494
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
494 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
59205 readers
3210 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I find both solar panels and wind turbines to be quite beautiful and aesthetic when done at least half well. However turbines do have its issues with noise and shadows so I definitely wouldn't want one close by.
My in-laws had a neighbor with a turbine for years and it could get really loud on a windy day. That said if I have to choose between coal and a little noise, I’d still choose the noise.
I think the issue with fossil fuels is that their damage is not as apparent as a 100meter tall bird smasher. Thats why this conflict is so complex.
Yeah... bird smashers... say, do you have a cat?
There are not as many wind turbines as there are cats in the US. You need some kind of normalization otherwise it's not telling you what is the impact of installing a new wind turbine farm.
Also there is a chance that birds killed by cats were already weak and soon to die.
2400000000 / 58000000 ~ 41. 234000 / 70000 ~ 3. If we talking about preserving birds I would still address the cat issue before the wind turbine issue.
Also there is a chance that birds killed by ~~cats~~ windturbines were already weak and soon to die.
Don't take the above sentence seriously. It's just to show that arguments that seem nice might not hold their value at second glance.
I for one fully support never allowing cats outside unless they have a wind turbine attached to them.
I support this proposal
But we aren't planning to install as many wind turbines as there are cats, so you don't need to directly compare
My point is that the comparison is meaningless
No it isn't. The rate of birds killed is not important. The NUMBER of birds killed is, and wind turbines are just a rounding error in the number of birds killed. Even if we increased the number of turbines to supply all of the country's electricity, it would STILL not be anywhere near as many as cats.
I'm not saying turbines are bird smasher. I'm saying that's what an average person thinks. Also clearly they kill birds which is an exactly the issue. You can see wind turbines damage standing next to it and you can't see fossil fuel damage unfortunately.
In comparison with the other issues we have, the bird Windturbine one is a non-issue. However, it gets thrown in the ring over and over again, achieving exactly what the people persuing it want: distraction. It's the same with nuclear, it's the same with “ but we can't store the energy“. A lot of decoys to slow down the process while we already have everything we need to take on the problem. Please people, don't take the bait, focus on implementing the solution.
You're preaching to the choir here
Probably. I still find a lot of people here on Lemmy (and the other fuck you spez platform before) that are very very convinced we need to reroute a substantial amount of our effort into building nuclear reactors as renewables can never ever sustain everything and in general there is no storage.
But you are right in general.
There's only 70,000 wind turbins, and 58,000,000 cats. Say, do you live in a building with glass?
Uhm.. 2400000000 / 58000000 ~ 41. 234000 / 70000 ~ 3. If we talking about preserving birds I would still address the cat issue before the wind turbine issue.