What is the media's obsession with cooling towers? Anything nuclear, cooling tower. Chemical company? Cooling tower.
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
127 points (96.4% liked)
World News
32324 readers
996 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
They look dystopian
I think they look cool. They’re hyperbolic!
I do too FWIW, but big brutalist concrete constructions definitely give dystopian vibes imo.
How in the world is a zero emissions engineering marvel dystopian?! You know what the long terms effects of cooling towers are? If feels more humid down wind!
Look dystopian, not are dystopian. They're big grey concrete towers, now I personally dig the look, but it's hard to get away from.
Anything can be made to look dystopian with correct filters, angles and (for video format) ominous music
Because they look like large outlets of coloured air.
Coloured air coming out of an something is the default way of depicting air pollution.
Even if it is just water vapour, it has a big enough shock factor.
They're artificial volcanoes/geysers.
Think of the damage those protesters might do to muh economy!
People have a serious bias towards what they can see. They can see protesters but they can't see pollution. Effective protests are hard to ignore. So they see protesters as a bigger problem than polluters.
When I first saw the headline I thought it had something to do with GoTG
WTF?! They burn wood pellets? Seriously? How is that even vaguely a renewable resource?
Tree grows. There for, can make more. There for, renewables. Big brain.
If grown as a crop I can see that. But taking from forests changes the forest permanently. I see your point, I guess I'm taking issue with what I associate with a renewable resource when talking about energy. That is is "green" and not bad for the environment.
Saying trees are carbon capures so its carbon neutral just seems crazy to me. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal for every unit of electricity produced. The older the tree the more carbon it can store, which is in its wood. Mature as in 35-75 years. Cutting down mature trees out of forests and planting new ones isn't carbon neutral. But I can see an argument for planting tree plots in already cleared land to get a system set up for rotations.
Sarcasm doesn't come over well on the internet. You're absolutely right that burning wood for power is stupid really the only thing we should be using for steam turbines is nuclear.
Not a defender of them but they have specific plantations for growing the fuel just for this. So the idea is that it's a closed loop. Carbon is captured from the air as the trees grow and then that very same carbon is burnt for energy generation. So no extra carbon is added to the atmosphere when you consider the whole cycle.
Compare with coal and gas where carbon is dug up from under the ground and added to the atmosphere and never removed again.
But at least it's not ebil radioactive NUCULAR!!
/s