Why the hell would you even care that much about 3,500 fucking birds? There are FAR better uses for taxpayer money than figuring out how to save a vanishingly small number of them, when we kill them in the billions for dinner anyway.
The plant still seems to be a decent step forward, and nothing ever is going to be perfect. If we're going to go down that road, then we're completely paralyzing ourselves, because no matter your solution, some construction worker will step on a rat, and now we need to go figure out the more expensive solution where no rats have to die.
Why the heck would you care about soda fizz and not about the 2.9 billion wind and solar deaths contributing to the 29% loss of the entire country’s birds? (Or the endangered species being killed, or the human deaths?)
I'm all for nuclear, but I'll also acknowledge that solar is a good step forward, even if it (gasp!) kills birds.
And that 29% claim is very dishonest of you. That's how much the bird population declined overall, since 1950 (!), and says nothing about how many birds are anually killed by solar, at all. (You've updated your post since, to a statement that again basically says nothing.)
This is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I have ever read on Hacker News. There is _no_ evidence presented here that wind and solar are responsible for anything more than a negligible fraction of this species loss.
