Gone With the Wind?
January 21, 2025 6:16 PM Subscribe
Since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act... the U.S. wind industry, especially manufacturing, has been enjoying a renaissance. ... That growth is now in question, as just this week, [Donald] Trump stated that he plans to ensure "no windmills" are built during his term in office.
... Over the long term, a total pause in wind development would have significant impact not only on near-term projects, but on the overall U.S. economy. We estimate that, on average, roughly 50,000 jobs are at risk each year developing and constructing wind projects, manufacturing and transporting their components, in the supply chain, and through consumer spending related impacts.
Additionally, more than $14 billion in annual economic output would be eliminated, reducing federal and state and local tax receipts by more than $1 billion and $500 million, respectively, each year. ...
The majority (99.4%) of proposed land-based wind projects on a nameplate MW basis are located in counties that voted for President-elect Trump in the 2024 election, implying that the economic impacts could be distributed more heavily in these counties. The states of Wyoming and Texas could be most impacted, accounting for nearly 21% and 19% of near term early-stage wind projects, respectively.
... Over the long term, a total pause in wind development would have significant impact not only on near-term projects, but on the overall U.S. economy. We estimate that, on average, roughly 50,000 jobs are at risk each year developing and constructing wind projects, manufacturing and transporting their components, in the supply chain, and through consumer spending related impacts.
Additionally, more than $14 billion in annual economic output would be eliminated, reducing federal and state and local tax receipts by more than $1 billion and $500 million, respectively, each year. ...
The majority (99.4%) of proposed land-based wind projects on a nameplate MW basis are located in counties that voted for President-elect Trump in the 2024 election, implying that the economic impacts could be distributed more heavily in these counties. The states of Wyoming and Texas could be most impacted, accounting for nearly 21% and 19% of near term early-stage wind projects, respectively.
Who Stands To Benefit From Climate Change? Spoiler: It's Russia.
posted by Western Infidels at 6:33 PM on January 21 [13 favorites]
posted by Western Infidels at 6:33 PM on January 21 [13 favorites]
If those NIMBY shitheads on Cape Cod and the Vineyard hadn't interfered, my understanding is that the Cape Wind project would be farther along. Grrrr, so mad: bring me wind power, not more LNG!
posted by wenestvedt at 6:38 PM on January 21 [11 favorites]
posted by wenestvedt at 6:38 PM on January 21 [11 favorites]
Mod note: The 'uspolitics' tag has been added to the post to allow people to filter out posts tagged with, well, US politics via MyMefi.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:38 PM on January 21 [4 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:38 PM on January 21 [4 favorites]
Kills the birds, you see.
Trump is a passionate nature lover.
posted by Lemkin at 6:49 PM on January 21 [1 favorite]
Trump is a passionate nature lover.
posted by Lemkin at 6:49 PM on January 21 [1 favorite]
Donald Quixote tilts at windmills: the headline that writes itself.
posted by meehawl at 6:50 PM on January 21 [16 favorites]
posted by meehawl at 6:50 PM on January 21 [16 favorites]
If the LNG plant in Everett detonates, my house is safe as it's in the blast shadow of a tall hill. My neighbors on the other side of the hill will not be so lucky. I want me more wind turbines..
posted by ocschwar at 6:51 PM on January 21 [5 favorites]
posted by ocschwar at 6:51 PM on January 21 [5 favorites]
There are a bit more than 160,000,000 jobs in America, by the way.
If there was a good reason to defund wind power (though there isn’t, obviously), losing 50,000 jobs would be a very acceptable price.
posted by Lemkin at 6:57 PM on January 21 [6 favorites]
If there was a good reason to defund wind power (though there isn’t, obviously), losing 50,000 jobs would be a very acceptable price.
posted by Lemkin at 6:57 PM on January 21 [6 favorites]
If I didn't need my nose for anything cutting it off to spite my face would be a very acceptable price.
posted by klanawa at 7:12 PM on January 21 [10 favorites]
posted by klanawa at 7:12 PM on January 21 [10 favorites]
This Friday I'm scheduled to talk to a room of university presidents, telling them to do more on climate change.
I fear few will actually attend, and most who do will think "Trump" and stories like this and politely refuse.
posted by doctornemo at 7:38 PM on January 21 [5 favorites]
I fear few will actually attend, and most who do will think "Trump" and stories like this and politely refuse.
posted by doctornemo at 7:38 PM on January 21 [5 favorites]
If there was a good reason to defund wind power (though there isn’t, obviously), losing 50,000 jobs would be a very acceptable price.
Is this satire?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:41 PM on January 21 [10 favorites]
Is this satire?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:41 PM on January 21 [10 favorites]
remember: when driving a convoy off heading off a cliff, it is patriotic for everyone to accelerate, not hit the brakes.
posted by lalochezia at 7:45 PM on January 21 [8 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 7:45 PM on January 21 [8 favorites]
Who actually wants this? Besides Russia. Wind is free and we don't rely on an overseas supply chain for the parts for wind turbines. Really madness.
posted by subdee at 7:47 PM on January 21 [10 favorites]
posted by subdee at 7:47 PM on January 21 [10 favorites]
Who actually wants this? Besides Russia. Wind is free and we don't rely on an overseas supply chain for the parts for wind turbines. I thought the goal was energy independence?
Madness, really.
But there's 500 million to give to the tech cronies so they can build even more AI infrastructure here and drain the power grid even faster.
posted by subdee at 7:48 PM on January 21 [7 favorites]
Madness, really.
But there's 500 million to give to the tech cronies so they can build even more AI infrastructure here and drain the power grid even faster.
posted by subdee at 7:48 PM on January 21 [7 favorites]
Wind is literally the cheapest energy you can deploy now. This will make things more expensive, especially as data centers compete for power.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:57 PM on January 21 [15 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:57 PM on January 21 [15 favorites]
> This will make things more expensive
Making things more expensive is a proven method of increasing GDP :kappa:
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:59 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
Making things more expensive is a proven method of increasing GDP :kappa:
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:59 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
Madness, really.
/me twirls finger in circles next to ear
reowrr, reowrr, reowrr
posted by flabdablet at 8:18 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
/me twirls finger in circles next to ear
reowrr, reowrr, reowrr
posted by flabdablet at 8:18 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
It’s a bit of a derail, but I also stopped short reading the post and thought, 50k jobs? That’s it? As a numbers guy and sometime editor I can’t help myself. I don’t think the other poster was trying to take away from the outrage of Trump canceling wind projects. It’s sort of like if I heard “Dozens of people are wrongfully imprisoned in the US.”
What Trump is planning to do to sabotage our climate and energy future is a crime against humanity and needs to be aggressively thwarted.
posted by caviar2d2 at 8:28 PM on January 21 [14 favorites]
What Trump is planning to do to sabotage our climate and energy future is a crime against humanity and needs to be aggressively thwarted.
posted by caviar2d2 at 8:28 PM on January 21 [14 favorites]
Can't even leave the windmills be?!
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:46 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:46 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
The … funny part of this is that some of the drivers and supporters of Tilting Down The Windmills probably believe that it’s to the benefit of the petroleum industry … many segments of which do not want to see an increase in production, either because of threat to prices or because investors are tired of exploration and want to take dividends.
But, yeah, good luck with expanding your AI circle jerk anytime soon if you threaten supply from wind energy.
posted by jerome powell buys his sweatbands in bulk only at 9:58 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
But, yeah, good luck with expanding your AI circle jerk anytime soon if you threaten supply from wind energy.
posted by jerome powell buys his sweatbands in bulk only at 9:58 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
At some point, I suppose this reduces US LNG exports, meaning even higher energy prices in Europe.
posted by jeffburdges at 10:47 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 10:47 PM on January 21 [2 favorites]
Anyway, those 50k expendable jobs support families. They are also highly skilled and technical jobs that have knock-on effects, enriching many sectors across the economy. Throwing these people away or looking at them as surplus is the kind of thing that drives brain drain and skill drain to countries that need them.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:37 PM on January 21 [9 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:37 PM on January 21 [9 favorites]
Sorry all, this is completely NE Scotland's fault. Trump threw a fit when we decided to build eight massive turbines in the North Sea that were just visible from his nature-destroying golf course and he's been anti-wind ever since. They are really big, beautiful turbines (the biggest!) so we kind of thought he'd come around to them in time, but evidently not.
posted by nangua at 11:43 PM on January 21 [36 favorites]
posted by nangua at 11:43 PM on January 21 [36 favorites]
Correction, it was eleven turbines, but maybe my inability to count is an indication of how little you notice them after a while.
posted by nangua at 12:21 AM on January 22 [20 favorites]
posted by nangua at 12:21 AM on January 22 [20 favorites]
Appears Mar-a-Lago andthe Doral resort maybe Trump's most valuble assets, given his others have many shared owners, so one could always wish for hurricanes to hammer the area from Miami through Palm beach, or maybe a serious meltdown at Turkey point. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 12:21 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 12:21 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
I don't quite understand this. Apparently, right-wing parties the world over have agreed to try to destroy wind energy.
Here in Germany, the AfD leader (extreme right) called wind generators "windmills of shame" and also vowed to destroy wind generation if they win the election. And the CDU (traditional conservative) leaders are also sceptic about wind generation.
If you want to know what the people in the right-wing bubble understand this, an AfD voter told me stories about how "the traffic light coalition is covering forests with concrete to put wind generators" and "wind energy is subventioned by the government, so too much energy is generated, and money flows from the state to the rich".
In the case of the AfD, it's easy to understand why they want to destroy renewables: they want to align with Russia and buy gas and oil from them again. But in part, I believe this is "culture war": the greens want wind generation, so the right and extreme right have to be against it.
posted by LaVidaEsUnCarnaval at 12:40 AM on January 22 [27 favorites]
Here in Germany, the AfD leader (extreme right) called wind generators "windmills of shame" and also vowed to destroy wind generation if they win the election. And the CDU (traditional conservative) leaders are also sceptic about wind generation.
If you want to know what the people in the right-wing bubble understand this, an AfD voter told me stories about how "the traffic light coalition is covering forests with concrete to put wind generators" and "wind energy is subventioned by the government, so too much energy is generated, and money flows from the state to the rich".
In the case of the AfD, it's easy to understand why they want to destroy renewables: they want to align with Russia and buy gas and oil from them again. But in part, I believe this is "culture war": the greens want wind generation, so the right and extreme right have to be against it.
posted by LaVidaEsUnCarnaval at 12:40 AM on January 22 [27 favorites]
LaVida
Are you aware of UK Criminologist Ruth McKie? Also a way in to joining the dots on Human Rights attacks by far right think tanks.
McKie Rebranding the Climate Change Counter Movement through a Criminological and Political Economic Lens. phd 2018 [NorthumberlandU .pdf]. I've read much of it and many of the 500+ junktanks lead back to the Atlas Network (a chisto-fascist umbrella).
posted by unearthed at 1:01 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
Are you aware of UK Criminologist Ruth McKie? Also a way in to joining the dots on Human Rights attacks by far right think tanks.
McKie Rebranding the Climate Change Counter Movement through a Criminological and Political Economic Lens. phd 2018 [NorthumberlandU .pdf]. I've read much of it and many of the 500+ junktanks lead back to the Atlas Network (a chisto-fascist umbrella).
posted by unearthed at 1:01 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
Meanwhile: Trump to declare 'national energy emergency' to open up resource extraction
posted by jeffburdges at 1:01 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 1:01 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
I see that the "energy emergency" only considers fuel that comes through pipes. Soon tfg will be wondering how American oil got to be underneath Canadian sand and justifying an invasion
posted by scruss at 1:09 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
posted by scruss at 1:09 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
US wind energy jobs look to be well over 50k , with another 100k in near future pipeline.
The day our NZ fundie government took office they started killing wind, PV, EV and, rail, ferry and hydro projects and directing everything back to oil, coal gas. They hate disabled people too. All good 'Christians' though.
posted by unearthed at 1:20 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
The day our NZ fundie government took office they started killing wind, PV, EV and, rail, ferry and hydro projects and directing everything back to oil, coal gas. They hate disabled people too. All good 'Christians' though.
posted by unearthed at 1:20 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
IRENA's 2024 annual report on employment in RE globally suggests there were 135,000 or so jobs (direct & indirect) in the US wind sector in 2023.
The US accounts for around 16% of global installed wind capacity, but last year only about 6% of new installations were in the US, so this seems unlikely to slow the growth of wind globally, or seriously slow the learning process which has made wind the cheapest source of new installed energy generation. There remains the issue that the US is a major global emitter of GHG and wind is a key technology to address that. Basically we needed the US to do more, and its going to do less.
posted by biffa at 3:03 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
The US accounts for around 16% of global installed wind capacity, but last year only about 6% of new installations were in the US, so this seems unlikely to slow the growth of wind globally, or seriously slow the learning process which has made wind the cheapest source of new installed energy generation. There remains the issue that the US is a major global emitter of GHG and wind is a key technology to address that. Basically we needed the US to do more, and its going to do less.
posted by biffa at 3:03 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
‘Sowing seeds for next pandemic’: Trump order for US to exit WHO prompts alarm lol
posted by jeffburdges at 4:30 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 4:30 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
Hearing there are already over 100k jobs in wind and would have soon been 100k more is making me even angrier about the proposed AI data centers which are being sold as these big job creators... Of 100k jobs. Lol. Lmao even.
posted by subdee at 4:50 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
posted by subdee at 4:50 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
You drive throw the flat bit of Germany, with the wind turbines and industrial agricultural size fields and the logistics ginornous sheds. The sky in unblue, hazy with late summer and pollution.
It is not pretty. It is not the Fatherland of the castles and the Rhine.
The windmills are the biggest object on the plane, like giant soldiers marching out of tune.
for miles and miles
You can sort of see, raging against the windmills, because they are visible, they are there. And you would also be wrong, like the eponymous Spaniard.
posted by thegirlwiththehat at 4:59 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
It is not pretty. It is not the Fatherland of the castles and the Rhine.
The windmills are the biggest object on the plane, like giant soldiers marching out of tune.
for miles and miles
You can sort of see, raging against the windmills, because they are visible, they are there. And you would also be wrong, like the eponymous Spaniard.
posted by thegirlwiththehat at 4:59 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
This is just him jerking off again. Wind and solar are pretty much the only new energy capacity that's going to be added, because they're far cheaper. He can rage all he wants, but economics is not in his favor, here. Unless cold fusion comes online, which I understand is only the same ten years away it was 20 years ago.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:23 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 5:23 AM on January 22 [9 favorites]
IMO, windmills are beautiful. I mean, have you ever seen an oil distillery? Or an oil field? Those are truly foul, and foul smelling too. Coal is even worse. But for me it’s a personal thing too, because I saw my first modern wind turbine when I was 15, with the boy I loved then. So for me, wind turbines = teen romance.
There is no good reason for the right to love fossile fuels, other than “owning the libs”. Which is just stupid. That includes the situation in Russia. Yes, Russia is entirely dependent on oil and gas sales, they have hardly any other income. So I’ll sort of believe they think they will benefit from global heating, just like I sort of believe they thought they could solve their demographic issues by annexing Ukraine. In this century I have learnt that you don’t need to be smart to gain power. But with global heating, the permanent ice covering most of Siberia will melt and entire cities will wash out with the mud. Add in the frozen methane “bubbles”, and you have a host of catastrophes on a biblical scale.
Speaking of biblical: what does Trump and his cronies imagine will happen to Florida when the oceans rise?
posted by mumimor at 6:04 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
There is no good reason for the right to love fossile fuels, other than “owning the libs”. Which is just stupid. That includes the situation in Russia. Yes, Russia is entirely dependent on oil and gas sales, they have hardly any other income. So I’ll sort of believe they think they will benefit from global heating, just like I sort of believe they thought they could solve their demographic issues by annexing Ukraine. In this century I have learnt that you don’t need to be smart to gain power. But with global heating, the permanent ice covering most of Siberia will melt and entire cities will wash out with the mud. Add in the frozen methane “bubbles”, and you have a host of catastrophes on a biblical scale.
Speaking of biblical: what does Trump and his cronies imagine will happen to Florida when the oceans rise?
posted by mumimor at 6:04 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
Old Man Tilts At Windmills
posted by tommasz at 6:09 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 6:09 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
what does Trump and his cronies imagine will happen to Florida when the oceans rise?
They don't care because they'll be dead. It's completely selfish.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:09 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
They don't care because they'll be dead. It's completely selfish.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:09 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
If there was a good reason to defund wind power (though there isn’t, obviously), losing 50,000 jobs would be a very acceptable price.
- Is this satire?
No. It’s saying that “omg 50,000 jobs!” is a rhetorically dishonest argument when there’s no need to resort to one.
posted by Lemkin at 6:11 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
- Is this satire?
No. It’s saying that “omg 50,000 jobs!” is a rhetorically dishonest argument when there’s no need to resort to one.
posted by Lemkin at 6:11 AM on January 22 [3 favorites]
Some of many media failures of the past decade is that most people don’t understand that the US is now a net oils and gas exporter. However oils capacity to export LNG is limited. The foal here is to lock in domestic demand.
even a temporary pause on expanding wind capacity is going to mean more gas plants getting built. Those plants can operate 20-40 years. I have never heard of a 10 year old gas turbine being removed.
Also note that the “AI revolution” is such that we need more capacity on the grid right now. Nuclear takes too long, so it’s going to default back to gas.
posted by CostcoCultist at 6:30 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
even a temporary pause on expanding wind capacity is going to mean more gas plants getting built. Those plants can operate 20-40 years. I have never heard of a 10 year old gas turbine being removed.
Also note that the “AI revolution” is such that we need more capacity on the grid right now. Nuclear takes too long, so it’s going to default back to gas.
posted by CostcoCultist at 6:30 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
If there was a good reason to defund wind power (though there isn’t, obviously), losing 50,000 jobs would be a very acceptable price.
Is this satire?
There are about 40,000 coal mining jobs in the US and yeah, losing those 40,000 jobs would be an acceptable price. Clinton was right when she said she wanted to put them out of work.
(also: they're not windmills. They're wind turbines!)
posted by BungaDunga at 6:47 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
Is this satire?
There are about 40,000 coal mining jobs in the US and yeah, losing those 40,000 jobs would be an acceptable price. Clinton was right when she said she wanted to put them out of work.
(also: they're not windmills. They're wind turbines!)
posted by BungaDunga at 6:47 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
Donald Trump pauses more than $300 billion of federal disbursements of loans and grants to US green infrastructure projects
posted by jeffburdges at 6:53 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 6:53 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
As the rest of the world heads towards renewable energy and nuclear and maybe even fusion (its only ten years away again this year!), its well worth remembering that America is a petro state. We produce the most natural gas, the most oil, and could probably produce the most coal if we wanted.
That being said, who is going to buy it? If we allow our renewable sector to wither, and we turtle up in a tariff war with the rest of the world, they are going to abandon our "cheap" fossil fuels and instead power their economies on home grown renewables, efficiency, and their own manufacturing. Sure gas will be dirt cheap in the US, but the rest of the world will no longer be making things that run on it.
But who cares, because next quarters profits will be great for the fossil fuel industry, and that is ALL THAT MATTERS!
The water will rise, the forests will burn, the rivers will flood, and America will become a sad isolated backwater full of poor air quality and rivers that catch on fire (again).
There are ways to sabotage this system, (sabotage being the removal of efficiency). Form or join a union, form or join a mutual aid group, build local and state power, learn your neighbors names, bring them cookies, start organizations. We are going to face a truly horrific future if we don't built a strong counter to this death cult.
There will always be something to save, no matter how bad things get, there will always be a way to make the bad a little less. Build community use it to make change.
Good luck everyone, we are going to need it.
posted by stilgar at 7:08 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
That being said, who is going to buy it? If we allow our renewable sector to wither, and we turtle up in a tariff war with the rest of the world, they are going to abandon our "cheap" fossil fuels and instead power their economies on home grown renewables, efficiency, and their own manufacturing. Sure gas will be dirt cheap in the US, but the rest of the world will no longer be making things that run on it.
But who cares, because next quarters profits will be great for the fossil fuel industry, and that is ALL THAT MATTERS!
The water will rise, the forests will burn, the rivers will flood, and America will become a sad isolated backwater full of poor air quality and rivers that catch on fire (again).
There are ways to sabotage this system, (sabotage being the removal of efficiency). Form or join a union, form or join a mutual aid group, build local and state power, learn your neighbors names, bring them cookies, start organizations. We are going to face a truly horrific future if we don't built a strong counter to this death cult.
There will always be something to save, no matter how bad things get, there will always be a way to make the bad a little less. Build community use it to make change.
Good luck everyone, we are going to need it.
posted by stilgar at 7:08 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
I have rural relatives who hate windmills, and if they are anything to go on, the reason the right hates windmills is simple. They are easy to see from far away, they symbolize "environmentalism", and they are in rural areas where a lot of right-wing voters live and not in urban areas. And most of my rural relatives are absolutely convinced that windmills make ultra-low frequency noise that they can't hear but is making them sick (and of course it isn't because they smoke cigarettes, never get exercise, are in poor physical shape, or eat a shitty diet) .
I've tried pointing out that the nearby highways are a much larger source of pollution, noise, and low-frequency sounds, and it has been scientifically proven that having a highway nearby is bad for your health, but they don't think highways and vehicles are a problem. They've always been there!
Even the ones who don't think windmills are making them sick also hate them because they can SEE the windmills, lurking on the horizon, mocking them, spoiling their view.
posted by fimbulvetr at 7:18 AM on January 22 [24 favorites]
I've tried pointing out that the nearby highways are a much larger source of pollution, noise, and low-frequency sounds, and it has been scientifically proven that having a highway nearby is bad for your health, but they don't think highways and vehicles are a problem. They've always been there!
Even the ones who don't think windmills are making them sick also hate them because they can SEE the windmills, lurking on the horizon, mocking them, spoiling their view.
posted by fimbulvetr at 7:18 AM on January 22 [24 favorites]
You drive throw the flat bit of Germany
And even though it is the windiest bit of Germany it is not especially windy by European standards, and there are also plenty of windy sites across the US which are way better than those NW German sites. The Global Wind Atlas is having some technical issues right now but have a look at how many great sites there are across the US when the layers are back up.
posted by biffa at 7:21 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
And even though it is the windiest bit of Germany it is not especially windy by European standards, and there are also plenty of windy sites across the US which are way better than those NW German sites. The Global Wind Atlas is having some technical issues right now but have a look at how many great sites there are across the US when the layers are back up.
posted by biffa at 7:21 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
You won't believe how windy it is in California right now...
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:29 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:29 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Even the ones who don't think windmills are making them sick also hate them because they can SEE the windmills, lurking on the horizon, mocking them, spoiling their view.
Trump's anti-turbine stance is derived entirely from his long-running fight against offshore wind "spoiling" the view from his Scottish golf course.
posted by BungaDunga at 7:33 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
Trump's anti-turbine stance is derived entirely from his long-running fight against offshore wind "spoiling" the view from his Scottish golf course.
posted by BungaDunga at 7:33 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
I am 100% in favor of wind power. Nevertheless, a wind farm is not a beautiful sight, especially after the novelty has worn off, and the synchronized blinking aircraft beacons at night are particularly annoying (I think random non-synchronized blinking would be better, though I haven't seen that so I'm not sure, and a constant-on light would be better still from an aesthetic perspective, though I don't know about safety). I don't think either of these things are anything close to a reason to oppose wind farms, and I'd welcome one in my backyard without hesitation, but I think it should be acknowledged that they're a bit of an eyesore.
posted by Reverend John at 8:01 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
posted by Reverend John at 8:01 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
they are in rural areas where a lot of right-wing voters live and not in urban areas
I've never understood the reasoning for this. There are a ton of them on I40 near Amarillo TX, literally miles of them- thousands of them. Amarillo has a large enough population (like 200k), but it's on the edge of the least populated area of the entire US. Oklahoma City (700k) is 300 miles away, Dallas 400 miles away (8m), and Austin (2m) is 500 miles away.
Then the transmission lines to civilization are the confounding factor, not building more windmills.
That's just more terrible planning.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:03 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I've never understood the reasoning for this. There are a ton of them on I40 near Amarillo TX, literally miles of them- thousands of them. Amarillo has a large enough population (like 200k), but it's on the edge of the least populated area of the entire US. Oklahoma City (700k) is 300 miles away, Dallas 400 miles away (8m), and Austin (2m) is 500 miles away.
Then the transmission lines to civilization are the confounding factor, not building more windmills.
That's just more terrible planning.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:03 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Aircraft beacons are much less annoying than street lights, illuminated windows, etc, so who cares? Ideally we'd forgo the aircraft entirely of course, so then we've no need for aircraft beacons. lol
Around Mar-a-Lago and the Doral resort likely being Trump's most valuble assets, we could've an oil tanker run aground and spill right off Mar-a-Lago much easier than a meltdown at Turkey point.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:07 AM on January 22
Around Mar-a-Lago and the Doral resort likely being Trump's most valuble assets, we could've an oil tanker run aground and spill right off Mar-a-Lago much easier than a meltdown at Turkey point.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:07 AM on January 22
No, I'm sorry, an illuminated highway in the near or middle distance is far less obnoxious than a field of wind turbines with synchronized blinking aircraft beacons scattered across the horizon. Maybe its just my opinion, but I don't think its even close, and I have to wonder if you've actually seen this sight if you disagree.
Also, "forgo the aircraft *entirely*"? Are you even slightly serious or is my satire detector just broken?
posted by Reverend John at 8:13 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Also, "forgo the aircraft *entirely*"? Are you even slightly serious or is my satire detector just broken?
posted by Reverend John at 8:13 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
That's just more terrible planning.
I figured it was just where the cheapest land is, with the fewest complaining neighbors.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:29 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I figured it was just where the cheapest land is, with the fewest complaining neighbors.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:29 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I am 100% in favor of wind power. Nevertheless, a wind farm is not a beautiful sight
Mountaintop removal mining
Oil refinery
posted by hydropsyche at 8:36 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
Mountaintop removal mining
Oil refinery
posted by hydropsyche at 8:36 AM on January 22 [10 favorites]
Maybe its just my opinion...
It is.
(And I disagree: every highway is a neighborhood displaced or clean land carved up; a wind turbine stands in the air. Highways are illuminated their whole length, radiating up into the sky; the turbines have relatively small lights which are often blocked by their own bulk.)
posted by wenestvedt at 8:50 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
It is.
(And I disagree: every highway is a neighborhood displaced or clean land carved up; a wind turbine stands in the air. Highways are illuminated their whole length, radiating up into the sky; the turbines have relatively small lights which are often blocked by their own bulk.)
posted by wenestvedt at 8:50 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Along side quitting WHO, Trump has forced the CDC to pause all external health alerts via r/preppers.
Afaik the current bird flu looks insignificant, but Trump has really created a magnificent opening here. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 9:02 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Afaik the current bird flu looks insignificant, but Trump has really created a magnificent opening here. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 9:02 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Nevertheless, a wind farm is not a beautiful sight
In northern Minnesota, you can juxtapose two things in very close proximity, near the towns of Virginia and Hibbing.
On one hand, there is a ridge with a dozen-odd wind turbines, lazily spinning in the prevailing wind. They are clean and white, and a striking visual contrast to the greens and browns of the foliage.
On the other hand, there are the Minorca Iron Mine and Hibbing Taconite facility (see here for more), the enormous Hull Rust Mahoning Mine (active, six square mile hole in the earth), the Rouchleau Mine (abandoned), and the mind-bending bridge for Highway 53, which exists solely to make even more pit mining possible. The bridge was built, and the entire state highway moved, at the state's expense, for U.S. Steel's benefit. (The impact of moving the highway on local businesses and residents was also, of course, not U.S. Steel's problem.)
These are holes in the earth literally miles across; the land for miles around is coated in a sticky, red dust. They are scars, and the current administration went to extend them into the Superior National Forest and the BWCA.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:03 AM on January 22 [13 favorites]
In northern Minnesota, you can juxtapose two things in very close proximity, near the towns of Virginia and Hibbing.
On one hand, there is a ridge with a dozen-odd wind turbines, lazily spinning in the prevailing wind. They are clean and white, and a striking visual contrast to the greens and browns of the foliage.
On the other hand, there are the Minorca Iron Mine and Hibbing Taconite facility (see here for more), the enormous Hull Rust Mahoning Mine (active, six square mile hole in the earth), the Rouchleau Mine (abandoned), and the mind-bending bridge for Highway 53, which exists solely to make even more pit mining possible. The bridge was built, and the entire state highway moved, at the state's expense, for U.S. Steel's benefit. (The impact of moving the highway on local businesses and residents was also, of course, not U.S. Steel's problem.)
These are holes in the earth literally miles across; the land for miles around is coated in a sticky, red dust. They are scars, and the current administration went to extend them into the Superior National Forest and the BWCA.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:03 AM on January 22 [13 favorites]
Air travel would not disapear anytime soon, Reverend John, but air travel is overall a harmful technology.
We'll never realistically decarbonize air travel of course, so air travel would keep us burning many other oil types, even if some electrification ocured.
Air travel helps drive global empire and multi-national corporations, ala Quantitative Dynamics of Human Empires by Cesare Marchetti and Jesse H. Ausubel.
It's bad enough that politicians and corporate executives could easily meet up, with which they organize class war against almost everyone else, but rank and file bureaucrats, engineers, etc doing so really destroys resiliancy, make class victory almost absolute, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:15 AM on January 22
We'll never realistically decarbonize air travel of course, so air travel would keep us burning many other oil types, even if some electrification ocured.
Air travel helps drive global empire and multi-national corporations, ala Quantitative Dynamics of Human Empires by Cesare Marchetti and Jesse H. Ausubel.
It's bad enough that politicians and corporate executives could easily meet up, with which they organize class war against almost everyone else, but rank and file bureaucrats, engineers, etc doing so really destroys resiliancy, make class victory almost absolute, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:15 AM on January 22
My argument is not that other industrial infrastructure is not ugly. I completely agree that it is, and I further agree that its actually a decent counter to the argument that being ugly is therefore *not* a valid argument against windfarms, since we accept the necessity of those other facilities. I am not arguing against windfarms.
What I am arguing against is the dismissal of peoples legitimate observation that these things are ugly and the claim that because a few people think they are beautiful that most people would agree. There is a part of me that does like the sight of a wind farm, the part that recognizes that these machines are creating the energy we need without destroying the planet. It is not the part of me that viscerally enjoys a beautiful landscape.
And jeffburdges, maybe I should have given more weight to your "ideally" and "lol" in your original statement, but given that I am serious when I say that the aircraft warning beacons on the wind turbines on a wind farm are a particularly ugly feature, I can't say that I think proposing eliminating air travel is a serious response to this particular problem, even though I agree with your arguments against air travel.
My argument is that we should be honest and admit when our opponents have a legitimate (if minor) point, and we should have an honest response and not just dismiss their legitimate concerns. Otherwise they'll just write off our arguments.
Maybe we don't think our opponents are arguing in good faith. Maybe we think there is, therefore, no persuading them. I think there is a subset of the population which is still persuadable, who might make the above objections to wind power but be responsive to an argument which acknowledges and addresses their concerns. But if there isn't, if the argument is over, then what is left? Maybe only the monkeywrench.
posted by Reverend John at 9:33 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
What I am arguing against is the dismissal of peoples legitimate observation that these things are ugly and the claim that because a few people think they are beautiful that most people would agree. There is a part of me that does like the sight of a wind farm, the part that recognizes that these machines are creating the energy we need without destroying the planet. It is not the part of me that viscerally enjoys a beautiful landscape.
And jeffburdges, maybe I should have given more weight to your "ideally" and "lol" in your original statement, but given that I am serious when I say that the aircraft warning beacons on the wind turbines on a wind farm are a particularly ugly feature, I can't say that I think proposing eliminating air travel is a serious response to this particular problem, even though I agree with your arguments against air travel.
My argument is that we should be honest and admit when our opponents have a legitimate (if minor) point, and we should have an honest response and not just dismiss their legitimate concerns. Otherwise they'll just write off our arguments.
Maybe we don't think our opponents are arguing in good faith. Maybe we think there is, therefore, no persuading them. I think there is a subset of the population which is still persuadable, who might make the above objections to wind power but be responsive to an argument which acknowledges and addresses their concerns. But if there isn't, if the argument is over, then what is left? Maybe only the monkeywrench.
posted by Reverend John at 9:33 AM on January 22 [2 favorites]
My argument is that we should be honest and admit when our opponents have a legitimate (if minor) point, and we should have an honest response and not just dismiss their legitimate concerns.
Why? They won't give us that same courtesy. This is like the institutional Democrats insisting on "bipartisanship" and playing by the rules. That. World. Is. Over.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 9:41 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
Why? They won't give us that same courtesy. This is like the institutional Democrats insisting on "bipartisanship" and playing by the rules. That. World. Is. Over.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 9:41 AM on January 22 [6 favorites]
They dismiss science en bloc, so I feel comfortable with the comparitively minor rejection of their taste.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:48 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
posted by wenestvedt at 9:48 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
There is a legitimate discussion to be had about where to place the windfarms. Unfortunatly, large scale planning largly disappeared in most of the world during the 1990s and no politicians on either side of the aisle are prepared to bring it back. Most exceptions are totalitarian.
Former industrial sites, landfills and infrastructural areas can be quite well suited in some places, but incentives are instead directed at farmers, I think because no one has the spoons to take on agribusiness, and support for windfarms are also a form of hidden support for unsustainable agriculture.
Anyways, a windfarm is just not as consequential as a gas or nuclear power plant. You can dismantle and move a wind turbine in days. I’m expecting there will be a market for used turbines soon. Sites where there have been gas, coal or nuclear power plants are poisened for hundreds of years or require expensive clean-ups.
I think stilgar has it. China is a world leader in renewables for a reason. It is the future. No sane economy wants to be dependent on some crazy authoritarian regimes for their energy. And except for Norway, most countries that produce fossile fuels lean crazy.
Which brings me back to the subject: Trump loves the fossile fuel industry because it underpins corruption in almost every country where it is a dominating aspect of the economy.
posted by mumimor at 10:03 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Former industrial sites, landfills and infrastructural areas can be quite well suited in some places, but incentives are instead directed at farmers, I think because no one has the spoons to take on agribusiness, and support for windfarms are also a form of hidden support for unsustainable agriculture.
Anyways, a windfarm is just not as consequential as a gas or nuclear power plant. You can dismantle and move a wind turbine in days. I’m expecting there will be a market for used turbines soon. Sites where there have been gas, coal or nuclear power plants are poisened for hundreds of years or require expensive clean-ups.
I think stilgar has it. China is a world leader in renewables for a reason. It is the future. No sane economy wants to be dependent on some crazy authoritarian regimes for their energy. And except for Norway, most countries that produce fossile fuels lean crazy.
Which brings me back to the subject: Trump loves the fossile fuel industry because it underpins corruption in almost every country where it is a dominating aspect of the economy.
posted by mumimor at 10:03 AM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Well, so I ask again, if the argument is over, what's left?
posted by Reverend John at 10:16 AM on January 22
posted by Reverend John at 10:16 AM on January 22
I am 100% in favor of wind power. Nevertheless, a wind farm is not a beautiful sight
Well this is aesthetics, so people tend to have different perspectives. I generally feel pretty positive about them, but I am pretty biased.
I think it should be acknowledged that they're a bit of an eyesore.
I think it should be acknowledged that some people think they're a bit of an eyesore.
I also think there are legit reasons to object to a wind farm in specific locations, because sometimes they are a bad fit, or if they are in a sites which are significant for cultural or natural or scientific or possibly other reasons. As a result I think its not a good idea to dismiss all objections as NIMBY-ism and I think its poor practice to do so.
US windfarms do tend to be a bit larger than their European counterparts, since their is more in the way of large open spaces than in most of the populated areas of Europe, and the really dense ones can look very jumbled, which doesn't help with overall visual amenity.
Even in Europe however you get a lot of variation in how they are sited. Turbines in Denmark and Germany tend to be in smaller groups, reflecting the early stages of development emerging from communities and farmers, with opposition from the utilities in the German case. Windfarms in Spain are often across mountain ridges in a way that would never happen in the UK, for reasons relating to how villages grant planning permission and profit from local installation. UK windfarms have halted onshore for the last decade, leading to huge offshore farms which are set out on a very structured basis, all long unbroken lines, at odds with one of the most widely pictures offshore farms, Middelgrunden, which describes a gentle curve and is in Danish waters.
So the aesthetics of individual wind turbines vary little, virtually all are the three bladed 'Danish concept', with some variation in nacelle design. But the aesthetics of wind farms vary considerably, and are determined by a pretty complex set of national and regional characteristics, they're not a fixed thing in terms of what they look like. Their fit with an environment will vary based on plenty of different factors, and the response to them is thus also a variable.
posted by biffa at 10:45 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
Well this is aesthetics, so people tend to have different perspectives. I generally feel pretty positive about them, but I am pretty biased.
I think it should be acknowledged that they're a bit of an eyesore.
I think it should be acknowledged that some people think they're a bit of an eyesore.
I also think there are legit reasons to object to a wind farm in specific locations, because sometimes they are a bad fit, or if they are in a sites which are significant for cultural or natural or scientific or possibly other reasons. As a result I think its not a good idea to dismiss all objections as NIMBY-ism and I think its poor practice to do so.
US windfarms do tend to be a bit larger than their European counterparts, since their is more in the way of large open spaces than in most of the populated areas of Europe, and the really dense ones can look very jumbled, which doesn't help with overall visual amenity.
Even in Europe however you get a lot of variation in how they are sited. Turbines in Denmark and Germany tend to be in smaller groups, reflecting the early stages of development emerging from communities and farmers, with opposition from the utilities in the German case. Windfarms in Spain are often across mountain ridges in a way that would never happen in the UK, for reasons relating to how villages grant planning permission and profit from local installation. UK windfarms have halted onshore for the last decade, leading to huge offshore farms which are set out on a very structured basis, all long unbroken lines, at odds with one of the most widely pictures offshore farms, Middelgrunden, which describes a gentle curve and is in Danish waters.
So the aesthetics of individual wind turbines vary little, virtually all are the three bladed 'Danish concept', with some variation in nacelle design. But the aesthetics of wind farms vary considerably, and are determined by a pretty complex set of national and regional characteristics, they're not a fixed thing in terms of what they look like. Their fit with an environment will vary based on plenty of different factors, and the response to them is thus also a variable.
posted by biffa at 10:45 AM on January 22 [5 favorites]
I personally would like to see renewable energy tech built in places where there is already human infrastructure. Plop them down the middle of big highways, put them in farmers fields, put them at the entrance to ports, coat every building in a city with solar panels, etc.
Then once every bit of already developed land has been crammed with as many wind turbines and solar panels as we can, we start carving up giant swaths of undeveloped land.
The problem with this plan is that renewable energy is not that profitable, and using "cheap land" makes it more so. (read "the price is wrong" for a very in depth discussion).
So in order to follow my advice we would also have to do something like have the government develop these things at a loss, or run as a non-profit...which seems about as likely as me becoming a billionaire...so maybe it will just continue to be a dream.
posted by stilgar at 11:18 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Then once every bit of already developed land has been crammed with as many wind turbines and solar panels as we can, we start carving up giant swaths of undeveloped land.
The problem with this plan is that renewable energy is not that profitable, and using "cheap land" makes it more so. (read "the price is wrong" for a very in depth discussion).
So in order to follow my advice we would also have to do something like have the government develop these things at a loss, or run as a non-profit...which seems about as likely as me becoming a billionaire...so maybe it will just continue to be a dream.
posted by stilgar at 11:18 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
It's the causal direction given by the "so then" that you missed, Reverend John. Ideally air travel goes away anyways, like through conflicts that destroy most refineries, or even peak oil, so then we need not care so much about air craft beacons. We'd obivously never ditch air travel for purely aesthetic reasons.
It's believable that Trump hates windfarms because of one being visible from his Scottish golf course, so yeah sure some people disliking them has real impacts, upon US energy security.
I do think widespread political optinions have some basis in reality, which makes them important, but recognizing them correctly often trashes current center-left ideology. Anyone who brings aesthetic arguments to a physics fight maybe either an idiot or malicious, but yeah obviously that covers many people.
As stilgar hints, Scotland and Europe should really place wind turbines in all suitable golf courses except maybe the first one, so then golfers must play around the wind turbines. In essence, they'd adjust golf course licensing/zoning rules, so that wind comapnies could afordably rent space in the course. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 11:58 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
It's believable that Trump hates windfarms because of one being visible from his Scottish golf course, so yeah sure some people disliking them has real impacts, upon US energy security.
I do think widespread political optinions have some basis in reality, which makes them important, but recognizing them correctly often trashes current center-left ideology. Anyone who brings aesthetic arguments to a physics fight maybe either an idiot or malicious, but yeah obviously that covers many people.
As stilgar hints, Scotland and Europe should really place wind turbines in all suitable golf courses except maybe the first one, so then golfers must play around the wind turbines. In essence, they'd adjust golf course licensing/zoning rules, so that wind comapnies could afordably rent space in the course. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 11:58 AM on January 22 [1 favorite]
While offshore turbines or ones built on public land require federal approval, it's not so clear how else Trump could stop all new turbine installations except by sabotaging the FAA's approval process, which is purely ministerial. I know he doesn't care about the law and doesn't care about limitations on his own power, but there's a big difference between making an announcement and actually finding a way to stop one kind of construction project.
posted by 1adam12 at 12:43 PM on January 22
posted by 1adam12 at 12:43 PM on January 22
Federal employees involved in DEI work will have email access suspended and be placed on paid leave
Also someone on reddit thinks they'll terminate many contracts over companies' DEI practices.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:08 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Also someone on reddit thinks they'll terminate many contracts over companies' DEI practices.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:08 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
It point six in the link Terminate all DEI contractors.
I'm guessing a heads up was passed around which is why so many large companies killed their DEI programs recently.
The fallout from this should be immense. The government itself is probably laying off enough people to move the unemployment numbers let alone all their contractors. And I'm betting at least a few noticeable contractors either exit government work or tell TFG to get bent and something obvious like the lights going out in the senate chamber results.
posted by Mitheral at 1:37 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
I'm guessing a heads up was passed around which is why so many large companies killed their DEI programs recently.
The fallout from this should be immense. The government itself is probably laying off enough people to move the unemployment numbers let alone all their contractors. And I'm betting at least a few noticeable contractors either exit government work or tell TFG to get bent and something obvious like the lights going out in the senate chamber results.
posted by Mitheral at 1:37 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
The Vineyard's Facebook group gets regular posts from "those NIMBY shitheads" where they blame the windmills for killing whales, complain that they haven't seen their electric bills go down, claim that they actualy use an unholy amount of diesel fuel, scream bloody murder about the BPA flaking off of windmill blades, point out that it's mostly foreigners financing Cape Wind projects, etc.
Is there any handy debunking reference for this nonsense? I don't even want to engage with these ninnies, but I'd like to confirm my suspicions that they're arguing in bad faith.
posted by whuppy at 1:47 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Is there any handy debunking reference for this nonsense? I don't even want to engage with these ninnies, but I'd like to confirm my suspicions that they're arguing in bad faith.
posted by whuppy at 1:47 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Are they as ugly as offshore oil platforms?
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:51 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:51 PM on January 22 [3 favorites]
What about mountaintop removal?
Ope hydropsyche beat me to it
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:54 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Ope hydropsyche beat me to it
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:54 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
It's the causal direction given by the "so then" that you missed, Reverend John. Ideally air travel goes away anyways, like through conflicts that destroy most refineries, or even peak oil, so then we need not care so much about air craft beacons. We'd obivously never ditch air travel for purely aesthetic reasons.
You let me know when we're within about 120 months of achieving an end to air travel so we can see the end of aircraft warning lights on wind farms on the horizon, and I'll start considering that a reasonable response to that concern at that time.
posted by Reverend John at 2:07 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
Why? They won't give us that same courtesy. This is like the institutional Democrats insisting on "bipartisanship" and playing by the rules. That. World. Is. Over.
It's not us vs them. Not everyone who thinks wind farms are ugly is a them, and there's basically no us to speak of. I'm certainly not in your we.
posted by Wood at 2:20 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
It's not us vs them. Not everyone who thinks wind farms are ugly is a them, and there's basically no us to speak of. I'm certainly not in your we.
posted by Wood at 2:20 PM on January 22 [1 favorite]
A priori I'd think "Terminate all DEI contractors" means contractors involved in DEI work for the federal government, Mitheral, which says nothing about federal contractors who simply practice DEI internally. I donno..
Anyways, if it survives legal challenges then the $300 billion cut of loans and grants to green infrastructure would've by far the biggest fallout of this initial tantrum, because the economy is ultimately the expended energy.
Assuming Trump's next coup attempt fails, Democrats might bring back DEI programs whenever they win again, or Democrats might descide DEI looks too politically expensive, but that's really a problem for some future administration. I'd think a future pro-renewables administration could change little about how the economy evolves with less renewables between now and whenever they gain power. It'll just dominate the entire economic outlook under which they take office.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:51 PM on January 22
Anyways, if it survives legal challenges then the $300 billion cut of loans and grants to green infrastructure would've by far the biggest fallout of this initial tantrum, because the economy is ultimately the expended energy.
Assuming Trump's next coup attempt fails, Democrats might bring back DEI programs whenever they win again, or Democrats might descide DEI looks too politically expensive, but that's really a problem for some future administration. I'd think a future pro-renewables administration could change little about how the economy evolves with less renewables between now and whenever they gain power. It'll just dominate the entire economic outlook under which they take office.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:51 PM on January 22
whuppy and wenestvedt
What is the Vineyard you name? I only know of the fundamentalist Vineyard.
posted by unearthed at 3:21 PM on January 22
What is the Vineyard you name? I only know of the fundamentalist Vineyard.
posted by unearthed at 3:21 PM on January 22
While offshore turbines or ones built on public land require federal approval, it's not so clear how else Trump could stop all new turbine installations except by sabotaging the FAA's approval process
Sanctions on foreign-made turbine parts would likely make it very difficult to build and maintain them.
posted by BungaDunga at 3:36 PM on January 22
Sanctions on foreign-made turbine parts would likely make it very difficult to build and maintain them.
posted by BungaDunga at 3:36 PM on January 22
Vineyard is one of the few offshore wind farms in US waters.
posted by biffa at 3:38 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
posted by biffa at 3:38 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
This is just him jerking off again. Wind and solar are pretty much the only new energy capacity that's going to be added, because they're far cheaper.Agreed, and it's mostly solar that is being added, because it's in turn far cheaper (and easier to install fast) than wind.
"During the first ten months of 2024, solar and wind added 21,425 MW and 2,799 MW respectively. Combined with 213 MW of hydropower and 6 MW of biomass, renewables were almost 90.5% of capacity added. The balance consisted of the 1,100 Vogtle-4 nuclear reactor in Georgia plus 1,456 MW of gas, 11 MW of oil and 8 MW of “other." -- FERC data from Solar power world
If we lose 1 nuclear reactor worth of wind because of this, we'll still see 10 more worth of solar. And probably the capital that was going to wind would just retarget to solar+storage. Solar is going up and to the right hard, and short of preventing imports entirely, there is very little they can do about it and even preventing imports would only put a temporary damper on things.
(Wind is still very important to have in the mix, but utility-scale batteries are taking up some of its slack and *also* going up and to the right in a way that wind has not been.)
posted by joeyh at 4:08 PM on January 22
There is a legitimate discussion to be had about where to place the windfarms. Unfortunatly, large scale planning largly disappeared in most of the world during the 1990s and no politicians on either side of the aisle are prepared to bring it back.
The Biden administration engaged in an unprecedented attempt to develop massive offshore wind farms, off of every coast of the lower 48 states.
Unfortunately, these things take time, and the bureaucratic hurdles are many.
It looks like at least some of the plans for wind farms off of New England, New York, and New Jersey are far enough along that they will be able to move forward. But Trump has already obstructed federal approvals of planned offshore wind projects further down the East Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, and off the West Coast. And I imagine his minions will do everything they can to fuck with the already-approved projects in the Northeast.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:18 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
The Biden administration engaged in an unprecedented attempt to develop massive offshore wind farms, off of every coast of the lower 48 states.
Unfortunately, these things take time, and the bureaucratic hurdles are many.
It looks like at least some of the plans for wind farms off of New England, New York, and New Jersey are far enough along that they will be able to move forward. But Trump has already obstructed federal approvals of planned offshore wind projects further down the East Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, and off the West Coast. And I imagine his minions will do everything they can to fuck with the already-approved projects in the Northeast.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:18 PM on January 22 [2 favorites]
Inside the Bakersfield raids that showed how Trump's immigration policies will sow chaos
Trump’s Immigration Plans Are Already Wrecking the Food Industry
It'll become interesting if Trump triggers hyper-inflation. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 8:35 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Trump’s Immigration Plans Are Already Wrecking the Food Industry
It'll become interesting if Trump triggers hyper-inflation. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 8:35 PM on January 22 [4 favorites]
Europe made more energy from solar than coal in 2024 from The Guardian today. At first glance, the header is a bit misleading, because other sources og energy play a far greater role. But once coal was no. 2 after nuclear. So it is a story about massive change.
I have solar panels, and the next village over has them as a collective project. Where I live, wind is probably more efficient, but the planning proces is more complicated and takes far longer. Wind is also a larger investment upfront. So often here wind farms are built by external investors, while Solars are local projects. IMO solar panels are not very nice to look at, but people accept them because they own them. Like me.
posted by mumimor at 11:47 PM on January 22 [6 favorites]
I have solar panels, and the next village over has them as a collective project. Where I live, wind is probably more efficient, but the planning proces is more complicated and takes far longer. Wind is also a larger investment upfront. So often here wind farms are built by external investors, while Solars are local projects. IMO solar panels are not very nice to look at, but people accept them because they own them. Like me.
posted by mumimor at 11:47 PM on January 22 [6 favorites]
Regarding wind turbines, my old supervisor used to quote what he said was a Danish saying "Your own pigs don't smell*" in relation to the fact that the first couple of generations of wind energy there were largely owned locally. Denmark had laws initially that you could only own enough of a share in a wind turbine to generate a certain amount of power, plus the turbine had to be located in your kommune for you to invest. This meant locals got the benefits as well as the disbenefits.
*No idea if this is really a Danish saying.
posted by biffa at 1:10 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
*No idea if this is really a Danish saying.
posted by biffa at 1:10 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
If anyone is interested, I wrote a piece trying to sort through my feelings on why my neighbours are so anti-wind here in Scotland and what sort of language might be a better way to at least get them to the unsightly-but-necessary position (CW: Because I'm a theologian there is some theology involved).
posted by nangua at 1:51 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
posted by nangua at 1:51 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
jeffburdges "We'll never realistically decarbonize air travel of course"
That has been the prevailing wisdom, but at 11m19s into this otherwise unrelated TEDx talk on 2024-11-07 by "Gerard Reid [who] is a leading expert and financier in energy transition", he says "If you'd have said to me ten years ago, Gerard, we're going to electrify planes. I would have thought you were smoking dope. I'm not saying that today, and I'm not saying it because of the amount of brilliant people that are working across the world innovating and doing research and development."
I've often heard electrifying planes is nonsense, so I don't share Gerard's optimism, but the talk is otherwise very interesting, so worth posting.
posted by ecco at 10:12 AM on January 23
That has been the prevailing wisdom, but at 11m19s into this otherwise unrelated TEDx talk on 2024-11-07 by "Gerard Reid [who] is a leading expert and financier in energy transition", he says "If you'd have said to me ten years ago, Gerard, we're going to electrify planes. I would have thought you were smoking dope. I'm not saying that today, and I'm not saying it because of the amount of brilliant people that are working across the world innovating and doing research and development."
I've often heard electrifying planes is nonsense, so I don't share Gerard's optimism, but the talk is otherwise very interesting, so worth posting.
posted by ecco at 10:12 AM on January 23
IMO, the amount of time given to air travel is almost silly - the MBTA alone carries more people daily that every airport in the US. Some minor increases to train travel around the US (easily electrified) and the carbon of airports would mostly be used for international travel, which if you see no value in, I just don't think I can find many reasonable solutions or much common ground with you.
Energy Use by Sector in the US transportation is 28% of the energy used in the US.
The Transportation Sector broken down. Gas for your car is 52%, jets are 12%.
Complaining about air transport is like your house is about to burn down and you are fixing the scuffs in the paint.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:44 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Energy Use by Sector in the US transportation is 28% of the energy used in the US.
The Transportation Sector broken down. Gas for your car is 52%, jets are 12%.
Complaining about air transport is like your house is about to burn down and you are fixing the scuffs in the paint.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:44 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
International air travel definitely brings value, but it brings larger negative values, including being a major one-sided factor in class struggle.
Air travel emits little CO2 itself, but if you need kerosene then roughly 93% of the oil turns into other products, so what happens to them? Another 8-10% goes into plastics I guess, but many plastics seems remarkably harmful too.
"the global kerosene market can be segmented into type1-K and type 2-K. Type1-K is majorly used for the aviation industry as jet fuel, and this will drive the segment growth over the given forecast period."
We'll see if battery aircraft ever become viable, but so far even methane planes were never remotely compeditive with kerosene, despite liquid methane rockets being viable. We've wilder ideas too: There are bird species who make incredible usage of air currents like the East Atlantic Flyway, so air travel could maybe resemble sailing. Aircraft could maybe be powered by space based lasers, although proposals seem crazy pants.. Afaik all too radically different from what exists today.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:30 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Air travel emits little CO2 itself, but if you need kerosene then roughly 93% of the oil turns into other products, so what happens to them? Another 8-10% goes into plastics I guess, but many plastics seems remarkably harmful too.
"the global kerosene market can be segmented into type1-K and type 2-K. Type1-K is majorly used for the aviation industry as jet fuel, and this will drive the segment growth over the given forecast period."
We'll see if battery aircraft ever become viable, but so far even methane planes were never remotely compeditive with kerosene, despite liquid methane rockets being viable. We've wilder ideas too: There are bird species who make incredible usage of air currents like the East Atlantic Flyway, so air travel could maybe resemble sailing. Aircraft could maybe be powered by space based lasers, although proposals seem crazy pants.. Afaik all too radically different from what exists today.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:30 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
the MBTA alone carries more people daily that every airport in the US.
If we are taking the mbta to be the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and assuming you mean the whole system then daily ridership is 812,400 people on the average workday in 2023. The FAA suggests around 2.9 million people fly on a typical day from US airports.
Every single one of the people getting on a plane will have a higher share of emissions than any one of the much smaller number on the MBTA.
posted by biffa at 4:06 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
If we are taking the mbta to be the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and assuming you mean the whole system then daily ridership is 812,400 people on the average workday in 2023. The FAA suggests around 2.9 million people fly on a typical day from US airports.
Every single one of the people getting on a plane will have a higher share of emissions than any one of the much smaller number on the MBTA.
posted by biffa at 4:06 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Or the average daily metro/subway ridership of two Mexico Citys or one Montreal or half a NYC. That's just the metro not any other public transit in those cities.
posted by Mitheral at 4:56 PM on January 23
posted by Mitheral at 4:56 PM on January 23
House GOP measure would let Trump seek third term
posted by jeffburdges at 2:25 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 2:25 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Or the average daily metro/subway ridership of two Mexico Citys or one Montreal or half a NYC. That's just the metro not any other public transit in those cities.
Well I was just pointing out that someone had made up the statistics they drew on.
Perhaps I should have pointed out how specious it is to compare ridership of two different modes of transport by numbers when one is incredibly polluting per trip compared to the other. Its like saying its ok for a sewage company to pump huge amounts of human waste into the sea because there is only one water company but there are a lot of swimmers who wee when they are in the water.
posted by biffa at 3:34 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Well I was just pointing out that someone had made up the statistics they drew on.
Perhaps I should have pointed out how specious it is to compare ridership of two different modes of transport by numbers when one is incredibly polluting per trip compared to the other. Its like saying its ok for a sewage company to pump huge amounts of human waste into the sea because there is only one water company but there are a lot of swimmers who wee when they are in the water.
posted by biffa at 3:34 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Deportees by Arlo Guthrie, apropos of the Bakersfield raids, via r/CollapseMusic
posted by jeffburdges at 6:35 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 6:35 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Trump Is Trying to Force America to Use More Fossil Fuels
posted by jeffburdges at 11:52 AM on January 24
posted by jeffburdges at 11:52 AM on January 24
« Older “Nice hole Tim” | Henry Moore Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Windopaene at 6:25 PM on January 21 [21 favorites]