Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
1–10 of 365 posts
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#2Very good, this is a great step, but just a thing to be remembered: hydroelectric energy is renewable, better than coal, oil, etc, but it still kills a lots of animals and flood great areas, disappearing with waterfalls and changing landscapes.
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#3[deleted]
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#4Very good, this is a great step, but just a thing to be remembered: hydroelectric energy is renewable, better than coal, oil, etc, but it still kills a lots of animals and flood great areas, disappearing with waterfalls and changing landscapes.
I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#5Very good, this is a great step, but just a thing to be remembered: hydroelectric energy is renewable, better than coal, oil, etc, but it still kills a lots of animals and flood great areas, disappearing with waterfalls and changing landscapes.
I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.
What landscape did Fukushima waste? Are you confusing Fukushima and the Tōhoku earthquake?
Hell, if Chernobyl is any indication, nuclear accidents tend to save landscapes more than they waste'em.
Or do you mean "waste" in the sense that humans can't wring them dry?
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#6Very good, this is a great step, but just a thing to be remembered: hydroelectric energy is renewable, better than coal, oil, etc, but it still kills a lots of animals and flood great areas, disappearing with waterfalls and changing landscapes.
I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.
While a minor but noticeable uptick in radiation-induced cancer is unacceptable for humans, animals don't especially seem to mind. The areas around Chernobyl have become a superb wildlife reserve, and Fukushima is probably on its way to a similar state. Compared to the area submerged by a dam -- where the habitat is, without hyperbole, utterly and completely annihilated -- I have difficulty seeing how you can prefer that.
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.
What landscape did Fukushima waste? Are you confusing Fukushima and the Tōhoku earthquake? Hell, if Chernobyl is any indication, nuclear accidents tend to save landscapes more than they waste'em. Or do you mean "waste" in the sense that humans can't wring them dry?
They are inhabitable zones for humans now and have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy.
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.
While a minor but noticeable uptick in radiation-induced cancer is unacceptable for humans, animals don't especially seem to mind. The areas around Chernobyl have become a superb wildlife reserve, and Fukushima is probably on its way to a similar state. Compared to the area submerged by a dam -- where the habitat is, without hyperbole, utterly and completely annihilated -- I have difficulty seeing how you can prefer…
So then let's drop some atomic bombs and let some reactors explode for the sake of nature! Are you in?
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
What landscape did Fukushima waste? Are you confusing Fukushima and the Tōhoku earthquake? Hell, if Chernobyl is any indication, nuclear accidents tend to save landscapes more than they waste'em. Or do you mean "waste" in the sense that humans can't wring them dry?
They are inhabitable zones for humans now and have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy.
> They are inhabitable zones for humans now
I'm guessing you mean uninhabitable (as in "humans can't live there").
That seems to be an excellent way to preserve the landscape.
> have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms.
Which, if the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is any indication, is significantly lower than the effect humans have on most of these organisms.
> I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy.
Whereas I think humanity has done harm to just about everything by beginning to use fossil energy, and much larger civilian application of atomic energy would have been a significant improvement at pretty much all levels, including (and possibly especially because of, though they've really been much too rare for that) the odd nuclear accident.
Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
What landscape did Fukushima waste? Are you confusing Fukushima and the Tōhoku earthquake? Hell, if Chernobyl is any indication, nuclear accidents tend to save landscapes more than they waste'em. Or do you mean "waste" in the sense that humans can't wring them dry?
They are inhabitable zones for humans now and have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy.
If you think that, then of course the responsible thing to do is explore the issue with repeatable experiment and research to determine whether your thoughts reflect reality.