mspohr
Well-Known Member
They didn't cut down trees for the windmills. The coal miners cut down the trees.
The forest will regenerate if you stop cutting it down.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
The forest will regenerate if you stop cutting it down.
why not? because it will never grow back ... however i dont have a problem with that in this case as the damage is done (then again why not just keep mining the hole?)... I still don't like the clear cut of acres of scenic mountain tops for windmills either though
dhrivnak
Active Member
Coal seams are like 5-20' thick. So let's say there is 30' of topsoil and dirt above the coal seam. They scrape off that top layer, then dig out the coal layer. Then they put the top layer of dirt back. BUT because the top soil is like 6" and they removed 30' the top soil is badly scattered and mixed up with rock/dirt with no organic matter. It is similar to replanting a forest in a LARGE gravel parking lot.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It will grow back. It takes longer to recover depending on how much damage coal mining has done. If it's just a clear cut of the trees, it grows back quickly. If the topsoil has been removed by the coal miners it will take longer (and it does help to replace as much topsoil as possible and replant to stabilize it).
mspohr
Well-Known Member
If the topsoil is mixed with gravel, etc. it does contain organic matter (I.e. the topsoil).
I was just watching that
$10B for 350MW + 150MW of thermal storage. Perfect energy source for the 8th richest man in the world.
So building a 500MW thermal plant with a 350MW heat source. They're kneecapping a generation source that economically needs a CF of ~90% at < 70%. Make the stupid make sense.
DOE needs a rule. No more funding for FOAK. You can build anything you want as long as it's an AP1000, an AP1000 or an AP1000.
Yes, I've been to The Wilds in Cumberland, OH which is on an old coal-mining area.
As well as having the safari park, they do research on reforestation there.
Just because one developer did the idiotic thing of cutting down a forest to build a wind farm, doesn't mean the others are equally dumb. Most of the wind farms (including in TX) have been put up without cutting down any trees. So your characterization is WAY OFF.
Maybe you missed where I said I'm a fan of multiple energy sources.. but they don't always make sense in every area
.. yes Kansas and West Texas should put up wind turbines and solar in the Arizona desert
But I'm not ot sure replacing farmland in south Georgia with solar is a good idea
Why in the name of ass-hatery would you focus on putting solar panels over farmland, when there's plenty of parking lots, buildings and homes to put those solar panels in Georgia?!?!
Edit: Your focus on the inane is what's earning you the collective ire.
I think just putting solar above all the roads will produce more than enough solar for the whole USA! Plus, it will be very distributed and provide cover for drivers from the rain and sun! Maybe even wireless EV charging from above. LOL
This is a rare case where 1 + 1 = 3
That's another problem with simpletons. They see things as either/or. Never thinks of "what if". It's amazing human civilization has lasted so long. LOL
You haven't heard of solar farm leases?
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Solar-Panels-56aa08975f9b58b7d0008a98.jpg)
Common offer to lease farmland for solar panels: $1,000 an acre
More than half of large U.S. farmers say they have been offered at least $1,000 an acre during discussions about planting solar panels instead of crops on their land, said a Purdue University poll released on Tuesday.
You haven't heard of solar farm leases?
Common offer to lease farmland for solar panels: $1,000 an acre
More than half of large U.S. farmers say they have been offered at least $1,000 an acre during discussions about planting solar panels instead of crops on their land, said a Purdue University poll released on Tuesday.www.agriculture.com
If you're worried about farmland then go after the idiots using it to grow fuel.
How Solar Could Free Up 29.8 Million Acres of Prime US Farmland
Yes the abundance of corn is also terrible.. I'm not going after anybody simply saying I don't know that covering up farmland with solar panels is always a great idea
It's a ~160x better idea than ethanol because math.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
70% of farmland supports destructive animal agriculture. Better to have solar panels and allow the land to Rewild.
It was hard enough to build an ap1000 and an ap1000 don't think anyone is doing that again anytime soonI was just watching that
$10B for 350MW + 150MW of thermal storage. Perfect energy source for the 8th richest man in the world.
So building a 500MW thermal plant with a 350MW heat source. They're kneecapping a generation source that economically needs a CF of ~90% at < 70%. Make the stupid make sense.
DOE needs a rule. No more funding for FOAK. You can build anything you want as long as it's an AP1000, an AP1000 or an AP1000.
Similar threads
