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.
What is the media’s obsession with cooling towers? Anything nuclear, cooling tower. Chemical company? Cooling tower.
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.
WTF?! They burn wood pellets? Seriously? How is that even vaguely a renewable resource?
Tree grows. There for, can make more. There for, renewables. Big brain.
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.
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.
