"Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."

https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9JfjoJBNoKew

Remember when they would stop oil pipelines (safest means of oil
transportation) because it would interfere with the mating habits of
salamanders? It was always a farce. Majestic creatures big and small are
ground up in these windmills 24-7. And you still can't even charge your EV in
the evening or the grid will collapse.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>"Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."

>https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9JfjoJBNoKew

She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.

This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.

Reflection from solar panels destroy birds too.

Hydro murders wild rivers.

I don't think geothermal has any unintended consequences.

Energy production has always been more about propoganda than science.
It's traditional to tout the benefits of a specific form of energy
production, ignoring the risks. Like, say, "clean" coal from the Powder
River Basin. It lessened conditions that formed acid rain, bad for
buildings, but has spewed far more dangerous mercury into the air that
was never a consequence of burning soft coal. In fact, the poisonous
mercury was known at the time so the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
had to specifically ignore the consequences of high mercury emission in
law to tout the benefits of burning this coal.

Thereafter, my state, a coal-rich state, couldn't burn midwestern coal
and instead had to accept it from Wyoming, with the increase in
atmospheric mercury.

No known means of energy production has ever been pollution free, free
of environmental risks, and harmful to conservation, but you don't deny
the harm. You try to mitigate it and take it into account when making
policy.

And you don't force everybody to buy electric vehicles knowing that the
residential energy grid isn't designed to charge that many batteries.

>Remember when they would stop oil pipelines (safest means of oil
>transportation) because it would interfere with the mating habits of
>salamanders? It was always a farce. Majestic creatures big and small are
>ground up in these windmills 24-7. And you still can't even charge your EV in
>the evening or the grid will collapse.

Don't move oil by trains. They've bomb trains!

I have stood on train station platforms as unit trains of ethanol and
petroleum have moved passed me and lived to tell about it. I never saw
these horny salamanders, though.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:41:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>"Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>
>>https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9JfjoJBNoKew
>
>She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
>Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
>pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.
>
>This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
>cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
>bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.

Seems like there should be some simple solutions like putting speakers
on the foremost sites that play predator bird calls to scare away the
migrating birds.

>Reflection from solar panels destroy birds too.
>
>Hydro murders wild rivers.
>
>I don't think geothermal has any unintended consequences.
>
>Energy production has always been more about propoganda than science.
>It's traditional to tout the benefits of a specific form of energy
>production, ignoring the risks. Like, say, "clean" coal from the Powder
>River Basin. It lessened conditions that formed acid rain, bad for
>buildings, but has spewed far more dangerous mercury into the air that
>was never a consequence of burning soft coal. In fact, the poisonous
>mercury was known at the time so the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
>had to specifically ignore the consequences of high mercury emission in
>law to tout the benefits of burning this coal.
>
>Thereafter, my state, a coal-rich state, couldn't burn midwestern coal
>and instead had to accept it from Wyoming, with the increase in
>atmospheric mercury.

So was that a case of one lobby outspending another lobby? Otherwise
why would they ignore the issues of increased mercury being released
into the air.

>No known means of energy production has ever been pollution free, free
>of environmental risks, and harmful to conservation, but you don't deny
>the harm. You try to mitigate it and take it into account when making
>policy.
>
>And you don't force everybody to buy electric vehicles knowing that the
>residential energy grid isn't designed to charge that many batteries.
>
>>Remember when they would stop oil pipelines (safest means of oil
>>transportation) because it would interfere with the mating habits of
>>salamanders? It was always a farce. Majestic creatures big and small are
>>ground up in these windmills 24-7. And you still can't even charge your EV in
>>the evening or the grid will collapse.
>
>Don't move oil by trains. They've bomb trains!
>
>I have stood on train station platforms as unit trains of ethanol and
>petroleum have moved passed me and lived to tell about it. I never saw
>these horny salamanders, though.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:41:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>>"Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."

>>>https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9JfjoJBNoKew

>>She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
>>Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
>>pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.

>>This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
>>cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
>>bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.

>Seems like there should be some simple solutions like putting speakers
>on the foremost sites that play predator bird calls to scare away the
>migrating birds.

Did you watch the brief video? That wasn't a pigeon. That was a raptor.

>>Reflection from solar panels destroy birds too.

>>Hydro murders wild rivers.

>>I don't think geothermal has any unintended consequences.

>>Energy production has always been more about propoganda than science.
>>It's traditional to tout the benefits of a specific form of energy
>>production, ignoring the risks. Like, say, "clean" coal from the Powder
>>River Basin. It lessened conditions that formed acid rain, bad for
>>buildings, but has spewed far more dangerous mercury into the air that
>>was never a consequence of burning soft coal. In fact, the poisonous
>>mercury was known at the time so the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
>>had to specifically ignore the consequences of high mercury emission in
>>law to tout the benefits of burning this coal.

>>Thereafter, my state, a coal-rich state, couldn't burn midwestern coal
>>and instead had to accept it from Wyoming, with the increase in
>>atmospheric mercury.

>So was that a case of one lobby outspending another lobby? Otherwise
>why would they ignore the issues of increased mercury being released
>into the air.

The Powder River Basin coal deposit was much much much too large to let
the adverse effect upon human health stand in the way.

It's cheaper to buy off Congress than it is to figure out a solution
that prevents the mercury emissions in the first place. But yes, thanks
to lobbying, high-sulfur coal was declared "dirty" and low-sulfur coal
was declared "clean", through the magic of ignoring other aspects of
pollution.

>>. . .

In article <l26nhhlkpb2cm5tvcqtirnosi70aim5q7o@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:41:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >>"Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
> >
> >>https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9
> >>JfjoJBNoKew
> >
> >She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
> >Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
> >pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.
> >
> >This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
> >cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
> >bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.
>
> Seems like there should be some simple solutions like putting speakers
> on the foremost sites that play predator bird calls to scare away the
> migrating birds.

What's a predator for an eagle?

The best example of all this is, of course the Ivanpah Solar Field.

The enviro-nuts lobbied California for years in support of a huge solar
array in the desert near the Nevada border called the Ivanpah Solar
Electric Generating System. It's three massive fields of mirrors that
are computer controlled and angle the sunlight to focus it on towers at
the center of each array. The sunlight superheats water in the towers,
which creates steam, and drives turbines, generating electricity.

http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/ef84fdc31e920d
36ca6e758ac463ee25/image/_resized/80_630_225_stillings2.jpg

So after finally winning their victory, the enviro-nuts triumphantly
celebrated this clean energy facility that they said had zero negative
impact on the environment.

Fast-forward four years. Those same enviro-nuts were now protesting the
very facility they championed and wanted it shut down because while the
power plant doesn't emit any greenhouse gases, it does flash-fry tens of
thousands of migratory birds every year. The sunlight is so intense near
those towers that any bird that flies through ignites into a fireball
and drops dead to the ground.

So at the behest of these enviro-nuts, who assured us they knew so much
better than us mere mortals what was good for the environment, we
(California taxpayers) shelled out a billion-plus dollars on this
project only to have those same nuts turn around and almost immediately
say, "Now shut it down because it's bad for the environment."

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 20:33:38 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:41:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>>>"Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>
>>>>https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9JfjoJBNoKew
>
>>>She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
>>>Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
>>>pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.
>
>>>This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
>>>cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
>>>bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.
>
>>Seems like there should be some simple solutions like putting speakers
>>on the foremost sites that play predator bird calls to scare away the
>>migrating birds.
>
>Did you watch the brief video? That wasn't a pigeon. That was a raptor.

No, I did not watch the video after having heard this complaint for
years. Though I would hazard that if you kept the migratory birds out
of the area then the raptors would also move out of the area.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 13:47:00 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <l26nhhlkpb2cm5tvcqtirnosi70aim5q7o@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:41:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>> >
>> >>https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9
>> >>JfjoJBNoKew
>> >
>> >She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
>> >Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
>> >pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.
>> >
>> >This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
>> >cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
>> >bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.
>>
>> Seems like there should be some simple solutions like putting speakers
>> on the foremost sites that play predator bird calls to scare away the
>> migrating birds.
>
>What's a predator for an eagle?
>
>The best example of all this is, of course the Ivanpah Solar Field.
>
>The enviro-nuts lobbied California for years in support of a huge solar
>array in the desert near the Nevada border called the Ivanpah Solar
>Electric Generating System. It's three massive fields of mirrors that
>are computer controlled and angle the sunlight to focus it on towers at
>the center of each array. The sunlight superheats water in the towers,
>which creates steam, and drives turbines, generating electricity.
>
>http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/ef84fdc31e920d
>36ca6e758ac463ee25/image/_resized/80_630_225_stillings2.jpg
>
>So after finally winning their victory, the enviro-nuts triumphantly
>celebrated this clean energy facility that they said had zero negative
>impact on the environment.
>
>Fast-forward four years. Those same enviro-nuts were now protesting the
>very facility they championed and wanted it shut down because while the
>power plant doesn't emit any greenhouse gases, it does flash-fry tens of
>thousands of migratory birds every year. The sunlight is so intense near
>those towers that any bird that flies through ignites into a fireball
>and drops dead to the ground.

Sure, this is the same issue I have with the space 'mounted' energy
sources such as a huge microwave source 'beaming' the energy down to
the Earth. Anything in the way of the beam is bound to get cooked. Of
course I was less thinking of migratory birds and more what happens if
we were to not have control of the direction of the beam for any
period of time.

>So at the behest of these enviro-nuts, who assured us they knew so much
>better than us mere mortals what was good for the environment, we
>(California taxpayers) shelled out a billion-plus dollars on this
>project only to have those same nuts turn around and almost immediately
>say, "Now shut it down because it's bad for the environment."

As was said earlier in the thread all sources of energy are going to
be bad for the environment. It's just a matter of tradeoffs of what
gets impacted by one source of energy versus another.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 20:13:30 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 13:47:00 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <l26nhhlkpb2cm5tvcqtirnosi70aim5q7o@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:41:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>"Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>>> >
>>> >>https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9
>>> >>JfjoJBNoKew
>>> >
>>> >She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
>>> >Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
>>> >pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.
>>> >
>>> >This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
>>> >cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
>>> >bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.

Just read this over on Slashdot that ties into the overall story about
tradeoffs. Looks like the ethanol plants have ended up polluting more
than the oil refineries.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/how-us-regulators-allow-ethanol-plants-pollute-more-than-oil-refineries-2022-09-08/

In 2007, the U.S. Congress mandated the blending of biofuels such as
corn-based ethanol into gasoline. One of the top goals: reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.

But today, the nation's ethanol plants produce more than double the
climate-damaging pollution, per gallon of fuel production capacity,
than the nation’s oil refineries, according to a Reuters analysis of
federal data.

The average ethanol plant chuffed out 1,187 metric tons of carbon
emissions per million gallons of fuel capacity in 2020, the latest
year data is available. The average oil refinery, by contrast,
produced 533 metric tons of carbon.

The ethanol plants’ high emissions result in part from a history of
industry-friendly federal regulation that has allowed almost all
processors to sidestep the key environmental requirement of the 2007
law, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), according to academics who
have studied ethanol pollution and regulatory documents examined by
Reuters. The rule requires individual ethanol processors to
demonstrate that their fuels result in lower carbon emissions than
gasoline.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <l26nhhlkpb2cm5tvcqtirnosi70aim5q7o@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:41:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9
>>>> JfjoJBNoKew
>>>
>>> She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
>>> Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
>>> pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.
>>>
>>> This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
>>> cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
>>> bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.
>>
>> Seems like there should be some simple solutions like putting speakers
>> on the foremost sites that play predator bird calls to scare away the
>> migrating birds.
>
> What's a predator for an eagle?
>
> The best example of all this is, of course the Ivanpah Solar Field.
>
> The enviro-nuts lobbied California for years in support of a huge solar
> array in the desert near the Nevada border called the Ivanpah Solar
> Electric Generating System. It's three massive fields of mirrors that
> are computer controlled and angle the sunlight to focus it on towers at
> the center of each array. The sunlight superheats water in the towers,
> which creates steam, and drives turbines, generating electricity.
>
> http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/ef84fdc31e920d
> 36ca6e758ac463ee25/image/_resized/80_630_225_stillings2.jpg
>
> So after finally winning their victory, the enviro-nuts triumphantly
> celebrated this clean energy facility that they said had zero negative
> impact on the environment.
>
> Fast-forward four years. Those same enviro-nuts were now protesting the
> very facility they championed and wanted it shut down because while the
> power plant doesn't emit any greenhouse gases, it does flash-fry tens of
> thousands of migratory birds every year. The sunlight is so intense near
> those towers that any bird that flies through ignites into a fireball
> and drops dead to the ground.
>
> So at the behest of these enviro-nuts, who assured us they knew so much
> better than us mere mortals what was good for the environment, we
> (California taxpayers) shelled out a billion-plus dollars on this
> project only to have those same nuts turn around and almost immediately
> say, "Now shut it down because it's bad for the environment."
>

We built one of those between Phoenix and Tucson and we’re knocking birds
out of the sky there too. You could catapult synthetic meatloaf on Earth
Day Thanksgiving over the site and get real turkeys, perfectly cooked,
crashing to the ground.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 13:47:00 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <l26nhhlkpb2cm5tvcqtirnosi70aim5q7o@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:41:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9
>>>>> JfjoJBNoKew
>>>>
>>>> She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
>>>> Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
>>>> pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.
>>>>
>>>> This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
>>>> cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
>>>> bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.
>>>
>>> Seems like there should be some simple solutions like putting speakers
>>> on the foremost sites that play predator bird calls to scare away the
>>> migrating birds.
>>
>> What's a predator for an eagle?
>>
>> The best example of all this is, of course the Ivanpah Solar Field.
>>
>> The enviro-nuts lobbied California for years in support of a huge solar
>> array in the desert near the Nevada border called the Ivanpah Solar
>> Electric Generating System. It's three massive fields of mirrors that
>> are computer controlled and angle the sunlight to focus it on towers at
>> the center of each array. The sunlight superheats water in the towers,
>> which creates steam, and drives turbines, generating electricity.
>>
>> http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/ef84fdc31e920d
>> 36ca6e758ac463ee25/image/_resized/80_630_225_stillings2.jpg
>>
>> So after finally winning their victory, the enviro-nuts triumphantly
>> celebrated this clean energy facility that they said had zero negative
>> impact on the environment.
>>
>> Fast-forward four years. Those same enviro-nuts were now protesting the
>> very facility they championed and wanted it shut down because while the
>> power plant doesn't emit any greenhouse gases, it does flash-fry tens of
>> thousands of migratory birds every year. The sunlight is so intense near
>> those towers that any bird that flies through ignites into a fireball
>> and drops dead to the ground.
>
> Sure, this is the same issue I have with the space 'mounted' energy
> sources such as a huge microwave source 'beaming' the energy down to
> the Earth. Anything in the way of the beam is bound to get cooked.

Which you think would include a 50 mile high column of air which would
dissipate outward even is the core continued to boil.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2022-09-10 00:13:30 +0000, shawn said:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 13:47:00 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <l26nhhlkpb2cm5tvcqtirnosi70aim5q7o@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:41:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>>>>
>>>>> https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9
>>>>> JfjoJBNoKew
>>>>
>>>> She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
>>>> Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
>>>> pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.
>>>>
>>>> This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
>>>> cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
>>>> bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.
>>>
>>> Seems like there should be some simple solutions like putting speakers
>>> on the foremost sites that play predator bird calls to scare away the
>>> migrating birds.
>>
>> What's a predator for an eagle?
>>
>> The best example of all this is, of course the Ivanpah Solar Field.
>>
>> The enviro-nuts lobbied California for years in support of a huge solar
>> array in the desert near the Nevada border called the Ivanpah Solar
>> Electric Generating System. It's three massive fields of mirrors that
>> are computer controlled and angle the sunlight to focus it on towers at
>> the center of each array. The sunlight superheats water in the towers,
>> which creates steam, and drives turbines, generating electricity.
>>
>> http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/ef84fdc31e920d
>> 36ca6e758ac463ee25/image/_resized/80_630_225_stillings2.jpg
>>
>> So after finally winning their victory, the enviro-nuts triumphantly
>> celebrated this clean energy facility that they said had zero negative
>> impact on the environment.
>>
>> Fast-forward four years. Those same enviro-nuts were now protesting the
>> very facility they championed and wanted it shut down because while the
>> power plant doesn't emit any greenhouse gases, it does flash-fry tens of
>> thousands of migratory birds every year. The sunlight is so intense near
>> those towers that any bird that flies through ignites into a fireball
>> and drops dead to the ground.
>
> Sure, this is the same issue I have with the space 'mounted' energy
> sources such as a huge microwave source 'beaming' the energy down to
> the Earth. Anything in the way of the beam is bound to get cooked. Of
> course I was less thinking of migratory birds and more what happens if
> we were to not have control of the direction of the beam for any
> period of time.
>
>> So at the behest of these enviro-nuts, who assured us they knew so much
>> better than us mere mortals what was good for the environment, we
>> (California taxpayers) shelled out a billion-plus dollars on this
>> project only to have those same nuts turn around and almost immediately
>> say, "Now shut it down because it's bad for the environment."
>
> As was said earlier in the thread all sources of energy are going to
> be bad for the environment. It's just a matter of tradeoffs of what
> gets impacted by one source of energy versus another.

Not just sources of energy. Pretty much everything humans do is bad for
the environment, at least partly because there are far too many of us
for the planet.

All the "saviour of the planet" ideas that the Greenies keep promoting
are badly flawed, but they're simply too blinkered (and or too stupid)
to see the actual facts.

On 9/9/2022 8:42 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 12:13:13 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>> "Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>>
>>
>> https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9JfjoJBNoKew
>>
>> Remember when they would stop oil pipelines (safest means of oil
>> transportation) because it would interfere with the mating habits of
>> salamanders? It was always a farce. Majestic creatures big and small are
>> ground up in these windmills 24-7. And you still can't even charge your EV in
>> the evening or the grid will collapse.
>
> AND it's nearly impossible to recycle the BLADES for those stupid things so when they fail, and they do, the blades (100ft long or more) go to LANDFILLS.

OH MY GOD! A thing in a landfill, what the fuck is humanity coming to!!
So the piece of dog shit you call a brain can't even come up with a
reason why this would be an issue, right? Meanwhile:

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/americas_dangerous_pipelines/

America's Dangerous Pipelines
Analysis by Richard Stover, Ph.D., and the Center for Biological Diversity

An analysis of oil and gas pipeline safety in the United States reveals
a troubling history of spills, contamination, injuries and deaths.

There are, of course, dozens of such articles. You shitbags seem to
think that if you write it in a post it must automatically be credible
when instead it's an obvious pile of HORSESHIT. Any questions?

On 9/9/2022 3:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <l26nhhlkpb2cm5tvcqtirnosi70aim5q7o@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 18:41:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9
>>>> JfjoJBNoKew
>>>
>>> She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
>>> Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
>>> pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.
>>>
>>> This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
>>> cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
>>> bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.
>>
>> Seems like there should be some simple solutions like putting speakers
>> on the foremost sites that play predator bird calls to scare away the
>> migrating birds.
>
> What's a predator for an eagle?
>
> The best example of all this is, of course the Ivanpah Solar Field.
>
> The enviro-nuts lobbied California for years in support of a huge solar
> array in the desert near the Nevada border called the Ivanpah Solar
> Electric Generating System. It's three massive fields of mirrors that
> are computer controlled and angle the sunlight to focus it on towers at
> the center of each array. The sunlight superheats water in the towers,
> which creates steam, and drives turbines, generating electricity.
>
> http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/ef84fdc31e920d
> 36ca6e758ac463ee25/image/_resized/80_630_225_stillings2.jpg
>
> So after finally winning their victory, the enviro-nuts triumphantly
> celebrated this clean energy facility that they said had zero negative
> impact on the environment.
>
> Fast-forward four years. Those same enviro-nuts were now protesting the
> very facility they championed and wanted it shut down because while the
> power plant doesn't emit any greenhouse gases, it does flash-fry tens of
> thousands of migratory birds every year. The sunlight is so intense near
> those towers that any bird that flies through ignites into a fireball
> and drops dead to the ground.
>
> So at the behest of these enviro-nuts, who assured us they knew so much
> better than us mere mortals what was good for the environment, we
> (California taxpayers) shelled out a billion-plus dollars on this
> project only to have those same nuts turn around and almost immediately
> say, "Now shut it down because it's bad for the environment."

Interesting. I'm a vegan and don't like to see animals harmed for any
reason. You're a right wing asshole and don't give a flying fuck about
animals or the environment--UNLESS IT SUITS YOUR AGENDA. And since the
topic was eagles, which aren't migratory, you couldn't even stay on
topic, so you look like an asshole twice over. What you failed to
mention, because of a surfeit of stupidity most likely, is this:

Is solar energy harmful to birds?
According to the data, while solar is estimated to cause 1,000 to 28,000
bird deaths annually, and wind 140,000 to 328,000, coal kills far more –
about 7.9 million birds a year!Sep 3, 2014

How Harmful is Renewable Energy to Birds? | Article | EESI

On 9/9/2022 11:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> "Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>
>
> https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9JfjoJBNoKew
>
> Remember when they would stop oil pipelines (safest means of oil
> transportation) because it would interfere with the mating habits of
> salamanders? It was always a farce. Majestic creatures big and small are
> ground up in these windmills 24-7. And you still can't even charge your EV in
> the evening or the grid will collapse.

Sad, horseshit is all you have to fall back on now.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>>>>. . .

>Just read this over on Slashdot that ties into the overall story about
>tradeoffs. Looks like the ethanol plants have ended up polluting more
>than the oil refineries.

>https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/how-us-regulators-allow-ethanol-plants-pollute-more-than-oil-refineries-2022-09-08/

>In 2007, the U.S. Congress mandated the blending of biofuels such as
>corn-based ethanol into gasoline. One of the top goals: reducing
>greenhouse gas emissions.

That was always a lie. It was known at the time that burning ethanol
would create a lot more ozone pollution than pure gasoline for no
environmental benefits, just political payoffs to Iowa corn farmers
thanks to the clout of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucus.

The way hydrocarbons were eliminated was with cleaner-burning engines
and not due to ethanol.

Not to mention, since ethanol is less energy dense than petroleum and it
takes a hell of a lot more energy to manufacture than petroleum refining
and distribution, it's been a rotten deal all around.

>But today, the nation's ethanol plants produce more than double the
>climate-damaging pollution, per gallon of fuel production capacity,
>than the nation’s oil refineries, according to a Reuters analysis of
>federal data.

That I didn't know. Good find.

>. . .

On 2022-09-09 2:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> "Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>
>> https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9JfjoJBNoKew
>
> She's right. It's been a criticism for decades. The reason the site for
> Altamont Pass Wind Farm was chosen in the first place was the wind
> pattern, which put in on migratory paths that birds use.
>
> This has been known since Day One and in all these decades, no one has
> cared enough to figure out an engineering solution that would disrupt
> bird migration so the birds would bypass the sites.
>
> Reflection from solar panels destroy birds too.
>
> Hydro murders wild rivers.
>
> I don't think geothermal has any unintended consequences.
>
> Energy production has always been more about propoganda than science.
> It's traditional to tout the benefits of a specific form of energy
> production, ignoring the risks. Like, say, "clean" coal from the Powder
> River Basin. It lessened conditions that formed acid rain, bad for
> buildings, but has spewed far more dangerous mercury into the air that
> was never a consequence of burning soft coal. In fact, the poisonous
> mercury was known at the time so the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
> had to specifically ignore the consequences of high mercury emission in
> law to tout the benefits of burning this coal.
>
> Thereafter, my state, a coal-rich state, couldn't burn midwestern coal
> and instead had to accept it from Wyoming, with the increase in
> atmospheric mercury.
>
> No known means of energy production has ever been pollution free, free
> of environmental risks, and harmful to conservation, but you don't deny
> the harm. You try to mitigate it and take it into account when making
> policy.
>
> And you don't force everybody to buy electric vehicles knowing that the
> residential energy grid isn't designed to charge that many batteries.
>
>> Remember when they would stop oil pipelines (safest means of oil
>> transportation) because it would interfere with the mating habits of
>> salamanders? It was always a farce. Majestic creatures big and small are
>> ground up in these windmills 24-7. And you still can't even charge your EV in
>> the evening or the grid will collapse.
>
> Don't move oil by trains. They've bomb trains!
>
I suspect you mean this facetiously and, if you do, you should know that
trains carrying oil ARE dangerous. You may not have heard about this
incident in Quebec a few years back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

There's some pretty shocking information the article that I hadn't heard
before. The outfit operating the train had a horrible safety record,
indulged in dubious but legal safety practices, like operating an entire
train with a single person aboard, using tankers that were not suitable
for the cargoes they were carrying, leaving trains completely unattended
and unlocked on main lines and operating with minimal insurance.
Regulations were shockingly lax and this was apparently the result of
intense lobbying by the rail companies. The extensive aftermath section
of the article does not do much to build my confidence in the safety of
shipping oil by rail in either Canada or the US but particularly in
Canada where sensible-sounding reforms have been proposed and discussed
but mostly not implemented.

> I have stood on train station platforms as unit trains of ethanol and
> petroleum have moved passed me and lived to tell about it. I never saw
> these horny salamanders, though.

Now I *know* you're being facetious! ;-)

--
Rhino

>On 2022-09-09 2:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>> I don't think geothermal has any unintended consequences.

Well, they don't do very well when Gamera pays
them a visit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamera,_the_Giant_Monster

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On 2022-09-09 2:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>. . .

>>Don't move oil by trains. They've bomb trains!

>I suspect you mean this facetiously and, if you do, you should know that
>trains carrying oil ARE dangerous. You may not have heard about this
>incident in Quebec a few years back:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

I have read quite a lot about Lac-Megantic and wrote a paper on it after
it happened. The engine was poorly maintained but the real problem was
the engineer with 20 years' experience failed to follow the rules on
setting the necessary number of brakes. The rules anticipate the failure
of a certain number of brakes which is why the train crew (in this case,
the engineer also performing a conductor's duties as there was no train
crew) is required to set a great many additional brakes to prevent a
runaway train.

That wasn't a risk of carrying oil by rail.

>There's some pretty shocking information the article that I hadn't heard
>before. The outfit operating the train had a horrible safety record,
>indulged in dubious but legal safety practices, like operating an entire
>train with a single person aboard,

That was neither here nor there. It was a freight line with minimal
traffic that held costs down by using a single man who served as both
engine crew and train crew. If the man had followed the rules as he was
required to do, there would have been no problem.

>using tankers that were not suitable for the cargoes they were carrying,

I suppose but nothing withstands a crash due to negligence.

>leaving trains completely unattended and unlocked on main lines and
>operating with minimal insurance.

Even the unattended train wasn't a problem as it wasn't like some kid
playing around decided to release all the brakes. There's nothing
dangerous about that. The problem was failure to set a sufficient number
of brakes.

As far as insurance, heh, the owner had a bad reputation for slack
operating practices as you can see so who would insure him?

>Regulations were shockingly lax and this was apparently the result of
>intense lobbying by the rail companies.

Not true. The regulation on the number of brakes to set -- a regulation
that has the force of law -- was not repealed. Even if the engineer had
taken his break in the locomotive cab (till the fuel powering the air
brakes ran out), he still risked a runaway train because of failure to
set the necessary number of brakes.

You just have to understand how fundamentally avoidable this all was.
Can't blame the regulators at all. It was a railroad with lax safety
practices in operation, failure to complete required maintenance on the
locomotive's brakes, and the engineer who simply failed to perform his
duty and set the required number of brakes.

>The extensive aftermath section of the article does not do much to build
>my confidence in the safety of shipping oil by rail in either Canada or
>the US but particularly in Canada where sensible-sounding reforms have
>been proposed and discussed but mostly not implemented.

There's nothing safe about runaway trains and it doesn't matter what the
cargo is. Pipelines attract back hoe operators who can't be bothered to
locate the underground utilities even if the diagram is held up in front
of their faces.

>>I have stood on train station platforms as unit trains of ethanol and
>>petroleum have moved passed me and lived to tell about it. I never saw
>>these horny salamanders, though.

>Now I *know* you're being facetious! ;-)

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>On 2022-09-09 2:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>I don't think geothermal has any unintended consequences.

>Well, they don't do very well when Gamera pays
>them a visit.

I'll accept your point.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamera,_the_Giant_Monster

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:08:29 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>I suspect you mean this facetiously and, if you do, you should know that
>trains carrying oil ARE dangerous. You may not have heard about this
>incident in Quebec a few years back:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster
>
>There's some pretty shocking information the article that I hadn't heard
>before. The outfit operating the train had a horrible safety record,
>indulged in dubious but legal safety practices, like operating an entire
>train with a single person aboard, using tankers that were not suitable
>for the cargoes they were carrying, leaving trains completely unattended
>and unlocked on main lines and operating with minimal insurance.
>Regulations were shockingly lax and this was apparently the result of
>intense lobbying by the rail companies. The extensive aftermath section
>of the article does not do much to build my confidence in the safety of
>shipping oil by rail in either Canada or the US but particularly in
>Canada where sensible-sounding reforms have been proposed and discussed
>but mostly not implemented.

Now this would be the disaster in which 47 people died in the middle
of downtown in a town of about 6000.

And yes the runaway train (brakes failed at the top of a hill above
the town) DID come to a stop in the middle of the downtown area.

I'd guess VERY few Canadians who were old enough to remember it in
2013 don't remember the story extremely well.

3 guesses when the brakes were last inspected (hint: several months
before they were supposed to have been!)

On 9/10/2022 5:31 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 12:13:13 UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
>> "Those stupid green energy windmills are killing thousand of birds."
>>
>>
>> https://twitter.com/SquillMama/status/1567956009095933952?s=20&t=mW_KZmusZA9JfjoJBNoKew
>>
>> Remember when they would stop oil pipelines (safest means of oil
>> transportation) because it would interfere with the mating habits of
>> salamanders? It was always a farce. Majestic creatures big and small are
>> ground up in these windmills 24-7. And you still can't even charge your EV in
>> the evening or the grid will collapse.
>
> Remember DDT? It wiped out malaria, sleeping sickness, saved millions of lives while they used it. But the environmentalists went insane because it killed birds. So where are they now, in this? On the opposite side, of course!!!

What problems did DDT cause?
Following exposure to high doses, human symptoms can include vomiting,
tremors or shakiness, and seizures. Laboratory animal studies showed
effects on the liver and reproduction. DDT is considered a possible
human carcinogen.

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/pdf/ddt_factsheet.pdf

Remember thalidomide? What was the problem there? And Agent
Orange--worked great in Vietnam. What about saccharine? So what if it
tastes like ass. Now they're complaining about PFAS, a chemical that
never breaks down and will exist until the earth is enveloped by the
sun--so what!

On 2022-09-10, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> But today, the nation's ethanol plants produce more than double the
> climate-damaging pollution, per gallon of fuel production capacity,
> than the nation?s oil refineries, according to a Reuters analysis of
> federal data.

Fuels, whether derived from corn or oil refineries, are not damaging
the climate. "Climate change" is a result of the forces of nature at
work. Thinking we can take control of the earth's climate with this
kind of nonsense is like trying to stop a hurricane by farting into
the wind. CO2 is not pollution. Ask any plant.

I will do nothing to reduce my so-called "carbon footprint," not
even give up incandescant light bulbs in favor of LEDs.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 03:09:34 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Not true. The regulation on the number of brakes to set -- a regulation
>that has the force of law -- was not repealed. Even if the engineer had
>taken his break in the locomotive cab (till the fuel powering the air
>brakes ran out), he still risked a runaway train because of failure to
>set the necessary number of brakes.

The one major fact you left out is that the train was left at the top
of a hill meaning that it naturally rolled downhill (e.g. into the
center of downtown) when the brakes failed. The section of track where
the train started from was certainly not on the level.

I know that and you probably do too but anyone who hadn't heard of the
case probably wouldn't.

Equally I doubt anyone needs to have it explained to them that trains
on a downgrade will move downhill when the brakes fail and god help
anyone below - in this case 47 dead somebodies.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 20:00:15 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

>Fuels, whether derived from corn or oil refineries, are not damaging
>the climate. "Climate change" is a result of the forces of nature at
>work. Thinking we can take control of the earth's climate with this
>kind of nonsense is like trying to stop a hurricane by farting into
>the wind. CO2 is not pollution. Ask any plant.
>
>I will do nothing to reduce my so-called "carbon footprint," not
>even give up incandescant light bulbs in favor of LEDs.
>
I rather like the LEDs because they typically last longer and consume
less power while giving light at least as good. The fact that they are
allegedly a smaller "footprint" to me is incidental.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Sun, 11 Sep 2022 03:09:34 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Not true. The regulation on the number of brakes to set -- a regulation
>>that has the force of law -- was not repealed. Even if the engineer had
>>taken his break in the locomotive cab (till the fuel powering the air
>>brakes ran out), he still risked a runaway train because of failure to
>>set the necessary number of brakes.

>The one major fact you left out is that the train was left at the top
>of a hill meaning that it naturally rolled downhill (e.g. into the
>center of downtown) when the brakes failed.

A sufficient number of brakes were not set. Period. Of the brakes
that were set, too many of weren't working. As I recall, the railroad
bought or leased a used locomotive but didn't replace all the brakes on
it that had failed. Brakes are a consumable and regardless of whether
the locomotive is new or used, a brake must be replaced at a specific
interval in regular maintenance. When a locomotive is received on the
railroad, every brake must be inspected and tested before putting the
locomotive out onto the road.

>The section of track where the train started from was certainly not
>on the level.

There's truly no such thing as a stretch of track that's perfectly flat
given the length of the consist. One NEVER relies upon assumptions about
flatness of a given stretch of track when stopping and parking a train.

But this train was stopped on a portion of track on a downward grade.
This factors into the calculation of how many brakes must be set. This
was a long-experienced engineer. He knew what he job was but failed to
perform it.

>I know that and you probably do too but anyone who hadn't heard of the
>case probably wouldn't.

>Equally I doubt anyone needs to have it explained to them that trains
>on a downgrade will move downhill when the brakes fail and god help
>anyone below - in this case 47 dead somebodies.

I just can't emphasize enough the entirely avoidable nature of this
calamity was.