Are wind turbines and biodiversity compatible?

[jonule]

no Christophe you misinterpreted I reassure you, when I say "the alternative to nuclear" wind power is part of it but is not "only".

the same when you say: "IN FRANCE WITHOUT NUCLEAR THERE IS NO WIND TURBINE since it is the taxation of the sale of nuclear kWh that finances wind turbines!"
yes but the EDF electricity of France public service nculéaire draws its under taxes therefore public sub, therefore wind power is subsidized by the public, this is also why EDF is "OBLIGED": do you understand in your turn ?

that's why we didn't want an EPR in France, which took up the entire renewable energy budget!
still if it was a private EDF company (it would be known!), but here we can see that it is a lobby that takes public bones, the EPR evidence was built without there being a REAL consultation public, and following modification of the law on nuclear transparency transparency defense.


for the increase in the price of wind power, once again, YES I am ready to pay more for electricity so that there is investment in alternatives, AS it was done for oil.

You must not incriminate the wind which takes the pennies of EnR Christophe, but precisely nuclear!
EPR "should" cost 3.3 billion € (they are at 5 the salpeaux) and took the budget of renewable energies, if you want I put you the links to refresh your memory?



Reminder: I am not defending industrial wind power at all, but just wind power!
it is not at all specified in the title of the subject of Cmoa, "industrial" that I know.

[Rulian]

Well at 5 billion Euros, you build for around 5 GW of installed power in wind power. Or visibly 1,66 GW full power equivalent over the year. That's roughly the power of the EPR (assuming it runs at full speed all year round). But with the EPR you have the risks, the waste, the fuel supply costs and the future dismantling costs to add.

The choice is quickly made.

[jonule]

for biodiversity Cmoa jet + particularly birds, I invite you to read page 8 of the document:
http://www.planete-eolienne.fr/document ... ausses.pdf

So: misconception, luckily we were there! but where are you going to get the source of your info? ..............

[C moa]

Snif ?? SNIIIIIIF ?? Am I wrong ?? SNIF ?? But yes that's it it smells like a troll !!!

For all the reasons that Christophe mentioned, I am against wind power. And this morning my wife said to me "yesterday, I read an article which said that wind turbines kill bats. Besides, since they are animals which reproduce slowly, it is a splatter". Suddenly this morning I tell myself I'm going to look a little and submit this information to the exacerbated sagacity of our dear ones forumers. And there !! Irrevocably Jonule arrives with his favorite subject I named "nuclear".

Then, although he doesn't know me, he attacks me with shocking arguments:
- "I watch TF1" while he does not know if I have TV.
- "I am lazy and egotistical" (oh yes by the way in French lazy that doesn't correspond to anything but it was probably lazy ...);
- "I do not collect wood" for what to do, I have children and a wife;
- "I dry my hair with a hair dryer" without even knowing the length of my said hair;
- "I laugh at the bullshit bigard";
- "you don't know what it's like to live next to a power station" when he doesn't know anything about it and in addition I "lived" inside every day (except the WE) for several years;
- ...

And finally, the argument of COMPLOT, if we can not save energy is that everyone is involved. What an argument ...

I stop there but I think that meets the definition of TROLL

To come back to the subject:
The question was: "are wind turbines and biodiversity compatible?"
No one has taken the time to really give their opinion.
Wind energy presented itself as an energy that respects the environment. It has developed in this niche.
Today, we are presenting a study (it is not the only one) which shows that it creates problems for local ecosystems.
Given the virulent reactions as soon as we attack the wind turbine, I therefore ask the following question.
Are there animals that deserve to be protected and not others ??
I don't intend to set up a committee "let's protect our bats" but obviously some are amazed that we can want to protect bats but they forget that they are very useful by feeding on a large number of insects, small invertebrates .... They participate in the biodiversity. And when you take the article on the Vosges, it is a volatile of 5 kg in the process of extinction ....
So I observe that we are alarmed, that we are offended, that we denounce ... the disappearance of great apes, tigers and other exotic animals when on the other side of the world a country shaves huge areas of primary forests to plant oil palms (I remind you that these palms will be used to produce biofuels also presented as ecological renewable energies ...); but when in France and Europe there are species that are threatened with extinction by new equipment, we say "there's worse elsewhere (on the road for example) so move around, there's nothing to see" .

I admit being surprised by these reactions because we quickly say "over there they do anything, they destroy everything ..." but when we can change things at home, under the pretext that it is wind energy, we find all possible and imaginable excuses and above all we point the finger at other problems, thinking that this will distract the attention of the greatest number. Obviously it's effective ....

@Rulian
My source is lemonde.fr which quotes a Canadian study (cf. the link) if you think it's blank, ask the journalist about his sources and ask for a right of reply.
I am against the subsidy of wind power not because it should be helped to develop given the sums involved but because without that it would not be never profitable. Make a loan from the state at 0% to stimulate development (like nuclear in its time) why not, but this is not at all the case. Especially since they are private companies.
As for photovoltaics, I also think that it is a huge aberration. Perhaps we could make a subject on the real bad answers to the real good questions of the environment, we would surely find ourselves on a certain number of subjects.

As for large consumers, I never said that the individual was not concerned, it is also for him that the public lighting comes on. But I think that when in an office corridor there is as much light as in my whole house, it is still worth going to see it more closely. Maybe around your house everything is fine. My experience and my analysis is quite different but I can only ask to be wrong.

When I was a student in Germany, from 20 pm, the servers would send a message "without any action on your part, your computer will be automatically shut down in 5 minutes". The screens were fed via the CPU therefore jackpot !!! How many companies or town halls have this system that COSTS NOTHING except 5 minutes of prog ?? Look at the head offices and you will see that a number of them leave their halls on (not counting the offices) all night. Sometimes there is not even a switch, you have to go directly to the breaker. I think the guards they employ can turn them off during their rounds without jeopardizing their functioning. Where I work, the toilet lights are powered by presence detectors. It is practical, economical and ecological but it is present in how many companies and municipalities ??

I repeat, repeat it there is no better energy than that which is not consumed. If tomorrow we want to get out of nuclear power, we will have to look at this more closely. Today the EPR is planned to replace power plants which will soon be shut down. It is not intended to increase our capacities. If we continue to consume as much, there are others, don't be displeased ...

And if as Jonule says there is a plot, that the associations and other committees make an inventory of the accomplice communes and say it during the next elections !!!

[Christophe]

Well if by paying more expensive energy, by using it better, by spoiling it less: any renewable energy source can be profitable ... and I would add that it can supply all of humanity!

Anyway in 200 years ... there will probably be no choice ... renewable energies will be profitable AND will provide 100% of the needs of humanity ... except miracle with the merger and again ...

[C moa]

using it better, spoiling it less

Hallelujah !!!

Anyway in 200 years ... there will probably be no choice ... renewable energies will be profitable AND will provide 100% of the needs of humanity ... except miracle with the merger and again ...

Bah ?? and Laigret oil ???

I hope that we will manage to break through with cold fusion but again the means are lacking ...

[Christophe]

Ben Laigret is it part of renewable energy, right?

EnR = everything except fossil ...

[Woodcutter]

Aeolian Planet is as unfair in the sense of "For" as Wind of Anger can be in the sense of "Against" ...
I do not see the point of throwing each other's arguments in the face, except to compare them in a somewhat serious manner.

No centralized energy manufacturing method has any impact, it remains to be seen what we choose to favor ...

Regarding the links cited, the Canadian study is quite interesting, although this little summary is far too sketchy to be able to say anything (what size of wind farm, what duration of study, exact distributions of causes of mortality, comparison to natural mortality and other causes of anthropogenic mortality, etc ...) the little article on the Vosges is much less defensible!
As evidenced in the text, it is not the wind turbines that are problematic, it is the protection of the habitat of the Capercaillie !!!

All sources compared and if the location is well thought out, I still wonder if wind power is not the way to make energy that poses the least environmental problem ...

Lastly, I find personal attacks by comparison (Bigard, Pernaud, TF1 and others ...) particularly inappropriate!

[jonule]

oh well anyway!

I'm glad to hear that this also offends you the bigard TF1! but when I saw the links it only went around, it was so vulgar, that it looked like trollism, yes.
finally the whole attitude of the pro-nuclear who tries to unite, what! a bit like the subject "a gentleman from EDF rebels" ... to cry.

so sorry I do not criticize under the umbrella of good taste, sorry Bucheron, sincere.

To come back to your comments Cmoa, I can only agree with the energy savings, starting with less energy-consuming devices!

but when we see the companies that sell kettles and radiators 2000W at 10 € there is something to be green ...


electricity not expensive enough!

[Rulian]

@Rulian
My source is lemonde.fr which quotes a Canadian study (cf. the link) if you think it's blank, ask the journalist about his sources and ask for a right of reply.

Le Monde is still a newspaper which when it talks about energy, and in particular electricity, almost always mixes up between one kilowatt and one kilowatt hour, which is however the BA-BA. The beautiful reference !! In addition, like most media, the world is not considered very objective in terms of wind power. And I prefer to read the study itself rather than read the partial account of a journalist general practitioner with a scientific training more than thin.

Besides, a study is only a study. I have already read very serious scientific papers explaining to you that we can find the gene for violence or the math bump. It is nonetheless very far from being proven. C. Allegre, however renowned scientist, has written entire books explaining that global warming is a legend. Lots of people believe him, because he's a scientist. Known in addition. It is nonetheless a bunch of bullshit.

We have been told for years that wind turbines kill everything that flies. Personally I have never seen a corpse around the parks, and believe me I have visited more than one. The proofs, the corpses, the reliable stats, where are they ?! I expect something other than rumors and gossip.

I am against the subsidy of wind power not because it should be helped to develop given the sums involved but because without that it would not be never profitable. Make a loan from the state at 0% to stimulate development (like nuclear in its time) why not, but this is not at all the case.

No electrical source is profitable. It is a false debate. Nuclear in France is NOT profitable. No more than remains. Why then bother with wind energy?

Especially since they are private companies.

So what ? The state has never been able to do anything other than Nuke. If you have to go through private companies to develop renewable energies, then let's go. I have no problem with it. We have done infinitely more thanks to the private renewable energy development system than by the previous state system. Anyway Edf is also privatized. Then it generates a lot of wind power, by the way.

As for photovoltaics, I also think that it is a huge aberration. Perhaps we could make a subject on the real bad answers to the real good questions of the environment, we would surely find ourselves on a certain number of subjects.

At least we agree on the PV.