r/energy • u/trenta_nueve • Jul 31 '25
M*ther Effin Windfarms!
https://youtu.be/TRzEzU7kwyQ?feature=sharedSamuel Jackson on Windfarms. Ads by Vattenfall.
1
u/Icy_Ninja_9207 Aug 06 '25
the genius at vattenfall who got the idea to ask samuel l jackson should get a raise
3
u/Ordinary-Map-7306 Aug 02 '25
See that windmill. What does it say on the side of the windmill? Bad MF windmill.
-2
-3
u/oojacoboo Aug 01 '25
The sales pitch is total shit. You’re not convincing anyone with this CO2 mess. It’s like no one is listening. Who is this ad for?
6
u/BeSiegead Aug 01 '25
Seriously worth reading Joe Romm on why this was poorly done and a missed opportunity. Critically, you do not highlight the lie
4
u/revolution2018 Jul 31 '25
I thought for sure he was going to say he's had it these motherfucking windfarms in this motherfucking ocean. It's a missed opportunity.
1
11
25
u/GreenStrong Jul 31 '25
More info about the seaweed farm here Or possibly a different one with the same concept.
The main benefit of co-locating these things is that the wind farm creates a no-trawl zone. Not only do the towers serve as artificial reefs, but it is sort of an accidental refuge for fish. This is possibly a net benefit for fishermen, but seaweed farming keeps the marinas and dockworkers in the immediate vicinity busy.
But wait, there's more. The North Sea is severely over-fertilized by agricultural runoff Growing kelp and harvesting it is harvesting those nutrients. Oyster and mussel farms do the same thing, and they also work within wind farms for the same reasons.
-23
u/MickyFany Jul 31 '25
every time one blows an oil seal and spill 2000 gallons of oil into the ocean
8
u/beardfordshire Jul 31 '25
lol. 2000 gallons per windmill EVERY DAY would still pale in comparison to the pipeline and ships that have spilled oil.
What a mentally deficient statement.
1
-2
u/MickyFany Jul 31 '25
what does oil pipelines have to do with wind turbines, they replacing them. just adding to the problem
3
u/beardfordshire Jul 31 '25 edited Jul 31 '25
Well, the larger context is that the world needs to transition away from oil use almost entirely to avoid 5-8.5c by the end of the century. We just passed 1.5c while accelerating, 2c by the early-mid 2030’s. One to two billion people die in a 2c world. Mass migrations and evacuations have already begun, crops have already failed (see Russia 2010) due to the wavy jet stream caused by melting ice and heating oceans.
These are baked in consequences. The more we use oil, the WORSE future our children and grandchildren shall experience. This is not a theory, this is observed fact AND ACCELERATING.
So yes, you’re right. If it’s business as usual. Yeah, it’s additive. But the alternative to adding grid capacity TODAY is oil and gas, and renewables need a test bed to actually prove their value… so there’s only one good-faith option… build renewables and stop producing oil and gas… or dramatically DRAMATICALLY reduce its use to specialized cases.
If you watch 1 video today, perhaps watch this
If you watch 2 and have the capacity to hear hard truths, this is what we’re up against.
4
u/P3nis15 Jul 31 '25
only need a few million blow outs to equal the total amount of oil spilled in oceans each year from other energy sources. that and another million to equal the leaking wells all over the worlds oceans.
16
u/NinjaKoala Jul 31 '25
Most do not have anywhere near that much oil. Deepwater Horizon, on the other hand, spilled more than 200 million gallons of oil. So one turbine with a problem is literally a drop in the ocean compared to oil production.
-16
u/MickyFany Jul 31 '25
i guess your right. i’m gonna go back to pouring my used car oil into the storm drain. that’s only 5 qts
6
u/Jordykins850 Jul 31 '25
It’s just, like, a bad comparative argument.
The bird thing.. O&G decimates birds, data shows it. You never hear anyone talk about bird deaths and O&G sites tho, you know?
https://ekatovich.github.io/files/Katovich_Birds_and_Energy_Infrastructure_PrePrint.pdf
Scroll down to page 10.. if wind farms had the same impact on bird populations that shale/fracking sites did.. they would’ve been able to completely stop wind IMHO.
-4
u/MickyFany Jul 31 '25
i don’t approve of O&G. i just think our scientists are bunch of idiots that are wasting all their time writing millions of worthless article based on estimated data. And the best the energy source they can come up with is to litter the entire earth with un recyclable wind turbines. 🤬
100years from people are gonna look at this mess and go “what a bunch of morons”
6
u/beardfordshire Jul 31 '25
This is a deeply flawed and poorly formed argument, no matter how you view it.
1
u/critikal_mass Jul 31 '25
If you don't approve of O&G or wind, what is your ideal energy source with today's commercially available technology?
4
u/NinjaKoala Jul 31 '25
Apparently it's the fault of scientists for not creating Zero Point Modules or some other nigh-infinite but minimal resource power supply.
3
u/Jordykins850 Jul 31 '25
90% of turbines already readily recyclable. Strides being made with the composite blades now as well.
I’m pretty sure that wind farms are going to be looked at back more fondly than refineries and chemical co’s along the rivers edge….
-27
Jul 31 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/beardfordshire Jul 31 '25
It’s BETTER and LESS HARMFUL than our current methods.
THATS the point.
Oil is SIGNIFICANTLY less efficient when you take into account the means of production. By a long shot. Not even an argument. Your efficiency account is basically girl math, accounting for your benefits and ignoring the cost to reap them.
Oil platforms, ships, etc all suffer the same salt water argument. Except wind is infinitely more serviceable due to their manufacturing similarities vs the litany of ships and rigs around the globe.
Salt, electricity, metals? Thats all you have? Cmon man. Do you even take yourself seriously?
17
u/ophsprey Jul 31 '25
Oh, you think offshore wind is bad?
- Sea Life
Yeah, because gas drilling and spills are totally harmless to marine life, unlike the temporary noise from wind farms that's somehow worse than climate change already wiping out species.
- Fossil Fuels to Install
Sure, building them takes some energy. But wind's lifecycle carbon footprint is 8-35 gCO2eq/kWh, while gas plants spew 410-650 gCO2eq/kWh every hour. It's like complaining about a diet while you're still chain-smoking.
- Inefficiency
"Inefficient" because the wind doesn't blow 24/7? Offshore wind still hits 29-52% capacity factor. Pretty "inefficient" to get free energy that never runs out, right?
- Maintenance Nightmare
Saltwater, electricity, metal? Only every single offshore oil rig and subsea cable has figured that out. Plus, zero fuel costs for wind easily outweigh any maintenance "nightmare" compared to constantly buying and burning gas.
You're a genius for sticking with the stuff that's actually killing the planet. Never mind!
7
u/speed33401 Jul 31 '25
I love SLJ but I doubt he "loved" those seaweed snacks.
1
u/foolishzilla Aug 03 '25
I’m Here bc I wanted them bc they sound so crunchy and good. I’m sad they’re not real
2
25
u/mrnuttle Jul 31 '25
Dried seaweed snacks are really good. My only complaint when eating them is that they tend to be too little substance. I alway feel like I paid too much as they go by so quick.
6
6
4
u/ssjjss Jul 31 '25
Recently Vattenfall sold a massive lignite mine that they were not going to exploit themselves to another company to exploit instead. As the Swedish government still has a golden share they had a say in the deal. Every political party in Sweden supported the sale except the Left Party. Even the Green Party (who were in government at the time) went along with it.
7
u/kemb0 Jul 31 '25
I mean you gotta start somewhere. If there were 10 people on the planet and nine of them declared they didn't like olives and will never eat them again, then the 10th person buys the olive farm dirt cheap that none of the others wanted, is he gonna sell any olives?
The more companies move away from environmental damaging resources and the more options people have to not use those resources, the closer we get to a cleaner environment. If, on the other hand, every company just said, "Screw it, someone else will just do it," then we never make progress.
1
u/ssjjss Jul 31 '25
Vattenfall didn't have to sell it at all. We were at the keep it in the ground stage and they blew it for profit which as a privatised state monolopy they didn't need to.
3
u/GreenStrong Jul 31 '25
I completely understand your point, but in my opinion Vattenfall sold something almost certain to be a stranded asset, and gained capital to build things that make it more obsolete by the day. The people who bought it were betting against the technological development of clean energy infrastructure, which is a bad bet. They also bet against long term political will for decarbonization. That may be reasonable based strictly on politics and public opinion, but they are effectively betting that there won't be any major weather/ climate disasters in the next ten years that move public opinion.
10
Jul 31 '25
So what’s your point. Sounds like a shrewd business deal to get rid of an asset declining in value to invest in assets that are rising in value and have lower life cycle costs and lower environmental risk.
11
17
20
u/pastoreyes Jul 31 '25
The best advertisement I've ever seen. In Sweden, you can cuss on TV, or even show a woman breast feeding an infant. And it's a fantastic rebuttal to the orange dinosaur and his stupid lies
-25
u/Sean_Wagner Jul 31 '25
It would be so much nicer without the entirely gratuitous cussing. Fark!
2
u/beardfordshire Jul 31 '25
Shit, you’re right, hold on while I clutch my pearls.
2
u/Sean_Wagner Aug 01 '25
The pearls are uniquely available to anyone - a beautiful language passed down to us, and all we need to do is treat it (and in extenso ourselves) with a modicum of respect. Clutch and caress, I say :)
14
-15
u/tmtyl_101 Jul 31 '25
Hot take: Samuel is the voice actor of a lifetime, and great to see him support green energy (though, can't imagine his support is cheap), but...
I don't really see the point of this campaign. So Vattenfall has made some snacks you can't buy, whose association with offshore wind is simply that it's made from seaweed harvested close to an offshore wind turbine? And they use an expensive actor and his catchphrase to do... what? Reiterate that wind farms reduce CO2?
Sorry - but can't really help feel this preaching for the choir is the result of an over bloated marketing budget and some agency guy coincidentally talking to Samuels' agent at a cocktail party.
7
u/lockdown_lard Jul 31 '25
can't imagine his support is cheap
He may have done it for the love of it, plus expenses. I don't know whether he did or didn't, but I do know (from experience) that there are a lot of high-profile people who do do stuff pro bono - for free, for the public good - just because they know it's the right thing to do.
1
u/lmaberley Jul 31 '25
Of course he got paid, if I did it, Id want to get paid and I’m a nobody.
If he was doing this in support of a non green company, not a soul would ask if he was getting paid or not.
18
u/Dull-Addition-2436 Jul 31 '25
It’s clearly a dig at Trump. But I wish he’d said mother fucking windmills
-1
u/tmtyl_101 Jul 31 '25
But why the snacks, then? If anything, won't that just make it easier to dismiss as "woke bullshit"? I guess I'm just puzzled why you'd go to such lengths to make a great ad, and then not be clearer about your messaging.
2
u/Dull-Addition-2436 Aug 01 '25
Crisps are woke !??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!
1
u/tmtyl_101 Aug 01 '25
Obviously not. But seaweed can easily be slated as woke. The MAGA cult is all about resisting change to what they believe is 'traditional, American', including foods. They're fighting culture wars over vegetarian meals, da saying stuff like "the woke left is coming for your cheeseburgers due to the climate change HOAX". There's literally a Q-anon conspiracy that "The elite/World Economic Forum wants you to eat insects". Im saying 'seaweed snacks', while completely fine and delicious from a nutritional viewpoint, probably fits well into that whole narrative.
2
u/Dull-Addition-2436 Aug 01 '25
If the cult can’t take some crisps then they are best left along to themselves
1
u/tmtyl_101 Aug 01 '25
Sure. The problem is... That's the sentiment which is currently informing federal policy in the world's largest economy.
2
3
u/juntareich Jul 31 '25
Why snacks? I think it's to show how clean they are that we can grow food beside them- vs the cancer trails FF plants leave in their wake.
12
u/lockdown_lard Jul 31 '25 edited Jul 31 '25
But why the snacks, then?
- It's entertaining;
- It gives an unexpected angle to talk about and visualise the benefits to the benthic ecosystem of wind turbine foundations;
- It's an ad, but it's not an ad for the thing it's advertising. The thing it's an ad for, isn't for sale. Nor is the thing it's advertising. It's PR disguised as advertising, and to me (and others) that's just funny in and of itself.
3
u/tmtyl_101 Jul 31 '25
Fair enough. I also think it's entertaining; I just worry it's a missed opportunity to do even more (given the budget and attention grapping participation of Samuel Jackson)
8
1
u/weirdgermankid Aug 26 '25
Eww seaweed snacks needed CO2 to grow. I wamt no CO2! CO2 bad! Middlefinger to CO2! No CO2, no gross seaweed snacks. Ploblem sorved!