man its even much worse than this, let me tell you something as an engineer from the renewable energies industry:
-wind turbines and photovoltaic need oil for being manufactured
-wind turbines need a lot of oil to properly function, some have gearboxes as heavy as 60 to 100 TONS, that have to be filled completely with oil
-when a wind turbine catches fire it burns down like a candle
-when adding up the co2 from manufaction, average turbine failures and construction, a windturbine never makes compensation to have a neutral co2 balance (neither do photovoltaic)
-wind turbines use composite materials that CANT be recycled at all. after the lifetime of a turbine is over the rotorblades are basically handled like nuclear waste. contained and put into a place where it cant do much harm.
-same goes for photovoltaic chemicals
-you would need 4 times as much renewable energy plants (1 plant = 1 wind field, not 1 turbine!!!!!!!!) to replace 1 fossil fuel plant. this is especially due to the accessability of renewables: you cant just switch on the wind or the sun, in contrary to fossils, where you can just put in more of the energycarrier.
-most photovoltaic systems are being sold to 3rd world countries after their product lifetime expired in western civilization. african countries use them for like 10 more years then dumps the chemical waste into nature.
-nuclear is the cleanest energy to this date
-nuclear fusion is most likely impossible
conclusion: we should definitly keep developing renewable energies, as the energycarriers are literally for free. in the mean time we should use nuclear and take down fossil plants. only really turn off power plants when you have the capabilities of substituting the output with other energies.
i dont know about that specifically, as for hydro-energy the geographic locations and energy transport infrastructure play very important roles. in europe only countries that have a lot of mountians and with that a lot of above-sealevel lakes or rivers get a significant share of hydroelectric energy. so i would assume that either:
-in the US the infrastructure for electric energy transport is not developed in the parts of the country that could use hydro-energy or it is too inefficient (larger distances = more losses due to transformations etc)
or
-there are no big and high enough lakes to have their potential energy converted into electric energy. the potential energy is proportional to the height above sealevel
these are just guesses so take it with a grain of salt.
Don't want to be that guy. But every-time i hear people bring up this argument i cringe. It makes us look like total idiots and is one of the weakest arguments against windmills.
Sure, windmills do kill birds, plenty in fact. But that number is absolutely dwarfed by the amount of birds killed by cats, plastics, poisons etc.
Windpower is fine. Doesn't need to be everywhere and inst going to be replacing oil for pretty much anything except generating electricity for local power-grids. Good for passive energy in large open planes like the steppe, or various deserts.
Or the large windfarms out at sea between England and Europe, good place to put em.
Point is, while there are issues with the price tag, efficiency and a few other factors when it comes to wind power. Comparing a few dead birds to the devastation caused by a major oilspill is dumb and helps detract from better arguments and conservative arguments in general.
man its even much worse than this, let me tell you something as an engineer from the renewable energies industry:
-wind turbines and photovoltaic need oil for being manufactured -wind turbines need a lot of oil to properly function, some have gearboxes as heavy as 60 to 100 TONS, that have to be filled completely with oil -when a wind turbine catches fire it burns down like a candle -when adding up the co2 from manufaction, average turbine failures and construction, a windturbine never makes compensation to have a neutral co2 balance (neither do photovoltaic) -wind turbines use composite materials that CANT be recycled at all. after the lifetime of a turbine is over the rotorblades are basically handled like nuclear waste. contained and put into a place where it cant do much harm. -same goes for photovoltaic chemicals
-you would need 4 times as much renewable energy plants (1 plant = 1 wind field, not 1 turbine!!!!!!!!) to replace 1 fossil fuel plant. this is especially due to the accessability of renewables: you cant just switch on the wind or the sun, in contrary to fossils, where you can just put in more of the energycarrier. -most photovoltaic systems are being sold to 3rd world countries after their product lifetime expired in western civilization. african countries use them for like 10 more years then dumps the chemical waste into nature.
-nuclear is the cleanest energy to this date -nuclear fusion is most likely impossible
conclusion: we should definitly keep developing renewable energies, as the energycarriers are literally for free. in the mean time we should use nuclear and take down fossil plants. only really turn off power plants when you have the capabilities of substituting the output with other energies.
Why did the US leave hydroelectric generation?
i dont know about that specifically, as for hydro-energy the geographic locations and energy transport infrastructure play very important roles. in europe only countries that have a lot of mountians and with that a lot of above-sealevel lakes or rivers get a significant share of hydroelectric energy. so i would assume that either:
-in the US the infrastructure for electric energy transport is not developed in the parts of the country that could use hydro-energy or it is too inefficient (larger distances = more losses due to transformations etc)
or
-there are no big and high enough lakes to have their potential energy converted into electric energy. the potential energy is proportional to the height above sealevel
these are just guesses so take it with a grain of salt.
Don't want to be that guy. But every-time i hear people bring up this argument i cringe. It makes us look like total idiots and is one of the weakest arguments against windmills.
Sure, windmills do kill birds, plenty in fact. But that number is absolutely dwarfed by the amount of birds killed by cats, plastics, poisons etc. Windpower is fine. Doesn't need to be everywhere and inst going to be replacing oil for pretty much anything except generating electricity for local power-grids. Good for passive energy in large open planes like the steppe, or various deserts.
Or the large windfarms out at sea between England and Europe, good place to put em.
Point is, while there are issues with the price tag, efficiency and a few other factors when it comes to wind power. Comparing a few dead birds to the devastation caused by a major oilspill is dumb and helps detract from better arguments and conservative arguments in general.
Obeisiak has better arguments.
true, he does. Lots of good stuff. I never claimed to know the right ones, but i knew that Muh Birds was one of the weakest.