You miss the pint the GREEN minister in charge said "Wind energy makes a decisive contribution to the energy transition and the preservation of nature. It is the only way to preserve forests and important ecosystems."
and I said harvested centurie"s" ago...
searches said:
No I am drinking a pint (of Johnny Beer).
Typo on my part. The average forest tree density in Germany is 24,000 per square km, not the country as whole.
My point is that your source is just making things up.
Young forests are more dense than old ones. The forest in question is old. Killing centuries old trees is hardly the same thing as cutting 30-50 year old trees.
Then there's the ecological damage you failed to note.
Having been through wind farms in several states, I'm familiar with how they're laid out for construction, connectivity, and maintenance. They aren't just a bunch of isolated small base towers. Grow up and use your brain.
That is apparent.and I said harvested centurie"s" ago...
No I am drinking a pint (of Johnny Beer).
==
The climate crowd has a loose to non-existent connection with reality.
Mostly agree.
We have quite a lot of wind generation here. Scroll down to the table.
I was thinking offshore wind farms... but that is not what I wrote.... So your correction is appropriate.
Killing centuries old trees is also hardly the same thing as removing a small number of dead and young non-native trees, which as noted is the thing that is actually happening.
Dead trees are habitat for animals, food for fungus, and decay into soul nutrients for other plants. Building massive road networks and trenching for large electrical cabling further damages the area. And the natural beauty that is not common in crowded Europe is ruined. It's justfiable that this project is opposed and it's too bad that you nit-pick simply because you can't see the forest for the trees.
Blah blah.
Ignorance is bliss.
Based on what information?
It's hard to explain to the average urbanite/suburbanite what it means to lose natural resources so they can continue to live meaningless lives of luxury at minimal expense.
200+m ugly towers in a forest is not minimal impact. How many annual bird strikes are allowed for this "green" project?
Do better.
What?
The forest in question is not monoculture nor trees all of the same age.
Spin is the problem.
As a person who has spent three decades of my life in rural and forested areas, your "instructions" and analysis are beyond annoying. Having experienced these things with my own senses, I am immune to BS gaslighting by city folk about things they know nothing about.
i think this may partially be a difference in what constitutes "old" to each person arguing. Centuries old is pretty young for a forest. When I think of an "old" forest, I'm thinking like 20, 30, 40 thousand years being the bare minimum for even being defined as a "native" forest. Natural forests can be several million years old or older. A 300 year old forest is not only not old, it's at least 100 times too young to be considered native. That being said, I still think it's an unfortunate place to put a wind farm.
