Wind power getting headwind in Germany | DW Documentary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июн 2024
- Germany’s energy transition is in trouble. The country needs wind power if it is going to meet its climate goals, and successfully transition from nuclear and coal power to renewable energy. But the construction of wind turbines has been stalling.
The sharp decline in the build rate of new wind turbines has raised alarm among political leaders, climate campaigners, and industry leaders. Without the inexpensive power source, the entire wind power sector is in jeopardy, and the German government has little chance of reaching its renewable energy targets.
Journalist Jörg Moll set out to find out what needs to happen for Germany to still be able to meet its climate targets in a cost-effective manner, and what role wind power needs to play. He met with nature conservationists and climate change deniers, who have formed an unlikely alliance as they stand shoulder to shoulder in their fight against wind farms. "Whether it’s nuclear or wind power - nobody wants this in front of their house,” one wind power opponent told Moll.
Renewable energy research institutes, such as the Fraunhofer IWES, say that lack of political support is responsible for the collapse in construction of new wind turbines. Meanwhile, the wind power sector is facing a crisis. "Political leaders theoretically want to expand renewable energy, including wind power. But in reality they are doing everything to stop that happening, because they are afraid of angry citizens, and anxious about every vote,” said Johannes Lackmann, a wind farm manager. Surveys indicate that 80 percent of Germans support wind power. Is the government nonetheless buckling because of angry wind power opponents?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DW Documentary gives you knowledge beyond the headlines. Watch high-class documentaries from German broadcasters and international production companies. Meet intriguing people, travel to distant lands, get a look behind the complexities of daily life and build a deeper understanding of current affairs and global events. Subscribe and explore the world around you with DW Documentary.
Subscribe to:
DW Documentary: / @dwdocumentary
DW Documental (Spanish): / dwdocumental
DW Documentary وثائقية دي دبليو: (Arabic): / dwdocarabia
For more visit:
www.dw.com/en/tv/docfilm/s-3610
Instagram:
/ dwdocumentary
Facebook:
/ dw.stories
DW netiquette policy: p.dw.com/p/MF1G
Wants nuclear but not in his town. Typical.
He also said coal, but I'll bet he doesn't want a coal generation plant up the end of his street either.
Are you saying Germany's move away from nuclear for fear of tsunamis causing meltdowns like in Fukushima was a bad idea?
How about Your town?
The worst part is, fusion is a pipe dream, not even a viable candidate, as he admitted.
@Peter Breis That is not true. Chilling them is not the problem. Once you have them cooled the insulation keeps them cold for very little energy. Right now the problem is getting the high magnetic field and the money to build big enough. You need a critical size and because it is expensive they are moving really slowly.
Nuclear is actually the best option but the uneducated masses who only know the propaganda pushed on them keep us from rescuing the planet and avoiding catastrophe. It is the only option we can expand fast enough to avoid the worst of climate change. In the US they have produced nuclear power for over 50 years and it produces so little waste that right now it is stored at in the nuclear plant's "parking lot" in huge concrete blocks. The nuclear plants that have had problems are the first gen designs but new designs are 100% walk away safe (how safe were the first airplanes). Coal kills 100s of times as many people as even the worst nuclear disaster. Humans are bad at judging risks and nuclear sounds dangerous and that is why people are against it. The oil and coal lobby works hard as f to keep us from building nuclear plants because it would mean an end to their industry.
"Who wants a wind turbine near their house?" followed by "Keep the coal plants open!" makes absolutely no sense. You'd rather live near a coal plant or mine? Are you insane?
I have lived near both - there was no problem; it is a false fear. With CSEM (Continuous Stack Emission Monitoring) there is no pollution to worry about. The mine as about as intrusive as the sawmill down the road. I currently live in Toronto and I walk right past the nuclear plant daily. I do wish we'd hurry up and upgrade from gen3 to something more modern though and the SECOND we have productive TOKAMAK fusion going - that is the ONLY choice for energy. Coal and Nuclear are the OBVIOUS green choices - and dirt cheap by comparison. Both have far better safety records than wind too.
@@jameswhite1910 Are you insane ? You see coal as green energy, you are next level in stupidity scale.
@@cosminxxx1 No, insane would be having a strong opinion on something you have no experience in. Coal can be very clean - and it's a more green option than turbines at the end of the day. All of them should be replaced by Nuclear however.
@@jameswhite1910 how did you assume i don't have experience in this ? Ironically i'm a Power Engineer so I can tell you that you are wrong about coal. I'm neutral with Nuclear, it can be very good but has some huge risks.
@@jameswhite1910 stupid climate denier.
I see, the lobbyist are hard at work.. making Germany depended on imported energy, rather than making own and cheaper. This is corrupt politics and corrupt politicians..
I wonder if Russia has supported some protest groups. It would fit their goal to make western Europe more dependent on Russian natural gas.
Schroeder will not be the last.
@Allen Loser hmmmm, didn't that happen back in the late '30's?
If Germany imported its energy from inside EU(or EU-aligned countries) I would fine with importing.
But as that isnt case I would like Germany to produce majority of its energy needs.
@Allen Loser awesome sarcasm.
No one wants it in their back yard yet you keep turning your lights on
They're destroying the goose that's laying the golden eggs...
With nuclear energy being so dense, you need less square unit area per kWh produced. Meaning less chance to have it ''in your backyard''.
I find windmills seriously beautiful, I would not mind having one in my "backyard".
I believe it is just that people do not like change, just try to remove one of the famous authentic Dutch windmills.
@@buddy1155 Agree, but this is not a beauty contest.
@@thaturaniumguy That is true, I think energy needs diversification: wind, solar, geo-thermal, tide and Nuclear*.
For Nuclear we need new plants, with today technology nuclear power plants can be build intrinsic safe. All those accidents where with Nuclear plants from the '70's.
I wonder how much money went under the table to implement this import of cooked seawater from the desert.
Germany is capable of being self-sufficient regarding energy. Why it would want to become reliant on another country is beyond me.
Germany decided to abandon nuclear after the Fukushima meltdown, completely oblivious to the fact that Germany is much less susceptible to earthquakes and tsunami than Japan. Meanwhile France is laughing with the cheapest, cleanest energy in the EU.
Yes. The video says energy price would rise even more if Germany imported all its energy. That would be suicide IMHO. German friends, don't do that !
@@louisdrouard9211 No we won't don't worry. First because France is too dependant on nuclear power, which gives a huge inertia when wanting to switch from it to new renewable. Nuclear power station dismantling is not easy, and we have already invested in new reactor generation. We are currently heading toward a 50% nuclear mix in the long term which is still huge. It's a good alternative, I think.
@@louisdrouard9211 Here(Finland) opposition of nuclear power has increased because french company that has been building our newest one has failed to be on time and is over cost more than was expected.
Project is Olkiluoto 3 and Areva is the french company that all blame.
Areva has also did some other bs in Finland and has pretty bad public opinion currently.(Uranium mining start without permission etc.)
@@louisdrouard9211 I agree. People want to blame someone and preferably not their own government so Areva it the perfect target as they have really done crappy job time to time.
@@louisdrouard9211 China is quite known to build infrastructure etc. quickly and quite cheaply. Possibly due to their authoritarian regime and many state owned corporations?
Germans seemed smarter in the 70's when I lived there.
How? How were they smarter?
Germans, ditch those stupid costly propellers which kill birds and cause headaches! Reopen atom power plants! You have no earthquakes unlike Japan. I love Germany and cannot stand You destroying Your own country...
Popular delusions are dangerous and costly for society. A warming climate would be highly beneficial for Germany.
and you seem incredibly dumb for not even watching 8 minutes into the video
@@drPiotrNapieraa did you not watch? the Red Kite (bird species) population has been stable for years on the Paderborn Plateau despite having wind farms there. The bird issue is a myth, dummie!
Calling hydrogen power green is absurd and viciously misleading.
Yup, it's nearly always made from fossil fuels.
@@Jimmy4video No, the « green hydrogen » is precisely not made from fossil fuel. And that's why it is called « green » :-)
@Daniel Meyers It wastes around 70% if you want to produce electricity with your hydrogen. But you can use the heat produced as in the Bosbüll electrolyser. It remains a low carbon technology
@@curedent6086 Yea, but then shipping it from Arabia to Germany on a diesel ship is most certainly not green.
@@legitpancake4276 it would not change the overall balance much and there will be other engines than diesel for boats too, of course.
“I want nuclear fusion.”
Great, I want an electric car with a 1000k range but we’re not there yet, so until it happens let’s use the next best thing.
I was thinking the same thing 😂 like he's insane thinking that's at all a viable alternative to wind power.
@@Droidman1231 Why not? France is building a reactor.
@@yaimavol Don't get me wrong I love nuclear power and think people scientifically literate and pro-carbon neutral should use it as well, but every reactor ever built and planned to be built are nuclear fission, not fusion. Fusion has been and will still be just a theortical for the foreseeable future. They've made fusion reactors in labs but they always use more energy than they produce.
@@Droidman1231 No, France is building one right now. It's real
@@yaimavol You are referring to the ITER I assume? That's an expiramental reactor, and although it will be much larger than any before it, expiramental fusion reactors have been built since the 50s. ITER is planned to run for only 16/17 minutes; most power generation facilities run much longer, and nuclear typically runs the whole day. Even the ITER's planned successor, DEMO, isn't expected for full grid use. So not even the successor, but rather the successor's successor would be the first non-experimental fusion power plant for grid use. ITER isn't expected to be finished until 2025, so like I and the original comment said, it's not at all a serious alternative to a wind turbine despite what the German man in the video says.
Things in Germany and in Europe as a whole seems to be going backward.
I saw a film of the German people addressing problems with reason, compassion and compromise. And prospering financially and environmentallyfor it. The film also showed that some Germans do not.
The only sane part of Europe left is eastern Europe
Europe is not going backward, it's the rest if the world that's catching up. Economic growth, development and technological advancements seemed to be the U.S and Europe duopoly right up to the late 90s.
@@talibjalloh928 The expansion of wind energy in the North sea is happening right now. Agreements have been signed by Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany to install about 65GW by 2030 and 150 GW by 2050 (which is roughly the equivalent of 75 nuclear power plants).
I seriously couldn’t believe the main headline of this video before I clicked it. I mean, who on earth would’ve believed that something like this would be happening in Germany!?
Just kept thinking “oh, they must just be upgrading them to even better German designs or something! I mean, there’s no way a country like this could be doing something this bad right!?” WROOONG😰😩😭😞 Guess politicians just suck everywhere.
It’s good to see though that they are at least trying to upgrade some of their windfarms and coming up with real solutions for any environmental impact they may have on local bird populations. We could use that here in the UK as well.
At least the final footnote before the end credits was good news though.
Anyone who has a common sense and knowledge about energy would see this coming. Wind and solar will never be a solution until we have good systems to store energy. And wind is also a lot more dirty and prone to accidents than solar. I want to see more solar and a lot less wind. But mainly, I hope to see some good big power storage solutions for infrastructure. We have none of that right now, apart from hydro.
@Peter Hicks The expansion of wind energy in the North sea is happening right now. Agreements have been signed by Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany to install about 65GW by 2030 and 150 GW by 2050 (which is roughly the equivalent of 75 nuclear power plants).
Germany’s logic is failing. Importing hydrogen from Saudi Arabia. Hahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah
@Andy the absurdity
Hydrogen made by..............burning natural gas. What a joke.
Edward Byard They said they use solar power in the desert to produce hydrogen... hard to believe
...as for hydrogen-carbon?
And the politician can hold a serious face when advocating for such stupidity
A classic case of "not in my backyard" syndrome, they understand that it is needed but just don't want to have to look at it
That and the fact that it's a climate goal not a solution, you do a calculation of the total energy used in the world divided by the output of a turbine and than multiply that by the cost or construction and maintenance. The US GDP for 60 years would be needed to build that many turbines, and this is why no one gives any numbers. And what about the rest of the world, a few countries solve their problem and 10% of the CO2 problem is fixed, while they put in that fix over decades that CO2 may be replaced by increased population in the rest of the world.
@@davidwright1752 It's called Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE). For wind currently is $25-35/MWh. It depends from region to region, on/off shore etc.
"not in my backyard" that is exactly what the greenies are doing as well. The restriction to industry drives them to far off 3rd world with no regulations at all.
USA moving steel plants to china for us steel and shipping coal 6000 miles to run them is not green at all.
Yes we literally ship the coal to china from australia then the steel product to USA.
The closer you look at these "green" project you realize the net carbon is ways higher than before.
It is really not hard to see this once you follow the money and the sponsors.
State Corporatist always have 2 objectives. Cut competition and commoditize labor. By virtually making it illegal to compete with global corp that doesn't have to comply with any of the imposed regulations.
Proof: just ask any, any of the so called green proponent about a carbon tax on imports. And you will only get crickets.
BTW I love wind and solar. Plus even coal is cleaner in the first world and can only get clean if it isn't outlawed.
Just make green energy income tax free and it will grow naturally instead of forcing industry out.
@Peter Breis With scrubbers coal burning is cleaner. If you bubble the remaining through algae, coal could become the cleanest form of fuel.
Windmills require a lot of structures maintenance and miles and miles of wiring. The initial carbon input to set up is always dismissed.
That said why not use tall buildings. They are already there. Already wired and where you need the energy. Make the top an air intake that concentrates pressure to one generator.
Nikola Madjarov wind farms have just about sent South Australia broke the locals now pay twice the price of the other states
I can't undersdand why they continuously try to push the ineffective and hard to store hydrogen
Because it is centralized so that the plebs can't become energy independent... then what power can you have over them...
Because you can make it out of fossil fuels, so it keeps oil producers rich.
@@Jimmy4video What he said. Its a trap. Its marketed as clean fuel but because making it cleanly costs 5x more they are using fossil fuels instead.
@Bosonian You dont really know much about modern storage technology. You can store the energy just fine, there are even alternatives to batteries for large scale storage using compressed air etc
@Bosonian Are you on crack m8 ? By definition its less. Look at it long term and include supply chain for fossil fuels. 99% of the time supply chain is never included in costs. And its so bad in comparison i lack words. And all that dont even include environmental impact and costs.
I work in the electric power industry and people do not understand that renewable energy can not just be from Solar and wind.
That type electric generation can not meet the demand for base load with out a storage type device. Battery technology has a long way to go before we get to that point. Voltage stability, frequency, and load changes all come into factor.
People dont understand what it takes to get electricity to you.
In energy reports, it can be seen that after huge wind turbine are built in germany, more natural gas is burnt for load balancing purposes. They say, they save world with making wind turbines, but they burn more natural gas for green solution. They never addressed those problems, and never will, only make propaganda about how it will save the planet.
Believe me the ones in charge of pushing the "green" energy know that it's a fucking waste of money. It's basically there an inbuilt design with more and more and more consumption. I remember before our country closed the nuclear plant we paid like 4 euro cents for electricity, now that we are dependent on buying it from outside it's closer to 15 euro cents. I have seen Germans paying like half and euro. I want nuclear back on the table. I want that idiots that push solar or wind included land wasted and bio diversity destroyed into "calculations" then include base load compensation and other crap that renewable cause. Or be prepared for rolling blackouts like in California. Oh and chemical battery tech is pretty much dead where it is now. Cause if you cram more energy into chemical bods they become unstable and explode. See video's of li-ion batteries exploding. Gravity batteries has the same problem as hydro. Losses and huge swats of land destroyed.
Very accurate. The key word is base load, anything else does not allow you to close a coal fired power station. You could store power using water, but i am uncertain if anyone wants a huge concrete lake in their backyard, but if they did that would make all the wind and solar useful. As for batteries, it does not provide base load, but it can reduce your peak power capacity requirement which is good. Using batteries in this manner assists all forms of power generating, even nuclear.
Personally I'd love to see these intermittent sources directly paired with automated chemical processing facilities. Then you would have chemical plants that ramp up and down the production of chemicals like hydrogen, ammonia, hydrocarbons and cement based upon the bulk of the energy available from your intermittent source, but only direct small portions of this power into the grid as determined by energy demand.
@@nolan4339 Interesting idea, but i suspect it would be only viable if producing Hydrogen, which can be turned off and on easily, and can, in theory be stored. Most chemical production would find it difficult to ramp up or down quickly. Hydrogen could also them be used for power when the wind is not blowing. Interesting idea, i wonder why i have never heard of this specific idea before?
I loved the smart bird; accident avoidance technology, glad someone was working on that problem.
Germans, ditch those stupid costly propellers which kill birds and cause headaches! Reopen atom power plants! You have no earthquakes unlike Japan. I love Germany and cannot stand You destroying Your own country...
Sounds like a way to cause nationwide blackouts during bird migrations.
More birds are killed and habitats lost from mining oil and other gases harvested from the earth plus oil spills and so much more 100x the amount from those killed by all the wind turbines in the world like seriously people why create a problem to the solution when the solution will solve the problem you all seem to care about plus so much more like seriously man are we blind to the destruction or are we just ignorant as a race of increasing population and power consumption and a innovative species we are so much smarter as a civilization the we put to practice. Why we close are eyes to the real facts and scientist who give us the real information but listen to the politics who inky care about there own parties and polital status is a joke.
Some stupid autocorrects in the comment but this ain't an English class so don't try use that as an argument haha.
@@drPiotrNapieraa I've NOT seen one video of a
BIRD Kill
By Wind-Turbines ...
It's depressing to know that, even in well-educated Germany, a huge proportion of people are irrational idiots.
"Useful idiots" is the appropriate term.
That's democracy. One idiot gets the same vote as one normal person.
It all comes down to money.
How do you think Hitler was able to take power?
Don't despair: the expansion of wind energy in the North sea is happening right now. Agreements have been signed by Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany to install about 65GW by 2030 and 150 GW by 2050 (which is roughly the equivalent of 75 nuclear power plants).
"Germany is a relatively small and densely populated country".... Laughs in UK
Laughs in Netherland.. 🙄
Very true. England is much more density populated than any equivalent part of Germany. I must admit Netherlands, Belgium and North Rhine-Westphalia, combined, is equivalent, in population and density.
are they dense .... maybe they are ....the modern peoples ae ..sad lil munkmees
There needs to be a powerful marketing team whose goal is to educate the public as well as the politicians about the truths behind wind power. Marketing and advertising for wind power.
- what about subsonic noise?
- [...] I don't hear them.
Facepalm.
Thank you! Lol
If you ask a member of the public a question like that, without providing them with all the available knowledge of the impact of noise that you can’t actually hear, what do you expect their answer to be?
@@tlangdon12 Basic wave physics and acoustics is part of late elementary curriculum in my country. Probably early high in Germany. There is no excuse whatsoever not to understand it in a coutry which has public education.
On the other hand, the answer perfectly correct XD
One could argue that the term is an oxymoron.
@@palmshoot I don't see internal contradiction in that. "Subsonic sound" would be an oxymoron. Noise in my vocabulary refers to a lot more than just sound.
If wind power were regulated with the same scrutiny as nuclear, they would never be allowed to cut and grind fiberglass blades in the open. They would have to construct an airtight double walled containment building and do it inside to ensure not a single fiberglass particle gets into the environment, then be required to dispose of the fiberglass in a deep geological repository that is vetted to be geologically stable for millions of years.
And 'thanks' for war in 🇺🇦 Germany with strong opposition to nuclear will pay dearly. Perfect leasen!
Corrupt politicians trying to uphold the status quo.
Climate alarmists are wrong about the future.
Higher CO2 greens the planet.
@@laurier3348 Yes fantastic that the rate of deforestation far outstrips any benefit. The use of coal & oil (decayed trees/plant/animal material built up over many millions of years) is almost impossible for the earth to absorb within its ecosystems. CO2 absorption in the oceans has already caused catastrophic bleaching events for global coral reefs and this is just the beginning of ecosystem collapse.
@@__Wanderer Bro, better stop reading those magazines.
Too many lies in those articles.
They want to spread fear.
Deforestation , oh its a disaster, but did you know that the surface of forests in my country France or even in the US is now higher than 50 years ago ?
@@__Wanderer Oh dear !! you have not troubled yourself to read widely enough. CO2 is the stuff of life ... look back to the jurrasic periods where CO2 was a 1000`s ppm ...guess what ? LIFE BOOMED so much so that all the plants made in that long long period were stored inside the planet to make rocks and life. Life wasn't extinguished through the planet over heating during that period was it? If you have a bit of spare time and an ope mind try reading Dr ed berry`s debunking of IPCC modellers science and then watch Tony Heller's you tube channel which exposes the fraud carried out by Nasa and the likes of mann and hansen !!! It is quite compelling.
Without considering the lifecycle of the wind turbines is quite a statement to call it one of the greenest source of energy
Are you going to assume the technology surrounding wind power works differently than everything else in the world and we won’t get improvements? The life span right now is 20 years plus. I’m confident we’ll have better tech over that period and turbines built will continue to last longer and longer as time goes on.
The tons of waste produced from a windmill is a fraction of the tons of waste from a fossil burning power plant. Windmills still dominate the greenest space.
@@1905934 with that logic we should use nuclear, the cleanest energy source
@@dudejaca04 Nuclear creates tons of waste more than wind.. Wind still hold the title to the least tons of waster per kW
Actually turbines have been replaced more due to moral obsolescence rather than physical degradation in countries which are not nowadays Germany.
Oh my. Is this the trend now? Countries growing backwards.
It happens when they overreach.
Nuclear Fusion: Let us know when you've got a working plant. Otherwise, get lost.
Nuclear fusion is always 2 decades a head. Always.....😅
What about a top of the line nuclear plant? Or in the near future a thorium reactor? What would you say then?
@@mike4962 Nuclear plant works. SO I would invest in one after it is operational. Not before because of the BS that is involved in getting approval. Here it would take 20 years and more ... so not worth investing. Thorium reactor has same status as Fusion; let us know when it works and don't bother us before its up and running..
@@kenvandeburgt1232 Good to see you are open to nuclear. Too many environmentalist types are opposed to it. As for thorium and fusion being in the same state, I would have to disagree. Thorium reactors are currently in construction and will come online in this decade. Fusion is much further off.
Yeah good point. Why bank on something that doesn't exist?
This is the problem with western, modern, and wealthy countries. They are like people who climbed to the top using a ladder. And then when poor, third world countries are about to climb said ladder, the rich countries promptly destroyed it.Then told the poor countries that the ladder is not sustainable, that it's not eco-friendly, and that the poor countries should find another way.
I did a research for my Masther's thesis, I discovered that Wind energy (apart from Solar PV, Solar Thermal and Hydro), has the biggest impact on the EU's economy. Germany is the absolute leader in Renewable energy.
This documentary is really shocking for me, why abandoning RES consumption?
Birds are not stupid, they're smarter than many people
Hush, bird brain.
Honestly, I’ve had higher hopes for Germany, this is sad...
Yes, people just become dumber the more we "advance."
They drive Volkswagens and complain about wind turbines spoiling the landscape view.
How can you ?... why would anyone ??... protest against wind power ?? I thought Germans were smart 😦
70% or more are in support of wind power. We're looking at a loud minority. It's more of a question of whether the stupidity shown is genuine or if what we're seeing is astro turfing.
Yep, you are no expert
@@yannikoloff7659 😂 confirmed👍
Great documentary. Thank you for sharing
The hype about renewable energy needs to be examined with the utmost objectivity. Up to now, renewables have been seen as a problem-free alternative to coal or nuclear. That is not exactly true...
Like 5G. The transition will be slow and painful. Smart grids, smaller local plants closer to load centres instead of HV long transmission lines and large power plants that take considerable investment and time to go online, less wasted baseload etc. They are the new technological alternatives.
They are alternatives and do have their pros and cons. However, they pollute less than a coal power plant and, in failure, a significantly less destructive than nuclear. If you want to discuss battery energy storage (from mainly solar), that’s another issue that needs to be examined further for cleaner alternatives.
Cryoair batteries are the future
And let's address the biggest issue in that climate change is a complete hoax. Putting up windmills will DO NOTHING to global temps one way or the other.
We need to examine the fear and hype around the failure of Nuclear and weather that fear is warranted as well. As statistically Nuclear is the safest and cleanest form of energy.
Hydrogen allows control & monetisation by large corporate interests. The oil companies are trying to continue to monopolize energy distribution.
Hydrogen storage and transportation can be run through nearly identical hardware to oil and nat gas. I think we will see a surge by oil companies setting up H2 electrolysers and a push for hydrogen fuel cars, just so the oil companies stay around. Then choking the markets to make an oil like trade a thing is pretty likely
Translation: Import more Russian gas and Nuclear produced energy from France.
И да вкарат топ инженери и доктори от третия свят, немската логика започва да сдава багажа :D
Thanks for posting
Hi, can you provide those numerical information citation? Love to read it by myself for additional research, great videos by the way!
Well putting explosive rocket fuel in large container ships seems like a great idea
And while the transport of hydrogen does have some risks, pollution from the hydrogen fuel is not one of them. If a ship blows up, the result is fresh water! I would expect that a well engineered system could minimise the risks involved in hydrogen transport, but humans have proven somewhat inept at imagining the different ways in which systems can fail, and with any new system one or two disasters might be expected.
Germany should not have closed so many of its nuclear power plants and rather renew/build new modern nuclear plants much like France has been doing. Also new wind farms should be placed out at sea, some ground mounted, but mostly floating wind farms. Old wind farms on land should be upgraded when nearing their cycle life by fewer, but bigger turbines.
@Big Rhonda they can put plastic to protect the metal from being eroded by sea water and plastic should be made all around the wins turbines to protect from waves
Correction... They should not have closed any of their nuclear plants. Including the East German ones after unification.
@Big Rhonda Nonsense Rhonda, oil production platforms have been at sea for decades. Wind towers at sea use same corrosion control. That said a seabed mounted wind turbine is up to for times more costly than its land equivalent, on the other hand it produces two to three times as much power. Floating wind turbines are a new technology and ultimately may be best choice.
So, one of the things that always strikes me about the bird issue, and about environmental issues with green energy in general, is that they always seem to be considered in a total vacuum, being compared to nothing at all. So we are told about how solar cells and batteries need a lot of energy to produce, and the mining and production of materials is polluting, that wind turbines kill birds or even cause cancer, that tidal generators kill fish or disturb sediment patterns, etc. Some or all of these things are true. But if they are just presented in a vacuum, without context, it gives a falsely comforting satisfaction to green opponents and deceives the general public. Any disadvantages to green energy methods have to be compared to the disadvantages of fossil fuel use. When we do this the small number of birds or the tiny and focused centres of pollution are put into perspective compared to the global destruction and pollution that comes from oil, coal and gas. How much pollution do oil spills cause? Open pit coal mines (see the documentary on the world's biggest machine tearing apart farms and villages in... Germany!) ? Global warming? Acid rain? Air quality in cities? How many animals, how much cancer, how much pollution are oil and gas and coal causing? That is the honest reckoning.
No one claims that green power is totally clean or has no cost. For humans to exist on earth we have to leave some footprint. The claim is that green is a substantial improvent.
I think it is important to not simply focus on "the bird issue". That is about the smallest, most easily remedied issue one has with so-called "green energy". Your point is 100% correct: you need to consider all of the factors and two of the most vital ones are humanity and the earth. Both of these benefit from the right combination of fossil fuels and nuclear as our primary energy source. There are many, many places where electric is also valuable - and the absolute right choice.
What is seldom mentioned is that by lessening our usage of our core, base-load energy sources, we are weakening humanity and our society. We impoverish humanity by choosing "green" over "practical".
@@jameswhite1910 I don't think this makes any sense at all.
To note just one point, you've compared fossil fuels and nuclear with electric as primary energy sources. But electric isn't an energy source. Electric is a product of energy, IE it has to be generated by a source. It can, and is generated by nuclear, and buy fossil fuels, and by a host of other means. But it isn't an alternative to fossil fuels or nuclear. I think you're a bit confused.
Secondly, you've asserted that humanity and the earth benefit from the right combination of fossil fuels and nuclear. But you haven't explained how or why. This is merely an assertion. To take fossil fuels as one example, I think it's hard to argue that we don't derive some benefit from their use, but if the cost of using it ultimately outweighs the benefit, as seems more and more to be the case, then on the net it isn't a benefit, but a detriment.
Thirdly you wrote that by lessening our usage of core, base-load energy sources we are weakening humanity and our society. Really? How? In what way? Those is just another assertion without argument.
How do we impoverish humanity by choosing "green" over "practical"? Why are green and practical mutually exclusive in your framing? This seems like a false dichotomy to me. And why are green and practical in quote marks? I'm guessing green is because you doubt its claim to actually be green, but why is practical in quote marks? Are you casting scepticism on your own definitions of what is practical?
Lastly, I wasn't focussing on just the bird issue. I was using it as an example to make a greater point.
Great documentary
its amazing to me the germans dont question any of this
in this video they flat out said germany would have to continue on building 4 gigawatts worth of wind turbines each year for the next several years
do quick search and math and thats over a thousand wind turbines every year this in a country that requires 3 years of red tape for wind farm project
Germans in my view are too easy to accept authority and trust their governments.
It's ridiculous how they're limiting their country...
@@hugo_kruger it's the other way round, dude. Citizens societies hold the sway, everyday, there is demonstration against infrastructural development going on in Germany...
@@hugo_kruger yeah just from the American perspective it seems like there would be a greater divergence of a opinions here
in this we saw two groups both of whom seemed to agree with green energy but some raise rather mild concerns about birds or noise or aesthetic loss
they don't question the fundamental strategy germany is engaging in
"and the trees are *usually* replanted somewhere else"
ya, it's probably happened once...
These mostly look to be in fields though, so trees don't matter much for those. There should be a set number of bushes that equal a tree though, the 2 may be able to share space.
Why would anyone put wind turbines in the forest anyway? The trees hinder the winds, lowering output and forcing use of taller towers to get to the steady winds.
@@AnalystPrime I've actually seen a lot in my area, but mainly on top of high hills, not that I'm worried for my areas trees, except the dying of ash from ash bores.
And yet the statistics show that more replanting does occur.
If they cut the trees as collateral damage I'm quite sure they are forced to and will easily plan a couple of trees. Wind turbines don't required so much land clearing, but the access roads to it might stack up quite a lot of fallen trees. Regardless, planting a hectare of woods is not a problem for a 200 million Euro Wind Farm. Also, unless somewhere elevated (hill), the cutting of trees argument is just a scarecrow.
I worked on a 750MW combined cycle power plant powered by natural gas ... it was very clean! All exhaust coming off three turbines was used to turn the 4th smaller turbine rather than be released into the atmosphere .... Aker Kverner was the General on the building of the plant ... I must admit if you go online you can see what a numerous amount of turbines destroy the landscape ... it looks awful!!! Go look at Tehachapi, California!!! Since I left CA in 2005 I was shocked to see they quadrupled the amount of turbines .... Look into a natural gas fueled power supply
Ellen Lee How does natural gas reduce our carbon emissions? It doesn't. Fossil fuel use has to be eliminated, building more gas powered plants is not the solution. That's before we even consider than much of Europe's gas is piped in from Russia- do we really want to hand them hundreds of billions every year and leave them with almost total control over our energy supplies?!
What the hell? People are upset at wind turbines and want them gone?
Sounds about boomer.
what the alternative: nuclear fusion. really? nuclear fusion could be maybe ready for 2100. go back to sleep grandpa, we wake you when is ready
Right,,, I'm lol'ed at that man's solution. Time to face reality
The guy obviously had no idea about this technology. He will be long dead inc hes children and grandchildren before we will use it mainstream.
That guy may be a visionary, but certainly a failed one. The vision must first be achievable to be viable. The only fusion reactor there is is an experimental one and it took 10 years to build. Good luck with that😂
Nuclear fusion is only 20 years away, but they did say that in the 80's as well.
@@namesurname6905 When people are still inventing the math behind how to make it run, you do not bet on it working in the next 5 years
Germany, you need a nuclear power. No other way around it
You need to get rid of CDU and AfD, Oh wait... This is what happened.
min 9:45 that id F$#KING REMARKABLE !!!! WOW OH WOW... a turbine that can slow down when detecting a bird. That will totally wipe out the argument of bird strikes. I can't emphasize how powerful this argument has become here in Canada.
7:58 sick scene
People in the comments clearly didn't watch the video, and it's really weird reading it since this video debunks a lot of the bird killing myths and shows that there's broad public support for wind energy...
Many of the comments are spreading misinformation by accident or design. That's the internet. Personally I'd prefer if DW switched off comments.
Wind turbines do kill birds though and they're generally a bad idea with an exceptionally short lifespan. We need better more reliable forms of energy.
@@chatteyj they kill less birds than farms, cats, cars, building, etc. Just admit you give zero shits about birds. It's a smoke screen because you're worried about energy prices if we transition off fossil fuels.
@@chatteyj except the video showed that the red kite population stabilized around wind turbines, that doesn't sound like birds dying in their droves
@@Jimmy4video Of course I'm worried about energy prices and birds. I'm also worried about wrecking the rural landscape just because of a made up bogeyman.
So sad that this is happening just as energy storage has been shown to be economic In the Hornsdale wind farm in Australia, making renewable energy much more economic. And renewable energy already beat fossil fuel electricity, economically. You would think that such ancient people would have developed more sense during their long life time. Can they not remember how it was when they were children and compare it with the situation now.
Back then there was less pollution
The guy protesting against wind power in favour of nuclear would also protest against the nuclear plant near him, so arrogant
This is what happens when you have too much wind and solar; which barely contribute to base loads, and are unavailable during peaks. Long term storage is needed
In Baton Rouge.
What do you do when winds are low? What is this change in energy production costing you?
Without wind, they buy french nuclear electricity, at a HIGH price.
And when wind blows aplenty, they ask the French if they could please use the surplus at a NEGATIVE PRICE (or German grid burns).
@@gaelgregoire5413 They are into redistribution of wealth?
@@DouglasMoreman :-) those who manage the German grid have no choice. Given the politician's decisions, it's that or blackout.
I have experienced debilitating effects from the very low frequency pressure waves generated by a residential area turbine. Maybe out at sea they are OK or very far from populated areas, so I agree with "not in my back yard".
what kind of effects? not doubting, just curious because they are building one near my house
@@victorv096 Effects are dependent on size for one thing but also on the individual as the VLF or subsonic sounds affect people differently. There are many studies that can be found with a search.
If I had to hear low frequency waves on a repeating and continual basis I would go mad.
@@thedarkmoon2341 thanks, will look it up, and good luck there
It is mentioned clearly on how the opposing force hinders the growth of new wind farms, but what about the negative growth mentioned in the first few minutes of the video where they show images of blades being recycled? is it because of the repowering plan? or the new 1km distance rule? Am I missing something?
Not to mention all the co2 created in the manufactoringprocess of a windpowerplant, 200 Tons of concrete, 200 Tons of steel, roads etc.
That should be approx 250 tons of Co2 just for the turbine and for a expected lifetime of 20 years.
"lets make the gigantic turbines stop every time a bird flys by... that way the brakes will fail sooner causing catastrophic failure of the blades."
That’s because the green nutters care more about a bird than they do about a human being. They’re total nihilists.
The average age a coal workers death 50 years,
Ok so? Lets work on better safety regulations.
@@nastronomical What regulations are you referring to? We had decades to polish it up, but somehow we may reach the top of regulations and possibilities. The other option is to find different form of energy source...
I mean... If I was in the business of consumables I’d make a documentary like this
The major issue is that wind power has not reduced Germany’s CO2 emissions to any great extent, specifically in the last 20 years. Between 2014 and 2017 it is basically flat, which is not a good return on all the money Germany has spent on wind and solar. The power sector actually increased CO2 emissions in this period.
Because the wind power cannot provide base load, few coal power plants have been decommissioned. If you built water based storage, either tidal on the coast or in artificial lakes, inland, then the power generated by wind could be stored and could be used as base load, which would allow you to close an existing coal fired power station.
The whole issue with trying to reduce CO2 is everyone starts with the solution, and then works backward. Set a target, remove artificial government restrictions and let the market decide the best solution. Increasing insulation in houses may actually achieve the desired target. Other options is to start building power storage solutions for the existing wind generating capacity. Currently only water based would give you the necessary capacity of 500MW/hr plus to replace a coal fired power station, but this is a mature and proven technology which would work.
As for nuclear, there is no need to build a new plant, simply refurbish the existing ones and increase their power capacity. Of course closing one down for the time required to do this will cause a significant increase in CO2 emissions in Germany, so there may be a short term political issue.
Would have wanted a segment on the potential of maritime wind power. Baltic sea has lot of room to expand wind farms without violating the surrounding nature especially if turbines can be slowed down upon bird's arrival to the area
The expansion of wind energy in the North sea is happening right now. Agreements have been signed by Denmark, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany to install about 65GW by 2030 and 150 GW by 2050 (which is roughly the equivalent of 75 nuclear power plants).
Birds live on the sea as well as the land you know, protected species as well.
@@ClayRavin Interesting, do you have a source for this?
@@ClayRavin I looked up the numbers for you:
You must have mixed energy loss during production and distribution.
Energy lost in power plants (so during the production of electricity): about 65%, or 22 quadrillion Btus in the U.S.
Energy lost in transmission and distribution: about 6% - 2% in transmission and 4% in distribution - or 69 trillion Btus in the U.S.
A wind turbine is a mechanical system, so there is no energy lost (the available energy in the wind is not used at full, but that is by definition not a loss)
So the energy lost from wind turbine parks to households is limited to the losses during electricity transmission (6%) and distribution (4%).
@@haveaseatplease I think you are right. I will delete my above comment.
Nuclear, anyone ?
Its expensive dude.you always have to run nuclear plant on loss every year.
Have you gone mad?! Nuclear power plants have killed... 10s of people in all of history! That’s almost hundreds! And that doesn’t even include birds!!! Absolutely off the table must stick to coal and wind it’s facts and science.
Germans, ditch those stupid costly propellers which kill birds and cause headaches! Reopen atom power plants! You have no earthquakes unlike Japan. I love Germany and cannot stand You destroying Your own country...
Chernobyl alone had 4000 short term deaths just to radiation poisoning.
@@michaelberger6699 About 30. Chernobyl had about 30 deaths caused by radiation poisoning. What you're referring to is something else entirely.
I’m curious to know what wind turbine manufacturers are utilizing the bird proximity technology.
They mention the 'build rate' but never mention how they are constructed, transported and erected.
Usually the public won’t pay a cent to protect forests, reefs, or endangered species for that matter. But when people want to adopt green energy in order to save the planet? “The Red Kite is a really important bird you know!”
Wind turbines are a waste of concrete
Yeah, farmers shot most predators to near extinction and the public didn't raise an eyebrow.
Bring on the wind farms. The wind turbines are beautiful to look at, their production creates jobs, and they provide a reliable source of carbon free electricity as long as they are constructed in windy areas.
Beautiful to look at? No, and if you live close to one you have to deal with flicker and the danger of subsonic frequencies that are harmful to humans. Wind turbine syndrome is real.
Thousands of dead birds would disagree with you.
@Brandon Toad I think some wind farms here and there are ok, but we shouldn't cover every viable place with wind farms, we need better more reliable energy.
@Brandon Toad Ok but you enjoying 'driving past them' isn't really a big positive. I suspect people that actually live beside them or have to work in the same environment as them might have a different point of view.
@Brandon Toad 'big oil' lol who are they? I don't care for oil or renewables, I am more interested in nuclear as the most viable form of energy going forward. Did you know statistically its the cleanest and SAFEST form of energy, but I suspect big renewable filled your head with doubts about it.
So what's the supply issue during winter 2020-2021?
The reality of wind energy:
More co2 is released in producing just the cement used in the foundation of a single wind turbine than that wind turbine can offset in its entire working life. That doesn’t even include mixing the cement, transporting the cements, steel and various components, the manufacture of steel and alloys used, protective coatings, lubrication and maintenance. Nor does it include roads or grid connection.
There’s nothing green about wind farms!
You can do the math yourself.
30,000 tons (60 truck loads) of cement is used in a single wind turbine. 1800 lbs of co2 is released into the atmosphere to produce 1 ton of cement.
1800 x 30,000= 54,000,000 lbs of CO2 per Wind Turbine.
How is that green?
On average 3000 new wind turbines have been installed each year since 2005.
3000 x 54,000,000 lbs/co2 = 162,000,000,000 lbs/co2 increase per year.
As of January 2021, the U.S. Wind Turbine Database (USWTDB) contains more than 67,000 turbines.
67,000 x 54,000,000 lbs/co2 = 3,618,000,000,000 lbs/co2.
All these Wind Turbines only produced about 338 billion kWh in 2020.
Now remember we’re told that Americans and their gas guzzling SUV’s are the number 1 source of atmospheric CO2! However, The U.S. transportation sector - which includes cars, trucks, planes, trains, and boats - now emits 1.9 billion tons of CO2 annually.
But wait! to add 3000 wind turbines each year, we need a lot of cement! That cement produces 162 billion tons of CO2 each year. Isn’t 162 more than 1.9?
Remember, that’s just the cement production! That doesn’t include transportation....
Still think wind energy is green?
It’s estimated that 1.17 million birds are killed by wind turbines in the United States each year.
Facts don’t lie
Don't be daft - we can all fact check. It's called 'life cycle analysis' and even the cynic ('wind is unreliable') can accept about a year for manufacture and installation CO2 payback and then the next 25 years are virtually zero. Including removal and scrapping/salvage EOL. It's a pain if recent existing turbines have to be removed early because of NIMBY activists. Who get to protests on pedal tricycles, draw banners on tree bark with chalk and use rolled up newspaper hailer cones instead of media devices. Like heck they do. How about just a simple a choice? Micro nuclear under the town hall or turbines in the fields? By the way, nuclear has no meaningful end of life cycle because the uranium waste has nowhere to go yet.
You need to use the type of wind generator that’s just one ossolating blade that vibrates in the wind much better producer and use salt battries to use as buffers for the power grid !
Why is simple: The coal industry swings a big checkbook. So does Gazprom.
Right-wing conservatives have ben pushing Trump-like agendas all over the world, even in Germany.
Will the politicians get commission out of ordering the new energy supplies?
I'd like to see gen IV nuclear fission small underground modular MSR technology. It is dense energy and baseline energy at the same time.
Use a seed grow a tree and you have total renewable ,Solar panels and Wind Turbines are manufactured and are not renewable .They need Oil ,Gas and Mining to make them .
Anyone notice how big a wind farm is or solar farm there footprint is huge compared to a nuclear station .
As to electric cars again mining ,oil and gas play a big part to make them and where do you place the dead batteries ?
How do you power a light bulb with a living tree? And also, these energy scores are generally in fields, trees can't go there, they'd shade the land and decrease food production more than the small plot the turbine takes.
It was a metaphor or example of renewable life . But a wind mill or water wheel create power do they not . P.S a potato can power a light bulb
My point was wind Turbines and solar panels are not renewable in that sense they need mining ,oil and gas to Manufacture !
Who else knows the dark truth about biomass energy?
It's very dark, chopping down trees to make electricity is idiotic.
@@jimgraham6722 If all energy in America was turned to biomass, then there would be no trees left in just 3 years. Trees are renewable, forests and habitats are not.
@@insectbite1714 when i hear germany will close all nuclear plant after fukushima, i laugh. now they import electricity from france, nuclear dominant and burning brown coal. i thought germany is efficient, smart and forward thinking
Utilization of waste biomass is awesome, growing and harvesting energy crops as an energy supplement, less so, and sourcing biomass from wild growth has had a horrible track record due to being irresponsible towards sustainable forest management.
@@nolan4339 They also birn rubber bits with biomass to make it work better. This causes soot and pollution.
Another very good documentary!
Hi @John Jr, thanks for watching!
Why do you choose to synchronise everything? Is a version with subtitles also available? I like the high quality material but never being able to hear the people who are being interviewed feels disconnected.
Dubs allow those who can't speak German to multitask.
THE MORE you import the more control someone else has control over your ENGERY get it ???
You summed it up perfectly.
Why don't Germany collaborate with Denmark to do our doggerbanke project
Talking with a country which shows wind power absolutely works wouldn't be good for the politicians pushing Nordstrom 2.
While not a citizen in Germany, the overall attitude to the source of energy looks a bit strange. At my place in the UK, I’ve got two different types of renewable local power (solar thermal and solar PV), with much of the equipment having been manufactured in Germany. It appears that the industry is active in that area.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE WIND STOPS BLOWING 🤦♂️
The blades of the turbines are not the only part that kills birds. Near me is a TV broadcast tower with no moving parts but the lighting attracts night migrating birds and they crash into the structure.
the statement that turbine blades kill birds is a complete falcity. The blades are too slow to kill birds.... however global warming is guaranteed to kill both birds and humans and the ENTIRE PLANET.
@@Cjephunneh So I guess those videos of turbine blades hitting birds are all fake . Also note that the low pressure area behind the blades can cause air in the lungs to expand and damage birds and bats. also global warming lets more nature live. warm places have much more animal life than cold places.
Should go to modern nuclear and add fast reactors to close the fuel cycle.
The risk of meltdown is one thing, but there's also the 1000s of years the waste needs to be stored, the fact the uranium must be constantly mined from somewhere on the earth, and the fact it's a none renewable resource as fule.
@@louisdrouard9211 given I've never seen anyone try to put together what the actual emotions foot print of uranium extraction to power is, hard to call it negligible just yet, also, I'm not sure about 1000s of years, I also hear 200, and I'm guessing that's at current rate. I feel it's really something we should save for space, we don't really need it on earth.
@@louisdrouard9211 first time I heard of the PICC, will look into that, still, if wind and other things can take care or most of our energy needs, I think nucular is still best set aside for use in space where we can't use earth for power. Who do you feel about that thought?
What we have now for nucular keep, it's expansion I'm sceptical about.
I would like to have this discussions in my country. We are light years away :(
The wind blades wear out and are very costly very expensive and landfill dumps of blades. Also birds are killed by the blades and the power just can't supply the needs of industry.
How could anyone not want these on their landscape? They’re so pretty. Specially knowing it’s clean energy.
Germany is out of viable space to put them on land. Placing more often means being too close to a home and shadow flicker or noise consequences for it.
They are a costly eyesore and a symptom of a popular delusion.
They are an eyesore on the landscape and the idea that they are clean is nonsense they only last 25 years so all the materials and energy to make them, make them costly dirty and unviable sources of energy.
Some delusional idiots started spreading their delusion that wind turbines/solar panels/telephone poles/5G towers spread corona/cause fires/make the sun go out/whatever else stupid ideas they come up with. Seriously, why? There are actual real problems with wind turbines that should be addressed instead.
@@chatteyj You mean the materials and energy that is far less than any average turbine produces during its lifetime? And generally the only reason something(aside from well built houses) is used for more than 25 years is people don't have the money to pay for full replacement so they keep repairing and using obsolete things. Main reason for replacing wind turbines is to put up a better more modern turbine that produces more power and takes even less time to pay for its own construction and materials.
your energy consumption per capita is high and you dont want renewable or nuclear then what are you expecting from developing country.Some developing countries which have biodiversity hotspots of the world also have to conserve their wildlife without giving forest for development.These developed countries will not understand our struggle. You call one or two species as wildlife really!!!
Doesn't change the problem that it take more co2 emissions to produce a wind turbine than is saved during its operational life span.
Dudes you can tunnel that fan. Use a tube fan ...mega long. What's the huge era thin blades..that have easy rotation but maybe less force.
The cost of climate destruction?
There is no destruction. The earth is getting literally greener due to more CO2. It's a good thing, not a bad thing.
@@Bgrosz1 how is earth getting greener by increasing Co2 ? Please Explain!
@@Bgrosz1 Again a climate denier and criminal ! Sold to coal and oil lobby to kill people.
@@gaelgregoire5413
You sound like someone that just escaped the insane asylum.
@@Bgrosz1 you sound like someone who receives checks from the Koch brothers.
They scrap wind energy because nord stream 2 pipeline is a go.
NS2 was built because of the wind turbines, in order to prop them up.
Their energy transition is in trouble because they went the route, as many countries have, of going renewables which cannot work, they are technically unsuited for grid supply. Shutting nuclear plants down is illogical.
Wow who could have seen this coming?
We have greatly improved nuclear fission technology. Also Thorium has a great promise, yet only India and China experiment with it. We could solve energy production on current technology.
It is unfortunate that modern nuclear fission reactor technology is not being considered. Worse, that Germany voted in 2011 to shut down all of their 14 reactors by the end of 2022, in the hope of replacing this affordable and reliable base-load power with variable solar and wind. Germans voted for this nonsense, and with the upcoming winter 2022, it will only be a matter of time before Germans realize they will either freeze, have their industry decimated by high-priced power, or both. the Winter of 2022 will be very interesting to watch, for the entire EU.
electricity is not the same as energy, the makers of this doco use the words interchangeably electricity is 20% of total energy use. Why is DW so uninformed?
we r witness a national regression into idiocracy in germany
Because we have the opportunity to increase the share of electricity, and some idiots want more "energy" as hydrogen gas.
Also, the Documentary is in German, which I don't know, but in some European Languages, like Romance Languages, the order for "electrical energy" is inverted (energy electric) so people just use the first word - energy in popular use.
The correct term in English is Power (Watts), not electricity (Amperes).
Wind power is intermittent and this fact was never mentioned in this report.
That's not a huge problem because the times the wind doesn't blow the gas fired power stations can kick in
They need to implement solar at the individual homes if they want to help the climate. The cost of building and maintaining wind power is not efficient.
The main problem with solar is they don't produce any energy at night, for literally half a day. And on the days of heavy rain and snow no energy is produced by solar energy Every desert hermit I know living off the grid in dry west Texas in a small shack or RV travel tailer using solar have a back up, it is called propane....
@@ronclark9724 solar with back up batteries in suburban areas are great for reducing long term cost and for emergency outages. Solar has got much cheaper and may continue to get cheaper so it's viable now were 10 years ago it may not have been.
Well, I was feeling sympathetic to the wind industry, until it got to the end where they were talking about opposition to one that was going to be built on land that's presently occupied by a forest, and it was then claimed that they could just grow the forest back. Well.....I dunno if it is that easy to just create another forest with old and young tress of many varieties. I've been hearing about a load of wind farms that are about to be built up on Shetland on peat land whose ecosystems are the planet's greatest carbon sinks, so it does seem counterproductive to put them there. Having said that, grassland's been on the decline in Britain for decades, so where should wind farms be built, that's the question. Humans have just over stepped the mark on every level.
Wind turbines and forests can coexist. Also, some forests are new plantations.
@@yggdrasil9039 I want wind farms to replace carbon rich fuels, don't get me wrong on that score. I'm glad to hear that there are good places to put them and hope that they are utilised.
The making of wind power plant itself consumes lots of energy and emitting co2 too. Probably the carbon saved is less than the ones the wind power plant saved. The cleaning technology of burning coal has remarkably reduced pollution of particles into air. I don’t think carbon neutral is a key for climate change. Burning coal is completely OK and it keeps our energy price low.
Does your assumption that “probably the carbon saved is less” have any basis? Or do you just want it to be true?
Explain to me, how, if CO2 reduction emissions are the primary goal as said in this vid, how comes nuclear isn't even mentioned as an option?
Not relevant, but I am wondering if we have a fusion reactors, how many do we need to meet whole world energy demand?