Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,678 posts)
4. You also need to look at the net benefits.
Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:17 PM
Jan 2012

Take wind turbines. Sure... a handful of people might have been injured/killed installing and maintaining them... and I suppose that (if it hasn't happened already) someday some people will be killed from a fire caused by a failed turbine... or one falling on their heads (etc)

But turbines generate electricity. We take it for granted now, but there's a significant positive impact there. Many MANY lives are improved (and even saved) due to reliable power generation. Just look at how many people die due to major power failures. The net human health impact of wind turbines is a signficant positive. IOW, the risks are worth taking (for an appropriate portion of the generating portfolio). The same can be said for nuclear power. The net benefit of that generation (many MANY times larger than all the wind generation in the world) is much larger than the negative impact of even Chernobyl.

The same could have even been said for coal prior to the point that far cleaner options were available.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Report: Wind turbines don...»Reply #4