at least they're not planning to flood the valley like the Americans did with the valley "one over" from Yosemite (name escapes me for now..)
Hydro electric schemes are not good for greenhouse emissions in the short to mid term. Basically trees and other vegetation which are flooded over then decompose in an anaerobic environment and produce lots of Methane which has something like 20 times the heating effect of CO2
After their manufacture and installation, the only real impact of a windturbine is visual.
As it states in the article, this is hugely dependent on location - the research was based in Brazil which is obviously an area with massive biomass. Higher latitudes/ altitudes will be much less affected. Timescales are pretty short too - I'm sure Norway, which gets most of its power from hydro, would have emitted far more gases had it opted for fossil fuels. The val di mello plant does not appear to incorporate large dammed reservoirs at all. I don't think there is enough info on that site to discern whether this is a good scheme or the type approved by governments to show they are 'doing something'.
The point stands that you should question assumptions regarding supposed green power generation.
Personally after going to an incredible but hugely frightening Chernobyl exhibition I think anything is better than nuclear power.
Slightly off topic but did anyone else notice the irony of the leaflets enclosed in Summit? Greenpeace leaflet = highly pro-wind farms, and John Muir trust = anti-wind farms.
'Whats behind that fence?' 'Oh that was Scotland..'
were doing a lot of other dodgy stuff with Nuclear technology and testing at that time too
the irony of the leaflets enclosed in Summit? Greenpeace leaflet = highly pro-wind farms, and John Muir trust = anti-wind farms.
Hetch Hetchy. The whole water situation in Cali is a disaster. Too many people, not enough rain. Like south-east england, they're steadliy depleting their reserves without a clue of what to do when they get to the bottom of the well.