[HunterGreene]

Originally Posted by Kevstra

Certainly with a bit of tongue in cheek. My point was less about the birds and much more about the quantity of land required. However, I concede the point that I didn't know about the bird issue being smaller than it's made out to be.

I think wind turbines are a pretty bad eyesore, are noisy, and maybe kill some birds. They certainly have their place in some applications, and hopefully fill a greater role in our energy production in the future. I don't think striving to build a society based largely on it would be good or even viable.

I think when you consider the immense amount of energy in nuclear, for the small footprint and zero CO2 emissions, it's a clear winner - once you get over the over-hyped and irrational fear of it. It's also economically competitive and it's a technology we have now. Unlike fusion, or space-based solar panels.

This getting off-topic, but the topic we're on is so interesting.

I agree on the nuclear part--we need more plants, not less. Although the point below about earthquakes is a valid one.

I don't think exclusively wind turbines is the way to go. I disagree on their "eyesore" status, and they are planning on starting a pilot project up here on lake erie, starting with 5 turbines that will be 5 miles offshore. That will definitely make noise a non-issue. Although i will say I've stood under a 450 foot tall turbine (nacelle at 300 ft) and really didn't hear that much, and it was a fairly windy day.

Originally Posted by RFB

Yeah - but earthquakes do happen, and nuke plants are prime targets for terrorists. And wasn't the nuke plant that blew in Russia an accident ?

The farther I am away from a potential bomb the happier I am (unless the property next door had a nice mansion at a trailer park price)!

1) Yup, they do. But most designers take earthquakes into account when they design these buildings, as well as automatic safety measures being in place to shut the reactor down (full control rod insertion) if tremors are detected. In fact, we had a small earthquake under Lake Erie not too long ago, and the reactor at Perry shut down as expected.

2) I'd like to see a terrorist try to attack a nuke plant with anything short of a nuclear bomb. Those places are locked down very tightly, especially since 9/11. Even crashing a plane into the reactor building would create, at worst, microcracks and some slight leakage, but never an explosion.

3) The reactor at Chernobyl was terribly, catastrophically designed. The only other reactor like it was an experimental unit in Berkley, which was quickly shut down after the disaster. No other reactor currently in operation could fail in that manner.

So no, you aren't living next to a bomb if you reside near a nuke plant.

Originally Posted by daiheadjai

Actually the Obama administration is allowing wind farms to kill Bald Eagles.
So far, haven't heard much outcry about it (meanwhile in Canada, a few hundred ducks land in an oil sands tailing pond because of an accidental noise generator malfunction, and everyone's head explodes).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-injure-eagles

The tips of the turbines are very fast (over 200mph IIRC), and eagles and many other birds fly with their heads down scanning for food.

Your article contradicts itself. Did you bother to read the entire thing? As the old saying goes, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. I'm not saying killing eagles and other birds is right, but its going to happen. I would like to see the stats for the amount of birds that are killed by flying into buildings vs. how many are killed on wind farms (maybe with some fancy math since there are far fewer wind turbines than buildings). The article also does not cite its source when it says that the eagles and birds don't look up, which makes me wonder about the validity of the statement. Finally:

It is unclear what toll, if any, wind-energy companies are having on eagle populations locally or regionally. Gunshots, electrocutions and poisonings almost certainly kill more bald and golden eagles than wind farms. But with the industry still growing, the toll could grow.

The person writing this article has an obvious bias, and, frankly, blaming it on Obama is 1) cliche, and 2) just meant to get people to click through.

Originally Posted by SoCal909

Oddly enough I just watched a documentary on Chernobyl the other day - there's a damn thriving habitat there. If I remember this post once I'm at a computer I'll link it. It was about the wolves since they are top of the food chain.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

There was also a discovery of bacterial colonies living INSIDE the reactor vessel! They apparently process gamma radiation by using melanin (the stuff that gives our skin pigment). No word on if they are angry or not, though.