Look at all the pretty windmills....

[bripat9643]

So looking at coal mind plant it is more aesthetically pleasing that looking at a windmills

power line are aesthetically pleasing when looking at the environment
telephone lines are aesthetically pleasing
Cell phone towers are aesthetically pleasing

anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Everybody goes to NY or Tokyo for the big buildings and lights

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Severe storms and outages cost billions of dollars. Climate change cost the economy billions of dollars.

The aesthetically pleasing land after a storm vs windmills. personally I find wind mills farms and solar farms aesthetically pleasing because they do not cause CO2 pollution and even though they are man made, they do coexist with nature and use the wind and solar power uses the Sun

The new green deal is a little ambitious but the just need to slow their roll a little bit and in time it will be the standard

Coal for energy will slowly die as it has for coal being used in
grilling

but hey there are a few old timers still using coal in the grill

Still as infrastructure and homes are destroyed and have to be rebuilt that is the real cost for using coal

The climate disrupts electrical grids and they have to be rebuilt and PR is a prime example of how many were without power for an extended amount of time

.

Yes, the footprint for both the mine, and the coal fired powerplant are much less. Coal plants here in the US are relatively clean, just as an FYI.

And you think this looks good?

Really?

Its vacant land and not being used. Sure in some areas where there are trees that some trees are cut down but hey trees are cut for lumber all the time

well my turn do you think coal burning plants look good and all those high power electrical lines

still why are those chimneys so high is it because the venting is beneficial

View attachment 292715

EPA regulations, dumbass.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So looking at coal mind plant it is more aesthetically pleasing that looking at a windmills

power line are aesthetically pleasing when looking at the environment
telephone lines are aesthetically pleasing
Cell phone towers are aesthetically pleasing

anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Everybody goes to NY or Tokyo for the big buildings and lights

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Severe storms and outages cost billions of dollars. Climate change cost the economy billions of dollars.

The aesthetically pleasing land after a storm vs windmills. personally I find wind mills farms and solar farms aesthetically pleasing because they do not cause CO2 pollution and even though they are man made, they do coexist with nature and use the wind and solar power uses the Sun

The new green deal is a little ambitious but the just need to slow their roll a little bit and in time it will be the standard

Coal for energy will slowly die as it has for coal being used in
grilling

but hey there are a few old timers still using coal in the grill

Still as infrastructure and homes are destroyed and have to be rebuilt that is the real cost for using coal

The climate disrupts electrical grids and they have to be rebuilt and PR is a prime example of how many were without power for an extended amount of time

.

No, it isn't obvious that coal fired power plants are a problem. When did anyone prove that the current concentration of CO2 is harmful? Plenty of biologists says its beneficial.

Does "coexisting with nature" mean killing millions of birds every year? Almost everything enviro-wackos claim is utter horseshit.

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much
as birds are killed by using C02 in high concentrations. Yeah its beneficial to the people who want a quick and easy way to kill birds but the issues will be the amount of CO2 in the air.

Oh so when you fly in a plane and bird do stop flying and demand that all planes stop flying because planes kill birds

when you drive your car and a bird hits your windshield does that mean you will no longer drive

People hunt birds for sport, its not because they are hungry

It takes about 50,000 PPM to kill birds, dumbass, not 400 PPM.

Planes provide mankind with enormous benefits. So-called "green energy" only sucks money out of our economy.

well it still kills

Windmills prove mankind benefits as a clean renewable energy and does not cause environmental concerns. As you say its about the amount of CO2 and the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is well documented.

LOL...

Coal fired plants do not kill birds.. Wind turbines DO by the millions... You are ignorant of the science and facts. You have been feed a huge pile of crap and you ate it up without using any cognitive thought..

 

[westwall]

So looking at coal mind plant it is more aesthetically pleasing that looking at a windmills

power line are aesthetically pleasing when looking at the environment
telephone lines are aesthetically pleasing
Cell phone towers are aesthetically pleasing

anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Everybody goes to NY or Tokyo for the big buildings and lights

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Severe storms and outages cost billions of dollars. Climate change cost the economy billions of dollars.

The aesthetically pleasing land after a storm vs windmills. personally I find wind mills farms and solar farms aesthetically pleasing because they do not cause CO2 pollution and even though they are man made, they do coexist with nature and use the wind and solar power uses the Sun

The new green deal is a little ambitious but the just need to slow their roll a little bit and in time it will be the standard

Coal for energy will slowly die as it has for coal being used in
grilling

but hey there are a few old timers still using coal in the grill

Still as infrastructure and homes are destroyed and have to be rebuilt that is the real cost for using coal

The climate disrupts electrical grids and they have to be rebuilt and PR is a prime example of how many were without power for an extended amount of time

.

No, it isn't obvious that coal fired power plants are a problem. When did anyone prove that the current concentration of CO2 is harmful? Plenty of biologists says its beneficial.

Does "coexisting with nature" mean killing millions of birds every year? Almost everything enviro-wackos claim is utter horseshit.

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much
as birds are killed by using C02 in high concentrations. Yeah its beneficial to the people who want a quick and easy way to kill birds but the issues will be the amount of CO2 in the air.

Oh so when you fly in a plane and bird do stop flying and demand that all planes stop flying because planes kill birds

when you drive your car and a bird hits your windshield does that mean you will no longer drive

People hunt birds for sport, its not because they are hungry

CO2 is the fundamental building block of life. How much life is too much?

Mankind only adds 6 billion tons per year. Less than 5% of the global CO2 budget.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much

To much? Really? Prior to the onset of the present ice age, the atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm.

And aside from that, can you provide any physical evidence to support the claim that CO2 is changing the global climate rather than simply reacting to the global climate as all historic ice core studies show?

 

[SSDD]

So looking at coal mind plant it is more aesthetically pleasing that looking at a windmills

power line are aesthetically pleasing when looking at the environment
telephone lines are aesthetically pleasing
Cell phone towers are aesthetically pleasing

anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Everybody goes to NY or Tokyo for the big buildings and lights

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Severe storms and outages cost billions of dollars. Climate change cost the economy billions of dollars.

The aesthetically pleasing land after a storm vs windmills. personally I find wind mills farms and solar farms aesthetically pleasing because they do not cause CO2 pollution and even though they are man made, they do coexist with nature and use the wind and solar power uses the Sun

The new green deal is a little ambitious but the just need to slow their roll a little bit and in time it will be the standard

Coal for energy will slowly die as it has for coal being used in
grilling

but hey there are a few old timers still using coal in the grill

Still as infrastructure and homes are destroyed and have to be rebuilt that is the real cost for using coal

The climate disrupts electrical grids and they have to be rebuilt and PR is a prime example of how many were without power for an extended amount of time

.

Yes, the footprint for both the mine, and the coal fired powerplant are much less. Coal plants here in the US are relatively clean, just as an FYI.

And you think this looks good?

Really?

Its vacant land and not being used. Sure in some areas where there are trees that some trees are cut down but hey trees are cut for lumber all the time

Vacant land not being used? That is called nature and it is being destroyed for no better reason than to put up windmills that will do nothing more than increase the cost of electricity for a short while then break down and be left where they stand due to the cost of removing them when the subsidies are cut.

Our great grandchildren are going to be left looking at great swaths of forest with defunct windmills sticking up through them and wonder what the hell we were thinking.

 

[SSDD]

So looking at coal mind plant it is more aesthetically pleasing that looking at a windmills

power line are aesthetically pleasing when looking at the environment
telephone lines are aesthetically pleasing
Cell phone towers are aesthetically pleasing

anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Everybody goes to NY or Tokyo for the big buildings and lights

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Severe storms and outages cost billions of dollars. Climate change cost the economy billions of dollars.

The aesthetically pleasing land after a storm vs windmills. personally I find wind mills farms and solar farms aesthetically pleasing because they do not cause CO2 pollution and even though they are man made, they do coexist with nature and use the wind and solar power uses the Sun

The new green deal is a little ambitious but the just need to slow their roll a little bit and in time it will be the standard

Coal for energy will slowly die as it has for coal being used in
grilling

but hey there are a few old timers still using coal in the grill

Still as infrastructure and homes are destroyed and have to be rebuilt that is the real cost for using coal

The climate disrupts electrical grids and they have to be rebuilt and PR is a prime example of how many were without power for an extended amount of time

.

No, it isn't obvious that coal fired power plants are a problem. When did anyone prove that the current concentration of CO2 is harmful? Plenty of biologists says its beneficial.

Does "coexisting with nature" mean killing millions of birds every year? Almost everything enviro-wackos claim is utter horseshit.

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much
as birds are killed by using C02 in high concentrations. Yeah its beneficial to the people who want a quick and easy way to kill birds but the issues will be the amount of CO2 in the air.

Oh so when you fly in a plane and bird do stop flying and demand that all planes stop flying because planes kill birds

when you drive your car and a bird hits your windshield does that mean you will no longer drive

People hunt birds for sport, its not because they are hungry

It takes about 50,000 PPM to kill birds, dumbass, not 400 PPM.

Planes provide mankind with enormous benefits. So-called "green energy" only sucks money out of our economy.

well it still kills

Windmills prove mankind benefits as a clean renewable energy and does not cause environmental concerns. As you say its about the amount of CO2 and the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is well documented.

Driving raptors, bats and migratory birds extinct is not an environmental concern? Really?

 

[jc456]

Anyone put up a reliable 24 hr a day infrastructure? I’m waiting

A good many people, you stupid ass. People with solar and Powerwall 2's have a reliable 24 infrastructure for their homes. You silly fools remain so ignorant of what is available today.

I asked for the power grid! Name one! You keep changing the subject. Chicken shit as always.

No, dumb ass, I did not change the subject. Grid scale power storage is already being put online, and will continue to grow as the batteries get bigger and cheaper. The combination of grid scale batteries equals much cheaper electricity.

Name one city 24 hours. Just one. I’m laughing my balls off at your avoidance

That would only take a slight giggle.

and I'm still giggling. I see you haven't an answer to the initial question. go fking figure.

 

[jc456]

Any storm and they are toast.

This is why wind and solar will never be as reliable as fossil fuels!

Do they have to be?

They just provide a percentage of our total energy use. Nobody said they have to provide it all

Solar, wind, and hydro can provide all the power we need. Especially if this comes to fruition.

so you got a name of a city that uses solar and wind 24 hours a day yet? avoidance by you is noted.

 

[jc456]

Sitting idle because the wind is blowing too hard! This is west of Amarillo at 9:54 Veterans Day 2019.

Good News

Windmills cause cancer

Actually, according to the orange "Chosen One", it's the sound of windmills that causes cancer.

you have evidence it doesn't?

 

[Kilroy2]

So looking at coal mind plant it is more aesthetically pleasing that looking at a windmills

power line are aesthetically pleasing when looking at the environment
telephone lines are aesthetically pleasing
Cell phone towers are aesthetically pleasing

anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Everybody goes to NY or Tokyo for the big buildings and lights

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Severe storms and outages cost billions of dollars. Climate change cost the economy billions of dollars.

The aesthetically pleasing land after a storm vs windmills. personally I find wind mills farms and solar farms aesthetically pleasing because they do not cause CO2 pollution and even though they are man made, they do coexist with nature and use the wind and solar power uses the Sun

The new green deal is a little ambitious but the just need to slow their roll a little bit and in time it will be the standard

Coal for energy will slowly die as it has for coal being used in
grilling

but hey there are a few old timers still using coal in the grill

Still as infrastructure and homes are destroyed and have to be rebuilt that is the real cost for using coal

The climate disrupts electrical grids and they have to be rebuilt and PR is a prime example of how many were without power for an extended amount of time

.

Yes, the footprint for both the mine, and the coal fired powerplant are much less. Coal plants here in the US are relatively clean, just as an FYI.

And you think this looks good?

Really?

Its vacant land and not being used. Sure in some areas where there are trees that some trees are cut down but hey trees are cut for lumber all the time

Vacant land not being used? That is called nature and it is being destroyed for no better reason than to put up windmills that will do nothing more than increase the cost of electricity for a short while then break down and be left where they stand due to the cost of removing them when the subsidies are cut.

Our great grandchildren are going to be left looking at great swaths of forest with defunct windmills sticking up through them and wonder what the hell we were thinking.

Englund is chief technology officer for Global Fiberglass Solutions (GFS), a Bothell, Wash.-based company that is hoping to make some of its own green by recycling the blades into pellets and boards. The company has developed – and is scaling up – a plant in Sweetwater, Texas to recycle fiberglass from wind turbine blades and other sources.

 

[Kilroy2]

So looking at coal mind plant it is more aesthetically pleasing that looking at a windmills

power line are aesthetically pleasing when looking at the environment
telephone lines are aesthetically pleasing
Cell phone towers are aesthetically pleasing

anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Everybody goes to NY or Tokyo for the big buildings and lights

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Severe storms and outages cost billions of dollars. Climate change cost the economy billions of dollars.

The aesthetically pleasing land after a storm vs windmills. personally I find wind mills farms and solar farms aesthetically pleasing because they do not cause CO2 pollution and even though they are man made, they do coexist with nature and use the wind and solar power uses the Sun

The new green deal is a little ambitious but the just need to slow their roll a little bit and in time it will be the standard

Coal for energy will slowly die as it has for coal being used in
grilling

but hey there are a few old timers still using coal in the grill

Still as infrastructure and homes are destroyed and have to be rebuilt that is the real cost for using coal

The climate disrupts electrical grids and they have to be rebuilt and PR is a prime example of how many were without power for an extended amount of time

.

No, it isn't obvious that coal fired power plants are a problem. When did anyone prove that the current concentration of CO2 is harmful? Plenty of biologists says its beneficial.

Does "coexisting with nature" mean killing millions of birds every year? Almost everything enviro-wackos claim is utter horseshit.

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much
as birds are killed by using C02 in high concentrations. Yeah its beneficial to the people who want a quick and easy way to kill birds but the issues will be the amount of CO2 in the air.

Oh so when you fly in a plane and bird do stop flying and demand that all planes stop flying because planes kill birds

when you drive your car and a bird hits your windshield does that mean you will no longer drive

People hunt birds for sport, its not because they are hungry

It takes about 50,000 PPM to kill birds, dumbass, not 400 PPM.

Planes provide mankind with enormous benefits. So-called "green energy" only sucks money out of our economy.

well it still kills

Windmills prove mankind benefits as a clean renewable energy and does not cause environmental concerns. As you say its about the amount of CO2 and the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is well documented.

LOL...

Coal fired plants do not kill birds.. Wind turbines DO by the millions... You are ignorant of the science and facts. You have been feed a huge pile of crap and you ate it up without using any cognitive thought..

I did not say coal fired plants kill birds

you just interpreted it that way

cognitive thought at work well all I said was that CO2 was used to kill animals. Did not say it came from coal fired plants

but I do see that you do not have a response to the airplane and car issues of killing birds

Airplanes, cars kill birds where is the outrage

I assume that you guys are all of the sudden animal lovers

do you have a life long membership with environmentalist

conservatives are not conservationists

use your cognitive processes on the above chart

 

[Kilroy2]

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much

To much? Really? Prior to the onset of the present ice age, the atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm.

And aside from that, can you provide any physical evidence to support the claim that CO2 is changing the global climate rather than simply reacting to the global climate as all historic ice core studies show?

prior to the ice age well are you saying now that prior to the ice age CO2 in the atmosphere was really high and admitting that high levels of CO2 is a problem.

Well assuming your numbers are correct its clear that the levels went down at some point in history

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Ice cap is melting. Russia and other countries are shipping thru the northern ice where previously they couldn't because it was too thick. Thus they are crushing this ice and raising sea levels

By 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level (if we continue on the current path).

below is a US government site and they are making predictions

Climate Change Predictions

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

the issue is what is man doing and the consequences for the future of our children

if sea levels rise and coastal cities are flooded what is the economic cost and the human suffering costs

 

[bripat9643]

No, it isn't obvious that coal fired power plants are a problem. When did anyone prove that the current concentration of CO2 is harmful? Plenty of biologists says its beneficial.

Does "coexisting with nature" mean killing millions of birds every year? Almost everything enviro-wackos claim is utter horseshit.

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much
as birds are killed by using C02 in high concentrations. Yeah its beneficial to the people who want a quick and easy way to kill birds but the issues will be the amount of CO2 in the air.

Oh so when you fly in a plane and bird do stop flying and demand that all planes stop flying because planes kill birds

when you drive your car and a bird hits your windshield does that mean you will no longer drive

People hunt birds for sport, its not because they are hungry

It takes about 50,000 PPM to kill birds, dumbass, not 400 PPM.

Planes provide mankind with enormous benefits. So-called "green energy" only sucks money out of our economy.

well it still kills

Windmills prove mankind benefits as a clean renewable energy and does not cause environmental concerns. As you say its about the amount of CO2 and the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is well documented.

LOL...

Coal fired plants do not kill birds.. Wind turbines DO by the millions... You are ignorant of the science and facts. You have been feed a huge pile of crap and you ate it up without using any cognitive thought..

I did not say coal fired plants kill birds

you just interpreted it that way

cognitive thought at work well all I said was that CO2 was used to kill animals. Did not say it came from coal fired plants

but I do see that you do not have a response to the airplane and car issues of killing birds

Airplanes, cars kill birds where is the outrage

I assume that you guys are all of the sudden animal lovers

do you have a life long membership with environmentalist

conservatives are not conservationists

View attachment 292796

use your cognitive processes on the above chart

Airplanes and cars do not kill 1/1000th as many birds as windmills do. Airports go to great lengths to keep birds away from runways. I've never hit a bird with my car. I've seen more birds smash into the windows of my house than into my car windshield.

 

[bripat9643]

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much

To much? Really? Prior to the onset of the present ice age, the atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm.

And aside from that, can you provide any physical evidence to support the claim that CO2 is changing the global climate rather than simply reacting to the global climate as all historic ice core studies show?

I do not know where you get your numbers

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Global warming is a con. CO2 is not changing the climate.

 

[Kilroy2]

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much

To much? Really? Prior to the onset of the present ice age, the atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm.

And aside from that, can you provide any physical evidence to support the claim that CO2 is changing the global climate rather than simply reacting to the global climate as all historic ice core studies show?

I do not know where you get your numbers

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Global warming is a con. CO2 is not changing the climate.

In Ohio, four out of five conservative voters support policies that encourage energy efficiency and greater use of renewable energy, according to a December poll by the Ohio Conservative Energy Forum, which supports an "all of the above" approach.

So when Republicans who support renewables or climate action are cast as the atypical "eco-right," energy-forum consultant Mike Hartley bristles.

“People look at conservatives who speak about clean energy like zoo animals,” he said. “When folks try to define what we do, they have to ... put it in a silo, in a neat little box.

"We’re just people who care about the environment.”

if you can't trust your fellow repubs who can you trust

 

[Kilroy2]

Solar: Anywhere from about 1,000 birds a year, according to BrightSource, to 28,000 birds a year, according to an expert at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States, according to a December 2013 study published in the journal Biological Conservation. Taller turbines tend to take out more birds.

Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil fields, the Bureau of Land Management said in a December 2012 memo.

Coal: Huge numbers of birds, roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal, according to analysis by Benjamin K. Sovacool, director of the Danish Center for Energy Technologies. His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and climate change, which together amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy generated by coal.

Nuclear: About 330,000 birds, by Sovacool’s calculations.

Power Lines: Between 12 and 64 million birds a year are felled by transmission lines, according to a study published July 3 in the journal PLOS ONE.


Being a bird is tough

 

[bripat9643]

Solar: Anywhere from about 1,000 birds a year, according to BrightSource, to 28,000 birds a year, according to an expert at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States, according to a December 2013 study published in the journal Biological Conservation. Taller turbines tend to take out more birds.

Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil fields, the Bureau of Land Management said in a December 2012 memo.

Coal: Huge numbers of birds, roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal, according to analysis by Benjamin K. Sovacool, director of the Danish Center for Energy Technologies. His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and climate change, which together amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy generated by coal.

Nuclear: About 330,000 birds, by Sovacool’s calculations.

Power Lines: Between 12 and 64 million birds a year are felled by transmission lines, according to a study published July 3 in the journal PLOS ONE.


Being a bird is tough

Total horse crap. How does nuclear energy kill birds? How does drilling a gas well kill birds?

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar: Anywhere from about 1,000 birds a year, according to BrightSource, to 28,000 birds a year, according to an expert at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States, according to a December 2013 study published in the journal Biological Conservation. Taller turbines tend to take out more birds.

Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil fields, the Bureau of Land Management said in a December 2012 memo.

Coal: Huge numbers of birds, roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal, according to analysis by Benjamin K. Sovacool, director of the Danish Center for Energy Technologies. His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and climate change, which together amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy generated by coal.

Nuclear: About 330,000 birds, by Sovacool’s calculations.

Power Lines: Between 12 and 64 million birds a year are felled by transmission lines, according to a study published July 3 in the journal PLOS ONE.


Being a bird is tough

And a great many of the birds killed by the power lines are raptors. But do not expect Bripat or any of these cretins to acknowledge that.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much

To much? Really? Prior to the onset of the present ice age, the atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm.

And aside from that, can you provide any physical evidence to support the claim that CO2 is changing the global climate rather than simply reacting to the global climate as all historic ice core studies show?

I do not know where you get your numbers

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Global warming is a con. CO2 is not changing the climate.

Sheesh, poor little dumb fuck, did you ever hear of absorption spectra? Do you even have any idea of what those words mean? Well, google is your friend.

 

[bripat9643]

Solar: Anywhere from about 1,000 birds a year, according to BrightSource, to 28,000 birds a year, according to an expert at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States, according to a December 2013 study published in the journal Biological Conservation. Taller turbines tend to take out more birds.

Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil fields, the Bureau of Land Management said in a December 2012 memo.

Coal: Huge numbers of birds, roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal, according to analysis by Benjamin K. Sovacool, director of the Danish Center for Energy Technologies. His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and climate change, which together amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy generated by coal.

Nuclear: About 330,000 birds, by Sovacool’s calculations.

Power Lines: Between 12 and 64 million birds a year are felled by transmission lines, according to a study published July 3 in the journal PLOS ONE.


Being a bird is tough

And a great many of the birds killed by the power lines are raptors. But do not expect Bripat or any of these cretins to acknowledge that.

Are you trying to claim that renewable energy doesn't require power lines?