Post AbbQLXJesDccvTSZbk by sab@hostux.social
(DIR) More posts by sab@hostux.social
(DIR) Post #AbYy043xFtUz5JATKq by Grandalf@aus.social
2023-11-07T02:53:47Z
0 likes, 2 repeats
Wind tubines:1. Kill whales.Bullshit. Constantly referring to results published nowhere from a study that never took place remains bullshit.2. Reduce ocean swells, killing surfing.Bullshit. You would have to build a literal wall of turbine towers to stop ocean swell, which developes over hundreds of kilometres. The best surf involves ocean swell and offshore winds, which simply can't be affected by offshore wind turbines.3. Reduce onshore winds by 40%.Bullshit. There is no indication that wind turbines reduce onshore winds. The wind continues past the turbine blades, they don't block it; they don't even slow it down by any reasonable measure. A couple of hundred metres past the turbine you can't measure any effect at all.4. Reduce fishing catches.Bullshit. The tower bases, buried in the ocean bed, provide safe places for fish nurseries and coral growth, increasing the local fish population.Don't buy into the disinformation being spread in order to stop offshore wind turbine installations. Look at who benefits from them not going ahead.https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-07/editor-blasts-fake-study-linking-whale-deaths-to-wind-farms/103069922#RenewableEnergy #WindPower #ClimateCrisis
(DIR) Post #AbZ26v8DGAaBEDgUCW by feld@bikeshed.party
2023-11-07T13:08:27.663243Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Grandalf > kill whalesIt's the noise during construction isn't it ??
(DIR) Post #AbZARjGxLUN8AACuNE by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2023-11-07T14:42:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Grandalf All right, but so what?Wind machines, on-shore or off-shore, demonstrably cannot replace the energy services furnished by fossil-fired steam plants. We demonstrably have an emissions-free technology which DOES replace those services in a manner essentially transparent to the end-user, without requiring massive modifications to power grids, or home battery banks, or any of that nonsense. It has supplied 20% of the electricity in the USA since the 1980s, 80% in France.
(DIR) Post #AbZHUql8fKSHvllBTs by fcktheworld587@social.linux.pizza
2023-11-07T16:01:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Grandalf I had no idea people were making these claims. This is fucking insane. Bro we are so Fucked
(DIR) Post #AbbPkfcP2iJZxceGRs by mnemonicoverload@libranet.de
2023-11-07T22:51:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"Wind machines, on-shore or off-shore, demonstrably cannot replace the energy services furnished by fossil-fired steam plants."That depends entirely on what you're using those fossil-fired steam plants for. Where I live (Ontario, Canada) 100% of our baseload generation is covered by a combination of nuclear and hydroelectric. We currently rely on a roughly 50/50 mix of nat gas generators and wind to cover peak demand loads. We used to rely on a mix of nat gas and coal fired generators. We did, in fact, replace peak demand coal generation with wind generation, completely removing coal generation from our energy mix here in the process.
(DIR) Post #AbbPkgTvph8Iddh0sq by Grandalf@aus.social
2023-11-08T08:23:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mnemonicoverload I'm betting Publius is going to spruik nuclear power.No. Not on the table. That power regime simply pushes a major polution issue down the line. It also requires extensive centralised infrastructure which is not the way we need to go to improve our power consumption.Existing generators? Problematic, but they are already in use, so whatever. New reactors? No.@publius
(DIR) Post #AbbPkhSCDdL3eXt8oi by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2023-11-08T16:43:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Grandalf @mnemonicoverload "Centralized infrastructure" not only means much lower energy costs ― costs both economic (can you afford to pay 60¢/kWh?), and non-economic, such as the damage done by mining for raw materials, which grids and central stations economize on to a great degree.It also means a chance at energy democracy. Decentralized energy means energy FEUDALISM. If you want power and the benefits it brings in life, and you're not a landowner, you'd better keep one happy.
(DIR) Post #AbbQ8cM6pEdsn7Riim by mnemonicoverload@libranet.de
2023-11-08T16:11:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrandalfI'm actually one of those people who's fine with nuclear as a bridging "right now" part of a transitional energy mix. A "devil's bargain", perhaps, but an increasingly necessary one due to how long we've procrastinated on reducing carbon emissions.As for building new reactors my understanding is the biggest problem (aside from public opposition) is lack of people with current experience in the industry. The west largely stopped building them for so long that the workforce to do so has shrunk to the point that it's a more expensive proposition than ever before. Here in Canada we still have a lot of experience, albeit aging, but only specifically with our CANDU design heavy water reactors which despite their significant safety advantages aren't suitable for universal deployment everywhere. (You need ready access to a natural uranium supply* and a large investment in production facilities to make the required heavy water.)*CANDU reactors can technically use reprocessed weapons grade fissile material as a feed stock as well, but rather obviously that is also something most countries don't just have lying around either.@publius
(DIR) Post #AbbQ8dIxIRiJjcyiRc by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2023-11-08T16:47:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mnemonicoverload @Grandalf What makes it a "Devil's bargain", exactly?If you look at France, Sweden, or even Ontario before the politically-motivated shuttering of units at Pickering and Bruce (now mostly restarted), it's clear that nuclear can be built rapidly enough to replace fossils, AND account for growth in energy demand. If you want to "electrify everything", you're talking about doubling or tripling electricity consumption.
(DIR) Post #AbbQLUheaY28p1fC5o by CStamp@mastodon.social
2023-11-07T04:47:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Grandalf What about injury to pelagic or migrating birds?
(DIR) Post #AbbQLVOtzkd0z9tjVI by sab@hostux.social
2023-11-07T06:41:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@CStamp @Grandalf Debunking a series of far-fetched myths most people have probably never heard about is well and good, but this is indeed the one thing I'm particularly concerned about.
(DIR) Post #AbbQLWPeESoq7lFqIy by Grandalf@aus.social
2023-11-07T07:00:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sabThen read. Real publications, not sensational eyeball-grabbing BS designed to tickle your emotions and distract you from the truth as shown by data.Most arguments against wind farms are seized on and promoted by NIMBYs who don't have an interest in the truth, just what they see as a personal affront.@CStamp
(DIR) Post #AbbQLXJesDccvTSZbk by sab@hostux.social
2023-11-07T07:32:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Grandalf @CStamp I think you're a bit quick to jump to the conclusion that I'm arguing against wind farms here. I agree it's probably an absolute necessity and all that. In the spirit of not fighting windmills, I do however think we should take actual concerns seriously. And the article you linked, as far as I can tell, makes no mention of birds whatsoever.
(DIR) Post #AbbQLY0CK3eL3PMXui by sab@hostux.social
2023-11-07T07:34:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Grandalf @CStamp The sources I can find trying to argue windmills are not so bad for birdlife seem to stress that they're not killing that many birds in absolute numbers - that a few thousand to and fro makes little impact compared to for example household cats. Which seems ignorant, as cats are unlikely to kill endangered eagles or albatrosses; and also a bit like whataboutism, as cats are also a huge problem.It just seems more pressing to me to handle these issues in defence of wind farms.
(DIR) Post #AbbQLYs55ikdkWZZtw by stevenbodzin@thepit.social
2023-11-07T11:47:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sab @Grandalf @CStamp showing mortality from cats is not meant to minimize mortality from turbines, but to show that the anti turbine movement doesn't actually care about birds. Because if they did, they would be out capturing and euthanizing feral cats rather than capturing governments and euthanizing our entire species.
(DIR) Post #AbbQLZljknGqX8c1eS by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2023-11-08T16:49:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stevenbodzin @sab @Grandalf @CStamp Housecats very, very rarely kill owls, hawks, or juvenile golden eagles. (In fact, they're often prey to owls.) If you sincerely put all "birds" into one category, regardless of things like protection status, I think you're going to make a lot of interesting mistakes in reasoning.
(DIR) Post #AbbQsfsm2qA73BgcVc by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2023-11-08T16:56:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mnemonicoverload @Grandalf That coal could have been shut down much earlier, and use of gas for peaking greatly reduced (as hydro is great for peaking), if not for the politically-forced suspensions of Bruce 1 and 2 (800 MW each) from 1998 and 1996 to 2010 respectively ; and shutdown of Pickering 2 and 3 (500 MW ea) in 1998. (There were some other shorter suspensions of units now returned to operation.)You give wind the credit because wind was ALLOWED to take it.
(DIR) Post #AbbRimCzllXxjFzNSq by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2023-11-08T17:05:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Grandalf @mnemonicoverload What, exactly, is the "major pollution problem" which you say is being "passed down the line"?It certainly can't be radioactive wastes from the nuclear fuel cycle, because those ― unlike virtually all other toxic or hazardous industrial wastes ― constantly get LESS hazardous as the radioactivity decays (dies away). If you "push it down the line" far enough, it LITERALLY GOES AWAY.
(DIR) Post #AbbRyD5e6hIhRauWNE by mnemonicoverload@libranet.de
2023-11-08T16:56:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publiusI mean I said "perhaps" for a reason. The vast majority of public opposition at least here in Ontario revolves around the management of nuclear waste. Personally I don't feel like it's an insurmountable problem, but it's definitely a contentious subject that is a very real barrier to building new reactor capacity.@Grandalf
(DIR) Post #AbbRyE4GTJn2TbGvrM by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2023-11-08T17:08:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mnemonicoverload @Grandalf At least one effective technical solution exists, and was in fact developed in Canada in the 1950s, and presented at the Geneva Conference of 1958, before nuclear-generated kilowatt-hours were making a meaningful contribution to the economy of any country except possibly Britain.Anti-nuclear activists reject solutions to the "waste problem", precisely so that they can then say "the waste problem is not solved!" and use that as a talking point.
(DIR) Post #AbbS7fmSnzk325RzTE by publius@mastodon.sdf.org
2023-11-08T17:09:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mnemonicoverload @Grandalf Anyway, nuclear wastes are a million times smaller than fossil-fuel wastes in mass, and a billion times smaller in volume (because solid), which gives us an opportunity to manage them responsibly. Fossil-fuel wastes we basically have no choice but to discharge into the environment because the arisings are so colossal.Even the people who profess to be most upset about fossil-fuel wastes generally treat nuclear wastes as a bigger problem.
(DIR) Post #AbbxhKjHeF6CkORn5U by Grandalf@aus.social
2023-11-08T23:03:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@publiusCan you not see the issue with that thinking? Passing a problem to later generations - quite a few generations - to manage until it "goes away" is selfish and irresponsible.The bomb didn't blow up while I was there, so it's all good ...@mnemonicoverload