A very, very rare bird suffers death by wind turbine.
- Thread starter Bushwhacker
- Start date
Luckily you bought Aquashoes
Though that's mean sea level, doesn't take into account lumpy sea surface and tides. Plus certain parts of the world are sinking - like parts of southern England. Oh there's also Thermal Expansion of sea water but again I wouldn't worry too much.
P
Passer
Guest
The wind farm in my area is built on a peat moorland partly a SSSI site. It took several years to complete. I can`t see how the steel turbines plus the massive sub structures could be removed in a similar time scale. The damage to the moorland in my opinion will be irreparable.You're probably right, much better to leave tons of nuclear waste & radioactive land where the decommissioned reactors were for them to deal with........as you say, leaving obsolete decaying structures which can be dismantled & recycled in a few days leaving little long term damage to the enviroment & also offering the future generations alternative non polluting sources of energy can't really be called leaving the world in good order can it ?..
I`m in agreement with you on the nuclear problem. Having worked on the decommissioning of a small reactor several years ago, I am equally concerned on their environmental impact.
Two wrongs still don`t make a right.
Nuclear power, particularly the much cheaper Thorium Reactors, are a brilliant piece of technology with one single, catastrophic, problem: Waste disposal.
If that issue could be addressed I'd be all for it. Burying the waste in a salt mine just isn't good enough.
Some people have proposed various methods of dumping the waste deep inside the Earth's mantle. The waste would melt down and become part of the planet again. The mantle is chock full of radioactive materials anyway, so this method on the face of it seems like a brilliant idea. The most promising line of investigation is that involving subduction disposal. Bury the waste deep inside a subducting fault line and allow tectonic shift to carry the waste into the mantle for you.
It's not something that a huge amount of progress has been made on, sadly.
If that issue could be addressed I'd be all for it. Burying the waste in a salt mine just isn't good enough.
Some people have proposed various methods of dumping the waste deep inside the Earth's mantle. The waste would melt down and become part of the planet again. The mantle is chock full of radioactive materials anyway, so this method on the face of it seems like a brilliant idea. The most promising line of investigation is that involving subduction disposal. Bury the waste deep inside a subducting fault line and allow tectonic shift to carry the waste into the mantle for you.
It's not something that a huge amount of progress has been made on, sadly.
Yes, by going over to coal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19168574
You also need to be careful with generic terms such as renewables. For example, in the UK more 'renewable' energy is derived from land fill gas than solar and wind combined. And land fill gas is declining as we're land-filling less compostables.
