...can do, it is neither environmentally nor economically sound.
About 25% of climate change is generally accepted to result from land use changes. The wind industry in particular, takes huge stretches virgin wilderness and converts into industrial parks laced with access roads for diesel trucks, to install infrastructure that will not be functional, in general in 25, having been converted into landfill.
We have spent well over three trillion dollars on this planet in the period between 2004 and 2019 with the result that the rate of climate change is accelerating, not decelerating.
Source: UNEP/Bloomberg: Global Trends in Renewable Energy.
I manually entered the figures in the bar graph in figure 8 to see how much money we've thrown at this destructive affectation since 2004 (up to 2019): It works out to 3.2633 trillion dollars, more than President Biden has wisely recommended for the improvement of all infrastructure in the entire United States.
In 2004, the 12 month running average for 10 year increases in the concentrations of the dangerous fossil fuel waste, based on the weekly data from the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory was (week 8): 18.82 ppm/10 years. Last week it was 24.68 ppm/10 years.
How do I know? Because I keep track. I enter the updated data from the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory every Sunday into a spreadsheet I keep for that purpose to do calculations. I'm not relying on chanting slogans year after year, decade after decade about climate change. I rely on data.
Proponents of the wind and solar industry often, almost always, cheer for their destructive infrastructure by citing peak watts a unit of power, not energy, as if these systems ever reach this power output. They never do. Right now, in Germany, the capacity utilization of wind energy is 11.31% of rated capacity, 7.27 GW/64.3 GW.
Hence they are burning coal at the expense of all future generations.
Facts matter.
Let's be clear on something, OK?
So called "renewable energy" - the name of this form of energy is itself a lie, since its mass and land intensity make it anything but "renewable" - was never about either addressing climate change or fossil fuels. It was about an irrational an ill informed hatred of the only sustainable and clean form of energy left to the human race, nuclear energy.
I personally consider anti-nukes to be the moral and intellectual equivalents of anti-vaxxers. They use selective attention to justify their fear and ignorance. Meanwhile, while they carry on about Fukushima and Chernobyl, around 7 million people die each year from air pollution without a single expression of terror on their part.
Here's my standard citation of this reality:
Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.
Here is what it says about air pollution deaths in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Survey, if one is too busy to open it oneself because one is too busy carrying on about Fukushima:
The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).
This works out to about 19,000 deaths per day, more than Covid killed on its worst day.
Nuclear energy need not be without risk to be vastly superior to all other options. It only needs to be vastly superior to all other options, which it is.
Again, facts matter.
Thanks for asking.
= new reply since forum marked as read
