The “solutions” to global warming may well be more environmentally harmful than the energy sources they are slated to replace. From el gato mal at boriquagato.substack.com:
“liar, liar windmill on fire?”
there has been a great deal of ink spilled about the manifold failures, impracticalities, implausible physics denial, and outright fabrications on assumptive costs for electrical generation using wind and solar and the reasons that these modalities are exceedingly difficult to integrate at scale into grids while leaving the grids stable.
certain internet felines took up this topic and discussed the limitations of the physics and production/distribution realities here:
EU physics denial has come home to roost
there is an old saying among outlaws: break only one law at a time. if you’re going to speed, don’t carry contraband. if you’re going to carry contraband, don’t speed. this is how you avoid getting into …
7 months ago · 654 likes · 392 comments · el gato malo
even eminent oxford dons are getting into the mix and throwing shade.
now this would, all on its own, be reason enough to reconsider or abandon such plans. no matter the fabulism, the laws of physics and the laws of economics both remain undefeated. and trying to break both at once lands you in serious trouble that you are unlikely to escape without severe consequences.
pile on the grievous and serious environmental issues that come from the mining, refining, and manufacture of the rare earths and other awfuls that go into these products (especially neodymium and dysprosium used for wind turbine magnets that have created literal lakes of radioactive waste slag) and you’re in pretty dire deficit on net benefit even if once accepts the claims of impending climate holocaust. you’re trading severe issues for postulated ones and even those may not be sufficient justification.
It’s as realistic as energy from pixie dust and unicorn flatulence.