• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Eco-Fiasco - A wind farm company admitted killing 150 eagles in the US

About the only time some conservatives are interested in environmental concerns is when they're complaining about the things that are trying to and are improving the environment.

Have you ever seen one talk about the embedded energy of F-950s when they're complaining about Toyota Pious owners and the smug problem? They're probably "rolling coal" like trolls.

How about coal mining when complaining about lithium mining?

How about the wildlife that oil spills kill when complaining about eagles killed by windmills?

Absolutely industrialized humans have and are causing excessive destruction. But are these conservatives only doing something for the environment when they're shooting animals and hacking up partisan pap, or are their environmental concerns legitimate?
Or it could be that conservatives with a scientific background understand that the current proposed solution will not fix much of anything.
It really starts with addressing the correct problem.
Earth does not have enough sustainable energy,
and we need enough to support nearly everyone alive in a first world lifestyle.
If we cannot do that it will cause mass problems!
 
I find it extremely hypocritical for the right bring up loss of animal life over wind farms in relation to how much animal life is killed off with each oil spill, but at the same time I am starting to see the hypocrisy the other way.

One of many reasons I am in a give up status when it comes to the climate change debate.

In this case if we have to reduce the argument to the lesser of two evils, then I'll still lean towards harming less but FFS how dubious is that argument?
 
How about not using destructive wind power?
I do not see wind energy as a long term viable solution. When the subsidies run out, the unsupported balance sheet is likely to show the technology is not economical. Maintenance cost with eat all their profits.
 
I do not see wind energy as a long term viable solution. When the subsidies run out, the unsupported balance sheet is likely to show the technology is not economical. Maintenance cost with eat all their profits.
Maybe it’s the profits that are the problem.

The energy industry has a vested interest in providing the most profitable form of energy possible. Not the best by any other metric. That provided by the sun directly or indirectly (wind) is always gonna have the profit harming element of being abundant and functionally infinite. No speculators. No heinous despots to placate.

At the end of the day the profit motive got us Deepwater Horizon.

And it’s gonna take a long time for windmills to do that much harm to life on the planet.
 
Or it could be that conservatives with a scientific background understand that the current proposed solution will not fix much of anything.
It really starts with addressing the correct problem.
Earth does not have enough sustainable energy,
and we need enough to support nearly everyone alive in a first world lifestyle.
If we cannot do that it will cause mass problems!

You've correctly displayed the problem with conservative (and conservative-liberal) thinking about our massive environmental problems: The laws of Nature must support their desires (for everyone must live an excessively wasteful lifestyle). That's environmental entitlement. You're the kings of the world, and you want the physics of Earth to bend to your will. It's like wanting to change gravity so it makes life easier. And I doubt that you want everyone to live like kings; you just want to continue living like a king, so you'll say that everyone should.

Second, your claim that there's not enough sustainable energy is not true.
 
I do not see wind energy as a long term viable solution. When the subsidies run out, the unsupported balance sheet is likely to show the technology is not economical. Maintenance cost with eat all their profits.

You want to continue ignoring the maintenance of the environment, otherwise known as 'externalities,' so you falsely claim that the maintenance of windmills is a huge problem.
 
Those goal posts are shifting. My point, and your post that I was responding to, is simply the death of protected species from fossil fuels is greater than that from renewables.
You are using that argument to justify deaths by three blades.
 
You want to continue ignoring the maintenance of the environment, otherwise known as 'externalities,' so you falsely claim that the maintenance of windmills is a huge problem.
Believe as you will! In the long term solar has a better chance. Solving our energy problem will solve any issues that may or may not exist with CO2
 
Believe as you will! In the long term solar has a better chance. Solving our energy problem will solve any issues that may or may not exist with CO2

Industrialized humanity has all sorts of problems to try to solve in the long term by drastically reducing the harm that industrialization has and continues to cause to Nature. Humanity MUST learn how to work with Nature instead of exploiting Nature and calling the repercussions 'externalities.' As benign as possible biological processes is surely the long-term solution, since Nature does all it does (much more than industrialized humans do) by using natural processes. Biomimicry is what it's called. I first learned about biomimicry when I watched "The 11th Hour."


"Humanity’s Biggest Challenges.
Nature’s Proven Solutions.

We are the bridge between biology and design, advancing the adoption of nature-inspired strategies to help solve the most pressing problems of our time."
 
Industrialized humanity has all sorts of problems to try to solve in the long term by drastically reducing the harm that industrialization has and continues to cause to Nature. Humanity MUST learn how to work with Nature instead of exploiting Nature and calling the repercussions 'externalities.' As benign as possible biological processes is surely the long-term solution, since Nature does all it does (much more than industrialized humans do) by using natural processes. Biomimicry is what it's called. I first learned about biomimicry when I watched "The 11th Hour."


"Humanity’s Biggest Challenges.
Nature’s Proven Solutions.

We are the bridge between biology and design, advancing the adoption of nature-inspired strategies to help solve the most pressing problems of our time."
Tell me, what do you think copying how nature stores energy is?
 
I do not see wind energy as a long term viable solution. When the subsidies run out, the unsupported balance sheet is likely to show the technology is not economical. Maintenance cost with eat all their profits.
Maintenance costs will eat all the profits? Really??

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

Or are you just making crap up again?
 
They will be at every pump soon enough

And every adult human will be driving a Hummer soon, too! And eating from the top of the food chain! Electrofuels are the singular environmental solution!
 
Right wingers back the most destructive energy sources in human history and want to talk about some birds killed by wind turbines.
 
Another problem with so-called 'green energy', A wind farm company admitted killing 150 eagles in the US and was fined $8 million. Almost all died from being hit by the blades. Add to this the article, The Lithium Gold Rush: Inside the Race to Power Electric Vehicles in the far from "denier" New York Times (link), which points out that there is much environmental damage from manufacturing electirc automobiles.and similar threads discuss the dirty little secrets about "clean" energy. At best, "clean" energy makes us feel like we're "doing something."

Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies that expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”

Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked. A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article stated:

Many people feel the need to "do something" and "start somewhere." They are very impressed with pronouncements from big, glitzy forums such as those held in Paris where the Climate Accords were "negotiated" and announced. There was to be sure lots of top officials and entertainment such as Elton John. But when the shouting is done, has anything been accomplished, other than to obtain more taxpayer money and move around the environmental problems? Another article on this subject, The Not-So-Green Mountains, written by Steve E. Wright, an aquatic biologist and a former commissioner of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. It seems that the incentives for "green" power have trumped not only common sense, but other environmental values. This fanaticism about an unproven problem, anthropogenic global warming ("AGW") is cause an awful lot of damage.

I read that article shortly after driving to southern Vermont through the previously beautiful Berkshires of Massachusetts. There, wind turbines sullied the ridgeline. Similarly when my wife and I took a hike through a wild part of the Adirondacks, Whetstone Gulf State Park, about 100 yards from the hiking trail, just outside the park boundaries, were similar turbines. Wind power needs massive subsidies to be viable, and causes environmental damage of its own. Isn't it time to stop this madness?

At best we're trading one doubtful environmental issue, climate change, for another definite one, killing of wildlife. This is bad news that the environmental movement is desperate to de-emphasize.
Downside is not even close,

Part 1

Part 2
 
I do understand that fossil fuels have a damaging impact. Over the years, we have mitigated the harm dramatically. We have started caring about the environment as a nation starting back in the 70's, maybe the 60's. It flat out pisses me off that as we do more an more to mitigate our damage, suddenly it's OK to do harm by killing endangered species for unreliable and expensive green energy.
Baloney!



In Orlando, a mountain of coal ash evades EPA rules. It's not ...​

https://www.npr.org › 2022/01/12 › in-orlando-a-mountai...

Jan 12, 2022 — Coal ash contains toxic contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic that can pollute the air and seep into groundwater, ...

EPA takes critical action to address coal ash pollution​

https://www.southernenvironment.org › press-release

Jan 11, 2022 — WASHINGTON – Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took critical steps to protect communities and clean water from toxic coal ash ...
 
Maintenance costs will eat all the profits? Really??

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

Or are you just making crap up again?
It is just a general belief, based on 4 decades of designing things to go in harsh environments.
The existing wind turbines are precision devices, that are expected to function over a wide range of temperatures and wind speeds.
Many are already showing ware, and some of the earlier wind farms have already been abandoned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
It is just a general belief, based on 4 decades of designing things to go in harsh environments.
The existing wind turbines are precision devices, that are expected to function over a wide range of temperatures and wind speeds.
Many are already showing ware, and some of the earlier wind farms have already been abandoned.
So... you are just making stuff up based on your denialist biases and guesswork.

I thought so.
 
It is just a general belief, based on 4 decades of designing things to go in harsh environments.
The existing wind turbines are precision devices, that are expected to function over a wide range of temperatures and wind speeds.
Many are already showing ware, and some of the earlier wind farms have already been abandoned.


Estimate of hundreds, compared to 60,000 installed.
 
RWE wouldn't stop crying about "Obama's Solyndra" for years...

Consider that Duke Energy recently built a 560 MW gas fired plant for $817 million.

"..In 2011 and 2012, during Obama's re-election campaign, the political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity spent $8.4 million in swing states on television advertisements denouncing the loan guarantee.[3] The Wall Street Journal described the advertising campaign as "perhaps the biggest attack on Mr. Obama so far."[42]

Ultimately, none of the investigations of Solyndra found any evidence of wrongdoing or undue political influence.[43][44][45] "

October 25, 2017
CAPE TOWN (Reuters) - The United States discriminated against the nuclear and coal industries under the administration of former President Barack Obama, U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry said on Wednesday.

“Nuclear and coal ... Those two industries were discriminated against over the course of the last administration,” Perry told reporters at an oil conference in Cape Town, when asked about a U.S. government directive to support ageing coal and nuclear plants.

The directive would reward certain nuclear and coal-fired plants that store 90 days of fuel on site for contributing to the reliability of the national grid.

U.S. industries that rarely agree, including gas drillers and renewable energy producers, oppose it on the grounds that it props up “uneconomic generation.”

Asked about threats to U.S. energy supplies, Perry, a former governor of the oil hub of Texas, cited cyber security as the main concern followed by natural disasters such as hurricanes."

What Rick Perry described as discrimination amounts to $9 billion in SC and $24 billion in GA wasted on two nuclear power plant
projects and another $5 billion on "clean" coal in Mississippi, resulting in no electricity, to date!


‘Clean Coal’ Confrontation​

Oxymoron or goal within reach? Industry and environmentalists get down and sooty.

By Viveca Novak
Posted on January 22, 2009
"...That’s just the latest from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), which represents coal companies, electric utilities and others who profit from mining, hauling and burning coal. Throughout 2008 it ran ads lauding the promise of "clean coal" as the energy source of America’s future. One spot featured individuals saying "I believe" in a variety of fuzzy goals – the future, technology, protecting the environment. The newest ad ends with Obama supporters chanting "Yes we can."
...
Accuracy Quotient?

We find no factual misstatements in these ads, but that’s because they contain practically no factual claims. Obama did indeed say positive things about "clean coal" during the campaign, often in coal-producing states. (The snippets in ACCCE’s TV ad come from an October rally in Virginia coal country.)..
...
But the Reality Coalition’s ads are true as well. There are no commercial "clean coal" plants operating currently in the U.S.

The larger question posed by these dueling ad campaigns is implied rather than stated outright. Can coal can be "clean" in the future? Is "clean coal" a laudable, achievable goal as Obama and the coal miners and electric utilities would have us believe? Or is it a ridiculous oxymoron on par with "controlled chaos," as Gore and other environmental groups suggest?

This is partly a matter of opinion, and it’s certainly a matter of speculation. ..."

RWE never "go here"....

Continued..
 
Last edited:
Continued from RWE never "go here"

$9 billion spent, twin reactor nuclear plant in South Carolina abandoned,

Nukegate scandal - Wikipedia​

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Nukegate_scandal

The Nukegate scandal is a political and legal scandal that arose from the abandonment of the Virgil C. Summer nuclear expansion project in South Carolina by ...
Construction · ‎Legal ramifications · ‎Consequences for SCANA...

Former SCANA CEO Will Land in Prison as Result of V.C. ...​

https://www.powermag.com › former-scana-ceo-will-la...

Oct 15, 2021 — Summer Nuclear Project. Kevin B. Marsh, former CEO of SCANA Corp., was sentenced to two years in federal prison ...

$30 billion spent on two nuclear reactors of identical design as SCANA's vs. $6 billion estimated cost in 2005, at least ten years
behind schedule, first reactor may finally come online in 6 months, 2nd reactor, next year,

(First two Vogtle reactors completed late 1980s,

$30B Georgia Power nuclear plant delayed up to 6 more months​

https://apnews.com › article

Feb 17, 2022 30. Southern says the fourth reactor at Vogtle will reach commercial operation in late 2023, also delayed up to six months.

"The initial, coal-fired project was central to President Obama's Climate Plan, as it was to be based on "clean coal"[4] and was being considered for more support from the Congress and the incoming Trump Administration in late 2016.[5] If it had become operational with coal, the Kemper Project would have been a first-of-its-kind electricity plant to employ gasification and carbon capture technologies at this scale.[6]

Project management problems had been noted at the Kemper Project.[4] The plant was supposed to be in service by May 2014, at a cost of $2.4 billion. As of June 2017, the project was still not in service, and the cost had increased to $7.5 billion.[7] According to a Sierra Club analysis, Kemper is the most expensive power plant ever built, based on its generating capacity.[8] In June 2017, Southern Company and Mississippi Power announced that the Kemper project would switch to burning only natural gas in an effort to manage costs.[9]
  • 2017
  • March: Southern Co. discovered leaks that will cause it to miss scheduled mid-March completion of the project.[29]
  • June: Kemper power plant suspends coal gasification.[9] [needs update]
  • 2021, October: the gasification structure was demolished[30] "
Cost comparison:

Duke Energy Progress customers receiving 560 megawatts of ...​

https://news.duke-energy.com › releases › duke-energy...

Jul 22, 2020 — The new station generates enough energy to serve about 450,000 homes. The $817 million station includes two electricity-producing power blocks ...
 
Back
Top Bottom