|
|
|
|
|
|
by babesh
1761 days ago
|
|
|
Bad leadership in the political ranks. The problems that California has has hurt it for many years. We just have been able to get away with it due to tech and entertainment money largesse. The progressive wing is against desalination plants and dams. They say that they are anti environment. They push for conservation. The problem is that since 80% of the water is used by agriculture all the conservation efforts won't be enough. You can't reapportion the water because of water rights. The agricultural interests won't give up theirs. Thus you end up doing nothing much and hoping for rainy seasons. Other longstanding California issues: wildfires, insufficent power generation, bad schools, expensive housing. |
|
|
Yes absolutely, flooding a huge area for a dam can potentially destroy habitat for both humans and animals and will create greenhouse gases from dying plant matter and such. Agreed. What is the alternative? Burn a bunch of coal? That btw does the same but is not renewable. Look up "Garzweiler 2" in Germany.
Wind is curious. Destroying the view? Really? You care about 30 wind turbines destroying the view more than coal combustion particles in the air killing people slowly and painfully? That said, if you look at the "total possible wind capacity" in Germany for example it is laughable compared to the energy needs. As in the solar potential at max built out capacity ignoring all 'view' concerns is in the low Gigawatthours territory. Energy consumption in Germany is in the hundreds of Terwatthours. As in over 500 TWh, so over 500000 GWh. Installable wind capacity less than 15 GWh with estimates around half of that actually usable due to 'view concerns' and such. Other countries will have better ratios for sure.