Art From DeLeon

Won't See This Take On Wind Energy Ever 'Reported'

Recommended Posts

How stupid. I'll never figure out people how can't grasp the concept of wind energy.... let's build a coal fired plant 1 mile from there house and see if they complain then...

 

"Raining burn pieces in your yard"....really.... RR's cause hundreds of miles of fire every year due to sticking brakes and bad bearings, yet no one is saying we should outlaw the RR....

 

Lil over a million to build a tower, or BILLIONS to build a coal fired plant to burn a finite resource....

 

Sounds like more NIMBY whining.

 

FWIW I live within sight of the wind towers outside Rollage MN and I just smile every time I see them producing electricity without any input other then the free ND breeze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, brahamfireman said:

FWIW I live within sight of the wind towers outside Rollage MN and I just smile every time I see them producing electricity without any input other then the free ND breeze.

 

 

Similar thoughts her as well.  I live within line of sight of the wind farm south of Minot.

Around here a lot of people I know including me and my family would like to have one or more of them on their property.  Many of us find them aesthetically and audibly pleasing plus the $2000 - $3000 a year kickback for giving up a few thousand square feet of property ain't too shabby either! :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My folks REALLY researched windmills when there were a couple projects in their area.  They visited a farmer who had over a dozen windmills on his ground south of Rockford, Illinois.  His comment that sold the folks was, "Every time a blade goes by and goes Wwwoosh, I put a Nickle in the bank". The folks got an initial payment of several Thousand Dollars and $500 a year until the company finally killed plans for the windmill farm in their area.  Net result was $10,000 in the bank and no windmills.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do tell me. How do you build a windmill? Haul it. What medium does the massive turbine sit in? You call this green energy? I call it propaganda. The good news is you can employee plenty of people to fix these pigs because they're usually broke down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personallly they are relaxing to watch and they do stir the upper and lower air currents helping to moderate the air around them.  On the flip side the amount of energy used to build the things is way more than they will ever produce.  So are they as truly clean as marketed, or a feel good story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, IHRunner said:

Do tell me. How do you build a windmill? Haul it. What medium does the massive turbine sit in? 

Let's estimate it takes 8 trucks to haul 1 tower /blade assembly, approximately 1200 miles from various plants to the build site. That's 9,600 miles, most modern  trucks will get 5MPG doing this,  that's 1920 gallons of diesel per tower, or about $4,000 in fuel, that's a drop in the bucket when you figure the BILLIONS to build a coal plant.

 

Plus this elusive myth that there always broke down.....the ones out my window are always spinning, ALWAYS. The wind blows all the time out here.

 

AND last I checked the "input" to produce the electricity  is still free, please tell me were I can get some free coal....

Anytime you can produce something with just your basic infrastructure cost and maintained cost you money ahead, buying product to produce a product is doable but the margin squeeze is higher. Think what you could do with free fertilizer on your crops .

 

Let me put it this way....you can buy a car and drive it for 10 years, pay the loan, buy gas, pay to maintain it OR you buy a car, pay the loan, pay to maintain it, BUT the gas is free, as long as you own that car, for 3 years or for 100 years, as long as you can get it to the station, your gas is free..... seems like a simple choice to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I really supposed to believe a "source" that is still hashing out the food vs fuel debate and RFS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brahamfireman said:

.the ones out my window are always spinning, ALWAYS

Mmmmmm, must be an unusual wind farm then because many of the ones that I observe are feathered a lot of the time!

best, randy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Randy Sohn said:

Mmmmmm, must be an unusual wind farm then because many of the ones that I observe are feathered a lot of the time!

best, randy

It's rare to see an entire set turning from what I have seen. Maintenance yeah, but some of it is they can't sell power all the time.

So far every paper I have seen says the payback is less than one. If it is so great, why subsidize?

And every year the USA parks enough thorium to power the continent. And it makes enough high heat power to create hydrocarbon fuels. I no longer have any concerns about oil from the ground. Uses 99.5% of the energy, unlike the existing hazardous light water plants that were put in place to make weapons material with electricity as a side product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents, just a few thoughts, 

 

One, show me a single windmill that produces the same electricity as a "billion" dollar power plant. The reason they build the farms is because you need many of them to replace some of the power from one plant. 

Two. They take more than 8 truck loads, the cranes used to put most of them up take near or more than 8 loads.  The power used to build the components is staggering, with windings, gears, turntables and blades  

Three. We need a wide spectrum of power, not any one source. So a supply of coal, solar, wind, hydro, and natural gas to name a few is best. 

Four,  the government is involved in subsidies with the green energy, this is to help promote the development of the technology and methods.  In time the energy systems will become more feasible and cost effective  

 

Five, billion dollar coal plant? Yes they can be, but that would be to build a plant that produces many thousands of megawatts for a generation or more. 

 

Rant over, 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, the technology part is already done and over. Subsidies effectively only help lower the installed cost. Research into blade design will continue but I don't expect any big upsets there. Maybe I am missing something but all I have seen so far is incremental increases in output. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IHRunner said:

The good news is you can employee plenty of people to fix these pigs because they're usually broke down

 

Doubtful being I have been trying to get a job doing just that locally for years and have yet to ever find an opening. 

Quote

Do tell me. How do you build a windmill? Haul it. What medium does the massive turbine sit in? You call this green energy? I call it propaganda

1

 

They are built like any other large structure. With machines and people.   They get hauled like everything else. With trucks and trains.  

The medium they sit in is obviously dirt. Or if you mean the concrete base that's around 1000 tons of concrete and steel or roughly the equivalent  of what's used to build ~850 - 900 feet of two lane concrete city street.    :rolleyes:

 

2 hours ago, gordont2 said:

On the flip side the amount of energy used to build the things is way more than they will ever produce.  So are they as truly clean as marketed, or a feel good story?

 
 

As for manufacturing energy costs figure about 50KWH per pound of weight for the whole unit using nothing but base ore stocks for raw materials. 

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the-embodied-energy-of-materials.html

http://www.aweo.org/faq.html

and that a typical 1.5 - 2 MWH capacity turbine weighs around 350 - 400 tons that work out to a runtime to payback of about  (375 x 2000 x 50 = 37,500 MWH's) Or about 21,500 hours  (about 10 years) at a rather low 25% duty cycle per year out of  a 20+ year life expectancy between major overhauls.   So yea worst case manufacturing cost Vs power produced VS typical working lifetime their break even on energy os maybe 5 - 10 years out of a 20+ year service life for the wearable components of which cost less than half of the initial purchase price and install cost for the whole unit to replace.  

Now realistically most of the major components of the turbines tower and drivetrain are made from heavy steel that is recycled plus the energy used to make it is not 100% electrically based rather a lot of it comes from burning natural gas, oil, coal or other fuels for the heating and processing energy that when weighted on the actual cost per KWH equivalent are far cheaper for manufacturing purposes than using direct wind energy.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, AKwelder said:

Five, billion dollar coal plant? Yes they can be, but that would be to build a plant that produces many thousands of megawatts for a generation or more. 

Umm what?  

The typical length of a generation is about 20 years and so is the wearable components service life of a wind turbine.  

Now as for a coal plant, to be honest, they don't run none stop with zero service from the day they are built until they are torn down.  

In fact, most are shut down every year or so for a week or more for major overhauls and get major ground up systems rebuilds and improvements of which each of those maintenance shutdowns costs them millions to tens of million of dollars.  Then on top of that if they get hit for a major EPA regulations related upgrade figure that can be tens to hundreds of millions of dollars and weeks to months of down time.   :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't I remember on a post here that a contributer was carting a semi load of Mobil 1 to one Colo wind farm every fortnight?

Don't I seem to recall that Siemens was having serious trouble with bearings etc?

And for a look at the big picture try

https://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/submission-for-queensland-50-renewable-target-by-2030-minus-address-and-telephone.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, there will always be people against anything new, and there will always be people holding on to the past way of doing things.

 

200 years ago if you were lighting your sod shack with whale oil you were living good. Imaging they nae sayers when kerosene came out.

100 years ago if you had a 2 horses to pull your 1 bottom plow you were living good, look how many said the tractor would never work ..

Wind turbines are in the same boat, were still too early in their infancy to really truly know if they are worth it, but unless we try we will never move forward....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who says technology in wind farms won't advance isn't paying attention. There is a spiral, almost seashell looking unit that nearly eliminates the biggest complaints about windmills- strobe effect, birds being killed, and noise. Plus I've seen vertical things that I really don't understand yet. Innovation is happening. I think solar is still the better option right now. A friend just got into the business, and during training they talked about how third word countries are putting up shipping containers full of batteries. They get charged with solar/wind, then are used to balance the load. In the future that is likely what power companies will do- transmit and store electricity, rather than merely produce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ian Beale said:
Quote

All of which creates an interesting question – just how much of our money is the government prepared to waste, to keep their wind dream afloat? If the costs are far greater than the industry admits, how long is the wind industry going to carry that additional hidden cost, before they try to push the costs onto taxpayers, or abandon wind technology altogether?

I would say that since they have already proven that they can't exist without government subsidies (TAXPAYER MONEY), they already are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Art From DeLeon said:

I would say that since they have already proven that they can't exist without government subsidies (TAXPAYER MONEY), they already are.

Every air line in America is subsidised by the government...they would go broke in days if left on there own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, brahamfireman said:

Every air line in America is subsidised by the government...they would go broke in days if left on there own.

We see a few of them now reporting profits, either because of low fuel prices, the revenue generated from their added on fees, or increased passenger traffic, so do they have to pay back any of these government subsidies, or do they just contribute to the icing on the cake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ian Beale said:

Don't I seem to recall that Siemens was having serious trouble with bearings etc?

 

Didn't International have a similar problem at one time with bearings due to poor engineering and an unrealistic push to get a product out on the market before it had been fully tested?:ph34r:

What gets me is how companies will blame any and everything they can to avoid admitting they did sloppy engineering or disastrous cost cutting that ultimately lead to a high fail rate of their products.  

Oh, it's not our undersized bearings. It's the oil! or the metal used for the bearings, or the wind is too strong or something else.  It's not that we tried to build our design with smaller cheaper less robust components than the competitors who don't have this problem. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Art From DeLeon said:

I would say that since they have already proven that they can't exist without government subsidies (TAXPAYER MONEY), they already are.

Hmm. Seems there are other pigs at the government subsidy trough far bigger than wind power. 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/13/366988/over-half-of-all-us-tax-subsidies-go-to-four-industries-guess-which-ones/

and,

http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/high-on-the-hog-the-top-8-corporate-welfare-recipients.html/?a=viewall

and,

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0#TX

Oh, and don't forget the $20+ billion a year oinker called farming industry.  :P

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers

Or that $69 billion a year that goes into subsidizing our roads and whatnot that is not covered by fuel tax money.

http://www.uspirg.org/news/usp/who-pays-roads

 

Hmmmmmmmmm.............. 10 - 15 billion a year to reduce our dependence on nonrenewable energy sources doesn't seem like much when weighed against everything else that get subsidized so that we can live the lives we have now does it? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been doing work for these guys http://www.starwindturbines.com

getting on their feet but they are well equipped an headded in the right direction, I'll try to get a pic of the prototype they have up right now, I'm thinking about one myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now