Are wind turbines and biodiversity compatible?

[C moa]

Beyond the fact that I find that this "ENR" is for me an aberration not only economic (that I would be ready to accept if it is for a good cause) but also ecological.

Here are two articles that show that wind power and biodiversity do not necessarily go hand in hand:
Bigard is afraid of bats but hey that's no reason
there it is the heather rooster that is concerned

[jonule]

great, Cmoa!

you prefer to save bats and keep nuclear power plants!
I bet you have already reproduced?
for information they kill some when they build motorways, your argument is null, idem for bigard (which culture ...).

for your pamphlet from 69.org, the anti wind farm association is not against wind turbines, but against the builder lobby (which must have links with EDF):
"The Council's decision should normally lead to the suspension of the construction program requested by the lobby of developers which is currently making a fortune on tariff bases which no longer exist."

it is therefore not the principle of wind turbines that is called into question, but the industrial way (ben would) that is made.

bad propaganda ...

[Christophe]

I agree with Jonon ... compare these figures to animal losses from transport!

For the record: I had just had my motorcycle license, 160 km / h on the highway in passing a truck, air hole and pof! A blow to a bird (small fortunately otherwise I would have been heap) ... I think it instantly broke out, I found blood on the helmet and a feather stuck in the visor ...

The friends I went to had a good laugh ...

ps: yes it is also an economic mismanagement ... but it brings money (a lot) ... to a minority. So it "works" ... I was not aware of the end of the buyback, thanks for the info.

[C moa]

great, Cmoa!

you prefer to save bats and keep nuclear power plants!

First I did not say that !!! I only observe that contrary to what the wind lobby says, the biodiversity / wind couple does not mix well.

Regarding nuclear, I am not an unconditional supporter. Only it swells me to hear people constantly bang on it without knowing how it works, how it is organized, how it is monitored ....
I am pragmatic. Facing the problem principal of global warming, we can take the problem in all directions but it is the only energy that makes it possible to produce electricity in MASS without increasing the greenhouse effect.
We don't agree on the subject, I think we never will, so let's stay there.

What surprises me, however, is the lack of action by committees calling for the end of nuclear power. What would be really effective and which would go in their direction are ACTIONS with large consumers of electricity, starting with the state, local communities and large companies .... By ACTING correctly, they would be able to do close at least, I mean at least, 5 to 6 slices (on a 50aine that counts France is already not bad I think). How? 'Or' What ?? By proving to town halls that replacing public lighting with low-consumption lamps allows them to make big savings, that by managing their lighting with the outside light and not a clock they would also be more efficient (we have all seen lamps lit in daylight), that by asking them to turn off all the computers (this is only a command line to be programmed on the servers), the office lights ... they would manage their resources better, there it would be effective and they would achieve their goals. If they did the same in companies whose seats remain on all night, I'm not telling you how much we would reduce the volume of electricity consumed. And there EDF and consors would look twice before building a new power plant in France to replace the older ones.
Mayors, business leaders are like us, they look at their wallets. If you tell them by investing 10, you can earn 100 over 5 years, they will join especially that in the lot, there are actions that cost nothing (turn off the lights and computers for example).

I have already said, I repeat, there is no energy more economical and more ecological than that which we do not consume !!!

I bet you have already reproduced?

Yes and they are beautiful (thanks to my wife's genes of course)

for information they kill some when they build motorways, your argument is null, idem for bigard (which culture ...).

that to be a null argument is a null argument.
Why fight poverty in Africa, there are 10 times more deaths during the civil wars that take place there ??

It is not because the road kills animals that we must develop an industry that kills them in the mountains. If we take the statement the other way around. Wind power destroys wildlife, let’s stop the massacre and stop installing it !! The road also kills them, either stop building highways that are not essential and look at how we can better protect animals on existing roads.

As for bigard, it was a little joke but obviously my mental level is too low for you ....

for your pamphlet from 69.org, the anti wind farm association is not against wind turbines, but against the builder lobby (which must have links with EDF):

I don't see how it is a pamphlet, I have only taken an article from their site that they themselves had taken over the world.

[C moa]

For the record: I had just had my motorcycle license, 160 km / h on the highway

Ouh Ouh but what do Nicolas and his battalions do ??

ps: yes it is also an economic mismanagement ... but it brings money (a lot) ... to a minority. So it "works" ...

Glad to hear you say it !!

[jonule]

if you want to talk about the wind / biodiversity couple, I'm going to talk to you about the nuclear / biodiversity couple, you'll quickly understand.

I remind you that the goal of wind power is the alternative to nuclear!

Me too it swells me to hear people talk about nuclear that they say "yes but in fact that remains the best future tata and CO2": it is because their brain has heard too much the repetitions of TF1 ... for my part I don't watch TV anymore: you don't know how it works either, it's organized and monitored!

Tricastin: 6 nuclear accidents in 2 months! and you find that normal? no, you are selfish like the others: because you don't live there! but certainly near another (unfortunately for you), and the wind transports its radionuclides over long distances, you will not escape either.

electricity in MASS to dry your hair with a hair dryer so as not to use your elbow grease with a towel, the same one which uses toaster bread-guzzlers instead of going to collect wood: selfish and lazy I have are afraid of words. what is this MASS for? just in the lobby to resell it, and to manufacturers to make aluminum for example (or heat tiles ...).
and I remind you that it increases the greenhouse effect with all the related activities: ore extraction, transport, successive transformations of fuels, waste treatment, decommissioning of power plants, etc etc .......
we don't agree no, but it's not a reason to hit the wind turbine to save your bats, it's ecological discourse, those who say that only nuclear has no CO2 .
little reminder to readers regarding this propaganda controversy:

Nuclear or greenhouse effect?
We don't have to choose between plague and cholera.
Since the Kyoto conference in 1997, supporters of atomic energy have developed a sudden passion for the fight against the greenhouse effect. Indeed, the nuclear reaction does not produce CO2. From there to conclude that atomic energy would be ecological ... If we take into account the entire nuclear industry: the search for ore, the construction of power plants or the transport of waste, energy atomic does indeed produce CO2. A study by the OKO Institute in Germany has shown that each nuclear kWh emits 28 g of CO2. We are therefore far from the “zero emission” proclaimed by EDF in its advertisements.

Climate crisis.
Thermal power plants produce more greenhouse gases than nuclear power, but that is not enough to justify the use of atomic energy. Even if the level of CO2 emissions from nuclear remains low, this does not compensate for its cost or its risks. On the other hand, the fight against global warming is not only played in the field of electricity. Other sectors, such as transport, are increasingly contributing to CO2 emissions. To boast of one means of production rather than another is to conceal the real solutions: limiting the increase in the greenhouse effect requires an overall drop in world energy consumption. Each franc spent on nuclear would be invested much more effectively in energy management programs.

The international agreement on the greenhouse effect signed in Bonn in July 2001 clearly denounces the use of nuclear power: with the exception of the United States, "the industrialized countries agree to recognize their responsibility for the warming already observed and agree to do not resort to nuclear power to fulfill their commitments ”(Liberation, July 24, 2001). The nuclear lobby is the only one to believe that it can save the planet.

other links:
http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index. ... 205&num=22

the wind / nuclear controversy explained:
http://echolalie.under-globe.net/index. ... -mars-2008

By proving to town halls that replacing public lighting with low-consumption lamps allows them to make big savings

> are you wrong? no you pro-paganda: so I insist:
the night lighting is voluntarily left to compensate for the non consumption of electricity, because the power stations cannot reduce day / night without stop! it is therefore NECESSARY to consume at night, and communities are made accomplices. ditto for the bulbs in broad daylight.
shameless waste. or you would be more naive than I think ...

EDF receives money from OUR taxes to build its power plants to produce electricity that it sells to neighbors ... mercantile activity, it is a slow and assured death of the system, natural selection of the neo-liberalist ...

for reproduction, it's funny, but I note that those who have already reproduced are rather "for" nuclear, because in their essence they have already redoubted and are no longer unconsciously concerned by the mutation of carcinogenic genes ... but it is just as selfish in fact: because the line will be contaminated one day or another; those there will be angry with those who made this speech.

wanting to defend nuclear contamination in the name of the pseudo CO2 I find it shameful, it's still wanking cabbage.

[jonule]

like to repeat the excellent article on wind turbines:
"
There are around 1500 wind turbines in France (and 30 in Germany). This is very little compared to the 000 large electric pylons - and the lines they carry - which disfigure France from side to side. It is nuclear, due to the extreme centralization of its production, which is the cause of the large number of pylons, because it is necessary to transmit electricity over hundreds of kilometers.
For tourists, wind turbines enhance the region
"

pylons that kill birds too.

there are lots of others like that if you want Cmoa, I advise you to go read the article
http://echolalie.under-globe.net/index. ... -mars-2008

and we talk again?

so the bats ..........

[Christophe]

I remind you that the purpose of wind this is the alternative nuclear!

Do you have any others like that?

If you had said "a alternative "I wouldn't have laughed so much but" Ze alternative "allows me to laugh ...

You don't understand that currently: IN FRANCE WITHOUT NUCLEAR THERE IS NO WIND TURBINE since it is the taxation of the sale of nuclear kWh that finances wind turbines!

Do you think the French are ready to pay 0.25 to 0.5 € / kWh to develop wind energy? Not me...

The development of the wind power is done at the expense of other technologies (local production, recovery of biomass ...) it is especially that which bothers me ...

I said this morning: do you know pkoi industrial wind power "works" (compared to other more localized technologies)? Because it allows,
a) to a few people, to earn a lot by working fairly little (rent)
b) continue to centralize electricity production.

So, a) + b) are 2 things that go against beliefs my dear jonule. Am I wrong?

So pkoi continue you to defend the industrial wind since they are industrial villains !!

[Rulian]

Ah well that's it, I'm going to get angry ...

C moa, if you get your opinion on wind and energy in general with Bigard it's really not won for you. And edge JP Pernaud too, which is a notorious anti wind not frankly silly.

You say that wind turbines biodiversity. I'm waiting for the evidence. Do you have any idea what an impact study represents for a wind farm? If you had one, you would know that studies of flora and fauna, migratory corridors and bats do not laugh. And it is obligatorily made by the competent organizations (ornithological associations etc ...). The acoustic impact standards are also very hot. But hey, I don't have to justify wind. Just prove to me that wind kills organisms, and that it kills more than other infrastructures. When the road massacres, including human, no one yells. Ah well no then, don't touch my car.

You say that wind power is subsidized and costs too much. Find me an unsubsidized form of energy. Wind is bought 8,2 c € / kWh and the antis cry out for gold but nobody says anything when we buy 55c € / kWh photovoltaic, while we know very well that the energy balance of PV is negative.

Clean and inexpensive nuclear power. You dream. No genuinely independent supervisory authority, clouds stopping at borders, lethal waste for millions of years and a real price that is not communicated. You can be sure it costs more than what you are told. The extraction, enrichment and dismantling of power plants are not on your EDF bill. But you pay through your taxes. Nothing that the CEA receives in the 1 billion euros of subsidy per year. I'm not even talking to you about the availability of uranium. Super weak. In 40-50 years we are fucked. What will we do then?

Finally, you say that we'd better piss off the big consumers of electricity to make them more virtuous. That is true. But do you imagine all that has been done among large consumers. It is already much more optimized than the average for individuals. There is a very important energy cost-killing market for companies. They are already well in advance, and some are optimized to the max. So it's easy to throw a stone at them to better clear themselves and as a private individual. But you have to be informed before you say cnneries. Anyway, the residential / tertiary sector accounted for 43% of final energy consumption in France in 2007. It's not me who says it, it's the ministry of industry.If 43% is not a big consumer on which it is necessary to act in extreme priority, tell me so what it is?

Regarding nuclear, I am not an unconditional supporter. Only it swells me to hear people constantly bang on it without knowing how it works, how it is organized, how it is monitored ....

I return the compliment to you about wind energy. We must first deal with the beam we have in the eye rather than the straw in the eye of others. I made up my mind on the piece. I worked in energy and wind power in particular.

[Christophe]

Ah the Rulian arrives and takes out his ax :)

Find me an unsubsidized form of energy.

I have one less: our thermal solar panels and those of all the brave who climb in self-construction ...

Otherwise there is another "hot" wind topic of the day:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/energie-eo ... t5983.html