this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
189 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

71923 readers
2995 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 84 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 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?’

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Yeah, but coal fires create pretty sunsets