Right wingers and wind farms, why the hatred?

In My Humble Opinion
21

The problem with the first part is that landowners who get paid by the utility to lease the land never seem to suffer from any vague mystery ailments. The ones who opposed the project and/or held out too long for the best offer, are pretty exclusively the ones “suffering.”

As for the birds, wind farms have been working together with bird experts and the Audubon Society prefers green energy over global warming and the mass bird species extinctions that promises.

They also prefer wind utilities to pay for all the bird studying, but anyway.

22

Yeah, and subsidies for fossil fuels are far greater than for renewable energy, as well as for corn ethanol (considered separately), which is really just a way to convert fossil fuels into automotive fuel, so it could be said to be double-subsidized. One could argue that renewable energy has a disproportionate share of subsidies when you factor in the contribution to total energy, but why do fossil fuels need subsidies at all?

23

You know, I looked into that specific site on this specific question once before – weirdly, I was trying to respond to claims that “most” of the birds killed by wind turbines are raptors – and I don’t think they (HowStuffWorks) are as objective on this issue as they present themselves.

Specifically:

[QUOTE=myself, from an old e-mail]
Without meaning to seem too mistrustful, I did some nominal searching online on this issue. It will probably take more effort to get a solid answer, as it looks like spin is being put on the issue. Case in point: this apparently unaffiliated site with a promising name:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

says that millions, even hundreds of millions of birds are killed each year by domestic cats, pesticides, windows, and cars – but only 10,000 – 40,000 per year by wind turbines! They cite their sources.

All the data comes from AWEA (which describes itself as “A lobbying force for wind development and voice for wind manufacturers in the United States”) EXCEPT the wind turbine deaths figure, which is a citation from ABC (not the network, but the American Bird Conservancy). The direct links to both AWEA and ABC no longer work, but I went to the ABC site:

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_farms.html

And guess what? The American Bird Conservancy DOES NOT say 10,000-40,000, they cite US Fish & Wildlife’s estimate of 440,000. That’s an order of magnitude more birds than the 40,000 the “HowStuffWorks” site specified, in citing ABC. Is it mere error that they have reduced the number to less than one tenth the number their source gives? When that lower number is, itself, the crux of their argument?
[/QUOTE]

24

Because wind farms don’t project a macho enough image, and that’s the be-all, end-all for a lot of right wingers.

25

As others have said, I don’t believe that Right Wingers™ automatically hate wind farms. Some do, but some don’t. Most that do feel they are a waste of resources being foisted on the public by Left Wingers(arr)…who, ironically, block many wind farm projects, especially in picturesque spots on the East Coast.

Personally, I have no problem with wind farms, per se, but I think that the attitude that they can solve all our energy problems and the only reason they haven’t is a Right Wing™ and Big Energy(aar) conspiracy is a lot of horeshit. Wind is not going to replace a significant portion of our current fossil fuel based power system. Neither is solar. It just doesn’t scale up to those levels. It’s a niche energy source, that works well where it works well…and doesn’t work well just about every place else. The only alternative that actually could scale up to replace a significant portion of our current fossil fuel based power system is nuclear. So, to me, a better question is…Lefties…why the continued and knee jerk hatred for nuclear energy?

Possibly (just a WAG as I wasn’t even aware of a right-wing concerted hatred of wind in the UK) they hate the costs and don’t see the benefits. How is the attitude of your left or general public towards nuclear? Is the same emphasis being placed on new nuclear plants as on new wind plants?

26

Are you against the government subsidizing them on principle, or because you think that the government, given its track record, will mismanage resources/fail?

The government subsidized nuclear energy. Why not wind turbines? Government has the capability to purchase products, such as wind turbines, en masse, so that volume discounts can apply. Scalability is also enhanced with government assistance.

27

The worst case scenario for a malfunctioning nuclear power plant is far worse than that of a wind farm or solar power plant, and for that matter worse than a coal powered plant also. I think people calculate risk in terms of worst case scenarios more often than not; i.e. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima.

28

I’m going to quote my own post again because it is fact. That is the motivation behind almost all windfarm opposition, in terms of numbers.

I appreciate that UKIP are anti-global warming loons, and I also appreciate there are genuinely decent economic/environmental arguments both against and in favour of windfarms amongst those who consider those kinds of things when they form viewpoints.

But understand that most people don’t give a shit about the national/international arguments. They care about the locale in which they live. This is primarily a local issue and about the nearest wind farm that is going to spoil a place, at least in terms of those who have a strong “anti-” viewpoint.

Pro-windfarm proponents, ignore this at your peril. If you want to convince the “antis” then you need to engage them on a local level.

29

I’d love to see what they consider “tax breaks” for oil and gas. I’d bet it’s just any old tax deduction like any old business would get (i.e., stuff that reduces income in an economic sense and therefore should reduce taxable income).

Renewable energy subsidies are a different beast entirely. For example, if you produce electricity using wind (etc.) and you qualify for the production tax credit, you get a reduction in your tax bill. Produce electricity from coal and you don’t get that reduction. That is a tax break for renewables that doesn’t exist for coal.

And (glory be to the gods because it puts food on my table) people won’t invest in renewable energy without making triple-damn sure that their tax breaks are coming, whereas investing in coal plants actually makes economic sense without any need for tax breaks.

So, in short, the chart is simply using numbers to blow smoke up your ass.

30

Anyone who uses the ‘eyesore’ argument is nuts. An oil field compared to a wind farm? Please.

31

People are terrible at risk assessment. Unfortunately. Combine that with the levels of ignornce as to the risks and the fear from groups opposed to, say nuclear power, and you get a situation similar to what we have today in the US where you can’t build a new nuclear power plant realistically.

32

Eh. What is your argument? Wind farms are eyesores, so are oil fields. Whether having such an eyesore in a community benefits it, that’s the question imho.

33

Indeed. If you look at the deaths per TWH generated by various electricity sources, nuclear stacks up really well. For the record, I identify as as a lefty (albeit a non-American one), and as very pro-nuclear power.

34

Truly?

35

Renewables and solar are kicking nuclear’s ass. Lots of good info there.

36

From the link:

That’s a bit unfair. Have any nuclear plants been built in the last three decades? How would a nuclear plant, built using 21st century intelligence, compare to solar?

I know people like to point at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima as nuclear booger monsters, but those plants were built in the late sixties through late seventies.

37

Well, GE makes nuclear reactors so they’d know the costs. GE finds nuclear “hard to justify.”

38

Sorry, here is a better link to the GE nuclear “hard to justify” article. I don’t like that first link.

39

I don’t have a problem with wind power as long as it is owned and financed by private/commercial enterprise.

I have a huge problem with any power source wherein

  1. Investors won’t touch it, and

  2. It requires a massive amount of government subsidies to exist.

40

Well yeah…it is hard to justify and expensive (considering that it would be next to impossible to actually build a nuclear power plant in the US today, and would be basically a money pit that you’d never finish if you tried). You’d have to look into the reasons WHY it’s so expensive and why GE would say it’s hard to justify though. And why a company who builds and sells some of the most sought after wind turbines in the country (and who also builds and sells nuclear technology…but not in the US anymore) if not the world would make such a claim. :stuck_out_tongue: