Comments
[deleted] t1_j2nhc4p wrote
[removed]
notpaultx t1_j2nlyuc wrote
That's a gross simplification of those bullet points. Having a distrust of elites does not necessarily mean that you are stupid and/or the elites are smarter than you. Would you believe ExxonMobil executives were honest if they publicly told you that oil was good for the environment?
Redd_October t1_j2nvt1a wrote
That's quite a strawman you've got there.
You're assuming his statement is commutative, and then only addressing the inverse, which is not what he said.
He didn't say that only stupid people distrust elites, and he didn't say that they are stupid because they distrust elites. You're also assuming all "elites" are equal.
At no point did you actually address anything he actually said.
notpaultx t1_j2p3dif wrote
After rereading my post, I am unable to see where the strawman fallacy is in play but I can see where I may have not shown where the comment came from. The original comment was quoting from the comment above and his comment was written below in quotes.
>Conspiracy mentality is characterized by distrust of elites
"Stupid people think they know more than smart people."
Changing the original quote into their own words, I was pointing out that the statement "Conspiracy mentality is characterized by distrust of elites" does not mean the same thing as "stupid people think they know more than smart people". In the study, the elites mentioned were those directly involved with the question regarding wind turbine placement. This would include the local elected officials and the management of the corporation involved.
At what point in the persons involved in the study does the study define the education of the individuals compared to the local officials or corporate elites in a way where you can accurately state that "Stupid people think they know more than smart people"?
[deleted] t1_j2o80ph wrote
[removed]
OldManProgrammer t1_j2qq231 wrote
I think it’s lack of communication and a consistent message.
- On one hand, the weather is getting more chaotic and unpredictable due to climate change.
- On the other hand, we should use solar and wind as our main energy sources, even though climate change makes them even more unreliable.
I just wish the message wouldn’t be so contradictory.
FirmPrinciple2218 t1_j2tjjos wrote
Why do people think wind turbines are a good idea .. 1) they kill wild birds 2) they are ugly 3) they take up massive amount of prime space 4) their output is unpredictable 5) there is presently no recycling plan when at end of cycle 6) build is very expensive 7)maintenance lubrication schedule is high otherwise they overheat and cause fire Nuclear is only viable way forward with current technology
Charyou-Tree t1_j2nlxs2 wrote
I think this study has it backwards unfortunately.
Some people decided they hate wind farms, and they'll believe whatever they need to believe to justify getting rid of them.
CardioKillsYourGains t1_j2ocbhi wrote
I'd probably hate wind farms too if they suddenly put one near my house and I had to deal with the low frequency oscillations driving me insane.
20hz noise is like a subwoofer that you can't hear but you can feel. It's the kind of frequency they use in horror movies to unsettle the viewer without them being able to hear it. It would make you question your sanity and become paranoid about all noises.
I know there are no physical health effects but I don't think most people would be able to deal with that. Of course, this only affects people within a few kilometers of them. At homes measured 600m from a wind farm, low frequency noise levels were 63dB. That's significant.
viper12a1a t1_j2o38vy wrote
650 windmills or 1 nuclear plant
mhornberger t1_j2qevxh wrote
What's the build time and cost per MWh for that new nuclear plant? Finland's new Olkiluoto-3 reactor might come online this year, and construction was started in 2005.
Wind turbines can coexist with crops, or with PV, and also be placed offshore. So it's not exactly like the land is excluded from other uses.
viper12a1a t1_j2qmx8x wrote
Ok, and what happens when it's not windy 100% of the time? Green energy still relies on external conditions to function, nuclear is efficient and consistent.
Why do you think France is an energy exporter while most offe other European countries are floundering without constant energy imports from Russia?
mhornberger t1_j2qo3g4 wrote
You distribute generation, and also combine with solar and other methods. Storage will be needed, and is already incrementally being rolled out. Seasonal storage too is possible, with green ammonia and some other options.
>Why do you think France is an energy exporter
Except when they aren't. France too is facing possible energy cuts, largely due to unforeseen problems with their nuclear fleet. And I'm talking about new capacity, i.e. decisions made in the current day as to new generation to be built. And around the world solar and wind are far outpacing nuclear when it comes to new capacity.
And a good percentage of the world's nuclear fuel and fuel processing comes from Russia. Yes, you can build out new processing and mining capacity, but that takes time. If you cut out all fuel imports from Russia, what percentage of currently operating nuclear plants around the world will have to shut down? For how long? So dependency on Russian energy is a wider, more entrenched problem than merely gas pipelines.
viper12a1a t1_j2qoud9 wrote
The "unforeseen problems" are that they decided to take most of them down for maintenance at the same time because French.
The US has tons of resources if only we were allowed to actually go get them, but our government would rather not be energy independent and instead import all the energy we could be producing
Mountainstreams t1_j2odcpz wrote
Not to mention the energy storage capacity required with windmills that isn’t required with modern nuclear power.
Frontrider t1_j2s8g6k wrote
Storage NEEDS to be added to the windmill costs. Combined with the other source of power you gonna use when it can't make it.
alegxab t1_j2qf8pa wrote
Wouldn't 650 windmills take up a similar space or less than a nuclear plant?
mhornberger t1_j2qfi70 wrote
Wind turbines can coexist with crops or other agriculture, or with PV, or be placed offshore. So it's not as if wind turbines preclude other uses for land.
We also have to consider build times and cost per MWh. Finland's Olkiluoto-3 may come online this year, and construction started in 2005.
viper12a1a t1_j2qmzv8 wrote
A nuclear plant is a few hundred acres, windmills have to be spread out over miles
FirmPrinciple2218 t1_j2tmovp wrote
And be situated in specific topography
viper12a1a t1_j2tskme wrote
and you have to figure out how to get the blades out to where you want them as they can't be assembled on-site
[deleted] t1_j2uf4f1 wrote
[removed]
fatamSC2 t1_j2ouob4 wrote
Basically. I have nothing against windmills per se, if people wanna build tons of em have at it. But they definitely are very inefficient, even their biggest supporters have to concede that. Even though solar is still very much a work in progress it's much, much better than wind.
notpaultx t1_j2p4ola wrote
I can concede that windmills are very inefficient relative to a nuclear power plant. But relative to a solar farm? There isnt a comparison there. Windmills are able to capture roughly 60% of the energy passing through them while solar panels at best convert 20 - 30% of the energy received. There are individual wind turbines that are generating up to 14 MW. Here's a neat link comparing renewable energy efficiencies you might enjoy.
​
https://www.borntoengineer.com/efficient-form-renewable-energy
TxTilly t1_j2q2sy1 wrote
I live in a wind farm area. They suck. They're ugly to boot. Most of them rarely get used. None of them get used to full potential.
The contracts the land owners sign makes the wind turbines the property of the landowner in 30 years. 30 years is the expected life of the turbines here. They are costly to remove once defunct. The land owners will be saddled with that expense. Yet, many they allowed it because they expected to die befor the 30 years is over and will have gained all the income from them. They knowingly left the problem for future generations to clean up.
The companies who built the wind farms should have to pay to clean them up by putting a portion of the profits into escrow for the ckeanup.
[deleted] t1_j2qckhe wrote
[removed]
subhunt1860 t1_j2sxhgv wrote
This is not true. The project owner is responsible for removing the turbines and reclaiming the land to its original condition. From the dozens of sites I worked on in the last 6 years, it’s rare to have a low wind day. I assure you power is being generated and the energy producers are making money. If the towers are not running, it may be because of maintenance issues or the electricity is not needed.
FirmPrinciple2218 t1_j2tni4f wrote
They are high maintenance and require regular lubrication to prevent overheating/fire .. contracts vary from locale to locale .. either way there is no recycling plan at present
TxTilly t1_j2tkx9t wrote
The contracts I read said exactly what I said. So unless there has been some retroactive legislation to change this, it is still true for the landowners with 20 year old turbines.
Love4KittyButtholes t1_j2nh2ik wrote
Is it just me or could the Y axis be labeled better. Only one of the variables is described (female VS male) but the others are unclear. Low or high age? More or less educated? Why not add a word?
[deleted] t1_j2nxa1q wrote
[removed]
TekJansen69 t1_j2p6ait wrote
When they complain about bird strikes, just tell them that birds aren't real.
kdubskii t1_j2s8bne wrote
Huge problem in the midwest & in the ERCOT region. Before a windfarm is built, consultants have to perform studies and surveys to quantify how many and what kind of birds live in the area. If you can imagine, it's larger birds that live in these grassy environments and the discovery of an eagle nest within X radius of the development can severely hinder the project.
subhunt1860 t1_j2syn1s wrote
I built wind farms for years and am now doing access control on coal mines. Nothing is perfect. This NIMBY attitude is rampant in energy production. People still need to have power. Coal and natural gas are finite resources and will not last forever. I believe wind and solar are a stopgap until nuclear fusion is a reality.
AutoModerator t1_j2n9g0e wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_j2n9ius wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j2nb9v6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2o6qe5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2pj7in wrote
[removed]
Serious-Employ6334 t1_j2s0l9x wrote
While people may be in favor of wind farms so often they know only what someone else tells them rather than those who actually maintain the generators. Notice who subsidizes them. Notice how long they last. I once lived in a state that had them and some men I knew who worked on them basically said the matter is a joke. They do not last nearly as long as people are told. The generators and gearboxes come from mostly Germany and India while the majority come from India. They are not quite what people think they are. It is much like renaming auto crashes to auto accidents. If people actually knew how many crashes there were per day would they still drive a car? A lot of what drives these things is politics and money. If money were completely removed from the politicians things would look much differently.
kdubskii t1_j2s7jws wrote
Former windfarm developer here...
They are popular due to a tax credit that was unveiled in 1993 and has escalated since. It is a kind of "cottage industry" protecting American manufacturing giants like GE. The rest of the world followed (Siemens, VESTA, Nordex, etc)....
[deleted] t1_j2nehlu wrote
[removed]
stunspot t1_j2onkso wrote
One thing to remember is that "conspiracies" actually happen. There is example after example in history of those in power working very hard to construct a false reality for the masses while exploiting them in truth. Those in n power have squandered their credibility and do not deserve our trust. My point is that "conspiracy theories" (a phrase literally invented by the Warren Commission to discredit those rejecting the Single Shooter Theory of the JFK assasination) are often warrented, mete, and appropriate. It is not a sign of a poor connection to reality, but, rather, a sign of a more accurate one.
j4r8h t1_j2qmqpz wrote
Something that most people on here won't admit is that science can be censored. The internet is heavily censored these days in most countries including the US. If there is some major scientific development that the government doesn't want people to see, then we are not going to see it. Science can't exactly be fabricated but it can be censored and hidden from the public eye. I am also skeptical of any science that comes directly from government agencies rather than independent research. If you don't want to consume state media, then you shouldn't consume state science either. I'm just speaking in general, not talking about wind farms here. I know very little about wind farms and the conspiracies about them seem quite silly to me at first glance.
Tostino t1_j2r40qq wrote
You can read the studies and if you are educated on the topic, you can analyze it, or reproduce the study. That's the point of science. It's supposed to be open for those who want to do the work.
dontcareitsonlyreddi t1_j2orjne wrote
What about left-wing conspiracies or non-white people who push a enthostate?
Why isn’t that be debunked?
Creative_soja OP t1_j2n9nim wrote
The work was done in Germany.
Snippets from the article
>Existing research suggests that people are positive about wind energy in the abstract, but when it comes to actually establishing wind farms in local communities, there has been substantial resistance, to the point where many proposals have been killed off.
>
>It has long been understood that people’s attitudes towards science and emerging technologies are shaped by their cultural and ideological world views. One world view that has become a particular focus of attention is what we refer to here as ‘conspiracy mentality’, the notion that it is commonplace for groups of elites with bad intentions to conduct elaborate hoaxes on the public and to do so in near-perfect secrecy
>
>We find that conspiracy mentality explains a large portion of people’s resistance to vote in favour of a potential wind farm in their community. Believing in a specific conspiracy theory around the construction of the wind farm does so to an even larger degree. Informing people about the benefits of the wind farm has a considerable positive effect on their intentions to vote for the wind farms, particularly among those with a strong conspiracy mentality. These effects are smaller when people are also provided with counterarguments or when they believe in a specific conspiracy theory about the wind farm. Overall, our research suggests that conspiracy beliefs play a major role in understanding resistance to wind farms and sheds light on how to counteract this opposition.
Some general points mentioned in the paper regarding the attributes of conspiracy mentality:
​
Edits: improved for clarity