www.earth.com/news/compreh... It would be nice it this did settle the debate. If those people who believe that wind turbines are ruining their live would move on to finding relief by addressing the root cause of their suffering, mass hysteria. But they won’t. Easier to blame others than fix yourself
Heaven forbid any of those yahoos walked thru the woods on a windy day. Or ever listened for hours as a snowstorm pushed thru your town with howling winds all night.
Some argumentees are a lost cause, The most you can do is lay bare the facts and provoke people who were never open to changing their minds to lay bare their true character, From there you can only hope that any 3rd parties seeing all of it will make informed decisions.
You overestimated the brain capacity of the naysayers. They have be able to read and think to change their minds and their collective one brain cell can’t do two things at once.
It was a 10-minute lab exposure to a recording. Utterly meaningless.
Please cite the scientific credentials that allow you to analyze the reports validity.
Have you read it?
Yes, please cite your qualifications for judging the quality of the report?
We have the ability to read. It's a lab study, with brief exposure to recordings. It does not recreate the conditions of living with wind turbine noise in the least.
So no qualifications then. You just reject science that doesn’t fit into your own personal biases. How very MAGA of you. What is sad is, accepting the mass hysteria behind you symptoms would allow you get get treatment & relief. But you would rather suffer & feel like a martyr than accept reality.
Again, why don't you read it? From the article you cited: “The team used a short laboratory exposure.” And here is the study itself: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
I did read it. You are asking then to prove a negative. You will find flaws in any study because you would rather be a martyr than accept reality and get yourself the help you need. I’m done here.
You said "It would be nice it this did settle the debate". It clearly does not, because a 10-minute lab exposure to a recording is nothing like the actual experience of living with wind turbine noise.
🙄
I don't like them because of their environmental impact. They and solar cells emit the most CO2 equivalents over their lifetime (apart from coal) compared to how much energy they produce. Real environmental villains. And they’re ugly as hell.
I assume that you are talking about the lifetime impact. i.e. emissions from production, transportation etc If so, you have bought into the false narrative promoted by the fossil fuel industry. It has been debunked many times. Here is just one. yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/06/what...
Did you even read what you gave as a reference? It only confirmed what I wrote. Solar and wind are worse than all forms of power except those that burn fossil fuels.
You started by saying turbines were worse than all but coal Did you miss this quote? “One study put that payback time at seven months — not bad considering the typical 20- to 25-year lifespan of a wind turbine” If you read this as supporting your logic your are in seriously the tin foil hat brigade
Yes i wrote coal, but i should have written all fossil fuels. They are of course the worst. But after that comes solar and wind. And that’s mainly because they’re intermittent power sources (which creates problems in the grid) with a short life span.
I won’t argue with you on that. I am a proponent of nuclear & would love to see more progress in tidal & geo-thermal. Wind/solar are limited by grid storage technology. They are an important niche player & their role will expand as battery technology advances. The Peaker Plant role is still needed.
Yes nuclear (especially SMR) is the key and maybe geo-thermal if the new technology with microwave drilling works (looks promising). But batteries for S&W are just a solution for a created problem. Batteries themselves is a gigantic environmental problem.
Again, I have to agree. There is some promising developments being made in non rare earth battery technology . They are too heavy to be used for mobile needs, but may well help with grid storage. I have not heard anything on the carbon footprint of manufacturing. www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ar...
Yes I’m aware of the technology (I work in the field) and you’re correct there are different uses for different technologies. But the main problem now is that its waaay too expensive and the physical needs for space is enormous if you want to use them in large scale for the grid.
To be honest batteries suck on energy storage compared to e.g. chemical (50x better) or nuclear (90M x better).
And I forgot to mention the fact that batteries don’t work practically for that purpose either because the amount of energy needed in a grid is enormous and the batteries would become gigantic and cost a fortune.
And yes, wind turbines are still ugly. If they advance any in the vertical designs, it may improve the aesthetics
True, at present. We may have to resort to gravity storage type systems or other innovations in the short term. These currently still suffer energy losses, but may be developed sooner than proper grid storage batteries. We do need to find an answer to the peak use problem. I have faith in science.
Yes, science and technology are the solution. As always and the reason mankind evolved 😊👍