Im not a fan of wind power. While technically it doesnt pollute, it does have a major environmental impact, especially in large numbers. Wind power is generated by spinning blades, blades that have a major tendency to mulch their way through large portions of the air born wildlife population. Out to sea they mostly catch sea birds like seagulls, but inland this gets bad. This is why I think of them as sky blenders. That and if they get enough wind they start letting off random sonic booms.
For instance a while back some people calculated that if South Dakota was converted into a massive wind farm the entire US power grid could be powered. However South Dakota is home to several species of bat, some rare or endangered, also lots of birds migrate through there. So if it was converted it would be a genocidal rampage on the air-born bird, bat, and insect wildlife. That and one major windstorm and you have dozens, if not hundreds, of sonic booms going off in close proximity. That and a single sonic boom will scramble the bats collective sonar for a while.
Any solution to power will have costs and benefits. It is basically a matter of no free lunch. Hydroelectric changes the landscape. Large scale solar eats up lots of land and screws up the local landscape in deserts and like useful areas for solar power farming. It also, alters the local ecology and it gives me a bit of cognitive dissidence to put heat/light absorbing devices into the areas the bounce large amounts of heat and light as a method to hamper the planet heating up. Small scale solar is useful, but only in some areas (snow on the panels is bad for efficiency) and it stops being useful at night. Good for random gadgets though. Nuclear has a lot of power for little fuel and waste that is hard to get rid of and it attracts protestors like moths. Geothermal is of limited use. Tidal power takes up a lot of space. Human mechanical energy (such as used in those handle rev radios and flashlights and the shaker ones) is limited and bigger things powered by such are considered throwbacks.
I'm kind of suprised that they haven't made a gym somewhere that uses the equipment to generate the power. That or a car that has pump foot pedals in it so each (non driver) seat(s) to help refill the batteries.
For instance a while back some people calculated that if South Dakota was converted into a massive wind farm the entire US power grid could be powered. However South Dakota is home to several species of bat, some rare or endangered, also lots of birds migrate through there. So if it was converted it would be a genocidal rampage on the air-born bird, bat, and insect wildlife. That and one major windstorm and you have dozens, if not hundreds, of sonic booms going off in close proximity. That and a single sonic boom will scramble the bats collective sonar for a while.
Any solution to power will have costs and benefits. It is basically a matter of no free lunch. Hydroelectric changes the landscape. Large scale solar eats up lots of land and screws up the local landscape in deserts and like useful areas for solar power farming. It also, alters the local ecology and it gives me a bit of cognitive dissidence to put heat/light absorbing devices into the areas the bounce large amounts of heat and light as a method to hamper the planet heating up. Small scale solar is useful, but only in some areas (snow on the panels is bad for efficiency) and it stops being useful at night. Good for random gadgets though. Nuclear has a lot of power for little fuel and waste that is hard to get rid of and it attracts protestors like moths. Geothermal is of limited use. Tidal power takes up a lot of space. Human mechanical energy (such as used in those handle rev radios and flashlights and the shaker ones) is limited and bigger things powered by such are considered throwbacks.
I'm kind of suprised that they haven't made a gym somewhere that uses the equipment to generate the power. That or a car that has pump foot pedals in it so each (non driver) seat(s) to help refill the batteries.