Oh Nos! Thousands of Britain’s wind turbines will create more greenhouse gases than they save, according to potentially devastating scientific research to be published later this year.
Oh Nos! Thousands of Britain’s wind turbines will create more greenhouse gases than they save, according to potentially devastating scientific research to be published later this year.
It’ll be interesting to see Greeny heads explode white they have them shoved up their butts
How do we get through to blocked off,green mad nutters like the Ontario Liberal government who are still putting up these monstrosities amid huge outcry from those who have to live around them?
Their heads don’t explode, they’re made of solid bone.
The problem with the above analysis is that it doesn’t take into account the steel and concrete needed for the turbine. A rough calculation shows that it takes about a year for the turbine to pay back the CO2 cost of the concrete and another year to pay back the CO2 cost of the steel tower. This of course is on top of whatever environmental impact there may be, as noted by the article.
carbon is not now nor ever has been a problem for the human species.
No sh!t Sherlock. My organization has a sustainability group that reports positive GHG targets based on wind energy. I asked them one day about all the infrastructure like the cement, do they take this into account. Well, no, this isn’t considered.
I’ll believe wind turbines are a reliable source of electricity when I see the electrical supply for wind turbine manufacturing coming exclusively from actual wind turbines (and not the smoke-screen leger de main of tying into the conventional grid and claiming you’re only using “green” energy).
This news article is almost 2 years old.
Shouldn’t the devastation of this report to the wind industry already be evident?
On an installed basis, wind requires about double the steel and triple the concrete (might be the other way round, triple the steel and double the concrete) of a nuclear power reactor and its infrastructure (there’s a lot of piping in nuclear plants). When you consider that the average nuclear plant runs at annual capacity factors of about 90 per cent, and the average wind turbine at 15-18 per cent, the installation cost increases for wind by about five times beyond that per unit of actual energy generated.
Of course all this presumes that CO2 emissions are something to be avoided. Thing is, compared with nuclear wind is still a massive loser with respect to material requirements. So what this shows is that the green movement is antinuclear before it is pro-wind. Hence, they’re not serious about what they claim is the world’s greatest problem.
and everyone of these greeny idiots ignores the ripple effect of the social impact that higher energy costs create. If I pay more for energy, I either work more to make up for it, or have less disposable cash to up grade thing like my truck, thus drive ales efficient vehicle, and forcing those who would up grade to my used truck to do the same. So, more CO2 and more actual pollution. This ripple effect is never mentioned by these LIV idiots.
You are spot on with that comment! Only the truly brain-
dead subscribe to the notion that carbon dioxide is a
pollutant. I am quite certain that there are still
a few of them on this Blog. In Dr. Dixie Lee Ray’s
book Trashing The Planet, she pointed out that
elevated levels of CO2 is like ringing the dinner
bell for flora and that it promotes new plant growth.
She wrote something else that impressed me: Younger
plants, just like people have higher metabolic rates,
so high levels of CO2 promotes the production of more
O2 as well.
Obama and his Green freaks allow some protected birds to die all in the name of stupid green ideology Obama and Green GO AWAY