The next Ice Age

[darin3]

Holy crap, aren't you supposed to be some sort of teacher? No wonder the younger generation is so f'n illiterate.

 

Your point is correct (for once), but it doesn't change the fact that wind turbines are killing birds as well. And I'm not advocating that they be eliminated because of this. Perhaps shutting them off during peak migration times and/or removing them from areas inhabited by more endangered species would be a solution.

You've been around here long enough to know Yuke's spelling thing is a joke. Come on.

 

As to your second point; I don't have any links to substantiate this, but I could have sworn I heard somewhere that many "wind farms" do in fact shut off given certain factors (such as bird migration). Don't have the time right now, but I'll run it through a Google search at some point.

[Bill Swerski]

You've been around here long enough to know Yuke's spelling thing is a joke. Come on.

 

soo eye lookz reeel funny when i speel like disss?

[McBoog]

more are killed buy cars/ cats and hail that that dip shiiiiiiiit

 

See? This is a perfect example of why the whole energy question is boffed from the get-go. The point is right and wrong depending on the scale and is not an attack on you Yukon. My whole point of this thread was that there are so many oppposing views that it seems that no course of action will be acceptable without major battles.

 

The above quoted statement is absolutely true... when looked at a much larger sample area. I would contend that in THAT specific area, the major cause of bird death is from the windmills. There just aren't that many cats, roads and hailstorms to contribute to more bird death where that wind field lies. What happens to bird and bat populations when we exponentially increase the number of these things, coupled with natural causes? Do we reach a breaking point where our influence (CO2 argument) could cause catastrophic declines in the bird populations by pushing them over the edge? I don't know, but it is something that has to be considered. I am niether proponent or opponent of wind power at this point, just making observations.

 

One of the greatest causes of gas prices rising again is that there are not enough refineries. Supply and demand. So, let's build more? Nobody wants those things anywhere near where they live! The environmentalists fight to oppose any developement of them at all. Is that bad? Yes, and no. Managing the consequences of our actions. Kennedy was a proponent of wind powere until they wanted to build them in his back yard.

 

Out of all of the Climal Warnging threads, this has been interesting to see how it evolved into a sub-discussion on a small peice of the puzzle, wind power and the pros and cons.

 

Just like with our rush to clean emissions with corn based ethanol, the consequence was creating a greater dead zone in the ocean. Go figure that noone saw this coming.

 

Problem solving = consequence management. Great forsight is needed to fix this problem and we all get stuck on the finger pointing of relative minutia as it relates to the long-term perspective and meanwhile NOTHING gets done.

[darin3]

soo eye lookz reeel funny when i speel like disss?

Actually.......

[Azazello1313]

funny this whole bird/turbine discussion is going on. just this morning i read this

 

Wind Farms May Threaten Whooping Cranes

By MARIA SUDEKUM FISHER – 12 hours ago

 

STAFFORD, Kan. (AP) — Whooping cranes have waged a valiant fight against extinction, but federal officials warn of a new potential threat to the endangered birds: wind farms.

 

Down to about 15 in 1941, the gargantuan birds that migrate each fall from Canada to Texas now number 266, thanks to conservation efforts.

 

But because wind energy has gained such traction, whooping cranes could again be at risk — either from crashing into the towering wind turbines and transmission lines or because of habitat lost to the wind farms.

 

"Basically you can overlay the strongest, best areas for wind turbine development with the whooping crane migration corridor," said Tom Stehn, whooping crane coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

 

The service estimates as many as 40,000 turbines will be erected in the U.S. section of the whooping cranes' 200-mile wide migration corridor.

 

"Even if they avoid killing the cranes, the wind farms would be taking hundreds of square miles of migration stopover habitat away from the cranes," Stehn said.

[Bill Swerski]

I'm actually a pretty big fan of wind power. But I find it sad that so many left-wingers get their nuts in a twist when I point out that it isn't perfect.

[The Holy Roller]

I'm actually a pretty big fan of wind power. But I find it sad that so many left-wingers get their nuts in a twist when I point out that it isn't perfect.

 

 

That's a different thread.

Edited February 28, 2008 by The Holy Roller

[AtomicCEO]

Your point is correct (for once), but it doesn't change the fact that wind turbines are killing birds as well. And I'm not advocating that they be eliminated because of this. Perhaps shutting them off during peak migration times and/or removing them from areas inhabited by more endangered species would be a solution.

 

You know what kills birds? Sunspots. Why isn't the government doing anything about that?

 

Seriously, how much effort do we put into saving an animal so stupid it'll fly into a giant spinning fan.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Wind power is a good thing, but turbines are going to kill a lot of birds. If we ever use wind power to its potential, they'll really kill a lot of birds. Birds are stupid - thus us the term "bird brain."

 

Like it or not, we need to tap ANWR oil and the continental shefl for natural gas. The few years of energy those resources represent will allow us some time to develop real answers to the impending energy crisis (no - we haven't begin to see a crisis yet).

 

Biofuels are not even close to the answer. They require a vast amont of arable land that is not available and even more water than is yet more scarce. Sadly, Europe is learning more quickly than we are in this area and rethinking biofuels. The math with regard to yeild, water and fossil fuels required to produce it and deforestation to create arable land just don't add up.

 

We're (Utah) sitting on the largest deposit of "clean" coal in the US, but Clinton brilliantly buried that possibility when he designated the Grand Staircase Escalante Monument. Coal is obviously not the long-term answer, but meanwhile we're burning "dirty" coal in a whole lot of power plants around the country creating that much more greenhouse gas.

 

I once thought nuclear power was the answer, but there are some real challenges in that venue as well. Something in the order of 70% of existing nuke plants are in danger of needing to shutdown in the next few years because of drought. The scarcity of water is a problem now and will only get worse as the population continues to grow. Food production is going to be a problem because of this sooner rather than later.

 

I think huge investments in solar and tidal power production are needed. Solar is important because we know the sun will keep shining for the next few million years. A smart species would take advantage of that. I give us a 50/50 shot.

 

Harnessing the tides and ocean currents is tricky, but something we need to pursue. If the climatologists are right, ocean currents are changing due to global warming. That makes sinking capital into the extremely expensive current driven turbines a little risky. The value of these buggars is, you get 10 times or so more energy out of water turbines vs. wind turbines because of the mass of water. Think hydro-electric dams thrown horizontal. It's some immensley dense energy production if we can figure out how to make it work on a large scale.

 

Those ideas are all fine and dandy, but what will their uses mean to the delicate earth's systems? Could man possibly harness enough wind, solar or tidal power to throw earth's other systems out of whack?

[Bill Swerski]

You know what kills birds? Sunspots. Why isn't the government doing anything about that?

 

Seriously, how much effort do we put into saving an animal so stupid it'll fly into a giant spinning fan.

 

You're right. We don't need nature.

[McBoog]

Wind power is a good thing, but turbines are going to kill a lot of birds. If we ever use wind power to its potential, they'll really kill a lot of birds. Birds are stupid - thus us the term "bird brain."

 

Like it or not, we need to tap ANWR oil and the continental shefl for natural gas. The few years of energy those resources represent will allow us some time to develop real answers to the impending energy crisis (no - we haven't begin to see a crisis yet).

 

Biofuels are not even close to the answer. They require a vast amont of arable land that is not available and even more water than is yet more scarce. Sadly, Europe is learning more quickly than we are in this area and rethinking biofuels. The math with regard to yeild, water and fossil fuels required to produce it and deforestation to create arable land just don't add up.

 

We're (Utah) sitting on the largest deposit of "clean" coal in the US, but Clinton brilliantly buried that possibility when he designated the Grand Staircase Escalante Monument. Coal is obviously not the long-term answer, but meanwhile we're burning "dirty" coal in a whole lot of power plants around the country creating that much more greenhouse gas.

 

I once thought nuclear power was the answer, but there are some real challenges in that venue as well. Something in the order of 70% of existing nuke plants are in danger of needing to shutdown in the next few years because of drought. The scarcity of water is a problem now and will only get worse as the population continues to grow. Food production is going to be a problem because of this sooner rather than later.

 

I think huge investments in solar and tidal power production are needed. Solar is important because we know the sun will keep shining for the next few million years. A smart species would take advantage of that. I give us a 50/50 shot.

 

Harnessing the tides and ocean currents is tricky, but something we need to pursue. If the climatologists are right, ocean currents are changing due to global warming. That makes sinking capital into the extremely expensive current driven turbines a little risky. The value of these buggars is, you get 10 times or so more energy out of water turbines vs. wind turbines because of the mass of water. Think hydro-electric dams thrown horizontal. It's some immensley dense energy production if we can figure out how to make it work on a large scale.

 

Those ideas are all fine and dandy, but what will their uses mean to the delicate earth's systems? Could man possibly harness enough wind, solar or tidal power to throw earth's other systems out of whack?

 

 

I read an article that wind is the ket factor to driving currents. I'll try to find it tomorrow! Sweet post!

[Jimmy Neutron]

 

I read an article that wind is the ket factor to driving currents. I'll try to find it tomorrow! Sweet post!

 

Thanks, Boogie. What do you guys think - I threw a lot of stuff out there in an attempt to make this thread more meaningful.

[Ursa Majoris]

Uh, OK, so that explains why so many are located in the west suburbs of Chicago, upwind from the Sears Tower.

 

They're out in the middle of nowhere because nobody wants them in their neighborhood. I don't know of any in Illinois, Iowa, or Indiana, where there isn't exactly an abundance of 1000 ft skyscrapers or mountains, but there is an absolute ton of wind year-round. The only ones I've seen were in a desolate area off I-10 in western Texas.

 

Wind farms in Iowa, the third largest wind energy producer.

 

Wind farms in Illinois

 

Wind farms starting up in Indiana (which actually isn't very windy)

 

And they aren't noisy, not any more.

 

Bill, this is one subject you might want to not argue with me about.

[Ursa Majoris]

construction firms building this stuff are doing well.

Indeed they are. Yes indeed.

[whomper]

That's a different thread.

 

 

[Ursa Majoris]

Out of all of the Climal Warnging threads, this has been interesting to see how it evolved into a sub-discussion on a small peice of the puzzle, wind power and the pros and cons.

No-one is claiming that wind is the magic bullet but it is one partial answer among many possibilities, every single one of which has it's drawbacks but none with drawbacks as severe as oil.

[darin3]

No-one is claiming that wind is the magic bullet but it is one partial answer among many possibilities, every single one of which has it's drawbacks but none with drawbacks as severe as oil.

Ah yes, but oil = money. Yes, I know, thank you Captain Obvious.

[DemonKnight]

Wind power is a good thing, but turbines are going to kill a lot of birds. If we ever use wind power to its potential, they'll really kill a lot of birds. Birds are stupid - thus us the term "bird brain."

 

Like it or not, we need to tap ANWR oil and the continental shefl for natural gas. The few years of energy those resources represent will allow us some time to develop real answers to the impending energy crisis (no - we haven't begin to see a crisis yet).

 

Biofuels are not even close to the answer. They require a vast amont of arable land that is not available and even more water than is yet more scarce. Sadly, Europe is learning more quickly than we are in this area and rethinking biofuels. The math with regard to yeild, water and fossil fuels required to produce it and deforestation to create arable land just don't add up.

 

We're (Utah) sitting on the largest deposit of "clean" coal in the US, but Clinton brilliantly buried that possibility when he designated the Grand Staircase Escalante Monument. Coal is obviously not the long-term answer, but meanwhile we're burning "dirty" coal in a whole lot of power plants around the country creating that much more greenhouse gas.

 

I once thought nuclear power was the answer, but there are some real challenges in that venue as well. Something in the order of 70% of existing nuke plants are in danger of needing to shutdown in the next few years because of drought. The scarcity of water is a problem now and will only get worse as the population continues to grow. Food production is going to be a problem because of this sooner rather than later.

 

I think huge investments in solar and tidal power production are needed. Solar is important because we know the sun will keep shining for the next few million years. A smart species would take advantage of that. I give us a 50/50 shot.

 

Harnessing the tides and ocean currents is tricky, but something we need to pursue. If the climatologists are right, ocean currents are changing due to global warming. That makes sinking capital into the extremely expensive current driven turbines a little risky. The value of these buggars is, you get 10 times or so more energy out of water turbines vs. wind turbines because of the mass of water. Think hydro-electric dams thrown horizontal. It's some immensley dense energy production if we can figure out how to make it work on a large scale.

 

Those ideas are all fine and dandy, but what will their uses mean to the delicate earth's systems? Could man possibly harness enough wind, solar or tidal power to throw earth's other systems out of whack?

 

Nice post Jimmy. I dont really agree on the anwar drilling. How many years worth of oil can be had from Anwar? There are some water turbines in New York in teh Hudson river churning out a couple of city bloks worth of power. I really like this piece of the solution.

[McBoog]

No-one is claiming that wind is the magic bullet but it is one partial answer among many possibilities, every single one of which has it's drawbacks but none with drawbacks as severe as oil.

 

I too agree completely with this as well.

 

I think that as we become more aware of our capabilities and the technologies available to us, that all of the different venues need to be considered and used in concert. Obviously, the conversion away from oil is not happening any time soon and nothing is going to change that. Gore and the CO2 camp is not going to change it with the fear message (legitimate or not) and Big Oil is only going down screeming and fighting to the bitter end.

 

A slow incorporation of everything that makes sence is going to bridge us to the future. Who knows, in our lifetime, maybe we will see fusion technology reach a point where it is a safe and reliable form of engery production. The best case senario for fusion as a sustainable source of engery that would utilize only deuterium from sea water. This would provide us fuel for 150 billion years. Unfortunately, these reactions tend to "run away from our control" when materials are utilized in significant enough quantities to produce a usable form of energy on a large scale.

 

Another example is the use of solar panels. Rather than covering vast areas of "dead" biomes (even the the most arid places have soemthing living there), why not utilize the roof space of the homes in this country? That is land that is already developed and would not require further use of open space. The problem is cost and the fact that the individual is forced to pay for the equipment. I know that is a power company came to me and aske for permission to put panels on my roof and would discount my enrgy bill, I would gladly acccept. The cost ight now is not beneficial to the individual other than the fact that you feel better about doing something "green". Solar panels are use in Phoenix to COOL DOWN private swimming pools by running them at night. How is that for irony?

 

We could put wind turbines inareas where there are no bats or bird migrations, Sure, they don't work well behind a 1000 foot building, but why not on top of them?

 

It doesn't really make any difference if you are in the "People's Fault" or "Natural Cycle" camp on this issue. Only the most militant (brainwashed???) individuals are going to make that the highest priority of the topic. The reality is that it is better for all of us and the planet to figure out how to live here in a much cleaner and efficient way. Forget for a minute the CO2 denbate and look at all of the other poisons that are spewed into the environment, land sea or air! Not matter what we choose, there will be some form of negative impact somewhere (once again, consequence management). Being responsible, or not, for Climal Warnging is NOT the issue. The issue is being cleaner and more efficient in how we produce the energy we need.

[darin3]

Words...

 

Press me.

[Azazello1313]

Ah yes, but oil = money. Yes, I know, thank you Captain Obvious.

 

what, you think there's not money in all this other schit too? there's kazillions in it for whoever comes up with viable alternatives.

[AtomicCEO]

Press me.

 

McBook is the reason God invented scroll-wheels on mice.

[McBoog]

McBook is the reason God invented scroll-wheels on mice.

 

Wow! And I thought we were actually having a decent dialog.

 

Oh well. Maybe the Tailgate is dying after all!

 

Sorry, if I wasted your time.

[darin3]

Wow! And I thought we were actually having a decent dialog.

 

Oh well. Maybe the Tailgate is dying after all!

 

Sorry, if I wasted your time.

A decent dialog? One where you admitted to being condescending? How is that decent?

[McBoog]

A decent dialog? One where you admitted to being condescending? How is that decent?

 

I wasn't talking to you. I don't care about what you have to say about me or my posts. I was directing that at Bronco. I admitted to being condecending to Demon who shot the first salvo by comparing me to a part of the female anatomy. He came back with a well researched post and probably taught himself/learned more about the topic than before. I see that as a good thing! At least he ended up participating in the thread and comtributed information other than just petty insults and pointless use of band width. Why do you even bother opening these threads if you are incapable of contributing to the topic other than sophmoric insults?

 

I invite you to add me to your ignore list since I seem to bother you so much, but you seem to stalk my posts and enjoy taking your shots at me. Do what you want, you are not important and I don't really care. I'm sure it makes you feel like an internet big shot in the eyes of your groupies, so have at it if it makes you feel tough big fella! I'll be your scratchin' post if it is good for your ego and makes ya the big bully on the boards.

 

Responding to you or your buddy Bushwhacked is not worth the time and I won't ever again. Promise! I will now go back to what I normally do and ignore your ignorance and skip over your posts.