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.
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.
There is a lot of acoustic mitigation in place nowadays when using monopiles. And the easy locations are taken, so other foundation types (jacket platforms, floating wind turbines) are also in play. Grand generalizations like “we should build them on land only” sort of fall apart in the real world.
There are also wave power devices like the Pelamis wave energy converter, which have a high potential and make a lot of sense in Eoropean countries with ocean coasts, like France, Portugal, the UK, Ireland and Scotland, and Norway. In the case of the Pelamis Wave Energy Converter, E.ON, a fossil energy company, has killed the project, but apparently the Chinese are continuing to work on it.
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?
deleted by creator
I oppose calling him a “mob boss”. That assumes he makes decisions on his own, and I don’t think there is any evidence of that right niw.
deleted by creator
Sadly, it is not. The disturbances to oceanic life are too big. We should build them on land only.
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.
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.
I hope you are right
Okay then, I don’t hope he’s right 😑
deleted by creator
There is a lot of acoustic mitigation in place nowadays when using monopiles. And the easy locations are taken, so other foundation types (jacket platforms, floating wind turbines) are also in play. Grand generalizations like “we should build them on land only” sort of fall apart in the real world.
There are also wave power devices like the Pelamis wave energy converter, which have a high potential and make a lot of sense in Eoropean countries with ocean coasts, like France, Portugal, the UK, Ireland and Scotland, and Norway. In the case of the Pelamis Wave Energy Converter, E.ON, a fossil energy company, has killed the project, but apparently the Chinese are continuing to work on it.
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.
Burning human corpses on the street, per my original proposal 👍
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