U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-25-2017, 07:38 PM
 
981 posts, read 2,085,326 times
Reputation: 1420

Advertisements

Reading about Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's plans to shrink several national monuments reminded me of how many landscapes are effectively shrinking as "clean energy" projects take over large scenic areas. Wind energy supporters constantly make excuses for these new invasions on the pretext of "clean, green and beautiful," pushing the limits of subjectivity to extremes. If you're tempted to compare coal mines to wind turbines (one scars the land, the other scars it and adds machines to it) you're missing the point. Wind farms cause damage above and beyond what already existed, and it's seen by a lot more people now.

You'd think environmentalists would be concerned about all industrial impacts on nature, not just the obvious carbon-based ones, and wind turbines are heavily embedded in the carbon economy from the factory floor to the mountains and deserts they spoil. "100% renewable energy" is an unworkable concept without something like nuclear fusion. How can anyone build such large machines without intense fossil energy for metal-forming, transportation, road grading, timber cutting, cranes and all the rest?

Look at these photos (plus many more here) and ask yourself what parts of the planet are being "saved" for whom. Would you oppose these projects if they impinged on the national monuments that TrumpCo wants to develop? Many of them are already visible from wild places, you know. They can be seen at 50 miles from some vantage points, and they tend to corral protected lands, just like oil fields and coal mines. The aesthetics of many wild areas depend on what can be seen from them, not just inside them.

These pictures show just a tiny fraction of what's already been installed, and the industry wants to cover as much open space as they can until subsidies are phased out. It's surreal to ignore this type of damage while protesting other threats to our natural heritage. The nearly invisible Dakota Access Pipeline was a prime example of wind power hypocrisy (by virtue of protest numbers) though I didn't support it either.



As a veteran of wind energy debates, I may not have much to add in replies, since pro-wind arguments usually go the same way. Supporters claim that all these landscapes, along with sweeping ocean views, "must" be sacrificed if we're to stop climate change and get off fossil fuels. They present wind power as inevitable, not optional (e.g. much more emphasis on solar PV) and they only provide speculation that any of it will really solve much. I consider those arguments aesthetically and morally bankrupt, and think we should do everything possible to limit the physical human footprint, not just the carbon one.

Last edited by ca_north; 08-25-2017 at 08:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-29-2017, 05:52 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
3,623 posts, read 1,398,769 times
Reputation: 8095
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north View Post

You'd think environmentalists would be concerned about all industrial impacts on nature, not just the obvious carbon-based ones, and wind turbines are heavily embedded in the carbon economy from the


.

"Environmentalists" don't care about the environment. Their agenda has to do with worldwide socialistic governance and they're using the "climate crisis" as a tool in the method of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. We ecologists call the "environmentalists" watermelons-- green on the outside, red on the inside ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/...red-continues/

We've recently discussed the negative impacts of alternative energy on the Green Living forum //www.city-data.com/forum/green...lt-energy.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 07:24 PM
 
10,921 posts, read 5,438,158 times
Reputation: 4898
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
"Environmentalists" don't care about the environment. Their agenda has to do with worldwide socialistic governance and they're using the "climate crisis" as a tool in the method of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. We ecologists call the "environmentalists" watermelons-- green on the outside, red on the inside ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/...red-continues/

We've recently discussed the negative impacts of alternative energy on the Green Living forum //www.city-data.com/forum/green...lt-energy.html
If it takes us these kind of measures to get off of fossil fuels as an energy source for the world, I view it as a necessary evil.

Regardless of your views on global warming (you clearly are in the "denial" camp), you cannot disregard the fact that we will run out of fossil fuels. That is a simple and undeniable fact. We need a sustainable long-term energy source, and wind is currently part of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 09:00 PM
KCZ
 
2,183 posts, read 1,233,923 times
Reputation: 6184
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north View Post
As a veteran of wind energy debates, I may not have much to add in replies, since pro-wind arguments usually go the same way. Supporters claim that all these landscapes, along with sweeping ocean views, "must" be sacrificed if we're to stop climate change and get off fossil fuels. They present wind power as inevitable, not optional (e.g. much more emphasis on solar PV) and they only provide speculation that any of it will really solve much. I consider those arguments aesthetically and morally bankrupt, and think we should do everything possible to limit the physical human footprint, not just the carbon one.
It took just 2 responses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 09:53 PM
 
10,921 posts, read 5,438,158 times
Reputation: 4898
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCZ View Post
It took just 2 responses.
If you're implying that I think "all land or water" should be sacrificed, you're sorely mistaken. We can (and should) sacrifice some, sure.

There are plenty of areas that make sense for wind energy. The vast majority are not in protected lands or in wilderness areas (look at what is done in much of the middle of the country - vast farming landscapes can very easily take on wind farms with little to no impact to the surrounding landscape). In fact, I'm not aware of any farms in protected lands or in wilderness...As well, we can easily build windfarms in open water and have little impact on the world's ecosystems.

I think there is plenty of land to build these windfarms that will not touch wild or protected wilderness. I'm an avid backpacker who loves getting lost in the backcountry for days/weeks when I can, and the last thing I want to see is a windfarm on a distant peak. Believe you me, I understand this concern.

But of course, it is not all positive, and we should be aware of any negative impacts. All of which, to me, are far less severe than the continuing usage of fossil fuels, if I'm honest. We, unfortunately, have a severe negative effect on this planet. You can't expect not to affect the world when there are >7 billion people living on this planet. Much less when more and more of them are living the exorbitant lifestyles of America!


Also, and this probably goes without saying: wind energy is merely one part of the sustainable energy solution. This future will be made up of many sustainable solutions (some currently-available, some likely to be developed yet). Anyone that says we can get by with just wind energy is not being realistic. Yes, even nuclear can be a part of that overall solution.

And to the OP's claim that these systems must have a link to carbon-based fuel sources - I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps in the beginning, yes - but if all (or most) energy at some point comes from sustainable non-carbon-based energy sources, where is this linkage that the OP speaks of?


Also, and this is a personal opinion of mine, I actually like the view of wind turbines, especially in open farm land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 10:10 PM
 
514 posts, read 464,476 times
Reputation: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north View Post
Wind energy supporters constantly make excuses for these new invasions on the pretext of "clean, green and beautiful," pushing the limits of subjectivity to extremes. If you're tempted to compare coal mines to wind turbines (one scars the land, the other scars it and adds machines to it) you're missing the point. Wind farms cause damage above and beyond what already existed, and it's seen by a lot more people now.
Welcome to life with 7.5 BILLION humans who refuse to accept limitations of a sealed finite environment and continue reproducing exponentially. This country as recently as the year 1900 had only 75 million people, just 50 years later it doubed to 150 million, now it's over 321 million and no end in sight!
In 1800 there were just a few more people living in the entire country than live in greater NYC today alone, this unchecked exponential growth came with a huge pricetag- humans need SPACE, HOMES, VEHICLES, JOBS, RAW MATERIALS and produce waste products of all kinds that have to be disposed of.

It all takes ENERGY and that energy has to come from somewhere, either you burn things to get it, or you use wind/solar to get it- that's the choice.

With burning things you pollute the ground, AIR, water and everything else every minute it burns, with wind/solar you produce the machines and panels one time only, and then they are there producing clean power in exchange for 20, 30 years, maybe more.

Quote:
You'd think environmentalists would be concerned about all industrial impacts on nature, not just the obvious carbon-based ones, and wind turbines are heavily embedded in the carbon economy from the factory floor to the mountains and deserts they spoil. "100% renewable energy" is an unworkable concept without something like nuclear fusion. How can anyone build such large machines without intense fossil energy for metal-forming, transportation, road grading, timber cutting, cranes and all the rest?
They ARE, but HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH will always come with a cost- that's the cost- forests get destroyed for more housing tracts, more land has to be put aside for garbage dumps, more pollution is produced, more cars on the roads, more food needs to be grown, more utilities have to be connected and expanded to handle it.
Metals are recycled every day, the turbines's metal comes from recycled metals, if you want to talk transportation waste- just research how many 747 sized jets take off from airports every minute in this country, and how many massive ocean liners burning enormous amounts of fuel JUST to transport people from one place to another and back again, usually for frivolous temporary purposes like a sightseeing trip, a visit to grandma's 4 states over for Thanksgiving and so on- COMPLETELY WASTED!

The same fuel wasted on one 747 taking a load of passengers on a vacation trip could have been used to build wind turbines and solar panels that produce energy for DECADES pollution-free while they do it.

747's don't burn fuel by the gallon like cars, they calculate TONNAGE for the fuel tanks

The Boeing 747 burns approximately 10 to 11 tons of fuel an hour when in the cruise.


This equates to roughly 1 gallon of fuel every second. It can carry up to 63,032 gallons of fuel.

A jumbo jet (Boeing 747-400) flying from London to New York burns approximately 154,323 pounds of fuel.

Since there's 6.8 pounds of jet fuel per gallon, that's 22,694 gallons of fuel not only wasted but BURNED- polluting the air, JUST to move about 416 people from one location to another.

So as you can see, if you want to complain about how much energy is used transporting wind turbines or whatever, you'd do far better focus on air travel!

O'Hare airport has approximately 2,580 departures and arrivals a day alone, and that's just ONE airport!


This video shows how many commercial flights were in the air on just one day- 79,000 of them:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Gm2AokZRQ


Quote:
The nearly invisible Dakota Access Pipeline was a prime example of wind power hypocrisy (by virtue of protest numbers) though I didn't support it either.
Invisible oil pipelines LEAK eventually, and when they do they contaminate the soil, water and everything else. There is STILL oil found after Exxon Valdez all this time later, it never goes away.

Quote:
Supporters claim that all these landscapes, along with sweeping ocean views, "must" be sacrificed if we're to stop climate change and get off fossil fuels. They present wind power as inevitable, not optional (e.g. much more emphasis on solar PV) and they only provide speculation that any of it will really solve much. I consider those arguments aesthetically and morally bankrupt,
Climate change is not going to be stopped anyway, it will continue no matter what we do or don't do.
Admiral Peary kept extensive logs and photos of his arctic and Greenland explorations in the 19th century, he recorded week long storms with cold and wind in Greenland that had they had a windchill chart back then was off the chart colder than the -100º f it goes to. He also recorded in Northern Greenland some fossil remains of what was once a FOREST, that alone indicates that what is today covered with a 2 MILE thick ice sheet once had forests growing on it, and the climate there changed rapidly enough to leave tree stumps behind long enough to not rot away, but instead become petrified stone.
Greenland now is having unprecedented melting going on, the videos showing large "bottomless" holes in the ice with Niagra falls type melt water going into the abyss were never recorded during Admiral Peary's explorations


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc-xbCDzlkk



Quote:
and think we should do everything possible to limit the physical human footprint, not just the carbon one.
Then start with BIRTH CONTROL and ONE child per couple so the human population reduces year by year to half what it is today and all of these problems will fade away.
NOT having that 2nd kid means one whole house won't have to be built on former farm or forest land, one less car on the road, one less utility grid connection, tractor trailers full of food that won't need to be grown and transported.

NOT having that 2nd kid does WAY more positive things for the environment and everything else than any kind of recycling, turning thermostats down to save gas, or driving less ever could!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2017, 03:43 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
3,623 posts, read 1,398,769 times
Reputation: 8095
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post
..... we will run out of fossil fuels. That is a simple and undeniable fact. We need a sustainable long-term energy source, and wind is currently part of that.
Up until about 5 yrs ago, I too was quite concerned about the problem of "peak oil" and depletion of our petroleum stores. American agriculture could be described as the process of turning oil into food: energy is needed to turn N into fertiizer. Tractors are needed to produce industrial sized yields, trucks, planes & ships are needed to deliver that food and our oil reserves were estimated to be depleted in 100 yrs.

But then came fracking. We can now produce natural gas at competitive prices and that supply will last at least 600 yrs. NG can be used in place of gasoline with a simple change in carburation.

How many future generations are we responsible for? Should Columbus have been concerned about his impact on us, 500 yrs later?

To other posters concerned about population growth: there is no general population crisis: allowing 10 sq ft/ person, 12 B people could all tread water at the same time in Lake Superior, and 50% of our 7.5 B people live within 50 miles of an ocean ( ie- plenty of room)....the planet is 70% covered by water and reverse osmosis can produce plenty of fresh water (stupid "green" regulations prevent CA from doing it now. Israel does it and sells excess fresh water to the rest of the mid East.)...Africa could feed itself if simple things like sowing rows instead of broadcasting seed were done....I could go on & on debunking "over-population" myths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2017, 05:30 AM
 
Location: Central IL
16,405 posts, read 9,673,519 times
Reputation: 38837
Why is it okay to put up unsightly oil wells (and have oil slicks), okay to blast off mountain tops and tear down trees....but not okay to have wind turbines and solar farms? At least there is less to clean up afterwards!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2017, 11:37 AM
 
10,921 posts, read 5,438,158 times
Reputation: 4898
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Up until about 5 yrs ago, I too was quite concerned about the problem of "peak oil" and depletion of our petroleum stores. American agriculture could be described as the process of turning oil into food: energy is needed to turn N into fertiizer. Tractors are needed to produce industrial sized yields, trucks, planes & ships are needed to deliver that food and our oil reserves were estimated to be depleted in 100 yrs.

But then came fracking. We can now produce natural gas at competitive prices and that supply will last at least 600 yrs. NG can be used in place of gasoline with a simple change in carburation.

How many future generations are we responsible for? Should Columbus have been concerned about his impact on us, 500 yrs later?

To other posters concerned about population growth: there is no general population crisis: allowing 10 sq ft/ person, 12 B people could all tread water at the same time in Lake Superior, and 50% of our 7.5 B people live within 50 miles of an ocean ( ie- plenty of room)....the planet is 70% covered by water and reverse osmosis can produce plenty of fresh water (stupid "green" regulations prevent CA from doing it now. Israel does it and sells excess fresh water to the rest of the mid East.)...Africa could feed itself if simple things like sowing rows instead of broadcasting seed were done....I could go on & on debunking "over-population" myths.
I don't buy the line that we have hundreds of years of cheap-to-obtain and refine oil. But, sure, natural gas definitely could be a great energy source to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel-dependent world to sustainable energy world (something that won't happen overnight or without technology to bridge the gap). I'm personally not saying "no oil now!" - but I am saying we should prepare for that eventual future, and work towards that now.

To answer your question re: "how many future generations are we responsible for?": we should care about all future generations. I'm not sure why this is even a question. We should be good stewards of the world and leave our planet in better shape than we found it.


Even if we can continue to exploit oil/gas reservoirs for decades or even centuries - I'm not sure why we would want to when we have nearly-limitless amounts of sustainable energy available to use all day/every day. Sustainable energy sources are not a zero-impact energy source (outside of fusion, which doesn't exist in a manageable way with our current technology, no energy source is) - but they have less of an impact than fossil fuel energy sources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2017, 06:38 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
3,623 posts, read 1,398,769 times
Reputation: 8095
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18 View Post


To answer your question re: "how many future generations are we responsible for?": we should care about all future generations. I'm not sure why this is even a question. We should be good stewards of the world and leave our planet in better shape than we found it.


Even if we can continue to exploit oil/gas reservoirs for decades or even centuries - I'm not sure why we would want to when we have nearly-limitless amounts of sustainable energy available to use all day/every day. Sustainable energy sources are not a zero-impact energy source (outside of fusion, which doesn't exist in a manageable way with our current technology, no energy source is) - but they have less of an impact than fossil fuel energy sources.
Re: future generations-- Modern civilizations is dependent upon several natural resources that, even with focused attention to conservation, will sooner or later be depleted. Future generations will have to learn to do without. How will doing without on our part now benefit them?

Re: limitless energy-- not really. All engineering solutions require a compromise between conflicting factors-- risks (costs) vs benefits. Rare earths are required to build wind turbines-- not enough reserves to replace fossil fuel generated power with wind turbines....Solar panels take up natural habitat and loss of habitat is the biggest problem, barring none, facing Mother Nature. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/...ty-production/.... How should we handle this one?

It took us only 45 yrs to go from Einstein & Mme Curie to The Bomb and 65yrs from Kitty Hawk to The Moon. Cold fusion can't be far off (let's hope).

{OTOH-- it's been 45 yrs since we've been back to the moon, and nothing really new in nuclear energy in 60 yrs. Could it be we're finally at the upper asymptote of the logistic curve of human science and there will be little to no further advancement? }
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:11 AM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top