Wind turbines take a good bit to produce, alot of steel and alot of fossil fuels. Payback for the best areas is tangible though, in the not so great areas - not. I personally dont want to see a line of windmills on a ridge line. Id much rather that be solar. In many areas though, solar is not an option so now you are really going to need to start producing in the sunny states and transferring that power to the not so sunny states. The have and have nots. And that's where states will battle with each other to be autonomous in how they generate electricity.
Vestas has a solution for recycling wind turbine blades
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
How about all the trees on the ridgeline have burned or been killed by beetles due to climate change, and won't grow back? Better?
Be advised that bigger turbines have MUCH better payback and capacity factor. So all one needs to do to create confusion is cite numbers or surveys from 10+ years ago that say onshore wind has bad payback in a given location. In reality, onshore wind works great in MOST of the US at this point, and is stupid cheap in some areas.
In areas with poorer solar resource, cold winters and high population density (like the NorthEast)... offshore wind makes great sense. And can be built quite far out to sea.
C'mon woodgeek ! You're better than that!
You really don't believe that trees will never grow back , do you? Ever been to parts of Yellowstone Park (fires) or Black Hills S.D. (beetle kill) that was afflicted with the same conditions you mentioned? Quick turn around.
Yeah, put the wind farm way out to sea where no one can see them . 👍
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Trees can grow pretty close to a wind turbine. I saw it in person in Gorham NH. So the same Ridgeline being lost to build solar can grow back just like in your anecdote. You are clearly comfortable with fossil power plants near homes, but not windmills.
I am not an alarmist... global warming will be solved. But aesthetics might have to take a back seat when it comes to priorities. If your leg is broken, will you refuse a cast bc it might muss your pedicure?
And if the climate changes enough... all the animals in those parks will not be able to move to a suitable habitat, and then what? Even if some other tree species grow back, it will never be what it was.
You all beat up on YooperDave but he is right. Liberals are all for windmills and solar panels but they really don't like them near them. Here is my case and it's all over America. In liberal east side of Milwaukee , where my sister lives and was a liberal . She is for windmills , and when a proposal for windmills along Lake Michigan came up , they all went to the town board and screamed. They made it very clear they did not want them there, despite along Lake Michigan is a very good place to put them. They are all for putting 300 windmills out in the country, and they got their way even though the conservatives that live there did not want them. They demand they be there. A solar farm is also going up near me. It's in Lomira Wisconsin. The locals did't want them and the yard signs made it clear. Oh, to be clear though, a bunch did go up along Lake Michigan, in Upper Michigan, in the Garden Peninsula , again where most are conservative and locals likely didn't want them there neither. It would have been great to put up windmills near the city. A fraction of the lines would be needed and very little lost electricity from less distance. Lots of roofs in the city,,, nope , not many there neither. As for one guy telling me the fishing would be better is what us Germans in Wisconsin would say , " you are full of hops ".. Dams are very good for fish, and the presumption there would me more fish if it were not for coal burning plants " belching" black smoke is foolish . We have very few coal plants now and fishing is no better, no worse. So quit talking so foolish about pollution . My daughter lived in Taiwan for 3 yrs. On days when the wind came from China she showed me a pic of a 110 story building and you could hardly see it fro a block away and could not see it at all higher than 4 stories. All this " America pollutes more is BS. As for windmill blades , I think they should chop them up and put them under the concrete for stronger roads. If it works, they would suddenly be worth money.
Last edited:
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Just amazing how this thread has morphed from my asking why do wind turbine blades need to be replace into another completely different topic.
But, since the "global warming" can of worms has been opened.........
The earth is a living and constantly changing planet. Man will never change this. Who the heck do we think we are (humans) that we can actually control the climate as if it were controlled by a thermostat? Or, by raising taxes? Or by flying around on private jets from nation to nation and "harumphing" about what to do? How many of those "concerned" people live just as they preach?
Remember back in the early 90's (if you're old enough) when the cry was all about the rain forest depletion in south america? The trees were to be depleted in less than 10 years at which time we would all slowly die from lack of oxygen. And more recently, how the ploar ice caps would melt with 5-7 years? The sky is not falling. You have to admit, these same people are making a very fine living in the meantime. And the hypocrisy continues.
Think of all the changes the earth has gone through in the billions of years of it's existence.
Now ask yourself, did the earth do all of this evolving just to get to this point and then stop evolving? If you put those billions of years into a 12 hour time frame for earth, "modern man" shows up at about 1/10th of a second ago during that 12 hour life span.
Isn't it presumptive of us (humans) to assume that this is the way the planet is supposed to be forever? Does this constantly changing and evolving planet just suddenly stop evolving because man shows up? And do you really think what we do is going to change any of earth's evolution process?
I don't understand about the cast and pedicure statement....what man gets those anyway?
The point about the earth system and its changed is that the current changes are thousands of times faster than any natural changes in the billions of years history.
Evolution ("evolving") is slow. Too slow to keep up with the current pace.
And yes, we have changed the atmosphere. CO2 levels were below 300 ppm 350 years ago. Now they are above 400 ppm. And yes, those (ppm) are small numbers but a 33 percent increase is a large amount. And, as noted above, in an incredibly short timescale as compared to the characteristic time scale of earth changes.
And yes, it has been shown (proven, if you wish) that that CO2 in the air is from human activity due to fossil fuels. Simple carbon-13 physics.
Evolution ("evolving") is slow. Too slow to keep up with the current pace.
And yes, we have changed the atmosphere. CO2 levels were below 300 ppm 350 years ago. Now they are above 400 ppm. And yes, those (ppm) are small numbers but a 33 percent increase is a large amount. And, as noted above, in an incredibly short timescale as compared to the characteristic time scale of earth changes.
And yes, it has been shown (proven, if you wish) that that CO2 in the air is from human activity due to fossil fuels. Simple carbon-13 physics.
Maybe evolution of the planet is a poor description of how times can change. Consider a mere 10,000 years ago; an Ice age ended. Back in the 60's, "experts" were warning the world that we were about to enter another ice age. This too was believed by experts was based on their research of facts at the time.
But, all of the continual drum beating of the doom and gloom crowd warning of the planets meltdown now a days is just another form of hypocrisy IMO. What any of those SOB's use in energy/emission footprint is so much more damaging than either of us leave behind in haw many years? Where is their practice of clean and green?
Well, I beat the drum - but then again, I only pay for water, and some little oil to heat my hot water. The rest is trees that others wanted to cut down (from tree companies), and solar panels with minisplits.
And I drive a (yes, still ICE) car that gets me 40-42 mpg.
And my consumption of "stuff" is rather minimal (though slightly increasing with my kids entering the teenage years).
So, my footprint is quite low, and (thus?) I'm allowed to beat the drum
The rest is simple science. Again, 10000 years vs 350 (in fact less than that). And back then the CO2 concentration was about 200 ppm during ice ages, and 280 between. Now it's above 400, and that happened in the blink of an eye, on evolutionary (or geological!) timescales.
Evolution is the adaptation of living things. They can't keep up with this.
And I drive a (yes, still ICE) car that gets me 40-42 mpg.
And my consumption of "stuff" is rather minimal (though slightly increasing with my kids entering the teenage years).
So, my footprint is quite low, and (thus?) I'm allowed to beat the drum
The rest is simple science. Again, 10000 years vs 350 (in fact less than that). And back then the CO2 concentration was about 200 ppm during ice ages, and 280 between. Now it's above 400, and that happened in the blink of an eye, on evolutionary (or geological!) timescales.
Evolution is the adaptation of living things. They can't keep up with this.
The Bush jr. administration tried that, promoting "clean coal" plants that were going to spread across the nation in spite of that being an oxymoron. Then they started costing out the "FutureGen" showcase plant planned for Florida. As soon as the bills started coming in, the plant was canceled. But maybe a nuke plant in the upper peninsula would be a better idea? That's cool, just don't look at the bill.
While, this has a seed of truth, global warming of arctic ice could cause the ocean thermoclines could shut down which would bring a very rapid freeze to many northern latitude countries, it begs the question -Why go there to find out? This would be a sudden shift, not happening over decades or millennia. Are millions of lives lost worth the experiment?
It's like saying one chooses to ignore bad brakes on the car because sooner or later something will get in the way to stop the car. True, but not without some potentially dire consequences.
I think this is in response to my post, but you didn't quote it. If I'm wrong, disregard these comments.Well, I beat the drum - but then again, I only pay for water, and some little oil to heat my hot water. The rest is trees that others wanted to cut down (from tree companies), and solar panels with minisplits.
And I drive a (yes, still ICE) car that gets me 40-42 mpg.
And my consumption of "stuff" is rather minimal (though slightly increasing with my kids entering the teenage years).
So, my footprint is quite low, and (thus?) I'm allowed to beat the drum
Evolution is the adaptation of living things. They can't keep up with this.
The "drum beaters" I'm referring to are not you or me.....they are those who preach this endlessly for years on end but without doing anything to help the very process they preach.....while making more and more $$ from their actions.
Both you and I along with many others on this site have made decisions on whether to accept this hypocrisy or not. I choose not to and can tell when I am being subjected to the whims of others. They would be better off telling us from the get go "don't do as I do, do as I say" because that is all it boils down to. "Lead by example" would be most advantageous to them.
No oil used for heating water here; and no solar panels here either. Cost prohibitive and takes way too long for ROI this far north. My central AC is used maybe 2-3 times annually. I've got you beat in owning a MPG car. I have no troubles getting north of 45 per gallon all summer long and that thanks to ethanol free gasoline (that nasty hazardous fuel-hahaha)
You've got me beat with your lack of outside maintenance though. I have lawn and garden to maintain in summer months as well as snow removal during winter months....typically over 6 months annually. So, I guess I am also allowed to have an opinion.
Your "slight increase" in the "consumption of stuff" as your kids enter their teen years will increase more than slightly and will be worth twice any increase you feel. That empty nest is just around the corner.
The last statement you made is evolution can't keep up with us.
I remember when the world population surpassed 3 billion and the news it created. Last year it surpassed 8 billion. Seems the problem is too many people, no? And when do you think the powers that be will "address" that?
Makes you wonder just how sex-ed (planned parent hood) instituted 40 years ago is working out, no?
Sex ed worked. Most industrialized nations' populations are in decline but their population is small next to that of the larger developing nations like India.
Oh, I agree with the number of people.
But I also think that education you mention was successful, because the far far majority of those 5 billion are elsewhere. Our (nonimmigrant) growth rate is actually quite good for the earth.
However, given the 8 billion and given that I have kids and wish to leave the earth for them to live in, rather than be a bigger mess than when I came around, I try to consume less, put less CO2 in the air, and pollute less with other things. Just because I don't want to hear from them what a bunch of aholes our generation was that left them the mess they will be in in a few decades.
Millions of lives lost due to an experiment?
Are we speaking of the china flu shutdown that was nothing more than an experiment in what sheep will do? A virus created in a lab and leaked into general populace? Our nation (world) is still paying the price for the way it was handled.
And whoever thought moving infected people into rest homes/nursing homes where there was no exposure was a great idea? This after nationally televising that the elderly are at the highest risk for covid? The numbers of people that were killed by these insane nursing home decisions will forever remain buried.....
Regrettably, if the thermocline shuts down, the resulting lives lost could make the pandemic look like a picnic.
I look back at my former generation as the greatest ever lived. Thank them and never forget!
I look at today's generation and realize that none of them will have to worry about climate change.....they'll be too busy learning chinese as the new national language.
This was in reference to the post about previous ice ages. There is actually some science and observation behind this concern.
www.wgbh.org
It's hopefully a generation or two away, but not something to ignore.
People seem to have a big problem understanding long-term systems. If it is not an immediate threat, then they are easily distracted by the next media bubble. They come so frequently now that everything is a distraction from human planetary impacts. This may be quite intentional.
We've Known For Years Global Warming Could Lead To A New Ice Age. Why Is No One Doing Anything?
There is media coverage, but the powerful don't act.
www.wgbh.org
A major Atlantic current is at a critical transition point
New evidence suggests that the larger system the Gulf Stream is part of, called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), is approaching a tipping point that could cause dramatic shifts in global weather patterns.
www.pbs.org
So, a mistake made (because the nursing home issue WAS a major, life costing mistake), is a good reason to make new mistakes? Is that what you are trying to say?
Similar threads
