Wind energy was the source of about 9.2% of total U.S. electricity generation and about 46% of electricity generation from renewable energy in 2021. Wind turbines convert wind energy into electricity. President Biden’s 2021 $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan included a 10 year extension of wind and solar tax credits. Qualifying wind farms will receive tax benefits based on their output for a 10-year period. The credits, which can be shared with investment partners, reduce federal tax bills. Opponents to wind farms, including many environmental biologists argue that they are one of the…
Read moreNarrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
Yes
@passerby928mos8MO
As for the birds, put the subsidies towards tulip turbines.
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
Yes, the government should support more sustainable energy technologies
@9RM27XZ10mos10MO
Climate change must be resisted, and we do not know which technologies will advance to play key roles. Government investment will keep more ideas afloat until they have a chance to pay off
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
No, end all tax credits and subsidies to the energy industry
@9FL7LY4 2yrs2Y
Providing tax credits will allow people to support alternative energy including buying electric cars and using solar panels in their houses.
@9FMWKJZ2yrs2Y
Yes, tax credits and subsidies encourage development and growth of the sector that will eventually become the future of the world as we aim to become more efficient and sustainable on the planet.
Providing tax credits will allow people to support alternative energy including buying electric cars and using solar panels in their houses
Yes, the government needs to stop giving subsidies to many private industries so taxes can be reduced
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
No, wind power is an inferior alternative to oil, coal, and nuclear power
It may be inferior but it keeps our environment safe. Either we adapt to having a slightly inferior energy source or improve it.
@9GKCDDP2yrs2Y
Sure, but it isn't killing our planet. Other sources, like nuclear, hydroelectric, and solar should be implemented as well.
@8FG2SKMAmerican Solidarity 11mos11MO
It may be inferior to total energy output, but combined with other renewable energy methods, could serve as a valid replacement.
@9GY94XP1yr1Y
Wind power is the most sustainable of those options and therefore the future of our county. Oil and coal are two of dirtiest non-renewable resources, while nuclear became demonized for no reason but is a perfect acceptable, much cleaner, form of energy that we should use in transition to mainly wind, solar, etc. power that is 100% renewable.
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
Yes, wind power is the best alternative to coal and natural gas
@xnativevikingx2yrs2Y
Because if we help nature with power that doesn't draw from the earth, but from when that's given to us from nature we can guess we'll have less power but will have power so we'll be able to use the wind to aid us but without destroying what keeps us alive
@NiftyPe0plesParty2yrs2Y
While I appreciate your perspective on using what nature provides, it's important to remember that wind power also has its own environmental footprint. The production of wind turbines involves substantial materials, energy, and land use. For instance, rare earth minerals, used in the magnets of wind turbines, are often mined in conditions that are not environmentally friendly. Moreover, wind farms can have significant impacts on bird and bat populations.
I am wondering, how would you propose we address these environmental concerns in our push for wind energy? Let's think creatively here!
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
There's already solutions for birds and bats dying, paint one of the turbine blades black as the birds can rarely ever see the turbines before they get hit. Add noises that bats and birds alike would hate to repel them from the turbines. The land usage is substantial, but massive gaps are left in between turbines. The cost is rather minimal and if we increased the height and size, it could drastically increase it's energy output. The rare earth metals required are actually in rather small portions so I'd say that's less of an issue. If necessary, we could use asteroids as a source of copper in the future.
It may be, but the government still should not subsidize any energy industry
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
No, and the government should never support unproven technologies
@9D2WJFY2yrs2Y
No, because the wind turbines have been contributing to environmental harm and damage.
@8J8F4XS5yrs5Y
Yes, but only for a transitional period of time to make them competitive and attractive to investors
@8R5JB36Constitution4yrs4Y
No, give tax credits and subsidies to the nuclear power industry
@9T64CXP8mos8MO
No, because wind farms have been contributing to environmental damage and the deaths of birds of prey and migratory bird species
@9D4ZPFY2yrs2Y
No, because the wind turbines have been contributing to environmental damage.
@9FDD7ST2yrs2Y
Wind mills are causing mass death to birds. Stop all funding and ban them asap as they are doing more harm then good
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Wind turbines kill less than communication towers and I see no attempts to destroy them entirely. An easy fix to that problem is making 1 wind turbine blade black so the birds can see it, and play sounds they'll hate to repel them away. If birds are your concern, think how many will die from the inevitable fact that fossil fuels will at least partially fill the void if wind energy goes away.
The use of bird-repelling sounds could potentially disrupt local ecosystems, causing stress and behavioral changes in not only birds but also other wildlife species.
Moreover, it's crucial to remember that fossil fuels are not the only alternative to wind energy. Other renewable sources like solar and hydroelectric power could fill the void, which might not have the same impact on bird populations.
What are your ideas on mitigating the ecological impacts of these alternative energy sources?
@9R8KJB710mos10MO
No, wind power is significantly less efficient than other forms of alternative energy and is way worse for birds.
@9NHS5NN11mos11MO
It's good that the government is supporting other sustainable energy technologies but they should take in consideration of others things like wildlife, people, homes, and land to make sure its safe as well.
@9D3RPBQ2yrs2Y
We must nationalise the energy sector ands the government should support more sustainable energy technologies
@8KNSKRQ5yrs5Y
Yes, and the government should support more sustainable energy technologies including wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear.
@9DRNGQ42yrs2Y
No, because wind power kills birds.
@9FJXY9Z 2yrs2Y
No, wind energy is highly ineffective and the government should support other alternative forms of energy such as nuclear and hydro electric power.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Wind energy is surprisingly capable for local areas, a single turbine for a farm can easily power the entire place with a large surplus. It’s all about the size and funding, the funding isn’t too much of an issue considering it’s among the cheapest energy sources on earth. It leaves a lot of space between wind farms and is rather reliable in windy areas. Hydro electric is actually the most dangerous non-fossil fuel energy out there. Its biggest disaster, the Banqiao Dam Eruption in China killed an amount of people ranging from 88,000-240,000. Millions were affected and it’s arguably a worse immediate disaster than Chernobyl. I still hold strong belief in both nuclear and hydro, but remember that no non-fossil fuel energy source should be left out.
@9F56K6ZLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, let the free market figure out the best solutions.
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
The free market doesn't figure out the best solutions, that's the point...
@8RYR5834yrs4Y
No, give the money to nuclear.
@9D5XBHH2yrs2Y
No, because the government should support more sustainable energy technologies and wind turbines have been contributing to environmental damage.
@9SV9J3J8mos8MO
They should encourage this, but they should make sure they turn off the windmills during migration season and should not take over more land for these.
@95P6HN43yrs3Y
No, because wind turbines are doing environmental damage.
@95LCGPT3yrs3Y
No, because the wind turbines are doing environmental damage.
@8PJ7PNTIndependent4yrs4Y
No, give it to nuclear power instead
@9CKXJYZ2yrs2Y
Yes, and include other types of green energy production.
@8PPQLGG4yrs4Y
No, wind power is an inferior alternative to hydroelectric power
@96259PT3yrs3Y
No, because the wind turbines are contributing to environmental damage.
@8JFF7BWIndependent5yrs5Y
Yes, but only until a better solution to our reliance on carbon heavy industries is found.
@97ZNYJL2yrs2Y
Yes, Nationalize the power industry
@97B7BJ4Independent3yrs3Y
No, it is inferior to hydrogen and nuclear fusion, which is far more environmentally friendly and sustainable.
@9CKHCCM2yrs2Y
No, the government should support nuclear energy instead.
@997JJRF2yrs2Y
No, the industry should be nationalized.
@92N3WPF3yrs3Y
No, wind power is an inferior alternative to oil, coal, nuclear, and solar power.
@8VPDB6CConstitution4yrs4Y
Yes, but only tax credits and no subsidies
@8TGFDKRIndependent4yrs4Y
No, subsidize nuclear power
@8TBK3BQ4yrs4Y
No, end all tax credits and subsidies to the energy industry No, and the government should never support unproven technologies No, wind power is an inferior alternative to oil, coal, and nuclear power
@8RXWTGT4yrs4Y
No, give tax credits to nuclear power.
@Einsteinium1085yrs5Y
No, it is inferior to nuclear.
@B54P94T1wk1W
Yes, but in moderation, the use of coal and nuclear power is too far integrated to have them be cut off.
@B4VPGV22wks2W
Yes, but the government should continue to look into solutions that might be even better than wind power
@B4KLCSB4wks4W
no I don't think that wind power will ever be able to provide the same amount of energy production then other sources
yes becuse wind is better for our envierment but that shouldn't clear out spots for them and to make ways for it to stop killing birds
@B4HQNSV1mo1MO
No, but they should strongly encourage or provide incentives for wind power energy as well as be truthful and honest about its positive effect on the environment.
@B4GWZ4JIndependent1mo1MO
Yes. But incentivize nuclear energy as well. It's the most efficient and longest lasting form of energy we have
@B4CFVS5Republican1mo1MO
No, for the sake of low taxes, low national debt, capitalism, weak government, checks and balances, and federalism.
@B48ZGNN1mo1MO
While I believe that renewable energy should be a priority, I am concerned about subsidies, due to government indebtedness.
@B46XBVPProgressive2mos2MO
Yes, but also give tax credit to nuclear power industry and increase research funds in nuclear field
Yes, but I think that we should also focus more on hydroelectric power plants, not more than wind, but where we can use hydroelectricity, we should use it.
@B457SQN2mos2MO
Yes, and include other sources of alternative energy production to help us transition from fossil fuels.
@B3ZYM5D2mos2MO
Yes, as long as they government does not ban fossil fuels for the sake of freedom, a weak central government, federalism, and checks and balances, does not raise taxes, and keeps the national debt deflated
@B3VGV2T 2mos2MO
Whether the government should grant tax credits and subsidies to the wind power industry is a complex issue with both potential benefits and drawbacks. Some argue that these incentives are necessary to promote renewable energy, stimulate economic growth, and combat climate change, while others contend that they distort the market, are uneconomical, and can lead to unintended consequences. MIT Climate Portal discusses these benefits and drawbacks, The Heritage Foundation discusses this as well.
Here's a more detailed breakdown of the arguments:
Arguments for Tax Credits and Subsidies:
@9L4Z23BIndependent 2mos2MO
Yes, and it should expand beyond wind power and go to all clean and renewable energy sources, including nuclear. Subsidies and tax credits should be targeted and be compared to benchmarks such as lower utility costs, reducing manufacturing costs, creating permanent jobs, etc. And if benchmarks aren't met, subsidies should be clawed back
@B3NMTKX2mos2MO
No, there are more efficient ways to make energy renewably, such as using nuclear and geothermal energy instead, that harm the environment less if proper regulations are taken.
@B3GGFNK2mos2MO
Wind power is inferior. The government should not subsidize the industry but should incentivize the development of more and more efficient wind powered devices.
No, they should provide further tax credits and subsidies to other alternative energy sources instead.
@B3D6N7Q2mos2MO
Yes, while also joint funding many different energy solution and then giving different funding amounts based on the amount of progress shown or output yielded.
@B32H4XM3mos3MO
Yes, we should look into wind power, but coal and natural gas should still be preserved incase of emergency.
@B2WMTV83mos3MO
Yes and no, why yes, wind power is a clean, efficient alternative to something like coal, I also don't want any birds to die.
@B2VFNLC3mos3MO
current wind power such as windmills cause mass bird death, only if a near complete reduction of this should we reconsider wind power
@B2SHHWC3mos3MO
No wind power is an inherently inefficient form of energy production, we would do better to subsidize nuclear, solar, and hydropower.
Perhaps in more rural/appropriate areas (wind power is not ideal for every region) where it is needed or areas that would like to make something of a transition. However wind power is not the most efficient and while cleaner is unsustainable in the sense that it is difficult sometimes to make it work.
@B2SBL9X3mos3MO
no the government should give incentive for homeowners to install solar panels and batteries to store electricity.
@B2PW7H93mos3MO
The government has no reason giving a large corporation that makes billions or millions yearly tax cuts or credits.
@B2KTDLW3mos3MO
i honestly love birds and hate there being killed but I believe the wind power has helped and can continue helping
@B2HDPPX4mos4MO
Tax credits should be allowed when the company also is working with environmental issues concerning the issues windmills cause
@B2DLJJ64mos4MO
Wind should not be our most reliable and funded source. To curate useful renewable wind energy we would have to cause so much destruction to acquire the precious metals and clear the land for the wind turbines that it isn't necessarily better. Thorium reactors are where it's at for least ecologically impactful renewable resource.
@B2BMDWP4mos4MO
Yes, but the nuclear power industry should receive larger credits and subsidies due to its greater effeciency
@B29F8L74mos4MO
yes, but more money should go to nuclear as it produces more clean energy and uses less material to operate and can be run for years without refueling and is well maintained
@B28SZ6K4mos4MO
Yes, but the government giving tax credits and subsidies to any industry should be on a short-term basis, with continued renewal of funding being contingent on independent evaluations showing the effectiveness of the technology.
@B28CXLM4mos4MO
I don't support killing birds, but I'm a huge fan of clean energy, so I lean on the side of the clean energy
@B265DP95mos5MO
I do believe that wind power is one of our best alternatives to fossil fuels, but I do worry about the risk it has on our wildlife and I think that should be taken into thought about where and when we use this technology. I also believe that it is better to give tax credits or financial support to green energy over fossil fuels any day.
Yes, and look into bird-proofing wind farms to prevent the deaths of migratory birds, or also look into and rely on solar energy to truly reduce deaths of migratory birds.
no, dont give credits or subsidies to any companies the government has allowed to monopolize areas. tax all of them.
@9ZRH46C6mos6MO
they should focus and support on clean energy yes, like nuclear, but until we reduce our national debt, things should wait.
@9ZR3FXB6mos6MO
No, these 'clean' energies aren't as efficient and haven't yet reached the capabilities to make them more long-term sustainable. Most clean energies require the fuel or products of other industries.
@9ZPV3PCLibertarian6mos6MO
No, I believe that nuclear power is the more efficient and clean form of power out of any sustainable or fossil source
No, wind power takes more resources and energy than it provides, instead spend money on hydro or solar energy
@9ZMQVH26mos6MO
yes, but the government should invest in less harmful alternative energy methods to the environment, and if they do decide to build wind farms then they should make sure its not in the migration patterns for birds species.
@9ZL5XZ3Constitution6mos6MO
No, wind is the least efficient green energy and these wind farms disturb communities to sell power to other states
@9ZC5Q7V 6mos6MO
The only thing the government needs to do is clean our water sources (rivers, lakes, ponds, oceans, streams, etc), tax and fine individuals and corporations that would pollute the environment, make them face criminal charges, and also get our country to be reforested to at least 70%. In addition there should be big incentives to require green architecture and design to encourage a harmonious existence with nature itself, and all power sources in the country should be slowly replaced by clean energy sources that are not only reliable but also have a true carbon negative full-life-span from pre-production to post use. This will solve the carbon positive issues we have and put us into a carbon negative approach.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
