Scary.
We've already started liberating huge volumes of carbon gases from the various tundras of the sub-Arctic. It's a shame that wind energy is considered to be incapable of posing any risks. This would be fairly easy problem to avoid otherwise.
The first paragraph is especially telling.
:scared:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/13/wind-farm-peat-bog">How a wind farm could emit more carbon than a coal power stationLet's be clear: Britain needs wind turbines. Lots of them. But just about the worst place to erect them is on top of peat bogs, which are huge stores of carbon that can easily leak carbon dioxide into the air when damaged by the inevitable roads or drains.
...
More than half of the wind turbines in Scotland are on highland peat. This is not sensible. Scottish peat bogs hold three-quarters of all the carbon in British ecosystems – equivalent to around a century of emissions from fossil fuel burning.
Apart from water, peat bogs are largely composed of huge volumes of saturated, undecayed plants. A single hectare typically contains more than 5000 tonnes of carbon, ten times more than a typical hectare of forest. But any disturbance leads to lower water levels and to the peat drying, oxidising and releasing its carbon, says biochemist Mike Hall of the Cumbria Wildlife Trust.
The bog can decompose for hundreds of metres round every turbine, potentially releasing millions of tonnes of carbon. The process is slow, but frequently unstoppable, Hall says. So many wind farms may eventually emit more carbon than an equivalent coal-fired power station.
...
As the RSPB's Lloyd Austin put it last month: "There is no point in building renewable (energy projects) that potentially emit more carbon than they save."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/13/wind-farm-peat-bog">There's more ... --d!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
