You are just highlighting the diversity of technology that the US is behind in manufacturing and executing even though most of the technology was invented in the US.
Facts on the ground.
I've seen plenty of wind farms in the US myself - from Illinois to California. That doesn't change the fact that they are not a panacea, and that they have significant environmental impacts and non-green aspects to them. The notion that the facts I shared are captured in YouTube videos, and that somehow makes them less valid, is silly. If you prefer reading, here is an article from TODAY: Low winds stunt Germany's renewable energy production | USA Solar Cell first line: "Germany’s transition to renewable energy faces a significant challenge due to unexpectedly low wind speeds that have curtailed the nation’s renewable power output." And this FACT was in one of the YouTube videos I linked to:
If you are replying to me, I'm in NO way saying that. I think our energy infrastructure is one of the weakest and most vulnerable parts of our country and in no way should we concede defeat on that. We need several new nuclear plants to produce gobs of electrical power, and I'm sure upgraded power transmission (especially in CA) capability. And I'm all for alternative power generation technology - when it is ready and can stand on its own in the market.
No, that is a very narrow view of how and why they get built. Germany, and much of Europe, has put in political goals of carbon-free energy production. And that's ultimately built upon the notion that humans are causing "climate change" - which is a horrible read of all the real scientific data. There is also some anti-nuclear sentiment in there. So no, they are not building more windmills because they make technical sense, or are the best choice - they are doing it because of government rules/regulations. Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders
At one time you may have been right but on shore wind turbine cost has fallen by 68% and off shore wind turbine cost has fallen by 59%. These figures come from Harvard Business Review.
(I was an engineer for several decades, too, working with energy systems. The Electric Power Research Institute was my primary client.)
Reducing carbon emissions is a purely political goal? Human activity has not adversely affected our climate?
If we were to only focus on the downside of many technologies, we would not move forward. We are trying to solve problems and look at the big picture. The idea that an instant profit cannot be made is a poor excuse for not trying.
Actually, I have not had anyone say that "tariffs are bad". It's the willy-nilly implementation with absolutely no plan for how they will help the US. They are just being used as a cudgel. Where is the plan?
So, Public safety will get help financing the more expensive, less effective equipment than what is available now? What about commercial service providers? What about recreational flyers? Public safety, while important, is the late comer to the table using sUAS.
Many people think those are a blight and eyesore on the landscape. I look at that forested area, than look at the windmills and think it looks horrible.
True. Not easy. I'm not against nuclear. But it seems silly to bring up windmill blades being difficult to recycle and favor nuclear in the same comment when spent fuel is the absolute worst.
There's no free ride or storybook magic with any energy source. When I hiked up that hill and realized that the surrounding area was clear cut, I thought it looked horrible, too. It took a lot of the fun out of photographing the place. But that area around the towers looks exactly like the areas nearby where the trees are clear cut for pulp and lumber. The highland forests have lots of such places. Those trees from the wind farm went to the same uses that the trees from the nearby tracts went to.
Yes, of course. All mechanical things have limited lifespans and there are issues with recycling just about everything. Wind farms are no different. All those factors have to be considered and the numbers have to be crunched. (I'll note that some in high office have said that offshore wind hardware rusts, despite the fact that they're composite materials, not iron or steel. And there are the claims about killing whales,)
Nuclear plants have the most enormous hidden costs of all energy sources. We have not yet addressed the issue of what to do with spent fuel. We're still storing it in reactor pools and gradually increasing the storage density we're willing to live with. Decommissioning a nuclear plant is a monumental job that we don't have a handle on yet. The Hanover plant was a bigger job than expected. And some folks find reactor containments, cooling towers, vapor plumes, and lots of acreage with high fences to be unsightly. I can't think of any large manmade thing that doesn't have people who admire it and people who thing it's ugly.
If that was true, wind farms wouldn't be built in the numbers they are all over the world.
Tariffs are a tax paid by importers and passed on to consumers in the country levying the tariffs.
Have you ever seen what urban development does to a landscape?
It's not silly at all. Both generate difficult to deal with waste. I'd rather have one nuclear plant generating an enormous amount of power than have wind farms scattered throughout the landscape. Whether on sea or on land, I find nothing attractive about them at all. It is what it is though...
