Windmills, Oilspills and Bird Deaths

[TimG]

Total oil spill per day: 60000 barrels

Days of spill: 90

Total energy in spilled oil: 9 million MWh

Total birds killed: 2000

Total installed wind capacity in US: 35,000 MW

Estimated capacity factor: 30%

Total energy produced in a 90 days: 24 million MWh

Total birds killed in 90 days: 8,000

So the entire installed wind capacity of the US produces 2.5x energy than what was spilled in gulf from one well yet it kills 4 times as many birds.

Edited July 8, 2010 by TimG

[msj]

Fascinating.

I'm wondering where the link is to the credible data source?

Oh, and how much ocean life do windmills destroy?

[TimG]

I'm wondering where the link is to the credible data source?

You can google the data yourself. The point was not important enough to bother linking to the source for every number but I am fairly certain they are reasonable. Take them or leave them.

Oh, and how much ocean life do windmills destroy?

How much energy would have been produced by that well if it went into production? How much energy would be produced by all of the wells that are now on hold? Edited July 9, 2010 by TimG

[msj]

So nothing more than troll crap.

Edited July 9, 2010 by msj

[TimG]

So nothing more than troll crap.

Why the emotional reaction? I thought the numbers were interesting but not something to get angry about.

[msj]

Why the emotional reaction? I thought the numbers were interesting but not something to get angry about.

Where's the anger?

It is a statement of fact: someone comes here and posts something, when asked to verify it can't do it, then asks for the respondent to verify it themselves etc....

Troll like behaviour without the spelling mistakes. Shrug.

[TimG]

It is a statement of fact: someone comes here and posts something, when asked to verify it can't do it, then asks for the respondent to verify it themselves etc

Yeesh. Sensitive are we?

Wind power capacity in 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States#Installed_wind_energy_capacity

Wind power capacity factor in 2008 (25% - I choose 30%):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Wind_farm

Bird deaths per year from wind mills (33,000 per year. 90/365 = 8000):

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

Bird, turtle and mammal deaths from oil spill (~1000 but I doubled it 2000 in case it was an under-count).

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/11/bp-oil-spill-daily-d.html

Oil spill barrels per day (could have picked 100,000 and made my point stronger. Choose 60,000).

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416392020100620

I assume you don't need conversion factors for BTUs and MWh.

Edited July 9, 2010 by TimG

[msj]

Yeesh. Sensitive are we?

Nope, but obviously you are.

{snip a bunch of wikipedia stuff but I will not make any Stephen Colbert jokes...must resist....}

Thanks for the links.

Still haven't answered my question about how much ocean life is damaged by windmills though.

Oh, and stop the huffing and puffing - you made the assertions in the first place so you should be the one to put up or shut up.

Edited July 9, 2010 by msj

[Bonam]

From a third person perspective here, msj is definitely the one of the two being huffy/puffy/emotional. Take that for what you will.

As for the numbers, they look interesting. I've long mentioned that wind is overhyped as a clean energy source. Besides its obvious intermittent nature and requirement of vast and often remote areas to produce significant power, it also kills birds as mentioned here, and when built on a large enough scale can actually alter local wind and weather patterns, potentially leading to climate and weather effects which have not yet been[ fully considered and may well have significant repercussions.

[waldo]

uhhh... what was the actual point of this thread?

[msj]

uhhh... what was the actual point of this thread?

I think the point of the thread is to put out some random numbers without proper context.

The OP has logical fallacies with the most glaring being omission(s) and begging the question (hence, why I wonder about the trolliness above).

Perhaps I should have stated this straight up from the outset rather than taking a approach where I dared to ask for more information in order to (hopefully, but apparently failing completely) show TimG how poorly constructed his OP really is.

[msj]

From a third person perspective here, msj is definitely the one of the two being huffy/puffy/emotional. Take that for what you will.

As for the numbers, they look interesting. I've long mentioned that wind is overhyped as a clean energy source. Besides its obvious intermittent nature and requirement of vast and often remote areas to produce significant power, it also kills birds as mentioned here, and when built on a large enough scale can actually alter local wind and weather patterns, potentially leading to climate and weather effects which have not yet been[ fully considered and may well have significant repercussions.

I largely agree with your assessment on wind power (or TimG's, however incomplete his assessment is).

However, that has little to do with TimG's "argument" which does not even begin to take in a proper environmental assessment of the damage from the oil spill.

How anyone thinks that this type of POV is "emotional" is either misreading my posts completely or is willfully reading them this way as the basis for an ad hominem attack because it's easier to claim I'm "angry" or "emotional" than to defend against my charges of the logical fallacies going on in the OP.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a legitimate comment to make if somebody posts unlinked and unsupported statements, to call it trolling.

[TimG]

It's a legitimate comment to make if somebody posts unlinked and unsupported statements, to call it trolling.

Wikipedia's definition of trolling.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

What I posted was not:

1) immflamatory,

2) off topic

3) intended to provoke an emotional response.

Calling it trolling is wrong and rude.

If anyone was trolling it was msj who responded by accusing me of making up numbers.

The are many ways that he could have expressed scepticism without the troll like jabs.

Edited July 9, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

However, that has little to do with TimG's "argument" which does not even begin to take in a proper environmental assessment of the damage from the oil spill.

There was no "argument" in the op. It was just data that I thought was interesting that I thought would generate a discussion. The fact that the energy production of the entire installed capacity of wind in US was the same order of magnitude as a single spill from a single well was what surprised me. The energy density of renewables will be a limiting factor that will make their widespread use unlikely.

[Michael Hardner]

Wikipedia's definition of trolling.

What I posted was not:

1) immflamatory,

2) off topic

3) intended to provoke an emotional response.

Calling it trolling is wrong and rude.

If anyone was trolling it was msj who responded by accusing me of making up numbers.

The are many ways that he could have expressed scepticism without the troll like jabs.

You're in Maple Leaf land now...

We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments.

Unattributed facts that are not believable - will cause a thread to go off from the outset. I have in the past posted things that I didn't think were controversial, and been challenged for facts to back them up. I did so happily.

Forum Rules - PLEASE READ if you haven't already

[TimG]

We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments.

That is kind of screwy definition because it put the onus on the poster to figure out what might cause offense.

[Bonam]

That is kind of screwy definition because it put the onus on the poster to figure out what might cause offense.

Sounds like a Canadian definition. Accidentally offended someone? Off to the human rights commission with you!

[Michael Hardner]

That is kind of screwy definition because it put the onus on the poster to figure out what might cause offense.

In the example where I posted facts that I thought were indisputable, I was challenged and supplied the evidence. It's better than having people claim innocence while posting obviously unproven points as fact.

[msj]

In the example where I posted facts that I thought were indisputable, I was challenged and supplied the evidence. It's better than having people claim innocence while posting obviously unproven points as fact.

Thank you Michael.

From the outset I should have been clearer and less abrasive on this issue by linking to the guidelines definition.

I took it for granted that asking one to provide a link or two to support their "facts" would be answered properly rather than flippantly (and rather troll like).

[dre]

In the United States, cars and trucks wipe out millions of birds each year, while 100 million to 1 billion birds collide with windows. According to the 2001 National Wind Coordinating Committee study, Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States," these non-wind mortalities compare with 2.19 bird deaths per turbine per year. That's a long way from the sum mortality caused by the other sources

Furthmore most avian wind turbine fatalities are caused by older wind turbines, and smaller ones. The best modern turbines have very large blades that move very slowly.

This is a completely and total red herring and non issue.

Edited July 9, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

Furthmore most avian wind turbine fatalities are caused by older wind turbines, and smaller ones. The best modern turbines have very large blades that move very slowly.

There are also problems with bats due to pressure changes. Your argument also applies to the bird/animal deaths in the gulf spill which are also insignicant compared to the number of birds/animals killed by other human infrastructure. Edited July 9, 2010 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

That is kind of screwy definition because it put the onus on the poster to figure out what might cause offense.

Of course...if members are not to cause "offense" or "arguments", then much would be gutted from a forums purpose. First to go would be all the Israel-Palestine threads!

[dre]

There are also problems with bats due to pressure changes. Your argument also applies to the bird/animal deaths in the gulf spill which are also insignicant compared to the number of birds/animals killed by other human infrastructure.

I dont think anybody knows how many animals will die as a result of the oil spill.

In any case bird deaths were never the subject of any argument from me against offshore drilling in the first place.

[eyeball]

The energy density of renewables will be a limiting factor that will make their widespread use unlikely.

Nonetheless the disappearance of nonrenewables will make their use inevitable.