can you bring the birds back though?
Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows
81–90 of 196 posts
Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows
#82can you bring the birds back though?
They grow back by themselves.
Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows
#83A conversation about second order effects against first order deliverables. This is proof of the obvious because very few people seriously believed their emission cost inputs exceeded their energy production, it's been necessary to prove it because of politics, not serious scientific questions to their aggregate burden. During early years on lower efficiency sure, it's possible wind and solar had higher input costs a…
And to your point, albeit with a more frivolous example, wind power has been subject to tests for aesthetic satisfaction that never have to be passed with such regularity by, say, telephone wires, roads or sidewalks, other forms of electricity infrastructure, big box stores, oil and gas infrastructure, gas stations, etc. In some cases if you even ask the question you might be dismissed as a crank because, well, roads…
There are plenty of alternatives to wind turbines. There are very few or no alternatives to the others you mentioned, especially in rural areas.
Even so, when a community has enough funding, they will often implement such things with additional aesthetic considerations- running wires underground, adding decorative touches or using more expensive materials for sidewalks, adding greenery to roadways such as planting flowers or trees, etc.
As for gas stations and stores, every business has local codes it has to obey, which in some areas may include the visual appearance of the building, the square footage and so on.
If a community chooses not to do these things, it is usually to save money or avoid discouraging new businesses from coming in (i.e. by requiring expensive brickwork facades).
In any case, yes, aesthetics are always a consideration.
Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to your point, albeit with a more frivolous example, wind power has been subject to tests for aesthetic satisfaction that never have to be passed with such regularity by, say, telephone wires, roads or sidewalks, other forms of electricity infrastructure, big box stores, oil and gas infrastructure, gas stations, etc. In some cases if you even ask the question you might be dismissed as a crank because, well, roads…
I don't think it's fair to dismiss the aesthetic argument entirely though. As your yourself said, some aesthetic concerns are dismissed because of utility, but not all of them can be. It's not a fiction that a large scale solar or wind farm will occupy more land than an equivalent gas or coal plant. So perhaps some of the concerns aren't quite so "status quo extremism" (lovely phrasing though, I'm going to be stealin…
These aren't built in a city, where most people will be staring at them. They are in remote areas.
I'd also argue that they are awesome, quietly spinning giants in the distance. Although maybe that wears off if you constantly live near one.
Cell towers and oil wells are allowed to be built wherever by a landowner and are both eyesores, yet were built anyway.
Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless. The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible. We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that…
>> including the quantity needed Texas power has gone negative, CA has dropped to zero. That means power flowing on to the grid either has no where to go or is only being charged transmission fees (and those in CA are gonna be excessive). Transmission and storage are big issues. But they are solvable ones. Storage can be localize and the grid can be upgraded (and needs to be). Candidly we need to look for ways to dec…
California also experiences rolling blackouts each summer - and lately turns off the power when it's too hot, wind blows too hard, wind doesn't blow enough, etc.
It's incredibly unreliable for biggest state in the union. But... we can sure pick a couple ultra-rare events and say "see, wind works" when it in fact does not.
Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows
#86can you bring the birds back though?
Many more birds will be harmed by unchecked climate change than wind farms.
Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's fun to imagine that this solution you're miming at is closer to soylent green rather than only-viable-through-subsidies nuclear.
Every one of these types of threads pulls out the pro-nuclear folks. I get that nuclear is really cool, but I don't get why anyone loves paying billions for projects that take 10+ years to complete. And sometimes they don't even complete! In the meantime you could've setup many different alternative energy solutions, not just wind, could've done it in the fraction of the time and probably under-budget.
These projects don't need to take 10+ years to complete, and don't need to cost what they cost.
Decades of fearmongering and NIMBYISM have created an artificial environment.
Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to your point, albeit with a more frivolous example, wind power has been subject to tests for aesthetic satisfaction that never have to be passed with such regularity by, say, telephone wires, roads or sidewalks, other forms of electricity infrastructure, big box stores, oil and gas infrastructure, gas stations, etc. In some cases if you even ask the question you might be dismissed as a crank because, well, roads…
I don't think it's fair to dismiss the aesthetic argument entirely though. As your yourself said, some aesthetic concerns are dismissed because of utility, but not all of them can be. It's not a fiction that a large scale solar or wind farm will occupy more land than an equivalent gas or coal plant. So perhaps some of the concerns aren't quite so "status quo extremism" (lovely phrasing though, I'm going to be stealin…
They might occupy more space but I still think most people would opt to live X miles from the center of a wind/solar farm than a coal plant. Mildly bad aesthetics vs breathing in heavy metals...
Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to your point, albeit with a more frivolous example, wind power has been subject to tests for aesthetic satisfaction that never have to be passed with such regularity by, say, telephone wires, roads or sidewalks, other forms of electricity infrastructure, big box stores, oil and gas infrastructure, gas stations, etc. In some cases if you even ask the question you might be dismissed as a crank because, well, roads…
I don’t think you can dismiss the aesthetic concerns. Many people consider the natural beauty around them to be a core part of their living experience. Like with offshore wind farms - if you take coastlines and dot them with wind farms, it does hurt that beauty and experience in a meaningful way. And if you’ve been near them, they produce immense and constant noise that is hard to ignore. There will definitely be eff…
Transmission lines absolutely do make noise. Plenty of smaller scale power line elements can also hum.
For anyone complaining about offshore wind (which is way the hell off in the distance) it may be worth considering that the alternative is those houses and beaches on the shore cease to exist in the future if we don't build the turbines.
Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Massive on a personal scale but miniscule compared to the scale of oil production and combustion. So many people are worried about small scale downsides to technologies that are trying to address truly massive problems.
Right, and this is what makes it such a frivolous talking point. I mean, if it really were the case that the expenditures of oil were indeed at scales that overwhelmed any advantages of wind, that would be a legit argument. But to make that case you'd actually have to do the next step of assessing the relative scales of how much oil gets used in the creation of windmill components compared to an alternative case wher…
The easy argument for this is that switching everything to electric and then powering it with oil, would require significantly less oil (maybe 50-60%) that the status quo.
We should switch, even if we don't convert to renewables. (Which we absolutely should)