10 points

Think of the damage those protesters might do to muh economy!

permalink
report
reply
8 points

What is the media’s obsession with cooling towers? Anything nuclear, cooling tower. Chemical company? Cooling tower.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

They look dystopian

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

How in the world is a zero emissions engineering marvel dystopian?! You know what the long terms effects of cooling towers are? If feels more humid down wind!

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Look dystopian, not are dystopian. They’re big grey concrete towers, now I personally dig the look, but it’s hard to get away from.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Anything can be made to look dystopian with correct filters, angles and (for video format) ominous music

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Because they look like large outlets of coloured air.

Coloured air coming out of an something is the default way of depicting air pollution.
Even if it is just water vapour, it has a big enough shock factor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They’re artificial volcanoes/geysers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

People have a serious bias towards what they can see. They can see protesters but they can’t see pollution. Effective protests are hard to ignore. So they see protesters as a bigger problem than polluters.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

WTF?! They burn wood pellets? Seriously? How is that even vaguely a renewable resource?

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Tree grows. There for, can make more. There for, renewables. Big brain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If grown as a crop I can see that. But taking from forests changes the forest permanently. I see your point, I guess I’m taking issue with what I associate with a renewable resource when talking about energy. That is is “green” and not bad for the environment.

Saying trees are carbon capures so its carbon neutral just seems crazy to me. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal for every unit of electricity produced. The older the tree the more carbon it can store, which is in its wood. Mature as in 35-75 years. Cutting down mature trees out of forests and planting new ones isn’t carbon neutral. But I can see an argument for planting tree plots in already cleared land to get a system set up for rotations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Sarcasm doesn’t come over well on the internet. You’re absolutely right that burning wood for power is stupid really the only thing we should be using for steam turbines is nuclear.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Not a defender of them but they have specific plantations for growing the fuel just for this. So the idea is that it’s a closed loop. Carbon is captured from the air as the trees grow and then that very same carbon is burnt for energy generation. So no extra carbon is added to the atmosphere when you consider the whole cycle.

Compare with coal and gas where carbon is dug up from under the ground and added to the atmosphere and never removed again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

But at least it’s not ebil radioactive NUCULAR!!

/s

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

When I first saw the headline I thought it had something to do with GoTG

permalink
report
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 4.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.2K

    Posts

  • 10K

    Comments