Does Wildlife Win or Lose with Renewable Energy? | MeatEater Podcast
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2024
- Steven Rinella talks with Brendan Runde, Janis Putelis, Ryan Callaghan, Brody Henderson, Spencer Neuharth, Phil Taylor, and Corinne Schneider.
Topics discussed: The musky manifesto; get tickets to our Live Tour and reserve your spot with Steve, Jani, Cal, and Clay for MeatEater Experiences; the controversy around spearing pike in MN; the very long halflife of mercury; scrubbing emissions; the BLM’s proposal for land to be developed for solar; all the places you can put solar panels; fishing around a wind turbine; 24 wind turbines currently producing power in the Atlantic Ocean; scour protection in the form of a a rubble donut; creating habitat; the aesthetics of wind farms; investigating the whale argument; impact of offshore wind on fish species; The Nature Conservancy making public lands; Runde TNC; turn your lights off and stop buying balloons; and more.
#fueledbynature #meateater
----------------
Check out the gear the MeatEater Crew uses in the field here: store.themeate...
Follow us:
Web: www.themeateat...
Instagram: / meateater
Facebook: / stevenrinellameateater
If you aren't an advocate for a rapid buildout of nuclear energy, you just can't be taken seriously about wanting zero emissions.
Amen
I'm guessing this is the one time you and Bill Gates are on the same side of the table..
@@JeremyReger can’t be sides to a table if it’s a circle
False. top and bottom@@bryona5271
Because many politicians see it as a possible career risk if something goes wrong later on. The public in general doesn't understand nuclear power benefits and just focus on the risk.
I don't understand why they don't start with parking lots. Every parking lot in Arizona should have a solar panel shade structure before they ever look at a single acre of public land.
100% agree
100% agree. That and rooftop solar. Solar farms suck.
Because that would make sense... We can't have that
A ton of them do. Not enough, but a lot. Plenty more needed
Because they don't own the parking lots or all our roofs! It's the obvious answer, but they can't be sharing the wealth.
I am all for offshore wind, as long as they do it off the coast of cape cod and Martha’s vineyard first!!
The folks using the energy...
it is VERY clear from this conversation that the nature conservancy doesn't give a F about people who enjoy doing things outside on public ground... they are singularly focused on something and they believe that the ends justify any means.
Then when you consider that their solution (solar and wind) is not even close to a viable option to power our economy. Neither produce enough energy, even if you cover every inch of this country in wind and solar, they wouldn't produce enough energy unless we made some MASSIVE adjustments to our energy consumption. Beyond that we have no viable way of storing the energy that they actually do produce so when the cloudy windless days come in the winter we would see tons of issues with the power grid.
We all want clean reliable energy with minimal impact but this guest obviously does not know or understand how base load electricity is needed to power an industrial economy…Renewables have very limited applications for base load and there is no viable energy storage solution to store electrons on a large scale, it just doesn’t exist. Spreading utility scale solar arrays and or wind turbines across our public lands and oceans which require a natural gas peaker station to back up the variability of wind and sun resources is not only wasteful but potentially detrimental to the environment has a whole. Please don’t drink the NOAA cool aid.
Steve.... These folks pushing Solar and Wind have no clue to how the electrical grid is controlled. Their talking points are always about how many homes that wind and solar can support. It's about controlling grid frequency... 60hz you never hear that brought up. Wind and Solar can't do it... There's much more to maintaining a dependable electrical system.
...and lets discuss the footprint for storage. Those batteries are a disaster to produce economically and even more so ecologically, and as you said their viability as effective storage is way below the demand. Cool aid is exactly what this dude is spewing. And it tastes great for anyone willing to close their eyes and drink it up without consideration for anything else.
@@ggray19- this is precisely why it's a cash grab, funded mostly by tax dollars. It's not expected to really fix a problem. It's not expected to last even the aforementioned self determined life span.
Thank you for mentioning this. He said this wind turbine was 3.5&6 megawatts big deal. They need to look at the efficiency and his figures have to be false because 660,000 homes takes a lot of megawatts
The carbon footprint happens pre manufacturing, not during use. Repair and replacement of solar has to be a consideration in carbon emissions. Who is strip mining to produce such equipment?
There is a cost when recycling .
China, coincidentally, they also produce solar panels and spend millions lobbying a bunch of green idiots in Washington.
Nuclear plants near population centers > constructing “green” generation across the countryside.
Nuclear is viable. Solar is not yet.
texas has natural gas power plants that have zero emissions...
Gotta have some big balls to sit between these guys and try to explain why taking away public land for energy development is a good idea. Props to him for standing firm, even if I don't fully agree with what he's saying
Anyone should be open minded enough to hear the other arguments
Well said.
Would have been nicer if he had the balls to answer some questions. Instead he deferred or just wouldn't stand up for what he believes. Very politician of him which I guess comes with the job.
you notice they havent had on the only people trying to sell off our federal public lands right? Republican congressman...
I agree. He did a great job looking at both sides.
1:04:05 So steve brings up energy per acre which is a good point and the guys response is to jump straight to "climate crisis".
Pretty clear this guy is a stooge for the world wide climate scam. Nature Conservancy is all you need to know.
Because nuclear wins every time in that argument
Kal had the best question… why not private property? I have a feeling they don’t want to pay a landowner for their contribution. They want to take imminent domain. Their “analysis” is that no land owner will give their property for this, so they are going to take ours.
because they have to pay market rates for private property.. and they can get the feds to just give them land for pennies on the dollar. These things are already economically broken without MASSIVE tax credits.. how are they supposed to work if they also have to pay market prices for land.
So they're arguing that oil and gas leases 29 million acres. But 1 location is 5 acres on the large side and they lease most of the acreage underground. A solar farm would be ALL above ground. I don't like oil locations on our public hunting ground. But to think a whole southern hill side would be taken up?? Get outta here!
Excellent point.
also oil fields will one day run dry.. and the infrastructure will be removed.. wind farms and solar farms are meant to be permanent features... forever.
The guest immediately showed his bias by using the sensationalist term "climate crisis."
Love it how his agenda is all that matters. Steven and crew asked very valid questions, but he is so agenda driven, he will not listen.
The problem with this conversation is that you brought in an expert on conservation. He is not an expert in: energy transmission, energy production or the development of technology. All of his arguments were moot because he has no evidence backing up any of the claims of efficacy that he is making about alternative energy.
I find it hard to believe no one brings up the very glaring point that solar and wind energy are unreliable and there is not a good source for storing what energy they will produce. Fossil fuels are very reliable and easy to store.
Check out the Texas solar field destroyed by hail last month
Could be leaking toxic chemicals ☠️
Most of the west doesn’t experience hail like they do in Texas.
@@EvanHendrickson-hq1vf For now.
Nevada is 65% BLM land and they get some real hail there
How are solor panels made? What chemicals? How are they mined?
He said cows did better, having solar panels to sit under. Ever solar farm I have seen has dead grass under it.
Yep, that’s because they grade and compact the sites, the grass can’t grow because they completely destroy the soil profile and structure.
That's because it's being purely used as a solar farm. If they were installing panels but also intending to continue raising cattle, I imagine they'd be spacing the panels differently. Less efficient for total energy, but more efficient by using the land twice.
I'm not saying this to side against anyone here but it makes it hard to take someone seriously when every other argument is "yeah but we're not as bad as THOSE guys"
This guy got real weird on the whale topic. Sounds like a big tobacco lawyer.
He definitely came with an agenda
Is any of this going on nature conservancy land?
I wondered the same damn thing
Records have always been rough because for a lot of them you have to kill the most magnificent beast the world has ever seen
Most land leased for oil production goes undisturbed on the surface. Living in Texas most land has been leased in some way to energy companies. Comparing leased acreage is apples to oranges.
The public commentary phase of the process seems to serve merely as a formality for the BLM, with little regard for public input. This plan directly impacts a significant portion of one of Idaho's most frequented recreational areas. The proposed closure of approximately 3,000 miles of OHV trails follows the recent closure of another area. Despite strong opposition from the public to both closures, it appears that our concerns are disregarded.
You know that the executive branch (aka the President) controls all the bureaucracies right? You know that BLM stands for the BUREAU of land management right? Do you really think the current administration, or any administration for that matter, actually gives a flying fuck about the citizens of this country? Especially the citizens of our beautiful state of Idaho?
Will you ask the question of where all these minerals will come from to build batteries and panels. Oh I know. China and Africa. All Chinese owned mines
My problem is the 0% goal. I can't trust someone that speaks in absolutes to achieve their vision for the world. Even if we go to zero, 85% of the current world still polluting and we will have to make ecological and economical exceptions to get there. why isn't cutting it in half enough? Why not just keep it for private and commercial ventures? Climate will still be fine and we have existing sturdy infrastructure to fall back on.
0% doesn't mean we won't be using fossil fuels, it would just mean that we have offset the number utilizing other technologies.
@@jedibowen Even 0% net is economic suppression and a weaker grid and unnecessary and unreasonable goal. The processes to get negative emissions is still as developing and experimental as renewable. Too absolute and idealized to trust
I'm trying but for the life of me I can't trust this guy... too many red flags like the one in your comment. Just doesn't pass the smell test for me.
That's why it's called a goal. Part of achieving that goal would include developing technology that minimizes the downsides of renewables while maximizing the upsides, and the US has a huge potential to pressure other countries into holding up their end, but we can't do that if we don't lead by example.
Also worth noting that he didn't set that goal, but his job is to work towards it.
@@matthewwalker4834 your comment doesn't really say anything. Making an unrealistic goal shows gross incompetence that makes it harder to trust you
"Wind" is not more viable if you don't have the wind. And please discuss the already short term effects being seen from living/raising animals near these wind farms.
why would we have no wind?
@@ikazukison2 viable wind... enough to produce usable energy/spin the mills. The windmill farms aren't viable everywhere, and that's just with the fuzzy math the energy industry uses for implementation. Dig much deeper and the mills start tipping the scale quickly AWAY from a clean energy source, even in the places that meet the required minimum average windspeed.
Not one single turbine in America makes a profit on the year if you remove the subsidies. I know the ones by my house break all the time and the lubricants for the turbine cost more than the power it produces.
0% wind by 2050 is a good goal.
So is 80%+ of grid duties handled by nuclear by 2050.
Dont bring someone on and allow them to spit in your face like that.
Wind turbines also cause heart problems for their neighbors.
solar panels = no hunting wind mill= no hunting . wasn't the nature conservancy be hind the wolf introduction out west??
Only slightly. The Rocky mountain wolf foundation was along with several universities and state biologist. I worked with them for awhile on the matter. What people generally leave out of that story is that the Feds sued Colorado and won requiring them to reintroduce wolves over a decade ago but Colorado in bed with the cattlemen’s associations refused and the Feds never pursued due to politics. Biologist from the state of Colorado working with ngos and universities went to the last option they had, ballot box. Most leave out the first part where the scientist where railroaded and had to go grass roots. I was one of those scientists.
Gas fields = plenty of hunting access.
Every single one of these potential projects has a small number of large companies who will control the majority of production. This leads to market manipulation and giving up control to the few.
I wish the crew would have pushed back some more on this lobbyist!
they aren't energy experts.. they just like public lands.. they pushed back where they could.. but how are they supposed to know when he is lying.
“Public is involved” means they will do what they want!
The underlying premise of Brendan’s case seems to be that decreased carbon emissions will definitively stabilize the climate. Since climate naturally changes over time, can Brendan quantify the level to which climate change can be impacted by CO2 reduction? And thus, what cost (environmental, financial, infrastructure, etc.) is acceptable compared the potential benefit of zero carbon energy?
It’s extremism and lunacy. The wildfires and volcanoes every year far outweigh any human input as far as carbon is concerned. That’s without bringing in the polar shift that’s occurring which constantly skews data. The race to net zero carbon is madness and it’s betting on the wrong horse. If I was being paranoid I’d even suggest nefarious sources are pulling us in this direction to remove energy independence from us.
its not *that the climate is changing, its the *pace at which its changing. Now, don't get me wrong; the democrat answers are fucking hogwash. But there are things that could be done to help slow the effects, or even reverse climate change. But it requires something the liberals are afraid to talk about; a regulated isolationism. Things need to be localized again; food, manufacturing, textiles, etc... "America First" is a horrible way to look at it, because really this should be universal, as seen with the European farmers lately, but what if we called it "Workers First"? And when you help the worker, you help the whole.
Very good questions that we are not asking…
Up here in Canada, our misinformed gov, is going to "Fix climate change ". If we completely eliminate co2 the climate is still going to change. If they want to talk about eliminating pollution, that's a reasonable topic
great song at the end!
1/3 of commercial rooftops gets us 10% of the energy we need??? Completely viable??? Who the hell are the mathematicians working these numbers, and convinced that's an impact???
1/3 of rooftops commercial and residential is needed to make the 10%
@@BrendaBip even worse.
What is the outro song for this episode?
It was stated that the offshore windfarms would have a 25 to 30 year lease, at which time the Windmill would be removed. Oil well platforms are removed when the oil runs out. The wind does not go away. So this offshore windfarm is temporary.? What is the point then? Why didn't any of you ask the question, "If they are temporary, Then what?" As any of you know, the saltwater on steel and components is horrible. The maintenance costs must be horrendous. The windfarms on land are now old enough that the blades and other components, have to be replaced, and nobody knows what to do with the old ones...except to fill up land fills, or pile them on more public ground. One of the proposed Offshore Windfarms was off the coast of Oregon, and it was stated at the time there would be a 1 mile exclusion zone around them so there would be no fishing allowed at these locations....for safety reasons presumably. You were too easy on this guy. Lastly, he stated some huge number of millions of acres used for oil drilling, is misrepresented. in fact those acres are underground. The acres used on top, at each site, is very small in comparison to the vast reservoirs below. The effect on the landscape is minimal.
ENVIRONMENTAL GUY DOESNT CARE WHERE THEY ARE MINING FOR THE SOLOR PANELS.
How does this “specialist” attempt to advocate and argue that it’s a great idea because they can use disturbed land but not know what disturbed land actually is? For as arrogant as he is, he really doesn’t have much information.
he is just some industry shill
Yep!@@kyle-ri5mz
It sounds like he is an expert relating to the offshore windfarms. He doesn't seem to be as up on the solar side
The whole "the public will be involved every step of the way" is just pure BS. Public comment periods, as someone who frequently participates in them, is almost always fruitless. The government will almost always determine it knows best
Another red flag contributing to why I can't get myself to trust this dude. Public comment rarely serves any purpose other than to give the lobby proposing the initiative, whatever that is, a quote or two they can use to pretend they have support.
Public comment is basically a funeral fruit basket....
at 36.22 they talk about murcury leaving the lakes that get fished the most because people are eating the fish and pulling back out of the system. i been saying this for my entire life. i'm doing my part to clean up the waters eventually i'll be barried with it in me and put in a casket and vault.
I think one of the main things people have to think about is that so called fossil fuels are in fact not fossil fuels but are plant based and are renewable. Then another thing we have to think about is that any new form of energy does not have the history of oil the number of years of study. Alternate energy industries are mainly in the business of making money. Solar and wind are not very efficient forms of energy. AND they rely heavily on the oil industry to provide energy to build them ,to make the components,to make them work. There is no way that taking up 23 million acres of land to put up solar panels is going to be good for wild life, habitat, or anything else.
Every Big-Box store in America should have their roof covered in solar panels. No transmission lines required, no additional land disturbed. Point of use power generation.
Props to the guest if he is sincere in his stance. That being said, you can't compare the damage that ranching and oil leases do to habitat with what solar would do. He's either ignorant or dishonest in that comparison. There are places that exist on BLM land where you can see oil wells, cattle, deer, and antelope in the same frame of view. He should be asked if that's a possibility with solar panels.
I would also add that hunters this is a phenomenal opportunity for hunters and animal rights groups to team up, gain an understanding of each other, and agree on a common goal - to stop habitat destruction.
I had occasion(to use one of Steve’s phrases) to converse with a dude that does maintenance on two windmills on a military base here in Utah. For the given amount of time between maintenance cycles, they produced $4500 worth of electricity but the maintenance cost for that interval was $4000. Now I am no mathematician but a $500 savings over the course of, let’s say Three years doesn’t seem worth it in my book. That was just routine preventive maintenance so if something were to break there goes your $500 right there and that is on the site that you can easily drive to in any vehicle off where it requires a boat.
Anyone not advocating for Nuclear Energy (the greenest and most efficient energy source on the planet) is fundamentally not serious about this issue. One plant would mean millions of acres left untouched.
I’m sure this guy is a smart and well intentioned, but as a scientist dealing with environmental/climate and project impact permitting. You only hear scientist from places like the nature conservancy call this a climate crisis. It’s infuriating and shows they are obviously impacted in their thinking by the bias anarobic environment they work in. I’m not saying we don’t have issues but calling climate issues “climate crisis” tells me as a scientist all I need to know about you as one.
Their entire plan is dependent on everyone buying the "crisis"
Nature Conservancy is beholden to the agenda of thier donors. They don't give a shit about wildlife habitat or what Americans value. This clown proves it once again.
when you force someone to agree with you in order to continue the conversation..
exactly.. the BLM and the federal government waive ALL archeologic surveys.. impact surveys anything at all that might slow down the development for the private profit of corporations..
@@kyle-ri5mz lol sometimes I wish that where true it would save me a lot of work. All NEPA requires a NHPA section 106 review and possible consultation. During a CATEX it is possible to not go far into 106 to consultation if you can identify in your assement that there is no potential to harm archaeological/historical resources and get concurrence from the historic agency (state or federal depends) but generally not even then. All of them take that pretty seriously. It’s one of the longest parts of doing a catex or EA. I’ve done loads of NEPA CATEX and EAs even for BLM. They are very strict because the CEQ mandates it. The fed are a congolerant of many agencies DOI DOD etc that manage environmental regulations and implementation of NEPA. They can’t waive these things just because they may want to. They are very strict, I deal with it daily. States are generally even more stringent. Here in Alaska good luck putting a shovel in the ground without SHPO clearance. Impact studies is a general term we look at a ton of catagories of potential impacts and none are waived for the sake of progress of a project. Having said that I will say that during the Trump administration we where not able to include climate impacts on NEPA assessments in many cases unless it constitutes high level criteria. This administration has changed that but only slightly. We are still restricted in what can be included there and what actions initiate potential impacts. Example: a project that increases air traffic to a region, impactful and counted. Building a maintenance and de-icing shed on the airport, not. These things are complicated and change a lot but I’m definitely certain BLM and other federal agencies are not waiving any impact study or historical assessments unless there is a clear reason not to. They know they will end up in litigation if they do
Carbon input is never in this conversation.. why?
I’ve seen plenty of deer walk within yards of a running pump jack, never seen one eat the grass under a fenced in solar farm.
This guy is making a entire hell of a lot of assumptions with everything he is saying. Why would we not go for the government buildings first. Also I will add that all Wood comes from solar energy and we have an over abundance of wood in the south, specifically hardwoods. I would really like to come on a play devil's advocate or straw man these arguments from a scientific perspective. But adding solar and removing grass and trees we are contributing to heating of the earth because the panels don't use photosynthesis to reduce heat. Put them on buildings and garages, leave them out of the conservation zones.
Uhhhhh idk what south your in, but the south I live in all of our old growth hardwood has been clear cut and now pine thickets stand in their place. Sounds like you’re the one making the assumptions brother.
We need to be planting more trees and stop cutting them down I like your idea put the panels on buildings
@@JefestephensHow does the type of vegetation apply in context here? Do you have any data to support your suggestion?
@@heavy6355we plant plenty of trees down here... right after all of their predecessors are cut down and processed. The timber cycle is great for a lot of our wildlife.
Parking lots, high ways, interstates, roofs of commercial buildings, all perfectly fine places for solar panels but they would rather put them in the little bits of public land we have left. Then you consider that wind and solar are absolutely not a viable alternative to fossil fuels because they aren't nearly as reliable and we also don't have anywhere near the battery tech to be able to store the energy. Makes it really hard to see how these liberal "environmentalists" give a shit about the environment. Seems like they just want to do anything so that nasty politicians can say they did something so the dim wits continue voting for them.
Ope. Triggered the poor guy with mention of Trump. Impressed he bit his tongue. Imagine him knowing people within the NC willing to voice their political opinions...
As I listen to this guy I kept asking myself who is he? Who pays him? Who does he work for? Is he portraying a good guy? Is he a legit puppet playing the good guy? I never heard about birds flocking to wind towers to get hit by the blades, Was that ever mentioned? I guess I’ll have to listen to it again… Nah. Everybody’s just gonna do their thing anyway but it would be interesting if you’d compile a list of the actual people who ride around on boats looking for problems with wildlife I’d love to see a list of the names
most wind farms are a banking scam. The banks get to fund the construction at X% and then the federal government gives the builders a 60% tax credit.. well VERY FEW companies have a multi million dollar tax liability.. so they turn around and sell that tax credit... back to the bank, for pennies on the dollar.
How and where will be getting the materials to create this net zero carbon? That's ASSUMING it will work... major assumption.
Oh, it's a win-win deal. Now I'm on board lol
“Transition into energy sources that do not produce any further carbon emissions” Do the precious metals, photovoltaic plates, EV batteries just magically appear? Are they perpetual or do they have a lifespan? I’m all for expanding “renewable” energy, but let’s at least be realistic about it. 90% of photovoltaic and precious metals mining runs through China. That doesn’t scream energy independence to me. Feels a lot like the circuit board/chip dilemma we ran into a couple of years ago.
Was shouting at my screen quite a few times. Please look into the European research already done since we have had offshore windfarms for almost twenty years.
brendan runden "lets go brandon"
There is no climate crisis.
True. In fact, since world started turning climate has changed through the millennia. Of which there is nothing that could have been done. The theory is…….
Above water power lines in the water surprises me. I’m guessing they will be not laying on the ocean but in the air.
"Why wouldn't we transition to solar instead of sticking with fossil fuels?" Is a false dichotomy. If you're not talking about nuclear, you're not speaking genuinely or taking the problem seriously.
Steve for president!
In all fairness, I must say that your guest sure sounds like a government spokesman. Replete with the “talking points”. Just sayin
he is a democrat shill
I never seen a duck plucker but I have seen a chicken plucker that would take 50 birds at once and have em done in 2 minutes
He’s not a pheasant plucker, he’s a pheasant plucker’s mate. He’s only plucking pheasants coz the pheasant plucker’s late.
I'm jokin of course... but the chicken plucker it is a real thing ...in about 6 hours we processed an entire semi truck load of road island reds ...course the birds had to be scalded and processed thru the plucker while wet ...I just threw em in an proceeded to scald another batch ...you wouldn't think a chicken could be so clean ...hell.. it even removed their toenails
Stromberg's Chickens make a great plucker. I am a small scale pastured broiler farmer and they make a great plucker.
Since the last ice age we have been warming! Why is that so hard to understand?
You guys brought up the balloons, last year i was bow hunting whitetail on top of mountain on the WV/VA border around 3000 feet elevation. Atleast 2 miles away from the nearest house and i found some kids math paper.
Does anyone else get an exorbitant amount of ads while watching MeatEater?
What is the name of the song at the end?
My bachelors is in Wildlife Biology/Ecology; it really depends on the implementation of said "green" energy. IE: are windmills in migration paths. Another example would be implementing solar as a means of shade for parks, parking lots, using for EV charging, etc... in urban areas that are already there. and while I am an adamant believer in climate change, EVs are not the answer. It only puts more pressure on working class people to afford the EVs, and then creates a new global resource to exploit people and land over. Hybrids are far more useful, and will reduce overall emissions more, since its an older, cheaper technology (I love my hybrid Maverick). Last thought, can we please stop being so afraid of nuclear? its the safest, cleanest form of energy production, and we're just letting fear get in the way of REAL progress (not the bullshit progress touted by the democrats or moderate republicans).
I’d say it’s a case of the lesser of the two evils. Renewables is probably better but there’s going to be massive downsides to either option.
Have you seen the solar panels across hundreds of acres in Cali?
@@ballzybaits4414that land is as non-renewable as it gets, at least until those panels are moved
If the renewables are viable, sustainable, and actionable upon it would be common sense to just replace existing oil infrastructure with renewable.
The excuses for not doing are endless, it all circles back to cult dogma, and it always ends with YOU being the problem.
Reality is replacing it isn't viable, it won't stop the problem, and unless everyone globally is forced to do it at gunpoint it means nothing.
The lesser of the two evils is not destroying everything over an "idk, maybe," instead of cutting our heads off to save our bodies.
There's too many red flags involved. I'm smart enough to see a shell game con when someone's convincing me to give them some money to play.
@@chrismeister2554oil isn’t renewable either.
@@RC-fp1tl No, but gasoline engines can be easily fitted to run alcohol based fuel; which is 100% renewable.
Parking lots, large retail shopping centers, and large commercial buildings should get solar panels first. Large urban areas should have almost every structure covered in solar panels. I would also suggest solar panels be added to the grass medians along interstate highways. Then we can have conversations about solar farms on public land.
Nuclear
Solar is terrible for the environment. Everyone looks at it from the point of view of once installed. Not from the view of what it takes to manufacture the panels, inverters, batteries etc as well as the lack of recycling of this equipment. Nuclear is the way.
This was such a reasonable, engaging, serious discussion on a tough topic. But its also rare and heartwarming dare I say because its obvious everyone here is engaging in good faith with a common purpose. Great stuff!
By the end I like the guy, I do think he is clouded by the current view of human driven climate change, which is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.
Get Randall Carlson on! He is an absolute genius about this stuff and so many other topics relevant to the Meat Eater Ethos
No wind generator is Going to pay for itself in 6 months! I've worked windpower projects all over the world 🌎. Not talking with the rose colored glasses on.
Its actually a very well known fact its 5-7 months until energy neutrality.. lol
This is may be true for some wind farms, but for most this is not true. Many wind farms in my area will never reach energy neutrality. 30+ year life span, and then have to be buried in the desert somewhere after expiration. Seems very environmentally friendly to me.@@JeremyReger
@@nickdyer6506 Thats just simply not true.. it may be what you are hearing, but if they didn't pay for themselves and fast its the single dumbest way to burn money.. They may not ever be carbon neutral, but that's not what we are talking about.. They absolutely make money and a lot of it..
@@JeremyReger LMAO 🤣!
@JeremyReger project would not have been done without a big fat, from your pocket, taxpayer subsidy. Subtract that #. The energy costs more to make.
"I don't want to spend a ton of time on it."
Too late, Steve.
Every time Steve says some variation of the above, you know it's going to be at least 3-5 minutes. 😂
1:47:26 this dude hates Steve lol. Good podcast though
Hey Steve. Here is another factoid. regarding toxic metals. LEAD. Currently the only exemption to the clean air act is LEADED fuel for small aircraft. They still burn leaded fuel. ??? When you fly into the wilderness to hunt, you are dropping LEAD all over the remote areas of natural land. When a small aircraft flys overhead, you are being showered with LEAD. Check this out for us. Long time fan of you guys. Thanks for doing what you do. " A fresh set of eyes, always finds more beans."
The cost/energy production figures Brendan claims for the wind turbines seem far fetched...best case scenario. The costs/recoup time strikingly optimistic. The turbine may be able to recoup the amount of energy it took to produce it within a year...but it certainly hasn't made a dent in its cost basis. This only works as a taxpayer subsidized industry...who gets the subsidies depends upon who falls in favor of the current administration. Either way...we're stuck with the bill and we get to enjoy looking at miles of solar panels and spinning turbines with blinking lights. Joy.
I miss bow season…..
I hope Callaghan don’t ever have to thumb for a ride. They’d never know which way he wanted to go! 😂
First off, I think the guest was great. I don't understand though, why don't we offer to have solar everywhere in the south western states? Parking lots, homes, big box stores, etc? I guess it would be harder to capitalize on for big companies? I live in southeast AZ and it's crazy to me that there's an energy crisis and no one is talking about putting solar all over the previously mentioned area/structures. Hell, with what we spend in foreign aid, it could have been done by now.
They don’t even have to do archeological surveys before laying out 100yard square cement pads for the wind farms.
As soon as he declared a “Climate Crisis” every ounce of credibility was lost.
We definitely need rooftops with solar panels not trees removed for solar panels! Solar farms are done to continue making businesses big money. Our world needs individual solar equipment/panels to use so we learn to use less and maintain that usage on our own merit. Power lines removed should be the goal. Not more land used up.
solar infrastructure is much less dense than oil infrastructure. It takes many more acres to produce the same amount of energy
Probably already said but use wal-mart, homedepot,lowes all city structures where the temp is already hotter
The problem with solar farms is that they are not targeting land with little to no agricultural value or smaller environmental value. They are targeting prime farmland in Texas. How are we to curb the food crisis when we are losing hundreds of thousands of prime farmland acres a year?
I lost him when he said the good thing this current administration is doing
This should be part of the discussion. A lot of coal is going to need to be mined and burned to create these solar panels. The panels are not manufactured with out the use of fossil fuels and a lot of it
To make a single solar panel, approximately 11 tons of coal - or 3,000 pounds - must be burned in a furnace at a very high temperature and pressure
Shhhhh, that's not the point 😉
and lets also ask where those panels are manufactured ;)@@gypsyangler4937
As a serious muskie fisherman in MN where pike spearing is legal and popular.... I have no problems with it. MN DNR has rules and regs in place to protect large pike. Anglers are supposed to judge a pike whether it is in the protected slots here (22-26 inches) then identifying muskies should not be an issue. Will there be muskies speared? yes. But it is not legal and the majority of muskies speared will be done purposely by the few who do not care about the laws. In my opinion a bigger issue for killing muskies is anglers targeting them in water temps in excess of 80 degrees or in deep water with front facing sonars.
Environmental Engineer here - what I tell people is that nothing exists in a vacuum and there is no such thing as “zero impact”. Everything must be assessed pro vs cons compared to the alternatives. Renewable energy is objectively better for wildlife than fossil fuels on a global and macro landscape scale. Fossil fuel extraction is hugely impactful in terms of footprint and the emissions from its use (hazardous waste generation, GHG emissions, hosts of additional air pollutants, huge number of spills - thousands a year you don’t hear about). Renewable energy will require vast construction and infrastructure expansion…but it doesn’t nearly the quantity of hazardous waste compared to fossil extraction, the footprints are more flexible with where they can be located, the risks of spills and long term remediation requirements are vastly lower, GHG emissions are vastly lower over lifecycle (even with todays technology and manufacturing practices). Yes it’s not perfect, especially at super local scale assessment and the buildout is going to have challenges, but to say it’s anything other than vastly better on net for the globe is simply misguided.
The truth we all need to face is that the modern world is unsustainable.
Wind and solar are both extremely inefficient by their landmass footprint, their inability to adequately store excess energy, their manufacturing, inconsistent peaks/valleys, and the maintenance/lifespan.
Battery technology to store energy is far behind our ability to generate it. The processes involved in their manufacture is atrocious and the disposal process isn't pretty either.
We're all looking for a way to continue the lifestyle we had, but that's not feasible.
Whoa whoa whoa to much sane opinion here by a subject matter expert. You are gonna have to take that down lol
@@ActionEHamshraershVNot true.. The sun shines more energy on eath everyday than we use..
It’s all about tapping it and storing it..
Agree with the reply stating our current lifestyle is unsustainable. The mining of limited resources to support renewable/non renewable energy can’t be good for the planet. But renewable energy is heavily mined in Africa, and the people who mine it are treated horribly with almost no pay. We also pay the Chinese for almost all of the materials, as they are heavily invested.
When will people start accepting the fact that the earth goes through hot and cold cycles. We do have an effect but the earth will cycle no matter what. Maybe we aren’t meant to exist as we currently do forever. Maybe the wildfires started by lightning are meant to burn, as they used to before we began intervening. If people care that much they should first put down their dependency on fossil fuels, basically everything you own, and lead from the front. Also the US can’t do it alone and the other nations who produce will never slow down.
Liberal Californians want offshore windmills.
Those windmills are expensive, dirty, and inefficient of course, but at least they will become amazing fish aggregation devices for sportfishermen. Hopefully they help repair the destroyed marine environments here in Los Angeles.
Green energy can only survive on the back of a 1:04:31 full grid of fuels! Coal, gas, or nuclear ⚛️. When the sun doesn't shine or the wind ain't blowing 😢! You can’t make enough power to effectively and efficiently run a wind turbine manufacturer factory from wind power only. And the same goes for solar power, powering a solar panel factory. They must stand on the back of a stable energized grid, to be of any use. The investment of renewable energy is best located on the best scientific location. The ocean is the wrong place for a wind farm. Tough enough to service and maintain on good ground. Salt water tends to shorten the life span of any equipment, and you are going to want 10 years on the investment in optimal winds. Check on Denmarks wind farm on their northern dike, on the North Sea. See if those Kennetech machines are still working. It is still costly energy per KW than what most folks are used to budgeting for.
In the record books place an asterisk next to the entry. State the nature of the discrepancy but acknowledge the musky
MECURY 49:50 its a DMSA challenge and a 12 hour urine collection, would be treated with long term DMSA and DMPS under a doctors supervision
....
It's very telling when the guy dodges or refuses to answer. This guy and the people he represent don't give a damn about wild places and wildlife.
What about how none of this stuff the blades are made out of are recyclable. Huge land fill full of blades
How much does atmospheric carbon increase with the lost of natural lands through this proposed new infrastructure?
I can't understand how replacing natural lands with solar panels will reduce atmospheric carbon. It may reduce admissions, but it will also reduce carbon leaving the air through plant growth. I also believe that plant covered soil traps carbon while new infrastructure opens up the soil and releases carbon.
Same technicality with weighing the fish on land with a world record lake trout in the last year or so.
I can see them from Nantucket and I wish I couldn’t!