Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Q-C

Wind farms kill eagles

8 posts in this topic

I saw this in the news today:

"But at a minimum, the scientists wrote, wind farms in 10 states have killed at least 85 eagles since 1997, with most deaths occurring between 2008 and 2012, as the industry was greatly expanding. Most deaths _ 79 _ were golden eagles that struck wind turbines. One of the eagles counted in the study was electrocuted by a power line.

The vice president of the American Bird Conservancy, Mike Parr, said the tally was "an alarming and concerning finding."

A trade group, the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement that the figure was much lower than other causes of eagle deaths. The group said it was working with the government and conservation groups to find ways to reduce eagle casualties.

Still, the scientists said their figure is likely to be "substantially" underestimated, since companies report eagle deaths voluntarily and only a fraction of those included in their total were discovered during searches for dead birds by wind-energy companies. The study also excluded the deadliest place in the country for eagles, a cluster of wind farms in a northern California area known as Altamont Pass. Wind farms built there decades ago kill more than 60 per year."

http://www.nwitimes....0e92b9acb9.html

I am not concerned with arguing "What's a few bats or eagles or ruined rivers for the common good?"

(Hydroelectric is not environmentally friendly

Wind farms kill endangered bats, eagles and other birds.

Nuclear disaster are real

blah blah blah)

I am wondering are we on the cusp (impactful use in the next 20 years) of any alternative energy that would have global appeal, be financially viable for all or most countries, doesn't require massive tracts of land or water and is truly environmentally friendly and a true substitute for fossil fuel?

I remember talking to a chemist a couple years ago who said, there are a lot of ideas flowing around, but the bottom line is we do not have any alternative to substitute for fossil fuel at its level, usage etc. He said it much better...

Do we need to race for alternative energies or--- rethink and change how we live (as impossible and ridiculous as that sounds)? Do we have time for either one?

Should we rather fine tune what we already use? Will we all (globally) ever be on the same page? Did we rush into alternatives? Have advanced in this area? Are we wise in investing in hydro, wind,nuclear and solar? Or still paddling upstream in the long run?

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats wrong with hydro and geo-thermal? thats how we get 80% of our power over here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

solar power kills.... well nothing actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much wildlife has been killed by oil spills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, don't get me wrong this isn't a pro-fossil fuel OP. I figured it's faults weren't necessary to list as I was addressing alternatives.

It is a question as to whether there is an alternative that doesn't meet with opposition and have evironmental impact. Especially when expanded to a global level.

The environmental impact of hydro electric power, and opposition are easily Googled.

Solar energy? Will we foot this new bill for it to power more than the small fraction it does? And will solar farms/wind farms big enough to run all we need globally have any environmental impact? Have we thought far enough ahead on alternatives?

I have no answers or opinion. In considering the article today, on wind power and bird/bat deaths, I posted my questions to UMer's.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, don't get me wrong this isn't a pro-fossil fuel OP. I figured it's faults weren't necessary to list as I was addressing alternatives.

It is a question as to whether there is an alternative that doesn't meet with opposition and have evironmental impact. Especially when expanded to a global level.

The environmental impact of hydro electric power, and opposition are easily Googled.

Solar energy? Will we foot this new bill for it to power more than the small fraction it does? And will solar farms/wind farms big enough to run all we need globally have any environmental impact? Have we thought far enough ahead on alternatives?

I have no answers or opinion. In considering the article today, on wind power and bird/bat deaths, I posted my questions to UMer's.

I think solar is absolutely the way to go long term. If you think about it every form of energy other than perhaps geo-thermal is basically solar as the energy of the sun is ultimately what we are harvesting from fossil fuels and even wind turbines. We should invest heavily in this and quickly. We have literally spent trillions on a war in Iraq which was mainly an attempt to secure oil reserves in my view. Had we spent those trillions on solar tech we would be well on our way. I would like to see orbiting solar panels beaming energy back to earth 24/7. We must find a way to replace fossil fuels before oil reserves run out or face world wide starvation on an unprecedented scale
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The change is happening, and ultimately a world of mixed renewables will cause significantly fewer human and wildlife casualties than the fossil fuels it replaces.

However, it is correct to say that we are probably not going to make the necessary changes to divest from fossil fuels without a major decline in the environment first. That decline is happening now.

The UN is the only mechanism for global action on environmental issues, and experience tells us that it is ineffective at producing viable solutions when it comes up against vested interests. At the moment the Empire of the USA is the main vested interest.

I think the future is bleak simply because we imagine that we have more control over our society than we actually have. If we set out the objective to create a sustainable future, as we already have in theory, there is almost no mechanism to turn society around in a timely fashion to achieve that objective. It is my firm belief that the main drivers of ecological decline are hidden axioms within the fabric of our economic system. Games theory suggests that when you start a system (the economic system) it is all but impossible to change the rules of that system before it plays itself out. Changing elements such as money as debt, growth, GDP, etc would have such far reaching consequences that the chaos they would create would be unmanageable and those people who could have the potential to make the changes will resist them with all their will - because to do otherwise would leave them vulnerable to losing everything they have and achieved.

The ecological crisis we currently face is simply a symptom of the implicit logic of our societal/economic system. It is an inevitability of the rules of the game and no amount of tinkering to produce sustainable capitalism is going to save us from continued ecological decline.

Let it be understood that those societal/economic rules are merely human choices which can be changed - but they will not be until their inevitable logic has played itself out to the ultimate end, and for me that represents a total collapse of everything we know.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, don't get me wrong this isn't a pro-fossil fuel OP. I figured it's faults weren't necessary to list as I was addressing alternatives.

It is a question as to whether there is an alternative that doesn't meet with opposition and have evironmental impact. Especially when expanded to a global level.

The environmental impact of hydro electric power, and opposition are easily Googled.

Solar energy? Will we foot this new bill for it to power more than the small fraction it does? And will solar farms/wind farms big enough to run all we need globally have any environmental impact? Have we thought far enough ahead on alternatives?

I have no answers or opinion. In considering the article today, on wind power and bird/bat deaths, I posted my questions to UMer's.

I think you hit on the key. We have to look at a mixed approach at least for the coming years until the alternative energy forms are "ready for prime time" - which they are not.

Fossil fuel types have to understand that alternative energy isn't the enemy just as Enviro types have to understand that fossil fuel production must continue to expand until such time as the alternatives are ready to come on line. Government's role should be to drive and support research in all areas and incentivize development and innovation across the board. And in doing so, stay away from making bad decisions for political reasons - Solyndra anyone?

Edited by Rafterman
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.