3 ms·
Sorry but you don't get to discount wind turbines' ecological damage just because no more mining is involved post-construction.
by lai-yin 5y ago
Sorry but you don't get to discount wind turbines' ecological damage just because no more mining is involved post-construction.
- throwaway189262 5y agoIt does far less damage than any other source of power. Unlike solar, it uses no space. Unlike fossil fuel and nuclear, it uses no continuous inputs. Coal and gas plants use many times their weight in materials for a lifetime of operation. Nuclear probably does too because the massive waste involve in uranium refining. What do you suggest as a greener power source than wind?
- wizzwizz4 5y ago> Unlike wind, it uses no space. Unlike solar?
- throwaway189262 5y agoLol yeah
- yunohn 5y agoPlease link to a source/calculation where a wind turbine uses more resources than a coal plant to build. I mean, you can even do napkin math and see that there’s no way multiple buildings and vast mining infrastructure take less material than a turbine farm.
- rakoo 5y agoIf you want to take a coal plant, you have to compare it with something that's comparable. A coal plant is a 1000MW machinery. A wind turbine is in the order of 10MW. Also, turbines have a very low capacity factor so you have to double them to guarantee their output and combine them with storage. So it's 1 coal plant vs 200 turbines at the very least.
- throwaway189262 5y agoBut coal plants use an absurd amount of coal and everything they don't burn ends up as ash. And have you been close to a big coal plant? They're massive. A coal plant probably used more land than 200 turbines and unlike turbines the land is unusable. Coal plants use many times their mass in coal during their lifetime. If you're looking at total materials needed over the lifetime of the plant, I wouldn't be surprised if coal was 100X higher than 200 turbines.