Click bait headline with the claim about "Environmentalists" opposing clean initiatives. There was ONE environmental policy maker in the whole piece - Mr. Jesse Kharbanda. He struggled to come up with reasons to not develop wind/solar farms. The Hoosier Environmental Council website literally states this: HEC supports, and actively advocates for, public policies that facilitate investment in utility-scale renewable energy, customer-owned renewable energy, and energy efficiency. Farmers are paid good rent for the 1% of their land that is used by wind farms. WSJ needs to do better.
I'm not saying that you've got no points, but you sound extremely dismissive. The situation is not as simple as you're making it sound to be. People aren't accustomed to giant wind turbines towering over their homes in their backyards. The resentment is somewhat understandable.
Well, here in Australia there's a famous influential environmentalist named Bob Brown who is now against a wind farm in his home state of Tasmania, claiming it will destroy pristine coastlines & forests. He's also against hydroelectricity, against nuclear power, and certainly coal power. Looks like he just wants us to live in caves & die from the cold in winter.
@@abhinavbanerjee8797As someone who lived in Indiana for over 10 years, I personally see it as them being NIMBYs. The education system is also kind of bad so they lack the knowledge to see the bigger picture.
@@abhinavbanerjee8797 It is more than resentment, there are real property issues, and often trespass zoning, Most of the counties, whether Indiana or Michigan or elsewhere enacted protective zoning not bans, Like when a county implements setbacks from property lines instead of the wind developers prefered setbacks from buildings. If a neighbor has a wind turbine, on their property 1500 feet from my home, that means I can no longer build on part of my property. Towns get boxed in limiting development or growth.
I'm not sure I would say anyone in this program should be referred to as an "environmentalist." Simply calling yourself a patriot or environmentalist does not make one so. Good highlight nonetheless.
@@andrewj22 Many of us signed off of social media in 2016 and never looked back. I don't expect clickbait from the Wall Street Journal, but perhaps the contagion of moronic self-promotion has reached these "hallowed halls."
@@andrewj22 Also, it really seems to me like propaganda. That statement would be in line with a lot of WSJ viewership's values. If they can tell themselves that even environmentalists hate renewables they can move forward without guilt. But if you're gonna be a creep, just be an unapologetic one like Mr. Koch.
@@kylesmith4572 WSJ is owned by the same demon that owns Fox news, Rupert Murdoch. I would imagine they beholden to the same interests as well. This video is just a hit piece on sustainable energy.
There are going to be trade offs. I am for the solar project that this piece mentions in Virginia but it does not make me smile that 3000+ acres of pine trees will be cut down for the solar panels to go up.
Similar issue occurred in Denmark when wind turbines were first installed, people living in the country side didn't like them in their backyards. In general, offering co-ownership (and some nice subsidies) help turning the tides. When you can see your wind turbine generating money, all of the sudden they become much more welcome :) However, they shouldn't be placed as close to homes as seen in this video, nobody would like that.
Concerns about wind turbines being placed too close to homes can be properly dealt with as part of the wind farm permitting process. Unfortunately these people have instead passed bans on wind farms in their entire county.
Didn’t turn the “tide”. Co ownership persuaded people to put one or two turbines nearby, which is trivial. The big 500 MW wind farms are needed to run a country, and after a time the public turned against more of those onshore, just as happened in Germany now.
As someone who lives in Indiana, there is very little fight for the natural habitat/farmland when it's going to be used for another housing development...
I"m a fan of wind turbines but always imagined them at least a kilometer or two from any houses. I think they look nicer than power lines or highways. *Added: to clarify, I realize power lines are needed with wind turbines but if we learned to live with power lines, we can learn to live with wind turbines. The wind turbines should be 1 km or 2 from any houses, either off-shore or part of a pumped storage set up. If someone is against any wind turbines but ok with power lines, please provide a logical explanation
You cant see a highway a 100 yards back for the lanes, or 200 yards back from wood pole power lines with even small vegetation. Even cell phone towers vanish behind the first set of trees because most of them are just a bit taller than the trees. The horizon distance (flat land) for a 500 ft Midwest wind turbine blade tip is 27 miles, casting fast moving shadows all the way when the sun is right.
I agree. I think power lines are the most hideous thing in the world, and they are everywhere. If you can learn to ignore power lines, you can learn to ignore windmills.
@@kylesmith4572 Why? They are not remotely the same thing. Power lines vanish from site a couple hundred yards away. A 500’ wind turbine can see the horizon 27 miles away. Also it’s moving, casting shadows, making noise, and is a major construction project w heavy equipment and new roads. So what the heck are you talking about?
The hard part with having the turbines that far out is that the power/energy loss is insane. By the time they’re paid off they fail/need attention. To a certain point are they any better than the traditional petrochemical power plants or Nuclear. Nuclear has gotten a lot safer & it’s very efficient.
There in lies the reason why wind and solar continue to be discussed as if they can certainly eliminate fossil fuels, when in fact no where in the world do they even power half of a large nation grid: nobody can be bothered to ask how much land is required, how much steel, etc, as if its so many cell phones, instead of millions of tons a millions of acres, all replaced every 20 years or so. Nobody cares until they condemn your residence.
I don't mind it here in Texas because at least I have something to view when I'm hammered and driving or high and driving with the nice lights behind me and every thing.... So beautiful
@@Nill757 They ain't a condemning your residence unless they eminent domain your residence (I'd rather see solar and wind farms in CLEAN air than none with dirty and hotter air)...
The is actually part of the problem. People think that electricity just goes into the grid, that is not the case. There is extreme management and diversion issues with energy production. We can't just power NYC from Kansas. This is what was also part of the issue with Texas when Winter hit too hard and the pull/preparedness of the state could have never kept up.
*CLICKBAIT!* Not actually _environmentalists_ fighting renewable energy development. Way to go WSJ, misleading viewers about environmental concerns just so you can get some views.
The sun changes position in the sky though the year. The blades would cast a shadow on a particular window for about one hour per day for only about one week each spring and one week each fall. And for that total of 10 hours each year, the blade rotation can be temporarily stopped.
@@Z0DI4C they can but they don't unless there are regulations or zoning enacted to require it, which I think is part of the point of the video, most of the counties across the country are not banning wind or solar, they are enacting regulations and zoning, to limit things like flicker. Though yes it may be several hours or on certain days, but there is never just one turbine, so you can have them in multiple directions, and be surrounded.
Another dozen years of consuming large tracts of land and amounts of money, finding that it did little but make some people wealthy, then people might run out of excuses for not using nuclear. As it is, Americans have a psych block against nuclear which they cant escape. See this video, doesn't mention nuclear once, the lowest land footprint clear energy source, by far. If you or somebody knows how stop the scare, have at it.
This headline is stupid and deceptive. Environmentalists aren't fighting renewable energy development, they are having to fight FOR renewable energy development. What a failure - but I guess this is what to expect from the WSJ of late.
@@gotrejo exactly. I don't understand why certain governments are so anti-nuclear but call themselves pro-green. It's not possible right now to have a power grid made up 100% of wind and solar. To get enough solar power for an entire city, you need vast amounts of land covered in solar panels and even then we would only have power when the sun was shining, wind only works when the wind is blowing, and power storage technology is not good enough yet. Nuclear power plants use the same amount of space a fossil fuel power plant would, you get power all the time and it's 100% green and clean.
Yeah, it definitely sucks to have a windmill block your view of a whole lot of nothing Indiana.... "It's an eyesore" is the most american reason I've heard to not install renewable energy.
@@carolynngockel3670 That I can agree with, but have you ever driven through Indiana? or Kansas? it's really easy to not have that be an issue, and that doesn't excuse solar.
@@jackbarbey I don't know if you've ever driven through the Midwest, but it really shouldn't be an issue there either. and that doesn't provide a reason against solar other than "it doesn't look nice"
Bizarre how many comments posted here declaring how other people’s land, their parks and homes, their local environment, is “nothing”, to be used as an industrial park and that they should shut up about it. How wonderfully eco-fascist.
Meaning you don't live near a wind farm. The Germans had a "it looks cool in the other guy's state" period, and built a great deal of wind power. Now they're trying to put wind farms near those "its cool" people, and onshore new wind power has slowed to a trickle there. After all this, Germany's coal power plant fleet is about the same size as it was twenty years ago. Quite a grift.
@@JohnSmith-ux3tt nonsense. a moderately busy road makes much more infrasound than a windturbine. And no one could ever prove any health related issues by infrasound at the volume wind turbines make.
Video is misleading as it uses out dated 10 and 12 year old footage from anti-wind sites to portray supposed impacts of wind turbines. In reality the opposition to clean energy does not come from farmers, who generally are the biggest supporters - but from newcomers to ag communities who expect the farmers to shut up and be compliant groundskeepers, maintaining an unchanging backdrop for their gentrified country lifestyle - and insist on "setback" rules that in fact are seizures of the farmer's right to use his property.
As long as the setback rules do not infringe on my property next door there is no problem, from where I have seen it is not just new-comers, there are farmers, family farms and smaller farms, that have fought for fair setbacks. A 500 or in some cases 700 foot turbine should be far enough away from my property that I am not in the ice throw, or would restrict me from using or building on my property. There are zoning rules everywhere, in more urban or suburban settings your neighbor can not build a 10 story house. Or put a building within x feet of a property line.
I wonder how the kids mining colbalt and strip mining owners feel about that. I'm sure they'll keep destorying our natural environment and enslaving people around the world for " clean energy" producing products.
One of the many overlooked issues is maintaining renewables. Just like all other mechanical items, they need maintenance and solar panels do as well. We currently have many roads and bridges that we cannot find the money,time or will to take care of. What makes us think we will take care of these projects as needed? I’m not anti renewable. I just see that in the hands of the same folks that matting the rest of our infrastructure, we will be left with broken piles of trash ready for the landfill. 😢
Agreed, whoever attached the title stating that environmentalists are fighting renewable energy did not even watch the video. That's not at all what the video is about. This video isn't about what environmentalists prefer, instead it's about people who don't like the sight or sound of wind turbines near their property. Their concerns can be properly dealt with as part of the wind farm permitting process. Unfortunately these people have passed bans on wind farms in their entire county. These people are not environmentalists. Real environmentalists support wind farms.
I was registered lobbyist in Brussels (EU Parliament). They are using the same “why not” as the oil and gas lobbyist in Brussels. Only difference is that nobody listen to them in Brussels. Difference between US and Europe is that EU actually want to be climate neutral in 20 years and want to cancel coal and gas from energy networks.
@@rufusking430 yes there is a project funded in Germany. How ever problem with geothermal energy is that eventually it becomes “dry”. This is what they are now trying to solve in Germany. And no Iceland is not part of EU.
Dont get me wrong I like nuclear gut most dont want it around them. We can put solar on every roof to power the buildings locally instead of huge infrastructure and wasted power in transporting it.
@@hermanmusimbi4337 It would be good if you could explain why. Co-operative windfarms, run by the neighbourhood so to speak, are fairly common in Europe. In order to mitigate any impacts (if there are any) caused by a wind-farm near-by why shouldn't operators pass on a tiny fraction of the profits (in the form of a limited amount of free electricity) to those in the vicinity, be it those below 1,2 or 3 miles from the closest turbine...?
Do coal plants give electricity to their neighbors for free? Do gas plants? Oil plants? Why should renewables give their product for free when no one else does?
@@nikolatasev4948 Because renewables could perhaps just be more sensible than their forebears? It could have been a good idea in the past for coal power plant operators to give free electricity to neighbours affected by emissions. They didn't - perhaps also because the environmental impact was much further afield compared to wind-turbines, who only have an effect up to about 2km max. (if you live in a very flat area and happen to be right in the sunrise/sunset-axis.) So we're talking about the neighbours within that maximum range. This video looks praticularly at rural to remote communities in good-knows-where (Wyoming etc.) where there won't be too many neighbours anyway. Probably the most affected are the land-owners, who profit from the wind-turbines anyway. So the cost of giving free electricity to neighbours would cost VERY little but could gain a lot more acceptance in the community - apart from the benefits that a community yields anyway by having the wind-turbines in the first place through taxes nd so forth...
@@rufusking430 How many birds, other animals and other animals die, because of fossil fuels destroying the planet with pollution. Small price to pay for better for all of us
I like nuclear but there seems to be an inability to deliver reactors on time and on budget. If 1GW reactors could be built in 4 years costing 4 billion dollar, then problem solved, but 10+ years costing 10 billion... don't bother.
@@beback_ Yeah I like his lectures aswell. But as he said, nuclear power plants make a ton of cash long term, like after 20 years, way better than gas. It's just about the political will to make long term investments and making sure it doesn't take long, if it takes 11 years to build it it's not gonna be competitive with fossil fuels before it's time to decomission it.
If you don't start the conversation about clean energy with nuclear power you're not serious about decarbonizing the energy grid, everything else is a joke.
Only now have you came to this conclusion? In Portugal, windmills have ruined several mountain skylines, especially in Oliveira do Hospital and Serra da Estrela
I never even thought about the shadows from the turbines doing that or more specifically how annoyingly irritating that would be if the shadows flashed across my yard and across my roof and against the walls of my house and through the windows. It'd be like there is a strobe light outside the windows flashing in. That beyond stinks. And it is breaking into and smashing the peace and privacy of those folks homes. I know that much I wouldn't like that very much at all.
@@g00rb4u In a lot of ways. In this example it is like Are you allowed to go around to peoples houses and flash flashlights through their windows? If someone flashed lights on amd off in your windows at all hours how would you react? Did you even watch those clips? Yes, yes it is and does encroach upon a persons home and the privacy therein.
I agree and that is why wind turbines have to be placed so that they don't interfere with people's living spaces. I love the look of wind turbines far away out there in the green. It is just like airplane wings. Very aerodynamic. In fact, after having played a racing game where you raced through the lush countryside with fields and hills and everything, that was just a deco element that had to be in the distance among these hills. It just belongs together in my opinion, green hills and these majestic slowly moving wings on top of it, is beautiful. I don't understand at all how people can't like that. There are way, way uglier things. Just think chimneys everywhere, way uglier. Or open-pit mining. Ough. These are thin, white and nice to look at. Futuristic and represents the human path towards harmony with nature, extracting energies that are not harmful. But not right next to people, that point I understand very well.
I work at a solar field here in Texas ( 4,000 acres ). That sizefarm can't even power the NY subway for a day - fact ..we have weekly meeting on production . The life of a solar panel still can't even pass 20 years, and along with terrible ROI. So basically , the amount of land needed to run solar and fullfil the national energy needs; the lad mass to cover that is over 60% of our land mass. That would effectively turn more than half of America into a dead zone. Void of life.
How about a new nuclear plant, that runs 24/7, doesn’t need to switch to gas or coal plant when the sun goes down? At least don’t ever close down an existing nuclear plant.
@@Nill757 we also need more natural gas plants. America is sitting on hundreds of years worth. Natural gas can be used to produce energy cheap and any byproduct in the process can be recycled back through the system ; effectively creating near ZERO emissions.
There are 500+ Million Parking spots in US, covering all of those with Solar Panels would power most of the country. Don't know why that is so difficult. Large quantities of parking usually correlates with high power usage.
@MoneyThink Oh. Well I wasn't imagining that at all. I was imaging replacing the parking spots. For creative places for power generation, I've always considered the medians of the interstates. Thousands and thousands of acres, conveniently cleared of foliage and usually distant from tall buildings...
@MoneyThink Well if you're covering the roadway with a structure, that would reduce precipitation collecting on the driving surface and (maybe?) act as an insulating barrier to slow heat loss when temperatures drop below freezing.
You see big circles of green grass around big trees in the middle of winter caused by just that little bit of extra heat retained by tree limbs overhead.
This is a highly minor and insignificant argument of land usage for wind power vs land usage of fossil fuels. The real attention should be on the carbon output and pollution output of the two power generators. Obviously wind and renewable energy is a long lasting better alternative. The arguments against such are from ppl who couldn’t help themselves if they wanted to
@@johnsamuel1999 global warming and air pollution aren’t enough of a lifelong nuisance issue, huh? You’re so used to it that you even looked passed it as if it isn’t an issue that you’re feeling the affects from now, smh #couldnthelpyourself #ifyouwantedto
Not true. The likely climate change of 2.5 degrees C - 2100 is about harm to the environment. Not end of the world harm, but harm. If America covers over two NY states worth of land with PV and wind, digging up mountain range sizes of steel and concrete, all replaced every 20 years or so, that will also do harm to the environment, increase the cost of energy, increase the cost of land, which will do the greatest harm to the least of us. This is no joke. Scotland just raised an old forest to put up more wind farms, trivial amounts of wind compared to what it would really take to obliterate fossil fuel power plants, as France did BTW with its oil power plants 30 years ago.
Misleading headline. Makes it seem like environmentalists are saying not to use renewable energy. Missing research into farms that benefit from renewable energy in conjunction with agricultural plots. This is very poorly done.
The solution is using the solar panels for the charateristic that really makes them game-changers: they can be fragmentedly placed everywhere. They need to be placed over every roof (especially those large ones covering industries) and on parking lots. This way we would generate electricity without using land that could host homes or farms
@@rok1475 I watched the whole video 3 times at least. It stayed on my to watch list for at least a year. I Agree with him 100%. There are two things he didn't account for in his line of thought due to the age of this video. I'd love to see his stance now. I'd say the two differences are 1. the lowering cost and supply of home battery storage. 2. the decentralization of solar away from grid deployments. We can put solar on every roof and batteries in the same building ( or close by), reduce our power infrastructure while saving the wasted energy used to transmit power across long distance lines.
Considering the magnitude of solar installation we need to achieve in the next two decades...all size panel installs will be needed, from micro off grid to multiple square miles in the Nevada desert. Every economic option will be exploited. But that is the driving force, the most profitable type of installation will emerge and dominate our future landscapes.
1/3 of every city and town is commercial rooftops and parking lots. Do a Google maps satellite view of any city, the large boring grey bits are the parts we are talking about. Why use fields and wildlands when we have all this boring grey to cover up. Some old buildings may not be strong enough but new buildings could be. And covered parking lots could be a customer service benefit that pays for itself, and can be deployed at old sites and new.
The reason this is not happening is because the power companies do not want to lose hold of consumer demand. They are preventing government support. They are not allowing reasonable power buyback because they know many buildings like warehouses and malls could supply more than they use. They are not providing connectivity because they will lose $$$ if they do.
I love it when pro renewable people say renewables are cheaper. That would explain why Germany has the highest renewable energy generation in Europe and also the highest costs by 43% and why California has one of the highest costs for power in the US. These claims are just the climate industrial complex sucking the life out of consumers
Isn't that quite dangerous? In the event of technical failure, that could drop debris on its surroundings. In the case of cities, there's alot of people who would get hurt. Solarpanels would be much safer for city roofs.
Here in Massachusetts, people who call themselves environmentalists are fighting against an offshore wind farm that would be built over the horizon, out of view from Martha’s Vineyard. They are making all sorts of false claims about it. The very same folks don’t want new natural gas pipelines (even though natural gas power plants are preferable to oil fired power plants).
I laughed when they said solar farms take up much needed farm lands. Have you been to the grocery store. Much of Americas food is grown in other countries. Soon, you Americans will be buying your energy from other countries. Some nations have to learn the hard way.
Almost all wheat, corn, dairy, fruit, vegetable, meats, and meat products in America are grown or raised locally. The exception is stuff like quinoa, avocados, coffee, rice, French cheeses & wine, and other specialty 'ethnic' items.
@@saenze1 bro it’s the noise , land use restrictions, the windmills can cause stress up close , lower property values (due to the perception of the above issues )
@@johnsamuel1999 I lived near several wind turbines in Willacy County, TX. All that BS is fossil fuel think tank excuses for why that shouldn't fly. If I hadn't gotten a job up north, I'd still be living there without crying about the nuisance that doesn't exist.
I just don't understand why people hate nuclear energy. Considering how little land it consumes and how little waste is created, it's oftentimes more responsible than wind and solar
If a wind turbine burns down the material can be reused. If a nuclear power plant explodes all the land and material around is unusable for many years. Also people die miles away...
Lol, flickering shadows and land use. That's it? Plant trees (be in their shadows), and use the land underneath solar panels for crops. Vines and some other crops grow much better when protected under a solar panel roof (higher than installed now), plus the panel is colder, increasing efficiency by up to 5%. It's not a either-or situation. Plus, you did not mention which "environmental groups". If you want us to take this seriously, show how many are for, how many are against, the credentials and financial ties of each. But you mention that management should be local anyway. That's always true.
@@RalfMtr As much as I disapprove of the assumption that people with opposing political views are automatically idiots, I definitely agree with your assessment that most of the people opposing renewables in these videos are republicans (along with a few other nimbyists who might otherwise be democrats).
Put wind offshore where it's possible. Put panel farms under the wind turbines where it's not possible. Put panel farms up on stilts so things can still grow/live underneath them and the scaffolding might even be used for harvesting of watering. Use Small Modular Reactors to lower the land requirements from wind and solar.
@@docwatson1134 yep, also keep panels cooler and this operating at higher efficiency. Just always value-add with the space and tech you have and you can't go wrong.
Hydrogen really sucks. Nuclear and solar are the future. Hydrogen is a store of energy not used directly. Batteries dont cost additional power to convert into a stored material aka hydrogen. Current battery tech is way more efficient than hydrogen.
Cost in dollars determines what technology will dominate future energy development. Right now solar is lowest cost, and panels are getting more efficient per unit area, and cheaper every year. Any tech could be promoted instead or along with, if it receives federal subsidies to grow the tech and industries required.
This video isn't about what environmentalists prefer, instead it's about people who don't like the sight or sound of wind turbines near their property. Their concerns can be properly dealt with as part of the wind farm permitting process. Unfortunately these people have passed bans on wind farms in their entire county. These people are not environmentalists. Real environmentalists support wind farms.
A salary? Lol some people will do anything for a paycheck. If that paycheck involves diverting attention towards whatever arbitrary manufactured outrage, they'll do it.
Wind and solar farms require substantial amounts of land, kill migratory birds, and destroy the natural habitats of the plants and animals that used to reside there.
Stupidity & greed will be the downfall of humanity. We need to act on climate change now. We should have acted 20 years ago. Now there is no time for arguing.
@@Nerrror no it’s much cheaper actually. And more importantly we can build them in fortified buildings so that storms and fires and the like won’t get them as the climate changes so rapidly.
@@ChalrieD You must be living in alternative universe then. They even show the levelized cost of energy production in this video. And the resilience of conventional power generation against natural catastophies in particular nuclear power has been demonstrated by Fukushima and throttled power generation during drought due to lack of cooling water.
@@Nerrror I believe you are talking about our grandfathers nuclear power designs. I’m down with the fission reactors that cannot melt down because the energy density of the fuel is not great enough. I believe you are stuck in the past with your boss
@@Nerrror calling me stupid is kinda funny FYI. nuclear is the actual answer. May not fit your agenda and likely highly biased data, but it is the actual solution
Twenty five years ago, in California, when we would travel and see the wind turbines on beautiful hills we would be disturbed by how they looked. We didn't like them. However, now twenty-five years later, when we see them, our mind sees the good they are doing the planet and we are no longer bothered by seeing them. In fact, we are appreciating them.
The facility pays rent to the landholder which increases property value as the landholder is able to generate more income from their land than they would otherwise.
best practice is to organize renewables as local energy coops. it is amazing how much more beautiful a wind turbine looks to the locals when they directly profit from it.
But I mean, it's actually such a cool sight. For me these giant engineering wonders spinning elegantly are always awe-inspiring, especially when viewed from up close.
The question is, is it efficient??? Economically.. it's expensive to maintain. Plus can't even supply big cities without nuclear energy.. It is still young and politics is using it for their interest.
FYI, here in Australia, we have a famous and influential environmental activist called Bob Brown who's leading a campaign against a new wind farm in his home state. This guy is also against renewable hydropower and he led a successful activist campaign in the 1970s to stop new hydroelectric stations from being built. Other activists here have also protested against a silicon production plant that produces raw materials for solar panels, and mines to produce minerals used to make renewable energy technologies. Frankly, it seems these people just want us to live in caves....
A lot of this negative rhetoric comes from wind turbines it seems. I work in solar development and I specialize in building solar projects on already build structures like buildings and parking lots.
@RYAN SEAN REZANTO Thank you for caring so much about my mental health. But add more than an ad hominem attack to this argument. You could mention how the technology or handling of nuclear power has gotten safer since RBMKs instead of degrading
Let's stick some turbines on the top of all those buildings in New York City and see if there aren't complaints about how they look. It's easy to criticize locals when you personally don't have to deal with the daily ramifications. Let's be creative and continue to solve the problem of how to generate energy in a clean, sustainable way
One obvious clean alternative is missing - nuclear. It only appears on Lazard LOCE graph which is also misleading as other organisations like UK's Barkleys bank show the opposite. Taking all costs into consideration, renewables are more expensive than current nuclear.
Why isn't there a drive to bring solar on to roof-tops? There are SO many 1-family homes in the US with oodles of roof-space. In Germany many local energy providers install solar panels for free in return for a fixed price on the elecricity...
Solar panels aren't actually cheap and for many people they take years to pay themselves off( Equate to the price of buying electricity from a Utility for a certain amount of time).
@@asandax6 Well yes, but you finish up with fixed (and moderate) prices wich make it easier to budget and you don't need to take up a loan. Seems like a good deal to me... And you get zero emission electricity into the bargain.
@@vitaeschola cheaper than nuclear???, when we talk about money, we can't just use development build as consideration, there is maintenance cost, then how much power its generated compare to cost, afaik, even the most advanced technology on wind solar we can't harvest 100%, not even get 50%, and then not everyday there is hot sun or wind blow, also you can't just simply pick a place where no one or animal live since the thing that important does that place have enough energy source or not and make sure not over, since if wind blow more can turbin handle, its destroy instantly, meanwhile after building nuclear plant the cost relative stable, and you literally can pick any empty space to put that plant, also uranium are quite cheap, because unlike make a atomic bomb where you need high level uranium that only 0.some decimal every some tons uranium , for electricity plant you can use the normal one
@@mademade5939 Looking at LCOE cost renewables are far cheaper, and can be implemented a lot quicker. I don’t have anything against nuclear, but generation 3+ is not an option for lowering CO2 on the short. SMR tech might be the solution in a decade or two. But we have to rely on renewables for now. Also, the problem with renewables (wind and solar)is not really when they don’t produce power, it’s when they produce more than we need. Efuels (PtX) is what’s going to make the difference here, and here solar and wind is just a begter solution with current tech.
Nuclear is not clean. "depending on the type of mining operation and particularly on the quality of the ore grade. This ranged from under 50 to over 8,000 KL/t U3O8. Carbon dioxide emissions also varied from 10 to 50 t CO2/t U3O8 and there is a gradual increase of CO2 emissions over time. It takes about 200 tonnes of U3O8 per year to keep a large (1000 MWe) nuclear reactor running; mining and milling uranium to feed such a plant would, therefore, emit 2000-50000 t CO2 each year" [source] ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/109na4_en.pdf
The biggest problem is when the wind farms and solar farms get old and break down. The people will get stuck with the clean up and half to foot the bill. Seen a couple out in California just abandoned and rotting away.
I can see some reasonable criticisms of wind turbines if they are sited to close to homes with the low frequency noise and moving shadows, but solar? In every way it is about the best man made use of open land. Construction time is short, impact is low, and on going maintenance is light. What better use could you ask for?
Click bait headline with the claim about "Environmentalists" opposing clean initiatives. There was ONE environmental policy maker in the whole piece - Mr. Jesse Kharbanda. He struggled to come up with reasons to not develop wind/solar farms. The Hoosier Environmental Council website literally states this: HEC supports, and actively advocates for, public policies that facilitate investment in utility-scale renewable energy, customer-owned renewable energy, and energy efficiency.
Farmers are paid good rent for the 1% of their land that is used by wind farms. WSJ needs to do better.
I'm not saying that you've got no points, but you sound extremely dismissive. The situation is not as simple as you're making it sound to be. People aren't accustomed to giant wind turbines towering over their homes in their backyards. The resentment is somewhat understandable.
Bill Gates could give up some of his newly purchased farm land to have solar panels and wind farms.
Well, here in Australia there's a famous influential environmentalist named Bob Brown who is now against a wind farm in his home state of Tasmania, claiming it will destroy pristine coastlines & forests. He's also against hydroelectricity, against nuclear power, and certainly coal power. Looks like he just wants us to live in caves & die from the cold in winter.
@@abhinavbanerjee8797As someone who lived in Indiana for over 10 years, I personally see it as them being NIMBYs. The education system is also kind of bad so they lack the knowledge to see the bigger picture.
@@abhinavbanerjee8797 It is more than resentment, there are real property issues, and often trespass zoning, Most of the counties, whether Indiana or Michigan or elsewhere enacted protective zoning not bans, Like when a county implements setbacks from property lines instead of the wind developers prefered setbacks from buildings. If a neighbor has a wind turbine, on their property 1500 feet from my home, that means I can no longer build on part of my property. Towns get boxed in limiting development or growth.
I'm not sure I would say anyone in this program should be referred to as an "environmentalist." Simply calling yourself a patriot or environmentalist does not make one so. Good highlight nonetheless.
It's called clickbait.
@@andrewj22 Many of us signed off of social media in 2016 and never looked back. I don't expect clickbait from the Wall Street Journal, but perhaps the contagion of moronic self-promotion has reached these "hallowed halls."
@@andrewj22 Also, it really seems to me like propaganda. That statement would be in line with a lot of WSJ viewership's values. If they can tell themselves that even environmentalists hate renewables they can move forward without guilt.
But if you're gonna be a creep, just be an unapologetic one like Mr. Koch.
@@kylesmith4572 WSJ is owned by the same demon that owns Fox news, Rupert Murdoch.
I would imagine they beholden to the same interests as well. This video is just a hit piece on sustainable energy.
There are going to be trade offs. I am for the solar project that this piece mentions in Virginia but it does not make me smile that 3000+ acres of pine trees will be cut down for the solar panels to go up.
Similar issue occurred in Denmark when wind turbines were first installed, people living in the country side didn't like them in their backyards. In general, offering co-ownership (and some nice subsidies) help turning the tides. When you can see your wind turbine generating money, all of the sudden they become much more welcome :) However, they shouldn't be placed as close to homes as seen in this video, nobody would like that.
Concerns about wind turbines being placed too close to homes can be properly dealt with as part of the wind farm permitting process. Unfortunately these people have instead passed bans on wind farms in their entire county.
@@Laura-S196 This information is not new. So why are these turbines being placed too close to homes and developed areas?
Speak for yourself. I wouldn’t mind a wind turbine in my backyard.
Doesn't like having co-ownership drives up the cost? While it looks minuscule, if profit margins are razor thin, it matters.
Didn’t turn the “tide”. Co ownership persuaded people to put one or two turbines nearby, which is trivial. The big 500 MW wind farms are needed to run a country, and after a time the public turned against more of those onshore, just as happened in Germany now.
You failed to show me an environmentalist who opposes renewables
Like everything else it boils down to "Not in my backyard".
Nuclear provides a bigger carbon reduction for the dollar
Michael Shellenberger
As someone who lives in Indiana, there is very little fight for the natural habitat/farmland when it's going to be used for another housing development...
Oh,the irony...🙃😅
I"m a fan of wind turbines but always imagined them at least a kilometer or two from any houses. I think they look nicer than power lines or highways. *Added: to clarify, I realize power lines are needed with wind turbines but if we learned to live with power lines, we can learn to live with wind turbines. The wind turbines should be 1 km or 2 from any houses, either off-shore or part of a pumped storage set up. If someone is against any wind turbines but ok with power lines, please provide a logical explanation
You cant see a highway a 100 yards back for the lanes, or 200 yards back from wood pole power lines with even small vegetation. Even cell phone towers vanish behind the first set of trees because most of them are just a bit taller than the trees. The horizon distance (flat land) for a 500 ft Midwest wind turbine blade tip is 27 miles, casting fast moving shadows all the way when the sun is right.
That’s referred to as Nimby’s
I agree. I think power lines are the most hideous thing in the world, and they are everywhere. If you can learn to ignore power lines, you can learn to ignore windmills.
@@kylesmith4572 Why? They are not remotely the same thing. Power lines vanish from site a couple hundred yards away. A 500’ wind turbine can see the horizon 27 miles away. Also it’s moving, casting shadows, making noise, and is a major construction project w heavy equipment and new roads. So what the heck are you talking about?
The hard part with having the turbines that far out is that the power/energy loss is insane. By the time they’re paid off they fail/need attention.
To a certain point are they any better than the traditional petrochemical power plants or Nuclear. Nuclear has gotten a lot safer & it’s very efficient.
The US is so large this seems like a minor issue.
Well some areas are more productive for energy production than others so there is bound to be conflict
There in lies the reason why wind and solar continue to be discussed as if they can certainly eliminate fossil fuels, when in fact no where in the world do they even power half of a large nation grid: nobody can be bothered to ask how much land is required, how much steel, etc, as if its so many cell phones, instead of millions of tons a millions of acres, all replaced every 20 years or so. Nobody cares until they condemn your residence.
I don't mind it here in Texas because at least I have something to view when I'm hammered and driving or high and driving with the nice lights behind me and every thing.... So beautiful
@@Nill757
They ain't a condemning your residence unless they eminent domain your residence (I'd rather see solar and wind farms in CLEAN air than none with dirty and hotter air)...
The is actually part of the problem. People think that electricity just goes into the grid, that is not the case. There is extreme management and diversion issues with energy production. We can't just power NYC from Kansas. This is what was also part of the issue with Texas when Winter hit too hard and the pull/preparedness of the state could have never kept up.
*CLICKBAIT!* Not actually _environmentalists_ fighting renewable energy development.
Way to go WSJ, misleading viewers about environmental concerns just so you can get some views.
3:15 I can see how that would be extremely annoying
Computers can shut down the turbine when it might create flicker at nearby houses. Just takes some math and a clock/calendar.
@@Z0DI4C ah good point
The sun changes position in the sky though the year. The blades would cast a shadow on a particular window for about one hour per day for only about one week each spring and one week each fall. And for that total of 10 hours each year, the blade rotation can be temporarily stopped.
@@Z0DI4C they can but they don't unless there are regulations or zoning enacted to require it, which I think is part of the point of the video, most of the counties across the country are not banning wind or solar, they are enacting regulations and zoning, to limit things like flicker.
Though yes it may be several hours or on certain days, but there is never just one turbine, so you can have them in multiple directions, and be surrounded.
Me too!
Then go Nuclear and SNR's
That would require political activists to know basic facts about science.
Going nuclear would erase all kind of political issues regarding the environment and clean energy prospects 😎
^^^he gets it
Another dozen years of consuming large tracts of land and amounts of money, finding that it did little but make some people wealthy, then people might run out of excuses for not using nuclear. As it is, Americans have a psych block against nuclear which they cant escape. See this video, doesn't mention nuclear once, the lowest land footprint clear energy source, by far. If you or somebody knows how stop the scare, have at it.
This headline is stupid and deceptive. Environmentalists aren't fighting renewable energy development, they are having to fight FOR renewable energy development. What a failure - but I guess this is what to expect from the WSJ of late.
It's to give cons a talking point without actually looking at the article.
I wonder if the government offered like tax breaks or insensitive to having windmills in peoples farms, land etc would change their tune?
They get paid from the renewable companies. In Texas farmers make 20% of their income off renting land to renewables.
@@Drakosayso I mean like the people who claim they are eye sores? Do they get anything? Like not on there land but “ in the way”
Food prices might go up since farms would be converted to windfarms, but it will even itself out over time.
A smart sustainable investment would be investing in nuclear power plants.
100% agree. One of the most efficient forms of energy production, FAR better then solar or wind
@@gotrejo exactly. I don't understand why certain governments are so anti-nuclear but call themselves pro-green. It's not possible right now to have a power grid made up 100% of wind and solar. To get enough solar power for an entire city, you need vast amounts of land covered in solar panels and even then we would only have power when the sun was shining, wind only works when the wind is blowing, and power storage technology is not good enough yet. Nuclear power plants use the same amount of space a fossil fuel power plant would, you get power all the time and it's 100% green and clean.
Nuclear power ?
Nuclear power.
Nuclear Power!
Yeah, it definitely sucks to have a windmill block your view of a whole lot of nothing Indiana....
"It's an eyesore" is the most american reason I've heard to not install renewable energy.
It was/is also a frequent objection in Germany to new wind installations, though they are nonetheless much further along than the US.
The flickering over houses is not cool, nor is noise if they are too close.
@@carolynngockel3670 That I can agree with, but have you ever driven through Indiana? or Kansas? it's really easy to not have that be an issue, and that doesn't excuse solar.
@@jackbarbey I don't know if you've ever driven through the Midwest, but it really shouldn't be an issue there either. and that doesn't provide a reason against solar other than "it doesn't look nice"
Bizarre how many comments posted here declaring how other people’s land, their parks and homes, their local environment, is “nothing”, to be used as an industrial park and that they should shut up about it. How wonderfully eco-fascist.
Wind turbines look so cool though 😕
Meaning you don't live near a wind farm. The Germans had a "it looks cool in the other guy's state" period, and built a great deal of wind power. Now they're trying to put wind farms near those "its cool" people, and onshore new wind power has slowed to a trickle there. After all this, Germany's coal power plant fleet is about the same size as it was twenty years ago. Quite a grift.
They're really noisy if you live close to them.
They don't sound cool though. The infrasound they generate actually causes health issues for some people.
@@JohnSmith-ux3tt nonsense. a moderately busy road makes much more infrasound than a windturbine. And no one could ever prove any health related issues by infrasound at the volume wind turbines make.
The best wind happens to be bird migration pathways which in turn kills thousands of birds.
Video is misleading as it uses out dated 10 and 12 year old footage from anti-wind sites to portray supposed impacts of wind turbines. In reality the opposition to clean energy does not come from farmers, who generally are the biggest supporters - but from newcomers to ag communities who expect the farmers to shut up and be compliant groundskeepers, maintaining an unchanging backdrop for their gentrified country lifestyle - and insist on "setback" rules that in fact are seizures of the farmer's right to use his property.
In the run up to the election it became clear that the wsj is republican leaning.. This is no surprise
As long as the setback rules do not infringe on my property next door there is no problem, from where I have seen it is not just new-comers, there are farmers, family farms and smaller farms, that have fought for fair setbacks. A 500 or in some cases 700 foot turbine should be far enough away from my property that I am not in the ice throw, or would restrict me from using or building on my property.
There are zoning rules everywhere, in more urban or suburban settings your neighbor can not build a 10 story house. Or put a building within x feet of a property line.
They also mentioned a controversy about a solar farm in Virginia that is a old story as if it is something that is happening now.
…All I’m hearing from the whiners is “I don’t want a future for kids, I want my view”
Boomer generation
I wonder how the kids mining colbalt and strip mining owners feel about that. I'm sure they'll keep destorying our natural environment and enslaving people around the world for " clean energy" producing products.
Screw dem kids
"Future for kids" is speculative though, so they will not believe something that they don't see.
I don't have kids nor plan on having any
Environmental activists are unhappy. What. A. Shocker.
You can see these aren't actually _environmentalists_ , right? This is clickbait.
One of the many overlooked issues is maintaining renewables. Just like all other mechanical items, they need maintenance and solar panels do as well. We currently have many roads and bridges that we cannot find the money,time or will to take care of. What makes us think we will take care of these projects as needed? I’m not anti renewable. I just see that in the hands of the same folks that matting the rest of our infrastructure, we will be left with broken piles of trash ready for the landfill. 😢
It is a big cost advantage for solar power, not to have moving parts.
Misleading title
Agreed, whoever attached the title stating that environmentalists are fighting renewable energy did not even watch the video. That's not at all what the video is about.
This video isn't about what environmentalists prefer, instead it's about people who don't like the sight or sound of wind turbines near their property. Their concerns can be properly dealt with as part of the wind farm permitting process. Unfortunately these people have passed bans on wind farms in their entire county. These people are not environmentalists. Real environmentalists support wind farms.
I was registered lobbyist in Brussels (EU Parliament). They are using the same “why not” as the oil and gas lobbyist in Brussels. Only difference is that nobody listen to them in Brussels. Difference between US and Europe is that EU actually want to be climate neutral in 20 years and want to cancel coal and gas from energy networks.
You're not going to change climate but if you want more reliable clean energy built geothermal energy plants. There's plenty of volcanoes in Europe.
@@rufusking430 yes there is a project funded in Germany. How ever problem with geothermal energy is that eventually it becomes “dry”. This is what they are now trying to solve in Germany. And no Iceland is not part of EU.
In Europe we hope the future will be better
In the USA they it to be the 1970s in the future
@@rufusking430 not in Scotland. Windy as f and battered by the ocean.
"Not in my backyard!"
More Nuclear please
Nuclear takes up just as much land as solar. They have to have a huge containment area.
Dont get me wrong I like nuclear gut most dont want it around them. We can put solar on every roof to power the buildings locally instead of huge infrastructure and wasted power in transporting it.
Gen 3 and Gen 4 please.
The mind boggles. Just why don't the turbine operators give the neighbours free electricity to make them feel the benefits?
@@hermanmusimbi4337 It would be good if you could explain why. Co-operative windfarms, run by the neighbourhood so to speak, are fairly common in Europe. In order to mitigate any impacts (if there are any) caused by a wind-farm near-by why shouldn't operators pass on a tiny fraction of the profits (in the form of a limited amount of free electricity) to those in the vicinity, be it those below 1,2 or 3 miles from the closest turbine...?
Do coal plants give electricity to their neighbors for free? Do gas plants? Oil plants? Why should renewables give their product for free when no one else does?
@@nikolatasev4948 Because renewables could perhaps just be more sensible than their forebears? It could have been a good idea in the past for coal power plant operators to give free electricity to neighbours affected by emissions. They didn't - perhaps also because the environmental impact was much further afield compared to wind-turbines, who only have an effect up to about 2km max. (if you live in a very flat area and happen to be right in the sunrise/sunset-axis.) So we're talking about the neighbours within that maximum range. This video looks praticularly at rural to remote communities in good-knows-where (Wyoming etc.) where there won't be too many neighbours anyway. Probably the most affected are the land-owners, who profit from the wind-turbines anyway. So the cost of giving free electricity to neighbours would cost VERY little but could gain a lot more acceptance in the community - apart from the benefits that a community yields anyway by having the wind-turbines in the first place through taxes nd so forth...
People love wind turbines until one appears in their backyard
And kills thousands of birds in the process.
@@rufusking430 How many birds, other animals and other animals die, because of fossil fuels destroying the planet with pollution. Small price to pay for better for all of us
@@rufusking430 No bird die because of wind turbines. Turbines are visible to birds. They can easily protect themselves from it.
Build nuclear. Problem solved.
I like nuclear but there seems to be an inability to deliver reactors on time and on budget. If 1GW reactors could be built in 4 years costing 4 billion dollar, then problem solved, but 10+ years costing 10 billion... don't bother.
@@zapfanzapfan Very true. As "Illinois EnergyProf" says, there is one valid objection to nuclear power, and that is economics.
@@beback_ Yeah I like his lectures aswell. But as he said, nuclear power plants make a ton of cash long term, like after 20 years, way better than gas. It's just about the political will to make long term investments and making sure it doesn't take long, if it takes 11 years to build it it's not gonna be competitive with fossil fuels before it's time to decomission it.
If you don't start the conversation about clean energy with nuclear power you're not serious about decarbonizing the energy grid, everything else is a joke.
Agreed. They think they're going to replace 90 million barrels of oil at day (never mind gas and coal) with solar and wind. Delusional.
The turbines donot look great but still better looking than an old coal mine or oil spill.
💯
Only now have you came to this conclusion? In Portugal, windmills have ruined several mountain skylines, especially in Oliveira do Hospital and Serra da Estrela
First comment: Nuclear
Bump?
There were no environmentalists fighting renewable energy in this article.
Solution: Go Nuclear!!!
they tired it in the 70s and 80s they complained about nuclear waste then, not to mention what happened to japan back in the 2010s
Yeah, no one ever complains about the construction of nuclear plants... for the record, I like nuclear.
@@zapfanzapfan Someone always complains about anything and everything. I prefer to look at statistics as much as possible.
I never even thought about the shadows from the turbines doing that or more specifically how annoyingly irritating that would be if the shadows flashed across my yard and across my roof and against the walls of my house and through the windows. It'd be like there is a strobe light outside the windows flashing in. That beyond stinks. And it is breaking into and smashing the peace and privacy of those folks homes. I know that much I wouldn't like that very much at all.
How does a wind turbine affect someone's privacy?
@@g00rb4u In a lot of ways. In this example it is like Are you allowed to go around to peoples houses and flash flashlights through their windows? If someone flashed lights on amd off in your windows at all hours how would you react? Did you even watch those clips? Yes, yes it is and does encroach upon a persons home and the privacy therein.
I agree and that is why wind turbines have to be placed so that they don't interfere with people's living spaces. I love the look of wind turbines far away out there in the green. It is just like airplane wings. Very aerodynamic. In fact, after having played a racing game where you raced through the lush countryside with fields and hills and everything, that was just a deco element that had to be in the distance among these hills. It just belongs together in my opinion, green hills and these majestic slowly moving wings on top of it, is beautiful.
I don't understand at all how people can't like that. There are way, way uglier things. Just think chimneys everywhere, way uglier. Or open-pit mining. Ough. These are thin, white and nice to look at. Futuristic and represents the human path towards harmony with nature, extracting energies that are not harmful.
But not right next to people, that point I understand very well.
Would be interested to see how many of these environmental groups are actually funded by oil and gas companies.
Nuclear energy solves all problems
a farm of solar panels or wind turbines seem a lot more favorable to me than a mass mine of coal and crude oil 🤷♀️
i totally agree but placing them too close to a house is a nuisance. Place it at very remote area far away from any residential area.
Look at 3:10.
I work at a solar field here in Texas ( 4,000 acres ). That sizefarm can't even power the NY subway for a day - fact ..we have weekly meeting on production . The life of a solar panel still can't even pass 20 years, and along with terrible ROI. So basically , the amount of land needed to run solar and fullfil the national energy needs; the lad mass to cover that is over 60% of our land mass. That would effectively turn more than half of America into a dead zone. Void of life.
@@muhammadadambinmohdrazihan9988
This man explains why you are wrong
How about a new nuclear plant, that runs 24/7, doesn’t need to switch to gas or coal plant when the sun goes down? At least don’t ever close down an existing nuclear plant.
@@Nill757 we also need more natural gas plants. America is sitting on hundreds of years worth. Natural gas can be used to produce energy cheap and any byproduct in the process can be recycled back through the system ; effectively creating near ZERO emissions.
While they can “dominate the landscape,” so can air pollution.
There are 500+ Million Parking spots in US, covering all of those with Solar Panels would power most of the country. Don't know why that is so difficult. Large quantities of parking usually correlates with high power usage.
And then where do people put their cars?
@MoneyThink Oh. Well I wasn't imagining that at all. I was imaging replacing the parking spots.
For creative places for power generation, I've always considered the medians of the interstates. Thousands and thousands of acres, conveniently cleared of foliage and usually distant from tall buildings...
@MoneyThink Well if you're covering the roadway with a structure, that would reduce precipitation collecting on the driving surface and (maybe?) act as an insulating barrier to slow heat loss when temperatures drop below freezing.
@@generalpopcorn6427 underneath in the shade of the Solar Carport. Double win
You see big circles of green grass around big trees in the middle of winter caused by just that little bit of extra heat retained by tree limbs overhead.
Renewables aren't that cheap if you factor in the cost of backup power.
This is a highly minor and insignificant argument of land usage for wind power vs land usage of fossil fuels. The real attention should be on the carbon output and pollution output of the two power generators. Obviously wind and renewable energy is a long lasting better alternative. The arguments against such are from ppl who couldn’t help themselves if they wanted to
Yes!
that’s easy to say when you don’t have to deal with these “nuisance issues” for the rest of your life
@@johnsamuel1999 global warming and air pollution aren’t enough of a lifelong nuisance issue, huh? You’re so used to it that you even looked passed it as if it isn’t an issue that you’re feeling the affects from now, smh #couldnthelpyourself #ifyouwantedto
@@soILLitsADVISED dude you have to respect local communities rights even if you want to push for a good cause. Stuff like this breeds resentment
You ignore the land used to produce the fossil fuels which is far worse than the land use for renewables.
This is such a minor concern compare to Global warming…..
Not true. The likely climate change of 2.5 degrees C - 2100 is about harm to the environment. Not end of the world harm, but harm. If America covers over two NY states worth of land with PV and wind, digging up mountain range sizes of steel and concrete, all replaced every 20 years or so, that will also do harm to the environment, increase the cost of energy, increase the cost of land, which will do the greatest harm to the least of us.
This is no joke. Scotland just raised an old forest to put up more wind farms, trivial amounts of wind compared to what it would really take to obliterate fossil fuel power plants, as France did BTW with its oil power plants 30 years ago.
Misleading headline. Makes it seem like environmentalists are saying not to use renewable energy. Missing research into farms that benefit from renewable energy in conjunction with agricultural plots. This is very poorly done.
The solution is using the solar panels for the charateristic that really makes them game-changers: they can be fragmentedly placed everywhere. They need to be placed over every roof (especially those large ones covering industries) and on parking lots. This way we would generate electricity without using land that could host homes or farms
@@rok1475 I watched the whole video 3 times at least. It stayed on my to watch list for at least a year. I Agree with him 100%. There are two things he didn't account for in his line of thought due to the age of this video. I'd love to see his stance now. I'd say the two differences are 1. the lowering cost and supply of home battery storage. 2. the decentralization of solar away from grid deployments. We can put solar on every roof and batteries in the same building ( or close by), reduce our power infrastructure while saving the wasted energy used to transmit power across long distance lines.
Considering the magnitude of solar installation we need to achieve in the next two decades...all size panel installs will be needed, from micro off grid to multiple square miles in the Nevada desert. Every economic option will be exploited. But that is the driving force, the most profitable type of installation will emerge and dominate our future landscapes.
1/3 of every city and town is commercial rooftops and parking lots. Do a Google maps satellite view of any city, the large boring grey bits are the parts we are talking about.
Why use fields and wildlands when we have all this boring grey to cover up.
Some old buildings may not be strong enough but new buildings could be. And covered parking lots could be a customer service benefit that pays for itself, and can be deployed at old sites and new.
The reason this is not happening is because the power companies do not want to lose hold of consumer demand. They are preventing government support. They are not allowing reasonable power buyback because they know many buildings like warehouses and malls could supply more than they use. They are not providing connectivity because they will lose $$$ if they do.
Seriously, any company planning to electrify their short haul delivery fleet should consider a solar rooftop and parking lot.
Exponential benefits.
I love it when pro renewable people say renewables are cheaper. That would explain why Germany has the highest renewable energy generation in Europe and also the highest costs by 43% and why California has one of the highest costs for power in the US. These claims are just the climate industrial complex sucking the life out of consumers
The same power that fuels the Sun must be developed as a green source of energy.
ITER isn't built yet
Fusion is an interesting idea, but we need more data of real-world output to get an accurate model
...fission is safe, green and already works.
cold fusion will be ready once Star Citizen has been finished.
@@rylandtappe-inglis6325 still does not produce more energy than was put in to get it started. and at most it has only run for a few seconds.
Should stop screwing around and just start building nuclear power plants again.
This is Greenwashing and not environmentalism
It's NIMBYism
This clickbait title makes it sound like they're fighting all renewable energy development. Do better please
why not install wind turbines on top of city skyscrapers?
Isn't that quite dangerous? In the event of technical failure, that could drop debris on its surroundings. In the case of cities, there's alot of people who would get hurt. Solarpanels would be much safer for city roofs.
I don’t imagine that any turbine which can safely be on a skyscraper is really going to produce much energy.
Any significant sized turbine would cause swaying. Not only making the building hard to live in, but causing wear and tear.
skyscrapers wasn't engineered with an idea in mind that on top of them there would be a giant fan spinning 24/7
Here in Massachusetts, people who call themselves environmentalists are fighting against an offshore wind farm that would be built over the horizon, out of view from Martha’s Vineyard. They are making all sorts of false claims about it. The very same folks don’t want new natural gas pipelines (even though natural gas power plants are preferable to oil fired power plants).
I laughed when they said solar farms take up much needed farm lands. Have you been to the grocery store. Much of Americas food is grown in other countries. Soon, you Americans will be buying your energy from other countries. Some nations have to learn the hard way.
Almost all wheat, corn, dairy, fruit, vegetable, meats, and meat products in America are grown or raised locally. The exception is stuff like quinoa, avocados, coffee, rice, French cheeses & wine, and other specialty 'ethnic' items.
Blades are the problem. They are not recycable, last for 10-15 years and end up in landfields.
Reducing emissions > wah wah nuisance issues
that’s easy to say when you don’t have to deal with these “nuisance issues” for the rest of your life
@@johnsamuel1999 C'mon. Like 99% of the time the nuisance is "I just don't like it."
@@saenze1 bro it’s the noise , land use restrictions, the windmills can cause stress up close , lower property values (due to the perception of the above issues )
@@johnsamuel1999 I lived near several wind turbines in Willacy County, TX. All that BS is fossil fuel think tank excuses for why that shouldn't fly. If I hadn't gotten a job up north, I'd still be living there without crying about the nuisance that doesn't exist.
@@saenze1 hmm i guess its different for everyone 🤔
Imagine thinking non-renewables will last forever. The scarcer the resource the more expensive it becomes
go nuclear. new small modular reactors can now used spent fuel as well as uranium.
and ceramic coated fuel is extremely safe to dispose of
I just don't understand why people hate nuclear energy. Considering how little land it consumes and how little waste is created, it's oftentimes more responsible than wind and solar
We need both nuclear and renewable, for as long as fossil fuels are used.
I'm just saying nuclear wouldn't use that much land to produce a greater amount of electricity
If a wind turbine burns down the material can be reused. If a nuclear power plant explodes all the land and material around is unusable for many years. Also people die miles away...
@@tails0420ify Nuclear has a lower mortality rate than any other energy source. What's your point?
Lol, flickering shadows and land use. That's it? Plant trees (be in their shadows), and use the land underneath solar panels for crops. Vines and some other crops grow much better when protected under a solar panel roof (higher than installed now), plus the panel is colder, increasing efficiency by up to 5%. It's not a either-or situation.
Plus, you did not mention which "environmental groups". If you want us to take this seriously, show how many are for, how many are against, the credentials and financial ties of each. But you mention that management should be local anyway. That's always true.
Nothing can make environmentalist happy
let's put an end to civilization, no more use of energy. Back to the stone age. This will make environmentalists happy
These aren't _environmentalists_ - the title is clickbait. These people are just nimbyists.
Watch the video and then write again. Those all are republican idiots
@@RalfMtr As much as I disapprove of the assumption that people with opposing political views are automatically idiots, I definitely agree with your assessment that most of the people opposing renewables in these videos are republicans (along with a few other nimbyists who might otherwise be democrats).
Put wind offshore where it's possible. Put panel farms under the wind turbines where it's not possible. Put panel farms up on stilts so things can still grow/live underneath them and the scaffolding might even be used for harvesting of watering. Use Small Modular Reactors to lower the land requirements from wind and solar.
Floating panel installs on top of reservoirs has been very successful. Keeps water cooler, prevents algae growth too.
@@docwatson1134 yep, also keep panels cooler and this operating at higher efficiency. Just always value-add with the space and tech you have and you can't go wrong.
Nuclear is future , hydrogen is future 🙌 because it is sustainable and it provides uninterrupted power
Hydrogen really sucks. Nuclear and solar are the future. Hydrogen is a store of energy not used directly. Batteries dont cost additional power to convert into a stored material aka hydrogen. Current battery tech is way more efficient than hydrogen.
Cost in dollars determines what technology will dominate future energy development.
Right now solar is lowest cost, and panels are getting more efficient per unit area, and cheaper every year.
Any tech could be promoted instead or along with, if it receives federal subsidies to grow the tech and industries required.
This is such a ridiculous piece. Every oppositional argument could be crushed by a 10 year old.
So what do environmentalists support?
Destroying the environment apparently
Punishing rich people.
This video isn't about what environmentalists prefer, instead it's about people who don't like the sight or sound of wind turbines near their property. Their concerns can be properly dealt with as part of the wind farm permitting process. Unfortunately these people have passed bans on wind farms in their entire county. These people are not environmentalists. Real environmentalists support wind farms.
A salary? Lol some people will do anything for a paycheck. If that paycheck involves diverting attention towards whatever arbitrary manufactured outrage, they'll do it.
Wind and solar farms require substantial amounts of land, kill migratory birds, and destroy the natural habitats of the plants and animals that used to reside there.
Everything bad they claim about renewables is exactly what the oil industry is actually doing😂
Look up Geothermal energy.
@@rufusking430 ik about it
Lol @ how they pronounced Lazard… I am sure some MD there is furious right now 😂
Stupidity & greed will be the downfall of humanity. We need to act on climate change now. We should have acted 20 years ago. Now there is no time for arguing.
Nuclear is the solution. Sorry everyone, we can solve all of our problems and easily.
at six times the price and probably 20 times in a decade? good luck with that
@@Nerrror no it’s much cheaper actually. And more importantly we can build them in fortified buildings so that storms and fires and the like won’t get them as the climate changes so rapidly.
@@ChalrieD You must be living in alternative universe then. They even show the levelized cost of energy production in this video. And the resilience of conventional power generation against natural catastophies in particular nuclear power has been demonstrated by Fukushima and throttled power generation during drought due to lack of cooling water.
@@Nerrror I believe you are talking about our grandfathers nuclear power designs. I’m down with the fission reactors that cannot melt down because the energy density of the fuel is not great enough. I believe you are stuck in the past with your boss
@@Nerrror calling me stupid is kinda funny FYI. nuclear is the actual answer. May not fit your agenda and likely highly biased data, but it is the actual solution
I thought this was going to be about pollution from soil enrichment for turbines & solar panels.
Nah. Just humans being picky.
Exactly. That would at least have been a valid objection.
Twenty five years ago, in California, when we would travel and see the wind turbines on beautiful hills we would be disturbed by how they looked. We didn't like them. However, now twenty-five years later, when we see them, our mind sees the good they are doing the planet and we are no longer bothered by seeing them. In fact, we are appreciating them.
Except for the fact that 25 years later thousands of the wind turbines have been abandoned and left to rust and rot, and are now just an eye sour.
The facility pays rent to the landholder which increases property value as the landholder is able to generate more income from their land than they would otherwise.
The wall street journal need to talk about ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees.
best practice is to organize renewables as local energy coops. it is amazing how much more beautiful a wind turbine looks to the locals when they directly profit from it.
They say they are "environmentalists" huh
Windmills aren't ruining the view; NIMBYists are.
They also the ones who complain first when there a power outage in the area.
ROFLMAO - only people whove never left a lab or city wouldn't realize that Land is the issue.
But I mean, it's actually such a cool sight. For me these giant engineering wonders spinning elegantly are always awe-inspiring, especially when viewed from up close.
they long amazing at a distance . but can be a bit stressful when looking at them up close
The question is, is it efficient??? Economically.. it's expensive to maintain. Plus can't even supply big cities without nuclear energy.. It is still young and politics is using it for their interest.
Agrivoltaics combines solar and farming. Proven benefit to both
FYI, here in Australia, we have a famous and influential environmental activist called Bob Brown who's leading a campaign against a new wind farm in his home state. This guy is also against renewable hydropower and he led a successful activist campaign in the 1970s to stop new hydroelectric stations from being built. Other activists here have also protested against a silicon production plant that produces raw materials for solar panels, and mines to produce minerals used to make renewable energy technologies. Frankly, it seems these people just want us to live in caves....
*"Frankly, it seems these people just want us to live in caves"* Finally somebody who is starting to understand.
A lot of this negative rhetoric comes from wind turbines it seems. I work in solar development and I specialize in building solar projects on already build structures like buildings and parking lots.
Not in northern climates you don’t “work in solar”. Wind does.
I’ve always been curious about these mines the precious metals come from that make up many of the parts on electric cars
NIMBYs gonna NIMBY
the transcriopt is weirdly timed. kind of annoying
I have said this multiple time, but I'll say it again..
Nuclear power plant is the solution.
Chernobyl
@RYAN SEAN REZANTO Thank you for caring so much about my mental health. But add more than an ad hominem attack to this argument. You could mention how the technology or handling of nuclear power has gotten safer since RBMKs instead of degrading
Let's stick some turbines on the top of all those buildings in New York City and see if there aren't complaints about how they look. It's easy to criticize locals when you personally don't have to deal with the daily ramifications. Let's be creative and continue to solve the problem of how to generate energy in a clean, sustainable way
One obvious clean alternative is missing - nuclear. It only appears on Lazard LOCE graph which is also misleading as other organisations like UK's Barkleys bank show the opposite. Taking all costs into consideration, renewables are more expensive than current nuclear.
Why isn't there a drive to bring solar on to roof-tops? There are SO many 1-family homes in the US with oodles of roof-space. In Germany many local energy providers install solar panels for free in return for a fixed price on the elecricity...
There is. In California, it has been mandatory since 2020.
Solar panels aren't actually cheap and for many people they take years to pay themselves off( Equate to the price of buying electricity from a Utility for a certain amount of time).
@@asandax6 Well yes, but you finish up with fixed (and moderate) prices wich make it easier to budget and you don't need to take up a loan. Seems like a good deal to me... And you get zero emission electricity into the bargain.
It's really encouraging to see all the support for nuclear in the comments.
If you really want clean, cheap, renewable energy then why dont you go for nuclear?
Mainly because it’s expensive and takes a long time to build. Wind and solar are cost competitive, decentralised and easily scaled.
@@vitaeschola cheaper than nuclear???, when we talk about money, we can't just use development build as consideration, there is maintenance cost, then how much power its generated compare to cost, afaik, even the most advanced technology on wind solar we can't harvest 100%, not even get 50%, and then not everyday there is hot sun or wind blow, also you can't just simply pick a place where no one or animal live since the thing that important does that place have enough energy source or not and make sure not over, since if wind blow more can turbin handle, its destroy instantly, meanwhile after building nuclear plant the cost relative stable, and you literally can pick any empty space to put that plant, also uranium are quite cheap, because unlike make a atomic bomb where you need high level uranium that only 0.some decimal every some tons uranium , for electricity plant you can use the normal one
@@mademade5939 Looking at LCOE cost renewables are far cheaper, and can be implemented a lot quicker. I don’t have anything against nuclear, but generation 3+ is not an option for lowering CO2 on the short. SMR tech might be the solution in a decade or two. But we have to rely on renewables for now. Also, the problem with renewables (wind and solar)is not really when they don’t produce power, it’s when they produce more than we need. Efuels (PtX) is what’s going to make the difference here, and here solar and wind is just a begter solution with current tech.
Nuclear is not clean.
"depending on the type of mining operation and
particularly on the quality of the ore grade. This ranged from under 50 to over 8,000 KL/t U3O8. Carbon dioxide
emissions also varied from 10 to 50 t CO2/t U3O8 and there is a gradual increase of CO2 emissions over time. It
takes about 200 tonnes of U3O8 per year to keep a large (1000 MWe) nuclear reactor running; mining and milling
uranium to feed such a plant would, therefore, emit 2000-50000 t CO2 each year"
[source] ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/109na4_en.pdf
0:23 Modern problems requires modern solutions 🤣
Looks like a viable test setup if you're running metrics. Just don't expect net positive energy out of that setup.
Sounds like the solution is to get the locals invested in the projects and not allowing companies to reap all the profits.
And with so much potential to directly utilise wind energy, banning them is kind of going backwards.
The biggest problem is when the wind farms and solar farms get old and break down. The people will get stuck with the clean up and half to foot the bill. Seen a couple out in California just abandoned and rotting away.
Thank God in India we don't have Right to property
You think not having the right to own a place to live is a good thing?
I can see some reasonable criticisms of wind turbines if they are sited to close to homes with the low frequency noise and moving shadows, but solar? In every way it is about the best man made use of open land. Construction time is short, impact is low, and on going maintenance is light. What better use could you ask for?
Wind and solar won't work in the end... We need nuclear.
Nuclear is the answer
No pun intended, I'm a fan of wind turbines.