Skip to main content

Bald Assertions and Bird Eating Machines

turkies No need to spend too much time on this, from the San Francisco Gate:

Let's back up a little bit. Nuclear energy is unsavory to the average citizen: It creates toxic waste and entails some level of danger for those who leave [sic: live] near reactors and waste sites. Advocates insist that risk has declined precipitously since the days of Three Mile Island, but the risk is certainly greater than that of, say, solar panels.

Read the whole thing, but mostly as an object lesson in writing without researching.


Think Progress got hold of a mailing (pdf) from Oliver North’s group Freedom Alliance stating its unhappiness with the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill – well, really, anything involving climate change. It’s pretty wild, but we especially like this fact about windmills:

Item: Environmentalist push government and industry to encourage vast electricity producing windmill farms. Result: Thousands of birds are killed each year by these virtual bird eating machines.

This really isn’t a very good argument, but we do like the image of a bird eating machine (otherwise known as, um, us, what with Thanksgiving coming up). See here for more on windmills and birds. We think that the threat to birds by windmills is somewhat akin to the radiation danger from nuclear plants – that is to say, next to none – but it sounds good in a mailer.

If we were going to trot out this argument, we’d probably worry more about bats, but since no one likes bats, there’s not much return on the investment (and no, there’s not much threat to bats from windmills, either.)

You can read the rest of North’s mailer yourself; it’s a fine example of ideology trumping sense at almost every turn.


After so much fact free reading, it’s a pleasure to come to this:

Recent studies by the Electric Power Research Institute, National Academies of Science and the Energy Information Administration all conclude that nuclear energy must play a key role in our nation’s transition to a low-carbon energy base. An analysis of the House’s climate change legislation (H.R. 2454) by the Environmental Protection Agency projects that 187 new nuclear plants will need to be built in the United States by 2050 to achieve the bill’s core policy scenario.

This comes from an op-ed by Gary Gates and Bill Johnson for The Hill, a newspaper that cover Capitol Hill. They make their points by referencing studies and relying on reliable sources. That it also makes the case for nuclear energy is the honey in the tea, but nuclear energy usually makes out quite well when you stick close to, you know, the verifiable truth.

Here’s some more, addressing the challenges:

Nuclear energy facilities and other large capital energy investments face significant financial challenges, particularly during this period of financial market duress. Nuclear power plants are costly to build but provide low-cost electricity for generations of Americans over the life of the plant — which is at least 60 years. Uranium fuel is, by far, our lowest-cost fuel for electricity production. And if public officials are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy is the best available energy technology and must be part of the equation. It already produces 72 percent of U.S. carbon-free electricity.

We’re very fond of debating our critics’ strongest arguments – it helps to prove the validity of our stances – and Gates and Johnson are clearly open to it. It’s a good, long piece and excellent withal.

Unlikely to hit a windmill – unless the windmill falls over on it – yet quite likely to hit my stomach.


The problem with wind turbines is they tend to kill predatory birds whose population sizes are usually 5 to ten times lower than non predatory bird species. So wind turbines are disproportionately detrimental to small predatory bird populations.

Secondly, these predatory birds usually prey on animals (birds and rodents) that can cause harm to agricultural production. Its estimated that pest cause nearly a billion dollars in damage to the agricultural community each year in the US.

Bats, of course, keep down the mosquito population. The mosquito is the number one animal killer of humans on Earth.

Are wind turbines the end of the world? No (except if you're forced to live near one). But are they as environmentally benign as nuclear energy? No way!

Marcel F. Williams
Phil said…
This post made me hungry. Thanksgiving just a few days away - cooking turkey in an electric oven!
Matthew66 said…
I remember reading a long time ago that a wind farm in the San Francisco region had decimated the local raptor population, but that was an early development, and since that time the effect of farms on raptors has declined.

The major threat to all wild bird and animal species was and remains loss of habitat. Suburban sprawl and highways seem to be the main culprits. Most nuclear power plants become wildlife havens because they are required to keep the land around them devoid of human life, so without human neighbors, animals, birds and plant life thrive. The wildlife of Chernobyl region has thrived since the meltdown prompted the humans to leave.
Rod Adams said…
Matthew66 - I know that you probably meant something else, but I was a bit amused - in a sick kind of way - by the logical implications of the below:

I remember reading a long time ago that a wind farm in the San Francisco region had decimated the local raptor population, but that was an early development, and since that time the effect of farms on raptors has declined.

What I read is that once the raptor population is decimated, the effect on raptors will then be reduced. That is sort of like a smoker who manages to stop smoking because he runs out of cigarettes.
DocForesight said…
If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading Charles Barton's post ( today where he summarizes his debate with an Energy Collective poster/ rep - Stephen Gloor.

While it doesn't contain specific numbers, it does give a concise summary of the debate around the problem of redundancy required by "renewable" sources of energy.

How many animals, of any sort, are killed due to a nuclear plant operating normally?

BTW, Matthew66, that farm was the Altamont Pass wind farm between Tracy and Livermore.
Brian Mays said…
"... a wind farm in the San Francisco region had decimated the local raptor population, but that was an early development, and since that time the effect of farms on raptors has declined."

The cynical mind wonders whether that is because the area simply ran out of raptors to kill.
Anonymous said…
birds are the source of alot of problems. they get chopped up by wind turbines, burned by solar power and get diced by turbines in planes. they also leave feathers, their dead friends and family, and leave their feces everywhere. it would be great if ppl stopped worrying about the birds.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…