Don't Go Electric, It's a con.

bob said:
G'day, the amount of good-will money that is being splashed about by the windfarm developers is amazing, there's gotta be a smell in there somewhere.........................

Effect on wildlife ? The place is not even operational yet, but, there was a local track "Dunnarts Lane", this is now a multi-lane mud highway and needs to be renamed "No-Dunnarts Road"..... It doesn't take much imagination to work out the likely effect of all these spinning blades on large slow flying birds like brolgas and wedgies...................

But it's all good for us and the environment isn't it..... :rolleyes:

cheers,
Bob
Click to expand...

Perhaps the final word on this topic should go to the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It built a wind turbine at its Bedfordshire headquarters to reduce its carbon emissions (and in doing so, aims to minimise species loss due to climate change). It recognised that wind power is far more beneficial to birds than it is harmful.

In the USA, for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuel powered plants killed 2,118 birds.
 
Kim Luck said:
Perhaps the final word on this topic should go to the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It built a wind turbine at its Bedfordshire headquarters to reduce its carbon emissions (and in doing so, aims to minimise species loss due to climate change). It recognised that wind power is far more beneficial to birds than it is harmful.

In the USA, for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuel powered plants killed 2,118 birds.
Click to expand...

Kim don't waste your breath. Jo Bo's "signature" aptly sums up the opinions expressed in this thread.
The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge"
Stephen Hawking
Click to expand...
 
G'day,

Kim Luck said:
Perhaps the final word on this topic should go to the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It built a wind turbine at its Bedfordshire headquarters to reduce its carbon emissions (and in doing so, aims to minimise species loss due to climate change). It recognised that wind power is far more beneficial to birds than it is harmful........
Click to expand...

possibly.... I wonder how many raptors and brolgas they have at their windmill site..... hmmmm.... :rolleyes:

They certainly have a lot to say about NOT building them in sensitive locations.
https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/ou...ange/uk-energy-policy/wind-farms/publications

Kim Luck said:
........In the USA, for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuel powered plants killed 2,118 birds.
Click to expand...

seems a rather bland statement for something that would be difficult to produce accurate numbers for....

Unfortunately, around here, there are lots of soaring raptors and slow moving large stuff like swans and brolgas, no I dunno what the tip speed of the rotors is but I'll bet it's capable of sneaking up on a wedgie bloody smartly. In the center of the "development" is sited the Lake Goldsmith nature reserve, you have to wonder.....

cheers,
Bob
 
Checkj the Irish sea birds, theymight tell a different story Kim.

Kim Luck said:
Perhaps the final word on this topic should go to the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It built a wind turbine at its Bedfordshire headquarters to reduce its carbon emissions (and in doing so, aims to minimise species loss due to climate change). It recognised that wind power is far more beneficial to birds than it is harmful.

In the USA, for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuel powered plants killed 2,118 birds.
Click to expand...

I think the Isle of Man Bird Societies might dispute your defence when you read these latest reports on the 40% bird loss noted in that area since off shore wind farms were introduced. There are others for on shore from the USA as well, but you might not like my scientific source. but then fact is what were are looking at.

https://www.thegwpf.com/isle-of-man...lummet-as-wind-farms-overwhelm-the-irish-sea/


but it is important to check these things out for yourselves.


Ken
 
Not to forget those bats in Germany mentioned previously in another thread. Bats are good at avoiding the blades, but not the change in pressure behind them. Their lungs can burst.

How many Peugeot were mentioned somewhere in this thread???
 
Ken, the fact that you have spent all day trying to find a source that disproves my statement is touching. I researched a lot of sources before deciding to use one of the world's leading bird loving societies as a single example. Never forget that a lot of the hype over bird losses through wind farms is just carbon fuel propaganda spread by the only competing industry and that is an indisputable fact. Studies around the USA don't suggest that NO birds are killed by wind farms but just to put things into perspective:

Bird Deaths.PNG
 
Kim Luck said:
Ken, the fact that you have spent all day trying to find a source that disproves my statement is touching. I researched a lot of sources before deciding to use one of the world's leading bird loving societies as a single example. Never forget that a lot of the hype over bird losses through wind farms is just carbon fuel propaganda spread by the only competing industry and that is an indisputable fact. Studies around the USA don't suggest that NO birds are killed by wind farms but just to put things into perspective:quote



Same here Kim, lots of them, plenty of studies but now we are getting into useless territory, there are plusses and minus's and I don't want to argue with anyone. Ps I didn't have to spend all day (2 minutes!!) Got more to do with my day, now as David said how many pugs mentioned though that didn't seem to be the topic but it is on the Pug forum.
Click to expand...
 
What gets me about all these discussions is that consumption is never questioned.






It seems so simply doesn't it, use less stuff, but in the same breath how absurd.
 
David S said:
Not to forget those bats in Germany mentioned previously in another thread. Bats are good at avoiding the blades, but not the change in pressure behind them. Their lungs can burst.

How many Peugeot were mentioned somewhere in this thread???
Click to expand...

It depends on how many were manufactured using clean wind energy, I guess?
 
... and German cars are built using wind and solar energy, except when it's not blowing/sunny and they buy in brown coal power from the neighbours!

Despite some obvious problems and the fact that I have no intention to buy one at the moment, I think electric cars have great potential. There is a real desire by many to own them, but that needs to be tempered by reality to avoid disappointment and failure. (Adding some Pug.Citroen content ...) Hopefully, the numbers might work out so that it is viable for PCA to import some hybrids if not fully electric vehicles. The C5 Aircross Hybrid can cover something like 30km on batteries alone, which is enough for the weekday station run and urban shopping trips, so there is potential if the numbers make sense. Toyota has done a good job with Hybrid technology, so many people are quite accepting of it or have experienced it already.

Fuel makes up 10% of our imports, so there would be a good argument to move to more electric vehicles to reduce that cost alone. See: https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/aus/
which I mentioned elsewhere a few days ago and find quite fascinating.
 
David S said:
... and German cars are built using wind and solar energy, except when it's not blowing/sunny and they buy in brown coal power from the neighbours!

Despite some obvious problems and the fact that I have no intention to buy one at the moment, I think electric cars have great potential. There is a real desire by many to own them, but that needs to be tempered by reality to avoid disappointment and failure. (Adding some Pug.Citroen content ...) Hopefully, the numbers might work out so that it is viable for PCA to import some hybrids if not fully electric vehicles. The C5 Aircross Hybrid can cover something like 30km on batteries alone, which is enough for the weekday station run and urban shopping trips, so there is potential if the numbers make sense. Toyota has done a good job with Hybrid technology, so many people are quite accepting of it or have experienced it already.

Fuel makes up 10% of our imports, so there would be a good argument to move to more electric vehicles to reduce that cost alone. See: https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/aus/
which I mentioned elsewhere a few days ago and find quite fascinating.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your comment except this bit: ..."German cars are built using wind and solar energy, except when it's not blowing/sunny and they buy in brown coal power from the neighbours!"

Germany imports heaps of clean nuclear power from La Belle France...............
 
If y'all really want to give credit where credit is due it is a fact that without nuclear power characteristics this debate wouldn't be happening.

And when it comes to Planet Earth, climate change is simply standard fare since day one. There have been many periods of lesser and greater heat and wetter and drier conditions than what we have now, and those changes were by Mother Nature without any miniscule assistance from man.

To be realistic man's future on this planet will be subject to 2 things; population and the exhaustion of energy and raw materials needed to maintain anything more than a cave dweller type of existence, which will never support anything like the current global population. So, what have we got 4, 5 or 10 centuries?
 
If we go "Clean" nuclear in various configurations and staged introduction, Australia can extend that with good planning to supply basic energy needs at the grid to the next great energy invention that I am sure will come..

Ken
 
Kenfuego said:
If we go "Clean" nuclear in various configurations and staged introduction, Australia can extend that with good planning to supply basic energy needs at the grid to the next great energy invention that I am sure will come..

Ken
Click to expand...

I'd agree 100 % , if we could change the Australia cultural attitude of "near enough is good enough".

And have a 100% guantee that the inevitable private /government partnership will always be beyond reproach , ethical and without any corruption.

My experience of human nature suggests neither of these issues can be satisfactorily addressed long term. And a number of other Countries have found out the hard way.

So sadly, I believe nuclear energy is not a safe technology for Australia to implement.
 
Where would you put a nuclear power station? It needs water and needs to be close to the grid. Can you see something like Port Stephens happening? No chance in hell that will get past the greenies.
 
PeterT said:
Where would you put a nuclear power station? It needs water and needs to be close to the grid. Can you see something like Port Stephens happening? No chance in hell that will get past the greenies.
Click to expand...

In Victoria at the time the Desal Plant was put in, it was located close to the Gippsland end of the Grid, so you have both water and power there and easy to site a conventional Nuclear plant. I always thought that was a great example of forward thinking by the then Labor Government (at the time SA Labor was talking about having a Nuclear Power Station in South Australia which again I thought was good thinking, instead they went with Wind renewables with a disastrous result some think.


In Victoria the actual Snowy Hydro Scheme was part of Nuclear thinking with the large storage water envisaged to cool a conventional Nuclear Reactor (part of the justification for the Government to build the Snowy scheme) and though that was not to supply power to the grid, it was a hankering to get our own Nuclear Bomb. Political thought changed and you would probably have to read the cabinet papers of the day and the public went cold on Nuclear, so the reactor idea was shelved along with any idea of having an atomic bomb capability.

There are far better Nuclear small reactor systems that might be better suited for a distributed grid power system now. Less vulnerable to sabotage or terrorist activity.


Ken
 
robmac said:
I'd agree 100 % , if we could change the Australia cultural attitude of "near enough is good enough".

And have a 100% guantee that the inevitable private /government partnership will always be beyond reproach , ethical and without any corruption.

My experience of human nature suggests neither of these issues can be satisfactorily addressed long term. And a number of other Countries have found out the hard way.

So sadly, I believe nuclear energy is not a safe technology for Australia to implement.
Click to expand...

I agree totally with all the above.

And when I hear of nuclear plants being planned for countries like Indonesia (and their "let's hold it together with string and tape" mentality), and furthermore near earthquake fault lines, my teeth start to curl.
 
Filling Up an E-Car on the Side Of The Road !!!

Suv trailor E-car.jpg

a diesel SUV with a Petrol generator in the trailer, topping up a E-Car ......

Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top