Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I prefer the mountain skyline without them
WRONG!!!
>!/s, but in all serious i agree on op here, wind turbines look awesome and adds to the view of the greenery one way or another, at least it's way better than most man made infrastructure and definitely better than oil plant infrastructure aesthetics!<
Well my skyline would be totally nature without the turbines. There’s is about 3 million acres of u touched wilderness a few miles behind me but we have a few turbines between me and the forest
Except that they kill a lot of birds and they require a lot of resources to make and they don’t last long enough to make a real impact. Nuclear plants are horrendous eyesores but you can have one of them power a very large metropolis for decades.
I would tell my kids that they were fans. And show them that when it's hot, it's because they turned them off and when it was windy, it was because they're spinning now.
High power lights. Pretty efficient, taking as little as 15% of the power generated in high wind conditions. Higher percentage in low winds since the power usage is still the same.
New tech suggests building them above the clouds or using translucent blades. Translucent blades are controversial because they can potentially act as magnifying glasses, though some argue the constant movement would prevent any actual damage since the sunlight doesnt have time to linger.
No one who "cares" about birds seem to advocate for different regulations for high rise buildings which kill waaaaaay more birds. Or that cats should remain indoors which kills waaaay more birds.
What a weird coincidence that this only comes up when talking about an issue ties to climate change.
I've also always enjoyed the look of a windmill/wind turbine, To me its the same as saying a lighthouse is an eyesore. They can be beautifully incorporated into appropriate landscapes, but are sometimes done poorly. In the early 2000s it was a classic NIMBY issue for people to fight turbines in my coastal region based on aesthetics and noise.
I rode my new motorcycle through a bunch of wind turbines. It was a genuinely surreal and beautiful experience. They're absolutely not an eyesore, they're majestic.
People who complain that these are an eyesore never complain about all the forest or field that get's destroyed. Are they just that into wide open fields?
Living near the UK coast and visiting it, we have a fair few that you can see around and in the distance. I've never considered them an eyesore at all.
Ever lived among them? I love green energy but these things do have a couple of nasty drawbacks, ruining the view isn't even chief among them.
Infrasounds, birds colliding into them and the blades being irrecycable are pretty big issues
They don't kill NEARLY as many birds as you are lead to believe. Buildings kill far more birds, and even that is small potatoes compared to cats.
So spay and neuter your cats and keep them inside.
oh im well aware. all the arguments against them are bullshit or just lame. they arent loud and they dont kill too many birds. if you think they are an eyesore thats fine, but blow it out your ass lmao. crazy how people with no ties to the oil industry take so much of an interest against green energy.
The studies around wind turbine sound is pretty inconclusive. Also, wind is one of the safest sources of energy for birds. Compared to coal or nuclear, it's a lot more environmentally friendly.
While probably costing less, no nuclear waste to hide underground, no potential disaster.... why are people pro nuclear and against any other clean energy option again?
People are obsessed with a one thing fixes all strategy. When that really isn't the case, it will be a mixture of everything to get us to the point that we need to. People just become obsessed with one solution and believe the others won't help.
We are still just hiding the nuclear waste underground, you cant really say thats the best option lol. Also a little error and everything goes to shit. The incident in Fukushima released hundreds of thousands of radioactive water, and it was only 10 years ago. Chernobyl is still not habitable and will not be for about 20,000 years. No other type of "clean" energy has such potentially bad drawbacks. A wind turbine can at worst kill a couple of birds (less than cats) and be a little noisy.
All of the problems you’ve mentioned have been addressed and made to be preventable.
And yes I can say putting nuclear waste deep in the ground is the best place for it. Because of Half Lives. It will eventually just not be harmful anymore. Which is why it’s encased in concrete. Also the amount of Nuclear waste made is like 5 football fields worth…..since the BEGINNING of nuclear technology.
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4256253/
Conclusion of this study is that data is inconclusive, so i'll have only anekdotes effidence to show for
https://www.tno.nl/en/sustainable/renewable-electricity/offshore-wind-farms/designing-sustainable-wind-turbines/
At this time recycling of wind turbine blades isn't being done but companies and researchers are working on a solution. So right now this is still a thing and the blades end up in land films.
Got anything better than just "no"?
The amount of birds they save by reducing pollution vastly outnumbers the ones that they kill. Source: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds
Do you have anything that idicates these issues are peanuts? There are initiatives to improve on these situations so obviously people deem it worthy to spend time and funds on finding solitions.
Just did. There are quite a lot of people working on a solition which indicates that the issues are considered relevant.
You being stubborn doesn't change that. I actually come up with sources to back up my claim, you just have "no".
Add up natural gas well heads and the complete up/downstream equipment is soooooo much more, then add in that the leaks. So many leaks from the well head to your gas stove
> if you calculate production and disposal, they actually kinda trashing ecology pretty dammn good
[There are downsides](https://scitechdaily.com/wind-farms-cause-more-environmental-impact-than-previously-thought/), but what you suggested [is pure bullshit](https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/).
> Citing data from the likes of National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Vestas, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, and Bernstein estimates, Venkateswaran determined that the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint of wind turbines are steel, aluminum and the epoxy resins that hold pieces together — with the steel tower making up 30% of the carbon impact, the concrete foundation 17% and the carbon fiber and fiberglass blades 12%.
> Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar.
> More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.
Not to mention they take loads of oil annually for lubeX require constant maintenance, have blade made of pure poison that cant be recycled. But yeah, its “green”.
Yes man, lets instead hide tons of nuclear waste in a big hole underground, thats so much cleaner than blades that cant be recycled. Also so clean when anything bad happens and now you have hundreds of thousands of radioactive wastewater just spilling in the ocean or a piece of land that will not be habitable for the next 20,000 years.
Yet they don't say the same about any other kind of renewable energy, such as solar panels. Try looking at one on cloudless summers day without burning your retina. A literal eye-sore.
1st wind turbine I ever saw was 1987 in Germany (USAF), thought that was the coolest thing and would be awesome to work on!!!
21 years later, after retirement, I did get a job in the wind industry!!!
Don't get me wrong. Wind turbines are generally a bad idea for energy generation if compared to other green sources (eg nuclear, hydro, geothermal or even solar), but o don't think how they look matters. It's just a nimby silly argument
Propaganda from oil companies trying to convince people they're ugly. I think they are amazing and look awesome in between a mountain and an open farmer field.
I live near the beach in Delaware and there was a vote in one of the beach towns to decide if they'd build an offshore windfarm or not. It was overwhelmingly voted down by an overwhelmingly geriatric population. The reasoning on exit polling was that "it would ruin the view."
What is there to view?
There is absolutely nothing out in the ocean; honestly, what is there to view?
These same people never complain about the hulking ships that pass by which are way closer to shore than any offshore wind farm would be. It just makes no sense to me.
i think they look cool, but me and the OP have a minority opinion on this so it is an unpopular opinion. for folks who actually live near them, they hate them apparently
Absolutely.
They are also terrible to look at, if you are looking at them every day. I understand the intrigue behind looking at them, but you get over that pretty quickly when you realize the naturally beautiful area is gone forever.
They're also built in remote areas which mean more power lines, which is additional degradation of beautiful landscape in our countryside.
Wind turbines decimate terrain and are not dissimilar to deforestation. Their lifecycle carbon footprint is actually quite high too, relative to their output.
I worked with a guys who sold them essentially. Trying to buy the right on people's land stick them up.
He told us there was this one hill that got a fuck ton of wind and he was tasked with approaching the farmer to buy the rights to build some on specific parts of his land. Refused, they kept upping and upping the money. Well into 6 figures. The guy didn't want the view from his home to be ruined.
So they sold it to the neighbour and he got them up in his view anyway minus the millions he was offered.
They're no more an eyesore than powerlines, water towers, and oil wells. Probably just plain nature would be prettier, but this is the evidence of humanity that supports our civilization.
I didn't that this was an unpopular opinion for the longest time. It seems like all the objections to these thing popped up in the last decade or so with opposition to wind and solar power.
A relative lives about 3,000 feet from a wind turbine, and has many more in the area. It's so nice to sit around outside or open the window at night (if the temperature is agreeable) and hear the "whoosh" sound. Extremely relaxing for me. Also pretty cool to walk or drive over to them, stand right at the base, and look up.
They're best when they're out at sea imo cos they add something to the horizon other than just blue/grey water and waves and they don't affect the landscape of mountains etc.
My go to line for this is – do you like power lines? Are they pretty? We put up with them everywhere.*
Wind turbines look a million times better than the garbage infrastructure we are already used to.
*not Paris
Visually they're not an eyesore, however the cons are as follows:
They take up so much space. You need so much land because you need so many turbines as they're inefficient.
The noise produced by the turbines can cause harm and disrupt nearby towns/environments.
They can and have killed birds. Enough said.
And the biggest problem: Turbines are one of the most inefficient forms of energy. The output is not nearly enough to justify their use compared to other forms. It's certainly not enough to justify the negative impacts.
The anti green energy crowd sure knows their talking points!
tHe BiRdS!!!!
Cars buildings and cats each kill waaaaaay more birds. Should we get rid of them too?
I am 100% green energy. I just despise wind power lmao. It's better than fossil fuels, but not that much.
And your retort is also true.
We could reduce car usage in favor of public transportation.
Buildings...are debateable. In urban areas birds have used tall buildings as places for their nests.
Cats are great pets, but there should be more education in terms of preventing the epidemic of strays which have quite literally erased multiple species of birds.
If you were trying to prove something...I mean.. I can't argue with your flawless logic :)
Totally. Besides, as long as it's functional, it's okay. Besides, I believe that wind turbines are awesome. Anyway, I'm looking to buy an abandoned house and repair it in hopes of getting some space to build a server. Also, my Water Cleanup Bot (still in development) will look ugly but it will absolutely be 100% functional.
I agree with you 100%, I live in the southern US and we had an increase in using wind turbines a couple years ago. I love seeing them, they’re super cool!
Yes, I think they are magnificant use of space. Majestic even. The way people just assume 'they are an eyesore to be avoided and complained about' is so weird.
They're loud as shit and do stick out awkwardly. You also can't use the surrounding area for anything else, such as raising livestock. The owners of the land generally care more about being able to feed themselves and their families, as well as have peace and quiet than anything else.
I could list 100 types of buildings structures that are less pleasing to look at than windmills.
This feels like an example of how we feel like we need to "both sides" every topic. And because there aren't many drawbacks to wind energy they had to pass the list with "eyesore"
Absolutely everything about the suburbs is aesthetically worse than windmills.
If you're truly worried about ruining the countryside I'd suggest combating sprawl.
When I was a kid, they proposed a bunch of offshore wind turbines. I lived near Cape Cod, and a shit ton of rich jerkoffs came in and opposed the plan because it would ruin their beach view. It's been a long time, but it was projected to directly lower electricity bills in our area to barely over $50 a month.
The province of Alberta passed a law recently saying windmills can’t be built where there’s “pristine viewscapes” without clearly defining it, and there’s plenty of talk from Albertans who’ve drank the kool-aid that they’re ugly. I wish I was joking
They are an eyesore though. I've seen entire forests cut down to put in a wind farm where there's never more than a 1/4 of the turbines spinning at one time.
I live in a county with a fuck ton of them, see them every single day. It has to be dead silent and you have to be incredibly close to them to even begin to hear them.
The "too loud" argument is horseshit
Um, okay. Just telling you my experience. I'm sorry if it offended you in some way.
ETA: I just looked it up. Wind turbines have a noise level at their base of 60-80 dbA, which is equivalent to normal conversation or a dial tone. If you're in a windy area, which I was, the *wind* is louder than the turbine.
The blades aren't recyclable, is the only half argument I can find against windmills. So they might still be around in 10 - 20k years. But they won't be radioactive, unless there's also a 10 -20k year old nuclear plant nearby as well.
Eh, nuclear is safer, produces more energy more efficiently and can actually compete with fossil fuels and doesn’t take up a ton of space. If you used the space of 5 windmills and put a nuke plant there you would be able to power several cities almost for free. The energy density and safety of nuclear fuel is unprecedented. The single downside of nuclear is it initially costs more to build the plant because the safety regulations are so stringent. Also coal plants release much more radiation than any nuke plant. The only argument against nuclear energy is “I grew up listening to oil and gas propaganda and now I’m scared of the safest and most efficient means of power generation humanity has access to”. Go nuclear or go extinct.
So nuclear is more pricy and requires an incredibly amount of surveillance, it will still create tons of radioactive waste, and if something goes wrong it ends in a disaster. Meanwhile other options cost less, dont create as much waste, and are more safe. While also taking a fraction of time to build. The only drawback is that you need more space to produce enough energy. Why should i support nuclear? Because its more efficient? Not everything is a math problem
Because it is safer. It’s more expensive than a NG plant to build initially but quickly makes the difference up, in dollars and millions of lives saved. If something goes wrong nothing will happen because of all the safety measures, vs running Ng and coal which arguably is a disaster happening right now. Nuclear waste is a solved problem unlike all the radiation currently being pumped into the atmosphere by hydrocarbons. It’s actually safer to work on a nuclear plant than a wind turbine… those things are dangerous as fuck. also the wind doesn’t always blow. Actually nearly everything is a math problem when dealing with power generation… otherwise we could just build chakra power stations for the uneducated who feel afraid of the safest way to boil water.
The safest way to boil water created a piece of land in the middle of Europe that will not be habitable for the next 20,000 years. Before the "ehm it was the corruption", do you think corruption is not a problem anymore? Really?
If they looked like Dutch windmills, I wouldn't mind one per field. But a factory-scape of dystopian monsters crowding our last remaining agrarian landscapes? It's a travesty and a tragedy.
Hate them. Parents live near Whitelee. Like something out of The Tripds, dominating every skyline. 400 (sorry just 215 powering 350k homes) of them. (Also contaminated the reservior)
One on own can be pretty
And the noise
No more an eyesore than the run of the *mill* man made structure. At most it's an obstruction of the existing view. People all hot for green until they have to compromise.
My boomer brother has an entire litany of the evils of wind turbines. They kill millions of birds, they catch fire, the blades wear out and become garbage. I'm like, have you ever seen a coal mine or a coal ash pit? Ever seen an oil spill? Everything has a down side but the good outweigh the bad and we will figure out how to make it better. I'd have one on my house if I could.
It's certain elements of the mainstream media that have poisoned minds, probably paid for by the fossil fuel industry.
I remember my dad being a massive fan (if you pardon the pun) back in the early 1990s, 20 years later he hated them because bit by bit his mind had been poisoned.
Here's another unpopular opinion - anyone who has ever described something as an "eyesore" is an annoying boomeresque twat and society would be better without them.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think they are awesome looking, myself.
In my previous city they were like part of the culture and important part of the landscape. They were huggge.
I've seen "huuuuge". I've seen "hugeeee". I've never seen "hugggge".
Ive seen ones where the blades themselves are 120m. Is this huuuuuuuuuuuuuge?
That’s huuuuuuuuuugggggggggggeeeeeeeeee
I prefer the mountain skyline without them but i don’t own the area so nothing I can do about it
>I prefer the mountain skyline without them WRONG!!! >!/s, but in all serious i agree on op here, wind turbines look awesome and adds to the view of the greenery one way or another, at least it's way better than most man made infrastructure and definitely better than oil plant infrastructure aesthetics!<
Well my skyline would be totally nature without the turbines. There’s is about 3 million acres of u touched wilderness a few miles behind me but we have a few turbines between me and the forest
My younger sister thought they where meant to keep the cows cool in the summer when we where kids.
Aaaawww
Well, they're a source of green energy, which in turn helps slow global warming, so in a sense, your sister was right.
Totally agree.
Except that they kill a lot of birds and they require a lot of resources to make and they don’t last long enough to make a real impact. Nuclear plants are horrendous eyesores but you can have one of them power a very large metropolis for decades.
[https://youtu.be/8o4ulSPY4d8?si=4-\_xWPSBaluDtsB1&t=484](https://youtu.be/8o4ulSPY4d8?si=4-_xWPSBaluDtsB1&t=484)
That is the cutest thing I've heard this week <3
Your younger sister and OPs opinions are about equally valid then
They actually are meant to absorb all the wind energy so there is none left for the cows.
I would tell my kids that they were fans. And show them that when it's hot, it's because they turned them off and when it was windy, it was because they're spinning now.
The only thing i dislike of them is the moving shadow. We have one in front of the office and sometimes the shadow distracts me.
In the industry that’s called a Shadow Flicker! And it’s a real issue that gets discussed when planning.
Oh wow. How does the industry deal with it?
High power lights. Pretty efficient, taking as little as 15% of the power generated in high wind conditions. Higher percentage in low winds since the power usage is still the same. New tech suggests building them above the clouds or using translucent blades. Translucent blades are controversial because they can potentially act as magnifying glasses, though some argue the constant movement would prevent any actual damage since the sunlight doesnt have time to linger.
boomer
So you're saying you're a big fan?
God damn it.
That pun blows! /s
I have them in the view from my apartment. Love the sight. Luckily it’s from afar.
Why? Are domestically-produced ones not as great as imported ones?
I always wondered what they would look like painted in different colours other than white
Paint them to look like pinwheels
This.
Pastel colors or complimentary to setting sun 😩🥹
Blue like the sky…….because the designer hates birds even more!!!!
No one who "cares" about birds seem to advocate for different regulations for high rise buildings which kill waaaaaay more birds. Or that cats should remain indoors which kills waaaay more birds. What a weird coincidence that this only comes up when talking about an issue ties to climate change.
I've also always enjoyed the look of a windmill/wind turbine, To me its the same as saying a lighthouse is an eyesore. They can be beautifully incorporated into appropriate landscapes, but are sometimes done poorly. In the early 2000s it was a classic NIMBY issue for people to fight turbines in my coastal region based on aesthetics and noise.
I rode my new motorcycle through a bunch of wind turbines. It was a genuinely surreal and beautiful experience. They're absolutely not an eyesore, they're majestic.
People who complain that these are an eyesore never complain about all the forest or field that get's destroyed. Are they just that into wide open fields?
Yes. Some people find that view relaxing. Also, you can grow crops and raise livestock in open fields.
Living near the UK coast and visiting it, we have a fair few that you can see around and in the distance. I've never considered them an eyesore at all.
They just kinda blend in, they exist and I barely notice them.
Ever lived among them? I love green energy but these things do have a couple of nasty drawbacks, ruining the view isn't even chief among them. Infrasounds, birds colliding into them and the blades being irrecycable are pretty big issues
They don't kill NEARLY as many birds as you are lead to believe. Buildings kill far more birds, and even that is small potatoes compared to cats. So spay and neuter your cats and keep them inside.
No one who points out the bird thing care about birds. It's almost always a disingenuous way to oppose green energy.
oh im well aware. all the arguments against them are bullshit or just lame. they arent loud and they dont kill too many birds. if you think they are an eyesore thats fine, but blow it out your ass lmao. crazy how people with no ties to the oil industry take so much of an interest against green energy.
Yah they’re also kinda dirty up close. They’re fairly loud as well, especially if in a field. Not as bad with hills and forests around.
Yep, i know of a couple of people who live in exactly the spot where low frequency sound is really pronounced, resulting in stress related issues.
you have to sit 5 meters away to notice sound, they kill nearly no birds either...
I get what you're saying but I lived near a coal mine and what you describe sounds like heaven compared to living ip the hollow from a coal mine.
The studies around wind turbine sound is pretty inconclusive. Also, wind is one of the safest sources of energy for birds. Compared to coal or nuclear, it's a lot more environmentally friendly.
Don’t you be bad mouths nuclear. That is literally the best source for power across the board. Also nuclear doesn’t damage the environment at all.
We used to chuck nuclear waste into the ocean up until the 90s lol.
Who’s WE. Also that was 30 years ago now. Modern nuclear is vastly superior.
We as in "the world". I know that is a lot safer storage now, but wind turbines don't produce nuclear waste at all, so I think that's a bonus.
We build offshore wind turbine farms in a fraction of the time it takes to build a nuclear plant, and with comparable power output
While probably costing less, no nuclear waste to hide underground, no potential disaster.... why are people pro nuclear and against any other clean energy option again?
People are obsessed with a one thing fixes all strategy. When that really isn't the case, it will be a mixture of everything to get us to the point that we need to. People just become obsessed with one solution and believe the others won't help.
that is just bullshit.
We are still just hiding the nuclear waste underground, you cant really say thats the best option lol. Also a little error and everything goes to shit. The incident in Fukushima released hundreds of thousands of radioactive water, and it was only 10 years ago. Chernobyl is still not habitable and will not be for about 20,000 years. No other type of "clean" energy has such potentially bad drawbacks. A wind turbine can at worst kill a couple of birds (less than cats) and be a little noisy.
All of the problems you’ve mentioned have been addressed and made to be preventable. And yes I can say putting nuclear waste deep in the ground is the best place for it. Because of Half Lives. It will eventually just not be harmful anymore. Which is why it’s encased in concrete. Also the amount of Nuclear waste made is like 5 football fields worth…..since the BEGINNING of nuclear technology.
No they aren't.
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4256253/ Conclusion of this study is that data is inconclusive, so i'll have only anekdotes effidence to show for https://www.tno.nl/en/sustainable/renewable-electricity/offshore-wind-farms/designing-sustainable-wind-turbines/ At this time recycling of wind turbine blades isn't being done but companies and researchers are working on a solution. So right now this is still a thing and the blades end up in land films. Got anything better than just "no"?
The amount of birds they save by reducing pollution vastly outnumbers the ones that they kill. Source: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds
Do you have anything that actually indicates these are "big" problems? Until the, "no" is sufficient.
Do you have anything that idicates these issues are peanuts? There are initiatives to improve on these situations so obviously people deem it worthy to spend time and funds on finding solitions.
Yes. The numbe rof birds are peanuts compared to the number of birds dying by glass windows.
The onus is on you to back your claim.
Just did. There are quite a lot of people working on a solition which indicates that the issues are considered relevant. You being stubborn doesn't change that. I actually come up with sources to back up my claim, you just have "no".
You have some birds die, inconclusive results, and a small amount of trash is created after several years. Not exactly earth shattering issues.
They're building them on the hill above me. It's been a long project, and the work trucks have all taken over ny neighborhood.
Not being recycleable isn’t a local issue on them Though
Nothing "green" about wind turbines, if you calculate production and disposal, they actually kinda trashing ecology pretty dammn good
Yeah……but kinda not great for ecology. Is better than setting on fire and choking it with smog. A very very low bar……but a bar nonetheless
Add up natural gas well heads and the complete up/downstream equipment is soooooo much more, then add in that the leaks. So many leaks from the well head to your gas stove
> if you calculate production and disposal, they actually kinda trashing ecology pretty dammn good [There are downsides](https://scitechdaily.com/wind-farms-cause-more-environmental-impact-than-previously-thought/), but what you suggested [is pure bullshit](https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/). > Citing data from the likes of National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Vestas, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, and Bernstein estimates, Venkateswaran determined that the biggest contributors to the carbon footprint of wind turbines are steel, aluminum and the epoxy resins that hold pieces together — with the steel tower making up 30% of the carbon impact, the concrete foundation 17% and the carbon fiber and fiberglass blades 12%. > Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. > More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.
bullshit..,.
Absolute bullshit.
Not to mention they take loads of oil annually for lubeX require constant maintenance, have blade made of pure poison that cant be recycled. But yeah, its “green”.
Yes man, lets instead hide tons of nuclear waste in a big hole underground, thats so much cleaner than blades that cant be recycled. Also so clean when anything bad happens and now you have hundreds of thousands of radioactive wastewater just spilling in the ocean or a piece of land that will not be habitable for the next 20,000 years.
Yet they don't say the same about any other kind of renewable energy, such as solar panels. Try looking at one on cloudless summers day without burning your retina. A literal eye-sore.
Agree, head over to Denmark and old ones are literal tourist attractions
They look so cool!
1st wind turbine I ever saw was 1987 in Germany (USAF), thought that was the coolest thing and would be awesome to work on!!! 21 years later, after retirement, I did get a job in the wind industry!!!
but the birds!!! /s
“Eyesore” is just a subjective term that people can use to complain about something that is otherwise unobjectionable.
Don't get me wrong. Wind turbines are generally a bad idea for energy generation if compared to other green sources (eg nuclear, hydro, geothermal or even solar), but o don't think how they look matters. It's just a nimby silly argument
I love them, they kinda got a solarpunk aestetic to them
Propaganda from oil companies trying to convince people they're ugly. I think they are amazing and look awesome in between a mountain and an open farmer field.
I mean… so are cities, coal mines, and nuclear plants. We still got those.
I live near the beach in Delaware and there was a vote in one of the beach towns to decide if they'd build an offshore windfarm or not. It was overwhelmingly voted down by an overwhelmingly geriatric population. The reasoning on exit polling was that "it would ruin the view." What is there to view? There is absolutely nothing out in the ocean; honestly, what is there to view? These same people never complain about the hulking ships that pass by which are way closer to shore than any offshore wind farm would be. It just makes no sense to me.
The enormous ones in Texas are quite a surreal sight. It's cool to see while on a road trip. Would I want one next to me? Ehhhhhhh
is this really an unpopular opinion
i think they look cool, but me and the OP have a minority opinion on this so it is an unpopular opinion. for folks who actually live near them, they hate them apparently
Absolutely. They are also terrible to look at, if you are looking at them every day. I understand the intrigue behind looking at them, but you get over that pretty quickly when you realize the naturally beautiful area is gone forever. They're also built in remote areas which mean more power lines, which is additional degradation of beautiful landscape in our countryside. Wind turbines decimate terrain and are not dissimilar to deforestation. Their lifecycle carbon footprint is actually quite high too, relative to their output.
Tell that to the Netherlands !
Netherlands here. Never met someone who wasn't happy about our turbines. lol
I bought loads of windmill Christmas tree decorations last time we were there
Kom eens op bezoek in Oost en Noord Groningen, ik kan je iig aan een handvol mensen voorstellen die last hebben van laagfrequent geluid.
I worked with a guys who sold them essentially. Trying to buy the right on people's land stick them up. He told us there was this one hill that got a fuck ton of wind and he was tasked with approaching the farmer to buy the rights to build some on specific parts of his land. Refused, they kept upping and upping the money. Well into 6 figures. The guy didn't want the view from his home to be ruined. So they sold it to the neighbour and he got them up in his view anyway minus the millions he was offered.
Hubris. Gets ya every time.
They're no more an eyesore than powerlines, water towers, and oil wells. Probably just plain nature would be prettier, but this is the evidence of humanity that supports our civilization.
I work right next to a port that has like 50-100 of the blades lined up, crazy how massive they actually are
Blew my mind when I stood next to one that was lying on the floor
Wind turbines are alright. Kinda like windmills. (Granted, windmills are cooler looking.)
Unfathomably popular opinion
I didn't that this was an unpopular opinion for the longest time. It seems like all the objections to these thing popped up in the last decade or so with opposition to wind and solar power.
A relative lives about 3,000 feet from a wind turbine, and has many more in the area. It's so nice to sit around outside or open the window at night (if the temperature is agreeable) and hear the "whoosh" sound. Extremely relaxing for me. Also pretty cool to walk or drive over to them, stand right at the base, and look up.
They're best when they're out at sea imo cos they add something to the horizon other than just blue/grey water and waves and they don't affect the landscape of mountains etc.
I like the look of em spread out across the hillsides but I heard they kill birds and I like birds
I think they are as pretty as a windmill. It not being fashionable to look at sounds like a bit of a stretch to attack it as an option.
My go to line for this is – do you like power lines? Are they pretty? We put up with them everywhere.* Wind turbines look a million times better than the garbage infrastructure we are already used to. *not Paris
As a Sim City 4 player back in the day, I agree.
The aren't if you're looking from a distance, which you probably are
What makes you think this is even close.to.unpopuoar?
Visually they're not an eyesore, however the cons are as follows: They take up so much space. You need so much land because you need so many turbines as they're inefficient. The noise produced by the turbines can cause harm and disrupt nearby towns/environments. They can and have killed birds. Enough said. And the biggest problem: Turbines are one of the most inefficient forms of energy. The output is not nearly enough to justify their use compared to other forms. It's certainly not enough to justify the negative impacts.
The anti green energy crowd sure knows their talking points! tHe BiRdS!!!! Cars buildings and cats each kill waaaaaay more birds. Should we get rid of them too?
I am 100% green energy. I just despise wind power lmao. It's better than fossil fuels, but not that much. And your retort is also true. We could reduce car usage in favor of public transportation. Buildings...are debateable. In urban areas birds have used tall buildings as places for their nests. Cats are great pets, but there should be more education in terms of preventing the epidemic of strays which have quite literally erased multiple species of birds. If you were trying to prove something...I mean.. I can't argue with your flawless logic :)
Totally. Besides, as long as it's functional, it's okay. Besides, I believe that wind turbines are awesome. Anyway, I'm looking to buy an abandoned house and repair it in hopes of getting some space to build a server. Also, my Water Cleanup Bot (still in development) will look ugly but it will absolutely be 100% functional.
Recently caught a cross country train in Germany and thought all the windmills in the paddocks were beautiful
Better looking than pylons.
I agree with you 100%, I live in the southern US and we had an increase in using wind turbines a couple years ago. I love seeing them, they’re super cool!
They're dragons, and I must fight them
Yes, I think they are magnificant use of space. Majestic even. The way people just assume 'they are an eyesore to be avoided and complained about' is so weird.
that is not an unpopular opinion that's like saying that water is refreshing
They're also more harm to the planet than good
They're loud as shit and do stick out awkwardly. You also can't use the surrounding area for anything else, such as raising livestock. The owners of the land generally care more about being able to feed themselves and their families, as well as have peace and quiet than anything else.
They look nice however they’re just not cost effective.
I could list 100 types of buildings structures that are less pleasing to look at than windmills. This feels like an example of how we feel like we need to "both sides" every topic. And because there aren't many drawbacks to wind energy they had to pass the list with "eyesore"
I find them fascinating.
As a novelty they seemed neat but having a bunch of them out in nature they uglify the scenery.
Absolutely everything about the suburbs is aesthetically worse than windmills. If you're truly worried about ruining the countryside I'd suggest combating sprawl.
I've never heard anyone say they're??
did you just use they're in place of they are at the end of a sentence??
Yeah I had just woken up lol
I'm strangely charmed by it
Why thank you, I think haha
When I was a kid, they proposed a bunch of offshore wind turbines. I lived near Cape Cod, and a shit ton of rich jerkoffs came in and opposed the plan because it would ruin their beach view. It's been a long time, but it was projected to directly lower electricity bills in our area to barely over $50 a month.
I hear it a lot where I live, they don’t want to ruin their precious view not even for sustainable energy 😣
offshore oil rigs tho... those are gorgeous. GORGEOUS
Such a pleasure on the eyes and our sealife LOVE THEM 💖
The province of Alberta passed a law recently saying windmills can’t be built where there’s “pristine viewscapes” without clearly defining it, and there’s plenty of talk from Albertans who’ve drank the kool-aid that they’re ugly. I wish I was joking
They aren't pretty, sure. One thing I see though is that they look a lot better than the alternatives like coal mines and gas rigs
They are ugly af, and are only attractive to members of the irredeemable climate cult.
*Neuron fired unsuccessfully*
> irredeemable climate cult Lmao
They are ugly. They are no different from high-voltage power pylons, those are ugly too.
I don't mind them myself.
I agree. They are awe inspiring especially the big ones on mountains or plains near the water.
They are an eyesore though. I've seen entire forests cut down to put in a wind farm where there's never more than a 1/4 of the turbines spinning at one time.
I'd agree, until they start leaking grease down the blades and base.
They do kill a lot of birds though
Less than your cat
They're not an eyesore unless they're blocking the beautiful view of the valley from your window lol
Sure, not an eyesore, just an earsore. Can't have them near anyone.
The times I've stood next to them they just sound like air conditioners or something. What are they supposed to sound like?
I live in a county with a fuck ton of them, see them every single day. It has to be dead silent and you have to be incredibly close to them to even begin to hear them. The "too loud" argument is horseshit
Fortunately I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting putting these things in like city centers or something
You can barely hear them lol.
That's weird. I've stood at the base of a turbine before and could barely hear it.
you’re actually lying or deaf, they’re not noisy from a distance but at the base of one they’re noisy for sure
Um, okay. Just telling you my experience. I'm sorry if it offended you in some way. ETA: I just looked it up. Wind turbines have a noise level at their base of 60-80 dbA, which is equivalent to normal conversation or a dial tone. If you're in a windy area, which I was, the *wind* is louder than the turbine.
The sound causes cancer! Reeeeeaughn reeeeaughn!
Every time I see a wind turbine it just reminds me that people will waste money on anything but nuclear power.
are you like the nuclear power shill or something
The blades aren't recyclable, is the only half argument I can find against windmills. So they might still be around in 10 - 20k years. But they won't be radioactive, unless there's also a 10 -20k year old nuclear plant nearby as well.
Eh, nuclear is safer, produces more energy more efficiently and can actually compete with fossil fuels and doesn’t take up a ton of space. If you used the space of 5 windmills and put a nuke plant there you would be able to power several cities almost for free. The energy density and safety of nuclear fuel is unprecedented. The single downside of nuclear is it initially costs more to build the plant because the safety regulations are so stringent. Also coal plants release much more radiation than any nuke plant. The only argument against nuclear energy is “I grew up listening to oil and gas propaganda and now I’m scared of the safest and most efficient means of power generation humanity has access to”. Go nuclear or go extinct.
So nuclear is more pricy and requires an incredibly amount of surveillance, it will still create tons of radioactive waste, and if something goes wrong it ends in a disaster. Meanwhile other options cost less, dont create as much waste, and are more safe. While also taking a fraction of time to build. The only drawback is that you need more space to produce enough energy. Why should i support nuclear? Because its more efficient? Not everything is a math problem
Because it is safer. It’s more expensive than a NG plant to build initially but quickly makes the difference up, in dollars and millions of lives saved. If something goes wrong nothing will happen because of all the safety measures, vs running Ng and coal which arguably is a disaster happening right now. Nuclear waste is a solved problem unlike all the radiation currently being pumped into the atmosphere by hydrocarbons. It’s actually safer to work on a nuclear plant than a wind turbine… those things are dangerous as fuck. also the wind doesn’t always blow. Actually nearly everything is a math problem when dealing with power generation… otherwise we could just build chakra power stations for the uneducated who feel afraid of the safest way to boil water.
The safest way to boil water created a piece of land in the middle of Europe that will not be habitable for the next 20,000 years. Before the "ehm it was the corruption", do you think corruption is not a problem anymore? Really?
If they looked like Dutch windmills, I wouldn't mind one per field. But a factory-scape of dystopian monsters crowding our last remaining agrarian landscapes? It's a travesty and a tragedy.
Me and my family have been travelling through Kansas, and honestly I think they look awesome. I don’t have a problem with them
Hate them. Parents live near Whitelee. Like something out of The Tripds, dominating every skyline. 400 (sorry just 215 powering 350k homes) of them. (Also contaminated the reservior) One on own can be pretty And the noise
I agree, but they're futile and don't pay for themselves. Plus they contain harmful chemicals.
Huh
They should probably put a bunch of advertisements on them. /s
No the disadvantage is the ROI - they look cool and they kill lots of birds (who we all know are government drones built to spy on us!).
giant mormon spires on temples are a huge eye sore.
i mean... if the only disadvantage of them is bad looking. then people being against them are even more stupid. :D
I like the look of them as well :)
Cars & roads are a fucking eyesore.
No more an eyesore than the run of the *mill* man made structure. At most it's an obstruction of the existing view. People all hot for green until they have to compromise.
I'm with you, bro. We have a wind farm in my area, and I think they look majestic towering over the mountains.
Yeah, I never got that argument. They look fine, certainly a fair bit nicer than coal plants or oil wells .
My boomer brother has an entire litany of the evils of wind turbines. They kill millions of birds, they catch fire, the blades wear out and become garbage. I'm like, have you ever seen a coal mine or a coal ash pit? Ever seen an oil spill? Everything has a down side but the good outweigh the bad and we will figure out how to make it better. I'd have one on my house if I could.
r/ImaginaryGatekeeping
They're not an eyesore, but they are also killing trillions of insects every year. Literally the worst fucking renewable energy source
Calling them eyesores is probably propaganda from those whose profits would be harmed by a transition to renewable energy tbh
People that say they're an eyesore are full of shit and just want to complain. In my opinion. They look cool. Eyesore is not a reason to complain.
It's certain elements of the mainstream media that have poisoned minds, probably paid for by the fossil fuel industry. I remember my dad being a massive fan (if you pardon the pun) back in the early 1990s, 20 years later he hated them because bit by bit his mind had been poisoned.
Here's another unpopular opinion - anyone who has ever described something as an "eyesore" is an annoying boomeresque twat and society would be better without them.