The crops underneath them also have a low energy density, which is why farmers like to grow turbines as well, and don’t mind sparing a truck’s width of dirt path for the repair guys to come by.
The cost argument is irrelevant, because if it didn’t make economic sense there wouldn’t have been so many pictures of wind farms for you to cherrypick all that valuable mountaintop space.
we as humans try to control what species wont become extinct even though we really cant and that includes ourselves. What we try to do is preservation. We try to preserve ourselves through various means such as minimize our carbon footprint. We try to save other species by not messing with their ecosystems. I fail to see how prolonging a species life can be a bad thing
see! there’s hope for you yet : )
we should all be good stewards of the environment and by and large we are. but holding up say, a pipeline because of a bird or a toad is overboard.
the left uses this a cudgel for their causes
Defending Russia?
And now I don’t.
You just can’t help yourself.
it only makes cost sense because better forms of energy are prohibited, and not subsidized
in some instances wind makes sense but only as a supplement. not as a wide scale power provider
no. anti nuke (pro wind, solar) agenda would be my guess
Or it is an indictment of Russia incompetence?
They aren’t found on farmland?
it only makes cost sense because better forms of energy are prohibited,
By whom? Where?
and not subsidized
Which ones?
in some instances wind makes sense but only as a supplement. not as a wide scale power provider
This is not an argument against the economic viability of wind power.
You are making the mistake of broadbrushing here.
Cheaper than coal yet I’ve never seen you speak out against coal power plants.
Nearly 75 percent of coal-fired power plants in the United States generate electricity that is more expensive than local wind and solar energy resources, according to a new report from Energy Innovation, a renewables analysis firm.
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/renewables-cheaper-than-75-percent-of-u-s-coal-fleet-report-finds
Nuclear is definitely an option, but the lingering threat of an unforeseen catastrophic event like Fukushima will always give people pause. We’re going on 8 years after that event and there is still an exclusion zone of several miles around the plant where people can’t live. The Japanese government has literally had to take the step of stripping the first few feet of topsoil from the surrounding area to remove radioactive dust in the hope that one day the area might be livable.
Definitely a rare occurrence, but when things go wrong with nuclear energy they do so in a way that is just not easy to contain or clean up. There are consequences that are measured not in weeks or months, but decades.
hopefully
but you know leftists and how they love the soviet union/communism
by california, for instance. when? now
wind energy is heavily subsidized. common knowledge
That’s the cons now… defending Russia at every turn if it makes Trump look less bad.
yes they are. that is not in dispute
they require a lot of coverage (as your pic shows).
no, that’s the idiot media and their democrat bosses
read the mueller report
How many are to fulfill the needs in rural areas?
