Quote:
Originally Posted by EonBlue
One third? Or 8%?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas
And sure renewable is the future. But that assumes that we can afford it and that the law of unintended consequences doesn't kick in. Anyways, now is not the future. Like it or not we still need natural gas and coal unless you want people to freeze in the dark.
Why do health effects caused by "unfavored" energy sources somehow trump the health effects of "favored" energy sources? |
I was quoting from memory of an article I read a few weeks ago. The 30% was in relation to a new record that was broken, when in fact 29% of the power required for the state was created by wind farm.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/one...-on-wind-power
It's not 8% btw it's 9.9% and that number is for the total amount of energy generated by Texas, not all of which is used in Texas. Meaning wind makes up 9.9% of energy generated in Texas but actually 29% used with-in the state. The reason it's the 9.9% is lower is because power is also used out side of Texas.
Also are you seriously trying to compare people not having clean water to drink and actually have the chemicals from fracking in their blood system as anything even remotely close to a eyesore or a headache?