3 ms·
Because the land needed for equivalent solar and wind would be massive. There would be no room for NIMBY. Imagine someone you love would lose their home so that
by winkeltripel 5y ago
Because the land needed for equivalent solar and wind would be massive. There would be no room for NIMBY. Imagine someone you love would lose their home so that a windmill could be constructed. Every city park would need to have a huge windmill, and every roof would need solar panels. That is assuming that we can even locate the material and manpower needed to build so much. This would be at least 2 orders of magnitude more than equivalent power from nuclear.
- onli 5y ago> and every roof would need solar panels That's already coming to Germany, see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solare_Baupflicht https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solare_Baupflicht. Not legislated in the whole country yet, but that's just a matter of time now.
- danhor 5y agoAre you sure about that? The general figures I see are that around 2% of land for wind energy should be very sufficient, which would not need displacing of existing housing and certainly no construction in city parks.
- ncmncm 5y agoThere is absolutely no need to devote land to exclusively solar or wind use. Farm and pasture land shared with solar panels yield more than without. Wind turbines can also be placed in farm and pasture land, displacing very little production. As I understand it, Germany already has a great deal of wind power installed.