mrstickball said:
The EIA disagrees with you:
Geothermal has its own issues, namely insane cost and Earthquakes:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geothermal-drilling-earthquakes/ |
You know guys, there are few things that usually aren't taken into consideration. When we talk about the real world, things change a lot. Lots of energy produced comes from something that's considered waste anyway, and the most environment-frienly way to get rid of it is to burn it, and that's when you can make energy with no net emissions. This doesn't solve any problems, of course, but gives you an understanding that energy produced in certain way does not mean it's pollutive, even if the method itself was.
Or, what options do you have for certain energy source. Nuclear-free Germany buys lots of energy from Russia. Makes sense if you think Russia can produce cleaner energy than Germany.
How about electric cars? They're environment friendly, right? They are in the western world. Middle east, for example, burns oil to make electricity, when, in fact, cars with combustion engine would be better for environment over there.
Anyway, the biggest issue is food production, not that much the energy production. Worst food for environment is beef from South-America, right after (strictly energy wise speaking) lettuce. If you'd use cows to care the desert areas, you might be able to produce beef with negative emissions.
The point is, that talking only about method of production isn't giving us real world solutions, and often it is just moving the problem elsewhere.
Ei Kiinasti.
Eikä Japanisti.
Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.
Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.
