BajaNomad

Wind tower Hwy 3

PaulW - 9-8-2019 at 10:52 AM

South of hwy 3 near the north end of L Diablo is the site for the new wind turbines. Photo from the web, have not been there yet.


wind tower.jpg - 70kB

Bajazly - 9-8-2019 at 11:40 AM

I've seen that project a few times and wondered what they were doing there. Gonna put some eyesores up in the desert.

David K - 9-8-2019 at 03:06 PM

In Upper California, these giant 'food processors' chop up plenty of birds.

bajabuddha - 9-8-2019 at 03:33 PM

Not to mention the noise gives the birds cancer anyway.

Alm - 9-8-2019 at 05:55 PM

They make annoying noise. One guy packed with mucho money and not so much knowledge, built that next to his seasonal site on the camp. It worked.... on some days. 75% of time had to run a generator, thanks God the one in his Class A motorhome wasn't too loud. Next season he approached me, asking whether my 500W solar on the trailer needs a "diverter" to divert the extra power when there is too much sun :)... Then he installed a solar on palapa over the trailer, like everybody else.

AKgringo - 9-8-2019 at 06:43 PM

Are the power companies being subsidized to trash the desert, or is it being done profitably on their nickel?

Those towers don't cast much of a shadow, why can't the hundreds of acres of solar panels share the same sites (and grid) instead of ruining even more raw land?

[Edited on 9-9-2019 by AKgringo]

apple - 9-8-2019 at 06:55 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
In Upper California, these giant 'food processors' chop up plenty of birds.


The polar ice caps are melting, somebody's gotta make some sacrifices

Alm - 9-8-2019 at 09:25 PM

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo  

Those towers don't cast much of a shadow, why can't the hundreds of acres of solar panels share the same sites (and grid) instead of ruining even more raw land?

Shush :).... Trying to change the incorrigible Mexican spirit is an exercise in futility... Give it some time, maybe somebody will bootstrap a solar array to the tower... Gringos are planning, Mexicans are improvising...

John Harper - 9-9-2019 at 05:53 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
In Upper California, these giant 'food processors' chop up plenty of birds.


Let's add some facts, just for fun!

Yes, about 300,000 birds killed per year across the USA from all windfarms.

6 BILLION die from collisions with cell and radio towers annually!

Outdoor cats kill over 3 BILLION birds a year in the USA.

Plus, I harvest my share of doves every September! 20 million doves are harvested annually in the USA, with plenty left to repopulate. Add 30 million ducks harvested annually as well.

Windfarms are pretty far down the list for bird mortality.

John


[Edited on 9-9-2019 by John Harper]

ZipLine - 9-9-2019 at 12:23 PM

The towers aren't chopping up doves, they're chopping up raptors while they're are cruising the thermals. Eagles, hawks, osprey, vultures.

Outdoor cats are killing sparrows.

paranewbi - 9-9-2019 at 02:30 PM

Quote: Originally posted by John Harper  
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
In Upper California, these giant 'food processors' chop up plenty of birds.


Let's add some facts, just for fun!

Yes, about 300,000 birds killed per year across the USA from all windfarms.

6 BILLION die from collisions with cell and radio towers annually!

Outdoor cats kill over 3 BILLION birds a year in the USA.


Plus, I harvest my share of doves every September! 20 million doves are harvested annually in the USA, with plenty left to repopulate. Add 30 million ducks harvested annually as well.

Windfarms are pretty far down the list for bird mortality.

John


[Edited on 9-9-2019 by John Harper]


Got a stat source on that?
I would wonder what the percentage charts show at those different man-made devices.

I would suspect there are a greater number of cell/radio towers in those stats as well as cats as compared to the number of wind generators.

The truth lies in the per-source broken down from the whole.

I took a seagull out with a fishhook one time...




[Edited on 9-9-2019 by paranewbi]

BajaMama - 9-9-2019 at 03:11 PM



[Edited on 9-9-2019 by BajaMama]

SFandH - 9-9-2019 at 03:17 PM

I've smacked a couple of birds with my truck, a big buzzard eating road kill that took off too late, I slowed down but he must have had a mouthful, his buddies escaped, and a smaller guy just flying by.

The buzzard actually dented the front of the cab-over part of my camper. The small guy splatted like a bug on the windshield, a BIG bug, what a mess.

Anyway, glad to see the wind generators. Clean energy!

[Edited on 9-9-2019 by SFandH]

John Harper - 9-9-2019 at 04:11 PM

Quote: Originally posted by paranewbi  

Got a stat source on that?


Sure, use Google, it's easy. Lots of stats come up. Most of them are within my listings. If you want to break it down by species, be my guest.

You can do it!!!

P.S. There are at least 45 less doves in Arizona than before September 1.

John

[Edited on 9-9-2019 by John Harper]

BajaTed - 9-9-2019 at 05:05 PM

FACT:
70% of all NEW energy production world wide is being done with renewable energy sources.

Capitalism is becoming more dynamic, deal with it


John Harper - 9-9-2019 at 05:12 PM

OMG, it's worse than that:

9/11 Memorial lights a hazard to 160K birds!!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/nyregion/911-tribute-bird...

Where is Alfred Hitchc-ck when we need him???

John

[Edited on 9-10-2019 by John Harper]

paranewbi - 9-9-2019 at 06:18 PM

Quote: Originally posted by John Harper  
Quote: Originally posted by paranewbi  

Got a stat source on that?


Sure, use Google, it's easy. Lots of stats come up. Most of them are within my listings. If you want to break it down by species, be my guest.

You can do it!!!

P.S. There are at least 45 less doves in Arizona than before September 1.

John

Took you up on that John...although I don't use Google mania...I was trained as a paralegal to use a different method most wouldn't understand... I differ with you on your conclusion as I found that most of those who support your stats are trade members with questionable interests.

Smithsonian as well as many others show a different count that shows otherwise. And when broken down into a context of per unit deaths the radio tower and such deaths are high due to the overwhelming number of such structures above and beyond the relatively few wind generators.

It is also the TYPE of bird that is being reduced by wind generators that is pertinent to the stats and cause. Unless you put all birds into the category of worthy of your view through a gun sight.


[Edited on 9-10-2019 by paranewbi]

JZ - 9-9-2019 at 10:05 PM

Quote: Originally posted by John Harper  
OMG, it's worse than that:

9/11 Memorial lights a hazard to 160K birds!!!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/nyregion/911-tribute-bird...

Where is Alfred Hitchc-ck when we need him???

John

[Edited on 9-10-2019 by John Harper]


From that article:

"Collisions with buildings, especially ones with transparent or reflective windows, kill 600 million birds a year across the country, and as many as 230,000 in New York City, according to N.Y.C."

bajaric - 9-9-2019 at 10:56 PM

A little fact check; There are 94 million cats in US households. If cats kill 3 billion birds a year that means each cat kills 34 birds a year, on average. I am not buying it. Since a lot of cats are indoor cats and never kill any birds that would mean many cats are killing about one bird a week. I had a cat that was quite the huntress, and while she might have got a lizard or a gopher now and then I guarantee she was not killing a bird a week; the birds around here are too smart for that.
That is the problem with statistics. People do not stop to do the math. I saw a "science journalist" on PBS say with a straight face that it takes 2,000 gallons of water to grow a kilogram of cotton, so people should not buy jeans. That is absurd. It takes about 20 gallons of water to grow a kilogram of cotton.
I hope those ugly bird killing wind turbines all seize up and get sold for scrap. And yes, they are subsidized by federal and state money, in the interest of "saving the planet".

paranewbi - 9-10-2019 at 03:33 AM

Quote: Originally posted by bajaric  
A little fact check; There are 94 million cats in US households. If cats kill 3 billion birds a year that means each cat kills 34 birds a year, on average. I am not buying it. Since a lot of cats are indoor cats and never kill any birds that would mean many cats are killing about one bird a week. I had a cat that was quite the huntress, and while she might have got a lizard or a gopher now and then I guarantee she was not killing a bird a week; the birds around here are too smart for that.
That is the problem with statistics. People do not stop to do the math. I saw a "science journalist" on PBS say with a straight face that it takes 2,000 gallons of water to grow a kilogram of cotton, so people should not buy jeans. That is absurd. It takes about 20 gallons of water to grow a kilogram of cotton.
I hope those ugly bird killing wind turbines all seize up and get sold for scrap. And yes, they are subsidized by federal and state money, in the interest of "saving the planet".


The other morning my dog chased a mouse up our hallway into the living room. The mouse ran over the paws of my cat who was lying on the floor watching the whole thing. The dog got distracted at a quick turn and the mouse ran into the kitchen and under the stove which is where I last saw it and now can't find it.

Just to keep this post in the spirit of this website I named the mouse Baja because it is so elusive to me these days.

John Harper - 9-10-2019 at 07:25 AM

Quote: Originally posted by paranewbi  
I was trained as a paralegal to use a different method most wouldn't understand


You're losing sight of the forest for the trees. I was simply posting some basic information that wind farms are not the biggest threat to birds. No one's talking eagles, sparrows, or doves, just birds. Any statistics can be broken down pretty much however one desires, and bias is evident in lots of sources. Just depends on your POV. I added the dove and duck harvest numbers just to highlight another source of bird mortality.

I'm not here to defend a doctoral dissertation, only to add some rough data to compare relative sources of bird mortality. If you don't trust the numbers or feel bias present, I have no problem with whatever numbers you wish to present.

John

[Edited on 9-10-2019 by John Harper]

Tioloco - 9-10-2019 at 09:55 AM

Interestingly, this "clean" energy has a core group of supporters that get warm and fuzzy about cluttering up the desert with soon to be obsolete equipment. They have no problem driving their gas guzzling vehicles hundreds of miles to hunt dove for sport. But they want to talk about carbon emissions and "green" alternatives.
Laughable

caj13 - 9-10-2019 at 10:31 AM

Ok so I actually have bit of expertise here. I was on the NREL (National Renewable Energy labs) committe looking at mortaility of turbines. I also have done numerous surveys using a portable trailer spinning 2 modified marine radars, running images through a computer running proprietary software ( a variant of patent # 5450063 if you are interested, you can also see a photo of the original system in National Geographic, March 2009, PG 59) .

The surveys were done both for new proposed wind turbine locations, or in and around active turbine sites looking at mortality, and rishk of mortality.

long story short - where you put the turbines is important. painting turbines does not work, nor do "noisemakers" (unless you are jamming bats hunting sonar, but thats a whole different kettle of fish) Data shows turbines in migratory pathways are usually Ok, depending on elevation of migration.
Birds can see turbines just fine - they do not get "chopped up". the get impact injuries - because their brains interprit the visual images as prey running into and out of cover. The problem is exacerbated because birds eyes have 2 different focal lengths.

Smaller birds, and bats are actually taken out by "barotrauma" the difference in pressure between the leading and trailing edges of the blade actually percuss the body and cause massive internal damage to tissues and organs in small birds and bats.

while it is an ongoing problem - proper siting and some other measures have been fairly sucessfull in reducing the kill rates.

as for those who think their arguement is" a single wind tower kills more birds than cell towers, or tall buildings". Let me give you a math lesson.
You have 10 dollars from selling your tricycle. I have a million dollars from selling 250,000 tricycles. which is more significant? because you got 2.5X as much for your tricycle, as I got for each of mine - so you win right?

wind turbines are a very small part of the bird kill issue, Cell towers, building, and cats are huge contributors!

Its the total number of kills that matter, not how many per individual tower or turbine or cat!

By the way - the cat kill research was done, its actually pretty good science. If you have a problem with it - show me your data!

[Edited on 9-10-2019 by caj13]

bajaric - 9-10-2019 at 12:45 PM

Its simple arithmetic, used to be taught in the 4th grade, along with fractions. (Number of x) times (bird kills per x) = total bird kills.

Not sure why I am discussing how many birds are killed by cats on a Baja forum but here we are. My response was anecdotal. I live in a suburban environment with plenty of trees and lots of birds and I had a fairly aggressive outdoor cat and I observed that there was no way the cat was killing 50 birds a year. So lets dig a little deeper. The number of birds killed each year by cats varies among different sources:
Answers.com, various figures: 3.7 billion, 4.7 billion, 7 billion, 3.5 million
American Bird Conservancy: 500 million
Mother Jones: 500 million
Someone, quoted above, 3 billion
Obviously there is some disagreement as to how many birds are killed each year by crazed gangs of cats running amok.

If, as quoted above, cell towers kill 6 billion, cats 3 billion, and buildings 600 million, plus wind turbines x? million and hunters another hundred million that would be all the birds in the US* killed each year! Since there are, in fact, plenty of birds remaining alive in the US these are obviously bogus statistics created out of thin air by people working to forward their agenda, be it green party types or industry-sponsored researchers, both putting a bad rap on poor little kitty cats to make their wind turbine death machines more palatable to the general public.
*10 billion birds in the US today, per American Bird Conservancy, down from 11.5 billion in 1970.

caj13 - 9-10-2019 at 12:50 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajaric  
A little fact check; There are 94 million cats in US households. If cats kill 3 billion birds a year that means each cat kills 34 birds a year, on average. I am not buying it. Since a lot of cats are indoor cats and never kill any birds that would mean many cats are killing about one bird a week. I had a cat that was quite the huntress, and while she might have got a lizard or a gopher now and then I guarantee she was not killing a bird a week; the birds around here are too smart for that.
That is the problem with statistics. People do not stop to do the math. I saw a "science journalist" on PBS say with a straight face that it takes 2,000 gallons of water to grow a kilogram of cotton, so people should not buy jeans. That is absurd. It takes about 20 gallons of water to grow a kilogram of cotton.
I hope those ugly bird killing wind turbines all seize up and get sold for scrap. And yes, they are subsidized by federal and state money, in the interest of "saving the planet".


Hey Rick,
here is a source for those numbers - looks to me like the 2000 gallons per KG was an understatement. (you will have to backtrack to WWF to find their original source, but looking for real documentable facts - thats important enough to spend a few minutes checking to see if your facts are correct - right? )

According to WWF, it takes more than 20,000 liters (5,283 gallons) of water to produce just one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cotton, which roughly equals one T-shirt and a pair of jeans. https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/cotton

so I'd like to see your source or data please? where are you getting this "20 gallons of water to grow a KG of cotton? (BTW I see 5.5 acre feet of water per acre for cotton here in the central valley - so that tends to back up the 20,000 liters, so I'm looking for confirmation that the 20 gallons is actually the correct number) .
and would you mind sourcing your "wind turbines are being subsidized by governments please? i would be very interested in those factual data!
thank you

[Edited on 9-10-2019 by caj13]

[Edited on 9-11-2019 by caj13]

caj13 - 9-10-2019 at 12:59 PM

Ok Rick,
Please tell me where they got their math wrong?
https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/

specifically, this study published in "Nature Communications"
ARTICLE
Received 6 Sep 2012 | Accepted 12 Dec 2012 | Published 29 Jan 2013
The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States
Scott R. Loss1 , Tom Will2 & Peter P. Marra1

Abstract:
Anthropogenic threats, such as collisions with man-made structures, vehicles, poisoning and predation by domestic pets, combine to kill billions of wildlife annually. Free-ranging domestic cats have been introduced globally and have contributed to multiple wildlife extinctions on
islands. The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused bycats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals. Scientifically sound conservation and policy intervention is needed to reduce this impact.

[Edited on 9-10-2019 by caj13]

BajaMama - 9-11-2019 at 08:09 AM

Renewable energy sources are preferable to fossil fuel. Certainly not as ugly and disgusting as the air pollution of the 60s and 70.

David K - 9-11-2019 at 08:20 AM

Yes, but it is the 21st Century and technology has cleaned the air despite more energy being made. I think technology will make these bird killing eyesores obsolete, as well.

bajabuddha - 9-11-2019 at 09:41 AM

......and clean, beautiful coal doesn't kill those cute little birdies;

JUST PEOPLE. :smug:

Alm - 9-11-2019 at 09:45 AM

Quote: Originally posted by BajaTed  
FACT:
70% of all NEW energy production world wide is being done with renewable energy sources

The keyword here is "new". Meaning - added over the last year.
Currently, renewables in the USA account for mere 12% of total energy production.
In Germany it's 40%.

Solar

PaulW - 9-11-2019 at 10:10 AM

Been watching the facility grow over the last several years as we commute to Baja from up north.
Below is an image of a huge solar facility beside I8. 32 55.3, -112 55.3
This is a system that collect sunlight and converts to heat as the heat into a transfer media then the hot fluid (gas?) goes to tanks where it is used to make electricity from turbines. Foreign company built with a long term contract with the AZ utility.
Nearby are farms and feedlots and a lot of unused desert.
You cannot see the nearby high voltage power lines.



Solar.jpg - 238kB

ehall - 9-11-2019 at 10:15 AM

Quote: Originally posted by PaulW  
Been watching the facility grow over the last several years as we commute to Baja from up north.
Below is an image of a huge solar facility beside I8. 32 55.3, -112 55.3
This is a system that collect sunlight and converts to heat as the heat into a transfer media then the hot fluid (gas?) goes to tanks where it is used to make electricity from turbines. Foreign company built with a long term contract with the AZ utility.
Nearby are farms and feedlots and a lot of unused desert.
You cannot see the nearby high voltage power lines.





That is Solano power plant. The mirrors heat up oil to about 700 degrees. The oil is used to boil water and run a steam turbine. They store the hot oil in big tanks and are able to make power for 3 or 4 hours after dark. Interesting technology. I got a tour of the place when it was being built. The company I work for buys the way overpriced power.

[Edited on 9-11-2019 by ehall]

PaulW - 9-11-2019 at 10:20 AM

Ed, Lucky you. The place is locked up so I have never had a way to get access. Should be interesting tour.

Don Pisto - 9-11-2019 at 10:20 AM

if I was a coyote I'd park myself under one of those windmills and await a tasty gift from above! ;)

PaulW - 9-11-2019 at 10:23 AM

Don, Trouble is the birds are few and the coyotes would starve before the found even one. That area is not favored by birds.

caj13 - 9-11-2019 at 11:16 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Alm  
Quote: Originally posted by BajaTed  
FACT:
70% of all NEW energy production world wide is being done with renewable energy sources

The keyword here is "new". Meaning - added over the last year.
Currently, renewables in the USA account for mere 12% of total energy production.
In Germany it's 40%.

california it is currently 30% and going up - sorry David

SFandH - 9-11-2019 at 11:41 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Alm  

Currently, renewables in the USA account for mere 12% of total energy production.


According to this source, renewables were at 17.1% in 2018. The 2 largest renewable sources are hydroelectric at 7% and wind at 6.6% of total renewable generation.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Texas generates the most using wind on state-by-state basis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_State...


[Edited on 9-11-2019 by SFandH]

ehall - 9-11-2019 at 02:15 PM

Quote: Originally posted by PaulW  
Ed, Lucky you. The place is locked up so I have never had a way to get access. Should be interesting tour.


They are always looking for help. A tour is included with the interview. Lol

bajaric - 9-12-2019 at 07:05 AM

Quote: Originally posted by caj13  
Quote: Originally posted by bajaric  
A little fact check; There are 94 million cats in US households. If cats kill 3 billion birds a year that means each cat kills 34 birds a year, on average. I am not buying it. Since a lot of cats are indoor cats and never kill any birds that would mean many cats are killing about one bird a week. I had a cat that was quite the huntress, and while she might have got a lizard or a gopher now and then I guarantee she was not killing a bird a week; the birds around here are too smart for that.
That is the problem with statistics. People do not stop to do the math. I saw a "science journalist" on PBS say with a straight face that it takes 2,000 gallons of water to grow a kilogram of cotton, so people should not buy jeans. That is absurd. It takes about 20 gallons of water to grow a kilogram of cotton.
I hope those ugly bird killing wind turbines all seize up and get sold for scrap. And yes, they are subsidized by federal and state money, in the interest of "saving the planet".


Hey Rick,
here is a source for those numbers - looks to me like the 2000 gallons per KG was an understatement. (you will have to backtrack to WWF to find their original source, but looking for real documentable facts - thats important enough to spend a few minutes checking to see if your facts are correct - right? )

According to WWF, it takes more than 20,000 liters (5,283 gallons) of water to produce just one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cotton, which roughly equals one T-shirt and a pair of jeans. https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/cotton

so I'd like to see your source or data please? where are you getting this "20 gallons of water to grow a KG of cotton? (BTW I see 5.5 acre feet of water per acre for cotton here in the central valley - so that tends to back up the 20,000 liters, so I'm looking for confirmation that the 20 gallons is actually the correct number) .
and would you mind sourcing your "wind turbines are being subsidized by governments please? i would be very interested in those factual data!
thank you

[Edited on 9-10-2019 by caj13]

[Edited on 9-11-2019 by caj13]


Hi Caj, I was wrong. (first time for everything) I based my estimate of 20 gallons to grow a kg of cotton on the amount of water it takes to grow broccoli, which is not a fair comparison because broccoli is a dense vegetable and cotton balls are feathery light fibers. As it turns out, cotton is a thirsty crop indeed. Just how thirsty is hard to say, and I think the estimate of 2000 gallon per kg is a little high, but it is devilishly complicated. First you have to decide if you are measuring the weight of baled cotton in the field, which includes seeds and stems, or the weight of "lint", that is the fibers only after they have been ginned. Also, hand picked cotton yields are higher per acre than machine-picked, because human cotton pickers can harvest the crop over several weeks as each cotton ball opens up and machines take the whole crop on the same day. But, yes, it takes a lot of water to grow cotton. Ginned cotton yields per acre vary, but in places where it is "dry farmed" or grown without irrigation like the deep south and west Texas if you take an average 363 kg of "lint" produced per acre in a place that gets 40 inches of rain, over a six month growing season that means it takes 1.66 acre feet of water or 543,000 gallon to grow 363 kg, or 1495 gallons of water per kilogram of cotton lint. Irrigated cotton has higher yields because the water can be delivered to the roots more consistently so while I do not think it takes 4000 gallons to make a pair of jeans the number is probably closer to 1000 gallons which is still a lot of water. Some of the farmers are greedy. They put dams on the rivers and take every last drop, leaving the wetlands to wither and die (San Joaquin, Colorado river deltas, both bone dry) and then if someone dares to suggest that they take a few acres of cotton (or almonds, who like almonds anyway?) out of production and leave a few thimbles of water for the fish and the birds they scream like stuck pigs. That is why on a fishing boat if you call someone a farmer it is a derogatory term.
Moving on. Wind farms get a direct federal subsidy of so much per kilowatt. That is being phased out so soon those bird killing turbines will have to stand on their own one legs ha ha You see, I really do like birds. The whole thing with the cats, well, enough about the cats. My point, in a roundabout manner, is that if well meaning people put questionable statistics out there it only makes them less credible and hinders the important work of trying to save what is left of the planet. Ric

caj13 - 9-12-2019 at 07:46 AM

Ric, I know it gets complicated. thats why I like the acre feet per year number. Thats pretty well known, and provides a good comparative number. alfalfa is another crop that takes huge amounts of water, in the range of 5 acre feet here in the central valley. Of course that water is heavily subsidized, farmers / big ag who signed the conracts are getting it for 5 - 8 bucks an acre foot, that same acre foot would cost you 900 bucks in los Angeles.

If you want to make the connection, cotton and milk are both price supported by the government, so if you grow those things, you know you will always get the set price, and it could go alot higher.
so subsidized water on 1 hand, set prices on the other - not sure how you could lose as a farmer - assuming you had the contracts.
(thats the difference between agribusiness and mom and pop farms)

SFandH - 9-12-2019 at 03:30 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajaric  
Wind farms get a direct federal subsidy of so much per kilowatt. That is being phased out so soon those bird killing turbines will have to stand on their own one legs ha ha


And compete with the heavily subsidized fossil fuel industry?



[Edited on 9-12-2019 by SFandH]

Alm - 9-12-2019 at 03:37 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
Quote: Originally posted by Alm  

Currently, renewables in the USA account for mere 12% of total energy production.


According to this source, renewables were at 17.1% in 2018.

That's a big jump, from 11% in 2017. I read that 2018 was a record year for renewables in the US.

SFandH - 9-12-2019 at 03:52 PM

That's why I included the link. "Renewables" may be defined differently.