Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Friday December 27 2019, @01:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the consequences dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

With countries such as Iceland, Costa Rica, New Zealand, and Norway adopting green energy practices, renewable energy now accounts for a third of the world's power. As this trend continues, more and more countries are looking to offshore energy sources to produce this renewable energy. In an Opinion publishing December 17 in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution, researchers identify situations where green technology such as wind turbines, wave energy converters, and other marine renewable energy devices (MREDs) have had negative consequences on marine life.

While the researchers don't want to slow down active responses to climate change, they do encourage those making the decision to implement MREDs into marine habitats to consider the impact of this technology, such as head trauma and hearing loss, on marine animals before beginning construction.

"When people put a wind farm in their back yard, neighbors might complain that it's ugly and want it moved," says first author Andrew Wright, an ocean and ecosystem scientist at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. "So, they think, why not put it off shore where we can't see it and then there's no problems? The assumption there is that it's just an aesthetic problem. But there's a lot more to it."

Journal Reference: Andrew J. Wright, Claryana Araújo-Wang, John Y. Wang, Peter S. Ross, Jakob Tougaard, Robin Winkler, Melissa C. Márquez, Frances C. Robertson, Kayleigh Fawcett Williams, Randall R. Reeves. How ‘Blue’ Is ‘Green’ Energy? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2019; DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2019.11.002


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @02:45PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @02:45PM (#936535)

    Not according to this, on the chart it looks like maybe ONE TENTH
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614917/our-pathetically-slow-shift-to-clean-energy-in-five-charts/ [technologyreview.com]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @02:50PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @02:50PM (#936536)

    Did you include nuclear? That is renewable.

    • (Score: 2) by VanessaE on Friday December 27 2019, @07:08PM (1 child)

      by VanessaE (3396) <vanessa.e.dannenberg@gmail.com> on Friday December 27 2019, @07:08PM (#936624) Journal

      Nuclear is a good power option, and is "green" if the exhausted fuel is properly stored and perhaps reprocessed into more fuel, but it is *not* renewable as the energy source is finite (when compared to how much longer humanity could potentially inhabit the planet).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 28 2019, @03:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 28 2019, @03:02PM (#936847)

        if we get warp drive i will shift allegiance from infinite renewable to nuclear in a heartbeat.
        obviously we can now treat every new Goldilocks planet as a new frontier to dump our radioactif shit ^_^