6 ms·

I read the article but it's still unclear what argument the anti-wind groups use to say _why_ "wind is bad for environment/our children/the economy/greater good

I read the article but it's still unclear what argument the anti-wind groups use to say _why_ "wind is bad for environment/our children/the economy/greater good"?

sligor 1y ago
Who needs argument in 2025 ? Just say it is "woke".
defrost 1y ago
One version, frequently bandied about, is the excerpt from Landman, a recent fictional TV drama (5 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmbZwxEnAFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmbZwxEnAFc There is, of course, a debunking video response (14 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKVNFqqzvP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKVNFqqzvP4 NIMBYism (destroying the beautiful views from my golf course) and "Think of the birds" also feature high on the list.
decimalenough 1y ago
Ruins the view, kills birds, noisy is the usual trifecta. Or to quote one site I won't deign to link to, "Protecting the marine environment and ecosystems from the industrialisation of our oceans." Of course, the same folks have no objections whatsoever to offshore drilling.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  Or just dumping heavy metals into the water table or various other industrial waste.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > Of course, the same folks have no objections whatsoever to offshore drilling. Well, if they were entirely sincere in their concern for the view, the birds, and the noise, only one of those concerns would apply to offshore drilling. Considering "preventing industrialization" to be an end in itself is something different, usually associated with being pro-wind-power.
- extraisland 1y ago
  Those are the weaker arguments. In the UK, I've heard many more convincing arguments against wind power. e.g. - Often wind typically need to be subsidised heavily by the government and are not cost effective over its lifetime. - Typically wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear power generators as it is unreliable or you need to buy capacity from elsewhere. I won't pretend to know enough to state whether they are valid arguments or not. But they are potentially much stronger arguments against wind power than the others frequently made.
  - olau 1y ago
    The UK used to have very high subsidies for offshore wind for some reason. The last I've heard, subsidies for new plants are much lower today. As for being cost effective, onshore wind is probably the cheapest option, and I think it's hoped that offshore will come close to that once more of the learning curve has been traversed. Perhaps fossil gas from the North sea is still cheaper for now, if you ignore the external cost. I think solar power is even cheaper, but doesn't deliver much in the winter so far up north. Backup: Batteries are cost effective for short term shortages. For long term shortages, you'd fire up thermal plants, either biomass or biogas (fossil gas for now). It doesn't make sense to back up wind with nuclear. Nuclear has a high capital cost and relatively low running costs, so you don't save much from being standby but you still need to pay back the loans.
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    Different arguments work on different people.
  - DrScientist 1y ago
    > Often wind typically need to be subsidised heavily by the government and are not cost effective over its lifetime. Have you looked at the government subsidies for nuclear in the UK and the massive lifetime cost? In terms of offshore wind - initially it was subsidized to get it up and running - but now it's established those have dropped and dropped. > Typically wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear power generators as it is unreliable or you need to buy capacity from elsewhere. Sure - but no-one is claiming 100% wind is the target - total strawman argument. The UK goverments own net zero plan actually still includes gas generation! One of the more bonkers arguments in the UK was when there was a massive fossil fuel price shock a couple of years ago due to wars and rising global demand - the fossil fuel lobby blamed rewnewables for the high prices!
probably_wrong 1y ago
From what I understand the point is precisely not having to straight up say out loud why, "attacking renewable energy solutions without necessarily questioning the science that the climate is changing due to human activity". Two argument seem to be to "claim damages from the visual impact of offshore with projects located off their coasts" and "invoking the federal environment legislation such as the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act".
adornKey 1y ago
I don't know about those groups, but the arguments I saw so far are these: - Unclear maintenance - there's no clear way what to do with dysfunctional mills on land. Just letting them rot seems to be a thing. Offshore maintenance is surely no fun, too. How long do they last? - Pollution - there's a lot of abrasion and this stuff is pretty unclear, it's even going into places where clean water is collected. Does anybody care about this? - Ecology - there are a lot of trees that get cut down for wind. Maybe keeping those trees would be better. Kills birds and bats is also part of the argument - Economy - a lot of energy is produced at the wrong time. So much that it's even expensive to dump. How much energy goes into producing the mill, and how long will it last? Does this break even if you subtract subsidies, maintenance and value the dumped excess-energy realistically? Is there any good storage solution coming - or will this remain to be a myth? In the end Economy is most likely the only thing that matters. But I guess this is not looking so good - if it would be looking good you'd see more logos of big energy companies on all these mills...

I read the article but it's still unclear what argument the anti-wind groups use to say _why_ "wind is bad for environment/our children/the economy/greater good"?

sligor 1y ago

Who needs argument in 2025 ? Just say it is "woke".

defrost 1y ago

One version, frequently bandied about, is the excerpt from Landman, a recent fictional TV drama (5 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmbZwxEnAFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmbZwxEnAFc There is, of course, a debunking video response (14 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKVNFqqzvP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKVNFqqzvP4 NIMBYism (destroying the beautiful views from my golf course) and "Think of the birds" also feature high on the list.

decimalenough 1y ago

Ruins the view, kills birds, noisy is the usual trifecta. Or to quote one site I won't deign to link to, "Protecting the marine environment and ecosystems from the industrialisation of our oceans." Of course, the same folks have no objections whatsoever to offshore drilling.

EasyMark 1y ago
Or just dumping heavy metals into the water table or various other industrial waste.
thaumasiotes 1y ago
> Of course, the same folks have no objections whatsoever to offshore drilling. Well, if they were entirely sincere in their concern for the view, the birds, and the noise, only one of those concerns would apply to offshore drilling. Considering "preventing industrialization" to be an end in itself is something different, usually associated with being pro-wind-power.
extraisland 1y ago
Those are the weaker arguments. In the UK, I've heard many more convincing arguments against wind power. e.g. - Often wind typically need to be subsidised heavily by the government and are not cost effective over its lifetime. - Typically wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear power generators as it is unreliable or you need to buy capacity from elsewhere. I won't pretend to know enough to state whether they are valid arguments or not. But they are potentially much stronger arguments against wind power than the others frequently made.
- olau 1y ago
  The UK used to have very high subsidies for offshore wind for some reason. The last I've heard, subsidies for new plants are much lower today. As for being cost effective, onshore wind is probably the cheapest option, and I think it's hoped that offshore will come close to that once more of the learning curve has been traversed. Perhaps fossil gas from the North sea is still cheaper for now, if you ignore the external cost. I think solar power is even cheaper, but doesn't deliver much in the winter so far up north. Backup: Batteries are cost effective for short term shortages. For long term shortages, you'd fire up thermal plants, either biomass or biogas (fossil gas for now). It doesn't make sense to back up wind with nuclear. Nuclear has a high capital cost and relatively low running costs, so you don't save much from being standby but you still need to pay back the loans.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Different arguments work on different people.
- DrScientist 1y ago
  > Often wind typically need to be subsidised heavily by the government and are not cost effective over its lifetime. Have you looked at the government subsidies for nuclear in the UK and the massive lifetime cost? In terms of offshore wind - initially it was subsidized to get it up and running - but now it's established those have dropped and dropped. > Typically wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear power generators as it is unreliable or you need to buy capacity from elsewhere. Sure - but no-one is claiming 100% wind is the target - total strawman argument. The UK goverments own net zero plan actually still includes gas generation! One of the more bonkers arguments in the UK was when there was a massive fossil fuel price shock a couple of years ago due to wars and rising global demand - the fossil fuel lobby blamed rewnewables for the high prices!

probably_wrong 1y ago

From what I understand the point is precisely not having to straight up say out loud why, "attacking renewable energy solutions without necessarily questioning the science that the climate is changing due to human activity". Two argument seem to be to "claim damages from the visual impact of offshore with projects located off their coasts" and "invoking the federal environment legislation such as the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act".

adornKey 1y ago

I don't know about those groups, but the arguments I saw so far are these: - Unclear maintenance - there's no clear way what to do with dysfunctional mills on land. Just letting them rot seems to be a thing. Offshore maintenance is surely no fun, too. How long do they last? - Pollution - there's a lot of abrasion and this stuff is pretty unclear, it's even going into places where clean water is collected. Does anybody care about this? - Ecology - there are a lot of trees that get cut down for wind. Maybe keeping those trees would be better. Kills birds and bats is also part of the argument - Economy - a lot of energy is produced at the wrong time. So much that it's even expensive to dump. How much energy goes into producing the mill, and how long will it last? Does this break even if you subtract subsidies, maintenance and value the dumped excess-energy realistically? Is there any good storage solution coming - or will this remain to be a myth? In the end Economy is most likely the only thing that matters. But I guess this is not looking so good - if it would be looking good you'd see more logos of big energy companies on all these mills...