5 ms·

Because oceanfront property, especially on the east coast is almost entirely in the hands of wealthy (read: politically influential) people, who throw a shitfit

Because oceanfront property, especially on the east coast is almost entirely in the hands of wealthy (read: politically influential) people, who throw a shitfit at the thought of offshore wind farms.

bilsbie 3y ago
Why not just put them below the horizon?
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  They do: pretty much all the proposed farms are far enough out that you can't see them from the shore. It doesn't matter, the people throw a fit anyway.
- eclipticplane 3y ago
  You mean where their sailboats and yachts can see them?
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Even if not they are quickly at the limit of visibility. Here in NL there are a whole bunch of them just North of IJmuiden and you have to really strain to make out the individual machines. When the light catches a blade just so it is a bit easier but they're definitely not so visible that they would have to be placed even further out. Better still: do both and put up more wind power.
mdorazio 3y ago
This is funny to me because off the shore of Southern California (some of the most expensive land in the country), the horizon is dotted with oil rigs and cargo ships.
- lokar 3y ago
  The issue in California is the water gets very deep very fast.
  - adhesive_wombat 3y ago
    I think the point was that "but my sea view" is apparently only a problem when it comes to wind turbines, but petrochemical rigs that look like an overzealous chemical engineer-turned-modder's map from Unreal Tournament and bunker-fuel-powered floating skyscraper-sized hulks are not such a hot topic when it comes to seafront land values. And, for the rigs, they are actually substantially closer to shore than turbines would be on the other coast, because, as you say, the ocean gets real deep, real fast there.
    - lokar 3y ago
      I’ve never seen and controversy about it in CA, I think mostly due to the fact that the water is too deep. People do dislike the rigs, but new ones are banned and the ones off Santa Barbra are I think tapping a source that bubbles up on its own and washes ashore. So perhaps they are helping.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Plenty of people are trying to get rid of oil rigs in California. They aren’t allowing new ones anyways.
    - notatoad 3y ago
      > "but my sea view" is apparently only a problem when it comes to wind turbines it's not that rich people don't mind oil rigs, it's that the power gradient goes oil companies -> rich people -> clean energy companies.
      - adhesive_wombat 3y ago
        Well either the oil companies are suppressing the rich people complaints in the general discourse, or the relentless "concerns" about land values are oil-funded astroturfing intended to scare rich people with some sway to get on side against the turbines. Either prospect smells strongly of malfeasance to me.
  - orangepurple 3y ago
AniseAbyss 3y ago
To be fair the US has vast and practically empty States in which you can do land based wind farms. Nobody cares what people in Nebraska think. Europe never had that luxury. Offshore wind is our only option.
- edrxty 3y ago
  Yeah I've seen the central US wind farms and they're absolutely ginormous. We should do offshore too but we aren't lacking in wind turbines, we're just putting them in different places.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    You want them in as much diverse locations as possible so that you're somewhat protected against outages due to weather or natural disasters.
    - codingclaws 3y ago
      simcity baby!
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Nah, just common sense. Never played sim city but it is nice to hear they put that kind of realism in the game.
- occz 3y ago
  >Europe never had that luxury. Offshore wind is our only option. This kind of depends on where in Europe. The North of Sweden (i.e the top 2/3 of the country) is very sparsely populated, and well-suited for installing on-shore wind power. NIMBYs keep on NIMBYing though, and many projects get killed because of their protesting.
- teamonkey 3y ago
  Loads of inland wind farms in the UK as well as offshore. Restricting yourself to offshore wind is a choice, not a necessity.
codewench 3y ago
See for example the failure of the Cape wind project, which was stuck in NIMBY hell for years because a few rich assholes were worried they would see the tips of the blades over the horizon

Because oceanfront property, especially on the east coast is almost entirely in the hands of wealthy (read: politically influential) people, who throw a shitfit at the thought of offshore wind farms.

bilsbie 3y ago

Why not just put them below the horizon?

Analemma_ 3y ago
They do: pretty much all the proposed farms are far enough out that you can't see them from the shore. It doesn't matter, the people throw a fit anyway.
eclipticplane 3y ago
You mean where their sailboats and yachts can see them?
jacquesm 3y ago
Even if not they are quickly at the limit of visibility. Here in NL there are a whole bunch of them just North of IJmuiden and you have to really strain to make out the individual machines. When the light catches a blade just so it is a bit easier but they're definitely not so visible that they would have to be placed even further out. Better still: do both and put up more wind power.

mdorazio 3y ago

This is funny to me because off the shore of Southern California (some of the most expensive land in the country), the horizon is dotted with oil rigs and cargo ships.

lokar 3y ago
The issue in California is the water gets very deep very fast.
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  I think the point was that "but my sea view" is apparently only a problem when it comes to wind turbines, but petrochemical rigs that look like an overzealous chemical engineer-turned-modder's map from Unreal Tournament and bunker-fuel-powered floating skyscraper-sized hulks are not such a hot topic when it comes to seafront land values. And, for the rigs, they are actually substantially closer to shore than turbines would be on the other coast, because, as you say, the ocean gets real deep, real fast there.
  - lokar 3y ago
    I’ve never seen and controversy about it in CA, I think mostly due to the fact that the water is too deep. People do dislike the rigs, but new ones are banned and the ones off Santa Barbra are I think tapping a source that bubbles up on its own and washes ashore. So perhaps they are helping.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Plenty of people are trying to get rid of oil rigs in California. They aren’t allowing new ones anyways.
  - notatoad 3y ago
    > "but my sea view" is apparently only a problem when it comes to wind turbines it's not that rich people don't mind oil rigs, it's that the power gradient goes oil companies -> rich people -> clean energy companies.
    - adhesive_wombat 3y ago
      Well either the oil companies are suppressing the rich people complaints in the general discourse, or the relentless "concerns" about land values are oil-funded astroturfing intended to scare rich people with some sway to get on side against the turbines. Either prospect smells strongly of malfeasance to me.
- orangepurple 3y ago

AniseAbyss 3y ago

To be fair the US has vast and practically empty States in which you can do land based wind farms. Nobody cares what people in Nebraska think. Europe never had that luxury. Offshore wind is our only option.

edrxty 3y ago
Yeah I've seen the central US wind farms and they're absolutely ginormous. We should do offshore too but we aren't lacking in wind turbines, we're just putting them in different places.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  You want them in as much diverse locations as possible so that you're somewhat protected against outages due to weather or natural disasters.
  - codingclaws 3y ago
    simcity baby!
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Nah, just common sense. Never played sim city but it is nice to hear they put that kind of realism in the game.
occz 3y ago
>Europe never had that luxury. Offshore wind is our only option. This kind of depends on where in Europe. The North of Sweden (i.e the top 2/3 of the country) is very sparsely populated, and well-suited for installing on-shore wind power. NIMBYs keep on NIMBYing though, and many projects get killed because of their protesting.
teamonkey 3y ago
Loads of inland wind farms in the UK as well as offshore. Restricting yourself to offshore wind is a choice, not a necessity.

codewench 3y ago

See for example the failure of the Cape wind project, which was stuck in NIMBY hell for years because a few rich assholes were worried they would see the tips of the blades over the horizon