4 ms·
Well wind has a much smaller footprint, and can at least be embedded within the woods without razing the whole thing. The three main issues it seems are visibil
by petee 7y ago
Well wind has a much smaller footprint, and can at least be embedded within the woods without razing the whole thing. The three main issues it seems are visibility, flashing shadows, and the lack of wind
- tathougies 7y agoThat's not what i meant. I am mainly shocked at the publics general failure to understand human nature and its desire to extract money when incentivized to do so. I dont disagree that wind can have a lower footprint in terms of landspace taken but if solar is more efficient and less expensive then at some point when it becomes long enough lasting to be profitable, then of course those with forests will convert them to solar farms. This was not unforeseeable
- xamuel 7y agoYou don't even need the solar panels themselves in order to see the effects of perverse incentives. The Kyoto Protocol defines "bioenergy" (energy produced by burning wood) as carbon neutral. As a result, in the EU, they're literally burning up forests for energy, under the banner of environmentalism. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/eu-sued-to-stop-burning-trees-for-energy-its-not-carbon-neutral-plaintiffs/ https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/eu-sued-to-stop-burning-tr...
- KirinDave 7y agoLarge wind turbines are much less sustainable and higher maintenance. They're really only sensible in small scales, where their other disadvantages go away, or when no other option is viable.