2 ms·
My $0.02: Not a fan of wind anymore. The land area required and natural habitats intruded on or destroyed is just something I no longer want to see more of. It'
by exabrial 1y ago
My $0.02: Not a fan of wind anymore. The land area required and natural habitats intruded on or destroyed is just something I no longer want to see more of. It'd be nice to be outside and not have man made structures everywhere. Is it better than coal? yeah, I guess... if I had to choose between the two.
No issues with solar other than international geopolitical ones (where cells are made seems to cause some trade issues). Solar farms seem to be far more dense.
- sunflowerfly 1y agoHere in rural America, turbines use very little land. Probably similar to an oil well. The field it is placed in loses little capacity for other farm uses. The farmer gets a nice subsidy and the county receives tax revenue. This scenario is the majority of the US. I agree they do not fit into urban environments. And they also do not fit in tourist areas, where people wish to gaze upon unspoiled nature, such as many mountain ranges in the US.
- tonyarkles 1y agoThe first time I saw the red beacons on the western Illinois wind turbine field I was at first confused and then absolutely awestruck. There are SO MANY.
- seanmcdirmid 1y agoThat’s a strange sentiment. They are going up in mostly barren land that is basically windswept (well, that’s where the most wind is!). So maybe it can be mixed with agriculture, but this is not what I would consider prime natural trekking land. The only thing it affects are scenic drives like through the Columbia river gorge (lots of wind turbines and hydroelectric dams).
- exabrial 1y agoI think that's the problem. People look at it an fail to comprehend the immense biodiversity present that they're ruining.