Wind Energy at the Crossroad

Wind energy is not a future resource, it is here now.
There is no question that it will be a primary part of our energy mix in the future. The only question is, will we build those millions of turbines here in the US, or will we concede the growth industry of the 21st century to our competitors.


Cost of Wind Energy dropping
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012...
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/wi...
http://www.windpowerengineering.com/c...

PTC bipartisan support
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...

Lester Brown on Wind Power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZsdDL...

Lester Brown on the end of coal
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/01/04/l...

2010 Wind Market report - US DOE
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs...

Catch this and other science vids at Glimpse Science Network
http://glimpsescience.net/

• Category

  Science & Technology

[Antithropocentric]

"The only question is, will we build those MILLIONS of turbines here in the US, or will we concede the growth industry of the 21st century to our competitors."

Translation: Are pseudo-environmentalists willing to visually (and sonically) trash millions of acres with 400-foot industrial towers just because they don't directly burn fossil fuels? (After they're constructed, that is.)

I find it baffling that people calling themselves "green" are willing to destroy so many natural, peaceful vistas.

[greenman3610]

as if trolls like yourself give a damn about any vistas, natural or otherwise. 

[Antithropocentric]

Tell us exactly which yistas YOU care about if you're willing to see millions of these skyscrapers installed? There is no way around the fact that they industrialize landscapes. What exactly is "the environment" if it doesn't include the land itself?

People getting (faux) "clean" electricity is not automatically an "environmental" goal just because it might replace fossil fuel power, and wind turbines have yet to displace other power plants, since they need constant backup.

[greenman3610]

all forms of energy need constant back up. If your gigawatt coal plant goes down, as they sometimes do, you need backup. In fact, all utilities are required to have a certain percentage at all times.

this is discussed in another video

watch?v=llIbjC49Fjs

As more wind, solar and other renewables come on line, they will support each other and gradually phase out fossil fuels. This is already happening in countries like Scotland and Germany.

[Antithropocentric]

Again, you're ignoring the point about loss of landscapes.

Speaking of Germany, a good number of people (not AGW deniers) were so annoyed with the blight that they wrote the "Darmstadt Manifesto" back in 1998 but the blight just keeps growing.

Germany shows what the U.S. should NOT strive to look like. The Scots are also tired of industrial blight on iconic landscapes.

I think the word "denial" applies to wind power as much as AGW. Wind energy is deeply flawed if giant turbines prevail.

[greenman3610]

72 percent of Germans supported move to renewable energy in a fall 2012 poll. They are obviously sensible people - they still have an anti science movement, but not as strong as in the US.

BTW, as to landscapes, google "fracking", "Mountain top removal" and "tar sands", then check "images".

[Antithropocentric]

I'd bet that pro-turbine Germans are mostly insulated from the daily sight of them, living in cities vs. rural areas where the turbines tower over old vistas. It has many elements of classic urban vs. rural snobbery.

But don't mistake me for an American style sagebrush rebel. I simply like open space without human trappings all over it. Unfettered land is essential for keeping life interesting. Taming everything with man-made chattel is depressing to me.

[Antithropocentric]

I fully agree with you about coal mining and fracking. But wind turbines don't replace that blight, they ADD to it, don't you see? Think about your logic there. Man's total footprint is my concern.

If you ever drive in the region near the Columbia River in eastern Oregon/Washington, you'll see firsthand how landscapes can be decimated by wind turbines. Pleasant rolling hills are taking on the look of Coney Island. The scale of it really has to be seen to be appreciated. That's just one example.

[potalky lenard]

Green energy -Newton was wrong granted, all who show machines with no plans =fake all who have plans and (of course) no machine fake this one has video, math in description and all specs measured in front of you in the film and no money it is free information all on the video and a 16 year old could build it ABOUTSOLARCELLS.COMXA.COM

[Antithropocentric]

My points are widely discussed but all you can do is use the "troll" word? You make no attempt to address the aesthetic problems, which you must know are a big deal. That's "green blindness."

In general, if "green" values are to be widely accepted, one must be objective on all fronts. Solar panels on every possible existing roof make a lot more sense, pragmatically and aesthetically.

I think large wind turbines are a case of "let's do it because we can" not because it's been well thought out.

[Antithropocentric]

Of course I give a damn about vistas! If these things were 1/10th of their scale and only placed in already-developed zones, I (and many others) would have much less of a problem with them.

But people tend to favor grandiose proportions at the expense of aesthetics, so the trend was unavoidable. Yes, I know it makes them more efficient, but that's not the only reason for doing something or not doing it. Nature is being literally "thrown under the blades" for the sake of these skyscrapers.