You are on in the internet then you are on the grid.
That hasn’t been true since the days of the tiny windmills with fast speeds. The really large ones don’t kill birds, except the ones that deserve it.
Not necessarily. He might have a wireless connection to the internet.
My sister used to live in a national park that had phone connection, but no electrical connection to the outside world. The park service had a photovoltaic array hooked up to batteries. Worked well.
So, the internet runs on hot air? I’m pretty sure there are a bunch of power plants somewhere generating electricity to make it work.
Google has been moving forward for some time to try and run all it’s servers off of renewable energy only.
Of course the internet is no ‘off the grid’, and probably won’t ever be, but a grid that is powered by clean green energy is possible of course.
The argument has always been “too expensive”, not that it can’t be done. Now that it is no longer ‘too expensive’, somebody came up with the ‘it’s impossible defense’.
Damn it, wrong thread. This is about the nightmare of a nuclear beast trying to destroy Japan.
The mythos of Godzilla was always about man had polluted the oceans with radioactivity, and nature struck back. There is much irony to come.
So what you are saying is that it is impossible for anyone with any connection to a grid is not off the grid. A person in a cabin with a solar set up and cell phone and/or computer is connected to the phone grid, etc. That might be true for your definition of “grid”, but it’s stupid. I understood his meaning.
My definition is that I cannot make my home function normally without hardwires connecting me to the electric utility. (And gas utility, and cable utility.)
Plate glass blamed for billion bird deaths a year
“Expert says a single skyscraper can kill 200 birds in a day”
Now, a nuke nutter will tell you nuke power is great because it kills fewer people per year than cars. So, when a nuke nutter pulls out the bird-o-matic argument, remind them that by their own logic wind power is great because it kills fewer birds than glass, and cars too, for that matter.
The nutter will then counter that nuke plants kill fewer birds than wind. By that point, you should know you dealing with a nutter, so common sense is right out.
Some studies show that buses are actually less fuel efficient than private cars, and far less efficient than hybrid cars. (From this page - three- quarters of the way down the page there’s a chart comparing MJ per passenger kilometre). There are of course a lot of asterisks in that comparison, but all buses are not the obvious fuel efficient choice over all private vehicles.
This comparison only makes sense if the two things being compared perform a similar function or can be substituted for each other. Unless you’re proposing to move office buildings into wind turbines, I don’t see how it’s relevant. Tylenol might cause more liver failure per mg/kg than alcohol, but I’m still not going to treat my headaches with a bottle of Jack.
Well it works OK for the evening, but you should chase it with a full 8 oz of water and a couple of aspirin before bed… 
And move cars into nuke plants? Well, that’s the nuke side for you. They insist on comparing death rates. Why I don’t know, but it’s their ace up the sleeve GOTCHA argument-clincher or something. I have a feeling you and I both know how silly it can quickly get when we start comparing death rates.
Coal mining in the US averages about 30 deaths per year. That’s not really very many deaths.
For fun, google “30 deaths per year” and peruse all the other different things that can result in 30 deaths/year.
Transportation (95% highway - stay off the highways!) deaths:
35k transportation deaths per year is a lot I guess. I also don’t see how it’s useful to compare that to nuclear.
I don’t think anyone is saying that nuclear power is better than wind power for the sole reason that it kills less birds. Simply that it’s something you have to take into account. You may not consider it a big disadvantage to wind power (I certainly don’t consider it to be a major one), but it’s something in the ledger. Personally, the amount of land that’s needed for wind is a much greater deterrent to me for wide scale application of turbines than the amount of birds it kills.
Boy, does it ever take up land! My drive through Kansas on I-70 last year included about an hour when I was not out of sight of a windmill.
Power source A = more deaths
Power source B = less deaths
Hmmmm… . . . . . …Nah, I’ma scared of A.
Note that I didn’t say that land use should nix the construction of windmills, only that it was more of a concern to me than bird kills.
Windmills are unsightly and sometimes noisy. I think the bird kills is the anti-nuke crowd’s meme from the 70s, as it isn’t true anymore. I get over the ugly by thinking about all the power they generate. As for the noisy, I haven’t ever heard one.
Did you ever hear of screens?
Now you are talkig about birds? And windmills?
WHAT ABOUT GODZILLA? HUH? HUH?
PEOPLE ARE SCARED MAN! GODZILLA ACTUALLY SHOWED UP!
From the “no surprise there” department.
Really? What a shocker.