Turbines back in the day that were placed in the way of migratory patterns for birds were the ones that were harped on for killing birds…..that is easily corrected by not placing turbines in the way of paths frequented by birds….

There are plenty of places where solar is viable, especially in the midwest, the west and the south….I was referring to the South since the camp was held in Georgia and solar could be huge here! The issue would be of centrality though….we won’t be able to have “plants” in centralized locations like we do now with nuclear and coal….there would have to be a coordinated effort on the part of individuals to place panels on their houses, and then have small centralized spots for wind or solar farms/plants, etc. It takes a great deal of energy to move energy especially when we operate how we do today with only a few plants having to transport over regions to get customers power….this way it would be people taking the initiative to create their own power while also placing power on the grid for those who might not have the opportunity to do so themselves, it would take less energy if enough people jumped on to that…..

The lightbulbs are full of mercury, however they only use a 10th of the wattage of regular bulbs…and with the argument of the mercury that is emitted by plants by the pounds, they are both bad, one the lesser of two evils…however, like i was saying, it would have to be a hand in hand effort on all the parts of indivduals and industry to create the means of efficiency and of renewables for us to really move away from fossil fuels….

I am completely against nuclear as an alternative option. In addition to the question of storage when you get done with the waste, there is also a question of the mining practices to obtain the uranium to use for the nuclear power…the rocks that contain uranium, in high grade, only contain about .12%. A nuclear reactor requires about 300 tons of uranium per day to run….so imagine how much land is destroyed when you start to even mine for the material to obtain the energy…..plus, for it to even be considered for a reducer of C02 emissions, it has to be in operation for 8 years, after 10 years of construction…and with the amount of co2 emitted because of transportation of materials, construction, etc. it is just not an option….for the next sixty years there would have to be a 115 nuclear plants built every year to become a viable deterant for the climate crisis….scientists agree that we need to do something significant in the next 10-20 years….if you’dlike i can send you some material.

I understand completely about nothing being able to happen over night, but i preach an approach of efficiency…make the plants and etc. that we already have build as efficient as possible, begin to retrofit houses with energy saving technologies, make sure that buildings from now on are built LEED certified, etc. so we can use the money that would be invested in coal and nuclear, etc. can be put toward renewables….give the gov’t subsidies and tax breaks toward coal and nuclear to renewables and in the 10 years that we experience the population growth that is beign heralded as the need for these additional plants, we’ll have the advances in technology to make renewables as cheap as coal and nuclear are now!

I also did want to point out that don’t appreciate your reference to my age group as ‘kids’. Ma’am I am 22 years old. I am an adult that votes and is a very involved public citizen. I would appreciate if remarks such as those were to remain devoid of futher conversation.

But other than that, I appreciate your comment and would be more than happy to speak more about whatever concerns you have. I am not a guru, I just feel that what I know is right for what I know and am eager to learn more!

I hope this helped frame my perspective.