So close to a not-stupid comparison. Onshore wind turbines, at most, produce around 7 MW of electricity (probably much less for this one, but same order of magnitude). I’m assuming at a glance that this is a coal-fired power station; if so, at this size it probably has a capacity over a GW. If we populated the image with hundreds of the pictured wind turbine, it would be a clusterfuck. The major difference isn’t that wind turbines are inherently prettier per MW; it’s that wind turbines are usually dispersed offshore and in mostly barren rural areas, and what few smaller ones are in urban areas are unobtrusive.
All you had to do is show multiple wind turbines out in the country or offshore and place that side-by-side with the plant, but instead it has to be a pithy “gotcha” instead of an actual comparison. I, for one, much prefer the turbines.
Beautiful, IMO. And look at all that sunny ground, could have a big solar field there too.
And the solar field could foster a good shade-plant field that would grow and anchor the sandy ground with their roots, holding groundwater, also providing cover for small wildlife.
Yes, often on farmland, they’re larger and more dispersed.
I am, to clarify, intentionally choosing what I think are pretty images of wind farms. I actually like the way they look and wish the OP used an example like this (even though the wind capacity in this second image is still comparatively small, it’s much more representative than the OP of what typical landscapes with wind turbines look like).
Wrong, and I can’t imagine how you reached that conclusion based on my first comment, let alone the second one where I say the exact opposite of this. I guess it’s easier to fill in the blanks by assuming whatever you want to be true than by reading.
It’s always on the other person if they’re confused
You read me say “I, for one, much prefer the turbines” (or at least I hope you did; maybe one whole comment is expecting too much), didn’t read the single other comment I made that was right there in case you were actually confused, made a snarky remark insincerely framed as a question accusing me of doing the opposite of what I actually was, and then got defensive and called that “being confused” when called out.
Buddy, I don’t know if you’re professing confusion about this specific discussion, human conversation, intellectual honesty, the English language… but none of them are your fault, and help is out there.
So close to a not-stupid comparison. Onshore wind turbines, at most, produce around 7 MW of electricity (probably much less for this one, but same order of magnitude). I’m assuming at a glance that this is a coal-fired power station; if so, at this size it probably has a capacity over a GW. If we populated the image with hundreds of the pictured wind turbine, it would be a clusterfuck. The major difference isn’t that wind turbines are inherently prettier per MW; it’s that wind turbines are usually dispersed offshore and in mostly barren rural areas, and what few smaller ones are in urban areas are unobtrusive.
All you had to do is show multiple wind turbines out in the country or offshore and place that side-by-side with the plant, but instead it has to be a pithy “gotcha” instead of an actual comparison. I, for one, much prefer the turbines.
Beautiful, IMO. And look at all that sunny ground, could have a big solar field there too.
And the solar field could foster a good shade-plant field that would grow and anchor the sandy ground with their roots, holding groundwater, also providing cover for small wildlife.
Yeah but some rando on the internet thinks it’s ugly, so ewe better keep burning the planet instead.
The wind farms I’ve seen are not quite so crowded, though…🤷♂️
I think that photo might have been taken with a relatively long lens, so it appears that they are closer together than they really are.
Correct. This is just the perspective. If you build them too close together, efficiency will suffer.
Yes, often on farmland, they’re larger and more dispersed.
I am, to clarify, intentionally choosing what I think are pretty images of wind farms. I actually like the way they look and wish the OP used an example like this (even though the wind capacity in this second image is still comparatively small, it’s much more representative than the OP of what typical landscapes with wind turbines look like).
Not going to lie. That picture is pretty awesome. I wish they all looked that cool in real life. They usually kind of boring
We need to construct additional pylons.
The image wasn’t to show something cool, but instead to prove how “ugly” they are, right?
Haha, I honestly cannot tell either. I think they were trying to say “look how ugly this is” but I think it looks cool as fuck
Same!
Wrong, and I can’t imagine how you reached that conclusion based on my first comment, let alone the second one where I say the exact opposite of this. I guess it’s easier to fill in the blanks by assuming whatever you want to be true than by reading.
You read me say “I, for one, much prefer the turbines” (or at least I hope you did; maybe one whole comment is expecting too much), didn’t read the single other comment I made that was right there in case you were actually confused, made a snarky remark insincerely framed as a question accusing me of doing the opposite of what I actually was, and then got defensive and called that “being confused” when called out.
Buddy, I don’t know if you’re professing confusion about this specific discussion, human conversation, intellectual honesty, the English language… but none of them are your fault, and help is out there.
What an awful way to be