|
|
|
|
|
|
by tharkun__
1761 days ago
|
|
|
It's so interesting. I'm all for _not_ firing coal for electricity but many environmentalists seem to really just be against everything. I also have nothing against a rational look at and discussion of all the options. The problem is the _same_ people will condemn you for coal and nuclear power trying to get you to use solar, wind and water. Then you do that and they block wind for killing birds and destroying the view, solar for using so much space and precious materials and water for the impact on the environment. 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. |
|
|
