4 ms·

As if windmills weren't enough of an eyesore already. The value of windmills (yes I know they're wind turbines but I don't care, I'm calling them windmills) is

As if windmills weren't enough of an eyesore already. The value of windmills (yes I know they're wind turbines but I don't care, I'm calling them windmills) is very limited. Most of the places I've seen with lots of windmills really should be nuclear powered instead, but politicians get a lot of brownie points for windmills. They can be a good thing for rural areas or places with limited infrastructure, but the whole windmill thing is beating around the bush when it comes to a practical solution that also doesn't engage the carbon cycle.

HPsquared 4y ago
Being highly visible is an advantage (politically): they give a strong impression of "look, we're doing something!". Plastic straw bans are a more extreme example, but the same effect.
wmeredith 4y ago
You're going to need to provide a source for claiming that the value of wind power is "very limited". Land-based utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today, costing 1–2 cents per kilowatt-hour after the production tax credit[0]. Please note that governments still spend more subsidizing fossil fuel extraction and production than wind power generation. About double[1][2]. 0. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-w... 1. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do-renewables-actually-depend-on-tax-breaks/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do-ren... 2. https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies
- HonestOp001 4y ago
  Please delineate in your comment that this is for the world. Not for the United States or other western countries. Those governments listed in the report have to quell their population to avoid an uprising. Wind power’s limits: 1. Not a base load provider 2. Requires an energy ready base load provider 3. Is dependent on an energy source that is not providing steady inputs 4. Has larger footprints than nuclear plants 5. Blot the natural landscape
  - montalbano 4y ago
    > Not for the United States or other western countries. Incorrect - An obvious counterexample is the UK. Wind power contributed 24.8% of UK electricity supplied in 2020, having surpassed coal in 2016 and nuclear in 2018. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kin...
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    Right now, the Texas power grid is generating more than 9GW from wind power alone. Now, do I think we should have nuclear in the mix? Sure. Do I ignore the ERCOT dashboard because it doesn't fit my narrative? No. And trust me, there is plenty of land still to look at that doesn't have windmills on them. I'm not offended when I drive through west Texas.
mint2 4y ago
You know what else are eyesores? Vast expanses of monoculture crops, vast expanses of asphalt and urban sprawl, and vast fields of oil derricks. And those all come with additionally extremely harmful impacts. While turbines are unquestionably a net good they are a new and thus unfamiliar thing. yeah I understand with most new things or any change it makes a lot of people uncomfortable despite completely overlooking similar or worse offenders that are more familiar. A reactionary antipathy to change is fairly common.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Gordonjcp 4y ago
I live in a country that hasn't got a lot of radioactive ores suitable for processing into fuel, but has got a lot of wind. Americans freak out about "hurricane season". You know what we call it in Scotland when we get four weeks of 140mph winds? We call that "January". Wind turbines work just great here, and they look amazing, especially the offshore ones.
- eatsyourtacos 4y ago
  >Americans freak out about "hurricane season". Maybe because if you live in the southeast it can be an absolutely devastating natural disaster? Which has already happened many times in the past and is guaranteed to happen in the future? >You know what we call it in Scotland when we get four weeks of 140mph winds? We call that "January". Well good for you. I don't know anything about the weather in Scotland but obviously if it's normal to get high wind for a few weeks in some places it's not anything like an actual hurricane. So perhaps you should stop being a smug dumbass comparing normal high winds in parts of your country to hurricanes which obliterate people and cities.
  - oefnak 4y ago
    The difference is that Europeans build houses from stone, since we heard the story of the 3 piglets when we were children.
    - eatsyourtacos 4y ago
      /yawn Try harder next time
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    > Maybe because if you live in the southeast it can be an absolutely devastating natural disaster? Given that you know it happens, maybe you could try building houses and infrastructure that can cope with it?
- Symbiote 4y ago
  You are comparing the highest gust speeds of Scottish storms to the sustained wind speeds of a Caribbean hurricane. A huge storm in Scotland might see sustained wind speeds of 80mph. A category 5 hurricane in the USA has sustained wind speeds of 160mph.
_griw 4y ago
In my opinion, they aren't an eyesore. I quite like them. I appreciate the engineering. But that's a matter of personal preference. I agree: Nuclear is better. Had we ignored the hippies and NIMBYs 40 years ago and just gotten on with it, we would have a whole lot less problems. Had we done the same 20, 10, 5 years ago things would be a lot better. If we got them to shut up and listen now we would have a long term solution. Unfortunately, with the way our governments are setup, large scale nuclear that is able to lower costs is simply not viable. Politicians look out for themselves, not long term national interest. The people have a visceral negative reaction that we aren't changing any time soon. Also, we can only really trust nuclear with certain countries. How many "civilian nuclear programs" have actually been for enrichment? In an ideal world, we would run everything on nuclear. But our world is messy and imperfect. Wind turbines are a improvement in coal/gas, at least until a certain point where the instability is no longer worth it. Those of us who care about energy security, climate change, and practicality need to advocate for nuclear. But its unlikely the pro-nuclear side will succeed. It has a fossil fuel lobby, renewable lobby, and an easily-scared, highly-emotional electorate to overcome. Renewable energy - wind, solar, etc - are imperfect, but they're also a lot easier to get built. There's no need to push against wind and solar when we should be advocating for nuclear.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  It's not a matter of personal preference. They put these thing away from most people for a reason. If they put them in cities or suburbs, a lot of people would complain and put an end to them. Siting them in rural areas - who cares if some people in flyover country complain about the incessent noise or the ruined landscapes? Don't believe me about the noise? Get a tent and try camping under one for a few days. For someone living in the mountains, putting windmills atop all the mountains makes the views strictly worse. For someone visiting the mountains, it looks novel and sci-fi.
  - eldaisfish 4y ago
    why on earth would you camp under a wind turbine? And how? Most are on private land with access control. Besides, once you're more than a few hundred meters away, you can barely hear them. Don't believe me - please look up the sound power numbers of modern wind turbines and see how close you need to be to hear them.

HPsquared 4y ago

Being highly visible is an advantage (politically): they give a strong impression of "look, we're doing something!". Plastic straw bans are a more extreme example, but the same effect.

wmeredith 4y ago

You're going to need to provide a source for claiming that the value of wind power is "very limited". Land-based utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today, costing 1–2 cents per kilowatt-hour after the production tax credit[0]. Please note that governments still spend more subsidizing fossil fuel extraction and production than wind power generation. About double[1][2]. 0. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-w... 1. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do-renewables-actually-depend-on-tax-breaks/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do-ren... 2. https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies

HonestOp001 4y ago
Please delineate in your comment that this is for the world. Not for the United States or other western countries. Those governments listed in the report have to quell their population to avoid an uprising. Wind power’s limits: 1. Not a base load provider 2. Requires an energy ready base load provider 3. Is dependent on an energy source that is not providing steady inputs 4. Has larger footprints than nuclear plants 5. Blot the natural landscape
- montalbano 4y ago
  > Not for the United States or other western countries. Incorrect - An obvious counterexample is the UK. Wind power contributed 24.8% of UK electricity supplied in 2020, having surpassed coal in 2016 and nuclear in 2018. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kin...
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Right now, the Texas power grid is generating more than 9GW from wind power alone. Now, do I think we should have nuclear in the mix? Sure. Do I ignore the ERCOT dashboard because it doesn't fit my narrative? No. And trust me, there is plenty of land still to look at that doesn't have windmills on them. I'm not offended when I drive through west Texas.

mint2 4y ago

You know what else are eyesores? Vast expanses of monoculture crops, vast expanses of asphalt and urban sprawl, and vast fields of oil derricks. And those all come with additionally extremely harmful impacts. While turbines are unquestionably a net good they are a new and thus unfamiliar thing. yeah I understand with most new things or any change it makes a lot of people uncomfortable despite completely overlooking similar or worse offenders that are more familiar. A reactionary antipathy to change is fairly common.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Gordonjcp 4y ago

I live in a country that hasn't got a lot of radioactive ores suitable for processing into fuel, but has got a lot of wind. Americans freak out about "hurricane season". You know what we call it in Scotland when we get four weeks of 140mph winds? We call that "January". Wind turbines work just great here, and they look amazing, especially the offshore ones.

eatsyourtacos 4y ago
>Americans freak out about "hurricane season". Maybe because if you live in the southeast it can be an absolutely devastating natural disaster? Which has already happened many times in the past and is guaranteed to happen in the future? >You know what we call it in Scotland when we get four weeks of 140mph winds? We call that "January". Well good for you. I don't know anything about the weather in Scotland but obviously if it's normal to get high wind for a few weeks in some places it's not anything like an actual hurricane. So perhaps you should stop being a smug dumbass comparing normal high winds in parts of your country to hurricanes which obliterate people and cities.
- oefnak 4y ago
  The difference is that Europeans build houses from stone, since we heard the story of the 3 piglets when we were children.
  - eatsyourtacos 4y ago
    /yawn Try harder next time
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  > Maybe because if you live in the southeast it can be an absolutely devastating natural disaster? Given that you know it happens, maybe you could try building houses and infrastructure that can cope with it?
Symbiote 4y ago
You are comparing the highest gust speeds of Scottish storms to the sustained wind speeds of a Caribbean hurricane. A huge storm in Scotland might see sustained wind speeds of 80mph. A category 5 hurricane in the USA has sustained wind speeds of 160mph.

_griw 4y ago

In my opinion, they aren't an eyesore. I quite like them. I appreciate the engineering. But that's a matter of personal preference. I agree: Nuclear is better. Had we ignored the hippies and NIMBYs 40 years ago and just gotten on with it, we would have a whole lot less problems. Had we done the same 20, 10, 5 years ago things would be a lot better. If we got them to shut up and listen now we would have a long term solution. Unfortunately, with the way our governments are setup, large scale nuclear that is able to lower costs is simply not viable. Politicians look out for themselves, not long term national interest. The people have a visceral negative reaction that we aren't changing any time soon. Also, we can only really trust nuclear with certain countries. How many "civilian nuclear programs" have actually been for enrichment? In an ideal world, we would run everything on nuclear. But our world is messy and imperfect. Wind turbines are a improvement in coal/gas, at least until a certain point where the instability is no longer worth it. Those of us who care about energy security, climate change, and practicality need to advocate for nuclear. But its unlikely the pro-nuclear side will succeed. It has a fossil fuel lobby, renewable lobby, and an easily-scared, highly-emotional electorate to overcome. Renewable energy - wind, solar, etc - are imperfect, but they're also a lot easier to get built. There's no need to push against wind and solar when we should be advocating for nuclear.

tomohawk 4y ago
It's not a matter of personal preference. They put these thing away from most people for a reason. If they put them in cities or suburbs, a lot of people would complain and put an end to them. Siting them in rural areas - who cares if some people in flyover country complain about the incessent noise or the ruined landscapes? Don't believe me about the noise? Get a tent and try camping under one for a few days. For someone living in the mountains, putting windmills atop all the mountains makes the views strictly worse. For someone visiting the mountains, it looks novel and sci-fi.
- eldaisfish 4y ago
  why on earth would you camp under a wind turbine? And how? Most are on private land with access control. Besides, once you're more than a few hundred meters away, you can barely hear them. Don't believe me - please look up the sound power numbers of modern wind turbines and see how close you need to be to hear them.