5 ms·

A wind turbine "uses" very little land. The area under the turbine can be used for many other things. That doesn't stop NIMBYs.

QuarterReptile 4y ago
Presumably you mean farming? And,more particularly, industrial farming since the turbines would probably scare animals and endanger birds near it. Or are there examples of more intensive uses under wind turbines?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  "Industrial" farming? You mean using tractors instead of mules?
- lostapathy 4y ago
  Crops grow just fine around a wind turbine, regardless of farm size. And they don't get scared of it either.
- tstrimple 4y ago
  I'm having a difficult time understanding your arguments. https://talkbusiness.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wind-Farm-WEB-1024x538.jpg https://talkbusiness.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wind-Far... https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/19/world/windfarms-web/windfarms-web-jumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/19/world/windfarms-w... Just what about these turbines makes farming / ranching more difficult?
collegeburner 4y ago
the sight and sound impact of a wind turbine is real though newer models are a lot quieter. if i lived out in the country where it was quiet i'd be against someone putting them up super close as well. just calling everyone a "NIMBY" is not a valid response to criticism of externalities.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Well if you want to use cheap carbon free electricity but don't want to see turbines that makes you a NIMBY in the most literal sense of the word.
  - iosono88 4y ago
  - krupan 4y ago
    "cheap" and "carbon free"
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Pretty sure wind is about as cheap and low-carbon as energy gets. Hydro might be better, but it’s not feasible in most locations.
      - singhrac 4y ago
        On shore wind has the lowest LCOE (even excluding subsidies) of any utility scale type of energy; significantly lower than coal, and a bit lower than solar or nat gas.
        ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        This has been true since about 2015 (if you include pollution externalities) but solar is on track to move ahead about now. The more important thing is that both are below fossil fuel alternatives, and can complement each other. The exact blend depends on the location of course, but any sensible grid will likely include both of them (and mixes of distributed solar, onshore, offshore wind). Generally solar and wind should be about 80% of the generation mix, and the precise balance (after including the cost difference over the next few decades) globally leans towards solar being the dominant of the two in most plans and predictions. edit: this has now made me wonder if anyone calculates the LCOE of 'optimal' solar/wind mix for the region.

QuarterReptile 4y ago

Presumably you mean farming? And,more particularly, industrial farming since the turbines would probably scare animals and endanger birds near it. Or are there examples of more intensive uses under wind turbines?

ncmncm 4y ago
"Industrial" farming? You mean using tractors instead of mules?
lostapathy 4y ago
Crops grow just fine around a wind turbine, regardless of farm size. And they don't get scared of it either.
tstrimple 4y ago
I'm having a difficult time understanding your arguments. https://talkbusiness.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wind-Farm-WEB-1024x538.jpg https://talkbusiness.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Wind-Far... https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/19/world/windfarms-web/windfarms-web-jumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/19/world/windfarms-w... Just what about these turbines makes farming / ranching more difficult?

collegeburner 4y ago

the sight and sound impact of a wind turbine is real though newer models are a lot quieter. if i lived out in the country where it was quiet i'd be against someone putting them up super close as well. just calling everyone a "NIMBY" is not a valid response to criticism of externalities.

adrianN 4y ago
Well if you want to use cheap carbon free electricity but don't want to see turbines that makes you a NIMBY in the most literal sense of the word.
- iosono88 4y ago
- krupan 4y ago
  "cheap" and "carbon free"
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Pretty sure wind is about as cheap and low-carbon as energy gets. Hydro might be better, but it’s not feasible in most locations.
    - singhrac 4y ago
      On shore wind has the lowest LCOE (even excluding subsidies) of any utility scale type of energy; significantly lower than coal, and a bit lower than solar or nat gas.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        This has been true since about 2015 (if you include pollution externalities) but solar is on track to move ahead about now. The more important thing is that both are below fossil fuel alternatives, and can complement each other. The exact blend depends on the location of course, but any sensible grid will likely include both of them (and mixes of distributed solar, onshore, offshore wind). Generally solar and wind should be about 80% of the generation mix, and the precise balance (after including the cost difference over the next few decades) globally leans towards solar being the dominant of the two in most plans and predictions. edit: this has now made me wonder if anyone calculates the LCOE of 'optimal' solar/wind mix for the region.