One of my far-right Facebook friends shared this article with his comments, which will be unnamed, so embarrassed I am for them and this kind of thinking:
“Anybody got room for about 20 million of these? Talk about a blight on the landscape. And not sure how much one of these costs but if it will power one house for 20 years, I’m guessing my bill is going to at least be $5000 a month”
Don’t forget to mention the high maintenance costs……Oh….and birds!! All the birds that get killed flying around the blades!!
Oh ya, forgot about the birds! Why aren’t the tree huggers protesting??
Because it’s okay for “them” to do it…
Me: But be sure and not even read the actual facts of the matter , IN THE ARTICLE. One house for 20 years, FROM ONE DAY of energy generated by ONE of these. The cost of construction of wind turbines per Kw generated is less than coal-fired plants, and is fueled by something that costs NOTHING, and emits NOTHING. So, laugh it up. And birds? I don’t suppose you have ANY numbers on that? Didn;t think so. Because it’s an inane deflection to feed into the anti-science,, economics-oblivious fantasy the right wing loves to drone on about.
And re: ” a blight upon the landscape”. Compared to the size, sprawl, and “beauty” of smokestacks billowing carbon into the air? Another right wing filter that superimposes an “evil” filter over anything their right wing sensitivities reject as “liberal”; “tree-huggers”. Total ecological ignorance, driven by a right wing induced denial that they have no grasp on whatsoever.
Update: A response fully illustrating the extent of the blindness caused by climate denial and “right wing cognitive disease”:
You’re so eager to dismiss you made that basic mistake of not reading carefully.
“Coal, natural gas, oil will be superior choices for the next couple of thousand years” Now that’s just geologically ignorant, and economically naive. The PRESENT Wind plus Solar is already economically superior TODAY. More jobs, more efficiency, more power generated per dollar, and again, not even taking into account the savings in less ecological impact that costs billions annually. You need some science , Mark. (And Math), Nor is it taking into account the rapidly dropping prices of both, and the subsequent improvements as prices drop, competition increases, and fossil fuel drawbacks continue to become more apparent. So the distance between the advantages of renewables vs the increased problems (and Supply, which you are apparently unaware of), and this distance widens even further.
I’ll cut you slack for not reading carefully or listening carefully to what I’m showing you about this example. Forgot that it is the Falcons playing. Go Falcons!
More update (10:32 AM Monday, Feb. 6, 2017 :