Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wind powered Turbines, Etc., And Their Costs To The Public
#1
Are you still hearing about the wonders of wind turban power generation?  It's still being touted as the wave of the future.  Well read this lengthy article and learn more about how the industry is a dead industry here in the US, and quickly becoming the same throughout the rest of the world.  

The concept is nice, but in practical terms, it's a Bust.

[Image: tehachapi-wind-turbines-p1.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#2
I sold a house on Lake Erie that was about a half mile from 3 new wind turbines. The people living close by complained about the constant humming noise which causing some people to suffer nausea. What these things do is cause a large area to suffer from noise pollution.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#3
you are wrong, not environmentalism or global warming are to blame that those ugly things are popping up in everybodies neighbourhood, but reckless businesses which don't give a shit about your quality of life, let alone mutilating a beautiful landscape. if they are errected offshore or in some remote desert, no one is disturbed. assuming you are given the choice which you are not, naturally, making money remains the priority, would you like to have a nuclear or coal plant in your village instead?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
Reply
#4
quadrat Wrote:you are wrong, not environmentalism or global warming are to blame that those ugly things are popping up in everybodies neighbourhood, but reckless businesses which don't give a crap about your quality of life, let alone mutilating a beautiful landscape. if they are errected offshore or in some remote desert, no one is disturbed. assuming you are given the choice which you are not, naturally, making money remains the priority, would you like to have a nuclear or coal plant in your village instead?

Sure it does. But if a business does this, with it's own investments, then it will have a better chance of success.

The problem, which you so conveniently overlook, is that the lion's share of the funds originate from the largest reckless entity around: the State. Did you forget that "Q"? Were it not for the State throwing around those reckless funds, there would be few takers, who are only doing it because someone else is paying the bill.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#5
It's a nice opinion piece. But it doesn't reflect realities.

Quote:Record Year for New Wind Power Installations in the U.S.

LCG, January 29, 2010--The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) announced early this week that the U.S. wind industry set a new record by installing nearly 10,000 MW of new generating capacity last year. With the additions, the wind turbine generating capacity in the U.S. now totals over 35,000 MW.

?The U.S. wind energy industry shattered all installation records in 2009, chalking up the Recovery Act as a historic success in creating jobs, avoiding carbon, and protecting consumers,? said AWEA CEO Denise Bode. ?But U.S. wind turbine manufacturing ? the canary in the mine -- is down compared to last year?s levels, and needs long-term policy certainty and market pull in order to grow. We need to set hard targets, in the form of a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), in order to provide the necessary stability for manufacturers to expand their U.S. operations and to seize the historic opportunity we have today to build up a thriving renewable energy industry.?

Texas is far and away the state leading in installed wind power. Today there is over 9,400 MW of wind turbine capacity installed in Texas, with Iowa a distant second, at 3,670 MW, and California third, at 2,794 MW.

Last year Texas added nearly 2,300 MW of wind turbine capacity. Trailing Texas were Indiana, Iowa, Oregon and Illinois, which added 905 MW, 879 MW, 691 MW, and 632 MW, respectively.

With respect to electricity generated by wind turbines across the nation, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates in its Short-Term Energy Outlook issued earlier this month that wind power will account for about 2 percent of the nation's electricity in 2010 and 3 percent in 2011. The other noticeable renewable source of electricity is conventional hydroelectric, which the EIA estimates will provide approximately 7 percent of the electricity consumed by the nation. Coal will fuel approximately 45 percent in both years, with nuclear and natural gas each providing another 20 percent of the electricity consumed in the country.

Source

Or how about a Global wind turbine producer with current 15 or so jobs open just in the US? http://www.vestas.com/en/jobs/job-openings.aspx Wonder how many world wide?

Or the same company investing 300million just in one Colorado town? http://www.vestas.com/files//Filer/EN/Pr...MUK_02.pdf

One would think that they know something to keep investing.

Me? I'll go along with some business guy looking to make a buck before some ideologue looking to make a point.
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#6
Got any figures on how many, and how much , are being subsidized by the State, with taxpayer's money?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#7
Just for you John, I will look. But that does not address the fundamental flaw in the posted opinion piece.

I can speak about the solar market, and say that solar is booming and does not need subsidies. We can't make this stuff as fast as our marketing department can sell it. But if they offer 'em, sure we'll take 'em!
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply
#8
John L Wrote:
quadrat Wrote:you are wrong, not environmentalism or global warming are to blame that those ugly things are popping up in everybodies neighbourhood, but reckless businesses which don't give a crap about your quality of life, let alone mutilating a beautiful landscape. if they are errected offshore or in some remote desert, no one is disturbed. assuming you are given the choice which you are not, naturally, making money remains the priority, would you like to have a nuclear or coal plant in your village instead?

Sure it does. But if a business does this, with it's own investments, then it will have a better chance of success.

The problem, which you so conveniently overlook, is that the lion's share of the funds originate from the largest reckless entity around: the State. Did you forget that "Q"? Were it not for the State throwing around those reckless funds, there would be few takers, who are only doing it because someone else is paying the bill.

If wind power were really that awesome,then just pass a short term tax break for private enterprise to build them and then watch.

But since private enterprise knows they do not have a bottomless purse to draw from,they use this concept called "looking down the road" to see if they can turn a profit.

Since they know there are no such profits to be made,they do not invest in them by themselves at all.
Reply
#9
Most energy is going to be a short-term need. Before too long, technology will invent some bottomless energy source, like Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower.
Reply
#10
Wind energy is cool. You have to use XXI-th century technologies thought...

[Image: offshore_wind.jpg]

wind energy planning (uk)
Reply
#11
Who paid for it and can you tell us with a straight face that it supplied all the power they needed for years ahead?
Reply
#12
Jerkass of the Week Award: Senator Lamar Alexander- a true dunce of the highest order

[Image: eoliennes-fecamp.jpg]
Reply
#13
coalsettommy,
"wind farm", "green energy", "renewable"... it sounds so leftist, so "Obama", so unamerican. Isn't it?
Reply
#14
Fredledingue Wrote:Jerkass of the Week Award: Senator Lamar Alexander- a true dunce of the highest order

[Image: eoliennes-fecamp.jpg]

Totally one sided hit piece. They are again practicing what Leftists are best at: Projection.

Granted, Alexander is not my favorite Tennessean, but he is right about wind turbines. They are low yield, high impact, and will not remain on the landscape for long.

Solar power, from orbit, beamed down to earth, is the future, along with nuclear fission. The rest is just child's play.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#15
JL Wrote:Solar power, from orbit, beamed down to earth, is the future, along with nuclear fission.
Who is talking about projection here? You who mention technologies which we are not even remotely able to build or the leftists whose private businesses already own off-shore and mountain-top wind farms and producing millions of kW for a profit?
Reply
#16
Fredledingue Wrote:
JL Wrote:Solar power, from orbit, beamed down to earth, is the future, along with nuclear fission.
Who is talking about projection here? You who mention technologies which we are not even remotely able to build or the leftists whose private businesses already own off-shore and mountain-top wind farms and producing millions of kW for a profit?

That is not 'projection'. It's called 'beaming'. Microwaves, beamed in random wave lengths will be both practical and harmless to fly through. And the technology is already on the table. All it takes is the will of the US government. And if they dally long, some enterprising civilian/civilians will beat them to the punch.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#17
The technology is already on the table... still not yet in the space.
And the eternal question: Who will pay for it? You don't want a single cent of taxpayer money... but you will need a fleet of rockets to bring that into orbit,... and the shuttle is out of business...
Reply
#18
The turbines on the wind farm above are the type that produces a humming noise which causes nausea. They cost about 1 million to produce and pay for themselves within a year.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#19
Wind turbines aren't practical because the wind is intermittent and environmentally unfriendly battery storage is necessary for their use. At the present, nuclear is best. Coal is the cheapest.
Reply
#20
And battery storage is necessary for their us why?
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)