Submitted by universityofturku t3_103ucy5 in science
Gonna go out on a limb and guess it's probably a lot better than fossil fuels...
Yeah I think stopping a mass extinction should be our priority if we want to preserve the ecosystem. But what do I know?
Well, to be clear bats are a pollinator of plant species, as well as a part of the animal food chain, depending on the bat. By disrupting the habitats and migration habits of pollinating species or species that play an important role in the food web of an ecosystem, we disrupt the environment and animal and plant life as well, which leads to degradation or change in an ecosystem instead of preserving it. Ideally we should be studying the environments that are best suited for wind turbines with minimal effect on surrounding wildlife. There’s so much empty land I’m sure this would be feasible
Yep, exactly. I'm also sure that wind turbines are the lesser evil compared to, let's say, a coal plant.
I can guarantee that a wind farm has a far less negative impact on the ecosystem than a coal plant. I'm sure there's studies that can corroborate my assertion, as well.
In the search for clean, sustainable energy, we need to remember that perfect is the enemy of good; but not to allow that mindset to have us become complacent, either. It's not possible for us to arrive at a point that is "good enough", we just have to strive for it anyway.
[removed]
Perhaps, bit wind is a drop in the bucket compared to nuclear, which frankly is where all our efforts should go.
Such a weird assertion. Wind is practically harmless and exists in harvestable quantities far beyond anything humans will need for a very long time.
>Wind is practically harmless
more people have died from windmills than nuclear plants
[removed]
How many people/animals have developed cancer due to radiation poisoning from windmills? How many acres of land have been deemed uninhabitable from windmills farms? How many windmill farms are leaking radioactive materials into our rivers?
I’m so tired of shills white washing the hazards of nuclear and pushing it as a clean energy.
Wind is great and should be deployed as much as possible in as many places as possible. It's much cheaper than nuclear power in areas with consistent wind and can be built much faster.
The issue, is we can't build enough windmills to solve the climate crisis on its own (not without massive battery storage, which despite curated anecdotes, is still prohibitively expensive at utility scale).
You need reliable, dispatchable, baseload to complement intermittent wind and solar. For that, we need nuclear to take the place currently held by coal and natural gas. That's the most direct path to actually achieving climate targets.
You can build a shitload of nuclear plants to baseload off of or you can invest in energy storage technology and projects which are much better long term solutions.
Do agree nuclear is a good technology but really don't trust humanity to run and store the use fuel responsibily for a thousand years from what I've seen happen in the past 100
It requires resources to build, perhaps those that could be better allocated to nuclear. That was the absolutism but you're right, it was unnecessary.
[removed]
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments