I know, another Climate Warming thread....but.....scrap all efforts to this climate nonsense. I watched this video on wind turbines, the byproduct of doing so was I didn't realise how little this Climate crap was impacting on the planet. If anyone can debunk the figures, knock your pan in.
Wow, you watched a video. Well then. we're done. And everyone knows that wind is just a stop gap. If you want the actual facts, ditch the do-it-yourself crackpottery and read the definitive report. It is their job to be the final word/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/ There is your consensus that he denies.
I doubt there is an "ultimate solution". This kind of problem is rarely susceptible to one silver bullet. One can look at the agreements formed as part of the Paris accords. The various governments each showed plans that were appropriate for their country. Those plans had significant diffrences based on factors specific to individual countries. So, it's stupid for us to decide to do nothing for the "reason" that there isn't a silver bullet.
I'd like to debunk the idea that wind power is present only because of climate change. Today, wind power is economically justified. Pardon the bloody hell out of me if it helps slow our planet from warming.
You need to look beyond one video you found. Remember that I pointed out that wind energy is an economic choice today. Yet, this guy is suggesting it will cost us trillions of dollars. In fact, that's a fundamental of his argument. If we need trillions of dollars of new energy, we should at least consider doing it in the most economic way possible. In fact, if building wind farms is cheaper than operating coal fired power plants, then one can start imagining us moving away from coal in a stronger way than we already are - regardless of global warming! He points to a specific collection of wind turbines from which to extrapolate his argument. However, wind turbines are constantly improving and corporations are becoming better at site selection. In the end, I think this guy's math is highly questionable, as he has selected what he wants to compare and those selections show a strong bias against renewable energy. One problem with these videos is that they don't include any review or critique of what is presented.
No, I've seen many videos, not sure how you can work out how many videos a poster has seen when they've posted one. The problem is, the sheer number you need to replace powerstations. Our landscapes (UK) are already blotted with wind turbines but they only generate 15% of our consumption. But what alarmists fail to see is when you move away from fossil fuels, our consumption dramatically increases. EV cars, electric boilers, electric heating, electric BBQ's, electric tools etc... So if the turbine quantities remained static, they might be able to satisfy, say, 1% of demand, if that. Probably more like 0.01%. And they're not as ecologically friendly as you think. They still need earth's resources to be built (steel etc..), welding creates climate change gases, acids and toxins, the actual turbines are not bird and bat friendly and no decommissioning costs or procedures are accounted for. Hydro yes, thermal vents yes; solar no, wind no because the benefits of solar and wind is negligible. Cost is a major factor too, especially to cover infrastructure.
We subsidize oil, coal and natural gas, too. Beyond that, there are reasons for wanting wind power over and above climate. For example, it's clean. It doesn't involve the problems of fracking, it doesn't leave the monumental waste products, cancer causing particulates and other impacts of coal. It doesn't require piplines and trains (sucha sa the miles long coal train that coal magnates wanted to run through downtown Seattle and would divide cities along the north-south rail corridore, blocking emergency vehicles as well as commerce!!).
I'm saying that watching videos is a very poor method of investigating an issue - and cited reasons. And, you say you watch lots of videos! And, I'm talking about the USA where we have huge flat expanses such as Kansas and Okalahoma (where the wind comes sweep'n down the plain). I've see turbines in England and Wales. Maybe it's grown substantially, but I didn't see anything that looked like what we have in Eastern Washington and Oregon or that I read about in our "midwest". I've pointed out that what the UK does for climate is not likely to be what the US does for climate. For example, our federal tax on gasoline is only a fraction of what you in the UK pay. So, the UK pays more attention to conservation! Today, UK has two of the top ten wind farms in the world. BOTH are offshore. Five of the top ten are in the US - 3 in Texas, 1 in Eastern Oregon, which is mostly desert, and one in south central California where very few life.
Maybe people in the midwest don't want all those wind mills and want to put up with the noise and the look of them. I am currently sitting underneath one right now. They are ugly and noisy.
I wouldn't want to live in the immediate proximity of a wind turbine. However, there are significant wind farms built and being built from Minnesota to Texas. It's typical for the land owner to get continuing payments for permission to have towers on their property - soy/corn/wheat below, electricity above. With the current impact of weather and tariffs, a reliable income stream is attractive.
Around 7k for the towers I farm around. Most definitely good money, but not enough for me to allow them to build on my ground. Luckily the closest to me is 3 and a half miles. My father in law has one on his property about a quarter of a mile away and the noise drives me crazy when we go there, he is hard of hearing so he couldn't care less. The size of the windmill farm was cut in half simply because the transmission lines for the end user are inadequate for more power. Would definitely not be in favor of having to look at more giant transmission lines taking power out of state. Glad the Iowa Senators and Representatives sided with land owners and will bot allow for profit entities to use eminent domain.
Transmission lines are certainly an issue. And, not just because of midwest wind farms. Regardless of the source of power, we're using far more of it and there is every indication that demand is increasing rapidly. That will require more transmission technology - not necessarily neary you, of course, as you do get a say in that, I believe. The largest wind turbine fields are nearer to where the power is consumed, so far.
There was a plan to build a farm north of me in northwestern Iowa, but it was shut down because farmers along the transmission line refused to sign easements. The plan was to take that power to Chicago. The land owners thought that the amount they were to be paid one time was to little to have to put up with transmission line for the rest of their lives.
I heard a radio program where people affected by wind farms and power transmission were interviewed. Your issue is definitely one they brought up. One land owner said there would be NO possibility of one-time payments for easements that would be essentially permanent forever. I certainly can understand that. A transmission line probably depresses land value forever. And, that's not how agriculture works, as the value of the land is a forever issue - not a single time or even single generation issue. On the other hand, we do condemn rights of way for oil lines, gas lines, coal trains, highways, electric transmission lines, etc. In the end, as we use more electricity I believe our need for more transmission lines is going to become similarly important - not particularly as a wind issue, but as a requirement for electricity issue - regardless of how and where it is created.
Also one of the other problems they had with the transmission lines is that this was not a utility owned type project for the people of the state. This was a for profit company from Texas that was going to take the power out of state. Many land owners simple could not swallow that, and I agree. I would most definitely said no. Now if they want to pay well for the easements and share profits maybe I could get on board.
I certainly agree with your concerns here. I don't know how it's going to work in the long run, as it seems there does need to be wide area control of our power grid in order to be resilient against load spikes, etc. But, if someone suggested putting towers on my land in order to get the full economic benefit out of my state, I'd have some serious questions!! However, let's note that the oil pipelines we have don't benefit people along the way, and those people have essentially ZERO choice in the matter - as we've seen from the many demonstrations by land owners.
True but within a year or two you will not even notice that there is a pipe line there. But I think some amount of profits share would still be fair. A couple of hundred dollars a year for something that you can't see sure beats a kick in the nuts.
I haven't watched this video but I have heard him speak before and he is astonishingly well informed..... One way to make windmills economically feasible is to make them appear as if they were made in another era.... which would turn them into a prop / stage in a potential semi - reality science fiction film series set in another era....... Relatively up to date windmills that would look much like a windmill made in 1939 could be extremely useful...... in something like this: Hint..... even if this was a genuine vision of 2185 perhaps in applied Multiverse Theory..... it is still possible that nearly invisible technological devices might have been in this scene but... Howard Storm could not notice them due to his having been shown this back in 1985????? https://www.near-death.com/experiences/exceptional/howard-storm.html#a04
Quite possibly. I'd point out that pipelines require pumping stations along the route and include rights of access. Plus, as we know pipelines do rupture. Also, they are usually between 3 and 6 feet down. I'd suggest that a land owner is restricted in land use when pipelines can be that shallow. Subsoilers go down about 2 feet. That's pretty close given that land can change in elevation due to local phenomena. And, building any significant structure would be restricted. This may all be acceptable to the landowner given the compensation, of course. But, it's a condemnation process where the landowner isn't given an option. In fact, we've seen state and local government lose to pipeline routing.
