Accidents involving blades made by GE Vernova have delayed projects off the coasts of Massachusetts and England, could imperil climate goals.

[JBG]

Broken Blades, Angry Fishermen and Rising Costs Slow Offshore Wind;​

Accidents involving blades made by GE Vernova have delayed projects off the coasts of Massachusetts and England and could imperil climate goals. (link)

Seems like the people "tilting at windmills" have a point; the "Green" movement can do a lot of damage. Excerpt:

The collapse of a giant wind turbine blade off the Massachusetts coast confirmed Peter Kaizer’s worst fears about the dangers a new clean energy business could pose to fishermen like him.
Jagged pieces of fiberglass and other materials from the shattered blade drifted with the tide, forcing officials to close beaches on Nantucket and leaving Mr. Kaizer worried about the threat the fragments might pose to his vessel and other fishing boats, especially at night when the debris would be harder to avoid.
“All these small boats could be subject to damage,” Mr. Kaizer said. “Everyone wants this green legacy, but at the cost of what?”
The blade, which was more than 300 feet long, failed in July, but the repercussions are still unfolding at the $4 billion project that it came from — Vineyard Wind 1. Developers had hoped to finish the project this summer, making it the first large-scale wind farm completed in U.S. waters, but now that goal will take a lot longer than expected.

Now, the New York Times is no "denier" rag; quite the contrary. It seems like the spears thrown by "deniers" who "tilt at windows" were not being quixotic at all; frankly the have been right. In this manic race to meet a 2035 deadline of being "carbon neutral" we are destroying much of what nature has to offer. What a pity.

Or is this beside the point? See Warming Alarmists Again Give Away Their Real Objective (link). Maybe, just maybe, the "activists" want the alternative sources of energy to be unworkable. They can't openly say they want to restrict lifestyles; that news has to be broken slowly.

 

[dmpi]

I understand bigger is more efficient but the size of these monsters are just huge and they're an eyesore that you can see from miles away. Considering the underwater noise, the attack on sea birds, and now this bring the whole carbon neutral idea into question.

 

[JBG]

I understand bigger is more efficient but the size of these monsters are just huge and they're an eyesore that you can see from likes away. Considering the underwater noise, the attack on sea birds, and now this bring the whole carbon neutral idea into question.

Sure does.

 

[Slavister]

Yeah, because fossil fuel plants, equipment and infastructure never breaks!

P.S. Oh, and so lovely to look at!

 

[longview]

Wind power in it's current design was always questionable.
Beyond the feel good Rah, Rah, Rah, are some very real statistics, and they do not look good.
Quantifying the hurricane risk to offshore wind turbines

In the most vulnerable areas now being actively considered by developers, nearly half the turbines in a farm are likely to be destroyed in a 20-y period.

Having designed and developed equipment for the offshore environment, it is quite harsh.
The saying is that everything rusts rots, or molds, but that doesn't cover the environmental range
of all the things that can happen in the offshore environment.
These numbers have not escaped the developers ether.
Avangrid asks to renegotiate contract prices for Mass. offshore wind project

" Avangrid said in its request. "As a result, the project is no longer viable and would not be able to move forward absent amendments to the PPAs."

The PPAs are with the Massachusetts distribution utilities of Eversource Energy, National Grid PLC and Unitil Corp. They set an energy price of $47.68/MWh for the first year, which would escalate to $76.22/MWh in the project's 20th year, according to state filings. And they set renewable energy credit prices at $11.92/REC for the first year, escalating to $19.06/REC in the 20th year.

To justify the higher risks, they have to increase what they get paid for the electricity sold.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Those who champion such projects are fools. We already have a bad history with wind farms. Will the insanity ever stop?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Broken Blades, Angry Fishermen and Rising Costs Slow Offshore Wind;​

Accidents involving blades made by GE Vernova have delayed projects off the coasts of Massachusetts and England and could imperil climate goals. (link)

Seems like the people "tilting at windmills" have a point; the "Green" movement can do a lot of damage. Excerpt:

Now, the New York Times is no "denier" rag; quite the contrary. It seems like the spears thrown by "deniers" who "tilt at windows" were not being quixotic at all; frankly the have been right. In this manic race to meet a 2035 deadline of being "carbon neutral" we are destroying much of what nature has to offer. What a pity.

Or is this beside the point? See Warming Alarmists Again Give Away Their Real Objective (link). Maybe, just maybe, the "activists" want the alternative sources of energy to be unworkable. They can't openly say they want to restrict lifestyles; that news has to be broken slowly.

I oppose wind turbines as a source of energy production.

1. They kill birds. (It can be projected that approximately 681,000 birds are currently killed by wind turbines in the U.S. each year.) https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
2. They fail frequently requiring constant maintenance. https://hbr.org/2024/02/the-long-term-costs-of-wind-turbines
3. They are an environmental eyesore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power
4. They take up lots of land. https://hbr.org/2024/02/the-long-term-costs-of-wind-turbines

I prefer Nuclear power, and natural oil and gas.

 

[JBG]

I oppose wind turbines as a source of energy production.

1. They kill birds. (It can be projected that approximately 681,000 birds are currently killed by wind turbines in the U.S. each year.) https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
2. They fail frequently requiring constant maintenance. https://hbr.org/2024/02/the-long-term-costs-of-wind-turbines
3. They are an environmental eyesore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power
4. They take up lots of land. https://hbr.org/2024/02/the-long-term-costs-of-wind-turbines

I prefer Nuclear power, and natural oil and gas.

So do I. The activists want us in soft lockdown. Witness the bitterness when oil price controls were lifted (suddenly abundant supply and falling prices) and when Covid regulations were eased and then scrapped. Abbott and DeSantis were called "savage" in the process.

 

[Deuce]

Broken Blades, Angry Fishermen and Rising Costs Slow Offshore Wind;​

Accidents involving blades made by GE Vernova have delayed projects off the coasts of Massachusetts and England and could imperil climate goals. (link)

Seems like the people "tilting at windmills" have a point; the "Green" movement can do a lot of damage. Excerpt:

Now, the New York Times is no "denier" rag; quite the contrary. It seems like the spears thrown by "deniers" who "tilt at windows" were not being quixotic at all; frankly the have been right. In this manic race to meet a 2035 deadline of being "carbon neutral" we are destroying much of what nature has to offer. What a pity.

Or is this beside the point? See Warming Alarmists Again Give Away Their Real Objective (link). Maybe, just maybe, the "activists" want the alternative sources of energy to be unworkable. They can't openly say they want to restrict lifestyles; that news has to be broken slowly.

Very rarely some debris might fall into the ocean from a blade failure, and you're scared of the danger of *checks notes* closing a beach, maybe. Meanwhile, you'll live downwind of a coal plant.

 

[Deuce]

I oppose wind turbines as a source of energy production.

1. They kill birds. (It can be projected that approximately 681,000 birds are currently killed by wind turbines in the U.S. each year.) https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/

Cats kill, literally, thousands of times as many.

2. They fail frequently requiring constant maintenance. https://hbr.org/2024/02/the-long-term-costs-of-wind-turbines

Literally every power source requires maintenance

3. They are an environmental eyesore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power

"Eyesore" is not an environmental concern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power

4. They take up lots of land. https://hbr.org/2024/02/the-long-term-costs-of-wind-turbines

I prefer Nuclear power, and natural oil and gas.

Oil and gas destroy land.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Cats kill, literally, thousands of times as many.


Literally every power source requires maintenance

"Eyesore" is not an environmental concern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power

Oil and gas destroy land.

The argument is not against common birds. It is against the larger birds that are on the endangered species list.

Why does this have to be repeated every time it comes up?

It this attempt to minimize the death of endangered species by ignorance or intellectual deception? Either way, it looks bad for everyone trying to side-tract from the facts.

 

[JBG]

"Eyesore" is not an environmental concern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power

Why not? Would we allow them in Yellowstone?

 

[Deuce]

Why not? Would we allow them in Yellowstone?

...do you think that is the only criteria for Yellowstone? I don't understand your comparison.

 

[JBG]

...do you think that is the only criteria for Yellowstone? I don't understand your comparison.

You are playing dumb, unless you really are.

 

[Roadvirus]

Put wind & solar farms in/around junkyards and landfills. Problem solved.

 

[Deuce]

You are playing dumb, unless you really are.

There are a dozen different reasons not to build wind turbines in Yellowstone that are unrelated to "is an eyesore."

"It's ugly, therefore it harms the environment" is not an argument that makes any sense to me.

 

[CLAX1911]

Broken Blades, Angry Fishermen and Rising Costs Slow Offshore Wind;​

Accidents involving blades made by GE Vernova have delayed projects off the coasts of Massachusetts and England and could imperil climate goals. (link)

Seems like the people "tilting at windmills" have a point; the "Green" movement can do a lot of damage. Excerpt:

Now, the New York Times is no "denier" rag; quite the contrary. It seems like the spears thrown by "deniers" who "tilt at windows" were not being quixotic at all; frankly the have been right. In this manic race to meet a 2035 deadline of being "carbon neutral" we are destroying much of what nature has to offer. What a pity.

Or is this beside the point? See Warming Alarmists Again Give Away Their Real Objective (link). Maybe, just maybe, the "activists" want the alternative sources of energy to be unworkable. They can't openly say they want to restrict lifestyles; that news has to be broken slowly.

I would argue the only way to be carbon neutral is to exterminate all life on the planet.

100% of all life is carbon-based to neutralize that you have to exterminate it.

 

[JBG]

I would argue the only way to be carbon neutral is to exterminate all life on the planet.

100% of all life is carbon-based to neutralize that you have to exterminate it.

Ever read the Club of Rome report?

 

[CLAX1911]

Ever read the Club of Rome report?

I have not.

 

[JBG]

I have not.

Basically, it was a report, by a bunch of hoity-toity academics in the late 1960s in early 1970s, based out of MIT, to the effect that they need to be radical reductions and consumption, and major limits to population. Otherwise, the planet would be doomed.obviously, its authors did not not intend the restricted parties to be themselves. The report was popularly called “limits to growth.” It is easily findable on Google.

Obviously, it’s authors did not intend the restricted parties to be themselves. They were far too valuable for that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Basically, it was a report, by a bunch of hoity-toity academics in the late 1960s in early 1970s, based out of MIT, to the effect that they need to be radical reductions and consumption, and major limits to population. Otherwise, the planet would be doomed.obviously, its authors did not not intend the restricted parties to be themselves. The report was popularly called “limits to growth.” It is easily findable on Google.

Obviously, it’s authors did not intend the restricted parties to be themselves. They were far too valuable for that.

Sounds like what the UN is trying to do to us with this Climate Change scare.

 

[CLAX1911]

Basically, it was a report, by a bunch of hoity-toity academics in the late 1960s in early 1970s, based out of MIT, to the effect that they need to be radical reductions and consumption, and major limits to population. Otherwise, the planet would be doomed.obviously, its authors did not not intend the restricted parties to be themselves. The report was popularly called “limits to growth.” It is easily findable on Google.

Obviously, it’s authors did not intend the restricted parties to be themselves. They were far too valuable for that.

Interesting I'll look it up sounds like an interesting read.

 

[CLAX1911]

Basically, it was a report, by a bunch of hoity-toity academics in the late 1960s in early 1970s, based out of MIT, to the effect that they need to be radical reductions and consumption, and major limits to population. Otherwise, the planet would be doomed.obviously, its authors did not not intend the restricted parties to be themselves. The report was popularly called “limits to growth.” It is easily findable on Google.

Obviously, it’s authors did not intend the restricted parties to be themselves. They were far too valuable for that.

Wow I've been digging around looking at various things about it and I'm surprised how many people's view it as gospel.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wow I've been digging around looking at various things about it and I'm surprised how many people's view it as gospel.

I can understand the sentiment, but what they are not considering, is how resourceful we are.

 

[CLAX1911]

I can understand the sentiment, but what they are not considering, is how resourceful we are.

Something about academic types is they always think they're smarter than they really are and that causes them to underestimate everyone else.

It's like the thing with the battery I'm not smarter than anyone else because I understand how it works I just found out of curiosity. A lot of academics tend to be incurious. They tend to only respect others in their echelon. I've heard this labeled as cathedral thinkinof

They'll even announce the cathedral there is a consensus among the cathed... um I mean I mean learned people. Um climate scientists yeah.

every one outside of the cathedral is a hectic. I consider this anti-science.