It’s an excellent question
(Daily Caller) Wind and solar power aren’t as environmentally friendly as green energy activists often claim, according to a new study by scientists at Uppsala University in Sweden.
Researchers noted that wind turbines and solar panels are made of non-renewable resources that have to be dug out of the ground. Both solar and wind power use a lot of land and water, leading to habitat destruction. Additionally, hazardous materials like sulfuric acid and toxic phosphine gas factor in heavily in solar panel manufacturing. Modern wind turbines are also highly dependent on rare earth minerals mined primarily from countries with poor environmental records, like China.
We’ve previously learned from real world construction that solar can leave a massive toxic waste problem. Remember Solyndra? Warmists love solar and wind because it supposedly reduces CO2 emissions (and is a great way to financially reward campaign contributors), but, it isn’t very environmentally friendly, what with the solar panels and wind turbines having a limited lifespan, and creating environmental messes during production, installation, operation, and end of life.
And what of all the wildlife killed and habitats destroyed?
Environmental groups like the Center For Biological Diversity (CBD) have already begun opposing wind and solar projects due to their environmental impacts.
CBS has pursued legal action to block the creation of solar-farms out of fear that they would encroach on 32 endangered desert tortoises and that sunlight-concentrating panels act like super-heated death-rays for birds, killing tens of thousands of them per year. The same group has even sued to prevent the construction of environmentally friendly housing.
Many, many projects have been blocked or have seen attempts to block them, because they aren’t very green.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pursue the use of alternatives. We should make sure that they are actually environmentally responsible while also providing low cost energy, without leaving taxpayers on the hook.
All forms of energy have an environmental impact, but solar’s impact is significantly lower than coal.
I’ve been saying this all along….The rare earths are the problem….there is a finite supply and most of it is in countries intent upon holding on to them….
Secondly with subsidies coal can become as clean if not cleaner then solar and wind because you can put in place co2 sinks as well as emmissions controls which make coal very clean….
Coal employs 100’s of thousands of people…after fields are built a relatively few people are needed to keep the farms running.
Its nothing but smoke and mirrors for the Greeny weenies……They would rather put 250k out of work and hire 1000 to replace them then spend the money which they print mindlessly now to subsidize coal and provided 100’s of thousands of good quality jobs.
Sad….this is the lefts mantra…put everyone on welfare and keep em poor, keep em dumb and keep em voting Democrat…..so they can personally make themselves rich….
See Hillary clinton.
Yeah, but, but Solyndra had robots that would play “whistle while you work” as they moved around the plant! That more than makes up for their pollution, their huge carbon footprint and their inability to produce solar panels for less than what the market would bear.
Wednesday morning links
Male birth control study nixed after men can’t handle side effects women face daily Microsleep: It’s Possible to Be Asleep and Awake at the Same Time Hospital patient seriously burnt after ‘farting’ during surgery Nobel: The Meaning of Bob
Perhaps one day.