patrick.net

It is only right that the bird watchers who flew countless miles to witness the spectacle of the rare bird, commit ritual seppuku by hurtling themselves with catapults into the rotating blades of the wind turbines, to protest the monstrousness of industrial progress.

Or, they could strangle each other with their binocular cords, with the last choking him/herself with a bird guide.

Or, they could just charcoal the thing and see what it tastes like.

They got the upclose view they wanted.

US National Birds --- Killed off by Wind Turbins.... how is the Green Technology working for you.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/ruffled_feathers_eoxtOD4cj7UR1sVkbg9LgI

If a hunter kills a bald eagle, he can get a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Likewise, oil companies are liable for tens of millions for any spill that harms our wildlife. But what happens when a green-energy wind turbine slashes a bird to bits?

Absolutely nothing.

The Associated Press revealed that even as wind turbines kill an estimated 573,000 birds a year — including many bald and golden eagles — the Obama administration refuses to lift a feather to enforce federal laws protecting the birds.

One electric company paid $10.5 million for killing 232 eagles at its plants. But the same company runs wind farms that have killed at least 20 more eagles — and it hasn’t been fined or prosecuted for that. In fact, the administration has yet to fine or prosecute a single wind farm for such killings.

Your laughing as you read this, aren’t you?

Yes, but not for the reason you think.

thomaswong.1986 says

One electric company paid $10.5 million for killing 232 eagles at its plants. But the same company runs wind farms that have killed at least 20 more eagles

Hmmm... 232 versus 20. I'll take 20, thank you. Or maybe you would just like to go without electricity?

The only people who find humor and schaudenfraude at this are the vindictive losers who have been feeling sorry for themselves and blaming liberals when energy prices creep up a notch.

Everyone with an actively working brain knows that one of the pit-falls of wind turbines are the danger to birds. But in wong's post, it is clear that in one electric company, 232 eagles are killed at conventional plants at the same time that 20 eagles were killed at the companies wind turbines. What about deaths due to loss of habitat. If you are so eager to punish the wind turbines, are you willing to subject yourself to habitat destruction taxes on gasoline, per mile road use, property ownership, food, raw materials, etc?

Stop feeling sorry for yourselves, and be thankful that people are working on alternative energies to hopefully keep fueling our way of life.

Homeboy says

thomaswong.1986 says

Hmmm... 232 versus 20. I'll take 20, thank you. Or maybe you would just like to go without electricity?

Bullshit!

Numbers, and relative costs mean nothing. Conservative policies good! Liberal policies bad! Conservatives love families! Liberals hate America! Conservative secessionists constitutional! Liberals traitors! Failures of conservative policies are acceptable costs! Failures of liberal policies are funny and ironic! Cars and coal good! Everything else bad!

BTW, I wouldn't get too worked up about this article: they think it will piss off liberals to laugh about it, so they yak about it. It's like most of their belief system: if they think it will outrage liberals, they embrace it. Not much thinkin' goin' on.

Who goes bird watching near a wind turbine? Sick Bastards!

thomaswong.1986 says

Likewise, oil companies are liable for tens of millions for any spill that harms our wildlife.

Oil spills have killed far more birds and other life and have caused grotesque mutations in wildlife. Meanwhile, the oil companies are only slapped on the wrist. There has never been a judgement against oil companies that was sufficient to get oil companies to even think about installing adequate safeguards in their operations.

Homeboy says

thomaswong.1986 says

One electric company paid $10.5 million for killing 232 eagles at its plants. But the same company runs wind farms that have killed at least 20 more eagles

Hmmm... 232 versus 20. I'll take 20, thank you. Or maybe you would just like to go without electricity?

The Germans are finding out wind power is kind of a PITA after all.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21580484-huge-offshore-energy-project-may-prove-expensive-disaster-white-elephants-seen-north-sea

Dan8267 says

Oil spills have killed far more birds and other life and have caused grotesque mutations in wildlife. Meanwhile, the oil companies are only slapped on the wrist. There has never been a judgement against oil companies that was sufficient to get oil companies to even think about installing adequate safeguards in their operations.

It would help if we were allowed to build pipelines... or we could learn to get along without oil, hmm lets see what we have to do without: transportation 1/100th as efficient, which would mean food would be I'm guessing 50 times more expensive, Chinese goods would be 50 times more expensive, there would be no air transport, all labor based on hydraulics would be 50 time more expensive, and a bunch of other shit I'm not thinking of.

Of course it could all be replaced with turbines because they create value, give me a break

indigenous says

or we could learn to get along without oil, hmm let see what we have to without: transportation 1/100th as efficient, which would mean food would be at I'm guessing 50 times more expensive, Chinese goods would be 50 times more expensive, there would be no air transport, all labor based on hydraulics would be 50 time more expensive, and bunch of other shit I'm not thinking of.

Personal maglift vehicles solve all the problems of dependency on oil. They also have a multitude of other advantages including reducing vehicular deaths to zero. The most dangerous thing you do in your life is drive to and from work. Driving kills way more Americans than terrorism.

Dan8267 says

Personal maglift vehicles solve all the problems of dependency on oil.

Bull Shit

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Personal maglift vehicles solve all the problems of dependency on oil.

Bull Shit

Sorry Dan but yeah, this is crazytalk.

Feel free to show me why the technology is impossible or would not have the advantages I've shown in other threads.

If we can have supercomputers with GPS, high-res 3D cameras, broad-band wireless communications, and endless extensibility that fit in the palm of our hands, we can get technology proved back in the 1950s to work on an industrial scale.

Dan8267 says

Feel free to show me why the technology is impossible or would not have the advantages I've shown in other threads

Nope you posited, it you do the linking.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Feel free to show me why the technology is impossible or would not have the advantages I've shown in other threads

Nope you posited, it you do the linking.

OK, I've research this extensively and have found no evidence to support the implausibility of maglifts. Therefore, I concede the argument on your behalf and admit that my idea is a great one.

Dan8267 says

OK, I've research this extensively and have found no evidence to support the implausibility of maglifts. Therefore, I concede the argument on your behalf and admit that my idea is a great one.

That is funny and complete bullshit. Unless they find the illusive room temperature fusion, it ain't gunna happen.

YesYNot says

The only people who find humor and schaudenfraude at this

Yes, I see the pattern here too. The same kind of people who try to get liberals twisted into a logical pretzel over bird deaths, also love to attack Priuses, overall costs of solar panels, compassion, tolerance; it is a kalidescope of what the angry, paranoid type of "conservative" THINKS liberals hold as sacred cows.

Upon examination, you find this type of person almost never has BETTER ideas, in fact they don't even have GOOD ideas making up their worldview a lot of the time.

Dan8267 says

no evidence to support the implausibility of maglifts

Oh, here's one: Relative cost per passenger mile.

indigenous says

Unless they find the illusive room temperature fusion, it ain't gunna happen.

They are electric, not nuclear. They run off the electric grid.

Automan Empire says

Oh, here's one: Relative cost per passenger mile.

Would be far less. Less energy costs, less maintenance (no moving parts), no need for auto insurance, no need for multiple vehicles per household. The same vehicle can be used by the entire family since it can drive dad/mom to work then pick up the kids. Maglifts would be way the hell cheaper in the long run.

Dan8267 says

They are electric, not nuclear. They run off the electric grid.

Fine than let the free market prove it out.

HydroCabron says

Homeboy says

thomaswong.1986 says

Hmmm... 232 versus 20. I'll take 20, thank you. Or maybe you would just like to go without electricity?

Bullshit!

Numbers, and relative costs mean nothing.

Buh? How is that "bullshit"? Careful, don't kick yourself with your knee jerking so hard.

New Renter says

The Germans are finding out wind power is kind of a PITA after all.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21580484-huge-offshore-energy-project-may-prove-expensive-disaster-white-elephants-seen-north-sea

Who gives a shit about the Germans?

Automan Empire says

Yes, I see the pattern here too. The same kind of people who try to get liberals twisted into a logical pretzel over bird deaths, also love to attack Priuses, overall costs of solar panels, compassion, tolerance; it is a kalidescope of what the angry, paranoid type of "conservative" THINKS liberals hold as sacred cows.

Ironic isn't it? Its as if anything that doesn't run on crude oil must surely be some sort of liberal conspiracy:

" Oh no! Those Liberals are tryin' to take away ma' full-sized truck that gets 12MPG because they buy priuses!!"

Stupid...

edvard2 says

Ironic isn't it? Its as if anything that doesn't run on crude oil must surely be some sort of liberal conspiracy:

" Oh no! Those Liberals are tryin' to take away ma' full-sized truck that gets 12MPG because they buy priuses!!"

Stupid...

The numbers I have read say it is not a viable source of energy.

Any of you bird brains have any liberal "facts"?

I don't know about the opinions of bird brains as they are not of the same species, but as an intelligent liberal I can tell you that California has been generating an enormous amount of electrical power with turbines.... for decades. Besides the article posted was about birds being hit by turbines anyway.

edvard2 says

intelligent liberal

Now that is an oxymoron, followed by conjecture...

indigenous says

Now that is an oxymoron, followed by conjecture...

Ahh... I see, now that you can't really find a tangible argument to counter my statements you'll now result to insults to diffuse the situation. Too bad. I already disproved your theory so deal with it in a mature manner. I too could resort to dumb insults but that would be counterproductive.

edvard2 says

Ahh... I see, now that you can't really find a tangible argument to counter my statements you'll now result to insults to diffuse the situation. Too bad. I already disproved your theory so deal with it in a mature manner. I too could resort to dumb insults but that would be counterproductive.

Ad Hominem is part of my MO

You have not disproved anything. The numbers I read say that wind power is not viable. You say otherwise yet won't produce numbers that indicate I should reconsider my thinking.

Now we know why that stupid bird is rare.

Dan8267 says

Would be far less. Less energy costs, less maintenance (no moving parts), no
need for auto insurance, no need for multiple vehicles per household. The same
vehicle can be used by the entire family since it can drive dad/mom to work then
pick up the kids. Maglifts would be way the hell cheaper in the long run.

For real? Build more trains?

Do you really think with our current environmental regulations (let alone lack of money) we could build new tracks in our lifetimes?

We are not Europe. Our country is far too big and spreadout to rely on trains for mass transit. Does your plan require Chinese style relocations to move the icky country and suburb folks into the rotten cities run by unions and liberals?

Better to invest all that money into a fleet of electric or natural gas burning buses and taxis.

indigenous says

You have not disproved anything. The numbers I read say that wind power is not viable. You say otherwise yet won't produce numbers that indicate I should reconsider my thinking.

Of course its viable. Take a trip out to Norcal and I'll drive you around the huge wind farms out here. Last time I looked those blades were still turning and still making electricity. So what do you think they're doing? Were they stuck in the ground as pretty decorations?

edvard2 says

Of course its viable.

What do you base that opinion on?

indigenous says

What do you base that opinion on?

The FACT that there are wind turbines at this very moment as I am writing this spinning and producing electricity. If they were not "viable", then they wouldn't be doing that.... would they? Yes. Or no.

edvard2 says

The FACT that there are wind turbines at this very moment as I am writing this spinning and producing electricity. If they were not "viable", then they wouldn't be doing that.... would they? Yes. Or no.

Not necessarily, investment might come from individuals who would not invest more as the return was not there. Government investment or subsidies make things possible that are not viable. Once the investment is made of course they are going to continue to operate but what is the time frame for payback? Spain for instance has gotten into huge trouble subsidizing alternative energy. Because it does not have genuine value.

indigenous says

Not necessarily, investment might come from individuals who would not invest more as the return was not there. Government investment or subsidies make things possible that are not viable. Once the investment is made of course they are going to continue to operate but what is the time frame for payback? Spain for instance has gotten into huge trouble subsidizing alternative energy. Because it does not have genuine value.

The government has invested in just about every single energy-generating system in this country. Hydroelectric Dams, nuclear power plants, Natural gas plants, solar and wind farms... you name it. Not all of those have been totally successful, and that goes for all of those forms I previously mentioned. If we're going to talk about government subsidies then what about the billions of dollars worth of tax breaks the Government gives to oil producers every year? So I fail to see your argument here: Take your pick. Every single energy form has its own level of failure and risk built in.

edvard2 says

The government has invested in just about every single energy-generating system in this country.

True, but the sucess rate is infinitely lower with government because the people making the decisions are politicians who only care about votes.

edvard2 says

If we're going to talk about government subsidies then what about the billions of dollars worth of tax breaks the Government gives to oil producers every year?

Yup cronyism especially with ADM and ethanol.

indigenous says

True, but the sucess rate is infinitely lower with government because the people making the decisions are politicians who only care about votes.

Actually... that wouldn't be correct. During the 2012 elections, there was much ballyhooying over Solyndra and so forth, and thus came the assertion that government shouldn't be in the business of investing in companies on part of the Romney campaign. There was a study done during that period that showed that no- as a matter of fact when the investments of those made by the government were compared to investments made by private investors, in the long run government investments have a higher success rate. I'm not trying to say that I necessarily love the idea of the government investing in companies, but its not really a valid point to claim their success rates are lower because they aren't.

But to think about this further, the government has always been an investor in some sort of business. Think about the military. From day one we've been providing business and investment dollars to various defense contractors. Most any new program, whether it be for the development of new aircraft, ships, or missiles requires an enormous amount of up-front initial funding for research and development. Not all of those projects are successful. For example there was a program in the late 50's to develop a jet-powered hovering saucer. The project was immensely expensive and ultimately a failure.

edvard2 says

There was a study done during that period that showed that no- as a matter of fact when the investments of those made by the government were compared to investments made by private investors, in the long run government investments have a higher success rate.

Show me the study, I don't believe it.

edvard2 says

But to think about this further, the government has always been an investor in some sort of business. Think about the military.

That is not a business. Of course it is crony capitalism, but the truth is these guys have a huge incentive to start wars.