Renewable Energy: Still Breaking Wind

[Old Rocks]

Well now, since it will be for profit corporations doing the investing, that is a good idea. A win-win for all. They get profits, we get less costly energy, and the environment is less polluted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well now, since it will be for profit corporations doing the investing, that is a good idea. A win-win for all. They get profits, we get less costly energy, and the environment is less polluted.

you mean they get a shit load of taxpayer dollars since a utility grade windmill costs 2.2 million per MW so your average 2MW turbine costs over 4 million

but we need to install 4 2MW turbines to equal the rated output of one 2 MW turbine so in reality we are paying over 8 million per MW

 

[Old Rocks]

Wind Overtakes Coal Power in Europe as Turbines Head Offshore

Wind Overtakes Coal Power in Europe as Turbines Head Offshore
by
Jess Shankleman
February 8, 2017, 9:00 PM PST

• Coal surpassed as second-biggest potential source of capacity
• Intermittency of wind leaves coal producing more power

Wind farm developers installed more power than any other form of energy last year in Europe, helping turbines to overtake coal in terms of capacity, industry figures show.

European wind power grew 8 percent, to 153.7 gigawatts, comprising 16.7 percent of installed capacity and overtaking coal as the continent’s second-biggest potential source of energy, according to figures published Thursday by the WindEurope trade group. Gas-fired generation retained the largest share of installed capacity.

With countries seeking to curb greenhouse gas emissions that causes climate change by replacing fossil fuel plants with new forms of renewable energy, investment in wind grew to a record 27.5 billion euros ($29.3 billion) in 2016, WindEurope’s annual European Statistics report showed.

“Wind and coal are on two ends of the spectrum,” said Oliver Joy, a spokesman for WindEurope, in an e-mail. “Wind is steadily adding new capacity while coal is decommissioning far more than any technology in Europe.”

The group underscored that wind, which only produces power intermittently, hasn’t yet overtaken coal share in total power generation.

European wind investment increased 5 percent in 2016 from a year earlier driven by the offshore segment that attracted 18.2 billion euros, the report said. That offset a 29 percent investment decline in the onshore market.

Gee whiz, what happened to all that noise about renewables failing in Europe?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wind Overtakes Coal Power in Europe as Turbines Head Offshore

Wind Overtakes Coal Power in Europe as Turbines Head Offshore
by
Jess Shankleman
February 8, 2017, 9:00 PM PST

• Coal surpassed as second-biggest potential source of capacity
• Intermittency of wind leaves coal producing more power

Wind farm developers installed more power than any other form of energy last year in Europe, helping turbines to overtake coal in terms of capacity, industry figures show.

European wind power grew 8 percent, to 153.7 gigawatts, comprising 16.7 percent of installed capacity and overtaking coal as the continent’s second-biggest potential source of energy, according to figures published Thursday by the WindEurope trade group. Gas-fired generation retained the largest share of installed capacity.

With countries seeking to curb greenhouse gas emissions that causes climate change by replacing fossil fuel plants with new forms of renewable energy, investment in wind grew to a record 27.5 billion euros ($29.3 billion) in 2016, WindEurope’s annual European Statistics report showed.

“Wind and coal are on two ends of the spectrum,” said Oliver Joy, a spokesman for WindEurope, in an e-mail. “Wind is steadily adding new capacity while coal is decommissioning far more than any technology in Europe.”

The group underscored that wind, which only produces power intermittently, hasn’t yet overtaken coal share in total power generation.

European wind investment increased 5 percent in 2016 from a year earlier driven by the offshore segment that attracted 18.2 billion euros, the report said. That offset a 29 percent investment decline in the onshore market.

Gee whiz, what happened to all that noise about renewables failing in Europe?

Installed capcity is irrelevant actual output is all that matters
You can't use electricity that is never produced and 75% of that installed wind capacity will never be produced

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet the europeans believe that wind is still worth doing. Hmmmmmmmm....................

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yet the europeans believe that wind is still worth doing. Hmmmmmmmm....................

yeah just like you they want to keep backing a failed energy plan but at least the Brits are looking into nuclear unlike us


and who but government thinks spending 4 million dollars for .5MW of energy is a good idea?

but hey I guess all those newspaper articles I have posted on the failure of wind in the UK and Germany are just fake news right?

 

[hadit]

You're making my point for me. I wonder if
Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.

That figure comes from the Renewable energy folks, matthew's link.

Clean Energy: A Multi-Trillion Dollar Opportunity — Ceres

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world needs to invest $44 trillion in clean energy by 2050 – an average of $1.2 trillion per year for the next 36 years.

That's irrelevant. Clean energy can have a positive impact completely separate from any impact on man caused global warming.

 

[elektra]

You're making my point for me. I wonder if
Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.

That figure comes from the Renewable energy folks, matthew's link.

Clean Energy: A Multi-Trillion Dollar Opportunity — Ceres

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world needs to invest $44 trillion in clean energy by 2050 – an average of $1.2 trillion per year for the next 36 years.

That's irrelevant. Clean energy can have a positive impact completely separate from any impact on man caused global warming.

bullshit, first and foremost, there is nothing that clean, when it comes to producing energy, you got to build those millions of Wind Turbines, and considering they are 400 feet tall producing the least amount of energy that means they use more raw materials per kwh than any other source of electricity. You are increasing the amount of CO2, they are not clean. That is a lie.

$44 trillion is irrelevant? That is your argument? Spending $44 Trillion on wind turbines will have a positive impact? Right, I get it, you have your Utopian dream, butterflies and angels, wonderful.

 

[hadit]

You're making my point for me. I wonder if
Dude, as long as you hold on to fantasies like $44 trillion, you're making my point.

That figure comes from the Renewable energy folks, matthew's link.

Clean Energy: A Multi-Trillion Dollar Opportunity — Ceres

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the world needs to invest $44 trillion in clean energy by 2050 – an average of $1.2 trillion per year for the next 36 years.

That's irrelevant. Clean energy can have a positive impact completely separate from any impact on man caused global warming.

bullshit, first and foremost, there is nothing that clean, when it comes to producing energy, you got to build those millions of Wind Turbines, and considering they are 400 feet tall producing the least amount of energy that means they use more raw materials per kwh than any other source of electricity. You are increasing the amount of CO2, they are not clean. That is a lie.

$44 trillion is irrelevant? That is your argument? Spending $44 Trillion on wind turbines will have a positive impact? Right, I get it, you have your Utopian dream, butterflies and angels, wonderful.

Don't more more dense than you have to be. Your irrelevant dollar figure came from somebody's irrelevant estimate of how much it would cost to impact global warming. That's irrelevant and ridiculous. You don't utilize alternative energy sources to combat something you probably don't have a prayer of impacting, you do it for other reasons, reasons that don't cost $44 trillion.

 

[blenkins90]

Renewable energy is a joke. Will be in 2050 too. Plenty on this in the ENVIRONMENT forum. Some point to these ridiculous growth #'s but they are compared only to themselves and not compared against fossil fuels. When they are, its laughable. Solar still providing only slightly more than 1% of our electricity.......wind about 4%. Will only double by 2050........not my projections but the projections in 2016 from the Obama administration.

Meanwhile......coal production in China will DOUBLE by 2050!!

Check this thread ( link below ) and find out all you need to know about the realities of renewable energy.......its a global warming alarmists worst nightmare!! These people never, ever post up any graph showing board members how renewables compare to fossil fuels.......all graphs compare growth rates for the specific renewable only. Progressives do this shit all the time. All fuckery all the time.

One of the most epic threads on the USMB btw >>

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.313851/


..........5,200+ posts and 200,000 views!! Obliterates ALL of the arguments of the warmist k00ks.

As someone who has lived in China (for several years), doubling coal production is NOT a good thing.

Renewable energy is not a joke. Try sucking down smog everyday. I thank the EPA every time I get off the plane in this country now.