Any article that is laden with such an overwhelming amount of loaded words and phrases has no credibility at all. Playing on the emotions is manipulation, not news. Scattering in random and pointless facts should be an affront to any critical thinker.
For example, "the vaccines cause the human body to create dangerous proteins and prions, those injected sheeple are already experiencing blood clots, paralysis, blindness, deafness and death." Really? Where's the science to back this up? Of course there is none, such propaganda is a political tool, nowhere is it more apparent than when they frame the opposition as communists. Which is ironic as trump had his head firmly up Putin's ass.
@windsorguy The claim regarding windmills was based on extremes, that is, " if all of the electricity demands of the United States could suddenly be supplied by nothing but wind turbines, the surface of the continental states would increase in temperature by a shocking 0.24 degrees Celsius." This does not take into account the current effect of coal, oil, or gas, which produces far more greenhouse gases. It is also a comparison against the climate initiative for reducing the temperature by 0.1%. It intentionally avoids comparisons, instead such articles cherry pick data to support a narrative, that green/alternative energy is bad, the status quo is better. Wind turbines on average have far fewer impacts on the environment.
Personally, I believe nuclear is the way to go, but when that argument is opposed/countered it is done by using examples that are antiquated and fear-based. Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, Fukashima. It's worth noting that there has never been a serious nuclear disaster in the U.S., since 1979. There have been accidents, but these are workplace accidents. Apparently, fusion power may not be more than 20 yrs out, and if so it would be transformative, and disruptive, unlike anything seen since the combustion engine. Nearly limitless power.
Last comment on the article, they conveniently omitted that coal plants are responsible for 46% of carbon dioxide emissions, and 72% of the total GHG emissions from the electricity sector. Now, I believe that's a global stat, but even domestically, coal, oil, gas burning contributes more to the atmosphere than a turbine. Sure there is manufacturing involved which contributes, as well as mining, but the same goes for mining and processing of coal. Most of the construction of wind turbines is on the low end wrt to contributing to ghg.
A comparison: the Co2 equivalent produced by gas is estimated (also by IPCC, in their
2011 report) to be between 270g to 910g, for coal it is even higher between 635g to 1.6kg. Depending on which numbers you pick for each energy source, in the worst case scenario (highest emission of 20g for wind energy, lowest of 270g/635g for the others), wind energy still only produces 7.4% of the greenhouse gases emitted by gas and only 3.2% of those of coal. Looking at the best case scenario (lowest emission of 8g for wind energy, the highest of 910g/1.6kg for the others), the difference is even more significant: wind energy might only produce 0.99% of emissions by gas and 0.56% of coal power.
Wrt to batteries, that's a different matter. They are highly energy intensive, requiring rare earth metals, which requires a lot of mining and processing. Then there's the increase in electrical power to charge them.
@superbeast Thanks for the mention of the doc, I'll have to watch it.
