127

Drax Pumps Out More Pollution than Any Other Company, but Climate Protesters are the Criminals? (www.thecanary.co)

submitted 2 months ago by ExtravagantEnzyme@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] spaghetti_hitchens@kbin.run 10 points 2 months ago

Think of the damage those protesters might do to muh economy!

[-] Inucune@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

What is the media's obsession with cooling towers? Anything nuclear, cooling tower. Chemical company? Cooling tower.

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 6 points 2 months ago

They look dystopian

[-] featured@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 months ago

I think they look cool. They’re hyperbolic!

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago

I do too FWIW, but big brutalist concrete constructions definitely give dystopian vibes imo.

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

How in the world is a zero emissions engineering marvel dystopian?! You know what the long terms effects of cooling towers are? If feels more humid down wind!

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago

Look dystopian, not are dystopian. They're big grey concrete towers, now I personally dig the look, but it's hard to get away from.

[-] CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Anything can be made to look dystopian with correct filters, angles and (for video format) ominous music

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

They're artificial volcanoes/geysers.

[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 2 points 2 months ago

Because they look like large outlets of coloured air.

Coloured air coming out of an something is the default way of depicting air pollution.
Even if it is just water vapour, it has a big enough shock factor.

[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

People have a serious bias towards what they can see. They can see protesters but they can't see pollution. Effective protests are hard to ignore. So they see protesters as a bigger problem than polluters.

[-] its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

WTF?! They burn wood pellets? Seriously? How is that even vaguely a renewable resource?

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Tree grows. There for, can make more. There for, renewables. Big brain.

[-] its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

If grown as a crop I can see that. But taking from forests changes the forest permanently. I see your point, I guess I'm taking issue with what I associate with a renewable resource when talking about energy. That is is "green" and not bad for the environment.

Saying trees are carbon capures so its carbon neutral just seems crazy to me. Burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal for every unit of electricity produced. The older the tree the more carbon it can store, which is in its wood. Mature as in 35-75 years. Cutting down mature trees out of forests and planting new ones isn't carbon neutral. But I can see an argument for planting tree plots in already cleared land to get a system set up for rotations.

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Sarcasm doesn't come over well on the internet. You're absolutely right that burning wood for power is stupid really the only thing we should be using for steam turbines is nuclear.

[-] veroxii@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago

Not a defender of them but they have specific plantations for growing the fuel just for this. So the idea is that it's a closed loop. Carbon is captured from the air as the trees grow and then that very same carbon is burnt for energy generation. So no extra carbon is added to the atmosphere when you consider the whole cycle.

Compare with coal and gas where carbon is dug up from under the ground and added to the atmosphere and never removed again.