Hi oystia, you make a lot of points that I cannot respond to at this time. However, the gist is this: For twenty-thirty years of service, we are dump;ing huge amounts of energy and destroying pristine environments. Looking at what is left after the "renewable" plant goes dead is a dead landscape. How do you measure that loss?
Also, the fact remains that the energy density just isn't there to power what we have now. We have systems that depend on an energy density given by hydrocarbons. Solar, wind, or biomass do not provide that energy density, period. So right there, it is shown to be band-aid for a short duration. (And as the movie shows, it can't even power a band!!)
I understand the shocking truth that this movie shows, but we have to be honest about the reality. Energy density is the key to swapping out away from fossil fuels. And it's just not there with "renewables", and as for the environmental damage, I am soooo glad that our small community nixed the TerraGen wind farm to be built on the mountain ridge sacred to local tribes of Native Americans. It would have been a travesty to have power for thirty years, and a dead zone forever.
We both agree - LENR is our solution. We've got to make people realize this and make it happen
Display More
Hi Ruby,
In my last reply on energy density I forgot to comment on your concern of "dead landscape."
I do agree that when building renewables we need to consider the environmental impacts, both during construction, operation and after end of life of the plant.
But this is politics and regulations that needs to be in place when plants are built.
Like in my country Norway, there are strict regulations of what studies and documentations that needs to be in place when applying for a concession for a wind power plant in the mountains.
One such document is a thorough evaluation of all consequences for the nature and surroundings. If there is any rare birds nesting in the area, it is almost certain that the concession wont be given.
At the end the government rules if the benefits outweighs the disadvantages or not, and concession may or may not be given.
One of our oldest plants is 20 years old and consist of 68 turbines of 2 MW size. It is still running, but today probably some 5 MW sized turbines would have been used instead, which means you only need some 27 to get the same power. AND the additional benefit if higher capacity factor for larger turbines, i.e. higher annual production.
Also there is a large amount of eagles in the same area, and is able to thrive and grow even if some have been killed by the turbines during the 20 years in operation. BUT ALL human activities have some disadvantages for nature. I think Humans have just become too many on this earth, that is probably the biggest problem...
Anyhow, some countries do not have the same strict regulations and conservation of nature..... as far as I know Trump has removed a lot of the environmental regulations in the US that was put in place by previous presidents. That is a shame, since this opens up for some real rape of nature.,.
regards
Lande