wind...waste of land...

[2aguy]

Wind Power Requires 700 Times as Much Land as Fracking | Power Line

One of the weirder facts of contemporary life is that “environmentalists” generally prefer wind power to fracking. Unless you suffer from an anti-carbon fetish, there is no comparison, as the Telegraph reports:

A wind farm requires 700 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a fracking site, according to analysis by the energy department’s recently-departed chief scientific advisor. …

Prof MacKay said that a shale gas site uses less land and “creates the least visual intrusion”, compared with a wind farm or solar farm capable of producing the equivalent amount of energy over 25 years.

 

[Mr. H.]

"a fracking sight"?

 

[Mr. H.]

Oops. Sorry. I've been banned from your threads...

 

[Wake]

Part of my ideology is being a conservative, and an environmentalist. Nuclear, solar, wind, and fracking are all things I'd like to see more interest in, and perhaps put some investment $$$ towards. Solar energy I have a lot of faith in. Wind... I don't know much about it, and am surprised if it's true that it takes that much land to use. Two points on my mind is that fracking doesn't appear to kill any birds, but I don't think wind can run out of supply, unlike with fracking. If that's not the case on the latter, please edify me.

Nuclear power sounds intriguing, but I need more information on it. If you live in a very windy place, it might be worth it to have a handful of small windmills to garner some electrical energy. There may very well be more data in support of wind energy that I'm currently ignorant of.

 

[2aguy]

Some thing to think about with wind energy...

Study: Wind Power Costs Taxpayers Billions of Dollars - Katie Pavlich

According to the study, wind energy costs taxpayers $12 billion per year and shows wind power costs $109 per megawatt hour, nearly double government estimates of just $72 per megawatt hour. The study also shows wind power doesn't decrease the cost of electricity as environmental groups and government advocates claim, but instead shifts costs onto taxpayers. In addition, wind energy subsidies allow those who start wind projects to easily game the system.

 

[Moonglow]

Oil cost is free? How much does oil production cost? In environmental efforts also..

 

[mamooth]

A fracking site only lasts a couple years, while wind turbines are forever. Therefore, the logic behind the OP is stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

Part of my ideology is being a conservative, and an environmentalist. Nuclear, solar, wind, and fracking are all things I'd like to see more interest in, and perhaps put some investment $$$ towards. Solar energy I have a lot of faith in. Wind... I don't know much about it, and am surprised if it's true that it takes that much land to use. Two points on my mind is that fracking doesn't appear to kill any birds, but I don't think wind can run out of supply, unlike with fracking. If that's not the case on the latter, please edify me.

Nuclear power sounds intriguing, but I need more information on it. If you live in a very windy place, it might be worth it to have a handful of small windmills to garner some electrical energy. There may very well be more data in support of wind energy that I'm currently ignorant of.

We have major wind farms here in Oregon. Most are out in the middle of wheat fields, where they grow wheat with very little ground being taken up by the mills. The farmers make about 5K a year off each mill, so it is a real boon for them. There are a number of states now where wind provides over 10% of the energy used. That is significant. And the price of installation continues to come down.

Solar prices are also plummeting, and that industry has a vast potential to do even better, as we have vast roof areas in the cities that could be generating power right next to where that power is used.

Nuclear's promise is power 24-7, albeit, very expensive power. There are also inherent risks, as we saw at Fukashima.

 

[whitehall]

For the life of me I can't understand why animal rights organizations like PITA are not protesting the executive order that extended the permit for killing of endangered birds like eagles by windmills for an astonishing 30 years. I guess politics trumps animal rights.

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps because the hiways adjacent to the mills kill more birds than do the mills.

 

[Mr. H.]

Perhaps because the hiways adjacent to the mills kill more birds than do the mills.

Where can I gets me one of them 30 year permits?

I produce more energy than a wind turbine.

Contribute more to the GDP.

Am not subsidized.

Actually employ people.

Pay taxes on my production.

 

[Grandma]

What a surprise. The "study" is no more than a blog in a right-wing publication.

 

[RGR]

A fracking site only lasts a couple years, while wind turbines are forever. Therefore, the logic behind the OP is stupid.

What is a "fracking site"?

 

[Agit8r]

"Wind Power Requires 700 Times as Much Land as Fracking"

Lol. Pointless argument.

 

[westwall]

A fracking site only lasts a couple years, while wind turbines are forever. Therefore, the logic behind the OP is stupid.

Fracking will go on for 30 years in some area IIRC Mr. H. Wind turbines are clapped out within 25 years. They require extraordinary amounts of maintenance after 5 years so admiral.....you're just plain old wrong.

 

[westwall]

"Wind Power Requires 700 Times as Much Land as Fracking"

Lol. Pointless argument.

No, it's not.


Outside of Palm Springs CA.

Jonah natural gas field near Pinedale, WY

Which one looks like shit? Which one does more environmental damage? Which one kills raptors?
The answer is the wind farm in all cases.

 

[Agit8r]

"Wind Power Requires 700 Times as Much Land as Fracking"

Lol. Pointless argument.

No, it's not.


Outside of Palm Springs CA.

And what are you gonna grow there anyway?

Which one does more environmental damage?

That may depend on how responsible the fracker is.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wind power doesn't set your household water on fire.

Fracking will.

If I had a choice between fracking and wind power? I'd choose wind power any day of the week.

Fracking harms the environment, I've yet to hear where the wind caused people to have their water set on fire.

 

[westwall]

"Wind Power Requires 700 Times as Much Land as Fracking"

Lol. Pointless argument.

No, it's not.


Outside of Palm Springs CA.

And what are you gonna grow there anyway?

Which one does more environmental damage?

That may depend on how responsible the fracker is.

There are windfarms in every major raptor flyway. They kill more raptors in one year than Big Oil has killed in 100 years. They are all over Kansas, Colorado, Iowa and Nebraska. They interfere with agriculture and they may actually be altering wind patterns.

Frackers HAVE to be responsible. If they're not they get sued out of existence. You anti science silly people act like fracking is new but it's been around for over 30 years. To date there has been no major environmental damage attributed to fracking. On the other hand the MTBE that you anti science types mandated be added to CA gasoline did more environmental damage to that State in 10 years then Big Oil did in 100 years.

You guys' track record sucks.

 

[westwall]

Wind power doesn't set your household water on fire.

Fracking will.

If I had a choice between fracking and wind power? I'd choose wind power any day of the week.

Fracking harms the environment, I've yet to hear where the wind caused people to have their water set on fire.

It hasn't been shown to do that yet. The scene in the movie you are so enamored with neglected to point out that the water caught fire even before fracking was introduced to the region.

Honesty and a good environmental propaganda film don't mix.

Even the NY Times exposed the fraudulent nature of that movie.....

Below is just one of MANY claims that were made in the movie that were false.


"(1:23:15) Dunkard Creek: Fox includes images of dead fish along a 35-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek in Washington County, Pa.; attributes that event to natural gas development.

EPA and state regulators have pointed the blame for the September 2009 at coal mine drainage, not wastewater from drill sites.

EPA's preliminary report in December 2009 said a bloom of toxic algae wiped out almost all fish, mussels, salamanders and aquatic life along 43 miles of the creek that snakes back and forth along the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border. The salty conditions that allowed the algae, EPA reported, were tied to mine treatment discharges high in "total dissolved solids."

Fox has questioned that finding, noting that mines have been draining into local creeks for decades, and posed, "So, what has changed?" But in September 2009, West Virginia Public Broadcasting reported a state official's contention, "One possible culprit is a new borehole on the Pennsylvania side that's injecting polluted water into the mine void."

State officials did not say what the borehole was. But in the weeks before the fish kill, EPA had fined the mine owner more than $150,000 for failing to properly staff a coalbed methane injection well in the vicinity.

EPA said it was working to develop standards to protect aquatic life from mine wastes. It said officials hoped the standard could be expanded to cover Marcellus Shale drilling wastes and coalbed methane wastes."




Groundtruthing Academy Award Nominee 'Gasland' - NYTimes.com