Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Robert Roaldi]

Well, at least it appears Congress is happy with the decision. Once the rest of the majority of Republicans build back a spine, it's their task to handle taxes and spending.

The ex pardon attorney sees this as a very positive move, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pnTkwwlKJ1M.

I didn't realize that there were three dissenters, which means that three justices think that Trump is justified in inventing fake emergencies to do 'whatever he wants'. Geez guys, don't go out on a limb now.

Leaving policy questions aside, what kind of lame brain prez call the supreme court 'fools' out loud? Does he have a mental age of 12?

[digitaldog]

In my view, the development of alternative energy supplies should focus on nuclear technology, and the improvement of batteries that don't rely upon expensive and limited resources.

Hopefully, windmills and solar farms will eventually be replaced with nuclear power, because they are a blight on the environment, killing birds, using huge areas of land, and creating huge waste recycling problems at the end of their lifespan.

Thanks! You've just given me the first good laugh of the day.    After all the diarrhea of the keyboard, nonsense distraction, you are so talented at.

Wind turbines kill an estimated 700,000 to over 1 million birds annually in the U.S., representing less than 0.01% of human-related avian fatalities. While significant, this number is far lower than the number of deaths caused by cats, buildings, or power lines. Now, do you own a cat (a camera?), use power lines, and oppose buildings?

Once again, sir, many of your readers here have demonstrated that your right to be heard doesn’t automatically translate into your right to be taken seriously. 🤔

[digitaldog]

The waste recycling problem exists for all energy sources. For instance, historically we just let Big Oil flush it all into streams, rivers and aquifers, you know, because regulations are such a nuisance. As for windchills using "huge areas of land", all the ones I see are placed in the middle of farm land. Is farm land a waste of space?

Correct - Agrivoltaics. Win/win. Not that Ray will read:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/agrivoltaics-solar-and-agriculture-co-location    https://cleanpower.org/resources/solar-energy-farmland-faq/

[digitaldog]

Trump administration eases limits on coal plants for emitting mercury, other toxins
The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday weakened limits on mercury and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, the Trump administration’s latest effort to boost the fossil fuel industry by paring back clean air and water rules.
Coal-fired power plants are the largest single human source of mercury pollutants. Power plants release the mercury into the atmosphere, which then falls in rain or simply by gravity, entering the food chain through fish and other items that people consume.
Recently, President Donald Trump hosted a group of coal miners who honored him as the “Undisputed Champion of Beautiful, Clean Coal.”
By Michael Phillis and Dylan Lovan The Associated Press

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King

[digitaldog]

On Apple News today (what a coincidence!)

Do windmills kill birds? Fact checking clean energy myths.
A 2023 study found that wind farms had no statistically significant effect on bird counts. But another kind of energy did. Fracking reduced the total number of birds counted in near shale and oil production sites by 15%.

The National Audubon Society has estimated that as many as two-thirds of North American bird species – 398 – are at risk of extinction due to changes in habitat caused by global warming, which clean energy helps limit.

The issue: Are solar farms dangerous for birds?
The answer: A common myth – that birds fly into solar panels by mistake, perhaps believing them to be water – is wrong.
More here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/02/21/fact-checking-clean-energy-myths-windmills-birds/85952082007/

[degrub]

The noise from fracking likely drives them away.

[digitaldog]

The noise from fracking likely drives them away.

Noise, right….

From an Article by Laura Dattaro, Audubon Society, October 29, 2015

In recent years, fracking has surged in western North Dakota’s Bakken region—the area had just 200 active oil wells in 2005 but today more than 10,000 churn out approximately 35 million barrels of oil every month. The extraction comes with a price: The grasslands where those oil wells sit are a delicate and threatened ecosystem and the construction isn’t boding well for the birds that live there, according to recent research conducted by U.S. Geological Survey.
In parched Jim Wells County, Texas, the glistening pits brimming with oil and gas waste appear to be an inviting refuge for birds seeking a hospitable place to find water and rest.

But the pits offer anything but sanctuary–and safety––for birds. They are filled with oily sludge or liquid contaminated with toxic chemicals used by drillers to frack wells in the booming oil and gas fields of south Texas. County Deputy Hector Zertuche, the local environmental crimes officer, said the pits become deadly traps for birds. “The birds see these pits and come in and before they know it are covered in oil or chemicals,” he said

[Ray]

The issue: Are solar farms dangerous for birds?
The answer: A common myth – that birds fly into solar panels by mistake, perhaps believing them to be water – is wrong.
More here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/02/21/fact-checking-clean-energy-myths-windmills-birds/85952082007/

Wow! If that's true, then you'd better inform the following government and educational sites that still appear to believe that both windmills and solar panels are harmful to birds.

Murdoch University
https://www.murdoch.edu.au
16 July 2025 — “The reflective glare from solar panels mimics the appearance of water bodies, confusing migrating birds and leading them off course,”

ScienceDirect.com
https://www.sciencedirect.com
By PA Fleming  2025 --  "However, the glare from solar farms can also create a visual disturbance (illusion of water surface) potentially changing animal behaviour and collision risk."

National Institutes of Health (.gov)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC12810371
by AD Binley  2025 — "Of special concern in this context is the possibility that birds collide with terrestrial solar panels, potentially mistaking them for water."

University of Florida
https://news.ufl.edu  2024/01
5 Jan 2024 — "Animal ecologists study remains of birds killed at wind and solar energy plants[/b] to help develop ways to minimize fatalities."

[Ray]

Correct - Agrivoltaics. Win/win. Not that Ray will read:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/agrivoltaics-solar-and-agriculture-co-location    https://cleanpower.org/resources/solar-energy-farmland-faq/

As I've mentioned before, I have full support for scientific and technological progress. I've been aware, for some time, of the process of using agriculture on land occupied by solar panels, in order to increase efficiency, but currently that method is not often used, although, hopefully it is scaling up.

From a google search:
"Agrivoltaics (the co-location of solar panels with agriculture) currently represents a very small, emerging niche, with true, active, and productive agro-co-location (especially crop production) estimated to be far less than 1% of total utility-scale solar installations globally. While many, if not most, rural solar sites in some regions are built on previous farmland, they typically stop agricultural production, with only a small fraction incorporating active grazing or crops."

"In the U.S., despite roughly 70% of large-scale, rural solar projects being installed on former agricultural land (cropland or pasture), only a tiny fraction are functioning as dual-use agrivoltaics."
[/b]

[Ray]

The waste recycling problem exists for all energy sources.

Of course it does, and we should be reducing the problem, not increasing it.

Here's an overview:

"The disposal of decommissioned wind turbine blades and solar panels presents a growing, long-term waste management challenge as early renewable energy infrastructure reaches its 20–30 year lifespan. While metal components are highly recyclable, turbine blades (fiberglass/epoxy) and solar panels contain complex materials that are hard to separate, leading to millions of tonnes of waste potentially filling landfills."

[digitaldog]

Of course it does, and we should be reducing the problem, not increasing it.

Here's an overview:

"The disposal of decommissioned wind turbine blades and solar panels presents a growing, long-term waste management challenge as early renewable energy infrastructure reaches its 20–30 year lifespan. While metal components are highly recyclable, turbine blades (fiberglass/epoxy) and solar panels contain complex materials that are hard to separate, leading to millions of tonnes of waste potentially filling landfills."

ALL minutia and actually Wind/Solar are recyclable, unlike the dangerous nuclear waste that you so strongly support.

[digitaldog]

Ouch Donald!

60% disapprove of Trump ahead of State of the Union, Post-ABC-Ipsos poll finds
The president’s approval rating stands at 39 percent positive and 60 percent negative, including 47 percent who say they strongly disapprove. The last time Trump’s disapproval touched 60 percent was shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

On two personal attributes, negative perceptions have grown. The percentage saying he lacks the mental sharpness to serve effectively has increased steadily over the past three years and now stands at 56 percent. On the question of his physical fitness to serve, Americans are split almost evenly, 48 percent saying yes and 51 percent saying no. At the beginning of 2024, 57 percent said he had the physical health to serve effectively.

[Ray]

ALL minutia and actually Wind/Solar are recyclable, unlike the dangerous nuclear waste that you so strongly support.

Everything is either currently recyclable or potenially recyclable as technology progresses. The main reason why waste disposal is such a problem, worldwide, is the cost of the recycling process.

The Carbon Rivers project you pictured, appears to be a solution for recycling wind turbine blades, which is obviously good news, but I can find no information on the actual cost. Does the recycling require yet more government subsidies?

Regarding nuclear waste, here's a summary.

"Nuclear waste—specifically spent nuclear fuel—can be recycled, with up to 96% of it able to be reprocessed into new fuel.

Countries like France, Russia, and Japan use specialized reprocessing to extract uranium and plutonium, significantly reducing the volume and long-term toxicity of the remaining waste.

The Process: Spent fuel is chemically treated to separate uranium and plutonium from fission products. The leftover waste is often vitrified (mixed into glass) for stable, long-term storage.
Benefits: Recycling reduces the amount of waste needing disposal, lowers the long-term radiotoxicity, and reduces the need for new uranium mining."

[Robert Roaldi]

Shouldn't Trump be sending that hospital boat to Gaza or Cuba or somewhere, maybe Louisiana now that US health insurance premiums are rising. Or maybe Ukraine. Why is he wasting Americans' money and time sending doctors and nurses to a place with universal health care?

If you want a good laugh, check out the candidate for this Texas Congressional district, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK9a_y0RCsk.

[digitaldog]

Regarding nuclear waste, here's a summary.

"Nuclear waste—specifically spent nuclear fuel—can be recycled, with up to 96% of it able to be reprocessed into new fuel.

And the part you decided to leave out of your summary:
While proponents argue it makes nuclear energy more sustainable, it is currently more costly than using fresh uranium. While reducing high-level waste volume and enhancing energy security, it is technically complex, expensive, and poses proliferation risks!

The main reason why waste disposal is such a problem, worldwide, is the cost of the recycling process.

Once again, you’re right to be heard doesn’t guarantee your right to be taken seriously.

[digitaldog]

Nonsense about “poor birdies killed by wind turbines” deserves some facts:

The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that an average of 234,000 bird deaths each year are caused by collisions with wind turbines on land. Window collisions account for between 365 million and 988 million bird deaths annually in the United States, according to FWS. This is, by far, the single biggest human-caused source of bird deaths. Collisions with vehicles account for an estimated average of 214.5 million bird deaths annually, with the estimates ranging from 89 million to 340 million. Electrical line collisions kill an estimated average of 25.5 million birds in the United States annually, with the estimates ranging from 8 million to 57.3 million.
The argument against wind power (if I can be so kind) and bird deaths is utterly ludicrous.

Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a metric used to assess the cost of generating electricity from a specific power source over its lifetime. The LCOE report is now in its 18th year, and this edition finds that renewable energy is the most cost-competitive form of generation on a dollars-per-megawatt-hour unsubsidised basis against gas, nuclear, and coal. For energy storage in 2025’s analysis, Lazard said there have been “notable declines” in the LCOS of utility-scale and commercial and industrial (C&I) battery energy storage systems (BESS).

Wind and solar are dramatically LESS expensive than Nuclear! At least in this country, the more it costs to make the electricity, the more we pay for it
Onshore wind: $24-75
Solar PV with battery: $46-102
Nuclear: $141-$221
https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/the-cheapest-sources-of-electricity-in-the-us/

Fact: Solar and Wind equipment CAN be recycled!
America Can Recycle 90% of Wind Turbine Mass, According to New DOE Report-January 6, 2025
https://www.energy.gov/cmei/articles/america-can-recycle-90-wind-turbine-mass-according-new-doe-report

•Building a solar farm generally takes 8 to 18 months from initial planning to completion, with the physical construction phase typically lasting 3 to 9 months.
The estimated cost to build the AES Rancho Viejo Solar Project facility in my backyard (96 MW planned solar power + 48 MW four-hour containerized lithium-ion BESS/ It will produce enough electricity to power 40,000 homes) is a mere $200 million. The Mammoth Solar + BESS project in Indiana (600 megawatt (MW), set to be the largest photovoltaic solar farm in the U.S. upon completion) is expected to cost approximately $1.5 billion, still a fraction of a nuclear power plant. It will produce enough CLEAN electricity to power 250,000 homes.
•The global average time to build a nuclear reactor, from the first pouring of concrete to grid connection, is 6 to 8 years. The cost to build a nuclear power plant varies significantly by country and project, generally ranging from $5 billion to over $15 billion for a 1-gigawatt (GW) scale reactor.

Enough FUD about birds, Solar, and Wind power.

[Ray]

And the part you decided to leave out of your summary:
While proponents argue it makes nuclear energy more sustainable, it is currently more costly than using fresh uranium. While reducing high-level waste volume and enhancing energy security, it is technically complex, expensive, and poses proliferation risks!
Once again, you’re right to be heard doesn’t guarantee your right to be taken seriously.

You're right. I did leave it out of my summary, but that was after making the correct point that, "The main reason why waste disposal is such a problem, worldwide, is the cost of the recycling process."

Also, you brought to my attention the new method of recycling wind turbine blades invented by Carbon Rivers, but never mentioned the cost.

Whilst there are many products that can be recycled in a cost-effective manner, such as aluminium, cardbourd, glass, building materials, etc, several key renewable energy components currently cannot be recycled without incurring significant additional costs, and in many cases are still primarily sent to landfills because recycling is not economically viable.

Here are the primary renewable energy items that face this challenge, from ScienceDirect.com

"Wind Turbine Blades: These are the most challenging item to recycle due to their composite construction (fiberglass, resin, or carbon fiber), which is notoriously difficult and expensive to break down. While they can be, and increasingly are, repurposed or shredded, the process is expensive and often, at present, less desirable than landfilling from a purely economic standpoint.

Solar Panel Modules (PV Modules): While over 90% of a solar panel's materials (aluminum and glass) are recyclable, the process is not cost-effective. It requires specialized, time-consuming disassembly to avoid contaminating high-value materials (like silver) with low-value materials (like glass). This often results in a recycling fee of $10–$40 per panel, which is much higher than the cost of landfilling.

Lithium-Ion Batteries (from Energy Storage Systems): Due to the complexity of their chemical compositions and the hazards involved in managing them, the recycling of batteries is often more expensive than mining new materials. Only about 3-5% of lithium-ion batteries are currently recycled globally, with many being stored in warehouses due to the high cost of proper disposal.

Composite Materials (General): Beyond blades, many reinforced plastic components used throughout renewable infrastructures are difficult to separate, making them costly to recycle.

Summary of Economic Factors:
The main barrier is that the cost of dismantling, transporting, and separating materials often exceeds the value of the materials that are recovered. While technology is advancing to make this more feasible, currently, many of these items require specialized, expensive processes to avoid being landfilled."

[Ray]

Nonsense about “poor birdies killed by wind turbines” deserves some facts:

The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that an average of 234,000 bird deaths each year are caused by collisions with wind turbines on land. Window collisions account for between 365 million and 988 million bird deaths annually in the United States, according to FWS. This is, by far, the single biggest human-caused source of bird deaths. Collisions with vehicles account for an estimated average of 214.5 million bird deaths annually, with the estimates ranging from 89 million to 340 million. Electrical line collisions kill an estimated average of 25.5 million birds in the United States annually, with the estimates ranging from 8 million to 57.3 million.

The argument against wind power (if I can be so kind) and bird deaths is utterly ludicrous.

Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a metric used to assess the cost of generating electricity from a specific power source over its lifetime. The LCOE report is now in its 18th year, and this edition finds that renewable energy is the most cost-competitive form of generation on a dollars-per-megawatt-hour unsubsidised basis against gas, nuclear, and coal. For energy storage in 2025’s analysis, Lazard said there have been “notable declines” in the LCOS of utility-scale and commercial and industrial (C&I) battery energy storage systems (BESS).

Wind and solar are dramatically LESS expensive than Nuclear! At least in this country, the more it costs to make the electricity, the more we pay for it
Onshore wind: $24-75
Solar PV with battery: $46-102
Nuclear: $141-$221
https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/the-cheapest-sources-of-electricity-in-the-us/

"Electrical line collisions kill an estimated average of 25.5 million birds in the United States annually, with the estimates ranging from 8 million to 57.3 million.
The argument against wind power (if I can be so kind) and bird deaths is utterly ludicrous."

This is an excellent example of your fixed point of view which ignores the very significant related problems. You provide relatively low numbers of bird deaths from wind turbine blades and solar panels, compared to bird deaths from electrical line collisions, but ignore the fact that wind and solar farms require massive amounts of additional electrical lines because of their usually remote locations.

Here's a summary of the problem.

"To supply electricity from the rapid expansion of solar and wind farms, a massive, global overhaul of electricity grids is required, necessitating the construction or replacement of tens of millions of kilometers of transmission lines. By 2050, the global grid is expected to need more than double its current length to over 166 million kilometers to meet net-zero targets."

"The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that global grids must grow by over 50% by 2050, requiring 80 million kilometers of new or upgraded power lines—an amount roughly equivalent to the entire existing global grid."

"Existing grids were built for centralized, often fossil-fuel-based power. Renewable energy requires connecting remote, resource-rich areas (deserts for solar, windy coastal or inland areas) to urban demand centers."

"A lack of grid expansion is becoming a major bottleneck, with 1,650 GW of solar and wind projects in the pipeline waiting for grid connections." (IEA – International Energy Agency)

Whilst the precise number of bird deaths due to electrical lines, globally, is difficult to quantify, the estimates range from 175 million to 1 billion annually. If we continue to build more wind and solar farms to reach 'net zero', the birds deaths from the wind turbines and solar panels, plus the required additional electrical lines, could double as a result of the expansion of the grid.

Also, from my internet searches, the LCOE method does not include the cost of constructing 'long-distance transmission lines' and grid upgrades required for stabilization because of the imtermittancy of wind and solar.

Hope I have managed to improve your understanding of these issues. 

[digitaldog]

Hope I have managed to improve your understanding of these issues. 

Nope, only more examples of your distraction techniques. NO one said no birds are killed by wind turbines. It's minutia. It's tiny compared to the ways birds are killed by humans (and cats!). YOU brought up bird deaths as objections to wind generation of electricity, which is ridiculous for someone who apparently has no issue with power lines, cats, buildings, and other attributes that kill far more birds than wind turbines. It is what is called a weak, straw man argument, and again, why so many of your readers don't take your writings seriously! Like your last comment on LCOE method does not include the cost of constructing 'long-distance transmission lines. Of course it doesn't, nor should it! The cost to generate electricity from Solar/Wind or Nuclear still requires long-distance transmission lines and the land needed to host them. It has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of building the facilities, a cost that DOES affect the fees we pay for the electricity. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this or just struggling with it. This addition of long-distance transmission lines is yet another example of your inability to stay on topic, to pay attention to apples-to-apples cost comparisons, and to avoid regurgitating distractions in the hope that your readers will take you seriously: failure, sir.

Hope I have managed to improve your understanding of these problems with your straw man arguments here, but I doubt it. 

You and I will never agree on this topic. I'm OK with that. But having a conversation with you equates to CWOBaT (a colossal waste of bandwidth and time).
William F. Buckly Jr. summed up where we are at this point:
https://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMi0yZWU0NTI3MjZmMDVkMGFm/

[Robert Roaldi]

Trump isn't happy about his own general advising against an Iranian attack, https://thehill.com/newsletters/defense-national-security/5751800-trump-swats-down-reports-that-top-general-warned-of-iran-strike-risks/. He finds a way to blame the fake news media, as usual. That one has gotten old. I assume he's going to try and fire that general.

Meanwhile, Hegseth invites a nutcase to speak, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/18/doug-wilson-pentagon-hegseth-christian-nationalist/.  The pastor thinks that wives should submit to their husbands.

After signing a bunch of 'deals' with the USA, European leaders are upset about Trump imposing a new tantrum-based 15% import duty (aka tariffs) on their goods. The implication is that they took him seriously when Trump signed those deals.

That video clip of Kash Patel telling Trump on the phone from the Olympic hockey team locker room, "I'm f**king on it, boss," was too funny for words.