3 ms·
That's why inland wind is basically banned in the UK. I totally understand the argument and if it wasn't for the fact that the climate disaster will end us I wo
by radicalbyte 7y ago
That's why inland wind is basically banned in the UK. I totally understand the argument and if it wasn't for the fact that the climate disaster will end us I would agree.
However what 2+ degrees of warming will do will dwarf anything that the turbines will do.
There are also arguments about birds dying and the such. Only that's a BS argument considering that glass buildings kill 10x as many birds and are ubiquitous.
- briandear 7y agoSo why not do nuclear?
- radicalbyte 7y agoIt's too expensive to do now and has been killed in the past by the same NIMBY. Given the impact of failure I actually understand the NIMBY in relation to nuclear.
- CydeWeys 7y agoWhy not both? Also, nuclear has the whole radioactive waste and potential meltdown thing, which wind does not.
- tracker1 7y agoI'm in favor of both. There are lots of very stable locations in the US. Far from flooding and earthquakes that are suitable. Similar for wind. I think solar should be limited to existing rooftops for now though.
- nate_meurer 7y agoReally? Hinkley Point C, that's why not. In the U.S., Vogtle. These are the only nuclear power plants under construction in the UK and US. They each cost over 20 billion dollars, are heavily subsidized, and are badly behind schedule and over budget. If and when they are ever completed, the energy they produce will be more expensive than unsubsidized wind and solar in their respective regions.