I'm shocked people are fine with clean windmills and solar panels near their home and not dirty coal plants. If anything seeing clean energy just makes you think of a rich neighborhood just like a Tesla would.
Solar Plants were always the most expensive option in Sim City. Coal was the cheapest. It's been engrained in us since our childhood.
I'm amazed anybody is against solar at all, it's the least obtrusive energy regardless of anything else. I'm genuinely happy to see wind power but I also respect people who feel it's a necessary eyesore, as that's basically taste, but who has ever seen a solar panel and been unhappy without the person being a crazy radicalised person who isn't taken seriously anyway.
Also Sim City is old, maybe those costs were more true back then? Either way I think people are generally learning that green energy can be more cost effective now.
But solar energy sucks up the sun! /s
Come to the UK, where its so popular with a particular demographic that the ruling party banned on shore wind farms (lifted as a month ago) as well as large solar installs on farming land, even if its low yield for crops. Pretty sure they only lifted the onshore wind farm ban because nobody bid in the last offshore wind farm auction.
https://news.sky.com/story/onshore-wind-farms-ban-to-be-eased-following-backbench-tory-pressure-12955304 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/17/de-facto-ban-on-solar-farms-in-england-to-continue-therese-coffey-signals
There are not as many wind turbines as there are cats in the US. You need some kind of normalization otherwise it's not telling you what is the impact of installing a new wind turbine farm.
Also there is a chance that birds killed by cats were already weak and soon to die.
2400000000 / 58000000 ~ 41. 234000 / 70000 ~ 3. If we talking about preserving birds I would still address the cat issue before the wind turbine issue.
Also there is a chance that birds killed by
catswindturbines were already weak and soon to die.Don't take the above sentence seriously. It's just to show that arguments that seem nice might not hold their value at second glance.
I for one fully support never allowing cats outside unless they have a wind turbine attached to them.
I support this proposal
But we aren't planning to install as many wind turbines as there are cats, so you don't need to directly compare
My point is that the comparison is meaningless
No it isn't. The rate of birds killed is not important. The NUMBER of birds killed is, and wind turbines are just a rounding error in the number of birds killed. Even if we increased the number of turbines to supply all of the country's electricity, it would STILL not be anywhere near as many as cats.
I'm not saying turbines are bird smasher. I'm saying that's what an average person thinks. Also clearly they kill birds which is an exactly the issue. You can see wind turbines damage standing next to it and you can't see fossil fuel damage unfortunately.
In comparison with the other issues we have, the bird Windturbine one is a non-issue. However, it gets thrown in the ring over and over again, achieving exactly what the people persuing it want: distraction. It's the same with nuclear, it's the same with “ but we can't store the energy“. A lot of decoys to slow down the process while we already have everything we need to take on the problem. Please people, don't take the bait, focus on implementing the solution.
You're preaching to the choir here
Probably. I still find a lot of people here on Lemmy (and the other fuck you spez platform before) that are very very convinced we need to reroute a substantial amount of our effort into building nuclear reactors as renewables can never ever sustain everything and in general there is no storage.
But you are right in general.
There's only 70,000 wind turbins, and 58,000,000 cats. Say, do you live in a building with glass?
Uhm.. 2400000000 / 58000000 ~ 41. 234000 / 70000 ~ 3. If we talking about preserving birds I would still address the cat issue before the wind turbine issue.