[–] Womb_Raider 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This argument neglects the non-burning methods of harvesting electricity: hydro and aero-powered kinetic turbines. In theory, with enough of them, we could stop relying on oil and coal. But the infrastructure cost would be incredible, and wind turbines would be littering the view everywhere. But in theory, we could do it.
[–] Germ22 ago
Wind power is not a good alternative. Every wind turbine needs some sort of back up power plant for when there is to much or to little wind. and conventional power plants can't just turn on and off, even at low idle, a fuel burning powerplant burns almost the same amount of fuel as if under full power.
Also wind turbines don't produce enough energy in their life time to make enough power to refine the metals needed for their production. The tower itself is something like 200 tons of steel. It's been a while since i did the research on it, but i think a modern wind turbine needs to run for 50 years to produce enough energy to make up the energy it took to built. But their life span is usually only rated at around 25 years.
hydro dams are great.
Nuclear power plants in my opinion are the best way foreward. No need to use uranium as fuel, there are other options.
[–] Womb_Raider ago
Oh wow, thanks for the education. I thought wind power was more successful than this. Is it worthwhile at all, based on this? Sounds like it isn't except maybe in perfect conditions