A new video (below) has been produced by wind-energy protest group www.rtf-radmarathon.de presenting a series of before-and-after photos that drive home the profound negative impacts wind parks are having on Germany’s idyllic landscapes and natural scenery.
Non-German speakers can skip the first 15 seconds introduction.
The site is actually an environmental protection site in the true sense of the word.
Of course the “before” photos aren’t real photographs but are merely the “after” photos with the wind turbines air brushed off. This is the most accurate method to convey the true difference.
Welcome to industrial green, nature protecting Germany.
It’s absolutely important to spread this video to as many people as possible!
19 responses to “New Video Vividly Shows Environmental Destruction And Scenery Blight Brought On By German Wind Energy”
Wind turbines are so monstrously ugly, they would be a blight even if they were economic and reliable, which they aren’t. It will take a lot of work and energy, but sometime in the future they will be torn down, and the natural environment will be restored.
“It’s absolutely important to spread this video to as many people as possible!”
sounds like a “scare tactic” to me.
Will you also include pictures of coal surface mining and similar stuff?
Yes, I quite agree! Pierre, please DO show what a strip-mined region looks like 20 years after the recovery work has been done.
And then compare it with images of where wind turbines Used to stand 20 yea…. wait, decades after they have lost their usefulness, wind turbines are STILL standing where they are, rusting in the wind, blighting the landscape.
In the meantime forests have grown back over the land recovered from strip mining coal. Reclamation is enforced.
Wind farm operators walk away from their mess http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html
Well, look here: 47.101064, -120.751268
Use Google Earth and go to this location. 115 meters east of the road is a Darrieus wind turbine. Turn on the “photos” tab and find the marker on the road just south of the “pin-locations” given above. Click and see the structure. The company was called FloWind.
It was installed in the mid-1980s and has not turned in at least 25 years.
[Google Street view shows it also.]
“In the meantime forests have grown back over the land recovered from strip mining coal.”
and if there is a tree, everything is fine, right?
Just look at your sources: you are using the “alberta oilsand” webpage as a source and their video says, that everything is fine? great!
On the other hand you use a right wing paper with a bizarre picture of wind mills on Hawaii. In the real world, Hawaii is going 100% renewables and it is doing so, because that is LESS expensive than even using cheap US gas plants as a bridge technology.
“Similar stuff” includes the big open-cast mining for the ores used to make the steel, copper, silver, aluminium, etc for the wind turbines and their footings; and the tailings lakes in for the rare earth refineries in China producing the magnets and electronic components also used in the wind turbines.
And then there are the coal-fired power stations needed to provided electricity for refining materials for the production of the semi-conductors that are the “enabling technology” for modern high-voltage and high-current power controls.
All going into follies that consume more energy than they will ever produce because the bulk of them are FUBER well before their advertised “life” is reached.
Alas, the people who have to pay for the follies have no come-back; no hard guarantees that such things will ever deliver what is promised because, unlike every other product, “renewables” are sacred to the point where even death and injury are excused in their pursuit.
sod 7. September 2015 at 3:01 PM | Permalink | Reply
“sounds like a “scare tactic” to me.
Will you also include pictures of coal surface mining and similar stuff?”
Why do the Green Warmunists never talk about the CO2 emissions produced by the production of the 900 tonnes of concrete needed in the foundation of ONE! measley wind turbine – which produces a TINY amount of electricity at unpredictable times?
How is it supposed to harm the environment LESS when you need MORE material to produce the same energy?
You need 6000 giant wind turbines and therefore 5.4 million tonnes of concrete to replace ONE 1 GW power plant ON AVERAGE – meaning, we still need to ADD thousands of huge storage halls of NaS batteries running at 300 deg C. (Or similar nonsense)
A LOWER energy density means you need MORE MATERIAL.
Why are Green warmunists intentionally HARMING the environment?
We here (central Washington State) have towers about 15 miles E and another set 10 miles NW. Because of trees surrounding our house we cannot see any towers without going about a Km. along our rural road. The towers east do not have houses nearby. Those to the northwest do, seemingly as close as some of those in the animation you present.
It is probably not the case, but it appears some towers, were they to fall, could hit a house.
One of the sites in the video – at about the 3:25 time – did not get all the blades removed. At the top edge, blades show and then the tower appears to reach up to support them. Sort of like having an airplane (or its condensation trail) cross the sky in an old Western movie.
Propaganda medium Spiegel for the first time ever mentions WUWT, says they are “distorting” “climate research results”.
Well not being insulted by them should make one reconsider ones approach.
Spiegel calls real climate “popular”.
Bojanovski obviously has never heard of Alexa Rankings.
At the same time Spiegel says future is unknown, “climate models deliver only range of possibilities”.
Backpedaling furiously, trying to regain credibility.
Thanks for the link. Bojanovski is insane and this piece
In my whole life, i have never seen such garbage in a real paper. This is a travesty of “journalism”.
So I guess the climate non-hysterical among us here can assume it’s a well-balanced, level-headed and rational piece of journalism that resisted succumbing to alarmism and doomsday bunker-building. 🙂 Will write a post on this.
“So I guess the climate non-hysterical among us here can assume it’s a well-balanced”
sorry, but the “two sides of a coin” strategy is not “balance” but is giving an extreme advantage to a “sceptic” minority.
Science is only on one side of that strange table. it is labeled “alarmistisch” (obviously a negative term) und “beschwichtigend” (as obviously a positive term.
And it puts the guardian (a respected paper) on the same level on one side, as it does wattsup (which they can t even spell) on the other side.
Real climate is “parteiisch” (taking sides) while Klimazwiebel ios not? That is plain out insane!
sod 8. September 2015 at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Thanks for the link. Bojanovski is insane”
Exactly my opinion. RealClimate popular? That’s like saying Merkel acts in the interest of Germans.
I see you chose to ignore my response to you.
[…] interesting video, via NoTricksZone, highlighting the environmental destruction and scenery blight of wind […]
So with all this hate for wind, people here will love the good news about solar.
It is not only getting cheaper than all new fossile fuel plants.
But it is already replacing the problems caused by the lack of nuclear in Japan:
The fears of blackouts just vanished, as solar is now covering 10% of summer peak demand, about the amount that was needed in power savings during the first year after Fukushima.
and another small town in the USA has shifted to 100% renewables, saving money in the process:
india is thinking about mandatory roof top solar:
and the US finally reached a new milestone of 20 GW installed solar capacity:
So good news for all of us, who do not like those evil bird shredders!
It’s a pity they do not function at night or when they are covered with snow or dust.
“It’s a pity they do not function at night or when they are covered with snow or dust.”
The most important problem in Japan was summer peak demand. We now know, that solar PV can contribute 10% to that critical time, replacing about 15 nuclear power plants.
The summer night demand is no significant problem.
A lot of that solar was build in just the 5 years since the Fukushima disaster!
So it’s little wonder that Japan is going back to nuclear.