6 ms·

I always see people commenting about the negative visual impact of a windmill. I feel like I'm the only one who thinks they are beautiful to look at. Obviously

I always see people commenting about the negative visual impact of a windmill. I feel like I'm the only one who thinks they are beautiful to look at. Obviously we shouldn't be plopping them down directly in front of houses, but wind farms are pretty hypnotic to see. What's amazing is that only five wind mills are capable of providing power to 17,000 homes per this article. That's 3400 per windmill. Doing the math on 124,000,000 homes in the US. That's only 36,470 total windmills. Something can't be right here if that's ALL it takes.

ptaipale 10y ago
I have the same feeling, about both windmills and motorways: they can be very beautiful engineering constructs. Perhaps it's just that enough is enough, or rather, too much is too much.
wehadfun 10y ago
Would you feel they were beautiful if you paid $700K for an oceanfront property?
- overcast 10y ago
  As I said, plopping them in front of your face, probably not a great idea. But let's be realistic here, the US has A TON of space, and a lot of smart people. I'm sure we can figure it out.
- wnevets 10y ago
  The struggle is real.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  This: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Mystic_Generating_Station,_Everett_MA.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Mystic_G... This is the Mystic Generating Station in Everett, MA. It is inside Boston Harbor, and receives liquified natural gas to generate electricity. The arrival of gas ships in Everett is a big security event, and is greeted with a general closure of shipping lanes, chopper patrols over the harbor, and patrol cars at every point in the harbor that are close to the ship. Because each of those ships is a floating fuel-air bomb able to take out the whole city. Every wind turbine, every solar panel, and every bicycle dynamo hooked to a hamster wheel in New England, lengthens to time between visits from these ships. So yes, I do feel they are beautiful.
- pivo 10y ago
  First of all if I could get oceanfront property for $700K in this area (Block Island or Cape Cod) I'd think that was a bargain. And anyway, yes, I would still feel that they're beautiful. There's something deeply satisfying for me when natural resources are harnessed in this sensible and attractive way.
- hx87 10y ago
  Of course. Hell, I'd pay extra for a view of Deer Island here in Boston. Yes it's a sewage treatment plant, but it is an exceedingly beautiful one.
- dv_dt 10y ago
  Yes, I look at them and see we're collecting power from our environment in such a simple and direct way in comparison to other fossil fuel paths.
- vacri 10y ago
  Given that the Netherlands uses its windmills as a tourist icon to attract people and their dollars, it does seem weird that wind turbines are considered such an eyesore by some.
jilopy 10y ago
One small quibble - wind turbines produce electricity, wind mills mill grain. I know it's pedantic, but people in the industry get really irked when the machines are referred to as windmills. I don't know why exactly, maybe due to the marketing difficulties of "mills" versus "turbines" or because engineers like precise terminology. I guess the avout of Arbre would refer to the distinction as"bulshytt" though, so take from it what you will. edit: Ah, I see this was discussed below under another parent. Apologies if anyone takes umbrage to the distinction discussion.
- xkcd-sucks 10y ago
  Windmills mill down gears/bearings into metal/ceramic powder. They produce toxic electricity as waste which is transported elsewhere for disposal.
- DavidWanjiru 10y ago
  People in the industry should realize that by windmill, we mean that big rotating thing. What it does with the rotation is not visible to us for us to need to make a distinction, and for the majority of their existence, those big rotating things were just windmills.
- overcast 10y ago
  You're just being pedantic at that point. Wind turbine / mill is used interchangeably in the populace, and they are the ones you need to convince that these projects are viable.
willismichael 10y ago
I'm with you on this one. What I find ugly is that we've already crisscrossed an enormous amount of the countryside with power lines.
sandworm101 10y ago
Fact check on those numbers: (1) This is a 30megawatt plant. An average household consumes 2500watts (including heating). 30,000,000 / 2500 = 12,000 homes ... it's in the same ballpark. But only when the wind farm is operating at 100% capacity. That may be only 25% of the time, with lesser being the norm and zero being a thing at some times. (2) Homes are not the only energy consumers. US electricity consumption per person = 13,246.27kwh / 2088 hours per year = 6300watts per person. 30,000,000/6300 = 4750. ... These five mills can produce enough power for around 4750 people. But that is only the electricity and doesn't include non-electrical energy such as hydrocarbons burnt for transport/heat. If we all start driving teslas, or switch to electric heat, those five turbines will cover far less than 4750 people. But let's say this plant does cover 5000 people. 320,000,000/5000 = we need 64000 of these plants, or 320,000 turbines[1]. And again, only when running at capacity. The real number is perhaps triple. [1]Thanks to dmoy for correcting my decimal error.
- overcast 10y ago
  Even triple, that seems like nothing in the grand scheme of something as large as power generation.
- dmoy 10y ago
  320,000 not 32,000?
- mfringel 10y ago
  Citations requested for: * "2500watts (including heating)" * "That may be only 25% of the time, with the lesser being the norm" * "US electricity consumption per person = 13,246.27kwh" * "The real number is perhaps triple."
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_energy_consumption (2) Google "US electricity consumption per person" (3) My personal knowledge of wind, that it doesn't blow 24/7. (I've done several off-grid houses and each time have rejected wind in favour of spending the money on more solar panels.) (4) See 3.
marcosdumay 10y ago
At a minimum, it's much better to have a wind farm near a beach than a set of high buildings.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Funny that your username is "overcast," since my main argument for wind as a lesser of energy evils is that I would rather see the hills lined with turbines than the valleys choked with smog.
sliverstorm 10y ago
Depends on where they are. They don't belong in Yosemite, or peppered on & around Mt Shasta. They'd be pretty awful if they carpeted the entire Great Plains. But, in isolated groups, I agree they can look pretty cool when set against a barren landscape. They're also a source of light pollution at night, an army of distant flashing red lights. Definitely put a damper on the Perseid shower when I went out into the Plains for skygazing.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  > They'd be pretty awful if they carpeted the entire Great Plains. They pretty much do in many areas. And yes, the lights are the worst part. I think the risk of striking a windmill in the Great Plains is low enough that they could probably remove the lights in many areas. Some better options than brilliant lights shining into the sky in all directions: 1. Use aircraft transponders to turn on lights selectively. 2. Establish a minimum flight level in wind farms, and provide pilots with locations of the towers in the event of an emergency descent. 3. Install reflectors to ensure that the lights are only visible from very far away on the ground. This doesn't solve the light pollution problem, and it's only really useful for pilots above the lights who don't need to worry. 4. Install reflectors to ensure that the lights are only visible below the level of the tower. This would improve the light pollution situation with regards to astronomy, but probably make it worse for viewers. 5. Network the lights so they fade in and out synchronously, rather than random noisy blinking.
  - trhway 10y ago
    >5. Network the lights so they fade in and out synchronously, rather than random noisy blinking. or so that they would follow some "visual symphony" or make some other nice image or may be spell some marketing phrase visible from distance/space/planes
brlewis 10y ago
You aren't the only one. I'm glad the same NIMBY sentiment didn't prevail when they were putting up lighthouses.

ptaipale 10y ago

I have the same feeling, about both windmills and motorways: they can be very beautiful engineering constructs. Perhaps it's just that enough is enough, or rather, too much is too much.

wehadfun 10y ago

Would you feel they were beautiful if you paid $700K for an oceanfront property?

overcast 10y ago
As I said, plopping them in front of your face, probably not a great idea. But let's be realistic here, the US has A TON of space, and a lot of smart people. I'm sure we can figure it out.
wnevets 10y ago
The struggle is real.
ocschwar 10y ago
This: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Mystic_Generating_Station,_Everett_MA.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Mystic_G... This is the Mystic Generating Station in Everett, MA. It is inside Boston Harbor, and receives liquified natural gas to generate electricity. The arrival of gas ships in Everett is a big security event, and is greeted with a general closure of shipping lanes, chopper patrols over the harbor, and patrol cars at every point in the harbor that are close to the ship. Because each of those ships is a floating fuel-air bomb able to take out the whole city. Every wind turbine, every solar panel, and every bicycle dynamo hooked to a hamster wheel in New England, lengthens to time between visits from these ships. So yes, I do feel they are beautiful.
pivo 10y ago
First of all if I could get oceanfront property for $700K in this area (Block Island or Cape Cod) I'd think that was a bargain. And anyway, yes, I would still feel that they're beautiful. There's something deeply satisfying for me when natural resources are harnessed in this sensible and attractive way.
hx87 10y ago
Of course. Hell, I'd pay extra for a view of Deer Island here in Boston. Yes it's a sewage treatment plant, but it is an exceedingly beautiful one.
dv_dt 10y ago
Yes, I look at them and see we're collecting power from our environment in such a simple and direct way in comparison to other fossil fuel paths.
vacri 10y ago
Given that the Netherlands uses its windmills as a tourist icon to attract people and their dollars, it does seem weird that wind turbines are considered such an eyesore by some.

jilopy 10y ago

One small quibble - wind turbines produce electricity, wind mills mill grain. I know it's pedantic, but people in the industry get really irked when the machines are referred to as windmills. I don't know why exactly, maybe due to the marketing difficulties of "mills" versus "turbines" or because engineers like precise terminology. I guess the avout of Arbre would refer to the distinction as"bulshytt" though, so take from it what you will. edit: Ah, I see this was discussed below under another parent. Apologies if anyone takes umbrage to the distinction discussion.

xkcd-sucks 10y ago
Windmills mill down gears/bearings into metal/ceramic powder. They produce toxic electricity as waste which is transported elsewhere for disposal.
DavidWanjiru 10y ago
People in the industry should realize that by windmill, we mean that big rotating thing. What it does with the rotation is not visible to us for us to need to make a distinction, and for the majority of their existence, those big rotating things were just windmills.
overcast 10y ago
You're just being pedantic at that point. Wind turbine / mill is used interchangeably in the populace, and they are the ones you need to convince that these projects are viable.

willismichael 10y ago

I'm with you on this one. What I find ugly is that we've already crisscrossed an enormous amount of the countryside with power lines.

sandworm101 10y ago

Fact check on those numbers: (1) This is a 30megawatt plant. An average household consumes 2500watts (including heating). 30,000,000 / 2500 = 12,000 homes ... it's in the same ballpark. But only when the wind farm is operating at 100% capacity. That may be only 25% of the time, with lesser being the norm and zero being a thing at some times. (2) Homes are not the only energy consumers. US electricity consumption per person = 13,246.27kwh / 2088 hours per year = 6300watts per person. 30,000,000/6300 = 4750. ... These five mills can produce enough power for around 4750 people. But that is only the electricity and doesn't include non-electrical energy such as hydrocarbons burnt for transport/heat. If we all start driving teslas, or switch to electric heat, those five turbines will cover far less than 4750 people. But let's say this plant does cover 5000 people. 320,000,000/5000 = we need 64000 of these plants, or 320,000 turbines[1]. And again, only when running at capacity. The real number is perhaps triple. [1]Thanks to dmoy for correcting my decimal error.

overcast 10y ago
Even triple, that seems like nothing in the grand scheme of something as large as power generation.
dmoy 10y ago
320,000 not 32,000?
mfringel 10y ago
Citations requested for: * "2500watts (including heating)" * "That may be only 25% of the time, with the lesser being the norm" * "US electricity consumption per person = 13,246.27kwh" * "The real number is perhaps triple."
- sandworm101 10y ago
  (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_energy_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_energy_consumption (2) Google "US electricity consumption per person" (3) My personal knowledge of wind, that it doesn't blow 24/7. (I've done several off-grid houses and each time have rejected wind in favour of spending the money on more solar panels.) (4) See 3.

marcosdumay 10y ago

At a minimum, it's much better to have a wind farm near a beach than a set of high buildings.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Funny that your username is "overcast," since my main argument for wind as a lesser of energy evils is that I would rather see the hills lined with turbines than the valleys choked with smog.

sliverstorm 10y ago

Depends on where they are. They don't belong in Yosemite, or peppered on & around Mt Shasta. They'd be pretty awful if they carpeted the entire Great Plains. But, in isolated groups, I agree they can look pretty cool when set against a barren landscape. They're also a source of light pollution at night, an army of distant flashing red lights. Definitely put a damper on the Perseid shower when I went out into the Plains for skygazing.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> They'd be pretty awful if they carpeted the entire Great Plains. They pretty much do in many areas. And yes, the lights are the worst part. I think the risk of striking a windmill in the Great Plains is low enough that they could probably remove the lights in many areas. Some better options than brilliant lights shining into the sky in all directions: 1. Use aircraft transponders to turn on lights selectively. 2. Establish a minimum flight level in wind farms, and provide pilots with locations of the towers in the event of an emergency descent. 3. Install reflectors to ensure that the lights are only visible from very far away on the ground. This doesn't solve the light pollution problem, and it's only really useful for pilots above the lights who don't need to worry. 4. Install reflectors to ensure that the lights are only visible below the level of the tower. This would improve the light pollution situation with regards to astronomy, but probably make it worse for viewers. 5. Network the lights so they fade in and out synchronously, rather than random noisy blinking.
- trhway 10y ago
  >5. Network the lights so they fade in and out synchronously, rather than random noisy blinking. or so that they would follow some "visual symphony" or make some other nice image or may be spell some marketing phrase visible from distance/space/planes

brlewis 10y ago

You aren't the only one. I'm glad the same NIMBY sentiment didn't prevail when they were putting up lighthouses.