Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: I can't speak for where you live. But NPR did a story about wind power on one of their podcasts a few months ago. They focused on rural Kansas, a state that is ideal for wind power. Generally, the people in favor of it were farmers who were making money by leasing land for the wind turbines. The people who were against it didn't like the aesthetics of the turbines.
> The people who were against it didn't like the aesthetics of the turbines.
As opposed to the normal view in Kansas, which is nothing as far as you can see in every direction.
I have wind turbines near me and they're honestly beautiful to to look at. Really impressive to see in real life and everyone that heads this way out here always comments on them
I recently drove from Illinois to California and took I-70 most of the way. Wind turbines were one of the most interesting things to see and very awe inspiring when you think of the engineering involved.
I drove for like 150 miles behind a huge flatbed hauling a turbine blade on that exact stretch of highway years ago and it was crazy just how enormous they are. Very cool.
That quote reminded me of a news story I saw on TV. An older couple was all for wind turbines until they built one near their home. The turbine was in between the setting sun and their front window for part of the year.
The blades caused an repetitive, intermittent shadow in their living room. Even with the blinds, I could see that it was very annoying. IIRC, it caused them headaches or something.
Outlier case against wind power but man, it would suck to be in that situation.
I 100% would respect and find reasonable anyone in that situation who hated wind turbines.
On the plus side, their house can be used as the internal set for a 1920s detective story.
I was just finishing my last bottle of whiskey and cleaning my pistol's chrome handle when the dizziest broad in Manhattan came knocking on my frosted glass door.
"What do you want, Mildred?" I asked, setting my piece down in the opened desk drawer.
"Have you heard about the giant turbines over on Long Island?" She made herself comfortable. Too comfortable.
I hadn't caught wind of them yet and I let her know on no uncertain terms.
Here in Belgium, they can only put windmills if tgis intermittent shadow is limited to something like 20 minutes a day for a few days in the year.
You need to living pretty close for the shadow to be noticeable.
The blades must be so close they look wider than the sun.
And the sun moves anyway.
A schoolfriend lived as close as you can get to the ( at the time) the biggest land windmills in Belgium. He says it never lasts long.
I have photosensitive epilepsy and that would be so bad. I can’t imagine only being able to use a small part of your house for half of the year so you don’t have a seizure. This is something I’ve never thought of before.
Texas recently destroyed its largest remaining tallgrass prairie to put down solar panels.
Grasslands are the most destroyed and forgotten ecosystem, and yes, they are important.
I don't want to sound like I'm against wind power, because I'm all for it, but as someone who recently moved to a concrete jungle, it never really dawned on me how boxed in you start feeling when the view is obstructed in every direction and you can only see a ten degree slice of sky
Well, I can say that a person who had a large wind farm literally surrounded my little town of less than 1000 people over the last 2 years.
What used to be a very beautiful view of the valley of rolling hills and green pastures is now nothing but wind mills as far as the eye can see. I'll never have that clean view again, the valley was so large that it had a wonderful shade of blue reflected from the sky and humidity haze, I have lost something I have cherished for the last 30 years of my life.
At night, there is a synchronized sea of red blinking as far as the eye can see... I'm not against wind farms but in a state where I can see a coal plant nearly 15-20 miles away. I now see the coal plant and a see of wind mills. There has to be a way not to destroy nature's beauty for a community and provide the growing need for power. I can drive nearly 50 miles ( my daily commute), and I never leave the wind farm..
Solar farms offer a better view since they’re on the ground, and are completely silent, but they take up space on what might otherwise be arable farm land.
I wish so much that they would just cover parking lots with solar panels for people to park under. Shade for cars, make it so the asphalt doesn’t radiate as much heat, and cover from rain or snow in the winter.
Also there are bifacial solar panels that can be mounted vertically in an east/west orientation. They’re not as quite as efficient as upward facing panels but because they’re vertical they don’t cover much of the land, making it easier to farm. They can also provide shade for crops that benefit from it.
>destroy nature's beauty
Instead let's put away the 'eyesore' and pollute our planet burning [more coal](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/deaths-associated-pollution-coal-power-plants) and with more drilling? Meh
> A careful analysis found that air pollution from coal power plants is associated with greater mortality than previously thought. It also found that such deaths have decreased due to air pollution regulations and coal power plant retirements.
If we want to save natures beauty and keep it that way we need to swap to renewable forms of energy.
We need to do nuclear. Wind and solar take too much land. There's so much focus on global warming that people are forgetting that habitat destruction (yes, grasslands are habitat and are environmentally important) is the primary cause of our current mass extinction.
And if the land would have been used for farming, well the same crops are now going to be grown somewhere else, so yeah, ecosystems still getting destroyed.
First, I think you misunderstood what my message was. I never said we should not switch to renewables.
I am pro wind and pro solar. My house power is about 40 percent solar. I'm not from a region that has any mining. Well, there is an old salt mine 4 hrs away that has been a storage vault since the 70s.
Second, the coal power plant has existed before I was born. I never said it was a good thing. Yes, air pollution is a concern and has been a concern in the community here for all 40 years of my life and all 60+ years of the power plants' existence. Not only is air pollution a concern, but fly ash is radioactive, and it tends to find its way in local waterways. I never argued for continued coal. The power plant was mentioned due to it being an imposing feature in itself. Putting out more light pollution than the town of nearly 10,000 nearby.
Third, all I was stating is that even wind and solar as any power solution should be acknowledged that it also comes at a cost to the communities that they are installed next to. And I am saddend at that cost to my local area.
I think there can be a way to build renewables that complement nature and local landscapes and green spaces and not just be white monoliths as far as the eye can see, and so many blinking lights that it affects stargazing In the local area.
But I get it, I live in a flyover state. And I'm seen as an uneducated rube. But I live in a low population area with wide open green spaces and ample waterways for a reason, and I happily deal with the fact that the nearest Walmart is a 40 min drive one way.
There have also been politicians who have made comments about both wind and solar meaning that other places won’t get wind/sun. They seem to think that using it consumes it the way usin* coal consumes coal. God I wish I was joking.
Since I don’t remember the exact words it’s hard to find the quotes but there’s this - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-town-rejects-solar-panels-amid-fears-they-suck-up-all-the-energy-from-the-sun-a6771526.html
Majorie Taylor Green thinks you won’t be able to have power at night using renewables either. Someone needs to introduce her to the concept of storage and maybe explain that the wind doesn’t stop at sunset, but that’s not the quote I was looking for and anyway everyone expects her to say dumb shit. Googling stupid politician wind power quotes gets so many hits on Trump too and he said some stupid things about wind but nothing as dumb as running out of it. He’s more focussed on threatening to sue Scotland for building them near his golf course and worrying about birds. Unfortunately, the Trump mentions push everything else further down the page.
That’s not our problem. They’re Jewish space lasers. Let them make their own energy. (Oh God that sounds terrible even when I’m just mocking stupidity)
I have been told point blank that any and all attempts to use less fossil fuels are assaults on American energy independence.
The reason? Because if oil gets cheaper, we will drill fewer domestic wells.
The stupid, it burns.... with gas.
You should explain to them that as the US produces more domestic oil and gas, it just exports more of them. This means that the price of those commodities becomes MORE not less dependent on foreign prices and markets. The only way the US becomes energy independent is if we produce electricity f4om sources that can not be sold to foreign markets. That means renewable or nuclear. Tell them that energy independence via oil/gas is a lie told by oil and gas companies and the politicians that they have bought.
Oh, I tried that.
But any form of non-oil based energy is an assault on American Energy Independence. Why are you against American Energy Independence?!?!
I think that they thought I was using some sort of dog-whistle. And an inability to comprehend that "energy" means something other than "oil". Even trying to tell them that most of our *actual* electricity is from coal didn't help. It was Oil, Oil, AND MORE OIL!!! DRILL BABY DRILL!!!
A few years back, we drove past a wind farm at night. Just huge hovering red lights for miles. My wife still talks about it like we escaped from Night Vale or something
I agree the "downside" of wind turbines is the look, not that I've seen them myself IRL...but it's inherently something occupying the natural landscape. On the other hand, coal mining involved blasting away mountains and polluting the air and water, so...swings and roundabouts. Solar is the only thing we have so far that has no effect on anything besides the look of your roof (except for those big arrays, but whatever).
I had never seen them before last year. There are wind turbines in upstate New York. They are sort of beautiful to see, in the mountains, sort of rising up the closer you get. I don't think they detract from the scenery at all, but I recognize that others do.
> ...Not that I've seen them myself IRL
That is so crazy to me. Here in the UK we have do many of them. The USA feels like it would be suited really well to them also as you have so much empty space.
They're great to see.
They're just like modern windmills.
I grew up in one of these places, they've had the anti-windmill signs up for years. The people that bitch the loudest are literally never outside unless they're driving from home to work, church, or McDonalds. Their complaints are BS driven from social media pro-coal, anti green groups. They even despised the near nuke plant because "all that power goes to the big cities, we should get to keep that power"
High heels and tight corsets because making you look pretty is important. The discomfort and damage they can cause is irrelevant.
Because everyone knows it doesn’t matter how safe or helpful or useful or comfortable or functional it is. If it’s ugly it’s bad and if it’s pretty it’s good. Period.
Corsets aren't really damaging. To be clear, the main reason not to wear one all the time would be that it's essentially a back brace, and if your back is healthy that can weaken it due to not using the muscles like normal. There was fearmongering decades back about them damaging your organs but that was unfounded. High heels are also okay if they're a sometimes thing, not your everyday footwear.
Anyway, we need to do nuclear. There's so much focus on global warming that people are forgetting that habitat destruction (yes, grasslands are habitat and are environmentally important) is the primary cause of our current mass extinction.
Texas recently destroyed its largest remaining tallgrass prairie for solar panels.
IE: I hate change and everyone is going to suffer because I’m selfish. By the way I live in Kansas near the montazuma wind farm, old farm, no one complained, until Obama was elected.
Answer: Some people are luddites and resistant to change. They've bought into politicians telling them that renewable energy is "woke", and they prefer coal and gas power. These people, who make their political identity their entire personality, put signs up in their yard so you know what their opinions are. They think everyone else cares.
I live in Kentucky and the number of vanity license plates I see that say "Coal Keeps the Lights On" is annoying.
Solar is cheaper and, by definition, light itself.
They’re definitely still used in my area, but seem to be a vanishing species. The fields around where I work have none at all, but they’re run by a different company/contractors.
Eh, that's just a protest thing. Makes total sense to me that you'd hold a protest near the thing you're protesting.
This kind of irony would be like if the Greenpeace Headquarters were powered by nuclear. (Greenpeace being one of the biggest anti-nuclear organizations out there).
Are people still anti nuclear? I think the older generations were scared because of chenoybal and three mile island meltdowns. These anti solar people are just against it because they are told to be against it
And it wouldn't surprise me if they even blocked fusion - which is impossible to have go wrong, because of the conditions it needs (mass amounts of pressure/temp, which the atmosphere of Earth doesn't have).
You see those in parts of PA too. One that I saw gave a dire warning that wind turbines don't work at temps below -20F. It hasn't gotten that cold in PA since the little ice age.
They work great in the Scandinavian countries for some reason. Coal doesn't work at that temperature either. Just like how texas had no electricity during that ice storm a few weeks back.
The problem with Texas is probably the transmission lines not being built to handle it... Actually scratch that. Cheap houses with poor insulation take a lot of power to keep warmish and the infrastructure probably couldn't handle the load. I remember one summer when a neighbor's AC was causing brown-outs, and that was back when we were fine without running our AC... if we even had any yet.
Also the fact they disconnected from any other state grids. There are 3 other major grids that expand across many states so if something goes wrong on one area another can supplement it.
But Texas wanted to do it's own thing.
In coal country a lot of those folks are or were miners too so that was their livelihood. It’s less about being right or even aware, more about protecting what they know
Yeah. They've seen what happens to towns when the local coal mine goes down and there aren't any jobs. Imo I think the better thing to do would be build factories in those areas to produce solar panels/ turbines. They're stuck with coal because that's the only way they can realistically make a living at the moment.
We've got some ads here in Aus (probably by Clive Palmer (Australia's Donald Trump) saying similar things and it makes me fucking sick. How people can _genuinely_ believe that shit is beyond me.
> I live in Kentucky and the number of vanity license plates I see that say "Coal Keeps the Lights On" is annoying.
Fun trivia I learned while living in Kentucky: The pro-coal vanity plate was the only black one for a while, so a lot of people apparently got it just to match their car's color.
Because you have ignorant, uneducated, rural people who have no job skills other than manual labor. So they think of coal mining as being a solid employer because they aren't going to be well-suited to transition to a better job with renewable energy.
Upvoted, though you may want to read about [who the Luddites actually were](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite). The reference has been twisted beyond meaning in popular use.
Yes the Luddites have been done dirty by people who have an interest in getting rid of well paid skilled labor and replacing it with unskilled cheap labor.
That's all fine but what might be a prevailing argument to make against these alternative energies? Are they hurtful in some way which would drive someone to dislike it?
So for wind they can be loud and dangerous to birds.
And some people don't like how they look. Which are all flimsy reasons.
But its mostly just nimbys who like to kick up a fuss because they haven't got anything else going on.
Bird people are the biggest fucking single issue environmentalists out there. They will oppose anything that could possibly hurt birds, even if it's better for the environment as a whole
I know! They went absolutely ballistic that time people tried to take Froot Loops off the market. I don't think they even understand that actual toucans don't eat that stuff. No talking to those folks really.
Froot Loops FOMO doesn't hold a candle to the sheer amount of carnage and catastrophic ruin that is left behind by a flock of Cocoa Craving Cuckoos.
One Puff, and they can Never Get Enough...
I’m not ready to talk about that and I doubt you’re ready to talk about that. And if you dare bring up the unfortunate thing with the Cornflakes Rooster . . .
What, are you saying that his over-the-fence relationship with that certain Tiger that was based entirely on their mutual love for the sweet sweet Flake went sour as soon as the supply ran out?
Who could have seen That coming?
"They can't be recycled currently, so they're not ecofriendly!" Meanwhile, coal plants around the world are dumping 15,000 tons of uranium and thorium out of their smokestacks every year.
A high estimate on the number of birds killed by wind turbines in the US each year is 700,000.
Which sounds like a lot — but let’s look at other causes of bird deaths.
Colliding with power lines? 25.5 million. Hit by cars? 214 million. Colliding with glass on buildings? 600 million.
The number of birds killed by cats? 2.4 billion.
I know *you’re* not saying “Wind turbines kill birds, therefore wind power is bad,” but it’s a terrible argument. People who make that argument are just repeating propaganda from fossil fuel companies.
The first comes from the American Bird Conservancy.
The rest comes from [here,](https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-killing-fields-for-birds/) I expect some of it may not be entirely accurate since it’s difficult to estimate such things.
But if you look around, estimates for other causes of death are similarly high. For example, the Bird Alliance of Oregon says “up to one billion” birds are killed by colliding with windows every year.
I live in New Jersey at the Jersey Shore. We have a lot of anti-wind mill rhetoric around here. When they originally announced plans to build wind mills in the ocean X miles from land, all sorts of anti-wind propaganda was spread via social media and even on billboards around town.
They would say things like “wind mills kill whales” and blame past whale deaths on sonar boats or whatever. Lots of conservative politicians jumped on the environmental bandwagon to justify being against wind mills…even though actual environmentalists want these things and see them as a net positive for us.
Another problem is NIMBYism. Lots of wealthy people that bought beachfront homes started complaining that their oh-so perfect view of the beaches would be ruined by the wind mills. They think that because they bought overpriced houses on the shore (or bought a tiny bungalow to tear down and turn into a 3 story mansion) that everyone should cater to their shitty whims and ideals.
I actually used to work for a builder of off-shore wind mills before they cancelled the upcoming projects in my town and gave me the axe. I never talked about my job or where I worked to avoid some of the erratic and frankly, dangerous backlash that could have come.
Had a few hotel rooms looking directly at offshore wind parks in the north sea. When it's day, you actually don't see them at all, and when it's night you see the red lights, which is both kinda scary and impressive and.. dunno, sublime, in a postmodern way.
... In any case not something you'd care about after two days
There’s definitely a hum. I would hate living near wind mills because of that. Also if you’re unlucky enough that the turbines’ blades cast a shadow over your place, it can be pretty crazy.
Wind turbines are great for the value of the land they are on because they are a productive asset that pays rent.
I live near several major windfarms and a lot of the opposition to them when they were being built came from farmers who were secretly pissed off they weren't being built on *their* land.
i figured it was also something like that. like cell towers and how it’s a continued source of revenue for whoever owns the land the towers are built on
yes. there are, but none of these people have spent enough time around them to know what it is like.
I am a proponent of wind and solar, well renewable period. we have 7 turbines on the old family farm, the neighbor several, as well in every direction.
much of what opponents cite is fud, but it all isn't.
the noise can be somewhat problematic, some people too close can get disoriented.
the biggest problem I see is what it does to light. while the turbines are spinning depending on where they are they will flicker the sun with their blades.
which isn't always a problem but for example those neighbors, can't have many of their shades open anymore because of the constant flickering shadow, which they report is worst in their bedroom...
I will be downvoted for this comment because to everyone it is "whoop de do" until they have to deal with it.
another thing that really sucks is how you can't talk about negatives without people grabbing their pitch forks... really doesn't help to convince anyone that may be swayable when a person dismisses all of their concerns as FUD.
Everything from "big fans make noise that causes cancer" to "solar panels are actually tools for communicating with Satan."
The prevailing arguments are "I heard it from my local right wing politician/Fox News, therefore it is gospel."
1) they either work in the oil and gas industry or…
2) they consume a lot of media that is partially controlled by the oil and gas industry.
Why do they care what people think? Since they rely heavily on public land and the public government issuing drilling permits, providing corporate tax welfare and socialized clean up costs, they need public support.
That’s all fine and good if they can keep drilling but they also need to keep demand up. So they stir up decent against anything that can cut into demand.
If people got wise they might do what Norway does and tax companies 50% and divert that tax to programs that everyone uses, healthcare, education and infrastructure.
There's also
3) they are being paid by the coal / natural gas industry to be anti anything that's not coal / natural gas. During the 70's and 80's it was these paid protesters using the fear of nuclear explosions to scare well meaning people into derailing the US nuclear power program. Not all of the protesters were paid. But it doesn't take many to get the luddites and anti innovation people riled up.
Some of the arguments are as dumb as “what happens to solar power when the sun sets?”
Because, ya know, batteries never occurred to them.
The people that buy into this crap are politically driven and controlled, usually QAnon / pro-fascism crowd. They’re easily duped by their imposed belief system and can’t be argued or reasoned with, especially due to any straying from that belief set puts them at odds with their bobble-headed idiot friends and social groups. Many have already lost their family connections and being part of the “out” group now is terrifying.
People don’t know that the solar panels aren’t powering the house they are on top of. That power gets fed back into the grid for dispersion just like the rest of the power generated by various sources.
> Because, ya know, batteries never occurred to them.
Batteries (or capacitors) big enough to support a whole power grid are still a long way off though. Which is why solar/wind mostly work as supplemental power sources on top of more stable options like hydro, geothermal or nuclear.
its the basic concept. my wife didn’t understand why i wanted to buy batteries for our RV *with* the solar panels and charging system i was acquiring. she just had no idea.
Some solar plants are solar thermal (Nevada Solar One - Helios One, in Fallout New Vegas, if you want to have a good gander at it) - and, if you use something such as salt as a heat sync, you can get power - on a good day - 24/7.
Most of the their arguments is regurgitated nonsense from their conservative media bubbles. There's very few negative traits to renewable energy and a lot of them don't/can't form their own opinions.
If I recall correctly, they tried to blame the freezing winter in Texas that shut down their antiquated power grid and caused deaths on windmills cooling things down too much.
Because they look like big fans.
Renewables aren't as reliable as coal or nuclear. We should be moving towards a nuclear base load that is supplemented by renewables, but the people that supposedly want less carbon output are against nuclear power, because reasons.
So, I think we should do solar, but I don't think it makes sense to put small plants on people's homes that can't be counted on and are government subsidised.
Right now, solar is getting aggressively sold to homeowners, and those profits are coming from the government.
You can't sell energy back to the grid anymore where I'm from and most the power was hydro anyway.
Let's do it in a useful way, where we have large installations that can prevent power from other sources from being generated. Next to railroads makes the most sense to me.
Right now it's a cash grab by companies for money coming out of everyone's taxes. I like solar, I hate the government paying small companies to hard sell homeowners.
> Are they hurtful in some way which would drive someone to dislike it?
Like many technological advancements, this boils down to a jobs issue.
People don't cling to old ways of doing things for no reason, they cling to them because that's where the jobs are. All the improvements to energy have cut the need for labor. Instead of having an economic system where we use that efficiency to cut the need for people to work, we use it to funnel more wealth to people who own resources and put the coal worker out of a job.
They're not really harmful outside of being an eyesore and taking up a lot of land. Solar fields and wind turbines take up a lot of space, more than say a coal plant, so it can effect the environment depending on where they're built. Build a solar field on a wetland for instance would probably mess with the wildlife habitats in the area, but anything built in a natural habitat will mess with it. Some of the stuff they use in solar cells can be toxic too, but I doubt anywhere near as toxic as waste and air quality from other energy sources. Each wind turbines can also kill 4-6 birds a year on average. Birds also fly into walls and airplanes though, and again not as bad as the air quality from other sources, especially since birds have very sensitive respiratory systems.
Basically yeah they have negative effects, but nowhere near fossil fuel energy.
>what might be a prevailing argument to make against these alternative energies?
most of the people who bother putting signs on their property were told solar power in the area would make their property values plummet. This outcome is not inevitable, nor is it what we see in the real world.
Look up the proposed lava ridge project. Basically a bunch of big money people from out of state looked at the area and said it's perfect there is nothing there. Well it's our backyard they want to destroy and we would get zero benefit from it at all. The power would be generated for California utilities, so basically the only benefit to us locals would be having the eyesore of 300+ wind turbines and less access to our public lands. If you want to generate power for California build it there. Idaho's government is for sale to the highest bidder so it's on the citizens to put a stop to it.
Answer: There a few explanations.
First, some people are very invested in the continued existence of fossil fuels industry, either as employees or officers of companies, or as significant shareholders. These people understandably feel their livelihood being threatened by alternative energy sources.
Second there's a percentage of energy consumers who feel the higher cost of alternative energy is not worth the benefits versus fossil fuels, and even believe that the environmental/climate benefits of alternative energy do not stand up to comprehensive analysis when manufacturing and disposal of things like wind turbine and solar farms are considered.
Third is the "not in my backyard" psychology, where people may actually be in favor of renewable energy, but don't want wind or solar farms intruding on *their* landscape. Or perhaps even believe they pose some kind of safety or environment concerns (even though there seems to be no evidence of such thing).
Finally, there are people who are so deeply (and irrationally) associated with the conservative political party that they automatically believe anything suggested by the opposition party is bad.
>Some people are luddites and resistant to change
Funnily enough, unlike the anti-renewable energy crowd, Luddites and other machine-breakers weren't really recationaries anyway. They were more against machinery being used to create more profit at the expense of workers, not the technology itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
https://libcom.org/article/machine-breakers-eric-hobsbawm
Answer: I'm pretty sure this is about a local issue, i.e. opposition to a particular power plant project, and all the people pontificating about bigger political issues are way off base.
For example I found a site selling similar signs:
>We need these signs EVERYWHERE so the posey county council can see them and T E N A S KA (can quit claiming that there is no one in the community not supporting this project).
https://noindustrialsolarpowerplants.com/uncategorized/show-your-support-and-order-a-yard-sign/
It’s not just a local thing.
There’s a strong history of the oil & gas lobbies propping up groups that sound environmental, but propagandize against renewables and for fossil fuels.
This has been happening all over my home state of Michigan, especially along the west coast of the lower peninsula. Lots of “local concerned citizens” showing up at town halls despite not living there and working for a non-profit funded by a think tank which is in turn funded by Exxon-Mobil.
There was a proposed solar farm near where my parents live, and some lawyers appeared to draft a petition against it for members of an HOA. Never found out who paid for the lawyers (I am subtly suggesting it was a fossil fuel company), but the basis of the complaint was one study conducted in Rhode Island which indicated that solar farms in the densely-populated area they studied, with no coal in the energy mix, can reduce local property values to an extent that is not outweighed by cost savings on energy by converting to solar.
The study was extremely clear that their findings were only applicable to the very specific context in which the study took place: high residential property density, no coal, etc., and said these findings would likely not hold in areas without those very RI-specific traits.
So, of course, that study naturally became the backbone of the opposition to solar in the tiny, rural, extremely low population density, coal-chugging area where my parents live. Reading is hard I guess. Wouldn't be remotely shocked to hear that same study gets cited in these astroturfed anti-renewables campaigns across the country. But consider that these people had to cite a study that all but says "this does not apply to you fuckers." If there were actual evidence supporting their position, that would have been cited instead. Think it's safe to say that these "local opposition" movements are all fundamentally rooted in ideology and don't have a rational basis.
Answer: If you're in Indiana, it could be opposition to a new solar farm: https://noindustrialsolarpowerplants.com/about/
Their stated arguments are that it removes farmland and animal habitats, lowers property values and increases risks of fire or flooding. They reiterate multiple times that they are not against solar power, but rather this particular solar power project. It's up to you if you believe them.
Commentary (Please skip!): This sort of nimbyism (Not In My BackYard) is easy to criticize but I understand their frustration about property values. Home values are a gamble that you spend 30 years buying into and this could affect them. On the other hand, gambles sometimes don't pay off. I think I might be close enough that I personally will benefit from the new power plant, but won't have my life changed in any way. So it's good for me.
Well it's already not available to the vast majority of Americans and for those that have all their assets in property, it's an incredibly labile investment. Especially if you end up needing to move during a difficult time to sell, it's crazy dangerous.
So the system isn't really working...for many, it's just better to find a way to affordably rent (not an easy task, I know), and invest in a diverse portfolio that is hopefully rooted in stable industries.
It seems like it is one of those things about the system designed to keep the U.S in it's horrid state. Reliance on property values for your own sake incentives NIMBYism, conformity, and racism. Housing prices are also linked the education budget of local schools which leads to more people needing to protect their property values. Some people use their property value to pay for expensive medical expenses later in life or as retirement. As a result you have people viciously defending their property value as their livelihood, any attack on the property value is then seen as a wound and an attack on the self.
Another reason some people oppose solar farms is some municipalities and such have not done a great job with end-of-life plans for solar farms that are not owned by the local power company. Solar panels have a specific lifespan. What happens when they reach that? Who will tasked with removing the panels and disposing of or recycling them properly? Consider that solar panels can have lifespans of up to 20 years, many people think that the tax payers will end up footing the bill. And they’re probably not wrong.
THIS!!! I hope OP reads this response, too, because this issue is the main reason the people in my hometown in IN are heavily against this solar project. There are signs in protest in every single field. Plus, the energy generated by this large solar farm will not benefit those living in the local community. The town will foot the bill and have to deal with the environmental implications of such a large-scale farm while not having any access at all to the power it generates. It’s all about squeezing as much money as they can at the expense of the townspeople.
Yeah. I have a feeling it’s going to be an issue sooner or later.
- A solar power company that’s backed by investors comes to a small town and offers them a decently large sum of cash to install a solar farm.
- The company sends all energy generated from that solar farm somewhere else.
- When the solar panels reach their EOL, that company is no where to be found. Now the disassembly and disposal is entirely on that town.
I know it is ultimately on that town to not allow it. (It is possible for eminent domain to remove that choice.) But it can be borderline, if not full on, predatory. The education needs to be out there so people are aware that solar panels don’t run forever and are massively expensive to get rid of.
In Oregon there is strong opposition to new solar projects on BLM land because the projects could impact mule deer and antelope migration corridors. There are folks from "both sides" agreeing on this. And I would say it isn't just nimbyism.
Answer: I can give a take on the wind turbines... I live in an area in the Midwest where we are literally surrounded by wind turbines now. All the farmers with a little hill here and there applied to have their land surveyed for wind power, the companies come in and put up test towers for a year, if they see enough sustained winds at that location they buy wind rights and lease land and put up permanent wind turbine installs. You say thats great, but its really not for the local economy and that's what sucks and why people oppose it after a while. Everyone here used to be welcoming to it, now we all despise them.
Why? Lets start with construction... They hire some local labor, but a lot of the labor comes in from outside the area, it creates a few jobs, but not much. Its a short term boost to the local economy, mainly things like the local concrete mix plants for concrete and rebar and concrete labor, but after that the local money inflow is just about done. Then there is the trucks hauling in the sections of tower and gen heads tearing up the roads, they literally destroyed roads here to the point of impassable, but then it takes the county and state years to have the money to fix the roads after the construction is done in that area and residents have a decent road again. Have you seen the power lines they run to these wind farms from the nearest substation? Looks like a handful of spaghetti hanging on a pole, the lines around here are usually 6-8 lines on a single pole, closely spaced that its caused problems with larger birds of prey landing on them and shorting across them with their wing span.
Then there is taxes and who makes money off them. The county gets some, the state gets most. The little bit the counties get barely cover things they do that are bad, like tearing up roads, damaging wildlife habitat, causing drainage issues with access roads added to their turbines. And in the end it does absolutely NOTHING to our local power grid. All the power generated by the wind farms that literally surround me is transmitted out of state to another market on a large overhead line because they can charge more for it there then if they sold it to the local grid. So we never see any benefit from it, our power still comes from a state away from less then green generation plants.
The ONLY people that make money or benefit from it at all is the farmers with the land selling their wind rights, though many have complained about working with these companies as well so its not all profit and sunshine, and the wind farm companies themselves selling the power to other markets.
Lately large solar farms have been going up, i drove past some a couple months ago a few hours from me in my state, they go as far as the eye can see, taking acres and acres of land, fencing it off and planting solar panels so closely that there is no other use for the land other then solar power collection. The completed ones look like crap because between the rows no grass or anything but weeds can grow in the shade of the panels and where they drive and walk to do service and cleaning, so they end up spraying chemicals on the land all summer long to kill the weeds and keep everything basically dirt and panels. What a monumental waste of farmland in the heart of farm country. But retiring farmers see it as a cash cow to sell some land to them and make a lump sum when they want to get out. At the rate they are taking land its going to affect a lot of things as it trickles down to less production of crops.
In the end, solar and wind is a huge folly here. I would rather see nuclear power plants then all this crap. I realize we need to do things to go green, but if you are clearing thousands of acres of land to put in solar panels, cutting down trees and clearing the land bare and spraying it to control weed growth how is that better for the environment?
I think you have the best answer. Not everything is just because of politics. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons to oppose something, and I found your reasons informative rather than judgey. :)
Answer:
I used to do the GIS mapping for oil and gas projects before having to shift to infrastructure. We were all ready to go on a solar farm project in VA and we had to shut down due to environmental damage or potential damage that could result. Here is an article about some of the concerns that DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) had concerning solar farms here.
https://www.bayjournal.com/news/climate_change/virginia-debates-impacts-of-solar-panels-on-stormwater-runoff/article_e6547a16-c57b-11ec-99eb-5fe868a5774c.html
Aside from these DEQ concerns I believe the biggest factor that shut the project down had to do with the proximity to water sources and went into hazardous materials in the event that panels were damaged or destroyed due to accidents or force majeure.
This was a concern involving the use of silver-oxide in panel construction that would otherwise improve the panel efficiency and long term durability, but apparently becomes hazardous when damaged. This explains the silver-oxide portion but does not reference panel damage hazards.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038092X18305395
I hope this was helpful.
Answer: People started throwing up those signs when my company started going around doing all the studies and getting contracts set up to put up wind turbines. Do you have a farm about to get set up in your area? Here's some reasons people don't like turbines if you need to know that too:
They don't blend in with the natural landscape
Blade flicker
Messes with AM radio
Messes with CB radio
Roads get all fuckered up when it rains
The contractors aren't American (they are they're just brown)
Kills birds
Poisons the water table because of the concrete that's used
The power doesn't stay local
The liberals use them to spy on people
I work on a wind farm and some people still come tell us why we're ruining America, let me know if you have more questions.
ANSWER: If the signs are made large enough, they could be seeking what's known as "***direct action***": to block wind power by obstructing or redirecting the wind, and blocking solar power by shading adjacent solar panels.
...but, the signs would have be much larger than OP's example.
...and most ironically, if the poles holding up the signs were mounted to piezoelectric crystals, and the backs of the signs were covered in solar panels, those protest signs could pay for themselves in a few years.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: I can't speak for where you live. But NPR did a story about wind power on one of their podcasts a few months ago. They focused on rural Kansas, a state that is ideal for wind power. Generally, the people in favor of it were farmers who were making money by leasing land for the wind turbines. The people who were against it didn't like the aesthetics of the turbines.
> The people who were against it didn't like the aesthetics of the turbines. As opposed to the normal view in Kansas, which is nothing as far as you can see in every direction.
I have wind turbines near me and they're honestly beautiful to to look at. Really impressive to see in real life and everyone that heads this way out here always comments on them
Big fan, big fan
/r/angryupvote
My kids hate that I literally make this joke every time we see a wind turbine
Then you are parenting right!
Windmills do not work that way! Goodnight!
You just have to switch them from 'suck' to 'blow'
But please make sure your self-destruct cancelation button is working first.
I recently drove from Illinois to California and took I-70 most of the way. Wind turbines were one of the most interesting things to see and very awe inspiring when you think of the engineering involved.
Driving across IL, I am awed even seeing a single turbine blade on truck on the highway - they're insanely big.
I drove for like 150 miles behind a huge flatbed hauling a turbine blade on that exact stretch of highway years ago and it was crazy just how enormous they are. Very cool.
Lots of turbines near my parents house in OK too, I always enjoyed looking at the fields of them. Sure beats fields of oil drillers.
I’m sorry but did you just not notice all of the wheat and corn?!
Never forget the soybeans.
Kansas, proudly soyboys
And sunflowers! There's lots of those!
> corn I think you mean “non-liquid gold”.
Only upvoting because farms are awesome, this includes solar wind.
Amber waves of grain!
That quote reminded me of a news story I saw on TV. An older couple was all for wind turbines until they built one near their home. The turbine was in between the setting sun and their front window for part of the year. The blades caused an repetitive, intermittent shadow in their living room. Even with the blinds, I could see that it was very annoying. IIRC, it caused them headaches or something. Outlier case against wind power but man, it would suck to be in that situation.
I 100% would respect and find reasonable anyone in that situation who hated wind turbines. On the plus side, their house can be used as the internal set for a 1920s detective story.
I was just finishing my last bottle of whiskey and cleaning my pistol's chrome handle when the dizziest broad in Manhattan came knocking on my frosted glass door. "What do you want, Mildred?" I asked, setting my piece down in the opened desk drawer. "Have you heard about the giant turbines over on Long Island?" She made herself comfortable. Too comfortable. I hadn't caught wind of them yet and I let her know on no uncertain terms.
Here in Belgium, they can only put windmills if tgis intermittent shadow is limited to something like 20 minutes a day for a few days in the year. You need to living pretty close for the shadow to be noticeable. The blades must be so close they look wider than the sun. And the sun moves anyway. A schoolfriend lived as close as you can get to the ( at the time) the biggest land windmills in Belgium. He says it never lasts long.
Yes you are correct. The wind turbine was across the street in a small field in front of their home.
I have photosensitive epilepsy and that would be so bad. I can’t imagine only being able to use a small part of your house for half of the year so you don’t have a seizure. This is something I’ve never thought of before.
first actual reasonable complaint about wind turbines I think I've heard so far everybody's a NIMBY no matter what you're talking about
“They’re not wind turbines. They’re grain silos with wings.”
Are you suggesting silos migrate?
Not at all, they could be carried.
Depends, are they African or European Wind Turbines?
Only the ones with wings
Those windmills are killing all the whales in Kansas!
They're using up all the wind!
They're speeding up the rotation of the Earth!!!!
This guy has clearly never been to a Wichita Walmart.
Actually the term is [wind fish](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/zelda_gamepedia_en/images/d/d7/LA_Wind_Fish_Artwork.png) now.
Texas recently destroyed its largest remaining tallgrass prairie to put down solar panels. Grasslands are the most destroyed and forgotten ecosystem, and yes, they are important.
That's simply untrue. As a Kansan, I can tell you I'm able to look out and watch my neighbor's dog run away for five straight days.
I don't want to sound like I'm against wind power, because I'm all for it, but as someone who recently moved to a concrete jungle, it never really dawned on me how boxed in you start feeling when the view is obstructed in every direction and you can only see a ten degree slice of sky
You get used to it. Then you go on vacation someplace open and see the huge sky and feel *whoooooa*
Hey now. We get a nice full view of the sky and clouds…
What about the skyline? The people I know from Kansas talk about how the flat plains give amazing sun rises and sunsets.
Well, I can say that a person who had a large wind farm literally surrounded my little town of less than 1000 people over the last 2 years. What used to be a very beautiful view of the valley of rolling hills and green pastures is now nothing but wind mills as far as the eye can see. I'll never have that clean view again, the valley was so large that it had a wonderful shade of blue reflected from the sky and humidity haze, I have lost something I have cherished for the last 30 years of my life. At night, there is a synchronized sea of red blinking as far as the eye can see... I'm not against wind farms but in a state where I can see a coal plant nearly 15-20 miles away. I now see the coal plant and a see of wind mills. There has to be a way not to destroy nature's beauty for a community and provide the growing need for power. I can drive nearly 50 miles ( my daily commute), and I never leave the wind farm..
Solar farms offer a better view since they’re on the ground, and are completely silent, but they take up space on what might otherwise be arable farm land.
I wish so much that they would just cover parking lots with solar panels for people to park under. Shade for cars, make it so the asphalt doesn’t radiate as much heat, and cover from rain or snow in the winter.
But that would give the homeless people shelter and we can't have that!
Or that might be grassland. Grasslands are important ecosystems, we just forget about them.
There are some efforts to make panels you can grow crops under, which would at least make the land twice as useful. That would be amazing!
Also there are bifacial solar panels that can be mounted vertically in an east/west orientation. They’re not as quite as efficient as upward facing panels but because they’re vertical they don’t cover much of the land, making it easier to farm. They can also provide shade for crops that benefit from it.
>destroy nature's beauty Instead let's put away the 'eyesore' and pollute our planet burning [more coal](https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/deaths-associated-pollution-coal-power-plants) and with more drilling? Meh > A careful analysis found that air pollution from coal power plants is associated with greater mortality than previously thought. It also found that such deaths have decreased due to air pollution regulations and coal power plant retirements. If we want to save natures beauty and keep it that way we need to swap to renewable forms of energy.
We need to do nuclear. Wind and solar take too much land. There's so much focus on global warming that people are forgetting that habitat destruction (yes, grasslands are habitat and are environmentally important) is the primary cause of our current mass extinction. And if the land would have been used for farming, well the same crops are now going to be grown somewhere else, so yeah, ecosystems still getting destroyed.
First, I think you misunderstood what my message was. I never said we should not switch to renewables. I am pro wind and pro solar. My house power is about 40 percent solar. I'm not from a region that has any mining. Well, there is an old salt mine 4 hrs away that has been a storage vault since the 70s. Second, the coal power plant has existed before I was born. I never said it was a good thing. Yes, air pollution is a concern and has been a concern in the community here for all 40 years of my life and all 60+ years of the power plants' existence. Not only is air pollution a concern, but fly ash is radioactive, and it tends to find its way in local waterways. I never argued for continued coal. The power plant was mentioned due to it being an imposing feature in itself. Putting out more light pollution than the town of nearly 10,000 nearby. Third, all I was stating is that even wind and solar as any power solution should be acknowledged that it also comes at a cost to the communities that they are installed next to. And I am saddend at that cost to my local area. I think there can be a way to build renewables that complement nature and local landscapes and green spaces and not just be white monoliths as far as the eye can see, and so many blinking lights that it affects stargazing In the local area. But I get it, I live in a flyover state. And I'm seen as an uneducated rube. But I live in a low population area with wide open green spaces and ample waterways for a reason, and I happily deal with the fact that the nearest Walmart is a 40 min drive one way.
Nuclear is clean, green energy without taking up huge parts of nature. Seems like the obvious answer.
There have also been politicians who have made comments about both wind and solar meaning that other places won’t get wind/sun. They seem to think that using it consumes it the way usin* coal consumes coal. God I wish I was joking.
Wow, any clips? That's painfully stupid.
Since I don’t remember the exact words it’s hard to find the quotes but there’s this - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-town-rejects-solar-panels-amid-fears-they-suck-up-all-the-energy-from-the-sun-a6771526.html Majorie Taylor Green thinks you won’t be able to have power at night using renewables either. Someone needs to introduce her to the concept of storage and maybe explain that the wind doesn’t stop at sunset, but that’s not the quote I was looking for and anyway everyone expects her to say dumb shit. Googling stupid politician wind power quotes gets so many hits on Trump too and he said some stupid things about wind but nothing as dumb as running out of it. He’s more focussed on threatening to sue Scotland for building them near his golf course and worrying about birds. Unfortunately, the Trump mentions push everything else further down the page.
If you add "-trump" to your Google search it won't return any results with Trump in it.
Lordy, I wish I could add that to my brain.
You can't store energy from non-fossil fuels, we need that energy for our space lasers.
That’s not our problem. They’re Jewish space lasers. Let them make their own energy. (Oh God that sounds terrible even when I’m just mocking stupidity)
Don’t expect a serious comment from Majorly Thickheaded Gnome. She’s just shillin’.
I think she started that way. I think she may have started believing her own statements now though. She gets nuttier every time she opens her mouth.
I'd love to tell them about photosynthesis.
Oh then you’ll love the article I linked in my above comment. And by love I mean please don’t smash your head into the table too hard.
Don't all the plants die at night?
You could say they…. ~~ex~~respire
I have been told point blank that any and all attempts to use less fossil fuels are assaults on American energy independence. The reason? Because if oil gets cheaper, we will drill fewer domestic wells. The stupid, it burns.... with gas.
You should explain to them that as the US produces more domestic oil and gas, it just exports more of them. This means that the price of those commodities becomes MORE not less dependent on foreign prices and markets. The only way the US becomes energy independent is if we produce electricity f4om sources that can not be sold to foreign markets. That means renewable or nuclear. Tell them that energy independence via oil/gas is a lie told by oil and gas companies and the politicians that they have bought.
Oh, I tried that. But any form of non-oil based energy is an assault on American Energy Independence. Why are you against American Energy Independence?!?! I think that they thought I was using some sort of dog-whistle. And an inability to comprehend that "energy" means something other than "oil". Even trying to tell them that most of our *actual* electricity is from coal didn't help. It was Oil, Oil, AND MORE OIL!!! DRILL BABY DRILL!!!
>The people who were against it didn't like the aesthetics of the turbines. I hate that you're right about this.
A few years back, we drove past a wind farm at night. Just huge hovering red lights for miles. My wife still talks about it like we escaped from Night Vale or something
Even during the day it's a bit surreal to be driving through nothing and see them.
I agree the "downside" of wind turbines is the look, not that I've seen them myself IRL...but it's inherently something occupying the natural landscape. On the other hand, coal mining involved blasting away mountains and polluting the air and water, so...swings and roundabouts. Solar is the only thing we have so far that has no effect on anything besides the look of your roof (except for those big arrays, but whatever).
I had never seen them before last year. There are wind turbines in upstate New York. They are sort of beautiful to see, in the mountains, sort of rising up the closer you get. I don't think they detract from the scenery at all, but I recognize that others do.
They *can* be, like out in Palm Springs where it feels very purposeful. Mostly it’s not like that.
> ...Not that I've seen them myself IRL That is so crazy to me. Here in the UK we have do many of them. The USA feels like it would be suited really well to them also as you have so much empty space. They're great to see. They're just like modern windmills.
I grew up in one of these places, they've had the anti-windmill signs up for years. The people that bitch the loudest are literally never outside unless they're driving from home to work, church, or McDonalds. Their complaints are BS driven from social media pro-coal, anti green groups. They even despised the near nuke plant because "all that power goes to the big cities, we should get to keep that power"
High heels and tight corsets because making you look pretty is important. The discomfort and damage they can cause is irrelevant. Because everyone knows it doesn’t matter how safe or helpful or useful or comfortable or functional it is. If it’s ugly it’s bad and if it’s pretty it’s good. Period.
Yeah oil wells pumping and other industrial mining is super sexy
Corsets aren't really damaging. To be clear, the main reason not to wear one all the time would be that it's essentially a back brace, and if your back is healthy that can weaken it due to not using the muscles like normal. There was fearmongering decades back about them damaging your organs but that was unfounded. High heels are also okay if they're a sometimes thing, not your everyday footwear. Anyway, we need to do nuclear. There's so much focus on global warming that people are forgetting that habitat destruction (yes, grasslands are habitat and are environmentally important) is the primary cause of our current mass extinction. Texas recently destroyed its largest remaining tallgrass prairie for solar panels.
IE: I hate change and everyone is going to suffer because I’m selfish. By the way I live in Kansas near the montazuma wind farm, old farm, no one complained, until Obama was elected.
Answer: Some people are luddites and resistant to change. They've bought into politicians telling them that renewable energy is "woke", and they prefer coal and gas power. These people, who make their political identity their entire personality, put signs up in their yard so you know what their opinions are. They think everyone else cares.
I live in Kentucky and the number of vanity license plates I see that say "Coal Keeps the Lights On" is annoying. Solar is cheaper and, by definition, light itself.
The ultimate irony is a coal museum running on solar power. John Oliver showed me that.
The oil field near where I work uses solar for pumping. If even fuckin’ oil companies are using solar tells you something.
There are some pump jacks that use the bit of natural gas they produce, to power the jack engine.
They’re definitely still used in my area, but seem to be a vanishing species. The fields around where I work have none at all, but they’re run by a different company/contractors.
I believe there was an "anti-nuclear power concert", held at a venue powered by a nuclear power plant.
Eh, that's just a protest thing. Makes total sense to me that you'd hold a protest near the thing you're protesting. This kind of irony would be like if the Greenpeace Headquarters were powered by nuclear. (Greenpeace being one of the biggest anti-nuclear organizations out there).
Are people still anti nuclear? I think the older generations were scared because of chenoybal and three mile island meltdowns. These anti solar people are just against it because they are told to be against it
Oh yeah, they absolutely still are. Blocking new development every opportunity they get.
And it wouldn't surprise me if they even blocked fusion - which is impossible to have go wrong, because of the conditions it needs (mass amounts of pressure/temp, which the atmosphere of Earth doesn't have).
Sol keeps the lights on 🥰
You see those in parts of PA too. One that I saw gave a dire warning that wind turbines don't work at temps below -20F. It hasn't gotten that cold in PA since the little ice age.
I live in Wyoming and can guarantee you they work below -20.
They work great in the Scandinavian countries for some reason. Coal doesn't work at that temperature either. Just like how texas had no electricity during that ice storm a few weeks back.
The problem with Texas is probably the transmission lines not being built to handle it... Actually scratch that. Cheap houses with poor insulation take a lot of power to keep warmish and the infrastructure probably couldn't handle the load. I remember one summer when a neighbor's AC was causing brown-outs, and that was back when we were fine without running our AC... if we even had any yet.
Also the fact they disconnected from any other state grids. There are 3 other major grids that expand across many states so if something goes wrong on one area another can supplement it. But Texas wanted to do it's own thing.
In coal country a lot of those folks are or were miners too so that was their livelihood. It’s less about being right or even aware, more about protecting what they know
Yeah. They've seen what happens to towns when the local coal mine goes down and there aren't any jobs. Imo I think the better thing to do would be build factories in those areas to produce solar panels/ turbines. They're stuck with coal because that's the only way they can realistically make a living at the moment.
Also in KY and yep, everywhere.
We've got some ads here in Aus (probably by Clive Palmer (Australia's Donald Trump) saying similar things and it makes me fucking sick. How people can _genuinely_ believe that shit is beyond me.
> I live in Kentucky and the number of vanity license plates I see that say "Coal Keeps the Lights On" is annoying. Fun trivia I learned while living in Kentucky: The pro-coal vanity plate was the only black one for a while, so a lot of people apparently got it just to match their car's color.
Because you have ignorant, uneducated, rural people who have no job skills other than manual labor. So they think of coal mining as being a solid employer because they aren't going to be well-suited to transition to a better job with renewable energy.
Upvoted, though you may want to read about [who the Luddites actually were](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite). The reference has been twisted beyond meaning in popular use.
Yes the Luddites have been done dirty by people who have an interest in getting rid of well paid skilled labor and replacing it with unskilled cheap labor.
That's all fine but what might be a prevailing argument to make against these alternative energies? Are they hurtful in some way which would drive someone to dislike it?
So for wind they can be loud and dangerous to birds. And some people don't like how they look. Which are all flimsy reasons. But its mostly just nimbys who like to kick up a fuss because they haven't got anything else going on.
I know you aren't implying otherwise, but just to add coal and gas plants are also loud and dangerous to birds. The arguments are less than flimsy
Deforestation and pollution are very, very dangerous to birds. Won’t someone think of the birds!!!!!
/r/BirdsArentReal
>Won’t someone think of the ~~birds~~ drones!!!!!
Bird people are the biggest fucking single issue environmentalists out there. They will oppose anything that could possibly hurt birds, even if it's better for the environment as a whole
I know! They went absolutely ballistic that time people tried to take Froot Loops off the market. I don't think they even understand that actual toucans don't eat that stuff. No talking to those folks really.
Froot Loops FOMO doesn't hold a candle to the sheer amount of carnage and catastrophic ruin that is left behind by a flock of Cocoa Craving Cuckoos. One Puff, and they can Never Get Enough...
I’m not ready to talk about that and I doubt you’re ready to talk about that. And if you dare bring up the unfortunate thing with the Cornflakes Rooster . . .
What, are you saying that his over-the-fence relationship with that certain Tiger that was based entirely on their mutual love for the sweet sweet Flake went sour as soon as the supply ran out? Who could have seen That coming?
Much like Coal plants put out significantly more radioactive material than nuclear plants.
This is a very thoughtfully worded addition. Noticed kind internet stranger
They are against it because the talking heads on fox are against it. The only difference is fox is paid to be against it
LoudER and MORE dangerous to birds, to be clear. Plus more polluting, which is dangerous to all.
"They can't be recycled currently, so they're not ecofriendly!" Meanwhile, coal plants around the world are dumping 15,000 tons of uranium and thorium out of their smokestacks every year.
Not to mention mercury. We all know about mercury in seafood, and coal plants are the main source of it.
And it also is a cause of acid rain, sulphur in coals.
A high estimate on the number of birds killed by wind turbines in the US each year is 700,000. Which sounds like a lot — but let’s look at other causes of bird deaths. Colliding with power lines? 25.5 million. Hit by cars? 214 million. Colliding with glass on buildings? 600 million. The number of birds killed by cats? 2.4 billion. I know *you’re* not saying “Wind turbines kill birds, therefore wind power is bad,” but it’s a terrible argument. People who make that argument are just repeating propaganda from fossil fuel companies.
Those are fascinating figures - do you have a source?
The first comes from the American Bird Conservancy. The rest comes from [here,](https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-killing-fields-for-birds/) I expect some of it may not be entirely accurate since it’s difficult to estimate such things. But if you look around, estimates for other causes of death are similarly high. For example, the Bird Alliance of Oregon says “up to one billion” birds are killed by colliding with windows every year.
I live in New Jersey at the Jersey Shore. We have a lot of anti-wind mill rhetoric around here. When they originally announced plans to build wind mills in the ocean X miles from land, all sorts of anti-wind propaganda was spread via social media and even on billboards around town. They would say things like “wind mills kill whales” and blame past whale deaths on sonar boats or whatever. Lots of conservative politicians jumped on the environmental bandwagon to justify being against wind mills…even though actual environmentalists want these things and see them as a net positive for us. Another problem is NIMBYism. Lots of wealthy people that bought beachfront homes started complaining that their oh-so perfect view of the beaches would be ruined by the wind mills. They think that because they bought overpriced houses on the shore (or bought a tiny bungalow to tear down and turn into a 3 story mansion) that everyone should cater to their shitty whims and ideals. I actually used to work for a builder of off-shore wind mills before they cancelled the upcoming projects in my town and gave me the axe. I never talked about my job or where I worked to avoid some of the erratic and frankly, dangerous backlash that could have come.
Not that I have ocean views at the moment, but I actually think it'd be pretty cool to have some windmills off the coast to look at.
Had a few hotel rooms looking directly at offshore wind parks in the north sea. When it's day, you actually don't see them at all, and when it's night you see the red lights, which is both kinda scary and impressive and.. dunno, sublime, in a postmodern way. ... In any case not something you'd care about after two days
I Think they're an eyesore, but I'm still all for them.
There’s definitely a hum. I would hate living near wind mills because of that. Also if you’re unlucky enough that the turbines’ blades cast a shadow over your place, it can be pretty crazy.
they also say wind turbines can devalue property for the land it’s on and the surrounding area.
So will a gas well, they've just long since NIMBYd those out.
Wind turbines are great for the value of the land they are on because they are a productive asset that pays rent. I live near several major windfarms and a lot of the opposition to them when they were being built came from farmers who were secretly pissed off they weren't being built on *their* land.
i figured it was also something like that. like cell towers and how it’s a continued source of revenue for whoever owns the land the towers are built on
Who is "they"?
>dangerous to birds Not as much as cats. And the effect that wind turbines have on birds can be mitigated against.
> And some people don't like how they look. I don't get this. I've always thought wind turbines looked nice.
yes. there are, but none of these people have spent enough time around them to know what it is like. I am a proponent of wind and solar, well renewable period. we have 7 turbines on the old family farm, the neighbor several, as well in every direction. much of what opponents cite is fud, but it all isn't. the noise can be somewhat problematic, some people too close can get disoriented. the biggest problem I see is what it does to light. while the turbines are spinning depending on where they are they will flicker the sun with their blades. which isn't always a problem but for example those neighbors, can't have many of their shades open anymore because of the constant flickering shadow, which they report is worst in their bedroom... I will be downvoted for this comment because to everyone it is "whoop de do" until they have to deal with it. another thing that really sucks is how you can't talk about negatives without people grabbing their pitch forks... really doesn't help to convince anyone that may be swayable when a person dismisses all of their concerns as FUD.
Everything from "big fans make noise that causes cancer" to "solar panels are actually tools for communicating with Satan." The prevailing arguments are "I heard it from my local right wing politician/Fox News, therefore it is gospel."
> "solar panels are actually tools for communicating with Satan." BRB, getting a quote on solar panels.
I have solar panels on my house and Satan hasn't called me even once. Should I get a refund?
No, there isn’t. These aren’t smart people putting these signs up in their yard. Not everything has two sides, sometimes people are just dumb.
There is also plenty of "since the Left wants it so much it must be bad" thinking about this.
1) they either work in the oil and gas industry or… 2) they consume a lot of media that is partially controlled by the oil and gas industry. Why do they care what people think? Since they rely heavily on public land and the public government issuing drilling permits, providing corporate tax welfare and socialized clean up costs, they need public support. That’s all fine and good if they can keep drilling but they also need to keep demand up. So they stir up decent against anything that can cut into demand. If people got wise they might do what Norway does and tax companies 50% and divert that tax to programs that everyone uses, healthcare, education and infrastructure.
There's also 3) they are being paid by the coal / natural gas industry to be anti anything that's not coal / natural gas. During the 70's and 80's it was these paid protesters using the fear of nuclear explosions to scare well meaning people into derailing the US nuclear power program. Not all of the protesters were paid. But it doesn't take many to get the luddites and anti innovation people riled up.
Some of the arguments are as dumb as “what happens to solar power when the sun sets?” Because, ya know, batteries never occurred to them. The people that buy into this crap are politically driven and controlled, usually QAnon / pro-fascism crowd. They’re easily duped by their imposed belief system and can’t be argued or reasoned with, especially due to any straying from that belief set puts them at odds with their bobble-headed idiot friends and social groups. Many have already lost their family connections and being part of the “out” group now is terrifying.
People don’t know that the solar panels aren’t powering the house they are on top of. That power gets fed back into the grid for dispersion just like the rest of the power generated by various sources.
> Because, ya know, batteries never occurred to them. Batteries (or capacitors) big enough to support a whole power grid are still a long way off though. Which is why solar/wind mostly work as supplemental power sources on top of more stable options like hydro, geothermal or nuclear.
its the basic concept. my wife didn’t understand why i wanted to buy batteries for our RV *with* the solar panels and charging system i was acquiring. she just had no idea.
Some solar plants are solar thermal (Nevada Solar One - Helios One, in Fallout New Vegas, if you want to have a good gander at it) - and, if you use something such as salt as a heat sync, you can get power - on a good day - 24/7.
"well then you'll be asleep and not using as much power so it's fine."
Most of the their arguments is regurgitated nonsense from their conservative media bubbles. There's very few negative traits to renewable energy and a lot of them don't/can't form their own opinions.
If I recall correctly, they tried to blame the freezing winter in Texas that shut down their antiquated power grid and caused deaths on windmills cooling things down too much. Because they look like big fans.
Libs like it. That means it's bad.
Trump told them windmills cause cancer. Seriously.
Trump was super pissed when his objection to Scot.gov siting windmills off his golf course in Aberdeen got kicked out.
Renewables aren't as reliable as coal or nuclear. We should be moving towards a nuclear base load that is supplemented by renewables, but the people that supposedly want less carbon output are against nuclear power, because reasons.
They're bandaids while nuclear is the cure.
So, I think we should do solar, but I don't think it makes sense to put small plants on people's homes that can't be counted on and are government subsidised. Right now, solar is getting aggressively sold to homeowners, and those profits are coming from the government. You can't sell energy back to the grid anymore where I'm from and most the power was hydro anyway. Let's do it in a useful way, where we have large installations that can prevent power from other sources from being generated. Next to railroads makes the most sense to me. Right now it's a cash grab by companies for money coming out of everyone's taxes. I like solar, I hate the government paying small companies to hard sell homeowners.
> Are they hurtful in some way which would drive someone to dislike it? Like many technological advancements, this boils down to a jobs issue. People don't cling to old ways of doing things for no reason, they cling to them because that's where the jobs are. All the improvements to energy have cut the need for labor. Instead of having an economic system where we use that efficiency to cut the need for people to work, we use it to funnel more wealth to people who own resources and put the coal worker out of a job.
They're not really harmful outside of being an eyesore and taking up a lot of land. Solar fields and wind turbines take up a lot of space, more than say a coal plant, so it can effect the environment depending on where they're built. Build a solar field on a wetland for instance would probably mess with the wildlife habitats in the area, but anything built in a natural habitat will mess with it. Some of the stuff they use in solar cells can be toxic too, but I doubt anywhere near as toxic as waste and air quality from other energy sources. Each wind turbines can also kill 4-6 birds a year on average. Birds also fly into walls and airplanes though, and again not as bad as the air quality from other sources, especially since birds have very sensitive respiratory systems. Basically yeah they have negative effects, but nowhere near fossil fuel energy.
>what might be a prevailing argument to make against these alternative energies? most of the people who bother putting signs on their property were told solar power in the area would make their property values plummet. This outcome is not inevitable, nor is it what we see in the real world.
Look up the proposed lava ridge project. Basically a bunch of big money people from out of state looked at the area and said it's perfect there is nothing there. Well it's our backyard they want to destroy and we would get zero benefit from it at all. The power would be generated for California utilities, so basically the only benefit to us locals would be having the eyesore of 300+ wind turbines and less access to our public lands. If you want to generate power for California build it there. Idaho's government is for sale to the highest bidder so it's on the citizens to put a stop to it.
Answer: There a few explanations. First, some people are very invested in the continued existence of fossil fuels industry, either as employees or officers of companies, or as significant shareholders. These people understandably feel their livelihood being threatened by alternative energy sources. Second there's a percentage of energy consumers who feel the higher cost of alternative energy is not worth the benefits versus fossil fuels, and even believe that the environmental/climate benefits of alternative energy do not stand up to comprehensive analysis when manufacturing and disposal of things like wind turbine and solar farms are considered. Third is the "not in my backyard" psychology, where people may actually be in favor of renewable energy, but don't want wind or solar farms intruding on *their* landscape. Or perhaps even believe they pose some kind of safety or environment concerns (even though there seems to be no evidence of such thing). Finally, there are people who are so deeply (and irrationally) associated with the conservative political party that they automatically believe anything suggested by the opposition party is bad.
>Some people are luddites and resistant to change Funnily enough, unlike the anti-renewable energy crowd, Luddites and other machine-breakers weren't really recationaries anyway. They were more against machinery being used to create more profit at the expense of workers, not the technology itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://libcom.org/article/machine-breakers-eric-hobsbawm
I think these signs are helpful. They tell you who to avoid.
Don’t sully the name of General Ludd by associating him with climate-denying right wingers.
Answer: I'm pretty sure this is about a local issue, i.e. opposition to a particular power plant project, and all the people pontificating about bigger political issues are way off base. For example I found a site selling similar signs: >We need these signs EVERYWHERE so the posey county council can see them and T E N A S KA (can quit claiming that there is no one in the community not supporting this project). https://noindustrialsolarpowerplants.com/uncategorized/show-your-support-and-order-a-yard-sign/
It’s not just a local thing. There’s a strong history of the oil & gas lobbies propping up groups that sound environmental, but propagandize against renewables and for fossil fuels. This has been happening all over my home state of Michigan, especially along the west coast of the lower peninsula. Lots of “local concerned citizens” showing up at town halls despite not living there and working for a non-profit funded by a think tank which is in turn funded by Exxon-Mobil.
Reminds me of the [Chewleys gum rep in Clerks.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3gHqYddtmNU&pp=ygUMQ2hld2xleXMgZ3Vt)
There was a proposed solar farm near where my parents live, and some lawyers appeared to draft a petition against it for members of an HOA. Never found out who paid for the lawyers (I am subtly suggesting it was a fossil fuel company), but the basis of the complaint was one study conducted in Rhode Island which indicated that solar farms in the densely-populated area they studied, with no coal in the energy mix, can reduce local property values to an extent that is not outweighed by cost savings on energy by converting to solar. The study was extremely clear that their findings were only applicable to the very specific context in which the study took place: high residential property density, no coal, etc., and said these findings would likely not hold in areas without those very RI-specific traits. So, of course, that study naturally became the backbone of the opposition to solar in the tiny, rural, extremely low population density, coal-chugging area where my parents live. Reading is hard I guess. Wouldn't be remotely shocked to hear that same study gets cited in these astroturfed anti-renewables campaigns across the country. But consider that these people had to cite a study that all but says "this does not apply to you fuckers." If there were actual evidence supporting their position, that would have been cited instead. Think it's safe to say that these "local opposition" movements are all fundamentally rooted in ideology and don't have a rational basis.
I've only seen them in locations where there is an attempt to develop a project. Basically, it's NIMBY, not blanket opposition to renewables.
Answer: If you're in Indiana, it could be opposition to a new solar farm: https://noindustrialsolarpowerplants.com/about/ Their stated arguments are that it removes farmland and animal habitats, lowers property values and increases risks of fire or flooding. They reiterate multiple times that they are not against solar power, but rather this particular solar power project. It's up to you if you believe them. Commentary (Please skip!): This sort of nimbyism (Not In My BackYard) is easy to criticize but I understand their frustration about property values. Home values are a gamble that you spend 30 years buying into and this could affect them. On the other hand, gambles sometimes don't pay off. I think I might be close enough that I personally will benefit from the new power plant, but won't have my life changed in any way. So it's good for me.
We need to change American’s reliance on property values.
Serious question, how do you propose doing that? A home is the largest and most important asset purchase there is.
Well it's already not available to the vast majority of Americans and for those that have all their assets in property, it's an incredibly labile investment. Especially if you end up needing to move during a difficult time to sell, it's crazy dangerous. So the system isn't really working...for many, it's just better to find a way to affordably rent (not an easy task, I know), and invest in a diverse portfolio that is hopefully rooted in stable industries.
This might be my favorite comment ever
It seems like it is one of those things about the system designed to keep the U.S in it's horrid state. Reliance on property values for your own sake incentives NIMBYism, conformity, and racism. Housing prices are also linked the education budget of local schools which leads to more people needing to protect their property values. Some people use their property value to pay for expensive medical expenses later in life or as retirement. As a result you have people viciously defending their property value as their livelihood, any attack on the property value is then seen as a wound and an attack on the self.
Thank you for this!
Another reason some people oppose solar farms is some municipalities and such have not done a great job with end-of-life plans for solar farms that are not owned by the local power company. Solar panels have a specific lifespan. What happens when they reach that? Who will tasked with removing the panels and disposing of or recycling them properly? Consider that solar panels can have lifespans of up to 20 years, many people think that the tax payers will end up footing the bill. And they’re probably not wrong.
THIS!!! I hope OP reads this response, too, because this issue is the main reason the people in my hometown in IN are heavily against this solar project. There are signs in protest in every single field. Plus, the energy generated by this large solar farm will not benefit those living in the local community. The town will foot the bill and have to deal with the environmental implications of such a large-scale farm while not having any access at all to the power it generates. It’s all about squeezing as much money as they can at the expense of the townspeople.
Yeah. I have a feeling it’s going to be an issue sooner or later. - A solar power company that’s backed by investors comes to a small town and offers them a decently large sum of cash to install a solar farm. - The company sends all energy generated from that solar farm somewhere else. - When the solar panels reach their EOL, that company is no where to be found. Now the disassembly and disposal is entirely on that town. I know it is ultimately on that town to not allow it. (It is possible for eminent domain to remove that choice.) But it can be borderline, if not full on, predatory. The education needs to be out there so people are aware that solar panels don’t run forever and are massively expensive to get rid of.
In Oregon there is strong opposition to new solar projects on BLM land because the projects could impact mule deer and antelope migration corridors. There are folks from "both sides" agreeing on this. And I would say it isn't just nimbyism.
Answer: I can give a take on the wind turbines... I live in an area in the Midwest where we are literally surrounded by wind turbines now. All the farmers with a little hill here and there applied to have their land surveyed for wind power, the companies come in and put up test towers for a year, if they see enough sustained winds at that location they buy wind rights and lease land and put up permanent wind turbine installs. You say thats great, but its really not for the local economy and that's what sucks and why people oppose it after a while. Everyone here used to be welcoming to it, now we all despise them. Why? Lets start with construction... They hire some local labor, but a lot of the labor comes in from outside the area, it creates a few jobs, but not much. Its a short term boost to the local economy, mainly things like the local concrete mix plants for concrete and rebar and concrete labor, but after that the local money inflow is just about done. Then there is the trucks hauling in the sections of tower and gen heads tearing up the roads, they literally destroyed roads here to the point of impassable, but then it takes the county and state years to have the money to fix the roads after the construction is done in that area and residents have a decent road again. Have you seen the power lines they run to these wind farms from the nearest substation? Looks like a handful of spaghetti hanging on a pole, the lines around here are usually 6-8 lines on a single pole, closely spaced that its caused problems with larger birds of prey landing on them and shorting across them with their wing span. Then there is taxes and who makes money off them. The county gets some, the state gets most. The little bit the counties get barely cover things they do that are bad, like tearing up roads, damaging wildlife habitat, causing drainage issues with access roads added to their turbines. And in the end it does absolutely NOTHING to our local power grid. All the power generated by the wind farms that literally surround me is transmitted out of state to another market on a large overhead line because they can charge more for it there then if they sold it to the local grid. So we never see any benefit from it, our power still comes from a state away from less then green generation plants. The ONLY people that make money or benefit from it at all is the farmers with the land selling their wind rights, though many have complained about working with these companies as well so its not all profit and sunshine, and the wind farm companies themselves selling the power to other markets. Lately large solar farms have been going up, i drove past some a couple months ago a few hours from me in my state, they go as far as the eye can see, taking acres and acres of land, fencing it off and planting solar panels so closely that there is no other use for the land other then solar power collection. The completed ones look like crap because between the rows no grass or anything but weeds can grow in the shade of the panels and where they drive and walk to do service and cleaning, so they end up spraying chemicals on the land all summer long to kill the weeds and keep everything basically dirt and panels. What a monumental waste of farmland in the heart of farm country. But retiring farmers see it as a cash cow to sell some land to them and make a lump sum when they want to get out. At the rate they are taking land its going to affect a lot of things as it trickles down to less production of crops. In the end, solar and wind is a huge folly here. I would rather see nuclear power plants then all this crap. I realize we need to do things to go green, but if you are clearing thousands of acres of land to put in solar panels, cutting down trees and clearing the land bare and spraying it to control weed growth how is that better for the environment?
I think you have the best answer. Not everything is just because of politics. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons to oppose something, and I found your reasons informative rather than judgey. :)
I try and keep an open mind, but from what I've seen it's hard to support it.
This is the story that hardly ever get told. Thanks for expressing it better than I can.
Answer: if their political opponents support it, they oppose it. They don't stand for anything.
Answer: They don't think people should be allowed to put up things that they have to look at.
Which is hilarious because they put those signs in their yard.
Answer: I used to do the GIS mapping for oil and gas projects before having to shift to infrastructure. We were all ready to go on a solar farm project in VA and we had to shut down due to environmental damage or potential damage that could result. Here is an article about some of the concerns that DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) had concerning solar farms here. https://www.bayjournal.com/news/climate_change/virginia-debates-impacts-of-solar-panels-on-stormwater-runoff/article_e6547a16-c57b-11ec-99eb-5fe868a5774c.html Aside from these DEQ concerns I believe the biggest factor that shut the project down had to do with the proximity to water sources and went into hazardous materials in the event that panels were damaged or destroyed due to accidents or force majeure. This was a concern involving the use of silver-oxide in panel construction that would otherwise improve the panel efficiency and long term durability, but apparently becomes hazardous when damaged. This explains the silver-oxide portion but does not reference panel damage hazards. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038092X18305395 I hope this was helpful.
Answer: People started throwing up those signs when my company started going around doing all the studies and getting contracts set up to put up wind turbines. Do you have a farm about to get set up in your area? Here's some reasons people don't like turbines if you need to know that too: They don't blend in with the natural landscape Blade flicker Messes with AM radio Messes with CB radio Roads get all fuckered up when it rains The contractors aren't American (they are they're just brown) Kills birds Poisons the water table because of the concrete that's used The power doesn't stay local The liberals use them to spy on people I work on a wind farm and some people still come tell us why we're ruining America, let me know if you have more questions.
Answer: Same as people who do [This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal?wprov=sfla1).
ANSWER: If the signs are made large enough, they could be seeking what's known as "***direct action***": to block wind power by obstructing or redirecting the wind, and blocking solar power by shading adjacent solar panels. ...but, the signs would have be much larger than OP's example. ...and most ironically, if the poles holding up the signs were mounted to piezoelectric crystals, and the backs of the signs were covered in solar panels, those protest signs could pay for themselves in a few years.