Wind Farms

[jack]

People constantly refer to "unsightly" wind farms. The expected response is that they may be necessary. But simply saying "unsightly" bullies me into conceding the underlying premise, that they are ugly, and the choice is between beauty and necessity.

But now I question that. I certainly understand that if there's existing landscape which is really beautiful, you may not want large industrial changes. Especially if they're loud.

But are wind farms ugly? I think they're really pretty. I certainly think they're prettier than any other form of power generation I can think of. The best alternatives I can think of are some reservoirs. And I can imagine solar panels _could_ be pretty, but I've never really seen them used artistically.

If I had to dot the landscape with something, I think wind farms would be a good candidate. Big, graceful, elegant, white, like large benevolent tripods or triffids.

After all, deforestation, stone walls, hedgerows and windmills were all driven by necessity, not artistry, but now are seen as a quintessential part of the landscape. Even pylons, if never pretty, are commonly accepted.

The other question, is why was I embarrassed to say this? I think because "wind farms are ugly" is such a common part of the dialogue, but seemed so wrong to me, I assumed there must be something important I was missing, not that I might legitimately disagree.

Comments

[gerald_duck]

Well, today, SpaceX will place stuff in low Earth orbit for $2,200/kg. There are 121 million kg of high-level waste hanging about. So right now, it would cost $267bn.

That seems a lot, but we've had a lot of power from that fuel. My maths suggests it comes out at less than 1¢ per kWh. That's smaller than the surcharge customers are charged in the UK for electricity from renewable sources.

It's not being suggested seriously because for the moment there's no need. (And, as I mentioned, because one in fifty rockets full of spent nuclear fuel exploding mid-air would be A Shame.)

The problem can wait. The price will come down.

[jack]

Oh, hm. I still have a feeling that it's likely to be completely impossible, but those figures make it look a lot more plausible than I'd have thought. (On a pure cost basis -- I agree we need to wait for reliability! :))

[ewx]

It occurs to me to wonder how that one in fifty rockets worth of waste compares to Uranium and Thorium in fly ash from the world's current fleet of coal burners.

[hairyears]

This isn't as widely known as it should be: fly ash forms the majority of Britain's low-level nuclear waste, by tonnage and by activity; and I am annoyed at the derogation that allows it to be disposed (or rather distributed) without the expensive precautions that accompany 'real' nuclear waste.

Meanwhile, most of the radioactivity goes up the chimney: and its worth remembering that Uranium and Thorium are a *minor* component of the heavy metal load in a coal furnace exhaust.

[jack]

Hm. I assumed that would still be bad, but maybe it isn't. I've no idea of the relative magnitudes. (Assuming my reading of the article is correct that it's not already including nuclear waste retained on site in the comparison.)