Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iReality85

macrumors 65816
Apr 29, 2008
1,107
2,380
Upstate NY
Can these be placed out in the water since, it seems, they aren't friendly to the land?

Like this?

(That’s off the coast of Massachusetts)

shutterstock_1175414737.jpg
 

mudflap

macrumors 6502a
Aug 24, 2007
532
984
Chicago
This.

People thinking they're saving the environment driving electric vehicles, meanwhile adding 4800KW a day to coal-fired emissions are just plain stupid.

Climate change is really about government control, otherwise they would understand that at this moment we could do away with coal plants in entirety and use pure nuclear energy (put the plants in safe places away from earthquake zones and tsunami zones). This would drastically reduce emissions, probably make electricity cheaper in the long run, and encourage more electric vehicle adoption.

They're not stupid. It depends on the state you live in. If you live in a state that uses primarily coal for power than yeah, you're not helping the environment at all. But if you live in a state that uses renewable energy (I'm in Illinois and I switched my electric supply to 100% renewable) you're literally helping save the planet.

Nuclear energy is super cool until something 'splodes.
 

Glockworkorange

Suspended
Feb 10, 2015
2,511
4,184
Chicago, Illinois
Agree
This.

People thinking they're saving the environment driving electric vehicles, meanwhile adding 4800KW a day to coal-fired emissions are just plain stupid.

Climate change is really about government control, otherwise they would understand that at this moment we could do away with coal plants in entirety and use pure nuclear energy (put the plants in safe places away from earthquake zones and tsunami zones). This would drastically reduce emissions, probably make electricity cheaper in the long run, and encourage more electric vehicle adoption.
agree 100%. Is it a crisis? Don’t know, but if it is, and I will say it is for the sake of argument, start using nuclear right now. Really, no time to waste and all that. Forget accords and agreements—start doing something. Now. Going nuclear will do a hell of a lot more than 12-year-old crossing the Atlantic in a friggin rowboat. Or whatever.
 

RevTEG

macrumors 65816
Oct 28, 2012
1,345
1,188
San Jose, Ca
I’m all for clean renewable energy. However, it cost more money and energy to process, build, ship and maintain each of these windmills than they produce or save. I don‘t have all the answers but windmills isn‘t it.

We have them all around the Bay Area, Ca where I live... They just don‘t really make changes needed.
 

Glockworkorange

Suspended
Feb 10, 2015
2,511
4,184
Chicago, Illinois
They're not stupid. It depends on the state you live in. If you live in a state that uses primarily coal for power than yeah, you're not helping the environment at all. But if you live in a state that uses renewable energy (I'm in Illinois and I switched my electric supply to 100% renewable) you're literally helping save the planet.

Nuclear energy is super cool until something 'splodes.
I’m in Illinois. I believe we have a functioning plant in Zion. The odds of it “exploding “ are slim. If climate is such a crisis, go nuclear. There is literally no time to waste, right? RIGHT?
 

mattster16

macrumors 6502a
Apr 18, 2004
743
489
Also - wind turbines cause cancer - Trump said so. Why aren't we talking about this!? Cancer is way worse than dead birds, in my opinion.
[automerge]1569342726[/automerge]
I’m all for clean renewable energy. However, it cost more money and energy to process, build, ship and maintain each of these windmills than they produce or save.

Nope. https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/ (Not the most reputable website since I've never heard of it, but they do have links to the info they use to come to their conclusion.)
 
Last edited:

brinary001

Suspended
Sep 4, 2012
991
1,134
Midwest, USA
That's a different topic, and they are all problems that need to be resolved. Just don't sell utopia. Wind farms are a big problem for birds.
And the earth warming is a big problem for us... Don't get me wrong I like birds, but not so much that they can't take one for the team in order for us to continue our species.
 

mikethemartian

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2017
1,483
2,239
Melbourne, FL
Please, don't give me that cats thing which is utter BS. of course 300,000 static wind turbines kill less than 700,000,000 cats. Also, that's like saying that violent crime is not a problem because it kills less than car accidents (and for cats birds are mainly food).

And no, it's not the coal industry that I am looking at. I am looking at Smithsonian, Audubon Society, NatGeo and so on, that is environmental friendly sources. It's a carnage.




Are you a vegan?
 

citysnaps

macrumors G4
Oct 10, 2011
11,781
25,517
Why the F is Apple not doing this in California?!?

First...you may not be aware Apple does not manufacture its computers and devices in California. Their investment in China being for their manufacturing partners.

Second...Apple has invested close to $1 billion in a solar farm that produces 280 megawatts of power in Monterey County.

Apple has also invested in solar projects in other states to support their operations. In 2018 Apple installed 400 megawatts of solar, leading all other US companies.
 
Last edited:

JGIGS

macrumors 68000
Jan 1, 2008
1,817
2,073
CANADA!
Please, don't give me that cats thing which is utter BS. of course 300,000 static wind turbines kill less than 700,000,000 cats. Also, that's like saying that violent crime is not a problem because it kills less than car accidents (and for cats birds are mainly food).

And no, it's not the coal industry that I am looking at. I am looking at Smithsonian, Audubon Society, NatGeo and so on, that is environmental friendly sources. It's a carnage.





I'm concerned as a Raptors fan that 83k of us got killed by turbines.

On a serious note if we don't do anything about climate change will there be any birds that can live on earth eventually? Catch 22?

Maybe one day we can figure out how to more effectively harness all the energy blasting at us from that big yellow thing in the sky. Even the new form of nuclear energy with these little balls instead of rods that prevent any possibility of a meltdown would work as well? Stop breeding and eating the amount of cows we do?

All I know is if things don't change quick it's bad news.
 

mudflap

macrumors 6502a
Aug 24, 2007
532
984
Chicago
I’m in Illinois. I believe we have a functioning plant in Zion. The odds of it “exploding “ are slim. If climate is such a crisis, go nuclear. There is literally no time to waste, right? RIGHT?

It is a crisis. But why go nuclear when we can go wind, solar, hydro? No chance of another Three Mile Island. Nuclear is bigger than us and we still have no idea how to make it 100% safe. Until we do, I'm not interested.
 

LordVic

Cancelled
Sep 7, 2011
5,938
12,458
Not wind farms, they are slaughtering birds to an unprecedented level.

no, this is unfounded fear mongering.

Noise pollution.
Also unfounded fear mongering that is not true: https://www.ge.com/reports/post/92442325225/how-loud-is-a-wind-turbine/

Most of the complaints people have against Wind Turbines are bull. They're misinterpretted information to try and push against change / progress.

it reminds me when my family moved near some hydro towers. My mother asked my uncle (who worked for the hydro company as a top level engineer) whether or not it was safe to live that close

My uncle responded with "it's safer than having an alarm clock next to your bed"...

We grew up without alarm clocks allowed on our bedside tables!

How this is relevant: We are taking statements and potential issues as a "we must stop everything"...

the fact someone in here alone said that wind power was the worst form of energy production, because of "noise" when you can compare to just about all the coal, gas, oil, burnign plants and what they do shows the level of hyperbolic nonsense people who are fundamentally against green energy are always going to resort to.

it's why these sorts of nonsense should be ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JosephAW

elvislives

macrumors 6502
Mar 28, 2011
315
311
London
That's a different topic, and they are all problems that need to be resolved. Just don't sell utopia. Wind farms are a big problem for birds.
You understand that the will be no life left if we keep on the path we are on. Wind, Solar, Tidal etc will all help us get out of this mess.
 

mikethemartian

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2017
1,483
2,239
Melbourne, FL
I remember a Sixty Minutes Story about a U.S. Wind Turbine company that had minimal growth. Then China came knocking and their growth was immense. They built large warehouses for their new needs. Then China stole the tech inside the turbines and left him high and dry.

I wonder who's technology is in those turbines.?.
I would think that it would have been easier and cheaper just to buy the company when it was still small.
 

mikethemartian

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2017
1,483
2,239
Melbourne, FL
Honestly interested, do you have a reliable source for this statement? If not, it's not a problem.

Just a “back of the envelope” calculation would probably support that more birds are killed by deforestation than windmills considering the density of birds in a forested area is much higher than a windmill farm.
 

Raid

macrumors 68020
Feb 18, 2003
2,155
4,588
Toronto
While one would hope the investment in 'green energy' products be tested and developed domestically, right now the lack of international action makes any tiny step appreciated.

Some here claim that Wind Turbines are killing birds, making noise, and are eyesores. I will say that there are valid arguments to be made with all three areas mentioned in previous posts. However to what extend the benefit and harm done is of some concern.

First let's look at Bird strikes:
The Canadian Estimate of Bird Mortality Due to Collisions and Direct Habitat Loss Associated with Wind Turbine Developments (direct pdf link) states
On average, 8.2 ± 1.4 birds (95% C.I.) were killed per turbine per year
Also it directly addresses the question of habitat loss
On average, total habitat loss per turbine was 1.23 ha, which corresponds to an estimated total habitat loss due to wind farms nationwide of 3635 ha. Based on published estimates of nest density, this could represent habitat for ~5700 nests of all species. Assuming nearby habitats are saturated, and 2 adults displaced per nest site, effects of direct habitat loss are less than that of direct mortality.
Which translates to a possible habitat loss of 1.6 nests per wind turbine.

Contrast the maximum loss above of about 14 birds (assuming displaced nests represent bird stock replacement loss) to this report; Window collisions by migratory bird species: urban geographical patterns and habitat associations (direct pdf link) which states
The FLAP Canada volunteers collected and recorded a total of 3034 bird collisions in 2009 and 4934 bird collisions in 2010. The total number of BWCs (Bird-Window Collisions) retained for the analysis was of 3924 (1719 for 2009 and 2205 for 2010)
That's just Toronto, in the downtown core. Thus it's pretty safe to conclude that buildings (with lights on at night and no other bird deterrent) are a much greater threat to the bird population.

Second, noise pollution.
Wind turbines make noise. Here in the GTA there are two turbines (one down by the CNE, the other in Pickering) that people can get close to. I was actually right at the fence surrounding the CNE turbine while it was spinning and I heard a low rumble (like faintly hearing a jet flying overhead). GE (a manufacturer of wind turbines... for full disclosure) lists the dB at certain points/ distances from the turbine as:
wind_turbine.jpg


The WHO have responded to these concerns stating
For average noise exposure, the GDG conditionally recommends reducing noise levels produced by wind turbines below 45 dB Lden, as wind turbine noise above this level is associated with adverse health effects. To reduce health effects, the GDG conditionally recommends that policy-makers implement suitable measures to reduce noise exposure from wind turbines in the population exposed to levels above the guideline values for average noise exposure. No evidence is available, however, to facilitate the recommendation of one particular type of intervention over another.
Also a Canadian study illustrated further validity for some other complaints.
Note:
  1. dBA a noise rating that reflects how people respond to the loudness of common sounds; that is, it places less importance on the frequencies to which the ear is less sensitive.
  2. dBC is a noise rating which includes more of the contribution from the lower frequencies than the A-weighted filter.

Snippets include:
  • More than 4000 hours of WTN (Wind Turbine Noise) measurements conducted by Health Canada supported the calculations of A-weighted WTN levels at all 1238 homes captured in the study sample
    • Calculated outdoor A-weighted WTN levels for the homes participating in the study reached 46 dBA for wind speeds of 8m/s.
  • Wind turbines emit LFN, which can enter the home with little or no reduction in energy potentially resulting in rattles in light weight structures and annoyance.
    • Calculated outdoor dBC levels for homes ranged from 24 dBC and reached 63 dBC.
    • Three (3)% of the homes were found to exceed 60 dBC
    • the relationship between annoyance and WTN levels was predicted with equal strength using dBC or dBA and that there was no association found between dBC levels and any of the self-reported illnesses or chronic health conditions assessed (e.g., migraines, tinnitus, high blood pressure, etc.)
  • Long-term measurements over a period of 1 year were also conducted in relation to infrasound levels.
    • Infrasound from wind turbines could sometimes be measured at distances up to 10km from the wind turbines, but was in many cases below background infrasound levels.
    • The levels of infrasound measured near the base of the turbine were around the threshold of audibility that has been reported for about 1% of people that have the most sensitive hearing.

  • The WHO identifies an annual outdoor night time average of 40 dBA as the level below which no health effects associated with sleep disturbance are expected to occur even among the most vulnerable people (WHO (2009) Night Noise Guidelines for Europe).
So yes some residences do experience noise levels above the 45 dB to 40 dBA, this coupled with a small percentage of 60 dBC or more does warrant some noise mitigation, but dBC levels were not associated with reported illnesses or chronic health problems.

Third the eyesore issue:
Beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder but if it was out my back window I'd take this:

wind-tirbunes-norway.jpg


Over Coal
navajo-1020x1020.jpg


Or Gas
Moss_Landing_California_aerial_view.jpg

Or Nuclear
Three_Mile_Island_nuclear_power_plant.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: LordVic

mikethemartian

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2017
1,483
2,239
Melbourne, FL
It's great that we're moving towards renewables. But wind is crap. We have wind farms in my area and our energy costs kept INCREASING. The reason? Wind power "isn't productive enough" and they don't see it paying for itself anytime soon. We've had them for 8 years. And we live in a pretty windy area. So it's not like there's a shortage of "fuel" on average. They have been so unproductive and cost unfriendly that they are considering taking them down. We have installed solar panels throughout town over the last few years and they are ALREADY showing a profit.

I would much rather see more solar over wind. We're getting a win-win for solar. No one wanted the panels on open areas because they environmentalists didn't like the idea of tearing up ground for it. All plans in our area involved tearing up grass, replacing it with gravel, and then fencing around the panels. Those plans didn't go over well. So we put them on rooftops and in parking lots. Generate energy and be able to park in the shade! Works great!
But are you still on a grid that provides power at night? Otherwise you would need a battery.
 

Glockworkorange

Suspended
Feb 10, 2015
2,511
4,184
Chicago, Illinois
It is a crisis. But why go nuclear when we can go wind, solar, hydro? No chance of another Three Mile Island. Nuclear is bigger than us and we still have no idea how to make it 100% safe. Until we do, I'm not interested.
Which is more effective? Wind, solar, etc., or nuclear? If your life depends on it you take the risk. That is the whole point of the idea of "crisis." Three Mile Island, Fukishima, Chernobyl. Bad BUT....statistically rare. If there is an emergency, a crisis, an existential crisis, even, you take risks and do whatever it takes. Period.

Which is why I kind of shake my head when I see the little girl floating over the ocean on a row boat to yell at everyone. There are tools that are effective and cost effective that we don't use and it's not because they're "not safe." Nuclear IS safe. Good enough for the French. Should be good enough for everyone else tearing their hair out, marching, using row boats and demanding "change."

Give me a break.
 

mikethemartian

macrumors 65816
Jan 5, 2017
1,483
2,239
Melbourne, FL
It is a crisis. But why go nuclear when we can go wind, solar, hydro? No chance of another Three Mile Island. Nuclear is bigger than us and we still have no idea how to make it 100% safe. Until we do, I'm not interested.
How many people have died in the past 50 years due to accidents at nuclear plants vs. car accidents?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glockworkorange

jimbobb24

macrumors 68040
Jun 6, 2005
3,343
5,355
Disappointed they are funding wind...wish they were investing in solar. Wind is never going to get us far but solar may provide for all but caseload within the near future (20-50 years in power plant terms).
 

Marekul

Suspended
Jan 2, 2018
376
638
They also have been documented to produce low frequency vibrations that are disturbing to the health and comfort of humans and wildlife who are located nearby.
Source 1

Source 2 This source shows that there are different studies that make it more of a gray area, with some research showing no health effects. Others indicate annoyance and resulting sleep disturbances and mental health effects could be a result. But there’s not solid data on mental health effects. However, a few years ago I read in other articles of people abandoning homes too near wind turbines.
~~~

I’m not saying we shouldn’t displace some highly polluting sources of power with wind turbines, but we need to be realistic about the fact that so far some of our popular new solutions also come with a cost and toll on the environment. We will need to find a way to mitigate these damages, too.

Besides all mentioned before the shadow cast by the blades produces flicker, it’s really not fun. and then they are not only bird shredders but even more insect shredders. Studies have shown they disturb very important high altitude flight paths of insects and kill tons of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5105973
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.