Concrete uses huge amounts of energy to produce. It's also apparently one of the biggest man-made CO2 sources.
Most of it also has to he poured deep into the earth to keep the turbines stable. It's so hard to remove once the turbine's lifespan is over that they often just leave it in the ground.
Basically it's everything that the very same people who push for wind energy campaign against all day. It's concentrated, rock-hard hypocrisy.
Okay so does the amount of concrete used in wind turbine production increase the CO2 usage compared to production of an additional coal/oil power plant? Or overall is the pollution lessened?
Per lifetime kilowatt, wind turbines almost certainly use way more concrete, yes.
It's hard to say exactly because almost no power generating infrastructure is used so long that the foundations need replacing, so the lifetime is more of a political/economic constraint and you're just trying to predict the future at that point rather than calculate anything. But if assuming equal lifetimes wind turbines lose hard.
Considering the coal/oil are just going to be sold to some 3rd world country that doesn't care much about pollution, I doubt it.
Instead of developing cleaner power plants and exporting that technology we shut them down. Meanwhile China is building record numbers of new coal plants and they don't care much about CO2.
If CO2 is your concern the alternative should not be wind but nuclear.
That's a reasonable question and math we should be doing.
Most climate change activists and the big pushers behind sources like wind energy are screaming things like "JUST STOP OIL" and trying to take people's cars away for lithium powered battery run ones.
Which is why those questions don't matter, because the policy isn't about actually saving the planet. Its only about appearances, money loopholes, and control.
Because when bad people with histories of lies and overhype start presenting you solutions and trying to sell you on them hard while promising they are amazing, you instinctively reject it.
Even when you stop and think it through, many find that even if the product itself is okay the people involved will make it bad and thereby its not worth considering.
Concrete uses huge amounts of energy to produce. It's also apparently one of the biggest man-made CO2 sources.
Most of it also has to he poured deep into the earth to keep the turbines stable. It's so hard to remove once the turbine's lifespan is over that they often just leave it in the ground.
Basically it's everything that the very same people who push for wind energy campaign against all day. It's concentrated, rock-hard hypocrisy.
If you take them at their word it is. Truthfully their just campaigning against government not having complete control over the people.
Does the amount of concrete used in wind turbines create more pollution than current traditional methods of energy production overall?
Okay so does the amount of concrete used in wind turbine production increase the CO2 usage compared to production of an additional coal/oil power plant? Or overall is the pollution lessened?
Per lifetime kilowatt, wind turbines almost certainly use way more concrete, yes.
It's hard to say exactly because almost no power generating infrastructure is used so long that the foundations need replacing, so the lifetime is more of a political/economic constraint and you're just trying to predict the future at that point rather than calculate anything. But if assuming equal lifetimes wind turbines lose hard.
Considering the coal/oil are just going to be sold to some 3rd world country that doesn't care much about pollution, I doubt it.
Instead of developing cleaner power plants and exporting that technology we shut them down. Meanwhile China is building record numbers of new coal plants and they don't care much about CO2.
If CO2 is your concern the alternative should not be wind but nuclear.
But you don't know. It could be less.
Yeah I think that might be part of the problem
If you are still crying about CO2, then you obviously have no idea about how inconsequential it's numbers are.
That's a reasonable question and math we should be doing.
Most climate change activists and the big pushers behind sources like wind energy are screaming things like "JUST STOP OIL" and trying to take people's cars away for lithium powered battery run ones.
Which is why those questions don't matter, because the policy isn't about actually saving the planet. Its only about appearances, money loopholes, and control.
So why aren’t people doing it and instead insisting that wind energy must be bad?
Because when bad people with histories of lies and overhype start presenting you solutions and trying to sell you on them hard while promising they are amazing, you instinctively reject it.
Even when you stop and think it through, many find that even if the product itself is okay the people involved will make it bad and thereby its not worth considering.