wind turbines

[the game]

so there's currently a bunch of people in he county I live who are against having wind turbines put in the county. Most of their reasons border on the conspiracy and I think it's stupid. We need to invest in renewable energy. We have plenty of farm land that isn't being used currently that could have turbines put up.

What do you guys think of wind energy?

[DarkTZeratul]

I'm a fan of renewables in general, but very much not in favor of wind energy in particular. It's not particularly efficient, requires an enormous amount of land to make a significant impact, and kills a high number of wild raptors and other birds.

[Ravenblade]

Not all reasons are stupid. Having lived in very close vicinity of a park wind turbines I'd not want that experience to be wished upon everyone else. Then there is the barely researched issue of infrasound on health. Not to mention that despite not requiring much estate per turbine the entire estate required for a megawatt windpark is brutal.

Also:





This is just a tiny slice. Paderborn regio has windparks like this stretching for kilometers in all directions to the point that the entire region has more turbines than trees right now (at least it seems that way when your drive 20 mins. only to see wind turbines left and right).

[tankbug]

Ugly? Intrusive? Unreliable winds?
Solution:

[Independent voter]

They have a bunch in Texas now. There's a lot of open space there away from towns and cities so it's not as bad.

[caervek]

Wind (and solar) are very good sources of supplemental energy and work very well alongside nuclear power. The issue is though many countries seem to be trying to run them alongside fossil fuels instead or even worse attempting to use them as a primary source of energy.

[Slant]

Wind (and solar) are very good sources of supplemental energy and work very well alongside nuclear power. The issue is though many countries seem to be trying to run them alongside fossil fuels instead or even worse attempting to use them as a primary source of energy.

Renewables s hould be the primary souce in the long run, with fossil fuels supplementing them.

[yetgdhfgh]

This commercial in GTA V about wind turbines convinced me



wind turbines kills seagulls and other birds so we need to invest more in oil and gas and other shit that our elected officials tells us to believe cause they are paid by the utility companies HAHA

But on a serious note just look at what is happening here in Arizona regarding prop 127 https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Prop...tiative_(2018)

We are getting so many scare ads by APS (Arizonas largest power company) telling us if this passes our bills will go up but i gurantee our bills wont go down if it doesnt pass!!

[Lochton]

Wind turbines is a stable an easier and cheaper solution than solar panels of water/float turbines. Though, as for my country which has more than enough coast line, we've happily embraced the turbines to be in the ocean. A lot of people has praised and hated on them. Praise because they help with sea life and they aren't on land, hate because they just 'looks ugly' out there.

As for people's theories, well, only problems I've experienced from being living near huge wind turbines is.. Well, the one we had was orange and ugly? Haha. Not had sound problems, not felt headaches like some claims, or nausea (Though, the nausea could just be solved by not looking at the turbine wings).

[Graeham]

I wouldn't want to live next to any, useful though they may be.

[caervek]

Renewables s hould be the primary souce in the long run, with fossil fuels supplementing them.

It doesn't work like that, wind and solar do not work 24/7, they can only be used to supplement primary types of energy generation.

[Deleted]

It doesn't work like that, wind and solar do not work 24/7, they can only be used to supplement primary types of energy generation.

There's more to renewable than solar and wind. Hydro works all the time, as does geothermal. Some people even classify nuclear as renewable.
More importantly, non-renewable will not work all the time: once they're depleted, they won't work at all. Such is the case of fossil combustibles: once we consume the reserves they no longer work. Renewable energy as the primary source is the only sustainable paradigm.

[Khelek]

Personally, I am not a fan of wind power. While is has niche uses there are many problems with wind turbines and wind power in general. I'd like to see more nuclear and solar before looking to expand wind. I ran across this piece a few days ago in bloomberg. It is an opinion piece, so take it for what it's worth, but it does outlines some of the issues with wind power.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...a-but-aversion

[caervek]

There's more to renewable than solar and wind.

I know, that's the reason I specifically said wind and solar (in a thread about wind) and not renewable :P

[Slant]

It doesn't work like that, wind and solar do not work 24/7, they can only be used to supplement primary types of energy generation.

You ever heard of capacitors? It's this thing where you can store energy in times of surplus to use it up in times of undersupply. Think big, man. Think big. Renewables can absolutely work, but you gotta want it.

[Chinese Bootlickers]

Ah wind and solar, the only times 'pubs care about animals.

[caervek]

You ever heard of capacitors? It's this thing where you can store energy in times of surplus to use it up in times of undersupply.

Lol, that would need to be a massive capacitor. Pumped storage works much better.

However you still cannot build a grid around unreliable energy generation and caches, that's just stupid.

[Ravenblade]

There's more to renewable than solar and wind. Hydro works all the time, as does geothermal. Some people even classify nuclear as renewable.
More importantly, non-renewable will not work all the time: once they're depleted, they won't work at all. Such is the case of fossil combustibles: once we consume the reserves they no longer work. Renewable energy as the primary source is the only sustainable paradigm.

Hydro requires access to large flowing water bodies and large swathes of land being transformed which at best means relocation of people but also means destroying natural habits as well as cultural sites (see Three Gorges Dam). Moreover storage or buffer versions use artificial bodies and just pump back water during night or low demand times meaning it doesn't reach more than 75% efficiency in average. Also when using artificial bodies or dams precautions have to be made to protect the surroundings against flooding because if they don't then especially for pump-storage plants it's going to take a severe blow in terms of rentability.

Geothermal plants are not without risk either, they produce some CO² which needs to be scrubbed or injected back, they need to capture toxic trace elements and being a known source for artificial earthquakes they can't be placed safely in areas which are affected by tectonics or where seismic events pose a hazard risk.

[Daedius]

They're an eye sore that kills birds.

[Slant]

Lol, that would need to be a massive capacitor. Pumped storage works much better.

However you still cannot build a grid around unreliable energy generation and caches, that's just stupid.

I haven't said we're good at it, yet. I'm just trying to point out that the flaws you point out are really just obstacles to overcome, but not impossible physical reasons why we shouldn't do it. I mean, everyone's still hoping some genius will crack the whole cold fusion thing, but in the meantime, we could try to get away from fossil for now.