The point of your article is:
Cats kill birds the most.
Second, collision with building.
Birds hitting windmill considered small compared to any of the above, right?
Before building a windmill there are plenty of requirements need to be done by the developer/manufacturer/power company.
Environment effect analysis part of this.
As mentioned above, nothing that you do will have zero negative impact to other living being.
So, I didnt read the article further than it saying something about car bird fatalities(about which the above poster was asking for unknown reasons)
So, I got no issue with windpower being green and not harmful to birds, I just found a bit odd that something would have a average fatality rate of 1-5 per year
I do actually live (very) near an operational windmill for a few years, and this is the number that I actually seen/observe.
Their bodies could simply be found near the turbine.
It’s not scientific, sure.
There are other dead birds hitting windmill that could be eaten in the early morning by cats/mice or other animals.
Seriously, birds are not THAT stupid.
In my area, a horde of Viet hunters would hunt for birds on late Saturday/Sunday afternoon, with flashlight and hand-catapult.
In a few weeks, they would move the lairs to area with higher tree tops and not so familiar with the Viet hunters.
The birds also won’t have problem with me or other people approaching them. But they would fly away when they see the horde.
Guys, while some birds might be killed by the turbines, the structures themselves represent a threat to wildlife because of their placement off shore, right in the middle of marshlands and other habitats. The noise, the maintenance, the interference with waves and currents and water distribution, all present threats to already endangered birds and their prey, say, endangered crabs or fishes. That is why it is being considered to put the wind mills in the water, in the sea, to lessen the impact.
It’s not his any birds that’s so important rather what type of birds . For instance if every year a hundred black spoonbills died hitting the turbines or because they had to change the migratory routes pretty soon they’d be extinct.
I get that birds are important ecological links and all but, come on…birds?
If China is ramping up construction of nuclear energy and investment in uranium mining operations around the world, where do Taiwan’s nuclear needs fit in the scheme?
Windows kill birds, cars kill birds, even birds kill birds.
Windmill parks in Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium happen to attract new sea life where there was non.
If a hundred spoonbills dies, there won´t be any more spoonbirds. Hardly any left.
Again, it is not them hitting the turbines. It is them dying of hunger because their habitat is destroyed.
And not only birds, but by chain reaction mammals like otters in Penghu, dolphins, and fish in general. Now that affects livelihoods and it is a community problem.
The only real answer is that Black Mirror episode where humans generate electricity on stationary bikes.
Nuclear being the safe one? Shouldnt need to point out the obvious on this one. Although nuclear accidents are fairly rare, they are a big dirty dangerous problem for a very long time. Never mind the waste disposal and storage problem which is also potentially dangerous.
Everything is dangerous. Nuclear power has far and away the best track record. It’s ridiculous to list it on the same level as coal and other fossil fuels as if it’s even close to being as “dirty and dangerous” as those…when in fact, it’s on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Nuclear power has caused fewer human deaths and less destruction of the environment than any other option that can feasibly power modern civilization.
Question: what plan do they have to get rid of used nuclear rods here in Taiwan?
Answer: they don´t. They store them next to active rods in nuclear plants…or in shallow graves next to villages in Green Island. I mean, they tried to sell the stuff to North Korea…
At least they haven´t just dumped the poison into the ocean…
As to deaths due to radiation, I just bumped into this:
How many people in Taiwan were affected by the irradiated rods scandal?
Answer: So what? They are safe for now and there is plenty of time to either figure out what to do with them or to develop technologies that can deal with the spent rods.
Oh, I know. It’s so irresponsible to speak that way about the oh-so-scary spent nuclear fuel rods. Well, I don’t think so. They are easily contained and have literally a spotless record when it comes to toll on human life. As far as I know (I may have missed something), no one has ever died from poorly stored spent nuclear fuel. EVER.
And that Conqueror story a) has nothing to do with nuclear power and b) is likely not even accurate.
I don’t know what Taiwan irradiated rods scandal you are referring to. A google search came up empty.
EDIT: I think I found the scandal you are referring to. Supposedly some metal that may have been salvaged from nuclear power plants was then used in apartment buildings in Taiwan. The steel rods rods were tested and shown to be “irradiated.” The problem is that none of the articles I see about this bother to mention the amount of radiation measured… which leads me to assume it was probably very low, likely barely above background levels. I would assume that if measurements were dangerously high, the numbers would have been front and center in the articles. This leads me to think that the answer to your question is likely: probably no one experienced adverse health effects from that scandal.
No one is doing that, at least not in Taiwan.
There are perfectly good ways to store nuclear waste, just look at what Finland has built at Onkalo. The problem is they are the only ones that devoted resources to attempt a permanent solution. Taiwan has not. Not to mention such a permanent nuclear waste storage site is possible due to Onkalo’s stable geology. It is also within the realm of possibility that in the future the site will be made less safe by changes to geology at Onkalo millions of years from now, however, geology in Taiwan is already terrible now. There’s no way to build a permanent storage here even if the legislature get it in their heads to build one.
We have had over 50 years… and we are still sitting on them deadly stuff.
As said, currently developed nations are dumping the rods on the deepest oceans. And that ain´t working either.
Spotless? In cha bu duo land? Eh, fourth power plant AKA garbage dump?
You are young indeed if you do not remember the rod scandal. You do not live in Tianmu, right? Or Near Xintien temple? The placards are still up.
This is how they came up with the ridiculously low nuclear power related mortality rates.
Nuclear is great but we shouldn’t ignore the potential disasters.
I am in this industry for the last 2 years. Taiwan has all the potential but the major concern is Typhoon. Other concern is the intermittent of power causing lot of trouble in term of power distribution.
Are you in off-shore wind? looks like you are industry-adjacent. Both of those have tried and true solutions. Costs will go up, but they won’t be prohibitive.
There’s a reason all the big off-shore names are flocking to Taiwan.
That says it all really . It’s the lesser of the evils at this moment . It’s not without problems of waste disposal…but the impact of decades of coal burning Power stations has a far bigger daily impact on daily life in Taiwan .
Anyone who thinks renewables are the answer in the short term are living in a World of make-believe . there is no perfect solution until Cold fusion or some better invention .
The disposal of turbines that have a life , has not even been taken into consideration .
How about we all ignore the pollution and waste and Governments continue to waste more money on totally useless schemes …Oh wait , that is the current plan …fine .