Assuming "over here" is somewhere in Europe. I mean, they called it soccer, which is an American term, but also used pitch... if they'd said football pitch, I'd have known which sport they were referring to. Just a odd choice of words I guess.

... I played soccer for the better part of 16 years and never heard it called a pitch before. It's something I'd expect a European to say, but they called it soccer instead of futbol or football, which is confusing.

That being said, I assumed they meant field.

It's not that sacred. They used to let people up until 2008.

Funny enough, dogs can learn to "speak" too. There's a pretty neat piece someone did on this old professor that was teaching his dog a buttload of words (can't remember the exact number), there's also Bunny the talking dog.. which prompted me to get the buttons for my dog. Once it clicked for my dog that he can "verbally" communicate what he wants (for a few things), he abuses the shit out of the buttons. Anyway... that was all to say I have something sorta relevant that's mildly interesting to add

Look, it's government in action!

I only watched the first episode of the new season today... but the cinematography seems different... is it just me?

Well yeah, I specified uncontrolled in the initial post. It's still cell growth, and referred to it as such for the sake of brevity because I already established that it's considered uncontrolled. That all being said. Any efficiency of communication went out the window with this explanatory post

Is there a unique surface protein for breast cancer, as opposed to any other type of cancer? It seems odd that the immune system would be used to attack cell growth

Is vaccine actually an accurate descriptor for it though? Cancer is abnormal cells dividing uncontrollably destroying tissue. Or are we changing the definition of vaccine again

Can someone addicted to heroin ever truly shake it? Serious question because I've been led to believe no.

I drove through Illinois not too long ago and saw the wind turbines along the highway there. It was a lot of farmland so I can't imagine anyone purchased the land recently for a "view" and got stuck with the wind turbines but I personally wouldn't care to see them everyday. I just know from personal experience that there are progressive areas/people content with volunteering someone else (aka rural/poor/blue collar/conservative) to take on the burden of whatever great idea they have. A personal example of that; my county has a number of psychiatrists on "staff" (they still have private practices) for like 250k (tax dollars) annually a pop to provide "mental health" services to people who cant afford it and may need it based on arbitrary criteria (basically noone who needs to use it can take advantage of it). The county executive and elected officials all reside in a very "well to do" area and made it a point to relocate the homeless into lower income areas of the county and provide these shelters and services there. It just strikes me as them looking down their noses at the "poors" as they provide "services" out of the kindness of their hearts. The reality is, many of the services we would really want nearby are all located in their community, the not so great ones are pushed out to the other not as affluent neighborhoods. And they could be full of shit, but I'm constantly being hassled by homeless outside of convenience stores asking for money so they can stay at one of the shelters nearby. Shit, our county executives salary is 350k. A flippin civil servant. Anyway, I digress. I'm basically just bitching about my community now. And no, I'm not in California lol

Not everyone is going to be okay with these things dotting the landscape or being installed in their "backyards". There have been both wind and solar projects rejected in my state because the communities just don't want them nearby. This is largely a very pro renewable and progressive state. The whole NIMBY thing. And to think it's okay to just push it on out to the midwest/rural areas is both short sighted and selfish. That being said, acceptance of these types of projects in a community are a consideration. Because denser areas do not have the real estate, so their power needs to be addressed somewhere right?

If the farmer wants to lease his land then sure, it makes sense, never said it didn't. From what I can see it doesn't look like they get much in the way of payment for the land they're giving up.

A few points with mentioning for non pasture acreage:

-The turbine themselves plus the access roads and support infrastructure take up space and reduce the amount of farmland available to be farmed.

-The turbines, access roads and support infrastructure create obstructions in the fields making it more difficult to farm that field.

-They limit some farming practices (aerial application) and others

-The installation of the turbines creates soil compaction and can damage tile, drainage ditches, etc.

-The money stream may not go to the farmer and may not be as steady as everyone thinks.

-To reiterate, not everyone enjoys the aesthetics of wind turbines in their backyard

Alternatively, its money for no effort on their part if they don't mind them being on the land.

And I'm not sure where NPR got its numbers from but the 2017 census (couldn't find a more recent one) is a little over half of the number they gave for permanent pastures.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2019/2017Census_Farms_Farmland.pdf

I'm not against this application of technology, but there are two sides to a viewpoint. It's either going to take up land people occupy or will be taking up new undeveloped land. People tend to be supportive of something until the ugly side of it directly impacts them.

That's a bit of a strawman arguement. I said nothing about cows or their land use. And including the land used to feed them is a bit misleading as they typically use byproducts we don't consume to feed them, but whatever. The reality is that projects like this are going to use undeveloped land instead of land occupied for agriculture, habitation or commercial.

Which is the only reason I mention the land usage. If my math is correct.. annual consumption of mwh in my county is ~6,990,000 so we would need ~3 of these plants operating at 350mwh output 24/7. That's 23,550 acres of undeveloped land we do not have unless we start encroaching on wildlife preserves and state parks. My county has approximately 2k undeveloped land (if I'm reading the census correctly) that is not allocated to parks and preserves. None of the other land here is for agricultural use. This would not be an uncommon issue for more densely populated areas, so more rural areas would end up completely transformed by this. While people in densely populated areas might be okay with that, but people living in these rural areas where they'll likely end up may not be too pleased with that transformation. None of this is taking into consideration the areas that are even suitable or ideal for different types of renewable energy production, I'm not even sure where to look at what that number would be.

Renewables are great and we should find ways to incorporate them into our current infrastructure as much as possible but, I just don't see current land use being repurposed before I see them clear cut new areas for plants like this.

Edit: are you seriously citing Wikipedia?

This is great and all but it spans 7,850 acres. That's a whole lotta land. Reading their fact sheet, it seems odd that they'd highlight that they created 9 full time jobs with this project.