for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuel powered plants killed 2,118 birds.
..for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear..Pictures/videos of birds and bats slaughtered by wind blades and solar mirrors are endless, while there is no photo proving that nuclear power plants kill birds, the deaths are biasedly linked to mining activities(roughly, for each 200k tons copper extracted it results in 4k tons uranium as by-product, and copper is essential for renewables).
"... wind turbine at its Bedfordshire headquarters to reduce its carbon emissions (and in doing so, aims to minimise species loss due to climate change)."Wind turbines are not reducing carbon emissions even after trillions of dollars spent, e.g. Germany and California. All steel and other materials used in wind turbines depend on cheap fossil fuel to become economically viable; all wind components are mined, manufactured, transported and installed thanks to cheap fossil fuels; cost-effective batteries do not exist and are ever from becoming reality, so it is also coal and other fossil fuels that keep lights on when wind is not blowing.
"Wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fuelled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."It is almost impossible to have affordable steel structures and other components for wind turbines without cheap fossil fuels.
It could also be said, regarding Chapman's actual area of expertise, that "Cigarettes do indeed kill people, but their contribution to total human deaths is extremely low."LOL, another #climatecrank @RedKill1 weighs in to try to stop the "bird choppers."
So besides avoiding the obvious question of whether it is justified to add to the toll by erecting wind turbines or whether erecting those wind turbines reduces deaths by other plants to a degree that mitigates their own toll, he also dodges the issue of wind turbines' unique threat to raptors and bats.
It could also be said, regarding Chapman's actual area of expertise, that "Cigarettes do indeed kill people, but their contribution to total human deaths is extremely low."
So besides avoiding the obvious question of whether it is justified to add to the toll by erecting wind turbines or whether erecting those wind turbines reduces deaths by other plants to a degree that mitigates their own toll, he also dodges the issue of wind turbines' unique threat to raptors and bats.
Stop posing as environmentalist when you're advocating killing a thousand birds with coal to every one killed by wind turbines.
…five different groups of scientists proved the claim that wind turbines kill too many birds was a lie…
unique toll on raptors and batsIt's not a unique toll. You're lying again. The side effects of nuclear and fossil fuel plants on both raptors and bats are hundreds to thousands of times larger, and that's not even mentioning domestic cats. I took my cat off the street, in a town along the Pacific Flyway, and because I do not let him out I fancy I have saved enough birds and bats to make up for twenty wind farms.
I just noticed one of the related stories: "PacifiCorp Energy pleads guilty in bird deaths"
Insults and subject-changing instead of argument; very convincing.
...bird deaths by nuke vs wind generation...
So how many birds (not to mention bats) has wind energy saved?
Killing a single eagle is a huge fine for all industries other than wind. Wind has a law that says they an kill as many raptors as they like.
Stop posing as environmentalist when you're advocating killing a thousand birds with coal to every one killed by wind turbines.Faux-greens are completely dishonest or delusional or both.
Lord_jag
Jun 16, 2017