Alternative energy sources not without costs and environmental impacts


I have also read there are currently over 14,000 abandoned wind turbines in the U.S.


Alternative energy in many cases has significant drawbacks.



Anything we as human beings do, beyond simple down–to–nature subsistence, is going to have costs both financial and environmental.



Not 100% true. The next step is efficient energy storage. The energy produced by generators at a dam is used or not used. Molten salt storage is being used as one way to reduce intermittent generation stoppage.

More research is ongoing.



I suspect molten salt storage has environmental impact as well. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.


Here’s how molten salt storage works.

Aside from an accidental rupture of a storage tank, there is zero environmental impact.



Where have I heard that before? Oh, yes, with nuclear energy! Until Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.


Salt is not radioactive.




I urge you to read the material. Neither Chernobyl nor Three Mile Island accidents are possible with this design approach. Molten Salt reactors don’t contain a pressurized vessel of radioactive water that that can rupture, nor can it go into meltdown.

Also, considering the power produced, old style reactors are proven quite safe, even with their known design flaws.


One of the worst things about these wind turbines is the potential cost to the landowners if they are abandoned. In many leases there is no Provision for removal of the system. They also Look horrible aesthetically. Mountain top removal reclamation is substantially more aesthetic and useful tonlicals than acres and acres of these windmills. We must look to alternative energy sources but we have to be aware of their potential problems and limitations as well.


How true.


But not in all leases. Apex, for example, pays all the costs of decommissioning, including everything down to 4 feet below the surface, so that agricultural land can be returned to the state it was in before the installation. And here is an article about decommissioning that seems quite reasonable. Even this article about Germany Facing Huge Cost Of Wind Farm Decommissioning says that companies in Germany that dismantle wind turbines charge about 30,000 euros - a lot less than the $200,000 quoted in the article cited in the OP. Here is another article about decommissioning in Canada. I have not found any source that confirms the $200,000 number, or the fact that the landowner will necessarily be responsible for that cost.

They also Look horrible aesthetically.

That, of course, is subjective. I suppose the first people to look at Dutch windmills in the 1400’s thought they looked ugly too. But now they are on postcards and in Van Gogh paintings. I suspect that in a few years we will start seeing postcards of the “beautiful” Texas wind farms.


That, of course, is subjective. I suppose the first people to look at Dutch windmills in the 1400’s thought they looked ugly too. But now they are on postcards and in Van Gogh paintings. I suspect that in a few years we will start seeing postcards of the “beautiful” Texas wind farms.


The Parisiens thought in 1889 that the Eiffel Tower was ugly, too.

If TX spins it right, we can make wind generation a tourist attraction.



No, my point was not that these salt containers have a connection to radioactivity, but that first we hear that something is very safe, environmentally-friendly, good, etc., and the *later *we find out the downsides. Windmills seemed perfect… except the cause pollution in a different place through rare-earths mining, they kill endangered species of birds, and so on.

And it wasn’t a terribly serious comment on whether the salt containers should be used or not—in fact, I think nuclear energy should still be used and developed. I just wanted to say that nothing is perfect


All power production methods kill something or damage the environment.
Hydro kills fish and alters habitats downstream by radically alerting water temps.
Solar literally cooks birds in flight.
Geothermal (possibly) causes earthquakes.
And on and on


As you say, nothing is perfect.

The PROBLEM is that the alternative … doing without energy … is WORSE.


Perfect is a relative term, what is perfect for the people may not be perfect for the energy industry.

You all should read about Nikola teslas energy creations and how they were classified due to them not being able to meter its usage, this is the kicker, whatever energy source they decide to use, you can bet they will never ever allow anything that is cheaper or free to use/ access.

The energy industry has been suppressing certain technologies for a long time and its a good bet they will continue to do so.


Conspiracy theory. The fact is there is no free lunch, and the only reason we don’t all have some sort of Tesla energy source for our homes is that it doesn’t work.


If it didnt work, why was it classified, restricting access to it? Im fairly sure it was documented that the reason his electro magnetic energy source was classified was due to it not being ‘meterable’ which would be disastrous for the energy industry.

You can look at some of the technology the energy dept has classified thru the 'INvention secrecy act of 1951, all online, its quite clear what has been going on, basically if its ‘too good’, or potentially disastrous for any industry/ economy, it is classified…? LOL

Its sad to say, if we keep going with this mindset, so much consideration for ensuring the continued existence of certain industries, services, etc, we will never see any major new technology see the light of day.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit