Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 196 posts

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#121

Post by glenstein »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #98
icehawk wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> roads don’t make noise You're proving GP's point. Roads on their own don't make noise, but if I go outside I can hear the road noise from cars going down a IH-35 which is a mile away. (It isn't even the only road I can hear noise from)

It’s totally different from the noise a wind turbine makes. Watch a video of what it’s like on YouTube. Road noise can also be mitigated in many ways and in many areas it is - based on the surface, walls, etc. But also consider that we expect that urban areas have a degree of noise, but we also generally expect that serene natural spaces are free of those things to a greater extent.

It's hypothetically true that road noise can be mitigated, it is also nevertheless true that we have societally chosen to endure road noise, and the harms it causes which have measurable outcomes on everything from quality of life to mental health to property values.

As I noted in a different comment, if all we're saying is that we are open to windmills having the same adverse impacts on environments as roads already do, then to me that's the same as saying there's no such thing as a windmill noise problem.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#122

Post by genocidicbunny »

gibolt wrote: post #84
genocidicbunny wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does my not living in a city require that I change my sense of aesthetics? Is my sense of what is and isn't attractive required to be defined by where I live?

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#123

Post by gosub100 »

ggm wrote: post #49

A 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…

> it's been necessary to prove it because of politics

This is fascinating to me, how political ideology models the same type of arms race as parasite or bacteria. We're at the point of the game that we deny the opponent's mere existence, as the arms race devolves beyond addressing or refuting their views.

Why work in the logical axis, where "green" solutions can have a carbon impact themselves. Instead, wash them away with loaded language ("second order") and then proffer the conclusion that it must be political if anyone questions you. There absolutely couldn't possibly be another reason, carbon emissions only matter when one side says so, and that's final.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#124

Post by zip1234 »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #98
icehawk wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> roads don’t make noise You're proving GP's point. Roads on their own don't make noise, but if I go outside I can hear the road noise from cars going down a IH-35 which is a mile away. (It isn't even the only road I can hear noise from)

It’s totally different from the noise a wind turbine makes. Watch a video of what it’s like on YouTube. Road noise can also be mitigated in many ways and in many areas it is - based on the surface, walls, etc. But also consider that we expect that urban areas have a degree of noise, but we also generally expect that serene natural spaces are free of those things to a greater extent.

Road noise is almost never mitigated. Low speed limits could mitigate some of it, but many people drive faster than the speed limits.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#126

Post by powerbroker »

mikeyouse wrote: post #9
Alupis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follo…

Wind farms generate substantial quantities of power at like $0.04/kwh unsubsidized - they're in no way ridiculous. California generates well over 10% of their total electricity demand via wind, Texas is closer to 25% of their total demand (more than coal and nuclear combined). Hundreds of thousands of cheap, carbon-free GWh produced is an odd definition of "doing almost nothing".

ERCOT is generating 28.6% from wind in 2023. It is getting so high, that for the late night hours, demand is so tiny that some 5-10% of the wind energy goes nowhere -- a phenomenon called 'curtailment. The occurs because the baseload nuclear and the combined heat and power thermal generators are already operating at minimal levels, and supply way outpaces demand (usu. early in the wee hours of the morning). EIA indicates that this curtailment will likely increase. For now, its about as much as a typical nuclear power plant generates.

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/economic-data/energy/2....

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#127

Post by Analemma_ »

baseline-shift wrote: post #117

It is rather ridiculous to fret about the very minor emissions of manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels compared to sticking with fossil fueled energy sources! We don't see similarly breathless studies of the carbon emissions of all the other manufactured things we need to run our civilization. Where's the emissions involved in making washing machines? Highways? Primary schools? Oh dear, let's not make those t…

Yeah, these objections are always obviously made in pure bad faith. But it's still worth taking the time to refute them, because not doing so just gives them ammunition.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#128

Post by caf »

jandrese wrote: post #116
xnx wrote: post #22

That's an amazing investment if it can pay for itself entirely in 2 years and keep generating money after that.

While this is talking about carbon emissions the monetary payoff is not that much different. There's a reason people are building these things like crazy. The solution to climate change is to align the incentives.

It's not too surprising that the payoff times are similar - the cost to manufacture something (that doesn't require large amounts of human labour) tends to approximate the energy input required.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#129

Post by nucrow »

baseline-shift wrote: post #117

It is rather ridiculous to fret about the very minor emissions of manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels compared to sticking with fossil fueled energy sources! We don't see similarly breathless studies of the carbon emissions of all the other manufactured things we need to run our civilization. Where's the emissions involved in making washing machines? Highways? Primary schools? Oh dear, let's not make those t…

The goal of building washing machines, highways, etc. is not a cleaner environment. The point of windfarms is, but it defeats the purpose if producing them emits more carbon than they save.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#130

Post by zdragnar »

glenstein wrote: post #118
zdragnar wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fl…

If, when people raise aesthetic concerns about windmills, all they are really saying is that it's subject to the same level of concern as our electric and telecom and highway and gas infrastructure, which have been built out like a nervous system into every city and town across the country, and therefore it will be as equally as easy to build out as all of those, then there's no such thing as an aesthetic problem wit…

Like I started my point with, windmills get higher scrutiny because there are alternatives to them, unlike things like sidewalks and electrical lines.
Post reply on HN