 PM

32. Of course we are.

Before I tell you how, I want to ask why you put the part of dismissing nuclear power in there? I never have and I don't dismiss it. It seems you cant separate me saying that nuclear is not any cleaner than wind and solar with this belief that if I point this out I must hate Nuclear. NNadir does the same thing and it is juvenile at best and seriously dishonest at worst.
Worst case estimates for stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 500 parts per million put us at 2035, best case at 2050. Lets see, its 2017 so that makes 18 years at worst and 33 years at best. There is your buying time using actual time. We need no "magic power source". Scientists everywhere agree that this is doable, even with the technology we have now. Here are some ways.

Improved fuel economy.
Reduced reliance on cars.
More efficient buildings.
Improved power plant efficiency.
Reduced deforestation, plus reforestation, afforestation, and new plantations.
It even has increasing more Nuclear, wind and solar power all of which I am for.
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard-advanced.htm

I honestly don't care if I did or didn't hurt your feelings. I got past that when you kept straw manning me repeatedly and I pointed it out. At no time did you act contrite or apologize for it, you just kept doing it and still are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #32)

Mon Oct 9, 2017, 01:57 PM

33. Going back to the original argument...

... you see those monster bird and bat killing wind turbines as "progress." I see them as high energy industrial consumer economy litter. Why are they there? So some consumer can feel good about their energy "choices."

I don't see them as choices, I don't see them as progress. They are progress the same way 19th and 20th century people saw smokestacks as progress.

If your wind and solar utopia doesn't work, and if it's rejected by the high energy industrial "consumer" market, adding gas to the power mix is not the answer.

My observation has been that anti-nuclear activists frequently become shills for the "natural" gas industry. I have very deep connections within the California anti-nuclear community 'seventies and early 'eighties. People I saw naked deep. People who could summon Helen Caldicott with an airline ticket, motel room and generous expenses.

The largest industrial projects on the planet today concern the extraction and distribution of natural gas. There are enough natural gas reserves to destroy what's left of the natural environment we humans inherited, and to destroy our own high energy industrial world economy.

Personally, I've lived on many levels of this world economy, from dumpster-diving semi-homeless person living in a garden shed to affluent person who can buy a new car on credit. (My wife and I are sort of in the middle now, thanks to astonishing medical debts for random shit that fell out of the sky and student loan debts for our kids we can't always pay. Life in the U.S.A., our favorite second world perpetually developing nation, top dog banana republic of the banana republics, with nukes.)

If you want to do some speculative math, calculate how much natural gas Ivanpah will use before it is abandoned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #33)

Mon Oct 9, 2017, 09:29 PM

34. Of course you are because it's not about global warming

Its about your belief that we should all live like you want.

... you see those monster bird and bat killing wind turbines as "progress." I see them as high energy industrial consumer economy litter. Why are they there? So some consumer can feel good about their energy "choices."

Seeing as how scientists think they will play a large part in stopping global warming maybe that is why they are there.

I don't see them as choices, I don't see them as progress. They are progress the same way 19th and 20th century people saw smokestacks as progress.
Just another example of your "beliefs" not actually matching up with reality.

If your wind and solar utopia doesn't work, and if it's rejected by the high energy industrial "consumer" market, adding gas to the power mix is not the answer.
Straw man again, you,,,,just,,,,cant,,,stop,,,it. Pathetic.

My observation has been that anti-nuclear activists frequently become shills for the "natural" gas industry. I have very deep connections within the California anti-nuclear community 'seventies and early 'eighties. People I saw naked deep. People who could summon Helen Caldicott with an airline ticket, motel room and generous expenses.

Straw man yet again,,,, seriously pathetic.
The largest industrial projects on the planet today concern the extraction and distribution of natural gas. There are enough natural gas reserves to destroy what's left of the natural environment we humans inherited, and to destroy our own high energy industrial world economy.
Yup.

Personally, I've lived on many levels of this world economy, from dumpster-diving semi-homeless person living in a garden shed to affluent person who can buy a new car on credit. (My wife and I are sort of in the middle now, thanks to astonishing medical debts for random shit that fell out of the sky and student loan debts for our kids we can't always pay. Life in the U.S.A., our favorite second world perpetually developing nation, top dog banana republic of the banana republics, with nukes.)
TMI and I dont care at all.

If you want to do some speculative math, calculate how much natural gas Ivanpah will use before it is abandoned.

Why? do you see me defending natural gas? Nope, you just want to lump me into anti-nuke and pro-natural gas just because I said nuclear's shit stinks as well as solar and winds.

Here is me: Yes, global warming is seriously bad and we should use nuclear, wind, solar and whatever we can to get off of fossil fuels, btw, solar and wind do create toxic wastes but so does nuclear.

Here is you: Global warming is bad, nuclear and living as a Luddite is the answer and if you think differently then you are anti nuke and pro natural gas. btw, wind creates more gas plants even though getting rid of them wont slow down the production of gas plants. Here is a straw man, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another. But I'm a Luddite so I have some special experience that makes me better even though I use electricity but my use is ok. Oh yeah, people should have less kids, but disregard that I had some.

That's hilarious, you have at least 2 kids and that is the largest factor to global warming. And yet here you are with the gall to not only come on here and lecture me who decided years ago to not have kids because of global warming but you straw man me so often that you must have a straw man button on your keyboard that does it for you automatically as much as you do it. I take back calling you a fucking twat, you are a fucking hypocrite, and then a twat.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #34)

Mon Oct 9, 2017, 10:41 PM

35. Welcome to the twenty first century. It's a messy place...

...where I'm a "hypocrite, and then a twat."

Maybe I'm okay with that.

So far for me this twenty first century has been better than I dared anticipate in any of my twentieth century incarnations.

I warn you, 1982 Hunter was bad. Angry. He hurt people. He burned bridges. He tossed hand grenades back over the river just to make sure. In your own time travels it's best to avoid him.

Here today I remain, as always, a very dangerous fellow when I don't know what I'm doing.

I suggest that "natural" gas is a bad thing. It ain't any more "natural" or less dangerous than enriched uranium.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #35)

Mon Oct 9, 2017, 11:04 PM

36. Not afraid.

At all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #36)

Mon Oct 9, 2017, 11:15 PM

37. It would be silly to be afraid.

I am not that rabbit.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #37)

Mon Oct 9, 2017, 11:31 PM

38. And I am not a silly person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 30, 2017, 12:29 AM

9. Im not even going to post the pictures from this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread