this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
186 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59207 readers
3599 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 86 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Looks cool as hell. Here in NJ a bunch of NIMBY pricks have been fighting offshore wind because it “ruins the view” which I find laughable. Seeing clean energy being produced makes me smile, who cares if there’s a windmill on the horizon.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Looking on Zillow, it looks like a beachfront house on Long Beach Island in New Jersey is ~$2.5-5 million.

Cross the street, go one house back from the beach -- the differentiating factor between the two being whether there's a view out over the ocean -- and the price drops to maybe $1.5-2.5 million.

So you figure that people there basically bought a house plus a window with a fancy picture in it, and that picture cost maybe one to several million dollars.

I wouldn't pay several million dollars for a fancy picture, but I imagine that if someone has done that, then they're probably liable to get pissy if people go and fiddle with it.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

Yeah that’s definitely a component, although I’m not sure it would even actually hurt the value. The beaches are public so they already cannot control that view. My favorite of their arguments was all of them very quickly becoming whale activists and stating with certainty that windmills kill whales.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 13 points 2 months ago

Fuck them.

But more realistically there should be a land value tax in place anyway. If the price does go down I wouldn't be totally against giving them money. But would have to be over a period of say 10 years to avoid any market inefficient panic causing a temporary dip.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

Then they can pay to produce clean energy or reduce energy usage for people in the rest of their city to make this unnecessary. Or as another commenter put it, eat our entire collective asses.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If some dude paid a million dollars to control the ocean and the power supply of the region, then people are probably going to get pissy at the overwhelming, unearned privilege.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So just for context.

Fixed wind turbines can only really be put in in 60m depth or less. Water that shallow is usually close the coast though there are some exceptions like the dogger bank, but that's rare.

If you are 100m off the ground you can see 36 km out to sea. (Or be visible 36 km from shore).

The EEZ of countries, where you can install wind turbines, is 370km from shore. Currently (new tech) there seems to be floating offshore capable of operating at 1km deep waters.

If floating wind takes off. Visibility might not be an issue at all. Wind speeds are higher and more constant out out sea. It's a win, win, win. If it can be made cheap enough.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Visited a jersey beach recently. I'd vote to put turbines up across the whole fucking coat. I don't care.

[–] Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I kinda like it too, i don't see the appeal of not seeing anything on the horizon.

I kinda like it too, I don't t see the appeal of not seeing anything on the horizon.

[–] SacralPlexus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Don’t get me wrong I’m 100% behind renewable energy but do you seriously not understand someone saying ‘hey I like this beautiful natural scene without machinery all over?’

[–] Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 months ago

I think my wording was a bit wrong. I do see the appeal, but I don't really see a big difference. Either there's nothing at the horizon, or there are ships and oil rigs, or there are offshore windparks. It really doesn't matter, to me at least.

I live in the northern part of Germany. North Frisia consists solely of farming plots and nothing else. It's such a boring landscape. Everything is flat and unnatural. Nowadays we have shitloads of windmills in that area and it makes it a bit more interesting to the eye.

[–] corstian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Before the largest things on the horizon were trees and perhaps the odd church or water tower. These windmills tower over anything there is on the countryside.

The point I'm trying to make here is that our definition of tall has significantly shifted over the last 20/30 years. E.g. windmill 5km away is visually still twice as high as the church tower which is 500 meters away from you.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I quite like windmills, I'd love to have a view of some working.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRgGmH-nCBo

Download that and set it to fullscreen on a 4k monitor on your wall.

[–] geogle@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Yeah, but coal fires create pretty sunsets