Wind Turbine Burning Fossil Fuels?

[elektra]

It is amazing the ways the Liberals burn fuel. Or, the unattended consequences of a Democrats thinking is beyond belief.

Pictures say it better than words.

Saturday Silliness – wind turbine photo of the year

To fix the “problem” a helicopter is employed (burning aviation fuel) to spray hot water (which is heated in the frigid temperatures using a truck equipped with a 260 kW oil burner) on the blades of the turbine to de-ice them.


The aviation fuel, the diesel for the truck, and the oil burned to heat the water, could produce more electricity (at the right time to meet demand) than the unfrozen wind turbine could ever produce. (Before it freezes up again).


The attached picture is a metaphor of the complete insanity of the climate change debate.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Ms. Elektra surely hates wind and solar. LOL

Low Costs of Solar Power & Wind Power Crush Coal, Crush Nuclear, & Beat Natural Gas

1. Wind & Solar Are Cheaper (Without Subsidies) Than Dirty Energy
The first point is the very basic fact that new wind power and/or solar power plants are typically cheaper than new coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants — even without any governmental support for solar or wind.

Not only are they typically cheaper — they’re much cheaper in many cases.

2. Wind & Solar Are Actually Even Much Cheaper Than Dirty Energy (More So Than Lazard Shows)
The estimates above are supposedly “unsubsidized,” but if you include social externalities as societal subsidies (I do), the estimated costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy are hugely subsidized in those charts.

A study led by the former head of the Harvard Medical School found that coal cost the US $500 billion per year in extra health and environmental costs — approximately 9¢/kWh ($90/MWh) to 27¢/kWh ($270/MWh) more than the price we pay directly. To fool yourself into thinking these are not real costs is to assume that cancer, heart disease, asthma, and early death are not real.

The air, water, and climate effects of natural gas are not pretty either. On the nuclear front, the decommissioning and insurance costs of nuclear power — unaccounted for above — would also put nuclear off the chart.

3. Solar & Wind Became Much Cheaper In The Past 7 Years (85% and 66%, Respectively)
No, wind and solar costs didn’t roll off a cliff because of Obama, but his staff did help to hasten the roll to some degree. Programs like SunShot have helped to bring down costs even faster than they were coming down anyway, as did greater deployment of renewables — with greater production and deployment, costs come down almost automatically.

4. The Lowest Solar Costs Shown In The Lazard Report Are Considerably Higher Than Globally Recorded Low-Price Bids
I won’t go into much detail right now, but I will update this article as more record-low prices for solar power and wind power are reported. For now, though, note that we’ve seen solar project bids for under 3¢/kWh in the UAE and well under 4¢/kWh in Mexico — prices that are well below the Lazard’s low-end estimates for the US.

5. People Can Get Lower Prices But More Jobs With Solar & Wind
Whether American, British, Canadian, Australian, Indian, German, Dutch, French, Spanish, or [fill in the blank], solar and wind power don’t just mean lower prices — they also typically mean more jobs. Much of the price of dirty energy power plants is in the fossil fuel — the physical resource. When we buy that fuel, much of the money goes to the billionaires and multimillionaires who “own” the fuel — the coal mines and the natural gas wells.

Sunshine and wind, of course, are free, but distributed solar and wind power plants have to get built and installed — those are things humans do. When we pay for solar and wind power plants, we pay for human labor, and often help create or support local jobs.

We don’t actually have to choose between low prices or jobs or protecting our air, water, and climate — we get all of those things with renewable energy options like solar and wind energy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sure a lot of wind to let that much ice build up...


LMFAO...

 

[Crick]

The aviation fuel, the diesel for the truck, and the oil burned to heat the water, could produce more electricity (at the right time to meet demand) than the unfrozen wind turbine could ever produce. (Before it freezes up again).

Your astoundingly bad at basic math.

 

[elektra]

The aviation fuel, the diesel for the truck, and the oil burned to heat the water, could produce more electricity (at the right time to meet demand) than the unfrozen wind turbine could ever produce. (Before it freezes up again).

Your astoundingly bad at basic math.

Your bad at comprehension, I used no math to make this thread.

 

[Crick]

You compared two things with the comparative adjective "more". That requires you to have used math.

I would guess that's at least a 4 MW turbine. A Huey holds 240 gallons of fuel. A "truck" might hold 80 gallons and we'll add another 20 for the heater. So, 340 gallons of fuel. Per Gasoline gallon equivalent - Wikipedia, that would produce 340 x 33 kWh = 11,220 kWh. If the helo and the truck and the heater used all the fuel they had, it would equal less than 3 hours of the output of that turbine. It's exceedingly unlikely that much fuel would be used de-icing those blades and a more likely figure would be that that fuel would equal 30 minutes or less of that turbine's output. That 340 gallons of fuel would produce 6,800 pounds of CO2 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm) while the turbine would produce ZERO.

So, yes, you suck at math.

 

[elektra]

You compared two things with the comparative adjective "more". That requires you to have used math.

I would guess that's at least a 4 MW turbine. A Huey holds 240 gallons of fuel. A "truck" might hold 80 gallons and we'll add another 20 for the heater. So, 340 gallons of fuel. Per Gasoline gallon equivalent - Wikipedia, that would produce 340 x 33 kWh = 11,220 kWh. If the helo and the truck and the heater used all the fuel they had, it would equal less than 3 hours of the output of that turbine. It's exceedingly unlikely that much fuel would be used de-icing those blades and a more likely figure would be that that fuel would equal 30 minutes or less of that turbine's output. That 340 gallons of fuel would produce 6,800 pounds of CO2 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm) while the turbine would produce ZERO.

So, yes, you suck at math.

Yet you suck more, at using your brain, that fuel adds to the CO2 produced by Wind Turbines. That fuel shows you can not operate Wind Turbines without using more fossil fuels. Yes, it is ironic, to save the World you must destroy the World, increasing the use of Oil, depleting Oil reserves quicker.

And of course let us examine your most glaring error, that wind turbine's capacity factor is not factored into your math, that Wind Turbine is producing 1 mwh at best, if the wind is blowing. Being over 50 miles from the market it serves, I would venture to say there is another 40% transmission loss. That puts the output at about .60 mwh! And, that wind turbine is at least a year old which results in another decrease in power, of at least 10%, giving us around .5 mwh!

Great investment, .5 mwh of wind power, if the helicopter can de-ice the blades. I would also have to say, if the government did not subsidize the cost of power from Wind Turbines, that ice would be left there until spring time melted it.

.5 mwh, wow, impressive.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Gotta love the way that Elektra and Silly Billy pull 'Alternative Facts' out of their ass. And, no matter how many they pull out, they all smell the same.

If the wind turbines were that inefficient, they would not be in use. And you are going to see more and more of them as they and solar deliver kw's at half the cost of even dirty coal. And that is what matters, not name plate capacity, but the cost of the delivered electricity. That is why Texas is building thousands more turbines, and putting in gigawatts of solar.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You compared two things with the comparative adjective "more". That requires you to have used math.

I would guess that's at least a 4 MW turbine. A Huey holds 240 gallons of fuel. A "truck" might hold 80 gallons and we'll add another 20 for the heater. So, 340 gallons of fuel. Per Gasoline gallon equivalent - Wikipedia, that would produce 340 x 33 kWh = 11,220 kWh. If the helo and the truck and the heater used all the fuel they had, it would equal less than 3 hours of the output of that turbine. It's exceedingly unlikely that much fuel would be used de-icing those blades and a more likely figure would be that that fuel would equal 30 minutes or less of that turbine's output. That 340 gallons of fuel would produce 6,800 pounds of CO2 (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm) while the turbine would produce ZERO.

So, yes, you suck at math.

Yet you suck more, at using your brain, that fuel adds to the CO2 produced by Wind Turbines. That fuel shows you can not operate Wind Turbines without using more fossil fuels. Yes, it is ironic, to save the World you must destroy the World, increasing the use of Oil, depleting Oil reserves quicker.

And of course let us examine your most glaring error, that wind turbine's capacity factor is not factored into your math, that Wind Turbine is producing 1 mwh at best, if the wind is blowing. Being over 50 miles from the market it serves, I would venture to say there is another 40% transmission loss. That puts the output at about .60 mwh! And, that wind turbine is at least a year old which results in another decrease in power, of at least 10%, giving us around .5 mwh!

Great investment, .5 mwh of wind power, if the helicopter can de-ice the blades. I would also have to say, if the government did not subsidize the cost of power from Wind Turbines, that ice would be left there until spring time melted it.

.5 mwh, wow, impressive.

yes it is comically interesting that

2400 pounds of diesel fuel will

increase weight almost 3 fold according to the warmists

6,800 pounds of CO2

--LOL

 

[waltky]

possum thinks...

... ya tiltin' at windmills.

 

[elektra]

LOL Gotta love the way that Elektra and Silly Billy pull 'Alternative Facts' out of their ass. And, no matter how many they pull out, they all smell the same.

If the wind turbines were that inefficient, they would not be in use. And you are going to see more and more of them as they and solar deliver kw's at half the cost of even dirty coal. And that is what matters, not name plate capacity, but the cost of the delivered electricity. That is why Texas is building thousands more turbines, and putting in gigawatts of solar.

And that is why the largest utility in Germany is going bankrupt as well? Because the cost of the delivered electricity is so expensive.

That is why all the original Wind Turbine companies in California are long gone, bankrupt.

If Wind Turbines are so profitable, why the big subsidies?

Of course, the amount of electricity and the subsidies, that does not matter? You certainly are dumb, old crock.

 

[Crick]

How about a few objective points about wind power. This is from Advantages and Challenges of Wind Energy | Department of Energy

ADVANTAGES OF WIND POWER

• Wind energy is a clean fuel source. Wind energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind turbines don't produce atmospheric emissions that increase health problems like asthma or create acid rain or greenhouse gases. According to the Wind Vision Report, wind has the potential to reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions by 14%, saving $400 billion in avoided global damage by 2050.
• Wind power does not use water, unlike conventional electricity sources. Producing nuclear, coal, or gas-fired power uses water for cooling. Water is becoming a scarce resource all over the country. Wind power uses zero water in its energy generation.
• Wind is a domestic source of energy. The nation's wind supply is abundant. Over the past 10 years, wind capacity increased an average of 31% per year, reaching a cumulative capacity of over 75,000 MW in 2016, enough to power over 20 million homes. Wind power is the largest source of annual new generating capacity, well ahead of the next two leading sources, solar power and natural gas.
• Wind power is inexhaustible. Wind is actually a form of solar energy. Winds are caused by the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the Earth, and the Earth's surface irregularities. For as long as the sun shines and the wind blows, the energy produced can be harnessed to send power across the grid.
• Wind power is cost-effective. It is one of the lowest-cost renewable energy technologies available today, with power prices offered by newly built wind farms averaging 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending on the wind resource and the particular project’s financing. Even without government subsidies, wind power is a low-cost fuel in many areas of the country.
• Wind turbines can be built on existing farms or ranches. This greatly benefits the economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found. Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind turbines use only a fraction of the acreage. Wind power plant owners make rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land, providing landowners with additional income. In 2015, annual land lease payments in the United States were estimated to total $222 million. This additional income provides the agricultural community an avenue to diversify revenue and reduce reliance on uncertain commodity prices. According to the Wind Vision Report, annual land lease income for rural American landowners could increase to $1 billion by 2050.
• Wind creates jobs. In 2016, the wind energy sector invested more than $8.8 billion of private capital in the U.S. economy to build projects and employed more than 101,000 workers (approximately 30% women, 11% veterans, and 25% minorities), according to the 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report. More than 8,800 technicians were employed in 2015 to monitor and maintain wind turbines, and this profession is expected to grow by 108% in the next decade, making it the country’s fastest-growing occupation (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). According to the Wind Vision Report, wind has the potential to support more than 600,000 jobs in manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and supporting services by 2050.

CHALLENGES OF WIND POWER

• Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm might not be cost competitive in less windy areas of the country. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.
• Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from cities where the electricity is needed. Transmission lines must be built to bring the electricity from the wind farm to the city. According to the American Wind Energy Association, approximately 51,000 MW of new wind capacity could be added if near-term transmission projects in advanced development are completed. The Energy Department released a report which confirms that adding even limited electricity transmission can significantly reduce the costs of expanding wind energy to supply 35% of U.S. electricity by 2050.
• Turbines might cause noise and change the viewshed. Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the environment and communities compared to conventional power plants, concern exists over the sound sometimes produced by the turbine blades and visual impacts to the landscape.
• Though wind turbines harm wildlife less than some conventional sources of electricity, turbine blades could damage local wildlife. Electricity generation that pollutes the air and water causes wildlife fatalities through acid rain, mercury poisoning, habitat disruption due to warming temperatures, and more. However, birds have been killed by flying into spinning turbine blades. Blade strikes have been greatly reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind plants. Currently, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) is supporting wildlife technology research validation designed to reduce bird and bat fatalities at wind energy projects. The research provided at the NWTC will serve as a pipeline to the American Wind Wildlife Institute’s technology verification program and similar efforts aimed at supporting commercialization of these products.

 

[mamooth]

yes it is comically interesting that

2400 pounds of diesel fuel will

increase weight almost 3 fold according to the warmists

6,800 pounds of CO2

--LOL

And it's correct. You and Elektra now look hilariously stupid for not understanding why, and for being so belligerent with your stupidity.

Diesel is a hydrocarbon, carbon and hydrogen, C's and H's. The H's weight 1/12 as much as the C's, so most of the mass is in the C's.

Now, what does "CO2" mean? That when the fuel burns, each C grabs two O's. That results in the resulting CO2 weighing about 3 times as much as the hydrocarbon that got burned.

The summary? You need to understand that you're stupid, and that you shouldn't embarrass yourself by bothering the non-stupid people with your idiot babble.

 

[mamooth]

Technology adapts. There will eventually be internal deicing systems for wind turbines operating in cold climates.

Will heat be the winner in de-icing turbine blades? | Wind Energy Update

Vestas reveals de-icing system

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes it is comically interesting that

2400 pounds of diesel fuel will

increase weight almost 3 fold according to the warmists

6,800 pounds of CO2

--LOL

And it's correct. You and Elektra now look hilariously stupid for not understanding why, and for being so belligerent with your stupidity.

Diesel is a hydrocarbon, carbon and hydrogen, C's and H's. The H's weight 1/12 as much as the C's, so most of the mass is in the C's.

Now, what does "CO2" mean? That when the fuel burns, each C grabs two O's. That results in the resulting CO2 weighing about 3 times as much as the hydrocarbon that got burned.

The summary? You need to understand that you're stupid, and that you shouldn't embarrass yourself by bothering the non-stupid people with your idiot babble.

Now, what does "CO2" mean? That when the fuel burns, each C grabs two O's

yes of course

however you not correct --LOL

you are assuming that 100 percent of the fuel is turned into CO2

which is not the case

around 12 percent of the diesel fuel will be converted to co2



Combustion-engine exhaust gases[7]
All figures are approximate % of total
Compound Petrol Diesel
nitrogen 71 67
carbon dioxide 14 12
water vapor 13 11
oxygen 10
Trace elements[citation needed] < 0.6 ~ 0.3
nitrogen oxides < 0.25 < 0.15
carbon monoxide 1 - 2 < 0.045
particulate matter < 0.045
hydrocarbons < 0.25 < 0.03
sulfur dioxide possible traces < 0.03

 

[jon_berzerk]

 

[Crick]

What's your point Jon? How small is the "pollutant emissions" slice? Keep in mind it's infinitely larger than it ought to be.

 

[jon_berzerk]

What's your point Jon? How small is the "pollutant emissions" slice? Keep in mind it's infinitely larger than it ought to be.

the point --LOL

leftards want to insist that the co2 produced is three times the weight of the fuel used

which is nonsense

why change the subject

 

[mamooth]

however you not correct --LOL

Yes, I am. You failed at common sense here.

you are assuming that 100 percent of the fuel is turned into CO2

No, just the carbon, which represents about 80% of the weight of a hydrocarbon fuel. However, oxygen at 16 is heavier than carbon at 12, so makes up for the 80% being less than 100%, and the mass of the CO2 is about triple the mass of the hydrocarbon that gets burned.

which is not the case

around 12 percent of the diesel fuel will be converted to co2

Combustion-engine exhaust gases
All figures are approximate % of total
Compound Petrol Diesel
nitrogen 71 67
carbon dioxide 14 12
water vapor 13 11
oxygen 10

According to your bad logic there, hydrocarbons somehow create nitrogen when burned. Can you tell us how that happens?

Your mistake is that tailpipe exhaust is a mix of unburned atmosphere and burned fuel, and therefore the gas fractions of exhaust gas do not represent the gas fractions produced by burning a fuel.

 

[jon_berzerk]

however you not correct --LOL

Yes, I am. You failed at common sense here.

you are assuming that 100 percent of the fuel is turned into CO2

No, just the carbon, which represents about 80% of the weight of a hydrocarbon fuel. However, oxygen at 16 is heavier than carbon at 12, so makes up for the 80% being less than 100%, and the mass of the CO2 is about triple the mass of the hydrocarbon that gets burned.

which is not the case

around 12 percent of the diesel fuel will be converted to co2

Combustion-engine exhaust gases
All figures are approximate % of total
Compound Petrol Diesel
nitrogen 71 67
carbon dioxide 14 12
water vapor 13 11
oxygen 10

According to your bad logic there, hydrocarbons somehow create nitrogen when burned. Can you tell us how that happens?

Your mistake is that tailpipe exhaust is a mix of unburned atmosphere and burned fuel, and therefore the gas fractions of exhaust gas do not represent the gas fractions produced by burning a fuel.

i have pointed out the percent of CO2 in the exhaust with links and a visual showing that the CO2 output from the exhaust

is 12 percent the biggest percentage of exhaust is nitrogen

use your head for once

hydrocarbons somehow create nitrogen when burned

hey dope it is a fact that notrigen is in the exhaust of both gas and diesel

those are government statistics not mine

once again you are pretending that fuel burns 100 percent efficient