US will unleash 'drone dominance' by fast-tracking production

[MS Coast]

Wind-generated power is not as great as it's made out to be:

And yet, there are tens of thousands of them producing power all around the world, and more being installed daily.

Here in the US, there are more than 73,000 installations with 153 gigawatts of generating capacity. They produce a little more than 10% of our electricity. Worldwide generation capacity exceeds 1000 GW. Wind is a major energy source in places like Germany, the UK, Spain, Brazil, France, Canada, Sweden, ...

I put more stock in actual functioning wind power hardware and actual power generation than in Youtube videos.

Here's a drone photo of a new wind turbine installation I shot in Scotland last month. We saw wind machines all over the country, offshore and onshore, from the Outer Hebrides to Edinburg.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I'm not sure that there has been an improvement. It's not really a manufacturing problem, it's a technology problem and the storage capacity of batteries, the energy efficiency of solar-to-power conversion of solar panels, etc. another example: 11 years after a celebrated opening, massive solar plant faces a bleak future in the Mojave Desert

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.

You seem to be saying that for critical energy infrastructure, we should just concede defeat. But, for other markets, we should levee large tariffs without any accompanying plan to execute?

 

[Dave Pitman]

Wind-generated power is not as great as it's made out to be: &

Facts on the ground.

Every time I travel through Eastern Washington on I90, there are more windmills. If the #s didn't pencil out, I suspect they wouldn't keep adding more, right?

 

[anotherlab]

I'll go by what I see on my utility bills before I go by what some random person says in a YouTube video. Solar and Wind do not need to be the sole source of power, but they keep the grid from overloading during peak usage times. This is the electricity generated from my solar panels, a few days ago.



The blue is what was generated, the orange what was consumed. We have a net credit system; electricity doesn't get consumed, is sent to the grid, and I get a credit for it. At night, when I consume electricity, my usage comes out of the credits I gained during the day. During peak consumption, I'm putting electricity into the grid and I'm drawing from it during off-peak hours.

 

[MS Coast]

I'm not sure that there has been an improvement. It's not really a manufacturing problem, it's a technology problem and the storage capacity of batteries, the energy efficiency of solar-to-power conversion of solar panels, etc. another example: 11 years after a celebrated opening, massive solar plant faces a bleak future in the Mojave Desert

There have been enormous improvements in battery technology and photovoltaic solar panel efficiency. Batteries have become so efficient, lightweight, and affordable that there are nearly 60 million cars and trucks are operating on battery power. Silicon PV cell efficiency has improved from about 10% in 1980 to more than 25% today. Other PV cell types are reaching 35%.

That high temperature solar concentrator approach used by that 2014 plant has not been pursued for commercial application. With new technology developments, you don't hit a home run with each try.

 

[BigAl07]

I'm going to give my 2-cents and not try to "reply to" each and every previous post. This is MY OWN PERSONAL position and in no way the position of this Forum Admin or Ownership

• A) First I'll state, I am VERY much in line with the thinking and logic that @ericole has stated. Unless I missed something (and I only skimmed this thread) I agree with their posts here deeply.
• B) Wind Energy is a losing proposition when you factor in all the aspects of designing, building, installing, and maintaining them. It's almost like what they call a "Loss Leader" in the retail world. It looks good when you only focus on one aspect of them (cough Free Energy cough) but when you dig into every aspect of them, they don't make sense, IF you're truly talking dollars & cents.
• C) Tariffs can work and for many countries (including the USA up until a few decades ago) work very well. Unfortunately at some point the US Govt decided it was easier to TAX it's own people and moved away from sensible tariffs. Since most of the people alive today don't know about them and have been programmed to think they are bad, they are BAD to John Q. Public. Much like the word DRONE is a bad word to everyone except those of us embedded in the Drone Industry in some way.
• D) I don't know about ALL tariffs etc but the UAS Tariff has some built-in provisions that will DIRECTLY help Public Safety Dept (LEO, Fire, EMS, DHS. . . ) with financing. A very large portion of those tariffs will come back and FUND Public Safety Depts across the land and actually make it EASIER and more AFFORDABLE for these Depts to implement, increase, or modify a robust UAS program. Of course this will in no way fund the "civilian" aspect of UAS in the United State.

I'm ready for something to change and, from my fairly narrow point of view, this is a good starting point and something I look forward to seeing it play out over the next several years and I HOPE it plays out similar to how it has been intended.

 

[hank970]

The imposition of tariffs should be a serious matter, but then an unserious man proposes levying a 50% tariff on Brazilian products because he thinks former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a kindred spirit, has been unfairly accused of corruption and other crimes. Bolsonaro awaits trial on multiple charges in Brazil, among them fomenting riots comparable to our January 6 disgrace in the aftermath of his political defeat.

Tariffs should be imposed to address genuine trade inequities, not to settle personal grudges or in response to perceived slights.

 

[ericole]

And yet, there are tens of thousands of them producing power all around the world, and more being installed daily.

Here in the US, there are more than 73,000 installations with 153 gigawatts of generating capacity. They produce a little more than 10% of our electricity. Worldwide generation capacity exceeds 1000 GW. Wind is a major energy source in places like Germany, the UK, Spain, Brazil, France, Canada, Sweden, ...

I put more stock in actual functioning wind power hardware and actual power generation than in Youtube videos.

Here's a drone photo of a new wind turbine installation I shot in Scotland last month. We saw wind machines all over the country, offshore and onshore, from the Outer Hebrides to Edinburg.

View attachment 183725

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:
"Future Outlook: Moving Towards Sustainability
The current scenario demands urgent attention towards enhancing backup systems that can support renewable sources during times when natural generation is low."
Same data echoed here - again, TODAY: https://www.reuters.com/sustainabil...duce-renewable-share-german-power-2025-07-15/

Guess what source of energy the "backup systems" come from?

And there are MANY articles online that reflect what is covered here - it's not all roses: Germany’s Green Transition Is Faltering
"The implications for the European Union’s plans (themselves largely German-designed) to become “the first net zero continent” by 2050 are potentially disastrous. Opposition to the EU’s climate goals is now one of the key drivers of European populism, with Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland among a group of countries leading the effort to obstruct the EU’s ambitious European Green Deal that was adopted in 2019."

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for "green" energy, electric vehicles, etc - especially for autos so we can get loud exhausts off the road(!) - but as an engineer I also understand the technical hurdles, unintended consequences that are conveniently hidden away, and that battery storage technology, power-conversion tech, etc needs a lot more advancement. Many argue that the subsidies and govt money is used to push that tech forward, but what it only seems to do is line the pockets of the companies producing the tech, with little advancement to actually get it to be as good as our existing "fossil fuel" energy sources. And far too often that money and those government mandates are aligned with a political goal - which is rarely in line with technical reality or what's really good for people.

 

[ericole]

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.

You seem to be saying that for critical energy infrastructure, we should just concede defeat. But, for other markets, we should levee large tariffs without any accompanying plan to execute?

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.

 

[ericole]

Facts on the ground.

Every time I travel through Eastern Washington on I90, there are more windmills. If the #s didn't pencil out, I suspect they wouldn't keep adding more, right?

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

"In 2000 Germany passed a major green initiative which forced providers to purchase renewable energy at exorbitant fixed prices and feed that power through their grids for a period of twenty years. Promulgated by a Socialist-Green coalition government – this initiative has since been embraced by Germany’s Conservative-Liberal majority, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel. In fact Merkel has doubled down on Germany’s renewable energy push in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan – ramping up government’s plan to phase in renewables while taking the country’s nuclear power industry offline."

 

[tstr14]

I'm going to give my 2-cents and not try to "reply to" each and every previous post. This is MY OWN PERSONAL position and in no way the position of this Forum Admin or Ownership

• B) Wind Energy is a losing proposition when you factor in all the aspects of designing, building, installing, and maintaining them. It's almost like what they call a "Loss Leader" in the retail world. It looks good when you only focus on one aspect of them (cough Free Energy cough) but when you dig into every aspect of them, they don't make sense, IF you're truly talking dollars & cents.

I'm ready for something to change and, from my fairly narrow point of view, this is a good starting point and something I look forward to seeing it play out over the next several years and I HOPE it plays out similar to how it has been intended.

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.

 

[MS Coast]

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for "green" energy, electric vehicles, etc - especially for autos so we can get loud exhausts off the road(!) - but as an engineer I also understand the technical hurdles, unintended consequences that are conveniently hidden away,....

(I was an engineer for several decades, too, working with energy systems. The Electric Power Research Institute was my primary client.)

You're rebutting things that were not said. No one said wind farms were a panacea. No one said that other conventional energy sources weren't still needed. No one mentioned a political stance. No one suggested that wind or alternative energy sources have, can, or will soon replace fossil fuels. None of those things are true.

What I did say is that countries and businesses around the world have examined the technical, economic, social, and environmental conditions in which they operate and made the decision to build wind energy systems. Those systems are a significant contributor to those countries' energy supply. Additional wind energy systems are being built. Many systems have been built and are being built without subsidies of any kind. Others have known cost disadvantages but are part of a larger economic picture.

... only seems to do is line the pockets of the companies producing the tech, ...And far too often that money and those government mandates are aligned with a political goal -

Let's steer clear of accusations and politics.

 

[MS Coast]

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.

Reducing carbon emissions is a purely political goal? Human activity has not adversely affected our climate?

Nope. I don't argue religious faith or those two highly politicized and emotional topics.

I'm off to clear some brush and then fly a drone.

 

[Dave Pitman]

B) Wind Energy is a losing proposition when you factor in all the aspects of designing, building, installing, and maintaining them. It's almost like what they call a "Loss Leader" in the retail world.

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.

C) Tariffs can work and for many countries (including the USA up until a few decades ago) work very well. Unfortunately at some point the US Govt decided it was easier to TAX it's own people and moved away from sensible tariffs. Since most of the people alive today don't know about them and have been programmed to think they are bad, they are BAD to John Q. Public.

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?

D) I don't know about ALL tariffs etc but the UAS Tariff has some built-in provisions that will DIRECTLY help Public Safety Dept (LEO, Fire, EMS, DHS. . . ) with financing. A very large portion of those tariffs will come back and FUND Public Safety Depts across the land and actually make it EASIER and more AFFORDABLE for these Depts to implement, increase, or modify a robust UAS program. Of course this will in no way fund the "civilian" aspect of UAS in the United State.

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.

 

[glocke12]

And yet, there are tens of thousands of them producing power all around the world, and more being installed daily.

Here in the US, there are more than 73,000 installations with 153 gigawatts of generating capacity. They produce a little more than 10% of our electricity. Worldwide generation capacity exceeds 1000 GW. Wind is a major energy source in places like Germany, the UK, Spain, Brazil, France, Canada, Sweden, ...

I put more stock in actual functioning wind power hardware and actual power generation than in Youtube videos.

Here's a drone photo of a new wind turbine installation I shot in Scotland last month. We saw wind machines all over the country, offshore and onshore, from the Outer Hebrides to Edinburg.

View attachment 183725

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.

Add in the fact that ( if my understanding is correct ), windmill blades have a limited lifespan and there are issues recycling them.

No easy answers to the question of getting energy unfortunately, but I'd take one nuclear power plant over a landscape blighted with windmills any day of the week.

 

[Dave Pitman]

No easy answers to the question of getting energy unfortunately, but I'd take one nuclear power plant over a landscape blighted with windmills any day of the week.

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.

 

[mavic3usa]

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.

Add in the fact that ( if my understanding is correct ), windmill blades have a limited lifespan and there are issues recycling them.

No easy answers to the question of getting energy unfortunately, but I'd take one nuclear power plant over a landscape blighted with windmills any day of the week.

Out at sea, they look pretty good to me:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[MS Coast]

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.

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.

With coal-fired electricity, you get clear cuts, strip mines, mountain top removal, long coal trains blocking crossings, big generating plants, smoke stacks. cooling towers, ash piles, and emissions - particulates, gasses, and things like mercury.

Add in the fact that ( if my understanding is correct ), windmill blades have a limited lifespan and there are issues recycling them.

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,)

No easy answers to the question of getting energy unfortunately, but I'd take one nuclear power plant over a landscape blighted with windmills any day of the week.

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.

We humans are building more and more wind farms, solar installations, and gas turbines, while and new coal plants are a very rare thing. The numbers must be working out favorably.

 

[Meta4]

• B) Wind Energy is a losing proposition when you factor in all the aspects of designing, building, installing, and maintaining them. It's almost like what they call a "Loss Leader" in the retail world. It looks good when you only focus on one aspect of them (cough Free Energy cough) but when you dig into every aspect of them, they don't make sense, IF you're truly talking dollars & cents.

If that was true, wind farms wouldn't be built in the numbers they are all over the world.

• C) Tariffs can work and for many countries (including the USA up until a few decades ago) work very well. Unfortunately at some point the US Govt decided it was easier to TAX it's own people and moved away from sensible tariffs.

Tariffs are a tax paid by importers and passed on to consumers in the country levying the tariffs.
The USA isn't going to receive a cent in tariffs from the countries they impose them on.
And imposing ridiculous tariff rates will just shut down imports because your consumers aren't going to pay the increased prices they would cause.

 

[Meta4]

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.

Have you ever seen what urban development does to a landscape?