Biden kills Keystone XL permit.... again

[Cypress]

There is a reason this Abstract is at the beginning of your link.

"This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems. The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies."

This paper was written in 2009 when Wind was still at its infancy. Wind accounted for 73.9 TWh per year power in the U.S., Nuclear 798.9 TWh per year and Fossil Fuels 2726.5 TWh per year. As you can clearly see the paper does not take into account the
proportional disparity in energy sources. So, if you put Wind into the Nuclear and Fossil Fuel equivalent, Wind would be responsible for 2.9 Avian Deaths per GWh, and 191.1 Avian deaths per GWh. As you can clearly see much, much higher than Nuclear or Fossil Fuels. Wind is not even close for safety.

All science is provisional until years or decades of continuing analysis and experimentation results in a widespread consensus. The article provides a peer reviewed analysis which had passed muster in a reputable scientific publication.

Here is a 2013 study that provides the same conclusion: compared to fossil fuels and nuclear, wind farms are vastly more safe for avian wildlife and bats. By a country mile.

The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences vol. 9, no. 4, December 2012, 255-278 (June 2013)

Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farm-related avian fatalities equated to approximately 46,000 birds in the United States in 2009, but nuclear power plants killed about 460,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 24 million.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2198024

 

[Bigdog]

“Broken rail is one of the leading causes of accidents.”.

That is a lie.

And it is politicians that put bribes and donations over public safety.

 

[anatta]

That is a hell of a lot of environmental damage for 35 permanent jobs, some of which would be Canadian jobs.

you forgot the 71k construction jobs -and the pipeline is all US Steel - more jobs
Also millions in tax revenues lost by the states.

Biden is a disaster out to kill the energy sector.

Our inability to build a FUCKING PIPELINE
thru 3 administrations speaks volumes of government confusion.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I can't help you if you have poor reading comprehension skills. You might want to read my earlier post before you ask stupid questions about how much it will cost to charge an electric car with solar panels.

I never said it would be totally free of costs. I said it would not require gasoline, spark plugs or radiator and transmission flushes. Because of regenerative braking, brake servicing will be less but not non existent. It pays to live in a state that doesn't require annual vehicle inspections because everyone here is liberal and keeps their cars in good shape without the government forcing them to.

A short in the system from a hard rain storm or driving through a deep puddle? ROFLMAO.. Do you know anything about cars in general, let alone electric vehicles. Electric cars have a computer but then so do any other car manufactured since 1990. Once you get past the computer, an electric car is much simpler to maintain than an ICE. I'll bet the mechanics love it when you come in after every rain storm because you car stopped working.

That's proof of the opposite. Electric cars are more dependent on complex electronics and then there's the battery. They are much harder to maintain in the long run than an internal combustion engine vehicle.

 

[Bulletbob]

It's fair to point out that Heinlein was right when he coined the acronym TANSTAAFL -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

All energy received comes at a cost. We wealthy nations need to be balancing the costs and choosing wisely, because we can afford to. The continued reliance on fossil fuels will end us.

what will end us is democrat breeding at amazing rates and making stupid decisions .

 

[T. A. Gardner]

More whataboutism, which seems to be all that you Reichtards have any more. You lost all your arguments about why we need the Keystone, so now you're just flinging your porridge to see what sticks to the walls. lol

(It's spelled aneurysm and thanks, already had one of those.)

So, you cannot answer the questions and choose instead to use a combination of change the subject and ad hominem... How typical.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The risk to birds, bats, and wildlife from petroleum extraction, nuclear, and mining is far, far, far higher than the risk posed by wind turbines.

I read the paper. Bet you didn't. Sovacool makes a fatal error in his paper. He considers the entirety of both nuclear and oil use to include all ancillary and production cycle effects while only considering the in use risk for wind turbines. Wind power, like any other technology involves considerable mining and use of things like heavy metals, rare earths, etc. So, the paper is badly flawed to show what the author wants it to show.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I read the paper. Bet you didn't. Sovacool makes a fatal error in his paper. He considers the entirety of both nuclear and oil use to include all ancillary and production cycle effects while only considering the in use risk for wind turbines. Wind power, like any other technology involves considerable mining and use of things like heavy metals, rare earths, etc. So, the paper is badly flawed to show what the author wants it to show.

Not to mention that they need dispatchable power as backup, which invariably means gas, coal or at a stretch, nuclear. To recover lanthanides like dysprosium and neodymium requires huge amounts of energy. Areas of north China have turned into a dystopian wasteland, processing one ton of rare earths results in 2000 tonnes of radioactive toxic waste.

 

[cancel2 2022]

So, you cannot answer the questions and choose instead to use a combination of change the subject and ad hominem... How typical.

That's our Joanie, the bullshit queen of JPP. She should stick to dogfish dissecting, proper science is not for her!

 

[RB 60]

I can't help you if you have poor reading comprehension skills. You might want to read my earlier post before you ask stupid questions about how much it will cost to charge an electric car with solar panels.

I never said it would be totally free of costs. I said it would not require gasoline, spark plugs or radiator and transmission flushes. Because of regenerative braking, brake servicing will be less but not non existent. It pays to live in a state that doesn't require annual vehicle inspections because everyone here is liberal and keeps their cars in good shape without the government forcing them to.

A short in the system from a hard rain storm or driving through a deep puddle? ROFLMAO.. Do you know anything about cars in general, let alone electric vehicles. Electric cars have a computer but then so do any other car manufactured since 1990. Once you get past the computer, an electric car is much simpler to maintain than an ICE. I'll bet the mechanics love it when you come in after every rain storm because you car stopped working.

My reading skills are just fine. I don't need your help. How many solar panels would be needed to maintain enough current to charge 3 cars such large batteries on cloudy days on end? How much do solar panels cost? How much room will they take up? You want to take up your whole yard with solar panels? Not me. I have a nice lawn.

No, there are no fluids or ignition components to maintain. So only liberals maintain their vehicles? Okay! Annual inspections are just another tax on us motorists here in PA. Changing brake pads it easy of you have a big enough C-clamp. And a hex bit (for some cars).

You must live in a warm climate.

 

[no worries]

That is a lie.

And it is politicians that put bribes and donations over public safety.

You're FOS, YOU know better than the rail industry?

A broken isn't the leading causes of accidents, it's ONE of the leading causes.

"And it is politicians that put bribes and donations over public safety".

I can believe that.

JULY 17, 2015

Washington, D.C. – At a time of record auto recalls and high-profile train wrecks, Republicans are working on legislation to roll back safety regulation of the auto and railroad industries.

A bill approved this week on a party-line vote by a Senate committee brims with industry-sought provisions that would block, delay or roll back safety rules. The measure is to be part of a must-pass transportation bill that GOP leaders hope to put to a vote in the Senate as early as next week.

They are under pressure to act quickly because authority for transportation programs expires on July 31. Without a cash infusion, the government will have to delay highway and transit aid to states.

FEBRUARY 26, 2018

The rules that have been impacted by President Trump's quest to roll back regulations would have addressed dangerous safety problems from speeding tractor-trailers to sleepy railroad engineers. There have been no significant new safety rules approved during his term.

The sidelined rules also would have required states to conduct annual inspections of commercial bus operators, railroads to operate trains with at least two crew members and automakers to equip future cars and light trucks with vehicle-to-vehicle communications to prevent collisions.

 

[Cypress]

I read the paper. Bet you didn't. Sovacool makes a fatal error in his paper. He considers the entirety of both nuclear and oil use to include all ancillary and production cycle effects while only considering the in use risk for wind turbines. Wind power, like any other technology involves considerable mining and use of things like heavy metals, rare earths, etc.

So, the paper is badly flawed to show what the author wants it to show!

The author's conclusions were vetted and peer reviewed by independent experts in their scientific field, and accepted for publication in a reputable scientific journal.

You posted your opinion on an obscure message board

You should write a paper, submit it for review by independent experts, and get it published.

Only then will your opinion be given equal weight with peer reviewed scientific papers.

 

[Cypress]

you forgot the 71k construction jobs -and the pipeline is all US Steel - more jobs
Also millions in tax revenues lost by the states.

Biden is a disaster out to kill the energy sector.

Our inability to build a FUCKING PIPELINE
thru 3 administrations speaks volumes of government confusion.

Temporary, short term construction jobs.

The U.S. State Department says only 35 permanent jobs will be needed to operate the finished pipeline.

When Hyundai builds plants here, they make it a point to report how many thousands of good paying permanent they will create. Why are retreating to use a radically different measure of job creation?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The author's conclusions were vetted and peer reviewed by independent experts in their scientific field, and accepted for publication in a reputable scientific journal.

You posted your opinion on an obscure message board

You should write a paper, submit it for review by independent experts, and get it published.

Only then will your opinion be given equal weight with peer reviewed scientific papers.

Yea, peer reviewed... There's a joke, and that extends to virtually all peer review. It's an almost meaningless process today.

In 2005, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) created a software program called SCIgen that randomly combined strings of words to generate fake computer science papers. The objective of the exercise was to prove that the peer review process was fundamentally flawed and the conferences and journals would accept meaningless papers. After being notified by other researchers who were deliberately tracking SCIgen papers, journals were still quietly pulling articles as late as 2014.

The media attention that this simple exercise “to maximize amusement” generated has brought the peer review process under considerable scrutiny. Are journals really making a concerted effort to review submissions? Or is it just a perfunctory exercise implemented to add a perception of academic quality for the journal?

https://www.enago.com/academy/is-peer-review-process-a-scam/

failure of peer review
Today Science is up on a pedestal. A new god has appeared; his high priests conduct the rituals, with nuclear reactors, moon-probing rocket ships, cathode tubes and laser beams. And their territory is sacrosanct; laymen are denied entry.
Bruce Cathie

The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine)
The defects in the peer review system have been the subject of a profusion of critical editorials and studies in the literature over recent years. The notion of peer review occupies special territory in the world of science. However, investigation of suppressed innovations, inventions, treatments, cures, and so on rapidly reveals that the peer review system is arguably better at one thing above all others: censorship. This can mean censorship of everything from contrarian viewpoints to innovations that render favored dogmas, products, or services obsolete (economic threats) depending on circumstances. The problem is endemic, as many scientists have learned the hard way.

https://globalfreedommovement.org/the-failure-of-peer-review/

https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lob.10217
https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2015/11/23/the-crisis-of-peer-review/?sh=1cdbc5cf463e

While I can only speak to my own experience with this in military history, peer reviewed books are often some of the least useful, most poorly researched on the market. Like this tripe:

Mosier is an English professor and his book is just terrible. When I had a personal discussion with him on that, he pulled the logical fallacy, as you did, of Appeal to authority. He said he was a PhD, I wasn't and that the book had been peer reviewed. No attempt to defend the positions he took in the book, no refutation of my criticisms, just appeal to authority.
Doesn't change his book is crap.

Same thing here.

 

[Cypress]

Yea, peer reviewed... There's a joke, and that extends to virtually all peer review. It's an almost meaningless process today.


https://www.enago.com/academy/is-peer-review-process-a-scam/






https://globalfreedommovement.org/the-failure-of-peer-review/

https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lob.10217
https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2015/11/23/the-crisis-of-peer-review/?sh=1cdbc5cf463e

While I can only speak to my own experience with this in military history, peer reviewed books are often some of the least useful, most poorly researched on the market. Like this tripe:

Mosier is an English professor and his book is just terrible. When I had a personal discussion with him on that, he pulled the logical fallacy, as you did, of Appeal to authority. He said he was a PhD, I wasn't and that the book had been peer reviewed. No attempt to defend the positions he took in the book, no refutation of my criticisms, just appeal to authority.
Doesn't change his book is crap.

Same thing here.

You posted an opinion on an obscure message board on a scientific topic you spent ten minutes thinking about.

The authors are trained experts who spent years training to work in this scientific discipline, had their research vetted by independent experts, and got published in a reputable technical journal.


There is no comparison in credibility whatsoever.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You posted an opinion on an obscure message board on a scientific topic you spent ten minutes thinking about.

The authors are trained experts who spent years training to work in this scientific discipline, had their research vetted by independent experts, and got published in a reputable technical journal.


There is no comparison in credibility whatsoever.

I know statistics quite well. When you don't make equal comparisons, you skew the statistics. The paper did that in favor of wind generation. That's pretty common with green technologies that can't compete on an level playing field.

That aside, you keep making the same argument that Mosier did: Appeal to authority. They're scientists, you're not. You are wrong. That's a pure logical fallacy. It doesn't matter who they are or what their credentials are. If they are right, they're right. If they're wrong, they're wrong. They are wrong because they used an invalid statistical method to compare generation methods.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That's proof of the opposite. Electric cars are more dependent on complex electronics and then there's the battery. They are much harder to maintain in the long run than an internal combustion engine vehicle.

No, it's not proof of the opposite. All you did was provide a video proving that electric cars are not indestructible and if it is damaged, insurance covers it. You do realize that flood damage doesn't occur in a hard rainstorm or driving through a puddle, right? ICE vehicles are also damaged by floods and totaled by an insurance company when that happens. Based on the video I would be more likely to buy a flood damaged electric car that has been repaired than a ICE one.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No, it's not proof of the opposite. All you did was provide a video proving that electric cars are not indestructible and if it is damaged, insurance covers it. You do realize that flood damage doesn't occur in a hard rainstorm or driving through a puddle, right? ICE vehicles are also damaged by floods and totaled by an insurance company when that happens. Based on the video I would be more likely to buy a flood damaged electric car that has been repaired than a ICE one.

Did you listen to the guy? The cars in his shop are "bricked." That is, their owners failed to maintain a proper charge on them and they became undrivable. He mentions various modules necessary to operate the vehicle and how owner private data is stored on some of those.

https://www.brickedtesla.com/
https://www.carscoops.com/2019/10/p...-bricked-due-to-worn-out-flash-storage-chips/
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2019/10/tesla-troubles-models-bricking-over-flash-memory-problem/

No internal combustion engine vehicle made today becomes undrivable--permanently--and needing massively costly repairs, often tens of thousands of dollars worth, to restore it because the battery died or it ran out of gas.

 

[Sailor]

All science is provisional until years or decades of continuing analysis and experimentation results in a widespread consensus. The article provides a peer reviewed analysis which had passed muster in a reputable scientific publication.

Here is a 2013 study that provides the same conclusion: compared to fossil fuels and nuclear, wind farms are vastly more safe for avian wildlife and bats. By a country mile.

This study also does not take into account the ratio of wind turbines to nuclear or fossil fuel generation. It is the same simple math I showed above. If wind turbines were to provide the same
amount of energy as Nuclear or FF generation they would be far deadlier than either. There is no getting around the math. Each and everyone of these studies deliberately leave that part out.
Shiny baubles for the uniformed. Works every time.

 

[Legion]

I heard the Pipefitters' Union is unhappy with the usurper they endorsed all of a sudden.

What did they think would happen to their jobs?