• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wind farms will cause more environmental impact than previously thought (1 Viewer)

apdst said:
All I could do was laugh when I read this...

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
Click to expand...


In two papers — published today in the journals Environmental Research Letters and Joule — Harvard University researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius.

“Wind beats coal by any environmental measure, but that doesn’t mean that its impacts are negligible,” said David Keith, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and senior author of the papers. “We must quickly transition away from fossil fuels to stop carbon emissions. In doing so, we must make choices between various low-carbon technologies, all of which have some social and environmental impacts.”
Click to expand...

Miller and Keith are quick to point out the unlikeliness of the U.S. generating as much wind power as they simulate in their scenario, but localized warming occurs in even smaller projections. The follow-on question is then to understand when the growing benefits of reducing emissions are roughly equal to the near-instantaneous impacts of wind power.
Click to expand...


underscore:

“Wind beats coal by any environmental measure ..."
 
Amelia said:
underscore:

“Wind beats coal by any environmental measure ..."
Click to expand...

Except, we need 100 times the acerage to build wind farms. That's approximately 8.5 million acres, just for wind farms.
 
apdst said:
Except, we need 100 times the acerage to build wind farms. That's approximately 8.5 million acres, just for wind farms.
Click to expand...


Which won't happen, which is why the researchers say it's unlikely that we'll ever have enough wind power to raise the temperature by that potential 0.24 degrees Celsius.

So that's why they say that people need to consider localized effects of so much windpower, since there will probably only ever be localized effects.
 
Edit: 100 times? Where did that figure come from. I saw a lower though still substantial figure. But either way it won't happen. So the rest of the post still follows.
 
Amelia said:
Which won't happen, which is why the researchers say it's unlikely that we'll ever have enough wind power to raise the temperature by that potential 0.24 degrees Celsius.

So that's why they say that people need to consider localized effects of so much windpower, since there will probably only ever be localized effects.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's a gigantic waste of taxpayer money.
 
Amelia said:
Edit: 100 times? Where did that figure come from. I saw a lower though still substantial figure. But either way it won't happen. So the rest of the post still follows.
Click to expand...

Right, 20 times. My mistake.

That's 1.7 million acres...still ain't gona happen.
 
apdst said:
Which is why it's a gigantic waste of taxpayer money.
Click to expand...

What? Windfarms will never take over the U.S. and they will raise local temperatures marginally and that's why they're a gigantic waste of taxpayer money?


Bzzzt. No. You saw or heard a headline which gave you an orgiastic dose of schadenfreude. The details don't match your level of glee. The report is just a warning that everything comes with a cost. We still need to consider alternative forms of energy, weighing the pros and cons, and wind power will stay PART of the solution for the foreseeable future.
 
Amelia said:
What? Windfarms will never take over the U.S. and they will raise local temperatures marginally and that's why they're a gigantic waste of taxpayer money?


Bzzzt. No. You saw or heard a headline which gave you an orgiastic dose of schadenfreude. The details don't match your level of glee. The report is just a warning that everything comes with a cost. We still need to consider alternative forms of energy, weighing the pros and cons, and wind power will stay PART of the solution for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

Windmills won't pay for themselves.
 
apdst said:
Right, 20 times. My mistake.

That's 1.7 million acres...still ain't gona happen.
Click to expand...


Right. It won't happen. We will have small concentrations of wind farms as part of our energy solutions. And the U.S. won't see the .24 degree warming effect which might have come from that. Still, those smaller areas where the concentrations might occur still need to add the slight warming effect to their lists of pros and cons.
 
apdst said:
Windmills won't pay for themselves.
Click to expand...


Nothing is free. These researchers are pointing out another factor to consider when deciding the best way to spend taxpayer money or socially responsible corporate money. They did not give grounds for the conclusion that windfarms are a waste of taxpayer money.

Maybe you have other material to support that claim. The newly released article which you cited does not though.
 
Amelia said:
Nothing is free. These researchers are pointing out another factor to consider when deciding the best way to spend taxpayer money or socially responsible corporate money. They did not give grounds for the conclusion that windfarms are a waste of taxpayer money.

Maybe you have other material to support that claim. The newly released article which you cited does not though.
Click to expand...

Nothing is free, but industries that never create a profit are unsustainable.

Wind turbines can?t pay for themselves - News - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL
 
Rogue Valley said:
The coal mining industry has been unprofitable for at least a decade. That is why the coal barons need Trump subsidy money and pollution deregulation.
Click to expand...

That's because of government regulations. Wind has more support than any other industry and still can't turn a profit.
 
apdst said:
Except, we need 100 times the acerage to build wind farms. That's approximately 8.5 million acres, just for wind farms.
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that wind farms need exclusive space.

Let me correct that idiotic position.

I’ll make it easier for you and just show pictures.

09820379352003d93e936d8e69df7c5f.jpg


09cf2df0a42914f43efd6d3d640a729a.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
You seem to be under the impression that wind farms need exclusive space.

Let me correct that idiotic position.

I’ll make it easier for you and just show pictures.

09820379352003d93e936d8e69df7c5f.jpg


09cf2df0a42914f43efd6d3d640a729a.jpg
Click to expand...

Wind farms must be built where the wind blows at the appropriate rate; not too fast, not to slow.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah.

And in case you didn’t know... that’s in the air. Above the previous acreage you think we are losing.
Click to expand...

Let me help you out. The green areas aren't suited for wind turbine generators.
 

Attachments

  • wind_power_potential_usa_map.jpg
    wind_power_potential_usa_map.jpg
    56.3 KB · Views: 88
Amelia said:
Which won't happen, which is why the researchers say it's unlikely that we'll ever have enough wind power to raise the temperature by that potential 0.24 degrees Celsius.

So that's why they say that people need to consider localized effects of so much windpower, since there will probably only ever be localized effects.
Click to expand...

The stupid assumptions are on parade in the OP...no one, including Harvard, claimed that we had to rely solely on wind power. They were modeling that, but nobody's recommending that. There's no reason to believe we need to rely on any single source of power...we have many options.

We are moving towards more solar power (which even works here in the cloudy Pac NW) and better batteries/storage. Wind farms are a good interim measure, as they dont destroy their local environment...except for roads. They can be removed in the future.
 
apdst said:
Let me help you out. The green areas aren't suited for wind turbine generators.
Click to expand...

Except they're all over eastern Washington State...and OR and CA. Sooooo, so much for your map.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom