ShouldOpia.com

I watched documentaries about wind turbines, and while I saw other problems, I never saw they kill bats/birds by "pressure".
Just because somebody says so on the interwebs does not mean it's true.
Lots of people just like to make scandal, get attention, feel important.
Other people just feel they should propagate "such" things.

[quote=Wind_Turbines_Suck post_id=3495 time=1512014337 user_id=182]
The wind turbines kill the bats by creating a different air pressure which effectively bursts blood vessels in their lungs killing them instantly.
[/quote]
I find that really hard to believe.

From another aspect:
[list]China, is by far the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world.[/list]
[list]China and India Will Continue to Increase Oil and Coal Consumption. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/china-india-will-continue-increase-oil-coal-consumption-paris-agreement-notwithstanding/[/list] :(

I don't know what differences we in North America are making. We may as well stop killing birds.

[quote="Maybe not" post_id=3492 time=1511972758]
I don't know where you get your information, but some of it might be wrong or irrelevant.
I don't know how many birds die from wind turbines but if more die from using the equivalent amount of fossil fuels I think it's a step in the right direction.
Did you check how many die because fossil fuels? Me neither.

I don't see how the blades create pressure to kill bats; if anything, they reduce wind pressure, using some to transform into electricity. Wind turbines may kill bats in other ways, but see birds above.

I don't think it matters how often they need to be replaced/repaired as long as they make enough money for those repairs and some profit. It's different if they need subsidizing though.

Same thing about it's "circumstantiality": if they pay for themselves it's all good. Don't forget that solar cells definitely don't work at night when wind turbines might.
I'm not thinking they are perfect (they seem to bother people in other ways too) but I do think that in the right places they are a good replacement to burning fossil fuels.
[/quote]
The wind turbines kill the bats by creating a different air pressure which effectively bursts blood vessels in their lungs killing them instantly. Most of the deaths by birds are also from sites you can find with a quick google search but the number varies from region to region and has alot of variables attached. Even so, it's a tremendous amount of birds dying from the turbines. The replacement is also still very expensive and most definitely matters because $65 000 is an absurd amount to pay to replace this when there are better forms of energy available such as hydroelectricity. You are right that the circumstantial argument applies to everything, but it's just to show that we are using this bad form of generation when we could be using a consistent energy such as again, hydroelectricity because unless there is tampering the water will always flow.

I actually read about how many birds they kill each year and was quiet shocked.

But so are tailing ponds in oil and gas industry.

My biggest concern against it is the amount of government subsidies wind has been receiving over the past decades. On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined.

It is not just tax payer's money and very good that it is one of the renewables.

The per-kWh subsidy system gives no incentives to reduce cost; only production. Increasing production in reality mostly actually increases the cost. This vicious circle does not motivate innovation to produce power cheaper which usually also means cleaner.

I don't know where you get your information, but some of it might be wrong or irrelevant.
I don't know how many birds die from wind turbines but if more die from using the equivalent amount of fossil fuels I think it's a step in the right direction.
Did you check how many die because fossil fuels? Me neither.

I don't see how the blades create pressure to kill bats; if anything, they reduce wind pressure, using some to transform into electricity. Wind turbines may kill bats in other ways, but see birds above.

I don't think it matters how often they need to be replaced/repaired as long as they make enough money for those repairs and some profit. It's different if they need subsidizing though.

Same thing about it's "circumstantiality": if they pay for themselves it's all good. Don't forget that solar cells definitely don't work at night when wind turbines might.
I'm not thinking they are perfect (they seem to bother people in other ways too) but I do think that in the right places they are a good replacement to burning fossil fuels.

It’s clear that wind turbines don’t have as many pros as they do cons. Wind turbines can kill up to 573 000 birds every year because of the spinning blades. Not to mention the 880 000 bats killed because of the air pressure created by the blades. Wind turbines are also extemely large take many acres of land and thousands of square meters in order to build a functioning wind farm. Wind farms and wind turbines are also expensive and hard to maintain counting in at a whopping $65 000 every turbine. Wind turbines also need to be replaced every 15 to 20 years making it one of the most frequently replaced types of generation. The generation is also circumstantial too, because the wind has to be blowing enough to actually spin the blades, and has to be blowing in a certain direction that is if the wind is actually blowing. The only good thing I can get from the wind turbines is when the wind is blowing, the generator peaks at 50% effeciency which is pretty good in comparison to other types of generation such as solar which is currently peaked at about 25% efficiency. I think the lesson learned today is my username.