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
@passerby921yr1Y
As for the birds, put the subsidies towards tulip turbines.
@ISIDEWITH13yrs13Y
Yes, the government should support more sustainable energy technologies
@9RM27XZ1yr1Y
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
@HelcovichEmireRepublican5mos5MO
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.
It may be inferior to total energy output, but combined with other renewable energy methods, could serve as a valid replacement.
@9GY94XP2yrs2Y
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.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican5mos5MO
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
@8R5JB36Constitution5yrs5Y
No, give tax credits and subsidies to the nuclear power industry
@B457SQN6mos6MO
Yes, and include other sources of alternative energy production to help us transition from fossil fuels.
@9T64CXP1yr1Y
No, because wind farms have been contributing to environmental damage and the deaths of birds of prey and migratory bird species
@9NHS5NN1yr1Y
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.
@9R8KJB71yr1Y
No, wind power is significantly less efficient than other forms of alternative energy and is way worse for birds.
@9DRNGQ42yrs2Y
No, because wind power kills birds.
@9D4ZPFY2yrs2Y
No, because the wind turbines have been contributing to environmental damage.
@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.
@9SV9J3J1yr1Y
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.
@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?
@95P6HN43yrs3Y
No, because wind turbines are doing environmental damage.
@95LCGPT3yrs3Y
No, because the wind turbines are doing environmental damage.
@8PJ7PNTIndependent5yrs5Y
No, give it to nuclear power instead
@9CKXJYZ2yrs2Y
Yes, and include other types of green energy production.
@8PPQLGG5yrs5Y
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.
@97ZNYJL3yrs3Y
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.
@997JJRF3yrs3Y
No, the industry should be nationalized.
@92N3WPF3yrs3Y
No, wind power is an inferior alternative to oil, coal, nuclear, and solar power.
@8YNZMTY4yrs4Y
No, subsidize nuclear energy
@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.
@B6WWBZ83 days3D
Wind isn't as sustainable as things like nuclear because the cost to make and move the turbines doesn't cancel out the clean energy wind power provides.
I think they should invest in a better energy source that doesn't necessarily kill birds for no wanted reason
@B6R6GMV2wks2W
Yes, temporarily until we make grid parity universal by scaling the manufacturing of solar PV and wind turbines, investing in next-gen tech, expanding R&D funding, deploying grid-scale batteries as well as pumped hydro and thermal storage, incentivizing distributed storage, integrating smart grid tech, upgrading and expanding interregional transmission lines, using HVDC systems, creating energy corridors, shifting to time of use pricing, removing legacy subsidies and tax credits for fossil fuels and redirecting them to grid modernization with sunset clauses, mandating open access for renewables, tailoring incentives to regional gris zones instead of national averages, and embedding community solar programs and microgrids in underserved areas.
@B6QSDZ92wks2W
they should use a clean energy source, but also find a way to protect animals homes and not kill them off.
@B3VGV2T 3wks3W
Whether the government should offer tax credits and subsidies to the wind power industry is a complex and highly debated issue, with strong arguments from different perspectives. Supporters emphasize the environmental and economic benefits, while opponents raise concerns about market distortion, high costs, and grid reliability.
Arguments in favor of tax credits and subsidies
Economic development
Encourages investment: Subsidies like the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) lower the cost of capital for wind projects, incentivizing private-sector investment. In the US,… Read more
@B6LZQQ33wks3W
No. The government has no business subsidizing any private enterprise, regardless of whether or not it is viable.
@B6KLG9Q4wks4W
Yes, but only continue to use them in places where they're not in the way of bird migrations, but don't use them more than they are used right now. Keep most of the current ones, but don't build any more of them.
@B6GK36V1mo1MO
It requires more space than solar power, geothermal, and biomass energy and is dangerous to birds. Then again, it is an efficient renewable energy resource. So, maybe keep the ones we already have and don't build any more, or keep some of the ones we already have, but move others out of the path of bird migrations. And if that still kills too many birds, than just stop using wind power altogether.
@B6GJFXP1mo1MO
I'm conflicted about this issue. I don't like windmills, that they kill birds and that they're generally ugly, but I get that it's a better energy resource.
@B6FGF271mo1MO
No, give tax credits and subsidies to different more efficient forms of power that isnt coal or natural gas instead.
@B65SZ4T2mos2MO
Yes, but we should nationalize the energy sector and align production with ending climate change, rather than injecting money into private companies that care more about profit than climate change
@B654BS52mos2MO
No, the government should nationalize the energy sector to align with ending climate change forever, rather than dumping a bunch of cash into very pockets that caused this crisis
@B632GMWLibertarian2mos2MO
No, the wind power industry isn’t capable of off putting the emissions it uses to create wind turbines.
@B62Q9NNRepublican2mos2MO
Wind Power seems to be a viable means to generate energy, but it's effects on the environment- particularly bird populations- makes it undesirable. It must be improved first.
@B62N6FC2mos2MO
The government, capitalism and the current world order will have to fall for us to fix this ecological disaster. Modern consumption practices in the western world will have to change along with helping the third world get up to better standards. It's the least we could do being the nation's that destabilized and took advantage of them.
Privately owned utilities should not recieve credits and/or subsidies. If taxes are to be used the utilities and infrastructure should be publicly owned.
@B62CRNS2mos2MO
I would say give tax cuts to the wind energy industry not subsidize it as it is efficiency wise inferior to the other alternatives.
Yes but invest more in Nuclear Power and Solar Power. Solar power is effective and harmless. And Nuclear is the cleanest form of energy if done effectively.
@B5ZVZPV2mos2MO
Yes, but there needs to be action taken to decrease the harm it brings to birds and land. It's a good temporary alternative to fossil fuel use but more alternatives need to be found.
@B5ZVPBKLibertarian2mos2MO
Yes, comparable to subsidies provided to other energy sources. Increase investment in nuclear power to provide stable supply for essential infrastructure.
The government should provide subsidies to nuclear power as it provides much more energy than wind/solar and is still cleaner than oil or coal.
Deleted2mos2MO
NO... Government tax credits and subsidies for the wind power industry may look good on the surface and seem helpful for the environment, but they don’t hold up under serious examination. They interfere with the natural flow of the free market, aren’t built to last over time, create weaknesses in the system, and go against key principles like fairness, truthfulness, and responsibility to future generations. A strong and reliable energy future depends on spreading out control, encouraging real innovation without forcing it, and creating policies based on honesty, not on the illusion of expert control.
@B5ZQJL7Republican2mos2MO
wind and solar are key options to replace coal and natural gas. so increase use of these is beneficial.
@B5ZLWF9Independent2mos2MO
we should just switch to nuclear already, unfortunately, there's little way to profit off of that, and it can be very very expensive
@B5ZKV65Independent 2mos2MO
yes, but more to help fund a growing tech. Not forever. There needs to be a limit to where the emerging tech needs to stand on its own feet.
@B5Z96VHIndependent 2mos2MO
No, the negative environmental side effects of wind energy far exceeds the energy benefits it actually produces
Deleted2mos2MO
YES... if executed transparently, governed wisely, and integrated into a long-term, diversified, and human-centered national energy strategy.
Tax credits, possibly, but subsidies, doubtful. Generally not approving of subsidies given to for profit companies.
For a period of time (max ten years) until the industry can support itself. They did this in Norway with EVs.
@B5YV49VRepublican2mos2MO
Tax credits are good if they are the only option, but there are better solutions, such as deregulating permitting processes, that would be more effective.
@B5YQYKPIndependent2mos2MO
No, due to the amount of land needed, how expensive it is, and birds and bats being killed by the fans it’s not the best source out there.
@B5YMVXK2mos2MO
I think that the government should not be trying to force a type of energy on the American people-let the market decide that.
Hard to say, there's too many factors. On one end it's cleaner than coal, but it comes at a cost of the land. I can't chose a side.
@B5YB7932mos2MO
Wind power may be a good alternative to coal and natural gas, but they still are a threat to birds, and we should think of other ways to naturally produce energy for the government to support that doesn't harm the wildlife.
@B5XVFLK3mos3MO
No. Governments should OPERATE all public utilities without cost to consumers unless their consumption impacts other users.
Yes, but there should be something put in place to help protect birds from being harmed by the wind farms
@B5M9VSWRepublican4mos4MO
The wind power industry is too ineffiecent to get tax credits, we should focus on more efficient clean energy sources, like nuclear power.
@6LV5ZML 4mos4MO
Yes, but the industry should be better regulated to protect against environmental damage and unethical/unfair business practices that impact communities wind farms are coming into.
@B5FZNF24mos4MO
Wind power isn't as conservative as everyone thinks, it kills a massive amount of birds and takes the clearing of large areas of land in order to construct these pillars.
@B5B4R8R4mos4MO
No, subsidies should only be given for research instead of finished product. Let the corporations see it's benefit and invest on their own
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
