I am not arguing either of those points. My viewpoint is that we need big, expensive, state run power projects to really knock out fossil fuels rather than contriving financial products like renewable energy credits to attract private investment in PV solar and wind. I think nuclear power (and possibly concentrated solar and deep well geothermal power) is better suited to the task than PV solar and wind because they avoid the perpetual transition trap. We need hard, discrete, inalienable power facilities close by to where people live and work not just for cogeneration opportunities, but also so that the people come to see themselves as the true owners of this infrastructure. Wind farms tend to be remote, dispersed, and abstracted from the people consuming their output; therefore better suited to serve capital while never significantly threatening fossil fuel investments. It’s a dead end, hence the skeletons on the horizon analogy. Perhaps it’s more of an opportunity cost than an externality in the sense that we’d be leaving on the table real progress to zero-emissions by resisting nuclear power deployment in favor of plans that allow and require continued dependence on fossil fuels.
Maybe a case can be made for massive offshore wind farms for the sake of having a diverse energy mix or if there isn’t a reliable supply of nuclear fuel. Otherwise, why spread out operations over thousands of square miles of ocean, accessible only by diesel powered ships, when you could have nuclear plants on shore occupying a few hundred acres, within easy reach of electrified public transit, supplying good heat and steam to homes and industry in addition to electricity? The answer would seem like some combination of nimbyism, defeatism, and subservience to fossil fuel interests.
This doesn’t seem like a strong argument against wind that a wind farm planned for a 20 year life ran for 20 years, and was then dismantled.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I can only make some assumptions about where the gravity is for your point.
I’m interested in your viewpoint.
I am not arguing either of those points. My viewpoint is that we need big, expensive, state run power projects to really knock out fossil fuels rather than contriving financial products like renewable energy credits to attract private investment in PV solar and wind. I think nuclear power (and possibly concentrated solar and deep well geothermal power) is better suited to the task than PV solar and wind because they avoid the perpetual transition trap. We need hard, discrete, inalienable power facilities close by to where people live and work not just for cogeneration opportunities, but also so that the people come to see themselves as the true owners of this infrastructure. Wind farms tend to be remote, dispersed, and abstracted from the people consuming their output; therefore better suited to serve capital while never significantly threatening fossil fuel investments. It’s a dead end, hence the skeletons on the horizon analogy. Perhaps it’s more of an opportunity cost than an externality in the sense that we’d be leaving on the table real progress to zero-emissions by resisting nuclear power deployment in favor of plans that allow and require continued dependence on fossil fuels.
Maybe a case can be made for massive offshore wind farms for the sake of having a diverse energy mix or if there isn’t a reliable supply of nuclear fuel. Otherwise, why spread out operations over thousands of square miles of ocean, accessible only by diesel powered ships, when you could have nuclear plants on shore occupying a few hundred acres, within easy reach of electrified public transit, supplying good heat and steam to homes and industry in addition to electricity? The answer would seem like some combination of nimbyism, defeatism, and subservience to fossil fuel interests.