OT: Why don't we cover mountains in wind farms?

Republicans spend money and you complain then dems double down and you are quiet.

The first wind farm I ever saw was in Altamont Pass, though that isn't particularly high.

That is beautiful countryside.

I take it you're not a take your phone everywhere with you person? Not that phones take very good photos. The only phone I saw that did was a South African colleague who had a phone with a great big lens stuck an inch out the back. He said it was a phone camera, not a camera phone.

It's a matter of opinion, some people like the New York skyline as something scenic to look at. I don't. But there's nothing wrong with some windmills. Maybe they should make them look more like the old wooden ones.

The UK at this very instant is using 19% wind power, a significant amount which could easily be made into 100% by multiplying the wind farms by 5.

Well current wind farms are only charging $0.06 per kWh.

It would produce electricity, but saying that means it works is akin to saying that a traction engine works as a means of daily transport. It will do the job, but very inefficiently. The traction engine would be more fun though.

Probably would require a

There's more wind available up there. If it's too much, surely the blades can be changed to take less of the force? Just make them thinner.

My comments apply to all wind turbines. They are a horribly inefficient way to generate electricity.

They make electricity at $0.06 a kWh, which is many times less than anything else. No fuel consumption! Build it, maintain it, but don't fuel it. And no staff on site most of the time.

And when the wind doesn't blow how many times more wind generators would be needed. Using the link above how many times this week has wind produced close to zero.

If every country in the world had wind generators, you could just buy and sell power from each other. It's always windy somewhere on the planet. One of the Scandiwegian countries is pretty much a big wind farm.

Because the wind doesn't always blow, and the turbines break, and when you add up the cost of fixing all that, in terms of emissions you haven't gained a damned thing.

In short wind turbines overall, holistically, do not reduce carbon emissions, so why the f*ck bother having any?

Shame they did not ask you before they started making them. Expect more though, Gulf of Mexico is supposed to get some in the future.

They do, but solar farms tend to be in the middle of nowhere and the panels don't silhouette against the skyline.

Sometimes the lake effect with actual bodies of water doesn't end well.

That was the first I saw too, coming up from the Bay. It was early morning just about sunrise and the turbines were slowly waking up for the day.

Not in the least. I've been doing so more often lately since I have one of those step apps that doesn't require a connection. Most areas I hike in have no coverage unless you're up on a ridge and have line of sight to a tower.

Mountainous terrain is challenging for gigahertz frequencies. I know several places with homemade signs saying 'cellphone pullout'. They're not the safety pullouts the state puts along highways but sweet spots that have the only signal in the area.

Here is one in the UK - for scale the racetrack is 1/4 mile for drag racing (0 to 300mph in 4 seconds) and another 1/4 mile for stopping :)

Wind turbines are not designed to reduce emissions., They are designed to harvest government subsidy and placate ArtStudents™. Anyone who actually does *all* the sums finds out that in the limit they are pointless exercises in virtue signalling, (but very profitable). But the world is full of ArtStudents™ who CantDoSums or lazy people who only do half the sums.

There are more churches in te world than wind turbines though.