Ajax wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 8:21am:

... What about all the migrating birds........???? Will wind mills affect them........!!!!!!!!

Ajax' question intrigued me. As usual, the answer isn't simple.

Do Wind Farms Really Kill Birds?
29 Oct 2013
By Bill King, Lynn Trakell and Emma Bennett

Wind farms are usually accused of making people sick. Now critics claim they also threaten endangered birds. Bill King, Emma Bennett and Lynn Trakell debunk another wind farm myth

The 2013 Victorian duck hunting season began in March with an illegal all-species shoot-up at the Box Flat wetland near the small town of Boort. An informant told the Coalition Against Duck Shooting that around 2000 birds were killed, including around 80 Freckled Ducks (an endangered species), and many other species that could not conceivably have been mistaken for ducks.

A week later, a group from the coalition conducted a two hour search at Box Flat and found 43 dead Freckled Ducks and a total of 156 carcasses, along with 13 wounded birds, which were taken into care. The Department of Primary Industry later reported finding 915 bird carcasses at Box Flat, of which 760 were “game” species.

There are two good arguments against duck hunting that tend to persuade many who accept – or at least tolerate – other kinds of hunting: that it further threatens a number of already endangered species and that it is a particularly cruel sport, with around a quarter of the birds surviving being shot, some later dying of their injuries.

That same concern for animal welfare has entered, honestly or otherwise, into the debate over renewables. If we’re concerned about hunting deaths, shouldn’t we also worry about bird strike at wind farms?

Some readers, commenting on The Age’s story about Box Flat, ran that line:


Quote:

"How many thousands of birds of all shapes and sizes do the wind farms kill each year? strange that the age doesn't report this ....."

A few weeks later, the ABC’s Occam’s Razor science program ran a segment by Sue Taylor, a Melbourne naturalist and author, that took a similar tack:


Quote:

"As Australia pushes to meet its Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets, wind farms are proliferating across the country…. But overseas experience shows that thousands of rare birds are being killed by turbines each year, and no one has a solution to the problem."

We agree entirely with calls to value our birdlife more highly – especially threatened species. Whether environmentalists are devaluing our birdlife and treating it as disposable in their blinkered pursuit of clean energy is another matter.

While the Victorian state government has been quite unmoved by the arguments against duck hunting, it has found the arguments against wind power persuasive. Victorian planning laws for wind farms are among the most restrictive in the country.

Unlike the claims that wind power causes illness among people living close to wind farms, claims that wind turbines kill birds and bats do have a basis in fact. The causal process is very straightforward — birds and bats fly into the rotating blades or towers and are killed stone dead.

However, unlike many wind farm critics, we insist that in deciding matters of acceptability, the likely number of deaths does matter. So does relativity with other human activities which impinge on nature — particularly different means of generating electricity — and their impact on birdlife.

So far as we know, no authoritative estimate has yet been made of the total number of birds and bats killed each year in either Victoria or Australia as a whole by collisions with wind turbines.

Emma Bennett, one of the authors of this article, has conducted over 5500 surveys at six wind farms in Victoria. Her data is consistent with less than one bird being killed per turbine per year. The bulk of published studies from overseas are also consistent with these figures. She also found no rare or threatened species killed by wind farms.

Further, small wind farms, like the community wind farm in Leonards Hill, can report zero bird collisions, a finding which is consistent with similar sized wind farms overseas. The science strongly suggests that birds avoid flying through smaller wind farms and simply go around them.

As of the end of 2012, there were 454 turbines in operation in Victoria and 1559 across Australia. In other words, the probable number of birds killed by wind turbine collisions in Victoria for the whole of 2013 would be much lower than the number killed at Box Flat in a single morning of male bonding.

[continued ...]

[...continued]

The picture does not change when we turn to the available evidence concerning impacts of wind energy on threatened species in Australia. Published studies by Cindy Hull, an avian ecologist with Hydro Tasmania, report the documented deaths of birds and bats at two wind farms in Tasmania. A total of 245 bird deaths and 54 bat deaths were documented over a 10 year period and the deaths were overwhelmingly from species classified as not under threat.

Wind energy has a much smaller impact on bird species than other forms of electricity generation. Benjamin Sovacool, a Danish energy policy researcher, reviewed available risk estimates and found that wind power and nuclear power produce 0.3-0.4 bird fatalities per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced, whereas fossil-fuel power produces 5.2 bird fatalities per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced.

As development of wind power in Victoria is displacing brown coal-fired electricity generation, there are good grounds for believing it is bringing relative benefits to birdlife on a state-wide basis.

An edited transcript of an Ockham's Razor broadcast from 5 May 2013.

I have been involved in the investigation of the effect of wind farms on birds and bats for about 13 years at both Hydro Tasmania and Roaring 40s Renewable Energy. I work in this area due to my interest in birds, but also because I worry about our planet. I want to play my part (as small as it is) to reduce the catastrophic impacts of climate change and to protect species.

I have always had a fascination with wildlife, and I want to do my part to assist in its protection. I also love scientific research, in particular the testing of an idea, the challenge of designing a really good study, and perhaps most of all, the analysis of the data once it’s collected.

It’s exciting when you analyse data and see patterns emerge, particularly if they are unexpected. It is particularly surprising when an expected effect is not supported by the evidence, which challenges our assumptions and paradigms. But that’s science—it is designed to be objective.

A good study aims to tease out real patterns from the 'noise', and to make sure that results are not affected by our biases, expectations or other factors. We seek to identify the meaningful trends, the real effects, and let the data speak for itself.

I believe that the best way we can protect our wildlife is to conduct robust scientific research to understand the ecology of a species, the impacts it might be suffering and to investigate if there is anything we can do to minimise the impacts.   

We have been investigating the effect on birds and bats of the Bluff Point and Studland Bay Wind Farms in north-west Tasmania. We have conducted many studies, from monitoring required as part of our State and Commonwealth permits, to targeted studies that we have initiated to try to understand a specific issue, or where possible, to reduce an impact that has been documented.

We have learnt a lot in the last ten years at these wind farms.

Not all species of bird are at equal risk of collision with turbines. We’ve found that only about 20 per cent of the species present at these wind farms are involved in collisions with turbines. The vast majority of collisions involve birds colliding with moving turbine blades, and those at risk are the ones that spend time in the region that the blades move (which is called the rotor swept area).

Modern turbines have a rotor swept area of between 65-115m, meaning the blades sweep through the zone from about 35-125m above the ground, so any birds that don’t fly in this zone are very unlikely to collide (such as those that are only present in trees or shrubs).

Bird collisions with turbines are statistically rare events. What we need to know is whether the number of collisions that do occur could be having a negative impact on the conservation status of a species—that is, will it be pushed closer to extinction?

Similar to birds, there are specific features that make some bat species more at risk of collision. The primary factor again is whether the bat is present in the rotor swept area of turbines.

We have done a lot of work studying how eagles respond to the presence of turbines. A three-year observational study we conducted at these wind farms found that eagles adjust their movements through the wind farm once turbines are installed. They also alter their behaviour in response to whether the turbines were active or not, and under different weather conditions.

The key finding was that eagles demonstrated an awareness of the turbines, and usually actively avoided them.

One of our key areas of current research is determining what are the factors involved in collision risk. Only by understanding these factors can we hope to develop strategies to reduce the risk. 

There is a lot of research into the effect of wind turbines on birds and bats around the world. Until relatively recently, much of this research wasn’t published in the peer-reviewed literature. That’s not to say that the research hasn’t been thorough and appropriate, it just means that it hasn’t passed a formal peer-review process, which provides a layer of credibility. Also, sometimes this material is difficult to access, unlike that in scientific journals.

Part of my job is to keep abreast of all this research. It can be daunting, as there is a lot being done around the world. There are now some excellent scientific conferences held each year on the topic of birds and bats and wind farms, and this sharing of knowledge and findings is critical to the scientific process.

It’s interesting that while some of the issues found at wind farms are the same around the world, some are not. It’s important to remember that assuming what someone found at one site will automatically be found at another doesn’t constitute good science; assumptions need to be tested or strategies trialled.

While a lot has been learnt about wind farm effects, there is more to be learnt. 

Unfortunately in the area of wind farms there is a lot of misinformation and myths, even when scientific evidence exists. Inaccurate information or myths do not progress understanding or, in fact, save species. In my view it only muddies the water, distracts focus and wastes time.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

One of the myths that I regularly encounter is that it is predominantly raptors that are at risk of collision with turbines.

Yes, there are some wind farms that have demonstrated impacts to raptors, but there are a number that don’t. Further, what we found at our sites is that not all raptors are equally affected. Raptors are one of the groups of birds that are often the focus of the community—but that might be more about human perceptions and emotions than what the evidence shows.

We need to be careful that focusing on one group doesn’t result in us being blinded to impacts on other groups. Instead, we need to objectively view the results of robust scientific studies to see if species or populations are being significantly impacted.

Wind farms are one of the few sources of impacts to birds and bats that are being systematically monitored. Most other forms of energy generation do not monitor impacts. Nor do we have widespread systematic monitoring of all the other human-related activities that we inflict on species—such as collisions with cars, powerlines, windows, poisoning, shooting, pollution, etc.

No data does not mean no impacts, it means no data.

Although it varies across jurisdictions, State and Commonwealth regulators often require that the wind industry intensely monitor its impacts.

We support and endorse these monitoring and reporting requirements, but it has led to the incorrect perception that this is the only industry that has impacts. I think it’s our duty to determine the range of impacts on birds from all sources, determine which are the most significant and try to reduce them. Finally, it is important that the facts—derived from robust scientific studies—are communicated and that we’re not simply perpetuating myths and misinformation. It’s the least we can do.

Dr Cindy Hull works for Hydro Tasmania and studies the way birds and wind farms interact.

Great post CrissCross

How much impact do motor vehicles have on bird life?

Wind Turbines are relatively slow moving - they aren't jet engines.

Birds also kill themselves when they strike aircraft, windows, vehicles, eat snail bait, etc

If bird fatalities were made a regulatory requirement for industry There wouldn't be many industries unaffected or even prevented from setting up.

Lets be reasonable folks

(we wouldn't want ALL of us to become filthy smelly putrid clown puppet freak maggots now would we YOU filthy smelly putrid clown puppet freak maggots)

Sort of agree. The 'bird choppers' probably don't kill a whole heap of birds as they are hopelessly idle for most of the time.

The only activity wind farms do with efficiency is suck tax dollars out of our wallets.

http://youtu.be/8NAAzBArYdw

Rider wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 6:47am:

Sort of agree. The 'bird choppers' probably don't kill a whole heap of birds as they are hopelessly idle for most of the time. The only activity wind farms do with efficiency is suck tax dollars out of our wallets.

Total tax payer subsidies in Australia for the supremely efficient FOSSIL FUEL and Mining sectors is over 10 Billion dollars per year (The coal sectors receiving about half of this socialist corporate welfare)

Globally the IMF estimates that 1.9 trillion dollars (US) per year is handed out to the fossil fuel sectors by the tax payers of the world. (this figure does not even include the cost of oil and energy driven WARS - you know the wars I am talking about don't you)

You were saying about subsidies?

(see what happens when you open up your ignorant ridiculous mouth in public?)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 11:08am:

Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 6:47am: Sort of agree. The 'bird choppers' probably don't kill a whole heap of birds as they are hopelessly idle for most of the time. The only activity wind farms do with efficiency is suck tax dollars out of our wallets. Total tax payer subsidies in Australia for the supremely efficient FOSSIL FUEL and Mining sectors is over 10 Billion dollars per year (The coal sectors receiving about half of this socialist corporate welfare) Globally the IMF estimates that 1.9 trillion dollars (US) per year is handed out to the fossil fuel sectors by the tax payers of the world. (this figure does not even include the cost of oil and energy driven WARS - you know the wars I am talking about don't you) You were saying about subsidies? (see what happens when you open up your ignorant ridiculous mouth in public?)

Chump....just because you are feeling better one day doesn't mean you can stop taking your medication...ok???

Go and take your pills. Come back when the voices aren't so loud and confusing.

Rider wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:08am: Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 6:47am: Sort of agree. The 'bird choppers' probably don't kill a whole heap of birds as they are hopelessly idle for most of the time. The only activity wind farms do with efficiency is suck tax dollars out of our wallets. Total tax payer subsidies in Australia for the supremely efficient FOSSIL FUEL and Mining sectors is over 10 Billion dollars per year (The coal sectors receiving about half of this socialist corporate welfare) Globally the IMF estimates that 1.9 trillion dollars (US) per year is handed out to the fossil fuel sectors by the tax payers of the world. (this figure does not even include the cost of oil and energy driven WARS - you know the wars I am talking about don't you) You were saying about subsidies? (see what happens when you open up your ignorant ridiculous mouth in public?) Chump....just because you are feeling better one day doesn't mean you can stop taking your medication...ok??? Go and take your pills. Come back when the voices aren't so loud and confusing.

OH WHATS WRONG MR RIDER?

Did you get exposed in public criticising the miniscule grants and subsidies given to renewable, responsible, sustainable and CLEAN energy options and forget to mention the ENORMOUS socialistic corporate welfare cheques handed out to the fossil fuel and mining sectors WHICH ARE 83% foreign owned

You poor thing! I may need to take it easy on you from now on - you are intellectually defenceless after all you smelly freak!

That's bordering on personal insult. The point he's making is that we spend 10 billon dollars on subsidising corporations to buy fossil fuels. 

Wind turbines are private investments. They are mostly owned by large electricity generation concerns.

Now, if the voices in your head are not too strong, maybe you'd like to explain how it's affecting taxpayers?

---

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:43am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:08am: Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 6:47am: Sort of agree. The 'bird choppers' probably don't kill a whole heap of birds as they are hopelessly idle for most of the time. The only activity wind farms do with efficiency is suck tax dollars out of our wallets. Total tax payer subsidies in Australia for the supremely efficient FOSSIL FUEL and Mining sectors is over 10 Billion dollars per year (The coal sectors receiving about half of this socialist corporate welfare) Globally the IMF estimates that 1.9 trillion dollars (US) per year is handed out to the fossil fuel sectors by the tax payers of the world. (this figure does not even include the cost of oil and energy driven WARS - you know the wars I am talking about don't you) You were saying about subsidies? (see what happens when you open up your ignorant ridiculous mouth in public?) Chump....just because you are feeling better one day doesn't mean you can stop taking your medication...ok??? Go and take your pills. Come back when the voices aren't so loud and confusing. OH WHATS WRONG MR RIDER? Did you get exposed in public criticising the miniscule grants and subsidies given to renewable, responsible, sustainable and CLEAN energy options and forget to mention the ENORMOUS socialistic corporate welfare cheques handed out to the fossil fuel and mining sectors WHICH ARE 83% foreign owned You poor thing! I may need to take it easy on you from now on - you are intellectually defenceless after all you smelly freak!

No please don't. Can you tell us all the cost of subsidies including research that has been spent on 'renewables' ?

If subsidies are BAD for fossil fuel, then it stands to reason they must be BAD for renewable energy sources as well.

Also, do you need an adult to help you with the tops of the pill bottles, sometimes they are 'child' proof, ask mummy or daddy to help if you need to.

Rider wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 11:56am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:50am: Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:43am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:08am: Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 6:47am: Sort of agree. The 'bird choppers' probably don't kill a whole heap of birds as they are hopelessly idle for most of the time. The only activity wind farms do with efficiency is suck tax dollars out of our wallets. Total tax payer subsidies in Australia for the supremely efficient FOSSIL FUEL and Mining sectors is over 10 Billion dollars per year (The coal sectors receiving about half of this socialist corporate welfare) Globally the IMF estimates that 1.9 trillion dollars (US) per year is handed out to the fossil fuel sectors by the tax payers of the world. (this figure does not even include the cost of oil and energy driven WARS - you know the wars I am talking about don't you) You were saying about subsidies? (see what happens when you open up your ignorant ridiculous mouth in public?) Chump....just because you are feeling better one day doesn't mean you can stop taking your medication...ok??? Go and take your pills. Come back when the voices aren't so loud and confusing. OH WHATS WRONG MR RIDER? Did you get exposed in public criticising the miniscule grants and subsidies given to renewable, responsible, sustainable and CLEAN energy options and forget to mention the ENORMOUS socialistic corporate welfare cheques handed out to the fossil fuel and mining sectors WHICH ARE 83% foreign owned You poor thing! I may need to take it easy on you from now on - you are intellectually defenceless after all you smelly freak! No please don't. Can you tell us all the cost of subsidies including research that has been spent on 'renewables' ? If subsidies are BAD for fossil fuel, then it stands to reason they must be BAD for renewable energy sources as well. Also, do you need an adult to help you with the tops of the pill bottles, sometimes they are 'child' proof, ask mummy or daddy to help if you need to.

You didn't know that the fossil fuel and mining industries in Australia receive over 10 billion dolalrs per year in Subsidies and grants???

I agree with you - scrap ALL subsidies

Guess who will squeal the loudest MR RIDER?

Do your own research in who gets what if you're genuinely interested

But of course youre not.

We all know what sort of society youre interested in don't we Mr Rider you putrid clown stench freak

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:56am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:50am: Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:43am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:08am: Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 6:47am: Sort of agree. The 'bird choppers' probably don't kill a whole heap of birds as they are hopelessly idle for most of the time. The only activity wind farms do with efficiency is suck tax dollars out of our wallets. Total tax payer subsidies in Australia for the supremely efficient FOSSIL FUEL and Mining sectors is over 10 Billion dollars per year (The coal sectors receiving about half of this socialist corporate welfare) Globally the IMF estimates that 1.9 trillion dollars (US) per year is handed out to the fossil fuel sectors by the tax payers of the world. (this figure does not even include the cost of oil and energy driven WARS - you know the wars I am talking about don't you) You were saying about subsidies? (see what happens when you open up your ignorant ridiculous mouth in public?) Chump....just because you are feeling better one day doesn't mean you can stop taking your medication...ok??? Go and take your pills. Come back when the voices aren't so loud and confusing. OH WHATS WRONG MR RIDER? Did you get exposed in public criticising the miniscule grants and subsidies given to renewable, responsible, sustainable and CLEAN energy options and forget to mention the ENORMOUS socialistic corporate welfare cheques handed out to the fossil fuel and mining sectors WHICH ARE 83% foreign owned You poor thing! I may need to take it easy on you from now on - you are intellectually defenceless after all you smelly freak! No please don't. Can you tell us all the cost of subsidies including research that has been spent on 'renewables' ? If subsidies are BAD for fossil fuel, then it stands to reason they must be BAD for renewable energy sources as well. Also, do you need an adult to help you with the tops of the pill bottles, sometimes they are 'child' proof, ask mummy or daddy to help if you need to. You didn't know that the fossil fuel and mining industries in Australia receive over 10 billion dolalrs per year in Subsidies and grants??? I agree with you - scrap ALL subsidies Guess who will squeal the loudest MR RIDER? Do your own research in who gets what if you're genuinely interested But of course youre not. We all know what sort of society youre interested in don't we Mr Rider you putrid clown stench freak

So how much Chimp?? How much money do we the tax payer pay for these uneconomical monuments to green stupidity?? How Much??? Or are these figures too compromising??

BTW - off road diesel fuel is used off road, the on road excise etc is not charged because it is consumed off road. Just like other legitimate business in Australia, like farmers and fishers, and dare I say it......evil miners. Other so called 'subsidies' are also legitimate write downs and taxation allowances, just like those applied to other businesses in Australia.  So no point getting your knickers all knotted now is it.

You just don't like it because its private enterprise and not your socialist utopia. Mug. Back to North Korea for you old sonny.

Rider wrote on Oct 30^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 12:05pm: Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:56am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:50am: Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:43am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 11:08am: Rider wrote on Oct 30th, 2013 at 6:47am: Sort of agree. The 'bird choppers' probably don't kill a whole heap of birds as they are hopelessly idle for most of the time. The only activity wind farms do with efficiency is suck tax dollars out of our wallets. Total tax payer subsidies in Australia for the supremely efficient FOSSIL FUEL and Mining sectors is over 10 Billion dollars per year (The coal sectors receiving about half of this socialist corporate welfare) Globally the IMF estimates that 1.9 trillion dollars (US) per year is handed out to the fossil fuel sectors by the tax payers of the world. (this figure does not even include the cost of oil and energy driven WARS - you know the wars I am talking about don't you) You were saying about subsidies? (see what happens when you open up your ignorant ridiculous mouth in public?) Chump....just because you are feeling better one day doesn't mean you can stop taking your medication...ok??? Go and take your pills. Come back when the voices aren't so loud and confusing. OH WHATS WRONG MR RIDER? Did you get exposed in public criticising the miniscule grants and subsidies given to renewable, responsible, sustainable and CLEAN energy options and forget to mention the ENORMOUS socialistic corporate welfare cheques handed out to the fossil fuel and mining sectors WHICH ARE 83% foreign owned You poor thing! I may need to take it easy on you from now on - you are intellectually defenceless after all you smelly freak! No please don't. Can you tell us all the cost of subsidies including research that has been spent on 'renewables' ? If subsidies are BAD for fossil fuel, then it stands to reason they must be BAD for renewable energy sources as well. Also, do you need an adult to help you with the tops of the pill bottles, sometimes they are 'child' proof, ask mummy or daddy to help if you need to. You didn't know that the fossil fuel and mining industries in Australia receive over 10 billion dolalrs per year in Subsidies and grants??? I agree with you - scrap ALL subsidies Guess who will squeal the loudest MR RIDER? Do your own research in who gets what if you're genuinely interested But of course youre not. We all know what sort of society youre interested in don't we Mr Rider you putrid clown stench freak So how much Chimp?? How much money do we the tax payer pay for these uneconomical monuments to green stupidity?? How Much??? Or are these figures too compromising?? BTW - off road diesel fuel is used off road, the on road excise etc is not charged because it is consumed off road. Just like other legitimate business in Australia, like farmers and fishers, and dare I say it......evil miners. Other so called 'subsidies' are also legitimate write downs and taxation allowances, just like those applied to other businesses in Australia.  So no point getting your knickers all knotted now is it. You just don't like it because its private enterprise and not your socialist utopia. Mug. Back to North Korea for you old sonny.

let me put it this way Mr Rider, the tax payer outlays for renewables and sustainable energy options is about 7% of that for the fossil fuels and mining sectors.

The only change to that arrangement was the recently formed Clean Energy Finance Corporation which was set up as a standard corporate body with  a one off 10 billion dollar budget.

Of course the Abbott government has announced that it will be axing that Financing body.

So its business as usual, about 800 million to renewables and over 10.7 billion to the fossil fuel and mining sectors.

IMF put the global tax payer outlay to the fossil fuel sectors at 1.9 trillion US

Where are your capitalist free market ideologies now?

I suppose you are also happy to see tax payers money go to the Australian car manufacturing industry - a sector totally owned by foreign multinational corporations (mainly US and Japanese). Billions of dollars have be given as social corporate welfare over the years to these fake corporate leaches

Why doesn't Australia have its own car manufacturer?

Governments can fund its initial set up. I am sure Australians would buy a home grown vehicle.

Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables, and wild claims of “fossil fuel subsidies” debunked

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/

Wind turbine blown over by wind in Devon

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276269/Article/images/19994656/5426734-large.jpg


HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 6:43am:

Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables, and wild claims of “fossil fuel subsidies” debunked http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/

aaawwww, you stole my headline  ;D

There's actually some decent info on the US figures as well, about 6 or 7 to 1 in favour of renewable subsidies. Australia (not surprisingly) has been masking the true costs quite well, dividing  the spoils up between 3 levels of government means it is almost impossible to pin down just how high the cost has been to the tax payer (present and future).

What's worse is when you see how much the billions blown actually return to us in electricity....return on investment is an unknown term to these green twats.

Soren wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:29am:

Wind turbine blown over by wind in Devon http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276269/Article/images/19994656/5426734-large.jpg HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!

there are plenty of those in the warehouses around the world. Not every country is as stupid and deranged as Australia.

Perhaps you could support Japanese with their ongoing full core meltdowns at the Fukushima Daichi nuclear facility?

It appears they may need about 1/2 trillion dollars over a period of 40 years to carry out the first step of the clean up operation.

But as we all know clean up isn't possible when the genie is out of the bottle is it mr Soren?

Enjoy your seafood
http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Fukushima-Daiichi-reactor-3-explosion-images1.jpg
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2011/3/21/1300728016765/The-Fukushima-nuclear-pla-007.jpg
http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/fukushima_radiation_nuclear_fallout_map-400x221.jpg

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 6:43am:

Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables, and wild claims of “fossil fuel subsidies” debunked http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/

70 billion? lol

As much as the total Health Budget?

really?

Ajax loses his credibility is one post - not that he had much in the first place.

Deceptions are his forte

muso wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 9:30pm:

How much impact do motor vehicles have on bird life?

9 Human Activities That Threaten Birds
Quote:

Some 60 to 80 million birds are killed each year by motor vehicles. This averages out to roughly 15 bird deaths per mile driven per year.

Acta Ornithologica 38(2):77-93. 2003
Quote:

Estimates of annual mortality for some European countries (350 000 to 27 million birds), the monthly distribution of casualties, their distribution among sex and age classes, as well as the methods used in the study of this problem are presented.

http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/Energy/SubsidyToMining.jpg

...and 83% of mining operations and profits in Australia are foreign owned - Dumb Australia

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:37am:

http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/Energy/SubsidyToMining.jpg ...and 83% of mining operations and profits in Australia are foreign owned - Dumb Australia

Diesel off road useage is not required to pay on road excise. Get it. Same for on farm use, same for fishing vessels which use diesel fuel. Get it????

If it isn't used on public roads why should it pay the on road excise???? Duplicitous bullsh1t from you Chump.  Bitchin about diesel prices just because you twats all went out and bought diesel Golfs and the fuel companies jacked up the prices is one thing, nothing to do with primary producers using diesel off road.

So just for you Chump, its not used on public roads. Get over it.

Its like if I smoked, I could smoke in my house. But if I go to a non smoking restaurant, I can't smoke my lovely fulsome flavoured Peter Stuyvesant Extra Milds ( ;D just giving my Big Tobacco funder a subtle plug), now I need to go and get in my big Chevrolet NatureCrusher 4x4 fuelled by Diesel Super Grade Non Sustainable Double Strength Particulate and rip past the green twats over in Northcote  ;D ;D ;D

# wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:23am:

muso wrote on Oct 29th, 2013 at 9:30pm: How much impact do motor vehicles have on bird life? 9 Human Activities That Threaten Birds Quote: Some 60 to 80 million birds are killed each year by motor vehicles. This averages out to roughly 15 bird deaths per mile driven per year. Acta Ornithologica 38(2):77-93. 2003[quote]Estimates of annual mortality for some European countries (350 000 to 27 million birds), the monthly distribution of casualties, their distribution among sex and age classes, as well as the methods used in the study of this problem are presented.

[/quote]

what twattery is that, 15 bird deaths per mile travelled.....fmd...the roads would be paved with feathers  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Rider wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:54am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 9:37am: http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/Energy/SubsidyToMining.jpg ...and 83% of mining operations and profits in Australia are foreign owned - Dumb Australia Diesel off road useage is not required to pay on road excise. Get it. Same for on farm use, same for fishing vessels which use diesel fuel. Get it???? If it isn't used on public roads why should it pay the on road excise???? Duplicitous bullsh1t from you Chump.  Bitchin about diesel prices just because you twats all went out and bought diesel Golfs and the fuel companies jacked up the prices is one thing, nothing to do with primary producers using diesel off road. So just for you Chump, its not used on public roads. Get over it. Its like if I smoked, I could smoke in my house. But if I go to a non smoking restaurant, I can't smoke my lovely fulsome flavoured Peter Stuyvesant Extra Milds ( ;D just giving my Big Tobacco funder a subtle plug), now I need to go and get in my big Chevrolet NatureCrusher 4x4 fuelled by Diesel Super Grade Non Sustainable Double Strength Particulate and rip past the green twats over in Northcote  ;D ;D ;D

The so called AUSTRALIAN mining and energy industries are 83% foreign owned and only employ about 3% of the Australian workforce. (more people employed in the Queensland tourist industry alone)

THese sectors receive about 10.7 Billion dollars per year from the Tax Payer.

You support this type of corporate welfare?

I doubt whether you even understand what you stand for let alone can justify your stance in public with any rigour you skin of decaying jerky beef scum filth

Hey chimp

If I was in power I would hang every prime minister starting with Bob Hawke onwards for treason.

I would kick out all the leaches like rio tinto, woodside, exxon etc etc.

I would take over as the government all mining and oil & gas that way Australia and the Australian tax payer gets 100% of the profits from our resources.

Instead of a hand full of elite moguls that live overseas.

I would then buy back all the cash cows, like our commonwealth bank (or maybe make a new one), our telecommunications, water, electricity, gas, public transport etc etc.

Again 100% profits going to the Australian government and people.

And then I guess the elite moguls would have me assassinated and replaced by some traitor who would sell everything back again at probably half price like the first time.

You know when Keating floated our dollar, and the moguls waltzed in and bought everything for half price.

They must think we aussies are just plain stupid and dumb.

Hey Ajax,

70 billion in subsidies per year for renewable energy in Australia?

Really? As much as the total health budget?

Astonishing how it hasn't taken off...

you must be dreaming again and spreading your garbage again.

You need to return to your mother country Germany and see how they do things there - quite different from the worlds number 1 DUMB country - Australia

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 3:35pm:

Hey Ajax, 70 billion in subsidies per year for renewable energy in Australia? Really? As much as the total health budget? Astonishing how it hasn't taken off... you must be dreaming again and spreading your garbage again. You need to return to your mother country Germany and see how they do things there - quite different from the worlds number 1 DUMB country - Australia

Hey chimp

its fact look it up, I didn't pull this figure out of my arse.


Quote:

“More than US$70 billion of support is provided by governments to renewable energy production and consumption worldwide.” http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/energy-iea-gas-idUKL5E8KD4ZJ20120913

I guess it will be quite safe now that all the eugenicists are working for the United Nations, the IPCC and other club of rome playgrounds.

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 3:53pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 3:35pm: Hey Ajax, 70 billion in subsidies per year for renewable energy in Australia? Really? As much as the total health budget? Astonishing how it hasn't taken off... you must be dreaming again and spreading your garbage again. You need to return to your mother country Germany and see how they do things there - quite different from the worlds number 1 DUMB country - Australia Hey chimp its fact look it up, I didn't pull this figure out of my arse. [quote]“More than US$70 billion of support is provided by governments to renewable energy production and consumption worldwide.” .

AH 70 billion WORLDWIDE - chicken droppings (a good investment anyway)

IMF put the tax payer contributions to the fossil fuel sectors at 1.9 TRILLION dollars per annum

And the 1.9 trillion does not include the cost of OIL wars and resource theft by the WEST - esp the US fascist corporate military rogue terrorist state clown freaks

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 4:00pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 3:53pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 3:35pm: Hey Ajax, 70 billion in subsidies per year for renewable energy in Australia? Really? As much as the total health budget? Astonishing how it hasn't taken off... you must be dreaming again and spreading your garbage again. You need to return to your mother country Germany and see how they do things there - quite different from the worlds number 1 DUMB country - Australia Hey chimp its fact look it up, I didn't pull this figure out of my arse. [quote]“More than US$70 billion of support is provided by governments to renewable energy production and consumption worldwide.” . AH 70 billion WORLDWIDE - chicken droppings (a good investment anyway) IMF put the tax payer contributions to the fossil fuel sectors at 1.9 TRILLION dollars per annum And the 1.9 trillion does not include the cost of OIL wars and resource theft by the WEST - esp the US fascist corporate military rogue terrorist state clown freaks

Hey banana breath

Please provide a link to where you're getting this information from...????

Hey hairy arse

Where's your link..............?

So you claim to be a smart cookie so I want you to do the math for me if you don't mind.


Quote:

From information below. The question is...??? If all fossil fuels provide 88% of the world's energy needs and from that figure coal provides 24% of the worlds energy needs, and all fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of 1.9 trillion dollars world wide. If renewables provide 7% of the world's energy needs and are also being subsidized at $70 billion dollars world wide. 1. How much of the fossil fuel subsidy does coal get? 2. If coal and renewables were to swap places in  terms of percentage of power supplied to the world. What would be the new subsidy for renewable energy and the new subsidy for coal energy?

Hey banana breath, I get

1. 518 billion coal @ 24%

2. renewables 240 billion @ 24%
     coal          151 billion @ 7%

What did you estimate...........?????

Hey muso feel free to give me your estimates...or check mine if you dont mind!!!!


Quote:

Despite the promise of alternative energy sources — more appropriately called renewable energy, collectively they provide only about 7 percent of the world’s energy needs (Source: Energy Information Agency). This means that fossil fuels, along with nuclear energy — a controversial, non-renewable energy source — are supplying 93 percent of the world’s energy resources. Nuclear energy, which is primarily generated by splitting atoms, only provides 6 percent of the world’s energy supplies. And it is not likely to be a major source of world energy consumption because of public pressure and the relative dangers associated with unleashing the power of the atom. Yet, governments such as the United States see its vast potential and are placing pressure on the further exploitation of nuclear energy. The total world energy demand is for about 400 quadrillion British Thermal Units — or BTUs — each year (Source: US Department of Energy). That’s 400,000,000,000,000,000 BTUs! A BTU is roughly equal to the energy and heat generated by a match. Oil, coal and natural gas supply nearly 88 percent of the world’s energy needs, or about 350 quadrillion BTUs. Of this amount, oil is king, providing about 41 percent of the world’s total energy supplies, or about 164 quadrillion BTUs. Coal provides 24 percent of the world’s energy, or 96 quadrillion BTUs, and natural gas provides the remaining 22 percent, or 88 quadrillion BTUs. http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/06/fossil-fuels-vs-renewable-energy-resources/

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 3:35pm:

Hey Ajax, 70 billion in subsidies per year for renewable energy in Australia? Really? As much as the total health budget? Astonishing how it hasn't taken off... you must be dreaming again and spreading your garbage again. You need to return to your mother country Germany and see how they do things there - quite different from the worlds number 1 DUMB country - Australia

Of all the fantastic things done in Germany, wind power aint one. The hangover from the fantasy of WIND power is gonna be epic. If for one moment you opened your eyes you may just see the reality. Mr & Mrs Sauerkraut are not happy with their power bills, I expect another frigid winter will just about cement the simmering discontent they are feeling.

Rider wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 5:12pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 3:35pm: Hey Ajax, 70 billion in subsidies per year for renewable energy in Australia? Really? As much as the total health budget? Astonishing how it hasn't taken off... you must be dreaming again and spreading your garbage again. You need to return to your mother country Germany and see how they do things there - quite different from the worlds number 1 DUMB country - Australia Of all the fantastic things done in Germany, wind power aint one. The hangover from the fantasy of WIND power is gonna be epic. If for one moment you opened your eyes you may just see the reality. Mr & Mrs Sauerkraut are not happy with their power bills, I expect another frigid winter will just about cement the simmering discontent they are feeling.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/electricprices.gif


Not much more than the price in Australia, and the Germans are not exactly poor.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 3:35pm:

... 70 billion in subsidies per year for renewable energy in Australia? ...

You might like to wash your hands. There's no telling what orifice Nova pulled that figure from.

As far as I can tell, she's comparing global renewables subsidies to Australian fossil fuel subsidies. According to Nova, the IEA puts fossil fuel subsidies at ten times those for renewables. The Guardian says it's 5 times.

---

# wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 6:18pm:

As far as I can tell, she's comparing global renewables subsidies to Australian fossil fuel subsidies. According to Nova, the IEA puts fossil fuel subsidies at ten times those for renewables. The Guardian says it's 5 times.

Now why doesn't that surprise me? Joanne Nova lying.... again?

Estimated global subsidies and grants handed to fossil fuel sectors per year

1.9 trillion - IMF
1.42 trillion - World Coal Association
1.3 trillion - EA
1.14 trillion - estimate based on report
950 Billion - EU

# wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 6:18pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 3:35pm: ... 70 billion in subsidies per year for renewable energy in Australia? ... You might like to wash your hands. There's no telling what orifice Nova pulled that figure from. As far as I can tell, she's comparing global renewables subsidies to Australian fossil fuel subsidies. According to Nova, the IEA puts fossil fuel subsidies at ten times those for renewables. The Guardian says it's 5 times.

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 6:46pm:

# wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 6:18pm: As far as I can tell, she's comparing global renewables subsidies to Australian fossil fuel subsidies. According to Nova, the IEA puts fossil fuel subsidies at ten times those for renewables. The Guardian says it's 5 times. Now why doesn't that surprise me? Joanne Nova lying.... again?

Quite typical of the alarmist camp to distort sentences.

When are you guys going to grow up and face reality.

chimp said that not Jo.

If you care to take a look.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Estimated global subsidies and grants handed to fossil fuel sectors per year 1.9 trillion - IMF 1.42 trillion - World Coal Association 1.3 trillion - EA 1.14 trillion - estimate based on report 950 Billion - EU

it would be really nice to attach a source..??????

http://i40.tinypic.com/jubdq8.jpg

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CEUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energyaustralia.com.au%2Fservlet%2FSatellite%3Fblobcol%3Durldata%26blobheader%3Dapplication%25252Fpdf%26blobheadername1%3DContent-Disposition%26blobheadervalue1%3Dattachment%25253B%2Bfilename%25253D%252522Ausgrid%2Benergy%2Bprice%2Bfact%2Bsheet.pdf%252522%26blobkey%3Did%26blobtable%3DMungoBlobs%26blobwhere%3D1343702690323%26ssbinary%3Dtrue&ei=ryFyUsu2OY2jkAWozYA4&usg=AFQjCNGKh838PGuVoyZ7G0I3anG1pvdEmw

ofcourse none of you guys would post something like this so I thought I would do the honors chumps.


Quote:

$12 kWh Electricity In South Australia - What Happened? The wholesale price of electricity in South Australia recently shot up to $12,100 per megawatt hour at one point - just over $12 a kilowatt hour. How did this occur?     According to AdelaideNow, the official story is between Saturday June 1 and Monday June 3, all wind generation in South Australia ceased due to weather conditions. The effect was compounded by other power generation units being offline or operating under reduced output. Additionally, the Murraylink interconnector that transmits power from Victoria was also out of action for a period due to a cable fault. http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3795

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:12pm:

chimp said that not Jo. If you care to take a look.

I had a look. This is what the headline was:

Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables...

Which government? Well she's an Australian confusionalist, so one would think she's spreading disinformation about Australia. It's only if we go further down the  text  that we find out that it's actually a worldwide figure.

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:34pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 7:12pm: chimp said that not Jo. If you care to take a look. I had a look. This is what the headline was: Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables... Which government? Well she's an Australian confusionalist, so one would think she's spreading disinformation about Australia. It's only if we go further down the  text  that we find out that it's actually a worldwide figure.

This is what I first posted at the bottom of the previous page........????????

Strange that you see only what you want to see....????


Quote:

“More than US$70 billion of support is provided by governments to renewable energy production and consumption worldwide.” http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/energy-iea-gas-idUKL5E8KD4ZJ20120913

Ok a lilttle bit further up on that previous page I posted this,


Quote:

Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables, and wild claims of “fossil fuel subsidies” debunked http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/

if you follow the link it shows the quote.

I'm just pointing out the headline that Joanne Nova chose in order to create most confusion. (It's her specialty)

The Reuters site that you quoted is quite correct.

did you guys miss this or you're just avoiding it....?????


Quote:

The question is...??? If all fossil fuels provide 88% of the world's energy needs and from that figure coal provides 24% of the worlds energy needs, and all fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of 1.9 trillion dollars world wide. If renewables provide 7% of the world's energy needs and are also being subsidized at $70 billion dollars world wide. 1. How much of the fossil fuel subsidy does coal get? 2. If coal and renewables were to swap places in  terms of percentage of power supplied to the world. What would be the new subsidy for renewable energy and the new subsidy for coal energy? 1. 518 billion coal @ 24% 2. renewables 240 billion @ 24%      coal          151 billion @ 7% What did you estimate...........?????

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:36pm:

muso wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 7:34pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 7:12pm: chimp said that not Jo. If you care to take a look. I had a look. This is what the headline was: Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables... Which government? Well she's an Australian confusionalist, so one would think she's spreading disinformation about Australia. It's only if we go further down the  text  that we find out that it's actually a worldwide figure. This is what I first posted at the bottom of the previous page........???????? Strange that you see only what you want to see....???? Quote: “More than US$70 billion of support is provided by governments to renewable energy production and consumption worldwide.” http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/energy-iea-gas-idUKL5E8KD4ZJ20120913 Ok a lilttle bit further up on that previous page I posted this, [quote]Government burn $70 billion a year subsidizing renewables, and wild claims of “fossil fuel subsidies” debunked http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/

if you follow the link it shows the quote.[/quote]

Did you calculate what the fossil fuel/renewable energy ratio is for tax payer funded goodies and subsidies is?

If you take your miserly 70 billion and use the IMF estimate of 1.9 trillion you get a very healthy and favourable scam ratio of

27.14

Didn't chimp quote a global figure of $1.4 trillion at one stage for global subsidies of fossil fuel?

Well chimp that means when we switch to renewables our government will have more than double the money because it will only subsidise the renewable energy half as much as the fossil fuel energy right....?????

Yeah I'ld like to see that.............!!!!!


did you guys miss this or you're just avoiding it....?????


Quote:

The question is...??? If all fossil fuels provide 88% of the world's energy needs and from that figure coal provides 24% of the worlds energy needs, and all fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of 1.9 trillion dollars world wide. If renewables provide 7% of the world's energy needs and are also being subsidized at $70 billion dollars world wide. 1. How much of the fossil fuel subsidy does coal get? 2. If coal and renewables were to swap places in  terms of percentage of power supplied to the world. What would be the new subsidy for renewable energy and the new subsidy for coal energy? 1. 518 billion coal @ 24% 2. renewables 240 billion @ 24%      coal          151 billion @ 7% What did you estimate...........?????

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:47pm:

Didn't chimp quote a global figure of $1.4 trillion at one stage for global subsidies of fossil fuel?

I think banana breath has gone apesh!t......!!!!!!

With no sources as usual....???


Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:09pm:

Estimated global subsidies and grants handed to fossil fuel sectors per year 1.9 trillion - IMF 1.42 trillion - World Coal Association 1.3 trillion - EA 1.14 trillion - estimate based on report 950 Billion - EU

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:47pm:

Didn't chimp quote a global figure of $1.4 trillion at one stage for global subsidies of fossil fuel?

yes indeed muso

I have figures which range from 950 Billion (EU) to 1.9 trillion (IMF)

these figures don't include the cost of energy and OIL wars

(the Iraq war alone was estimated to have costed about 5.1 trillion dollars - mainly profits for the US corporations  -  cant talk about the REAL cost of the Iraq war - 1.42 million civilian deaths post 2003, and about 5,000 US military personnel deaths + countless injuries)

$1900 Billion dollars multiplied by 0.16 = $304 billion. So renewables should get subsidies of $304 billion globally even for parity with fossil fuel generation. In fact they only get $70 billion.


Quote:

About 16% of global final energy consumption comes from renewable resources.

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2647&ArticleID=8812&l=en

That's a 2010 figure, so it's probably higher now.

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:57pm:

$1900 Billion dollars multiplied by 0.16 = $304 billion. So renewables should get subsidies of $304 billion globally even for parity with fossil fuel generation. In fact they only get $70 billion. Quote: About 16% of global final energy consumption comes from renewable resources. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2647&ArticleID=8812&l=en That's a 2010 figure, so it's probably higher now.

Thanks.

But it looks to me as though the renewable subsidies are less than the fossil fuels.

A different rate a cheaper rate........?????

You have based renewables on the fossil fuel rate...!!!

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:57pm:

$1900 Billion dollars multiplied by 0.16 = $304 billion. So renewables should get subsidies of $304 billion globally even for parity with fossil fuel generation. In fact they only get $70 billion. Quote: About 16% of global final energy consumption comes from renewable resources. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2647&ArticleID=8812&l=en That's a 2010 figure, so it's probably higher now.

I would prefer that NO sector gets subsidies and tax breaks (the fossil fuel and nuclear sector corporate board rooms tremble in fear when they hear this)

So firstly you level the playing field. Then you regulate the banking and financial sectors so that they don't CORRUPTLY favour money lending to specific sectors (which is the case at the moment)

In that scenario, even the inefficient corpocracy and corrupt stock markets cant stop renewables from flourishing globally

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 6:18pm:

Rider wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 5:12pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 3:35pm: Hey Ajax, 70 billion in subsidies per year for renewable energy in Australia? Really? As much as the total health budget? Astonishing how it hasn't taken off... you must be dreaming again and spreading your garbage again. You need to return to your mother country Germany and see how they do things there - quite different from the worlds number 1 DUMB country - Australia Of all the fantastic things done in Germany, wind power aint one. The hangover from the fantasy of WIND power is gonna be epic. If for one moment you opened your eyes you may just see the reality. Mr & Mrs Sauerkraut are not happy with their power bills, I expect another frigid winter will just about cement the simmering discontent they are feeling. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/electricprices.gif Not much more than the price in Australia, and the Germans are not exactly poor.

Wow, lets tax ourselves voluntarily till we make ourselves poor socialists - must be the Chump effect on you Muso, but missing the gratuitous bilious abuse.

Its a great graph that, makes you wanna compare Australia with say Canada, or even the USA....we have the green twats here in Australia and at the UN to thank for our power prices....and now its becoming obvious to most non gravy train recipients that the man made global warming scam is nothing more than a....well, a scam.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:02pm:

muso wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 7:57pm: $1900 Billion dollars multiplied by 0.16 = $304 billion. So renewables should get subsidies of $304 billion globally even for parity with fossil fuel generation. In fact they only get $70 billion. Quote: About 16% of global final energy consumption comes from renewable resources. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2647&ArticleID=8812&l=en That's a 2010 figure, so it's probably higher now. I would prefer that NO sector gets subsidies and tax breaks (the fossil fuel and nuclear sector corporate board rooms tremble in fear when they hear this) So firstly you level the playing field. Then you regulate the banking and financial sectors so that they don't CORRUPTLY favour money lending to specific sectors (which is the case at the moment) In that scenario, even the inefficient corpocracy and corrupt stock markets cant stop renewables from flourishing globally

Come on chimp

If they can manipulate our banking system, if they can manipulate our fossil fuels.....!!!!

What's going to stop them manipulating renewable energy..!!

I hear where you're coming from but is it wishful thinking..??

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:01pm:

Thanks. But it looks to me as though the renewable subsidies are less than the fossil fuels. A different rate a cheaper rate........????? You have based renewables on the fossil fuel rate...!!!

They are less by a factor of 3 or 4.  What I did was to take a figure of 16% and multiplied that by the $1900 billion stated subsidies for fossil fuels. What I'm saying is that if the subsidies were in the same proportion, then  the subsidy for renewables should be around $304 billion.  The figure from Reuters is only $70 billion.

Capiche?

Actually, the 2013 renewable enegy generation is now around 20% globally, so it's even more of a disparity.

Having said that, why would you subsidise hydro electricity?    - or geothermal in Iceland, where it's already cheap?

You're right in saying that the costs of wars have not been factored in. The cost of war is an invisible subsidy in itself.

---

Rider wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:03pm:

Wow, lets tax ourselves voluntarily till we make ourselves poor socialists - must be the Chump effect on you Muso, but missing the gratuitous bilious abuse. Its a great graph that, makes you wanna compare Australia with say Canada, or even the USA....we have the green twats here in Australia and at the UN to thank for our power prices....and now its becoming obvious to most non gravy train recipients that the man made global warming scam is nothing more than a....well, a scam.

So true rider, but the club of rome wants global governance with all the nazi pigs that have created this "masters of the universe" club, and they think we need saving from ourselves.

That's why they want to govern the whole world.

The disappointing thing to me anyways is that they have managed to get educated people like chimp and muso on their side supporting the scam that is global warming.

Guys look who's running the show, look at the pseudo science they spit out through computer models that don't agree with real world observations.

Are you guys ready to place a dictatorship in office for carbon pricing......????

We can go to renewables without making these PIGS rich in the process through carbon credit trading...!!!

Rider wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:03pm:

Its a great graph that, makes you wanna compare Australia with say Canada, or even the USA....we have the green twats here in Australia and at the UN to thank for our power prices....and now its becoming obvious to most non gravy train recipients that the man made global warming scam is nothing more than a....well, a scam.

You honestly think that Australia's tiny renewable energy sector  has affected the electricity price?

Nonsense!  Do some research. The price of electricity has always been less in the US and Canada and both those countries are producing a higher proportion of  renewable energy than Australia.

Why do you think energy is so cheap in Canada and the US?

Financial slavery in the form of the environmental movement.....????

If corporations are getting billions form the government..!!

Why rise the price of energy............????


Quote:

Julia Gillard's clean energy crusade The transformation to low-emissions technologies will be driven by a $10bn Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which will invest in businesses driving clean energy proposals. The new body will be in addition to $3.2bn Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which will drive existing low-emissions technology programs and comes despite the Productivity Commission finding that renewables had driven up abatement costs for little environmental gain - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/national-affairs/julia-gillards-clean-energy-crusade/story-fn99tjf2-1226091934416#sthash.FCKlU747.dpuf

Quote:

Gillard’s carbon price proposal: shovel billions to business Julia Gillard’s embrace of pro-business policies seems to know no bounds. It was revealed in early February Labor wants to introduce a carbon price laden with compensation for coal and electricity companies. Leaked documents in The Australian show that Labor wants to introduce a carbon tax in July next year that will become an emissions trading scheme a few years down the track. Compensation handed to big business would be similar to that offered by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd under his abandoned emissions trading scheme (known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, or CPRS)—approximately $35 billion dollars in cash and free permits to polluting companies in the first year alone. The compensation arrangements under the CPRS attracted swathes of criticism; even the Grattan Institute, stacked with advisors handpicked by Labor, said in a report that the compensation arrangements were unnecessary and would slow the transition to renewable energy. That even despite this Labor still wants to dish out such a stunning amount of money to polluting companies is testament to their slavishness to the oil, coal and gas giants that are responsible for the vast majority of Australia’s carbon emissions. Under the CPRS, mining company Rio Tinto was to receive $565 million dollars in the first year alone, and would presumably receive a similar amount under Gillard’s scheme. Rio Tinto has just announced a record profit of $14 billion dollars. Just-released Treasury documents show Gillard forfeited $60 billion dollars when she reworked the mining tax to suit business demands. BHP is boasting that as a result it achieved a half-year profit of $10.6 billion. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that big business is so emboldened by their victory over the mining tax that “business leaders have warned that the government could face a battle reminiscent of the one over a mining tax if Labor ignores demands for compensation for companies hurt by a carbon price.” This is a disastrous direction for the climate. A new report by the Department of Climate Change says Australia is not on target to reach the miniscule five per cent emissions reduction target set by Kevin Rudd. They estimate emissions will rise by 24 per cent by 2020 http://www.solidarity.net.au/32/gillards-carbon-price-proposal-shovel-billions-to-business/

That article conveniently just shows one side of the ledger.

Now again - Why is electricity so cheap to the consumer in the US?

It's not brain surgery.

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:27pm:

That article conveniently just shows one side of the ledger. Now again - Why is electricity so cheap to the consumer in the US? It's not brain surgery.

Fossil fuels :D ;D 8-) :P

Don't believe me..........???

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/electricity-declines-50-in-u-s-as-shale-brings-natural-gas-glut-energy.html

Dude price dropped 50%.......!!!!!!!!

Come on guys. We've just been talking about it.


Quote:

Its a great graph that, makes you wanna compare Australia with say Canada, or even the USA....we have the green twats here in Australia and at the UN to thank for our power prices

Crap.

It's because they subsidise it to the hilt. Consumers in the US don't pay the real cost of generation. In Canada, 64% is renewable Hydro Electricity anyway, so it's already quite cheap.

http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

Oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 7:12pm:

# wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 6:18pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 3:35pm: ... 70 billion in subsidies per year for renewable energy in Australia? ... You might like to wash your hands. There's no telling what orifice Nova pulled that figure from. As far as I can tell, she's comparing global renewables subsidies to Australian fossil fuel subsidies. According to Nova, the IEA puts fossil fuel subsidies at ten times those for renewables. The Guardian says it's 5 times. muso wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 6:46pm: # wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 6:18pm: As far as I can tell, she's comparing global renewables subsidies to Australian fossil fuel subsidies. According to Nova, the IEA puts fossil fuel subsidies at ten times those for renewables. The Guardian says it's 5 times. Now why doesn't that surprise me? Joanne Nova lying.... again? Quite typical of the alarmist camp to distort sentences. When are you guys going to grow up and face reality. chimp said that not Jo. If you care to take a look.

No Ajax, it was Jo Nova. In fact, I got the links from her blog post. She's deliberately confusing and cherry-picking.

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:39pm:

Come on guys. We've just been talking about it. Quote: Its a great graph that, makes you wanna compare Australia with say Canada, or even the USA....we have the green twats here in Australia and at the UN to thank for our power prices Crap. It's because they subsidise it to the hilt. Consumers in the US don't pay the real cost of generation. In Canada, 64% is renewable Hydro Electricity anyway, so it's already quite cheap. http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf Oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.

I'm with chimp on this one, no corporations should receive government subsidies.

And if they don't like it they can nik off to where ever they came from.

Our government will take over.

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:34pm:

muso wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 8:27pm: That article conveniently just shows one side of the ledger. Now again - Why is electricity so cheap to the consumer in the US? It's not brain surgery. Fossil fuels :D ;D 8-) :P Don't believe me..........??? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/electricity-declines-50-in-u-s-as-shale-brings-natural-gas-glut-energy.html Dude price dropped 50%.......!!!!!!!!

That's 2012. The figures were from 2010. But it's a valid point. LNG is rapidly taking over as a major energy source worldwide.

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:05pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 8:02pm: muso wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 7:57pm: $1900 Billion dollars multiplied by 0.16 = $304 billion. So renewables should get subsidies of $304 billion globally even for parity with fossil fuel generation. In fact they only get $70 billion. Quote: About 16% of global final energy consumption comes from renewable resources. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=2647&ArticleID=8812&l=en That's a 2010 figure, so it's probably higher now. I would prefer that NO sector gets subsidies and tax breaks (the fossil fuel and nuclear sector corporate board rooms tremble in fear when they hear this) So firstly you level the playing field. Then you regulate the banking and financial sectors so that they don't CORRUPTLY favour money lending to specific sectors (which is the case at the moment) In that scenario, even the inefficient corpocracy and corrupt stock markets cant stop renewables from flourishing globally Come on chimp If they can manipulate our banking system, if they can manipulate our fossil fuels.....!!!! What's going to stop them manipulating renewable energy..!! I hear where you're coming from but is it wishful thinking..??

I prefer an anarchistic leaning world.

A world without RULERS - and with rules that are democratically arrived at by direct participation by ALL citizens. No lobby groups, No vested interests, No Kings, No slaves, No smacking RULERS

In that scenario - the problems of the world will still be with us, but the burden wouldn't be dumped upon specific slave classes.

Its sounds like some sort of nirvana, idealist dream world

,,,,but its just common sense - survival

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:44pm:

I'm with chimp on this one, no corporations should receive government subsidies. And if they don't like it they can nik off to where ever they came from. Our government will take over.

Well, we finally have something that we all agree on.

At least the playing field should be level. It's kind of ridiculous that coal is being subsidised worldwide more than renewable energy.

# wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:43pm:

No Ajax, it was Jo Nova. In fact, I got the links from her blog post. She's deliberately confusing and cherry-picking.

If you follow the link it leads you here.

There can be no misunderstanding hash.

The quote is right there.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2e54oqb.jpg

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:49pm:

If you follow the link it leads you here. There can be no misunderstanding hash. The quote is right there. http://i43.tinypic.com/2e54oqb.jpg

Yes. I can read. It says Government burn (should be burns, but we'll forgive her poor grammar).

Which government ?

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:44pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 8:34pm: muso wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 8:27pm: That article conveniently just shows one side of the ledger. Now again - Why is electricity so cheap to the consumer in the US? It's not brain surgery. Fossil fuels :D ;D 8-) :P Don't believe me..........??? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/electricity-declines-50-in-u-s-as-shale-brings-natural-gas-glut-energy.html Dude price dropped 50%.......!!!!!!!! That's 2012. The figures were from 2010. But it's a valid point. LNG is rapidly taking over as a major energy source worldwide.

...and its emission are less - but the finite fossil fuel reserves problem and the CO2 emissions still remain.

Australia for example should have most of its transport run on CNG.

You can currently buy a compressor (around $2000 fitted) that fits onto your domestic gas supply and fill your CNG tank in your vehicle. Cost estimate is less than 15 cents per litre.

---

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:47pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 8:44pm: I'm with chimp on this one, no corporations should receive government subsidies. And if they don't like it they can nik off to where ever they came from. Our government will take over. Well, we finally have something that we all agree on. At least the playing field should be level. It's kind of ridiculous that coal is being subsidised worldwide more than renewable energy.

Like I have been saying all along i'm not against renewables as long as they are cheap as fossil fuels.

But at this moment in time straight from the horses mouth that master of the universe Jorgen Randers who thinks we need saving from ourselves.

go to the 36 minute mark and listen to what he says about the price of renewables
http://youtu.be/odKY-vnxwYU

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:46pm:

I prefer an anarchistic leaning world. A world without RULERS - and with rules that are democratically arrived at by direct participation by ALL citizens. No lobby groups, No vested interests, No Kings, No slaves, No smacking RULERS

A world where you can say things like:


Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 3:30pm:

So I assume when you two clowns are expressing concern about the total global population, you are being good little bigoted, racially deranged freak fascists

- and get off with it?  ;D

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 8:49pm: If you follow the link it leads you here. There can be no misunderstanding hash. The quote is right there. http://i43.tinypic.com/2e54oqb.jpg Yes. I can read. It says Government burn (should be burns, but we'll forgive her poor grammar). Which government ?

Its captioned in the quote.


Quote:

“More than US$70 billion of support is provided by governments to renewable energy production and consumption worldwide.” http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/energy-iea-gas-idUKL5E8KD4ZJ20120913

Hey guys we can replace coal with renewable energy.

But what about oil.........how can we replace...oil.....????

Think about it all forms of packaging, your computer or anything made of plastic..............????

And ofcourse the obvious fuel for cars...???..etc...!!!

How do you suggest we replace plastics of all forms....????

Heaven forbid what about condoms.....??????

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 8:59pm:

Like I have been saying all along i'm not against renewables as long as they are cheap as fossil fuels. But at this moment in time straight from the horses mouth that master of the universe Jorgen Randers who thinks we need saving from ourselves.

That's just one lone horse at the moment. You'll find a lot more studies showing that renewable energy is approaching or already at parity, and falling in price all the time.
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/coal-more-risky-renewables

That's just one of them, and it's not talking about grid parity, which has already been reached.

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:14pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 8:59pm: Like I have been saying all along i'm not against renewables as long as they are cheap as fossil fuels. But at this moment in time straight from the horses mouth that master of the universe Jorgen Randers who thinks we need saving from ourselves. That's just one lone horse at the moment. You'll find a lot more studies showing that renewable energy is approaching or already at parity, and falling in price all the time. http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/coal-more-risky-renewables That's just one of them, and it's not talking about grid parity, which has already been reached.

Whether renewables can match the reliability of fossil fuels is yet to be seen even if they do become cheaper than fossil fuels.

BTW that study is with assumed 2030 prices of both commodities.

So to me anyway its a bit crystal ball stuff again.

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:06pm:

Hey guys we can replace coal with renewable energy. But what about oil.........how can we replace...oil.....???? Think about it all forms of packaging, your computer or anything made of plastic..............???? And ofcourse the obvious fuel for cars...???..etc...!!! How do you suggest we replace plastics of all forms....????

Why replace them? Plastics can still be produced with a low carbon footprint. There is no combustion involved - or very little. That's one reason why we need to conserve oil.

For cars, once we have renewable electricity, electric cars have a lot of potential (no pun intended) or they can burn biofuel.  Some airlines already burn biofuel.

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:06pm:

Hey guys we can replace coal with renewable energy. But what about oil.........how can we replace...oil.....???? Think about it all forms of packaging, your computer or anything made of plastic..............???? And ofcourse the obvious fuel for cars...???..etc...!!! How do you suggest we replace plastics of all forms....????

Most plastics can be recycled effectively and can be manufactured via biological pathways

Bio-plastics

There are alternatives.

And of course humanity needs to change its habits of waste, disposability and addiction to materialism

But this will happen or humanity will not survive

And that means YOU Mr Ajax

YOU ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM!

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:21pm:

Some airlines already burn biofuel.

Made in Sth Africa I believe

http://www.purac.com/EN/Bioplastics/FAQs/Copy-of-End-of-life.aspx

Quote:

Biobased plastics have clear advantages over conventional plastics. They provide the same and in some cases better performance while also being based on renewable resources. Thus, the plastics industry will be able to move away from finite fossil resources in the future and take its place in the bioeconomy. Saving fossil resources and reducing GHG emissions are two inherent advantages that biobased plastics offer in contrast to conventional plastics. With use cascades biobased plastics can also contribute towards 'closing the loop' of a product thus helping to increase resource efficiency immensely. Bioplastics are either more sustainable than conventional plastics or have the potential to be so. According to a study by the German Environment Agency "bioplastics are at least as good as conventional plastics". The study also mentions that "considerable potential is as yet untapped" (ifeu/GEA, 2012).1

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:23pm:

And of course humanity needs to change its habits of waste, disposability and addiction to materialism

Materialism can be sustainable. Just imagine a huge HVDC worldwide grid fed by Solar arrays in every continent. No need for storage.

I have no intention of giving up my lifestyle. The same lifestyle is possible using renewable energy.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:23pm:

Most plastics can be recycled effectively and can be manufactured via biological pathways Bio-plastics There are alternatives. And of course humanity needs to change its habits of waste, disposability and addiction to materialism But this will happen or humanity will not survive And that means YOU Mr Ajax YOU ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM!

Sorry chimp

I'm nor prepared to trade democracy for environmentalism gone sick.

Especially when the drivers are the pigs from the club of rome.

They want to get rich and control us at the same time because they need to save us from ourselves.

We don't need saving and Australia doesn't have to hand billions of dollars over to the United Nations Environmental fund.

The money could be better used here in our back yard.

Retrofitting coal fired power stations with gas fired boilers at the front end, this will reduce our carbon footprint by 25%.

At the back end we could retrofit our power stations with the latest technology in

1. fabric filter bags - soot capture
2. electrostatic precipitators - soot capture
3. CO2 scrubbers - carbon sequestration

Further reducing CO2 emissions.

This will go along way in reducing our carbon footprint.

More than any amount of carbon credits purchased from wall street could ever do.

We don't need to give money to these pigs over at the UN so they can grow rich and be empowered with our dollars.

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 9:23pm: And of course humanity needs to change its habits of waste, disposability and addiction to materialism Materialism can be sustainable. Just imagine a huge HVDC worldwide grid fed by Solar arrays in every continent. No need for storage. I have no intention of giving up my lifestyle. The same lifestyle is possible using renewable energy.

Don't you guys think that having thousands of square kilometres of wind mills and solar panels will be an environmental hazard................??????

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:19pm:

BTW that study is with assumed 2030 prices of both commodities. So to me anyway its a bit crystal ball stuff again.

2030 is only 16 years away. How long does it take to plan and build a new Power Station? The cost justification needs to be for the entire lifetime.

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 9:23pm: And of course humanity needs to change its habits of waste, disposability and addiction to materialism Materialism can be sustainable. Just imagine a huge HVDC worldwide grid fed by Solar arrays in every continent. No need for storage. I have no intention of giving up my lifestyle. The same lifestyle is possible using renewable energy.

....and then there is solar thermal which is not only very cheap at the moment (esp in regions with high solar radiation) but is a base load power source.

http://www.energy-without-carbon.org/sites/default/files/solar%20thermal%209%20storage-capacity.jpg


....we will all need to make lifestyle changes Mr Muso - although some more than others

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:40pm:

Don't you guys think that having thousands of square kilometres of wind mills and solar panels will be an environmental hazard................??????

I was trying to find a map showing the total area required to supply 100% Australia's needs using solar. It's a tiny area lost in the Kimberley. (See attached image )

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/images/2007/04/03/600_kw_suncubemark5gge.jpg

Solar PV is improving in efficiency all the time. This  relatively small concentrating tracking suncube can deliver 711kWh/year.  The efficiency of conventional flat Solar panels is predicted to double in the next 5 years.

Maybe that's pessimistic too:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/168811-new-nano-material-could-boost-solar-panel-efficiency-as-high-as-80

---

Ajax wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:37pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 9:23pm: Most plastics can be recycled effectively and can be manufactured via biological pathways Bio-plastics There are alternatives. And of course humanity needs to change its habits of waste, disposability and addiction to materialism But this will happen or humanity will not survive And that means YOU Mr Ajax YOU ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM! Sorry chimp I'm nor prepared to trade democracy for environmentalism gone sick.

...no need to apologise for the symptoms of the intense propaganda based brain washing that goes on

And we don't live in a Democracy - its a Corpocracy - a form of fascism. Havent you noticed how impotent your vote is and how the political process has been corporatized and purchased? Cant you tell who and what you political representatives fight for in these so called houses of parliament????

In any case I don't really know what this "environmentalism" is (you may be reading far too much Andrew Bolt tripe)

I am sure you meant "I wish we could trade the current fascist corpocracy which is leading us into the pits of excrement and over the precipice, with a genuine democracy"

Why do you find this image detestable?
http://www.rtcc.org/2010/html/images/articles/7-solar/protermosolar/protermosolar-1.jpg

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:59pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 9:40pm: Don't you guys think that having thousands of square kilometres of wind mills and solar panels will be an environmental hazard................?????? I was trying to find a map showing the total area required to supply 100% Australia's needs using solar. It's a tiny area lost in the Kimberley. (See attached image ) http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/images/2007/04/03/600_kw_suncubemark5gge.jpg Solar PV is improving in efficiency all the time. This  relatively small concentrating tracking suncube can deliver 711kWh/year.  The efficiency of conventional flat Solar panels is predicted to double in the next 5 years. Maybe that's pessimistic too: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/168811-new-nano-material-could-boost-solar-panel-efficiency-as-high-as-80

That's quite an impressive annual power output figure for such as small area.

My Solar PV system produces just under 3000 kW.hr per year - but does not track the sun. The panels are close to facing due north though, at a standard roof pitch angle of 23 deg.

I would estimate from the image you posted that my solar array is about 20 to 25 times greater in area.

So that panel is at least 600% more efficient in terms of power output.

Although if I install a sun tracking system, I would expect to increase my output by about 40%.

So overall that panel is just over 400% more efficient.

capital costs would be higher though but I am sure it would pay itself off quicker overall

Given how far we've drifted off-topic, I take it we're agreed that windmills are less of a risk to bird-life than most, if not all, other means' of electricity generation.

In Victoria, when the Ballieau government was elected a couple of years ago, it implemented legislation almost immediately that related to renewable energy options.

Firstly it introduced a 2km veto region surrounding any new Wind Turbine project so that any one or more individual can stop the project from going ahead.

Secondly it reduced the premium solar PV rebate from 60 c/kWhr to 20 c/kWhr then to its current level of 8 c/kWhr.

Both these essentially ended the Wind and solar PV industries in Victoria almost overnight

Where are the 2 km veto laws for Coal fired Power stations, possible nuclear power plants, etc?

# wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 7:26am:

Given how far we've drifted off-topic, I take it we're agreed that windmills are less of a risk to bird-life than most, if not all, other means' of electricity generation.

Hash your going to have to decide which part of your green backside is going to get the better of you on this one....!!!


Quote:

Thousands of birds paying a high price for green energy As Australia pushes to meet its Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets, wind farms are proliferating across the country. Already over 50 projects supply around 20 per cent of the country's clean energy. But overseas experience shows that thousands of rare birds are being killed by turbines each year, and no one has a solution to the problem. Twitcher Sue Taylor writes about the conflict between green energy advocates and bird enthusiasts. rest here http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/bird-strikes-at-wind-farms/4668750

Canada Ranks Top Bird Killers, Wind Turbines Not Even Close To The Top

This article is about debunking myths (deliberately perpetrated) regarding wind energy. First, watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llIbjC49Fjs

Billion dollar businesses and billion dollar interests have a lot of money they can use to attack their up-and-coming competitors. Even if those competitors are driven by clear thinking and clean energy, money directed in an effective way can make them look bad. Promoting misinformation lacks integrity, but it’s very common within large industries and economic sectors.

People are busy. They do not have the time to research each myth out there. Thus, we sometimes get fooled. Here at CleanTechnica, we try to make it a bit easier to get some straight-up, correct information. Greed-driven myths hurt the world, and our #1 goal is simply to help the world.

http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/10/top-bird-killers-bird-deaths.jpg
I came upon this bird directly in front of the door of my local library. The bird hit the glass of the library door and died. Yes, 3rd on the list of things that cause birds to die, is collisions with buildings.

Peter Sinclair provides us with The List of Top Bird Killers (via CBC):

1. Domestic and feral cats: 200 million
2. Power lines, collisions and electrocutions: 25 million
3. Collisions with houses or buildings: 25 million
4. Vehicle collisions: 14 million
5. Game bird hunting: 5 million
6. Agricultural pesticides 2.7 million
7. Agricultural mowing: 2.2 million young birds, equivalent to one million adult birds
8. Commercial forestry: 1.4 million nests, equivalent to 900,000 adult birds
9. Communications towers: 220,000


A resource that cannot be depleted or sacrificed is wind. Wind is not toxic (unless it carries pesticides, that is). Wind cuts global warming pollution. Wind turbines use much, much less water than fossil fuel power plants, nuclear power plants, and even solar power plants. Wind does not use slave labor to produce it. (If I am wrong about this, please comment and let us know.)

Another Peter, Peter Singer also communicates change and generates extraordinary vibrations of thought considering humanitarian value systems. Central reasoning of Peter Singer is bestowed as follows: “If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.”

Wind power doesn’t even make the list above. Wind turbines have been increasingly improved in a way as to minimize bird deaths. We need wind power, and it’s nice to know that it’s not the big bird killer it’s made out to be. For sure, there is room for improvement, but there almost always is, and that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use the best, cleanest, safest options we have.

# wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 7:15pm:

1. Domestic and feral cats: 200 million 2. Power lines, collisions and electrocutions: 25 million 3. Collisions with houses or buildings: 25 million 4. Vehicle collisions: 14 million 5. Game bird hunting: 5 million 6. Agricultural pesticides 2.7 million 7. Agricultural mowing: 2.2 million young birds, equivalent to one million adult birds 8. Commercial forestry: 1.4 million nests, equivalent to 900,000 adult birds 9. Communications towers: 220,000

So in conclusion the health of the bird populations around the world can be vastly improved by simply replacing the above structures and activities with Wind Turbines.

It is the only logical course of action to take. I am sure Mr Ajax would agree whole heartedly, seeing as he has express deep concern for the effects of Wind Turbines on the environment and on wild life.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/02/wind-turbine-2.jpg

http://econews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/wind-farm22.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 1^st, 2013 at 7:51pm:

# wrote on Nov 1st, 2013 at 7:15pm: 1. Domestic and feral cats: 200 million 2. Power lines, collisions and electrocutions: 25 million 3. Collisions with houses or buildings: 25 million 4. Vehicle collisions: 14 million 5. Game bird hunting: 5 million 6. Agricultural pesticides 2.7 million 7. Agricultural mowing: 2.2 million young birds, equivalent to one million adult birds 8. Commercial forestry: 1.4 million nests, equivalent to 900,000 adult birds 9. Communications towers: 220,000 So in conclusion the health of the bird populations around the world can be vastly improved by simply replacing the above structures and activities with Wind Turbines. It is the only logical course of action to take. I am sure Mr Ajax would agree whole heartedly, seeing as he has express deep concern for the effects of Wind Turbines on the environment and on wild life.

http://www.b3tards.com/u/8b5b151f962a8656e5fe/windmillcat.gif

---

a barrier is a barrier no matter what you call it.....??

muso wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 9:32pm:

Materialism can be sustainable. Just imagine a huge HVDC worldwide grid fed by Solar arrays in every continent. No need for storage. I have no intention of giving up my lifestyle. The same lifestyle is possible using renewable energy.

The club of rome are the high priests of anthropogenic global warming, for forty years they have been working to pass carbon pricing on a global scale.

They will also get a fair chunk of the revenue through there various organisations.

Now if you look at their ideology muso, it will most certainly change your life style if the environmental movement implements all its agendas.

Denial is futile you will be assimilated....LOL....!!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2013 at 11:45am:

muso wrote on Oct 31st, 2013 at 9:32pm: Materialism can be sustainable. Just imagine a huge HVDC worldwide grid fed by Solar arrays in every continent. No need for storage. I have no intention of giving up my lifestyle. The same lifestyle is possible using renewable energy. The club of rome are the high priests of anthropogenic global warming, for forty years they have been working to pass carbon pricing on a global scale. They will also get a fair chunk of the revenue through there various organisations. Now if you look at their ideology muso, it will most certainly change your life style if the environmental movement implements all its agendas. Denial is futile you will be assimilated....LOL....!!!!!!

everything has a price attached in Your delusional world

Why do you support 1.9 trillion dollars of tax payers money subsidising the fossil fuel sectors world wide each year?

Ajax wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2013 at 11:45am:

... The club of rome are the high priests of anthropogenic global warming, for forty years they have been working to pass carbon pricing on a global scale. ...

Of course, of course. It's all a conspiracy; aaaall a conspiracy.  ::)

If windmills controlled birds I would replant my orchard and build windmills.

Nothing works on birds after about 10 days

I remember attending a spill of cyanide in the NT about 10 years ago. There was a puddle at the side of the road and about 120 dead budgerigars. On the way there, the ute struck a flock of budgerigars. I thnk that one trip alone took out 10 of them.

Wind Energy Threat to Birds Is Overblown
Posted: 11/22/2013 9:06 am

Wind energy is one of the cleanest, most abundant, sustainable -- and increasingly cost-effective -- ways to generate electricity. It is also one of the fastest growing electricity sources around the globe. In the United States alone, more than 13,000 megawatts of new capacity was installed in 2012, and by the year's end, there were enough wind turbines to power 15 million typical American homes -- without toxic pollutants or carbon emissions.

Still, wind has its detractors. One of the most prominent is Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a New York City-based, pro-market, anti-government think tank backed by ExxonMobil and Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries. Over the last few years, Bryce has been bashing wind energy in the pages of the New York Post, Wall Street Journal and other publications, charging that wind turbines are, among other things, ugly, noisy and a threat to public health.

But what really seems to stick in his craw is their purported impact on birds.

Bryce's October 11 Wall Street Journal column is typical, rehashing an argument he made in a September 2009 column in the same newspaper, in the National Review last May, and the Wall Street Journal again last February. Bryce contends that the wind industry kills a "vast" number of birds every year -- especially eagles -- and insists the Obama administration is playing favorites, allowing wind developers to go scot-free while "aggressively" prosecuting the oil and gas industry for the same infraction. He calls it a "pernicious double standard."

But before you let Bryce's charges ruffle your feathers, you should know that they're wildly overblown. Yes, wind turbines unfortunately do kill some birds, including eagles, and the industry needs to address that fact. But how big a threat do they pose compared with other culprits? You wouldn't know by reading Bryce. Nor would you know that, if you compare the damage various energy technologies do to the environment, wildlife, public health and the climate, wind is one of the most benign.

In other words, context is everything, and Bryce doesn't provide it.

The Main Culprits

Given how Bryce portrays the wind industry, one would assume it's one of the nation's top bird killers. In fact, wind turbines are way down in the pecking order.

Besides habitat degradation and destruction, the top human-built environmental threat to our feathered friends are buildings. As many as 970 million birds crash into them annually, according to a June 2013 study in the Wilson Journal of Ornithology. Other studies, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), estimate that every year as many as 175 million birds die by flying into power lines, which electrocute tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands more; 72 million are poisoned by misapplied pesticides; nearly 6.6 million perish by hitting communications towers; and as many as 1 million birds die in oil and gas industry fluid waste pits.

By contrast, a March 2013 study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin estimates that land-based wind turbines killed as many as 573,000 birds in 2012. That's not insignificant, but certainly not the scourge that Bryce implies.

What about the threat wind turbines pose to bald and golden eagles? Turbines certainly are a particular problem for raptors. When they're hunting, they primarily train their eyes on the ground, scanning for prey, and they can be distracted by other raptors encroaching on their territory. Eagles also have limited peripheral vision. All of these factors can spell trouble, especially given the fact that turbine blade tips can spin as fast as 180 miles per hour.

In his October 11 column, Bryce cited a study in the September 2013 issue of the Journal of Raptor Research that found that wind turbines in 10 states killed 85 eagles between 1997 and the end of June 2012 -- 79 golden eagles and six bald eagles. That's an average of less than six a year, but most of the deaths occurred between 2008 and 2012 due to industry growth, and the study's authors were quick to point out that the number of turbine-related eagle deaths is likely much higher. The study didn't include wind industry-related eagle deaths in three other states as well at the 1980s-era Altamont Pass in Northern California, which has been killing an average of 67 eagles a year.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

For discussion sake, let's add the 67 eagle deaths a year at Altamont Pass to the 85 the study confirmed. Over a 15-and-a-half-year period, that would amount to 1,124 dead eagles. That sounds like a lot. But how does that compare with overall non-natural eagle deaths?

When an eagle is killed and people find a carcass, FWS asks them to send it to the National Wildlife Property Repository near Denver. About 2,500 show up every year, according to FWS, although certainly more go unreported. Using that number as a benchmark, the number of dead eagles annually from 1997 through June 2012 would amount to approximately 38,750 birds. Based on these admittedly crude estimations, at least 97 percent of the eagle deaths were attributable to causes other than commercial, land-based wind turbines. Often FWS can't determine the exact cause of death, but apparently poachers, transmission lines, pesticides, and lead poisoning from bullet-ridden carrion killed significantly more than turbines.

Same Old Same Old

FWS is currently investigating 18 wind industry-related bird-death cases and has referred seven of them to the Justice Department. Even so, as Bryce constantly complains, the Obama administration has yet to prosecute a wind developer under the two main federal bird protection laws, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act). Both the Eagle Act and the MBTA, which covers more than 800 bird species, prohibit anyone from "taking"-- hunting, capturing, selling or killing -- a bird without a permit.

As Bryce acknowledges, however, no previous Justice Department -- not even under the fossil fuel-friendly George W. Bush administration -- ever took a wind developer to court for violating either bird law. Building and communications tower owners also have been spared. Meanwhile, federal prosecution of the oil and gas industry and pesticide applicators goes back to the 1970s, and the government brought its first case against an electric utility for electrocuting birds in 1998. So perhaps there's a better explanation for the way the laws have been applied than what Bryce calls an Obama administration double standard.

The MBTA, which was enacted in 1918, is a strict liability law. That means if you accidentally kill a migratory bird with your car, for example, or a bird slams into your living room picture window, technically you have committed a misdemeanor, despite the fact it was unintentional. But it's impractical to enforce the law that way. The Justice Department will consider legal action only if a violator repeatedly breaks the law and is in a position to take reasonable steps to prevent further harm. Oil and gas companies can easily prevent birds from dying in their waste pits by stretching nets over them. Electric utilities can insulate their transmission poles to prevent electrocutions. But it is much more difficult to remediate skyscrapers or communication towers -- or wind turbines, for that matter -- once they are in place.

Unlike the MBTA, the Eagle Act, which was enacted in 1940, doesn't protect eagles from lawful activities that kill them unintentionally. It only applies to individuals or corporations without a permit that "knowingly, or with wanton disregard for the consequences" take a bald or golden eagle. That makes it much more difficult for the government to prosecute violators than under the MBTA.

Prosecution as a Last Resort

With either law, prosecution is a last resort. FWS -- which has only 230 field agents monitoring wildlife deaths nationwide -- tries to work with violators to fix the problem before it refers a case to the Justice Department.

For example, for decades FWS inspectors have been routinely checking for bird carcasses in oil and gas company liquid waste pits, which kill as many as a million birds annually. When FWS agents discover dead birds, they generally notify the responsible company and give it the opportunity to rectify the problem by installing netting or screening to keep birds from landing on the pits. If the company pays a modest fine--usually $500 and an additional $250 per bird--and corrects the problem, FWS will not file a case with a U.S. Attorney's office. That happens only after repeated violations. And even if a company is ultimately convicted and put on probation, the fine is relatively small.

Bryce actually cited one of these cases involving repeat offenders as evidence that the Obama administration is "aggressively" prosecuting the oil and gas industry, but he left out some key information that would have undermined his argument.

In 2011, FWS filed criminal charges against three companies drilling in North Dakota's Bakken shale formation. "One of those companies, Continental Resources, was indicted for killing a single bird" that died in one of its waste pits, Bryce squawked in the Wall Street Journal in February and again in the National Review in May.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

One bird?! Pretty outrageous, no? But Bryce failed to mention that Continental Resources and the two other companies, Brigham Oil & Gas and Newfield Production Co., had been flouting the law -- and killing birds -- for years. The Justice Department merely charged them with violations based on the number of dead birds FWS agents found when they made their last site visit following years of imploring the companies to install nets. No matter, the district court ultimately dismissed the charges, issuing a ruling that squarely conflicts with how the government has traditionally interpreted the MBTA.

Making Turbines More Bird-Friendly

In his zeal to disparage wind power, Bryce also doesn't credit the Obama administration and the wind industry for what they're doing to address the problem. In response to concerns about increasing turbine-related bird deaths, FWS issued new voluntary guidelines in March 2012 for wind developers to minimize harm to birds and their habitats. The guidelines, which cover siting, construction, monitoring and operation, were developed with the help of an advisory committee composed of experts from universities, industry, government agencies and conservation groups, including Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon Society. (I should note, however, that some groups, such as the American Bird Conservancy, insist those guidelines should be mandatory.)

Besides collaborating on the FWS guidelines for new wind farms, the industry is working with conservationists, science groups and government agencies to make their currently operating facilities more bird-friendly. For example, a number of leading wind companies and other industry players are partners in the American Wind Wildlife Institute, which the Union of Concerned Scientists helped launch in 2008. The institute's mission is to "facilitate timely and responsible development of wind energy, while protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat." The main point? You can do both.

Other remediation efforts, some admittedly due to lawsuits, also are underway. As a part of a settlement with the California state government and environmental groups, for example, the largest wind power company in the Altamont Pass is replacing thousands of outdated turbines with a lot fewer, taller, more-efficient ones that pose less of a threat to the golden eagles, hawks and other birds that patrol the skies in the area. So far those efforts and other modifications appear to be producing results.

Finally, there's one last critical point that Robert Bryce conveniently ignores: Climate change threatens hundreds of migratory bird species, which are already stressed by habitat loss, invasive species and other environmental threats. A 2010 report by FWS and other federal agencies in collaboration with such conservation groups as the National Audubon Society and American Bird Conservancy found that global warming will have an increasingly devastating effect on migratory birds in all habitats. And earlier this year, the National Wildlife Federation published a similar report that concludes unequivocally that climate change today is the most serious threat facing America's migratory birds.

Regardless, Bryce -- who has called himself an "agnostic" on climate science -- likely will continue to attack renewable energy at every opportunity on behalf of his benefactors. And I'm sure the ideologically driven editors at the Wall Street Journal's opinion section and the National Review will continue to run his columns. But there's no getting around the fact that we have to wean the world off fossil fuels as soon as possible, and one of the answers, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

However bats are different.

'More than 600,000 bats were killed by wind energy turbines in 2012, a serious blow to creatures who pollinate crops and help control flying insects, according to a new study from the University of Colorado Denver.

“The development and expansion of wind energy facilities is a key threat to bat populations in North America,” said study author Mark Hayes, PhD, research associate in integrated biology at CU Denver.  “Dead bats are being found underneath wind turbines across North America. The estimate of bat fatalities is probably conservative.”

The study, which analyzed data on the number of dead bats found at wind turbine sites, will be published next week in the journal BioScience.'

extract: 3w's.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/Study-shows-wind-turbines-killed-600000-bats-last-year.aspx

lee wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2013 at 3:07pm:

However bats are different. ...

Yes lee, I've seen all sorts of figures, many much larger than that. The truth is not likely to be found in whatever denialist blog directed you to that one.

They typically take one figure, adjust to taste, then extrapolate from there.


Quote:

As derived from Bat Conservation International, the key facts are compiled from existing studies by Greg Johnson, Western Ecosystem Technology and BWEC. [olist] Bat fatalities at wind turbines have been documented worldwide including in Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain and Sweden. They have occurred in varying habitats in North America. Only 12 studies have been conducted in the U.S. concerning bat fatalities at wind farms. Only one refereed journal article on bat mortality at turbines has been published. Bat fatalities have been reported at nearly all wind energy facilities in the US. Annual mortality is estimated from <2 to nearly 50 bats per turbine per year. Bat fatalities appear to be highest in or near forests and along ridge tops. Fatalities appear to be moderate in open areas close to forests in the Midwest, and lowest in open grassland or farmland away from forests. No detailed studies of the relationship between bat communities and wind turbines in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona or New Mexico have been conducted. Large bat populations occur in these areas, including migratory free-tailed bats. Hoary, red and silver-haired bats are most commonly killed Bats rarely strike meteorological towers or non-operating wind turbines Peaks in bird and bat kills do not appear to overlap, with bats preceding birds in fall migration. No endangered species of bats have been found or reported killed at a wind farm in the continental United States.[/olist]

So yes, as with all human activities, there are impacts. Amateurs like you and I are not qualified to judge their significance.

There have been other studies but, the last I heard, none had passed peer review.

I've watched a flock of geese flying through a coal fired station stack exhaust. Several birds dropped from the sky.

There have been other studies but, the last I heard, none had passed peer review.


Here's a little concept you'd do well to consider 2 @ 3 #,  peer review isn't scientific methodology.

I know its a bit of a surprise, but its a whitewash like your usual consensus nonsense. Now take this substantiation and add an assertion.

'Yes lee, I've seen all sorts of figures, many much larger than that. The truth is not likely to be found in whatever denialist blog directed you to that one.'

So the University of Colorado is now a part of the denialist web? Are you paranoid?

Is the data wrong? Just doesn't agree with your ideas? I thought new studies were always welcome in science? Or is that only if the agree with the current consensus?

Rider wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2013 at 9:04pm:

... peer review isn't scientific methodology. ...

Interesting! Can you substantiate that assertion?


lee wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2013 at 9:29pm:

... Is the data wrong? ... I thought new studies were always welcome in science? Or is that only if the agree with the current consensus?

Yes, new studies are welcome to be subjected to scrutiny.

Is the data wrong? I have no idea, hence the scrutiny.

Is the methodology valid? Once again, I have no idea. Hence the scrutiny.

Science isn't easy, that's why peer review  arose. Poor studies are less likely to pass the scrutiny of many skilled eyes.

That's also why the denyosphere dislikes peer review. Studies that produce the findings they want don't survive.

Wind myths: Turbines kill birds and bats
The location and size of the turbine, or windfarm, is key
Leo Hickman      
theguardian.com, Monday 27 February 2012 20.00 AEST      

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Books/Pix/pictures/2010/4/1/1270116445775/Red-kites-fly-past-wind-t-002.jpg
Red kites fly past wind turbines. Photograph: Alamy
Studies (here, here and here) of windfarms built in California and Spain in the 1980s have shown an "excessive" number of fatalities among six raptor species, including eagles and vultures. The evidence suggests that poor planning and outmoded turbine design was largely responsible and the current thinking is that fewer, but much large turbines sited away from known migratory paths of birds can significantly decrease the risk of bird strikes.

Bats, despite their ability to use sonar to avoid moving objects, are susceptible to "'barotrauma", a sense of disorientation caused by the rapid change of air pressure created by a turbines rotating blade. An unexpectedly high number of bat fatalities have been recorded across the US and Europe over the past decade.

"A recent review of the problem put forward no less than 11 hypotheses as to what might be contributing to these [bat] fatalities," says the Centre of Sustainable Energy in Bristol in its publication Common Concerns About Wind Power. "Clearly, a great deal of research is still needed."

With regard to bird fatalities, it says: "Wind turbines represent an insignificant fraction of the total number of bird deaths caused by man-made objects or activities (eg building structures, transmission lines, and keeping domestic cats)." According to the CSE, for every bird killed by a turbine, 5,820, on average, are killed striking buildings, typically glass windows.

However, UK planning laws now mean that bat and bird assessments must be conducted as part of the application process. "If windfarms are located away from major migration routes and important feeding, breeding and roosting areas of those bird species known or suspected to be at risk, it is likely that they will have minimal impacts," says the RSPB. "We are involved in scrutinising hundreds of wind farm applications every year to determine their likely wildlife impacts, and we ultimately object to about 6% of those we engage with, because they threaten bird populations. Where developers are willing to adapt plans to reduce impacts to acceptable levels we withdraw our objections, in other cases we robustly oppose them."

It stresses, though, that there are "gaps in knowledge and understanding" of how turbines impact on bird and bat populations: "The environmental impact of operational windfarms needs to be monitored – and policies and practices need to be adaptable."

Mike Barnard is an unashamed proponent of wind power but, as far as I can tells his blog post on the subject seems factual and it's well-referenced. The post is lengthy, so I'll just hit the high points.

How significant is bird and bat mortality due to wind turbines?

2013/02/15

Wind turbines are often criticized for killing birds and bats.  Fights against siting wind turbines in bird migration corridors or in bird habitat are frequent.  Highly inflammatory language is used by anti-wind energy advocates such as ‘bird mincer’, ‘bird blender’ and ’eagle killers’.  Outlandish numbers of deaths are often attributed to them.

How significant is the mortality of wind turbines upon birds and bats?

Short Answer:

Replacing all fossil fuel generation with wind turbines world wide could save roughly 70 million birds lives annually.  Bats are put at much more significant risk from fossil fuel and other human impacts than by wind turbines.  Displacement of fossil fuel generation makes wind a strong net benefit to birds and bats. Global warming and pollution are the threats; wind power is part of the solution, not a problem.

Long Answer:

Overall, wind energy has the least impact on wildlife of any form of energy generation with the possible exception of solar.

http://barnardonwind.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/main-qimg-976937782630ddd5b139a1b1cfd8057f.png

...
What about birds specifically?

Birds are killed as a result of human impacts in large numbers every year. The biggest human-related causes of deaths annually are:[list bull-blackball]

Lighted window impacts – 97 to 976 million

Predatory house cats – 500 million or more

High-tension wire impacts – up to 174 million or more

Pesticides – 72 million and possibly many more

Car impacts – 60 million
http://barnardonwind.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/main-qimg-42f29e286b5fffef689ddc41e771e791.jpg

Even these very large numbers are relatively small compared to the threat of habitat loss from acid rain from burning coal, open-pit mining for coal, mountain-top removal mining for coal and pollution.[9

These numbers are also very small compared to the 100-200 billion birds on the planet.   Adding all of the anthropogenic-impact causes of death above together might see 1.5 billion bird deaths, or 0.75% to 1.5% of the total.  Unfortunate, but not species threatening except in very specific circumstances.
...

Here’s a Canadian specific visual for perspective. Cats kill 10,000 times the birds that wind farms do, house windows 1500 times the birds and pesticides 150 times the birds.
...
This graph from the energy policy report that established relative bird deaths for nuclear, wind and fossil fuel is telling:  estimated world-wide avian mortalities in 2006.
http://barnardonwind.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/main-qimg-94719dbb49071b06fd2ceb7f8d1535f9.png
...
What about bats?

Bats are also killed by wind turbines, once again a few bats per turbine per year in areas where bats are common, but rarely if ever through direct collision. University of Calgary studies show that bats are very able to avoid moving wind turbine blades through echo-location. However, they suffer from barotrauma — a significant pressure difference that disrupts their hearts and lungs — when they fly close behind the blades.

Bat populations are not threatened by wind turbines. Bats are put at risk by many of the same things that put birds at risk: pesticides and habitat destruction among them.
...

---

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=downloadfile;file=Bat_mortality.jpg (28 KB | 33 )