Why Environmentalists Are Fighting Renewable Energy Development | WSJ 

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.

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.

Like everything else it boils down to "Not in my backyard".

Nuclear provides a bigger carbon reduction for the dollar

Michael Shellenberger

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.

Oh,the irony...🙃😅

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.

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.

Nuclear power.

Nuclear Power!

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.

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.

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!

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.

It's to give cons a talking point without actually looking at the article.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It is a big cost advantage for solar power, not to have moving parts.

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.

Bump?

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.

You can see these aren't actually _environmentalists_ , right? This is clickbait.

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.

@@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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

💯

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.

@@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.

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.

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.

It's NIMBYism

they long amazing at a distance . but can be a bit stressful when looking at them up close

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 🤔

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

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.

and ceramic coated fuel is extremely safe to dispose of

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

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).

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.

Nah. Just humans being picky.

Exactly. That would at least have been a valid objection.

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?

We need both nuclear and renewable, for as long as fossil fuels are used.

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.

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

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.

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.

*"Frankly, it seems these people just want us to live in caves"* Finally somebody who is starting to understand.

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.

Not in northern climates you don’t “work in solar”. Wind does.

Definitely. It is mind-blowing if that graph is true

In addition to NOT IN MY BACKYARD, but also NOT IN MY COUNTY according to the idiots alluded to in this video.

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.

Looks like a viable test setup if you're running metrics. Just don't expect net positive energy out of that setup.