131–140 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do blades need to be recycled? What's the harm in piling them up on empty land until someone finds use for them (or not)?
The blades could easily be cut and used as modern "sleek" housing, or games for kids in parks There is market for that I feel
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…
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…
Nothing gets past NIMBY except car infrastructure. That's America for you.
"The study reviewed current literature on wind farms, as well as using real construction data to take into account everything from the manufacturing of individual turbine parts, to transporting them into place, to decommissioning the entire wind farm at Harapak" I wonder if they take into account the footprint of storage. It should be noted that if wind is used as a serious replacement for non-renewable energy or nuc…
In the same way, fugitive emissions are usually ignored for gas (even though the case is far stronger than yours for including them as part of the lifecycle analysis), and oil exploration, refinery, transport etc. emissions aren’t counted in car’s fuel economy.
The study in question is trying to measure a particular thing, and it does it appropriately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be amazing if it was the case (and wind would get a lot more support if so), but it doesn't say that. It says it pays for itself emissions-wise.
In a moral society, paying off the environmental deficit of production is as important as the monetary deficit.
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 aw…
I would think most people would be happy with the one that doesn’t produce clouds of cancer-causing smoke every time you turn on a light switch, but I suppose some people are harder to convince.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
At least alternative energy has less NIMBY people and more willing to take a shot at it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only true on the energy and transportation sides of emissions. Some processes like the creation of cement and refining of steel create CO2 through chemical processes, regardless of the energy source.
You don't necessarily need fossil fuels for steel production. It is also nothing impossible in capturing CO2 from cement making - it's mainly centralized production and much simpler problem than transportation.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It's not black and white like that and trade-offs get made all the time.