• DandomRude@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    That’s actually a solid rule of thumb when you’re not sure: if the plan aims to do the exact opposite of what the orange mob boss says, it can’t be anything but a good plan.

    • crandlecan@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sadly, it is not. The disturbances to oceanic life are too big. We should build them on land only.

      • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        One has to see that in proportion. Oceans that are several degrees warmer due to greenhouse emissions would for sure mean a sixth mass extinction of life on Earth.

      • gsv@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s a much reduced statement. Construction noise is indeed a massive disturbance, which is why there’s a lot of efforts on mitigation it. Once the plant is running, however, it has been observed to work as an artificial reef increasing the local populations. To increase the effect there’s some work on adding boulders in between the monopiles. Another reason is that power boats are (depends on country) often forbidden to enter which actually reduces the noise disturbance within the area. There’s also effects on some species (lower trophic levels) due to the local reduction in wind speed in the wake which modifies the amount of mixing in the surface. That is, however, an active field of research. Long story short: fields of wind power plants are depending on the current life stage a disturbance but have in some sites been observed to be the opposite once operating. A conclusion to only build them on land could hardly be drawn at this time.

      • Jiral@lemmy.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Wind power on see has vastly better energy reliability.

        What do you prefer instead? Burning biomass, heavy use of mining for massively larger battery facilities, very destructive water reservoires with pumping stations, building large overcapacities of wind power on land, or even burning fossile fuels? Some other option?

        Please tell us your choice.

          • 4am@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yes cute “let’s melt billionaires” we all agree

            That doesn’t feed society though. It removes a lot of barriers sure but the runoff alone will kill sea life