Topic: NIMBY vs. humanity's future (Read 238 times)

Usually wind turbines are prohibited because of birds. If they are to be placed on paths where some rare birds move they will not get permission to operate.  I guess long term main source of green energy will be solar.  but in parts of the world with not much sun only alternative will be nuclear power.  Of course right now we mainly have hydroplants, but their share will reduce with more and more need for energy.  Power from wind will always be irrelevant.

Wind can't completely replace NG power plants because of its intermittent nature so barring a major breakthrough in energy storage we will probably need at least the peak load natural gas power plants for a long time.

It is however price-competitive in some regions and can be installed in smaller capacities. And it's still evolving. There's some witchcraft with pitch control and remote wind gust sensors and radar and stuff like that, which allows raising capacity by reusing most of the existing infrastructure, not to mention just building larger towers and blades from some future magic materials. Combined cycle NG power plants can reach ~60% efficiency and that technology is quite old - probably not much room for improvement remains beyond that.

Still waiting for big boy nuclear to begun being used again. If everyone was able to think rationally we'd be able to have power for such a cheap cost it'd be disgusting, but no -- that's not going to happen ever since everyone watched that Netflix documentary about Chernobyl.

But here's some info on subsidies for different parts of the energy sector - https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/23/energy-subsidies-renewables-fossil-fuels/ - renewables have been risen and then fallen drastically over the last 10 or so years.

I'm not personally too sure on the claims of renewables (in your example, specifically wind) being able to compete with Natl Gas and so on. But yeah, seems like renewables are going to have to innovate b/c the tap on government money has stopped (and will most likely stay stopped if Trump stays in office)

Well I did provide a link already on how wind turbines actually start saving being a return on investment for CO2 emissions also. See: 

Like, yes, you're right. Producing anything right now draws a lot of energy from energy production facilities that are powered by fuels, and in doing so releases CO2. But wind turbines are more economical in the sense of CO2 released if you compare them with fuel. And by investing more in Green energy, in the future production will be less damaging to the environment.

This is the only way to also make electric cars environmentally viable. For example, electric cars make very little sense in a country where all of the electricity comes from fuel. The arrangement of batteries in an electric car already make it more damaging to the environment due to releasing more CO2. If its operation takes too long to start saving on CO2 emissions also compared to a conventional gas car, then it makes no sense environmentally. But more clean energy sources can shift this equation round and pave the way for a future with less emissions.

jetcash mindset

save the a few birds from being splat. instead make thousands of them radioactive and die from tumors

do you know that in the old days of coal mining. way way more then 6 birds died in coal mines a year. in a mine only making enough coal to power 1500 homes
.
these days the amount of animals killed in modern coal mining (just blowing up mountain tops) kills more animals than turbines

the amount of animals that get squished from the trucks removing waste nuclear material is not helpful
need we forget the amount of fish that get caught up in the vents of the water pipes used to cool down power stations/fill the steam pools

so again jetcash is saying save 6 birds. kill hundreds of fish and other creatures

i think jetcash has not really thought about his posts independantly and just grabbed whatever script he could find on his anti-technology website cults he visits.

jetcash seems to be very anti science. hating medication and technology by saying it destroys nature.. but never actually thinks what his solutions actually does to the 'nature' he pretends to want to protect

..
its like 5g. he goes to stupid sites that say 5g is bad.
but what if i told you that 5g is safe but there are certain international players that dont want UK/US to be tech savvi. dont want them to be on fast internet. so they create conspiracy sites to get uk/US citizens to fear technology and ask to not upgrade. and to stay in the stone age.
so that the real technologically savvi countries can overtake america/uk

..
so here is a conspiracy theory
what if the nigerian price scam artists. set up websites to cause debate in us/UK so that US/UK slow down their own progress. whilst africa overtakes uk/us progress
this also taps into the hints of nimbyism of racial divide in cities

Yes, the problem is hugely overstated. Painting the blades (or one blade) dramatically reduces the problem. Not that it is much of a problem anyway. Funny how no-one is suggesting banning pesticides. I suspect that the people who raise this as an issue are those who have a vested interest in 'traditional' energy sources.


https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm


^{[citation needed]}


Nuclear does have its benefits. One problem is that the climate crisis is worsening year by year. It is questionable whether we have time to build nuclear reactors - it's not a quick option.
On thorium specifically, I think it is over-hyped. Yes the thorium reaction does have the benefit of not producing any transuranics (the dangerous heavy stuff) so it is safer than normal nuclear reactors as regards long-term radioactivity. However it is more dangerous for short-term radioactivity as the cycle proceeds to thallium 208, which has nasty gamma emissions. Also thorium needs something like an extra 500C of heat to prepare the fuel.
Not saying thorium is terrible, just that it's not necessarily better than existing nuclear reactors. Plus the fact that it's not really a proven technology is a cause for concern.

22million transmission power line towers. is the equivalent of 2million wind turbines worth of steal

so only needing 500k wind turbines is 4x less steal than replacing traditional power lines

..
so wind turbines next to towns using underground lines
saves 4x as muc steal as #national grid' transmission towers
has only 0.6% of bird deaths compared to national grid transmission towers
and has 44x less physical objects obstructing views

I was going to post this, but u already did... Haha

Anyways Th needs safe handling and disposal too, so I'm a bit solar favoured guy...

AFAIK US federal subsidies for wind power are being phased out and even without subsidies wind farms are typically competitive with natural gas and cheaper than solar or coal.

Natural gas has subsidies too BTW. So much for free market.

Let the free market handle it and keep the government out of it..
I wonder how many government incentives and laws their are there making the wind turbines even remotely competitive..

Which would still require "dirty" metals from China for construction. Wind is clean and cheap once in operation and very very local. What else would you suggest?

Exactly.. The foundries to make the aluminum and metals in China where it is very cheap to make electricity burning the worst of dirty coal, and the electronics can be made there cheaply by taking advantage of child near slave labor, and they can just very cheaply dump the waste byproducts into a river so they don’t have any disposal fees..

Then ship the thing to California or wherever where electricity prices are through the roof, because of their laws and regulations against cheap energy..

You might be doing a lot more harm than good by not just using your local even marginally clean energy source..

BTW I understand the concerns about airborn particulates and pollution, but imo global warming being caused by CO2 is malarkey..

Take CO2 out of your equations for “clean energy” and then see what sort of “environmental damage” one causes vs the other..



“ At present, the global average of CO2 emissions for both virgin and recycled aluminium is 11.5 tons of CO2 per ton of aluminium.Apr 2, 2019“”
Compared to...
“ On average for 2018, 1.85 tonnes of CO2 were emitted for every tonne of steel produced.”

Making aluminum (turbines) creates a lot of CO2 anyway.. Just to smelt it, not to mention ship the ore/scrap, then raw material, the machines to form it into a blade, building those machines, shipping the product, etc..


It would be much more environmentally friendly just to make less stuff period, and only make things that will last a very long time and not just throwaway junk..

Its not so much you driving around and using electricity, it’s more about you buying loads of crap that you are just going to throw away soon anyway, that hurts the planet..

and 22million of these are better?

than 500k of these?



think about it driving down a long highway would you want to see just 1 windmill or 44 transmission towers

If they're paying off then they must be producing more energy than went into their manufacturing. I guess an exception is possible if the turbine is made somewhere where energy is very cheap and installed somewhere where (wholesale) energy is more expensive, in which case it would act like a giant battery transferring energy from one place to another.

I’m not super convinced that more energy comes out of these turbines than goes into manufacturing, erecting, and maintaining them tbh..

Like the theory of priuses doing more long term environmental damage than range rovers..

only 6 birds die a year per turbine

but there are more bird deaths per year from other causes

hitting a turbine causes an upward max estimate of 360k bird deaths a year
hitting a traditional power line kills 57mill a year
hitting a building causes 100m deaths a year

so instead of having millions of miles of power lines and just instead having turbines a couple miles from a town. will save millions of bird deaths

i know there are only 50k turbines. thus powering only ~75mill homes potentially
but to get to the ~150mill homes only needs 100k turbines
(more like 500k turbines if yo include office/public services, retail, industry,etc)

thus only kill about 3.6mill birds as oppose to 57m from old power plant transmission lines

imagine only 500k turbines and not 22million power transmission towers

It depends on where the wind farm is located. If it disturbs a major migration route or habitat the impact might be significant and extend beyond direct casualties. But usually those circumstances are evaluated quite early in the project. It sounds like in your case it was pure NIMBY indeed.


I have a feeling that if the OP brought this idea up in their town hall it wouldn't go over much better than the wind farm.


Raise herds of mountain sheep and goats? Not sure how to get to them to shear & milk them.

To put this out of the way, Greece is no desert. But even if it was attempted to turn more of the country's land into arable fields, it wouldn't be possible. Simply put, the country is very mountainous, and you need the right elevation & inclination for fields.

In regards to wind turbines, do you have any sources? Last time I had this discussion in another forum some links were shared that show quite the opposite.
For instance:
1 wind turbine can power 1500 houses.
Return of investment is from 1 year, lifespan is at 20.
Starts saving on greenhouse gases within the first year.

Now, I don't know about the impact on birds. But is this such an issue that would make the above unworthy of consideration?

Bird blenders ( sometimes called wind turbines) are damaging to the environment, and not all that cost effective if you take everything into consideration. If you really want low cost environmentally friendly power, then thorium reactors seem to be the best option. I understand this is the choice of India.

It would be better to try to improve the land, and that would probably increase your water supply as well as the economy.

Well yes, in my town the case was quite literally about being able to see the wind turbines. Greece has one of the lowest percentages of arable among all European countries.
We've got too many hills and mountains to spare. Places that are dry, with no one leaving on them, and not even any animals inhabiting them due to lack of vegetation. Greece could have more of its energy come from wind if this sector was developing faster. Right now much of the country's energy depends on foreign gas imports. Which is expensive, polluting and inefficient.

But sadly enough even being able to see wind Turbines from their home will make people complain and many projects had to shut down for that reason. Call vision field pollution if you like. This idiocy isn't limited to Greece sadly or not, I know that Germany has a large movement against the installation of wind turbines as well, probably other countries too. Their activism can be very vocal and they think they're helping too... I just wonder what it'll take to change these people's minds.