Live data from Hacker News

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

newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com

191–196 of 196 posts

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

#191
post #84

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.

I live a couple of miles away from a windfarm. It's not directly visible, because my home is down in a valley, but it's by the main road into the town so you couldn't miss it. Now that I've set the scene, I can make my declaration: yes, they are awesome, quietly spinning giants, and no, the feeling doesn't wear off :)

Nonetheless, I'll have to admit they are a bit noisy. If you're right underneath them, it's not so pleasant - but it's better than living by a main road, and especially so when there are internal combustion engine vehicles about. Thus, it's a tradeoff I'd personally be willing to take if it meant more sustainably-powered electric vehicles.

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

#192
post #21

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)?

We need to be considering the impact of any big changes we make in regards to our energy. But the thing is, we already know the answers to most of these "but what about" questions and they've been answered time and time again, yet they keep being brought up and used in an effort to slow progress. Which is worse, the __________ caused by technology Z or the airborne carbon dioxide they prevent? THE CARBON DIOXIDE IS W…

Dioxide or monoxide? Dioxide is plant food.

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

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read carefully if you already share a BILD article. While they claim, that the forest is 200km² big and that it will be completely cut down, there is no actual basis to that. The official documents for that wind park talk about cutting down 29Ha, which would be 0.29km². And not all of that is permanent, some is temporary for access and construction. The permanently cut down area would be about 13.1Ha. None of…

According to this study, global burned area showed a downward trend in the twentieth century . https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201... You should save with "facts" and be more open for debate.

So you agree that your initial statement about 200km² of forest being cut down is incorrect? Which is mostly what I took issue with. If we agree there now, I am happy.

However regarding the study you linked, while it does show a downward trend in burned area, I am not sure how that relates to our "debate"? It clearly shows that the reduction of burned area each year is down mostly because of humans burning down fewer wooded areas intentionally (3.3.1). Meanwhile the area burned down because of the effects of climate change is actually up (3.3.2). Which does match up with the studies I linked to. However, the study you linked actually only covers up to 2007, which is soon close to 20 years ago. Meanwhile what I linked to covers until 2021. There has been a significant increase in global temperatures in that time (~0.5°C, which considering the limit from Paris is 1.5°C), as such it is very likely the impact of global warming has increased for the time periods after the ones covered in the study. And your study also shows no significant decrease in burned area each year in Europe, so it doesn't really say much about Germany. It also only covers burning. Most of the recent area reduction actually hasn't necessarily been through burning. Plenty of trees died because of drought and then either not having the necessary water to grow or failing to defend against harmful insects and similar.

Climate change won't necessarily burn your house down or make you drown in rising sea levels. Most people will probably be impacted by food shortages, diseases spreading, wars and other factors. As such I am a bit confused about why you linked that study. It seems to focus on a rather narrow factor of forest reduction. But it doesn't cover much of the recent times with the highest temperature increases (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...), doesn't disagree with any of my statements and only says the amount of reduction reduced. It doesn't say that forests actually started to increase (because they didn't).

Considering how upset you seemed about humans cutting trees down, I just don't follow what you are trying to argue about anymore? Did you just want to point out, that from 1940 until 2007 the area lost each year to fire reduced by around 30%, so clearly climate change is not that big of a problem, even though the study says the impact of climate change is increasing and in Germany we lost about 5% of the total forested area in 4 years in a later period not covered by your study and burning isn't the only reason for losing forests? It probably would help me, if you tied your argument into the previous discussion. From my perspective it seems to mostly just agree with what I said, in which case I don't understand, why I would have to be more open to debate, since there doesn't seem to be anything to debate?

I probably must have misunderstood you somewhere, so please enlighten me, if that is the case. Apart from that, have a nice day and sorry that I seem to not understand what you are trying to tell me!

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

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this study, global burned area showed a downward trend in the twentieth century . https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201... You should save with "facts" and be more open for debate.

So you agree that your initial statement about 200km² of forest being cut down is incorrect? Which is mostly what I took issue with. If we agree there now, I am happy. However regarding the study you linked, while it does show a downward trend in burned area, I am not sure how that relates to our "debate"? It clearly shows that the reduction of burned area each year is down mostly because of humans burning down fewer…

- There has been a significant increase in global temperatures in that time (~0.5°C, which considering the limit from Paris is 1.5°C).

Because human activity rise in urban areas, temperatures from rulal areas have not increased that much. Satellite and balloon measures proofs that. (1)

Also rising temperatures is not new phenomena. Greenland ice core project (2) showing that there was about 25 dramatic climate changes in history. Its called Dansgaard–Oeschger event. (3), (4) and shows that for example during Younger Dryas (5) there was dramatic temperature decline and increase in few decades.

Back to topic. Why Germany need so much renewable source of energy and having most expensive energy price in same time? Shouldn't they build more nuclear power plants instead of cutting trees for unreliable source of energy?

(1) https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/christytest...

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_eve...

(4) https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/2%20He...

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

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

#195
post #21

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)?

We need to be considering the impact of any big changes we make in regards to our energy. But the thing is, we already know the answers to most of these "but what about" questions and they've been answered time and time again, yet they keep being brought up and used in an effort to slow progress. Which is worse, the __________ caused by technology Z or the airborne carbon dioxide they prevent? THE CARBON DIOXIDE IS W…

> Which is worse, the __________ caused by technology Z or the airborne carbon dioxide they prevent?

> THE CARBON DIOXIDE IS WORSE, most of the time.

This exactly, and that's also the best argument in favor of nuclear.

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

#196
post #157
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mining is an incredibly long way away from electric vehicles.

I've read articles and watched a few YouTube videos about electric mining trucks that are already in use in Australia, Canada, and other places.

Oh good, I'm glad you've got expert knowledge in the domain. I work on software that manages vehicles in mines.
Post reply on HN