[ZeroGravitas]

Everything has got problems.

The first person to suggest building the electrical grids we already have would have seemed a bit of a visionary, because they are truly epic bits of engineering but lots of problems have been solved along the way and continue to need solved as thing evolve.

Throwing your hands up at the first hint of potential problems is basically a variant on the FUD we know so well in computing, as is claiming wind turbines are "hideous" for the environment. People love that old switcheroo, "electric cars are worse for the environment than ICE cars", "Solar panels use more carbon than they will ever save" etc. except when you look at the serious studies done by actual experts you find these questions were dealt with thoroughly years before, and the people who keep repeating them aren't interested in facts.

Wind turbines aren't magic fairy dust, they're technology. They can be used well, they can be used badly, they can get better. One of the big changes is that larger turbines can be deployed successfully in lots more places and take advantage of slower average windspeeds. That's not revolutionary, but that and thousands of other improvements are making wind and solar cheaper every day. The problems that remain are far more solvable, and cost-efficient to deal with, than dealing with the consequences of continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere.

Many nations are already building/converting gas generators just to avoid using coal, an on balance this is a good thing from a pollution and carbon perspective. Making use of stuff that already exists to plug gaps as we go forward really isn't that radical a suggestion.

[TheLoneWolfling]

I agree with what you say.

But again you're missing what I was saying with my original comment - namely that wind turbines seem to be far too often built where it makes political sense, not necessarily where it actually makes sense.

As is far too often the case for renewable energy, it seems.

[ZeroGravitas]

Why have you singled out wind and renewable energy to be affected by politics? I think the current nuclear plans in the UK, the fracking support, and the anti-wind hysteria all have very strong political aspects. The IMF recently suggested fossil fuel is heavily subsidized since it's pollution is externalized.

I don't see anything about wind power that makes it particularly susceptible to politics, in fact the decentralized nature of wind and solar seems to make it a bit less likely for one entity to be given monopoloy rights and therefore be able to kickback large sums to politicians and lobbyists.

[TheLoneWolfling]

This comment chain was started by talking about wind. And people here seem to take it for granted that nuclear is affected by politics, but tend to be fuzzier about things like wind. Wind power is very political in nature. On the one hand, tax credits / etc. On the other hand, regulations as to where you can put wind turbines, etc. And general discontent about bat deaths / noise complaints / etc. (And in some cases, at least, for good reason.) And unmetered (and as such, unknown, which is "interesting") power used for things like rotating the wind turbines, feathering them, and keeping them turning when there isn't wind.