Wind Plant Operator pleads guilty to killing over 150 Bald & Golden Eagles

[BlkGS]

Wind energy company kills 150 eagles in US, pleads guilty

A subsidiary of one of the largest U.S. providers of renewable energy pleaded guilty to criminal charges and was ordered to pay over $8 million in fines and restitution after at least 150 eagles were killed at its wind farms in eight states, federal prosecutors said Wednesday. NextEra Energy...

news.yahoo.com

But wind energy is harmless and good for the environment!

Sarcasm aside, I think a lot of people take this concept of clean and green energy at face value, and don't consider the things beyond the tag lines. Has there ever been a study on what taking that much energy out of the Earth's weather systems would do? We act like hydronplants are green but you literally dam a river and flood a valley to build them.

If only there was some sort of emission free power source that generated massive amounts of power without any fossil fuels or requiring mass environmental destruction, but also has a history of 50 plus years with only a handful of issues. Like say, nuclear power...

 

[swatski]

...with only a handful of issues. Like say, nuclear power...

Consider moving to Chernobyl? they have plenty of it to spare right now.

 

[BlkGS]

Consider moving to Chernobyl? they have plenty of it to spare right now.

We all know that there were a series of preventable mistakes that caused that to happen. The disaster was huge, but we've made huge strides in automation and other safeguarding technologies since then. That's sort of like saying we shouldn't have water pipes in cities because flint used lead for theirs.

Plus, I hear chernobyl isn't the best neighborhood these days...

Nuclear power isn't perfect, the waste disposal is a problem (with a solution), they're expensive and complex to build, etc. But they're still the best option we have until fusion power is more feasible.

 

[swatski]

We all know that there were a series of preventable mistakes that caused that to happen. The disaster was huge, but we've made huge strides in automation and other safeguarding technologies since then. That's sort of like saying we shouldn't have water pipes in cities because flint used lead for theirs.

Plus, I hear chernobyl isn't the best neighborhood these days...

Nuclear power isn't perfect, the waste disposal is a problem (with a solution), they're expensive and complex to build, etc. But they're still the best option we have until fusion power is more feasible.

I know. It was a series of preventable mistakes.
Since you care about birds though, how are they doing in Fukushima, Japan, these days?

Birds Are in a Tailspin Four Years After Fukushima

Like the proverbial canary in a coalmine, avian abundances may paint a grim picture of the effects of nuclear disasters on wildlife

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Ronnie]

A few years ago the wind farm near me in Livermore ca replaced all of their older smaller windmills with very large ones (as in they trucked each blade in with an 18 wheeler). Later I learned that by increasing their size the blades spin slower but still produce more energy than several dozen of the small models and the large slower blades are less likely to kill birds. The newer larger windmills also have more of a rounded top and smooth sides which prevents birds from landing or building a nest on them.

 

[marcham]

Whatever impact the windmills have on birds, surely it can't be worse than all the pollution from coal fired power plants.

As for nuclear...

Chernobyl
Fukushima
Three mile island
Paks
Sosnovy
Enrico Fermi
Chalk River

Those are just the incidents we know about... how many more radioactive releases have occurred we don't know about?

Manufacturing solar panels isn't a totally green process either...

One has to look at the total long term cost. Unfortunately with nuclear, there is no great disposal solution.

 

[BlkGS]

Fukushima I don't think is fair to lump in with a chernobyl or 3MI. It got hit by a giant freaking tsunami

Everyone points to a handful of issues that have occurred but ignores the fleet of nuclear powered ships that have operated without issue, the vast majority of plants without any issues, or any viable alternative solution.

Disposal is an issue. But we did build a gigantic disposal facility in a mountain to keep all this crap. That's probably the best option, somewhere desolate and empty but protected.

 

[Adrian @ JB Solutions]

+1 for Nuclear. For now it seems to be the only real sustainable option for the future.

 

[FSH 210 Sport]

Nuclear is the only solution to burning less fossil fuels. Currently, the US gets 20% of its electricity from Nuclear, take away that number and the resulting increase in carbon dioxide would be 177,000,000 metric tons annually.

Nuclear generation needs to be 80-85% of our power production, fossil fueled units will still be needed for regulation. With that much nuclear generation the cost of electricity drops dramatically, nuclear is the cheapest next to hydro. With an over abundance of electricity de sal plants can be run along the coat, pump motor storage units can be built to help with the regulation. Yucca mountain in Nevada in the national repository for nuclear waste that has the capacity to hold 1000 years of waste, and speaking of waste, Harry Reid made sure a while ago that it would not open, to further his sons deal with the chinese solar company. Nice.

Have their been accidents ? Yep. Anything humans do has accidents. The main issue is to keep the damn bean counters out of it and there are less problems.

Solar? Wind? They are all net carbon gains as any of those devices will never produce the amount of power in their service life that it took to produce them. Their intermittency is a huge problem for a stable and reliable grid. Just ask California how their reliance on solar and wind is working out for them.. not so much. Utility size batteries you say? All that lithium and cobalt mainly comes from china and the democratic republic of the Congo where there are no environmental controls.

Wind turbines kill a lot more than 150 raptor and protected species every year. As a contractor when you go onto a wind farm property you are not allowed to carry a cell phone, or other camera, and are forbidden to take pictures or talk about all the dead birds you see. The reports of the other problems associated with wind turbines are suppressed as that doesn’t fit well with the narrative, one of the problems they have is flutter, that is when the sun is low on the horizon and the blades passing through the sunshine causes a lot of problems for people. Many operators do not run their wind farms until the suns azimuth gets higher in the sky. Solar panels require the mining of quartz and bituminous coal to make the glass, and the production process is highly toxic.

 

[FSH 210 Sport]

And as far as coal fired power plants are concerned, between China, India and a few other countries, there are literally thousands of new coal fired power plants being built around the world.. meanwhile those same countries are using that coal fired energy to produce wind turbines and solar panels that, again, will never produce the amount of energy it took to produce them.

 

[Farny]

Natural gas is the way to go- clean burning plentiful and cheap . We should run our cars on it! More environmentally friendly than electric cars.. Just sayin ..?

 

[Farny]

A few years ago the wind farm near me in Livermore ca replaced all of their older smaller windmills with very large ones (as in they trucked each blade in with an 18 wheeler). Later I learned that by increasing their size the blades spin slower but still produce more energy than several dozen of the small models and the large slower blades are less likely to kill birds. The newer larger windmills also have more of a rounded top and smooth sides which prevents birds from landing or building a nest on them.

But they look pretty across the landscape- maybe paint them to look like giant trees. ?

 

[Beachbummer]

Sorry, Nuclear power continues to prove it's a terrible idea, at least as it relates to any plant that can self destroy and block thousands of square miles from future use from Radiation. I'll take coal any day over it.

Natural gas is quite clean, Solar and wind pretty good behind them as my preferred choice. Happy to be convinced some other Nuclear power is OK, but not the kind that when it fails in the unhappy path kills a city or town and spews radiation. These things cannot be undone. At least if you mess up with another power source you can undo the damage in similar time frames, but nuclear miss takes way too long to fix, and Murphy's law is against you. Nope Nope Nope

 

[Farny]

Sorry, Nuclear power continues to prove it's a terrible idea, at least as it relates to any plant that can self destroy and block thousands of square miles from future use from Radiation. I'll take coal any day over it.

Natural gas is quite clean, Solar and wind pretty good behind them as my preferred choice. Happy to be convinced some other Nuclear power is OK, but not the kind that when it fails in the unhappy path kills a city or town and spews radiation. These things cannot be undone. At least if you mess up with another power source you can undo the damage in similar time frames, but nuclear miss takes way too long to fix, and Murphy's law is against you. Nope Nope Nope

You heard about smiths law?

 

[Beachbummer]

No, I admit I had not, and looking if up was not revealing. A reference to falling tools and overthrowing governments. Please feel free to enlighten me with your knowledge. I acknowledge my ignorance.

 

[Julian]

• Not good that wind turbines kill as many birds as they do.
• Not good that coal plants spew as much pollution as they do.
• Not good that nuclear plants have made parts of earth uninhabitable for hundreds or thousands of years and produce waste that can't be eliminated....for all intents and purposes...ever.
• Not good that hydro kills fish and is dependent on rain/rivers etc

I'm sure every source has its downsides. I don't think any country is looking at a single source plan. Each source can be ranked in sustainability, renewability, risks/downsides etc. A good blend of the best sources is likely the best plan. A mix of Nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, gas, geothermal etc is likely the best plan. The only source I can't see being in a long term plan would be Coal - it is ecologically not a long term good idea. Nuclear can't be eliminated at this point- but the mass of spent fuel is going to be a problem long term - not for us - but future generations.

 

[BlkGS]

Sorry, Nuclear power continues to prove it's a terrible idea, at least as it relates to any plant that can self destroy and block thousands of square miles from future use from Radiation. I'll take coal any day over it.

Natural gas is quite clean, Solar and wind pretty good behind them as my preferred choice. Happy to be convinced some other Nuclear power is OK, but not the kind that when it fails in the unhappy path kills a city or town and spews radiation. These things cannot be undone. At least if you mess up with another power source you can undo the damage in similar time frames, but nuclear miss takes way too long to fix, and Murphy's law is against you. Nope Nope Nope

I'd disagree about the time frames. Ever hear of Centralia? Pretty sure it's still on fire.

There are clearly downsides to all forms of power generation. Our ecosystem was not intended to have something like that as part of its balance. The issue is only getting worse as more and more humans are born, requiring more and more power.

We don't really have an energy or climate crisis, we have an overpopulation crisis. We have created more people than can live in equilibrium with the planet. We can alter things here and there to try to reduce our Joules per person, but at the end of the day it's a losing equation.

Thankfully, Lord Musk is going to colonize Mars for us.

 

[Julian]

We don't really have an energy or climate crisis, we have an overpopulation crisis

So to restate this, we DO have an energy and climate crisis - the cause of which is overpopulation.

 

[BlkGS]

So to restate this, we DO have an energy and climate crisis - the cause of which is overpopulation.

Eh, I suppose it's a matter of background. For me as an engineer, those are defects, caused by a root cause.

 

[Julian]

What we are doing with our nuclear waste is an interesting read:

2009 article:

Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a Renewable Energy Source?

Nuclear waste is either a millennia's worth of lethal garbage or the fuel of future nuclear reactors--or both

www.scientificamerican.com

2022 article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/04/11/america-nuclear-waste-san-onofre/

The bottom line from both is the US still hasn't got a plan on what to do with its spent fuel/nuclear waste.

"In 1987 Congress passed legislation that required the Department of Energy (DoE) to take possession of and properly store the spent fuel from the nation's 104 nuclear reactors by the then far-off date of February 1998"​

Pretty stunning that we realized in 1987 that we needed a plan, and now 35 years later we've missed every deadline and still don't have a plan or even a location chosen.