Sorry, but this is something that any 8th grade primary school student could say. It's the energy conservation principle.
Fortunately it seems to be fine from these perspectives.
We can't let wind turbines be like "nuclear"; the dirty word which could've saved our civilization.
It’s only recently that the right wing has become particularly against them
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
It’s unsurprising that nimbys don’t want wind in their back yard despite acknowledging the benefits.
* From their own study: the cumulative wake loss impact of four new wind farms in the Irish Sea on Orsted's existing estate is 3.28% [0] * "Wind turbines are found to lose 1.6±0.2% of their output per year." [1]
So, wake losses turn a brand new wind farm into a 2-year-old wind farm. Given the yuuuuuge lifespan of wind farms, it seems kinda trivial.
[0] https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/-catastrophic-wake-losses-...
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014811...
E.g. country A is saying that country B is stealing their incoming (upstream) wind, but there's currently a zone of negative pressure (based on the mountains/shore/passing by cyclone/whatever) on the country A's territory which actually allows for the pressure gradient to form through both countries A and B - so there's more energy potential available to tap into on country A's territory?
And if the wind speed of the environment is measurably reduced, wouldn't this affect the environment itself?
What are the negative effects of this on birds, climate, insect population, etc...? Do positive effects significantly outweigh negatives?
glkindlmann•1d ago
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_rights
[3] https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wind-wakes-and-the-right-to-win...
JumpCrisscross•1d ago