How is fracking legal?

[NAOS]

Well this is stupid.

You read the OP, right?

 

[Bronco70]

I live in a mild climate and have low energy demands. I'd ride a stationary bicycle for 30-45 minutes a day if I could capture that energy efficiently. No prob.

Win win.

 

[Deleted member 848]

google "wind power habitat destruction" if you want to read more.

or maybe you wanted a link that shows that habitat destruction is a bigger threat to wildlife than cats? Or one that shows that split level homes don't directly kill bears?

I've yet to see anything in academic literature that sees wind as prohibitive due to its potential for habitat destruction, especially relative to the other renewable energy technologies generally mentioned (fission, hydro, solar).

Again, links? You're the one who made the point, I don't need to do the googling.

 

[♪alt13]

I've yet to see anything in academic literature that sees wind as prohibitive due to its potential for habitat destruction, especially relative to the other renewable energy technologies generally mentioned (fission, hydro, solar).

Again, links? You're the one who made the point, I don't need to do the googling.

I never said it was more destructive(although I suspect it's more destructive than rooftop solar but that's only part of the solution anyway). I simply said that habitat destruction is a bigger issue than the numbers killed in a given year. Habitat destruction is the largest threat to wildlife. I've never heard otherwise. If you haven't seen anything about wind and habitat destruction then you just have been willfully ignoring it. No link that I could provide is going to change willful ignorance.

I'm not even anti-wind. I just recognize that it will come with some serious costs to wildlife. We can't just start putting up windmills all willy-nilly.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I never said it was more destructive(although I suspect it's more destructive than rooftop solar but that's only part of the solution anyway).

When you phrase it as "I think the real issue you're implying that it's an issue relative to the other proposed forms of energy whether generated in a "green" manner or through fossil fuels

I simply said that habitat destruction is a bigger issue than the numbers killed in a given year. Habitat destruction is the largest threat to wildlife. I've never heard otherwise. If you haven't seen anything about wind and habitat destruction then you just have been willfully ignoring it. No link that I could provide is going to change willful ignorance.

Where's the literature comparing the impact of habitat destruction brought forth by wind farms in comparison to fossil fuels, solar, hydro, nuclear, etc.? Obviously there's more to ecology than the number of killed animals per annum (no one is arguing otherwise) and this isn't me pretending that wind farms don't alter local ecology, but you're definitely framing the discussion in a way that makes a reader interpret wind farms as especially harmful to non-human habitats. That's why I'm asking for a link-- where's the link describing wind energy as especially environmentally harmful relative to other forms of energy? Simply saying "habitat destruction" is basically applicable to every form of green and non-green energy 'production' and it doesn't really do much to advance dialogue in any sense

I'm not even anti-wind. I just recognize that it will come with some serious costs to wildlife. We can't just start putting up windmills all willy-nilly.

Real costs to wildlife relative to what? It's like saying LEDs give off waste energy. Yeah, um they definitely do-- but it's peanuts relative to an incandescent. We don't have the time to twirl our thumbs waiting for the perfect energy source. We need to switch to what's better, and we need to switch yesterday.

 

[♪alt13]

When you phrase it as "I think the real issue you're implying that it's an issue relative to the other proposed forms of energy whether generated in a "green" manner or through fossil fuels





Where's the literature comparing the impact of habitat destruction brought forth by wind farms in comparison to fossil fuels, solar, hydro, nuclear, etc.? Obviously there's more to ecology than the number of killed animals per annum (no one is arguing otherwise) and this isn't me pretending that wind farms don't alter local ecology, but you're definitely framing the discussion in a way that makes a reader interpret wind farms as especially harmful to non-human habitats. That's why I'm asking for a link-- where's the link describing wind energy as especially environmentally harmful relative to other forms of energy? Simply saying "habitat destruction" is basically applicable to every form of green and non-green energy 'production' and it doesn't really do much to advance dialogue in any sense




Real costs to wildlife relative to what? It's like saying LEDs give off waste energy. Yeah, um they definitely do-- but it's peanuts relative to an incandescent. We don't have the time to twirl our thumbs waiting for the perfect energy source. We need to switch to what's better, and we need to switch yesterday.

Your link was about bird deaths, the first on the list was cats which has nothing to do with energy production. Relative to deaths the real issue is habitat destruction. The real issue is birds that will never be.

Relative to not being a fanboy of one or the other. Wind is appropriate sometimes, sometimes it's not.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Your link was about bird deaths, the first on the list was cats which has nothing to do with energy production. Relative to deaths the real issue is habitat destruction. The real issue is birds that will never be.

Where is your proof of wind farms seriously harming bird populations (like, via migratory patterns or whatever) past simply the killing of them in adulthood?

--

Oh, and FYI here's just one quick article of how "green" solar really is, from a prof who studies solar https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think

 

[♪alt13]

Where is your proof of wind farms seriously harming bird populations (like, via migratory patterns or whatever) past simply the killing of them in adulthood?

--

Oh, and FYI here's just one quick article of how "green" solar really is, from a prof who studies solar https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think

srsly dude you're a biased googler. it took me like 2 seconds to find this

I’m a lecturer in biological and human sciences at Oxford university. I trained as a zoologist, I’ve worked as an environmental consultant — conducting impact assessments on projects like the Folkestone-to-London rail link — and I now teach ecology and conservation.


Loss of habitat is the single biggest cause of species extinction. Wind farms not only reduce habitat size but create ‘population sinks’ — zones which attract animals and then kill them

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/01/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/

 

[NAOS]

Dal keeps getting Smegged.

 

[Deleted member 848]

srsly dude you're a biased googler. it took me like 2 seconds to find this



https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/01/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/

I didn't google once-- why would I? Onus is on you to substantiate your claims.

Is there anything else you've seen that leads you to your stance on the issue?? You seem firm on your stance so I'm sure you've read other things. Again, anything that appraises wind as worse than other energy technologies for habitat destruction? I think I've asked you 10 times for this by now