I ask this because the concept of “reducing our carbon footprint” seems inversely proportional to the physical footprint of these massive installations.
It puzzles me that people calling themselves environmentalists are willing to stand back and watch so many scenic areas get desecrated. A recent trip through the area along the Columbia river in eastern Washington was a bummer. Turbines have industrialized the landscape for dozens of miles, turning it into a bleak, robotic view, and that’s only a small part of future plans for the world.
I’m not “pro oil” but I see wind turbines and large-scale solar plants as a Faustian bargain where the soul of the landscape is being sold to meet energy needs.
Does anyone have a total acreage calculation for what it would take to replace oil & coal usage with these invasive structures? A recent U.S. government report cites 675,000 acres under consideration for solar plants alone. I don’t understand how anyone can keep a straight face and call that “reducing our footprint.”
Noah H, I’d actually rather see that 100×100 mile square ALL in one place, purely theoretically. It could be a designated industrial dead zone.
The whole problem is that nature is being desecrated far and wide, especially with wind turbines looming over natural features and becoming visible from areas where you used to get a wilderness feel. Turbines are the most prominent man-made structures outside of city skyscrapers, and their movement adds further to the disruption.
Why must turbines always be stark white? Some sort of bird-friendly camouflage would at least help reduce their blatant contrast.
Rudydoo, it’s always seemed that every possible roof should have a solar panel, and they could subsidize that a lot more, vs. centralized power delivery. Maybe there’s a way for power companies to rent the space on people’s roofs and call it a wash for the monthly bills. Included in the rental contract would be maintenance done by the power company. A great way to minimize using unspoiled land.
As for wind turbines vs. power lines, the turbines being white and spinning, and very tall, simply stand out a lot more. If you climb a mountain with turbines on the horizon they almost always stick out a lot more than gray power lines or regular power plant smokestacks. Few things in nature are that white and spindly. They look like bleached trees. They take up a lot more acreage for the same amount of power, and in that acreage are access roads and other disruptions. It’s just not a visually benign way to generate electricity.
I wouldn’t mind a few huge maglev turbines, though, which could c
- Solar Turbines: Why Cant We Install Wind Turbines And/or Solar Panels All Throughout America For Our Energy Needs? (5/21/2011)
- Solar Power: Facts About Renewable Energy? (solar, Wind, Etc) Please Answer? (5/29/2011)
- Solar Turbines: PLEASE..SMART PEOPLE ONLY!..SERIOUSLY? (5/6/2011)
- Solar Turbines: Wind Turbines? (5/21/2011)
- Solar Turbines: What Are The Drawbacks To Using Wind Turbines Or Solar Panels For Providing All Power To A Home? (4/24/2011)