A minor point, but in addition to seeming to lack a profit motive, CCP also enforces labor compensation at ridiculously low levels across their economy. That also factors into manufacturing decisions. Probably why the US and Europe focus on the industries that we do.
Truest words ever. I've been amazed at what machinists, sheet metal workers, pattern and die makers and carpenters can do by instinct. Their artistic skills and ability to visualize the finished product in three dimensions sets them apart from many engineers - maybe most.
The USA makes schools and training too easy, makes leisure the priority and rewards the wrong things.
"... makes leisure the priority and rewards the wrong things..."
If I can pile on here, I think a big part of the problem is that we don't teach children that they can actually MAKE things. We raise excellent generations of Consumers, for whom it's Someone Else on the backstage that creates the Products that they want. Life becomes oriented toward solving puzzles instead of building solutions. We dispose of broken things instead of taking the time to repair them.
Matthew Crawford tackled this problem two decades ago in "Shop Class as Soulcraft"[1]:
"The satisfactions of manifesting oneself concretely in the world through manual competence have been known to make a man quiet and easy. They seem to relieve him of the felt need to offer chattering interpretations of himself to vindicate his worth. He can simply point: the building stands, the car now runs, the lights are on. Boasting is what a boy does, who has no real effect in the world. But craftsmanship must reckon with the infallible judgment of reality, where one’s failures or shortcomings cannot be interpreted away."
I'll be interested to learn how (or if) China inoculates its workers with a sense of craft for what they are building to sell to Americans, but one remedy I would propose for the US is to bring back curriculum and classes that teach students that they have agency to change their world through Creation, be that shop class, art lessons, music instruction, etc. Without that "Maker Mindset", there's no way America - with its smaller population - has any hope of catching up with China.
I don't think it's true that we're not making things in general - just look at Etsy or YouTube/TikTok for examples. It's more "What are we making?" - and that's a lot of software, content, and of course services. But: this ain't about "the USA" because it's not an industrial policy at play - it's what the market demands, and people are happy to supply it.
I do agree that wood and metal shops would be good to have back in schools, and of course the arts - but then again are we willing to spend the money on it (insurance for the shops, materials/personnel for the arts)? I think not, unfortunately - Grover Norquist was successful and our ability to raise taxes is basically gone.
One thing I will also agree with is that we make it too easy to go to college: there needs to be higher standards again, at least for 4-year schools.
I think a large part of it is a learned helplessness when it comes to people and the physical world. True, there's a robust community of makers and tinkerers on YouTube and Etsy (I'm in their audience), but compared to all the wannabe "influencers" and similar folks, they're a minority.
Ironically, I lay a good deal of the blame for this state of the world at the feet of the late Steve Jobs, who pushed his whole life for a vision of new technology being a closed box that designers dictated to "users" what they would do and how they would use it.
He introduced the first modern successful closed software ecosystem in the App Store (where Apple gets final say on what you can deploy to your iOS devices) and with industrial designer Jony Ives, pushed to close hardware, where you would have to make appointments at a "Genius Bar" to resolve your issue, instead of servicing it yourself. This has led others to follow in his footsteps, where we have entire generations of usable mobile hardware that's useless due to the cryptography that limits users updating things like the SSL certificates and browsers needed to be useful in the current day, resulting in mountains of ewaste at the local dump (when we're not shipping devices back to their makers to be mined for the still-valuable metals contained within).
(Note that this Jobesian vision is also what enables the "enshittification" of our devices Curtis mentions - "weekly changes" - since we are no longer in full control of the devices we paid good money for, and the spreadsheet jockeys are working hard at financializing our entire online experience through surveillance and advertising.)
The existence of online channels like Macho Nacho and the hardware mod communities is push in the right direction (in particular, I LOVE the iPod modding community, which has opened up Jobs' first big successful closed platform[1]), but it also highlights that we no longer live in an era where folks would trick out and enhance their machines on their own, and that wasn't unusual enough to be worth documenting in a YouTube video.
This seems more of a rant about how computing has changed, becoming easier to use in general while also leading to lack of knowledge on how computing actually works. It probably has more to do with them being far more consumerized than previous computers, and smartphones are just the most in our face example: laptops and mini PCs are almost equally egregious when it comes to obsolescence, with soldered CPUs and memory.
I think we can probably just blame consumers in general, though: a lot of people don't care to know how something works, they just want it to work. That applies to computers, cars, and technology in general - and explains why mechanics/computer techs/specialists in general exist.
Funny thing, I was just joking about teaching the kids how to install DOS. Neither one knows how to actually use a computer, which I'm debating how to approach - because we don't have a family computer per sé (the kids have an old iPad we let them use periodically). My wife has brought up some form of typing class/program, but I don't think that'll really teach them how they work.
It's more a rant on how the center of gravity with respect to who controls the computing experience has shifted from the customers to the vendors, which contributes to the overall learned helplessness. It's all a part of my overall thesis that we're (humans) generating complexity at a rate faster than our ability to collectively deal with it.
As for DOS and iPads, check out UTM[1].
As for teaching kids how all this technology around us works, I've gotten my nieces their first custom keyboard kits for Christmas.[2] Not only is there a little bit of physical construction required (basically some simple soldering and assembly), it's an interesting way to teach some basic firmware programming (it's less intimidating than it sounds) so that they can shape their keyboards to do exactly what they want it to do. (In my mind, this plays out like little Jedis building their first lightsabers.)
True that most people do not know how computers work but even those that do, do not want to learn a new language every month or so. They also would not want to want to reprogram their Roku every time the channel lineup changes or their auto combustion system if the emission rules change.
Programming/coding and understanding how a computer work are kinda separate things, and languages aren't changing that fast. Heck, you can code without knowing how the components in a computing device actually work together.
Creating and making stuff is good. Some of the most talented engineers I worked with were also talented musicians and were often the ones who had machine shops or woodworking shops. One of them even manufactured a spare part for my favorite fishing reel that I had given up repairing.
SGman points out that we, as a nation, produce more than ever - just with fewer people. If we could develop more workers with the drive to accomplish something useful, we could compete. We need several thousand Mike Rowe type programs.
I don't things have changed for the better since I retired 24 years ago. It was difficult then to hire skilled craftsmen willing to work regular hours and remain fit for duty. I do not believe more management majors, and sociology majors, and political science majors. I'm not sure we need many more software developers but that's just a personal rebellion against the weekly changes inflicted on my home computer. Most just make things more complicated and the rest are necessary to back out the unworkable changes.
Don't worry - in the same way that the folks who make physical things committed a collective occupational suicide when they started outsourcing manufacturing overseas, software development is doing the same thing by replacing junior positions with AI replacements, handing over control over their destiny to the likes of Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Elon Musk.
Unfortunately, that's going to accelerate your computing experience getting worse, because the spreadsheet jockeys won't have to actually find compliant Labor to convince to implement their schemes that care nothing for you or your experience with your device.
Important to look at the history though: manufacturing as a percentage of employment has been declining since the 1940s, before outsourcing existed. It's just technological advancement at play: more production with less effort.
I think most workers accomplish something useful, whether that's in production or service. If there's an issue, it's that the attention economy - content, etc... - is competing for the same personnel, and content creation (which can be a lot of work) pays well enough for many to focus solely on that. That's a market being served, ultimately - and combatting that involves some other decisions that seem unrelated (like more density in cities/metro areas, making it easier to interact in person and not rely on content for entertainment).
I cannot wait for the GPT/LLM crash: I find them to be only semi-useful, and when it comes to my work basically not at all. I tried having one give me a breakdown of steps/commands for moving a certificate authority, and it ended up putting a non-existent command in one of the steps.
Part of the story involves war time spikes and the post-WWII period where America was pretty much the only game in the for manufacturing. That period's end - due to technology advancements and competition - do a lot to explain why the US doesn't have as many machinists now.
It also depends on what the government wants to incentivize. As noted here, China is subsidizing a lot of (likely unsustainable) growth.
Stable industrial policy/strategy could help here, but that means there being some form of agreement politically on these matters - and right now there isn't. Companies can't really invest if policy changes every couple years. For example: the Obama and Biden presidencies were prioritizing electrification and making treaties to subvert China's growth/influence. Trump killed both the treaties (first term) and incentives for electrification (second term).
These are just my immediate thoughts, I'm sure there will be more.
Addendum: I recall one thing that needs be said - we are still producing pretty much the most we ever have, we just do it with a lot fewer people involved.
I somewhat agree. I did look at what treaties you might be talking about. The only one I thought might have major economic consequences was the TPP which was no shoo-in with either party.
I don't know what you mean by electrification unless it's electric vehicles and batteries and alternative energy sources none of which are universally popular. When I think of batteries and Obama, only Solyndra comes to mind. Biden did encourage nuclear power as does Trump.
Obama would be the solar panel manufacturing incentives, yes - but also consider fuel efficiency standards, renewable energy infrastructure more generally, and the Clean Power Plan. And yes TPP - but also look at NAFTA/USMCA and current tariff policy for examples (like "Why tariff toys but loosen sanctions/export controls on semiconductor").
Electrification isn't just EVs and batteries, of which those are a ln important part: electric ranges, electric heating systems, etc... As we discussed, it's about what we want to incentivize - and it's important to shift the incentives/subsidies to match policy.
It's about our energy policy and the need to move away from carbon burning more generally (whether fossil or bio-fuels) as those are both finite resources and/or involve opportunity cost issues (e.g. growing inedible corn for ethanol production rather than using that land for food production/other uses).
The goals are ostensibly lower energy costs (solar is the least expensive to install/run, and the new sodium batteries are much cheaper/safer than lithium for GRID-level storage) and energy independence - so, what's our actual strategy for the long term? "Drill baby drill" is just nonsense, as we've noted in prior discussions - we're producing more oil than ever, and it's still a finite supply that will never be regenerated.
Everything is finite. Even sodium and land for solar arrays. But we do need alternative energy sources. We just need more of what we have now until we can get to the next level. By "now", I mean for at least a decade or two.
I basically do not like batteries to power transportation, construction and farming equipment. I believe windmills are an environmental disaster. Solar has a lot of potential but maintaining large stable grid without heavy rotating machinery is questionable. That could change but it might cost some efficiency. Nuclear power combined with solar is a possibility.
Important thing missing in your response: *why* don't you like using batteries for transportation/et al? Why do you believe windmills are a disaster? Where do batteries fit in in your thoughts on solar/win/hydro/geothermal energy storage for maintaining a stable grid?
Yes, everything is finite - but some are less finite than others. Sodium is basically limitless, and a byproduct from other areas (like desalination) that make it more useful - besides the benefit of not needing to extract lithium.
We will need to utilize natural gas and nuclear while the transition occurs, but the transition is needed regardless - so what's the plan, and how do we shape our policies around that?
Battery powered transportation and rolling stock have limited range and I can picture mountains of dead batteries. Windmills are hazardous to birds and sea life and they are ugly. I've read that whale sounds can be detected in water at distances of 1500 miles. I believe the sounds and vibrations confuse sea life. I know they kill birds even when not generating. I have personally seen hundreds of dead birds at the base of a nuclear plant cooling tower that a flock must have flown into during the night. That was at a plant with only two cooling towers. I'm convinced that an array of windmills stretching for a half mile or more would do more killing. Maintaining a large stable 60 hertz electrical grid is not simple. The amount of protective relaying is unbelievable to novices like us. There are under frequency, over frequency, over current, under current, overvoltage and undervoltage relays that shut down the grid and interties almost instantaneously.
Every vehicle has limited range. EV range is dependent on size of battery (and solid state batteries hold promise for greater ranges), charging can take as little as 20 minutes (or 5 minutes if using battery swaps) a batteries can be recycled after they lose significant life (over 10 years). Also important to remember about range is that most people don't drive that far in a day: the average is 30-40 miles per. Our EV has ~250mi of range when fully charged, which is enough for a week of driving - but then again, if you just plug in every night your basically always ready for a longer drive if needed. I also think that most EVs have too much focus on 0-60 speed, and lowering the HP in most models would make for greater efficiency (my Niro EV makes 201HP, and 0-60 in 7 seconds - which is really quite fast.
Aesthetics are unimportant.
Windmills can be dangerous to birds, yes - which is where alternative shapes can be used to minimize or remove any threat to them. Windmills aren't limited to ocean installations. If something is bothering whales most, it's ships and sonar systems - which makes those a more urgent and important target for controlling said noise pollution.
Large installations of batteries that can absorb excess energy production and discharge during peak demand sounds a lot more stable than spinning up gas generators when needed, especially with technology managing that push/pull.
A minor point, but in addition to seeming to lack a profit motive, CCP also enforces labor compensation at ridiculously low levels across their economy. That also factors into manufacturing decisions. Probably why the US and Europe focus on the industries that we do.
When the state owns the people, it can use them as it sees fit.
Truest words ever. I've been amazed at what machinists, sheet metal workers, pattern and die makers and carpenters can do by instinct. Their artistic skills and ability to visualize the finished product in three dimensions sets them apart from many engineers - maybe most.
The USA makes schools and training too easy, makes leisure the priority and rewards the wrong things.
"... makes leisure the priority and rewards the wrong things..."
If I can pile on here, I think a big part of the problem is that we don't teach children that they can actually MAKE things. We raise excellent generations of Consumers, for whom it's Someone Else on the backstage that creates the Products that they want. Life becomes oriented toward solving puzzles instead of building solutions. We dispose of broken things instead of taking the time to repair them.
Matthew Crawford tackled this problem two decades ago in "Shop Class as Soulcraft"[1]:
"The satisfactions of manifesting oneself concretely in the world through manual competence have been known to make a man quiet and easy. They seem to relieve him of the felt need to offer chattering interpretations of himself to vindicate his worth. He can simply point: the building stands, the car now runs, the lights are on. Boasting is what a boy does, who has no real effect in the world. But craftsmanship must reckon with the infallible judgment of reality, where one’s failures or shortcomings cannot be interpreted away."
I'll be interested to learn how (or if) China inoculates its workers with a sense of craft for what they are building to sell to Americans, but one remedy I would propose for the US is to bring back curriculum and classes that teach students that they have agency to change their world through Creation, be that shop class, art lessons, music instruction, etc. Without that "Maker Mindset", there's no way America - with its smaller population - has any hope of catching up with China.
[1] https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/shop-class-as-soulcraft
I don't think it's true that we're not making things in general - just look at Etsy or YouTube/TikTok for examples. It's more "What are we making?" - and that's a lot of software, content, and of course services. But: this ain't about "the USA" because it's not an industrial policy at play - it's what the market demands, and people are happy to supply it.
I do agree that wood and metal shops would be good to have back in schools, and of course the arts - but then again are we willing to spend the money on it (insurance for the shops, materials/personnel for the arts)? I think not, unfortunately - Grover Norquist was successful and our ability to raise taxes is basically gone.
One thing I will also agree with is that we make it too easy to go to college: there needs to be higher standards again, at least for 4-year schools.
<old_man_yelling_at_clouds>
I think a large part of it is a learned helplessness when it comes to people and the physical world. True, there's a robust community of makers and tinkerers on YouTube and Etsy (I'm in their audience), but compared to all the wannabe "influencers" and similar folks, they're a minority.
Ironically, I lay a good deal of the blame for this state of the world at the feet of the late Steve Jobs, who pushed his whole life for a vision of new technology being a closed box that designers dictated to "users" what they would do and how they would use it.
He introduced the first modern successful closed software ecosystem in the App Store (where Apple gets final say on what you can deploy to your iOS devices) and with industrial designer Jony Ives, pushed to close hardware, where you would have to make appointments at a "Genius Bar" to resolve your issue, instead of servicing it yourself. This has led others to follow in his footsteps, where we have entire generations of usable mobile hardware that's useless due to the cryptography that limits users updating things like the SSL certificates and browsers needed to be useful in the current day, resulting in mountains of ewaste at the local dump (when we're not shipping devices back to their makers to be mined for the still-valuable metals contained within).
(Note that this Jobesian vision is also what enables the "enshittification" of our devices Curtis mentions - "weekly changes" - since we are no longer in full control of the devices we paid good money for, and the spreadsheet jockeys are working hard at financializing our entire online experience through surveillance and advertising.)
The existence of online channels like Macho Nacho and the hardware mod communities is push in the right direction (in particular, I LOVE the iPod modding community, which has opened up Jobs' first big successful closed platform[1]), but it also highlights that we no longer live in an era where folks would trick out and enhance their machines on their own, and that wasn't unusual enough to be worth documenting in a YouTube video.
</old_man_yelling_at_clouds>
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMHUaxYshmQ
This seems more of a rant about how computing has changed, becoming easier to use in general while also leading to lack of knowledge on how computing actually works. It probably has more to do with them being far more consumerized than previous computers, and smartphones are just the most in our face example: laptops and mini PCs are almost equally egregious when it comes to obsolescence, with soldered CPUs and memory.
I think we can probably just blame consumers in general, though: a lot of people don't care to know how something works, they just want it to work. That applies to computers, cars, and technology in general - and explains why mechanics/computer techs/specialists in general exist.
Funny thing, I was just joking about teaching the kids how to install DOS. Neither one knows how to actually use a computer, which I'm debating how to approach - because we don't have a family computer per sé (the kids have an old iPad we let them use periodically). My wife has brought up some form of typing class/program, but I don't think that'll really teach them how they work.
It's more a rant on how the center of gravity with respect to who controls the computing experience has shifted from the customers to the vendors, which contributes to the overall learned helplessness. It's all a part of my overall thesis that we're (humans) generating complexity at a rate faster than our ability to collectively deal with it.
As for DOS and iPads, check out UTM[1].
As for teaching kids how all this technology around us works, I've gotten my nieces their first custom keyboard kits for Christmas.[2] Not only is there a little bit of physical construction required (basically some simple soldering and assembly), it's an interesting way to teach some basic firmware programming (it's less intimidating than it sounds) so that they can shape their keyboards to do exactly what they want it to do. (In my mind, this plays out like little Jedis building their first lightsabers.)
[1] https://getutm.app/
[2] https://keeb.io/products/bdn9-rev-3-pcb-3x3-9-key-macropad-rotary-encoder-and-rgb
True that most people do not know how computers work but even those that do, do not want to learn a new language every month or so. They also would not want to want to reprogram their Roku every time the channel lineup changes or their auto combustion system if the emission rules change.
Programming/coding and understanding how a computer work are kinda separate things, and languages aren't changing that fast. Heck, you can code without knowing how the components in a computing device actually work together.
Creating and making stuff is good. Some of the most talented engineers I worked with were also talented musicians and were often the ones who had machine shops or woodworking shops. One of them even manufactured a spare part for my favorite fishing reel that I had given up repairing.
SGman points out that we, as a nation, produce more than ever - just with fewer people. If we could develop more workers with the drive to accomplish something useful, we could compete. We need several thousand Mike Rowe type programs.
I don't things have changed for the better since I retired 24 years ago. It was difficult then to hire skilled craftsmen willing to work regular hours and remain fit for duty. I do not believe more management majors, and sociology majors, and political science majors. I'm not sure we need many more software developers but that's just a personal rebellion against the weekly changes inflicted on my home computer. Most just make things more complicated and the rest are necessary to back out the unworkable changes.
Don't worry - in the same way that the folks who make physical things committed a collective occupational suicide when they started outsourcing manufacturing overseas, software development is doing the same thing by replacing junior positions with AI replacements, handing over control over their destiny to the likes of Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Elon Musk.
Unfortunately, that's going to accelerate your computing experience getting worse, because the spreadsheet jockeys won't have to actually find compliant Labor to convince to implement their schemes that care nothing for you or your experience with your device.
Important to look at the history though: manufacturing as a percentage of employment has been declining since the 1940s, before outsourcing existed. It's just technological advancement at play: more production with less effort.
I think most workers accomplish something useful, whether that's in production or service. If there's an issue, it's that the attention economy - content, etc... - is competing for the same personnel, and content creation (which can be a lot of work) pays well enough for many to focus solely on that. That's a market being served, ultimately - and combatting that involves some other decisions that seem unrelated (like more density in cities/metro areas, making it easier to interact in person and not rely on content for entertainment).
I cannot wait for the GPT/LLM crash: I find them to be only semi-useful, and when it comes to my work basically not at all. I tried having one give me a breakdown of steps/commands for moving a certificate authority, and it ended up putting a non-existent command in one of the steps.
Part of the story involves war time spikes and the post-WWII period where America was pretty much the only game in the for manufacturing. That period's end - due to technology advancements and competition - do a lot to explain why the US doesn't have as many machinists now.
It also depends on what the government wants to incentivize. As noted here, China is subsidizing a lot of (likely unsustainable) growth.
Stable industrial policy/strategy could help here, but that means there being some form of agreement politically on these matters - and right now there isn't. Companies can't really invest if policy changes every couple years. For example: the Obama and Biden presidencies were prioritizing electrification and making treaties to subvert China's growth/influence. Trump killed both the treaties (first term) and incentives for electrification (second term).
These are just my immediate thoughts, I'm sure there will be more.
Addendum: I recall one thing that needs be said - we are still producing pretty much the most we ever have, we just do it with a lot fewer people involved.
I somewhat agree. I did look at what treaties you might be talking about. The only one I thought might have major economic consequences was the TPP which was no shoo-in with either party.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/business/tpp-explained-what-is-trans-pacific-partnership.html
I don't know what you mean by electrification unless it's electric vehicles and batteries and alternative energy sources none of which are universally popular. When I think of batteries and Obama, only Solyndra comes to mind. Biden did encourage nuclear power as does Trump.
Obama would be the solar panel manufacturing incentives, yes - but also consider fuel efficiency standards, renewable energy infrastructure more generally, and the Clean Power Plan. And yes TPP - but also look at NAFTA/USMCA and current tariff policy for examples (like "Why tariff toys but loosen sanctions/export controls on semiconductor").
Electrification isn't just EVs and batteries, of which those are a ln important part: electric ranges, electric heating systems, etc... As we discussed, it's about what we want to incentivize - and it's important to shift the incentives/subsidies to match policy.
It's about our energy policy and the need to move away from carbon burning more generally (whether fossil or bio-fuels) as those are both finite resources and/or involve opportunity cost issues (e.g. growing inedible corn for ethanol production rather than using that land for food production/other uses).
The goals are ostensibly lower energy costs (solar is the least expensive to install/run, and the new sodium batteries are much cheaper/safer than lithium for GRID-level storage) and energy independence - so, what's our actual strategy for the long term? "Drill baby drill" is just nonsense, as we've noted in prior discussions - we're producing more oil than ever, and it's still a finite supply that will never be regenerated.
Everything is finite. Even sodium and land for solar arrays. But we do need alternative energy sources. We just need more of what we have now until we can get to the next level. By "now", I mean for at least a decade or two.
I basically do not like batteries to power transportation, construction and farming equipment. I believe windmills are an environmental disaster. Solar has a lot of potential but maintaining large stable grid without heavy rotating machinery is questionable. That could change but it might cost some efficiency. Nuclear power combined with solar is a possibility.
Important thing missing in your response: *why* don't you like using batteries for transportation/et al? Why do you believe windmills are a disaster? Where do batteries fit in in your thoughts on solar/win/hydro/geothermal energy storage for maintaining a stable grid?
Yes, everything is finite - but some are less finite than others. Sodium is basically limitless, and a byproduct from other areas (like desalination) that make it more useful - besides the benefit of not needing to extract lithium.
We will need to utilize natural gas and nuclear while the transition occurs, but the transition is needed regardless - so what's the plan, and how do we shape our policies around that?
Battery powered transportation and rolling stock have limited range and I can picture mountains of dead batteries. Windmills are hazardous to birds and sea life and they are ugly. I've read that whale sounds can be detected in water at distances of 1500 miles. I believe the sounds and vibrations confuse sea life. I know they kill birds even when not generating. I have personally seen hundreds of dead birds at the base of a nuclear plant cooling tower that a flock must have flown into during the night. That was at a plant with only two cooling towers. I'm convinced that an array of windmills stretching for a half mile or more would do more killing. Maintaining a large stable 60 hertz electrical grid is not simple. The amount of protective relaying is unbelievable to novices like us. There are under frequency, over frequency, over current, under current, overvoltage and undervoltage relays that shut down the grid and interties almost instantaneously.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=CDHEko5v&id=2630784C4E5FDC0EFA043327AEF3694A0A69E1A4&thid=OIP.CDHEko5vgGh_odQXrR1N4AHaJ4&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fget.pxhere.com%2fphoto%2ftechnology-windmill-wind-river-france-machine-industry-wind-turbine-electricity-wind-energy-energy-wind-power-power-plant-mill-wind-farm-power-generation-environmental-technology-wind-power-plant-reactor-rhone-rotor-blades-electricity-production-cooling-tower-nuclear-power-plant-atomic-energy-nuclear-energy-power-station-tricastin-571468.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.0831c4928e6f80687fa1d417ad1d4de0%3frik%3dpOFpCkpp864nMw%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=4000&expw=3000&q=windmill+power+plant&FORM=IRPRST&ck=644926BA965621C20D620414A6665840&selectedIndex=4&itb=0
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=2MeHcZKN&id=0E1972273D88B431B72975B3CFAB951CABF2F14A&thid=OIP.2MeHcZKN6QlrlcZ5yY4djQHaFZ&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fcdn.britannica.com%2f75%2f114975-050-E61977EE%2fWind-turbines-Tehachapi-Calif.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.d8c78771928de9096b95c679c98e1d8d%3frik%3dSvHyqxyVq8%252bzdQ%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1166&expw=1600&q=windmill+power+plant&FORM=IRPRST&ck=4B32F6C5DAC1847696774C28034E51E5&selectedIndex=6&itb=0
Every vehicle has limited range. EV range is dependent on size of battery (and solid state batteries hold promise for greater ranges), charging can take as little as 20 minutes (or 5 minutes if using battery swaps) a batteries can be recycled after they lose significant life (over 10 years). Also important to remember about range is that most people don't drive that far in a day: the average is 30-40 miles per. Our EV has ~250mi of range when fully charged, which is enough for a week of driving - but then again, if you just plug in every night your basically always ready for a longer drive if needed. I also think that most EVs have too much focus on 0-60 speed, and lowering the HP in most models would make for greater efficiency (my Niro EV makes 201HP, and 0-60 in 7 seconds - which is really quite fast.
Aesthetics are unimportant.
Windmills can be dangerous to birds, yes - which is where alternative shapes can be used to minimize or remove any threat to them. Windmills aren't limited to ocean installations. If something is bothering whales most, it's ships and sonar systems - which makes those a more urgent and important target for controlling said noise pollution.
Large installations of batteries that can absorb excess energy production and discharge during peak demand sounds a lot more stable than spinning up gas generators when needed, especially with technology managing that push/pull.
Related article: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-china-shock-and-why-the-midwest