This Page Has Moved >>>

This page has MOVED to: https://falseprogress.home.blog/2016/08/29/windturbineslandscapes/

If you’ve linked to this or other posts on the old site, please update your URLs. Thank you for visiting.

Laurel Mountain wind and battery storage

wind turbines - ugly noisy lethal futile (blight for naught)

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “This Page Has Moved >>>

  1. Respect Silence Post author

    For anyone who comments in support of wind power: If there was no such thing as climate change, what aspect of “the environment” would you want to protect most? Wouldn’t landscapes be high on the list? Also, do you really think wind turbines are divorced from fossil fuels, considering what’s needed to build them?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  2. Pingback: Industrial Wind Turbines: An Environmentally Hypocritical Landscape Tragedy | ajmarciniak

  3. Segue C

    Engineers may have “chosen to disrespect nature” but ultimately they have chosen to disrespect non-participating rural residents who are clearly being abused on many levels, small point in an otherwise well done article; a larger point which impinges on the piece’s credibility is the lack of awareness of the economic folly of small-scale unreliables.

    People who wish to experiment with them in their own lives with their own money are free to do so however it can easily be shown that on a purely economic basis they make little sense and should never be allowed on a modern grid. Unfortunately governments manipulation and draconian social engineering make it almost impossible for sane social, economic and environmental solutions to prevail. The UN “sustainability” agenda has been anything but and will ultimately achieve the same ends as all forms of totalitarian rule.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Respect Silence Post author

      Well put, though your angle is more economic vs. aesthetic. I see the wind industry as an inevitable outcome of greed and economic growth obsession, which drives the whole energy business. There’s also the urge to constantly “build stuff” and support construction jobs, like always trying to increase housing-starts on finite acreage (population growth drives that). Wind turbines are another phase of urban sprawl, but much more visible.

      I don’t see turbine-proliferation as a plot to specifically upset rural people. They just happen to be where the practical land is, but of course the result is the same. The oceans are another big target but water acreage (or acre-feet) lacks a sense of ownership, even though millions of people look at it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  4. Pingback: Not to make Blight of it:Tourism Revisited | lsarc

  5. E.A.

    I see the wind power issue as similar to leftist excuses for human overpopulation. They say it’s not too many people, just poor allocation of resources, and they assume the whole planet must share because of oil-based transport. With wind turbines, they say growing numbers of big machines are OK if it fights global warming, but they haven’t proved it really does. It’s entirely subjective to justify that environmental damage in any event. It’s a case of P.C. Groupthink without common sense.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Respect Silence Post author

      Yes, definite parallels between machine overcrowding and human overcrowding. I can’t see how any intrinsic environmentalist would NOT have a sustained negative reaction to these huge industrial parks.

      The definition of an environmentalist is someone who wants to protect nature from human depredation, not someone full of excuses for any alternative to active carbon emissions. I say “active” because wind turbines are hardly emission-free in their total life cycle.

      Like

      Reply
    1. Respect Silence Post author

      Thanks for your listing, with the caveat that I’m not keen on these articles: https://quixoteslaststand.com/?s=climate+change+hoax&submit=Search

      I see no sense in wasting finite fossil fuels for any reason; they are far too important to be squandered as a form of defiance. Fighting wind power with climate-denial ends up perpetuating stereotypes like this, which hurts the overall cause: https://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/22/the-truth-about-the-anti-wind-movement-a-tiny-paranoid-disinformed-koch-funded-fringe/

      Wind turbines should be seen as a new environmental scourge that gullible people have bought as a solution to AGW. The promotion of wind energy as a climate fix creates guilt by association and lends itself to emotional arguments against climatologists, but has no bearing on the laws of thermodynamics (CO2 doesn’t care if wind turbines are ugly). The focus should be on wind energy’s environmental hypocrisy and greener options like solar PV subsidies.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. mikelowe2013

        Whilst it may be technically correct to describe fossil fuels as “finite”, advances in gas and oil recovery by fracking and amazing horizontal drilling have enabled known reserves to be massively increased. There are now sufficient known reserves in the US alone to last hundreds of years. That will give the nuclear industry time to develop newer non-dangerous forms of nuclear energy. Absolutely no need for these bird-munching windmills, especially as they are so inefficient. As we are now seeing global cooling, even if the CO2 scare were true (for which there is absolutely no proof), we need MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, to assist in growing more crops to offset the cooler temperature effect.

        Like

      2. Respect Silence Post author

        Quote: “There are now sufficient known reserves in the US alone to last hundreds of years.”

        If you’re referring to coal, maybe, but that’s just not true for petroleum. Peak Oil never went away, it was just temporarily postponed by tight-oil fracking and higher OPEC output (likely designed to compete with fracking).

        Tight oil (including tar sands) is the difficult, low-ERoI stuff, not the free-flowing crude of yesteryear, and armchair analysts fail to account for the large energy inputs needed to extract it, Kerogen (an oil precursor) gets ridiculously overhyped as containing “trillions” of barrels. Just look up USGS shale oil projections with American daily consumption of ~20 million barrels in mind. A billion barrels sounds like a big number but only lasts America about 2 months, and oil is sold on the global market which burns it about 5 times as fast. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=shale+reserves+overstated

        You also lost me with the CO2-is-always-good claim aka global warming denial. Being against wind power for unscientific reasons hurts the credibility of the cause.

        Like

      3. Sherri Lange

        I love this article, and thanks. However, it is essential that we cry out against climate lies as well, because the global warming hysteria has led to massive acceptance for industrial wind and solar, too. Solar is four or five times more subsidized than wind, and is frankly, toxic as well. I know you mention solar in parking lots, and small applications, and I say, let’s wait for nano solar, geo thermal, perhaps new nuclear, and other R and D energy advances in the works. It seems that LARGE as you note, is the modus operandi, and massive fields of solar that burn birds from above is also obscene. Did we mention highly toxic rare earth elements, and non recyclable, too? “https://grist.org/climate-energy/thousands-of-birds-are-igniting-mid-air-whats-solar-got-to-do-with-it/” This is equally ugly and disgusting.

        Thanks for a wonderful piece. Don’t be afraid of global climate lies! They will make you even more determined to tell the truth!

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Respect Silence Post author

        Well, show me specific “climate lies” that don’t involve conspiracy theories or ignoring the automatic heat-trapping vibrations of CO2 molecules which don’t recognize politics. The Earth came with no warranty saying “Just do what makes you feel good and it will all work out somehow.”

        Possibly a few climate warnings are too dire but I wouldn’t bank on rolling dice decades into the future! Fossil fuels are finite, CO2 traps infrared radiation, AND wind turbines are futile & ugly.

        Like

      5. Sherri Lange

        Respectfully, there are many scientists who openly talk climate change, which of course happens, and is real, fairly, without conspiracy theory, without politics. Many. Unfortunately, the “religion” of global warming,” which is now debunked quite clearly, as most agree we are in a period of global cooling, which may indeed be a little ice age again, has overtaken sensible and clear thinking about how we can best be environmentally sensitive, and have cleaner cheaper, safer energy sources. Many are being developed that will change things radically. If you read Joe Fone’s little book, Climate Change, Real or Manmade, a wonderfully researched romp through climate change facts through the ages, you will be forever changed. One friend says every child coming out of the womb should have this little book in its hand. I agree. There have been 20 ice ages, and five extinctions before mankind arrived. Please give me your email, and I will send you some materials….just read and see what you think. Maybe you will move a bit from your position. CO2 is not a pollutant. INDUSTRIAL CO2 may be considered a pollutant. However, man made CO2 is about 4% of all world CO2 levels produced.

        None of what I am saying diminishes the horrible legacy of waste and garbage and disrespect we show to the planet. But we cannot use climate FEAR to build out turbines and solar arrays, and ask entire policies to reside in the home of lies. It becomes lies upon lies. And then more difficult for us to untangle. Friends of Science in AB, Canada, has a think tank that outlines clearly many of these lies. https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

        https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0623/p09s02-coop.html

        None of what we disagree about takes away from your amazing article. Thank you again.

        Like

      6. Respect Silence Post author

        If you won’t accept the decades of research on CO2’s capabilities, I’d waste time debating you here. See: https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm (not a lib’rul site by any means)

        Note that climate skeptics never had a motive to question the core CO2 greenhouse effect (Earth would freeze without it) and Man is merely amplifying it. A scientific consensus is normally accepted until it questions a religious or money-motive, e.g. evolution, acid rain, CFCs, and now global warming. The latter is the biggest challenge to our energy system, so it’s meeting resistance from people who’s main goal in life is being happy and getting paid, just like the quasi-green wind power industry.

        Nobody questions the behavior of gases in an engine piston or home heater, since gases can only behave per the laws of physics. So why are scientists “clueless” when CO2 is the gas in question? CO2 is just a molecule with no awareness of whether people defy its capabilities for political or religious reasons. Likewise, gravity would not spare Scott Pruitt from the impact of an unethically-fired EPA employee jumping off a high-rise above him. Too bad about Trump opposing wind power (another hurdle for scientific credibility).

        I’ve never understood the point of AGW-denial. A wise fossil fuel industry would stretch supplies as long as possible. Oil is FINITE and it makes no sense to squander it just to defy the guv’mint asking people to conserve it. Wasting oil or leaving one’s lights on during Earth Day is like throwing food in the trash to protest high food prices. “Waste not, want not” used to be a conservative theme, now it’s gluttony wrapped in a flag.

        I’m glad you’re opposing wind power, but science-denial doesn’t do the movement any favors. It’s a lot like claiming Sandy Hook never happened, as a means to promote gun rights. I dislike wind power because it’s destroying the environment, just as are fossil fuels in a cumulative way. A “one vs. the other” mindset is unnecessary.

        Like

      7. Sherri Lange

        Oil is finite. Yes, and uranium likely enough for 70 years. New R and D for sure. Turbines ARE oil and fossil fuels, as you know.

        There are too many “disagreements,” to carry this conversation further. I wish you well.

        Like

      8. Respect Silence Post author

        Likewise, but I hope you’re aware that wind turbines weren’t initially invented to stop global warming. They were a 1970’s experiment to help offset fossil fuels, and also because it was just an interesting concept. Decades later they became totems for global warming prevention and they’re drawing reactions from rural victims predisposed to right-wing ideology; property rights, gun rights, not trusting “elitists,” etc.

        We disagree on AGW, but if you get practical results using that angle with rural councils, so be it!

        I just see zero logic in wasting fossil fuels for any reason, so it doesn’t even matter whether global warming is involved. Put the conserve back in conservatism and progress will be made.

        Like

      9. Sherri Lange

        Yes, I know. However, the turbine proliferation has been very much tied to fantasy of “saving the planet,” and this is tied to “from” global warming. The hysteria of trying to save the planet with turbines, as you know, my friend, is just plan crazy nuts. It sure works for SOME PEOPLE! Here is Vestas: Act on Facts, and following, the NA-PAW reply, Get Real Vestas. Vilification of fossil fuels? There is no need, because then you are necessarily damning turbines, too. What rubbish. Try taking fossil fuels away, and you condemn the poorest of the poor on the planet as well. Of course, cleaner and more sensible use…duh.

        YouTube link: …../watch?v=XoE8h81rBBU

        http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2013/11/07/get-real-vestas/
        Produced by NA-PAW

        Like

      10. Respect Silence Post author

        That video’s about a 9 on the annoying scale, questioning emotions while obviously playing with those of viewers! It’s too “emotional” to want nature to look like nature, eh? I think the tide has been turning on this since at least 2012, which is why ads like that exist in the first place. They must know they’re hypocrites.

        VESTAS = Vehemently Eradicating Scenery Through Applied Stealth

        Like

  6. Michael Stanton

    I like your point about the psychology of individuals involved. There is nothing more malevolently useful than a man who feels no compunction manipulating something he doesn’t understand. Inside their technologically-saturated lives, they think everything is just a “technical problem,” and will happily apply their “solutions” at scale in a blizzard of mouse-clicks, wondering what all the hue and cry is about. “It’s simple,” they insist, exasperated. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Respect Silence Post author

      Good comment about the “technical problem” rationalization. That’s what Rex Tillerson called AGW when he said it’s “an engineering problem and it has engineering solutions.” There’s that old saying about everything looking like a nail when all you have is a hammer.

      Wind energy is also promoted because of “single action bias.” People get tribal about a specific technology and insist that it must be a cure.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  7. Pingback: Why Do People Squander OIL and Other FINITE Resources? | False Progress

  8. Sherri Lange

    You have engaged in one of the most pressing but often ignored pieces of the decay and degradation surrounding the
    proliferation of wind. LANDSCAPES, BEAUTY, WHICH SHOULD NOT BE SACRIFICED FOR ANYTHING. Especially when it is as hideous a lack luster performing, nonsensical, harming, killing field. Wind. Thank you again.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Respect Silence Post author

      Yes, it’s obvious to people with aesthetic values. We could use someone like the late Oregon Gov. Tom McCall in charge of this country (best of right & left ideologies).

      Scotland (heritage here) has lost major areas of scenery and they even want to turbinate Loch Ness. Maybe that’ll finally drive out the mythic monster! Pass around this set of articles if you haven’t seen it: http://www.swlg.org.uk/uploads/6/3/3/8/6338077/spwln_final_small.pdf

      Like

      Reply
  9. Pingback: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly In Scotland – MindWind

  10. Lorrie Gillis

    Thank you for this. As one of the inhabitants at industrial wind turbine ground zero, I tell anyone who cares to listen about the physical assault from the emanations of these enormous monstrosities except for the environmental zealots, profiteers and naive believers. People get tired of listening, but we continue to suffer. We can’t get tired of it and move on unless we physically move on. These turbines are criminal for countless reasons. So are acres of solar panels to the hot south that are incinerating the creatures that fly over them. Again, thank you for eloquently pointing out the obvious versus the green/greed bubble.

    Like

    Reply
  11. songhees

    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    YouTube link: …/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    My website is
    “Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
    YouTube link: …/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    YouTube link: …/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
    http://www.drtimball.com

    Like

    Reply
    1. Respect Silence Post author

      The Alex Joneses of America are equally adamant in claiming that Sandy Hook was staged to grab guns from hard workin’ folk. It’s the same mindset that assumes the government wants to over-regulate people’s vehicles & energy habits, therefore they’re inventing false dangers. It’s a paranoid, self-centered theory, not a rational conclusion.

      If you find it implausible that man-made CO2 is causing extra warming beyond the natural greenhouse effect (made possible by CO2 in the first place) I don’t know what to tell you, except that CO2 molecules have no awareness of your politics, let alone your existence. They just automatically trap heat per the laws of physics and atom-level vibrations. The Earth would be too cold for most life without CO2.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=CO2+infrared+molecular+vibrations+trap+heat (how CO2 traps heat)
      https://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+joules+per+second (how much heat CO2 traps)

      Global warming deniers should think about their practical motives. Do they seek to waste more finite fossil fuels than are already being wasted? How does more waste help our long term energy security? The truly conservative (conservation) approach is to make oil, gas & coal last as long as possible with minimal emissions.

      As for wind turbines, I see them as a continuum of the same mentality that’s causing global warming. A secondary environmental blunder by a species that doesn’t think ahead very well.

      Like

      Reply
  12. Marshall Rosenthal

    I would only like to say that human beings are a part of nature; that’s the environment, and everything alive there. Some humans are harmed by having to live too close to wind turbines. Good or bad, they, the wind turbines, have no right to harm anyone, or anything. There seems to be a dirth of medical information in this conversation. As far as I am concerned, there is NO place for the safe placement of wind turbines, on land or at sea, no justification for their existence. This may seem a hardship, but let me remind you that archeologists dig up dead civilizations from time to time. I would prefer that mine was never found that way. When a single person commits suicide because he feels so clobbered by these machines and he can’t get any help from the state, his elected reps., anyone, I think it’s time to drop your point of view, and work to end wind power. For this, and many other reasons, I think wind power is a bad thing.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Respect Silence Post author

      Your points echo the logo/slogan of a major Australian anti wind power site. The industry needs to be halted on moral grounds before it ruins too many places. Too much time is wasted debating technical minutia or marginal economics while ignoring gut-level problems of scale, noise and the general wrongness of the whole enterprise.

      “Isn’t there some way of making energy that’s not so huge and obscene?” (Bob Lucas)

      Like

      Reply
  13. Pingback: Wind Energy Shills Capitalize on Trump Straw Man | False Progress

  14. Pingback: Wind Energy Shills Capitalize on Trump’s Criticisms – False Progress

  15. Pingback: Oil is FINITE at any price. Why do people keep wasting it? | False Progress

  16. Pingback: Green New Deal: Energy Sprawl Destroys Scenery, Wildlife and Rural Ambience | False Progress

Leave an intelligent comment:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s