
How Steady Can Wind Power Blow? - ph0rque
http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/30/how-steady-can-the-wind-blow/
======
ph0rque
Regarding how they look: am I the only one that thinks wind turbines can be
beautiful? I would consider this a beautiful landscape:
[http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-
cdn.com/files/2011...](http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-
cdn.com/files/2011/10/SiemensWindTurbines.jpg)

~~~
sageabilly
Perhaps from far away; up close all I see is deep cuts to run asphalt and dirt
shoulders that are going to churn up mud every time it rains.

It's not necessarily that turbines are ugly, to me it's the infrastructure
necessary to support the turbines that is ugly.

------
abalone
This is great but it does conspicuously leave out one major point of
contention with wind power which is their visual impact. Sometimes noise too.
Offshore projects have been fought and canceled over this issue. And it looks
like the key focus of this article, the 60% capacity, is only achievable if
the turbines get even bigger:

 _> The average new wind turbine in the US is 80 meters tall at its hub. NREL
looks at what capacity factors could be reached with 110 meter tall and 140
meter tall wind turbines._

Additionally it looks to on-shore sites primarily in the Midwest where it's
really flat and so these monster turbines could be seen for miles. I would
certainly hope people are cool with it considering how green a power source it
is, but I thought it was a bit odd that such an in-depth piece left out one of
the biggest obstacles to wind power growth.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Additionally it looks to on-shore sites primarily in the Midwest where it's
> really flat and so these monster turbines could be seen for miles. I would
> certainly hope people are cool with it considering how green a power source
> it is, but I thought it was a bit odd that such an in-depth piece left out
> one of the biggest obstacles to wind power growth.

Farmers I've spoken to absolutely love turbines; they receive a lease payment
annually for each one on their property.

Now, if we're going to complain about "eyesores" through the Dakotas,
Nebraska, Iowa, and Oklahoma, perhaps we could address the _actual deaths_
that coal causes first.

~~~
abalone
So, I'm not saying it's good that people object to them. But they do. And just
stating that they _shouldn 't_ mind large on-shore wind farms isn't going to
fix that. Nor is stating that people _who are paid_ to host them like them.
Nor is stating that they're less of an eyesore than coal mines when these
people can't see the coal mines in the first place.

An in-depth exploration of the expansion of wind power really should address
this obstacle too, because it's just as big as the technical aspects.

------
rokahnhn
Makani Power
([https://www.google.com/makani/](https://www.google.com/makani/)) positions
itself as obtaining more power at 250-350m but perhaps a more important metric
is obtaining higher "capacity factors" (i.e. more reliable).

------
nextweek2
Wind is not a practical power generation source. It also has the added
drawback of ruining the most scenic and untouched parts of our environment.

Accept that only nuclear and solar meet the needs of consumers and move
forward.

~~~
msisk6
Texas currently has 14 GW of wind generation and another 11 GW coming online
over the next 2 years. Seems practical enough.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I'm honestly surprised states hit by the fracking slowdown (North Dakota and
Texas) aren't retraining oil workers to install wind farms. Its safer for
them, the work is going to be there for at least a decade, its just the
financing we need to get together (y u no DOE energy loan!?)

