Accidents involving blades made by GE Vernova have delayed projects off the coasts of Massachusetts and England, could imperil climate goals.

[JBG]

Broken Blades, Angry Fishermen and Rising Costs Slow Offshore Wind;

Accidents involving blades made by GE Vernova have delayed projects off the coasts of Massachusetts and England and could imperil climate goals. (link)

Seems like the people "tilting at windmills" have a point; the "Green" movement can do a lot of damage. Excerpt:

The collapse of a giant wind turbine blade off the Massachusetts coast confirmed Peter Kaizer’s worst fears about the dangers a new clean energy business could pose to fishermen like him.
Jagged pieces of fiberglass and other materials from the shattered blade drifted with the tide, forcing officials to close beaches on Nantucket and leaving Mr. Kaizer worried about the threat the fragments might pose to his vessel and other fishing boats, especially at night when the debris would be harder to avoid.
“All these small boats could be subject to damage,” Mr. Kaizer said. “Everyone wants this green legacy, but at the cost of what?”
The blade, which was more than 300 feet long, failed in July, but the repercussions are still unfolding at the $4 billion project that it came from — Vineyard Wind 1. Developers had hoped to finish the project this summer, making it the first large-scale wind farm completed in U.S. waters, but now that goal will take a lot longer than expected.

Now, the New York Times is no "denier" rag; quite the contrary. It seems like the spears thrown by "deniers" who "tilt at windows" were not being quixotic at all; frankly the have been right. In this manic race to meet a 2035 deadline of being "carbon neutral" we are destroying much of what nature has to offer. What a pity.

Or is this beside the point? See Warming Alarmists Again Give Away Their Real Objective (link). Maybe, just maybe, the "activists" want the alternative sources of energy to be unworkable. They can't openly say they want to restrict lifestyles; that news has to be broken slowly.


Related thread but old: The Renewable Green Energy Disaster off the Northeastern US is Getting Worse

 

[Oddball]

The "climate goals" are the peasants living in mid-19th century conditions, while those "acting in our best interests" live like royalty.

It's no more complicated or involved than that.

 

[Crick]

Broken Blades, Angry Fishermen and Rising Costs Slow Offshore Wind;

Accidents involving blades made by GE Vernova have delayed projects off the coasts of Massachusetts and England and could imperil climate goals. (link)

Seems like the people "tilting at windmills" have a point; the "Green" movement can do a lot of damage. Excerpt:

Now, the New York Times is no "denier" rag; quite the contrary. It seems like the spears thrown by "deniers" who "tilt at windows" were not being quixotic at all; frankly the have been right. In this manic race to meet a 2035 deadline of being "carbon neutral" we are destroying much of what nature has to offer. What a pity.

Or is this beside the point? See Warming Alarmists Again Give Away Their Real Objective (link). Maybe, just maybe, the "activists" want the alternative sources of energy to be unworkable. They can't openly say they want to restrict lifestyles; that news has to be broken slowly.


Related thread but old: The Renewable Green Energy Disaster off the Northeastern US is Getting Worse

You believe the failure of a single blade could imperil the nation's climate goals?

 

[JBG]

You believe the failure of a single blade could imperil the nation's climate goals?

Yes, by endangering financing and insurability of these projects.

 

[Crick]

Yes, by endangering financing and insurability of these projects.

Do you have anything indicating that financing and insurance are pulling out?

 

[ding]

Broken Blades, Angry Fishermen and Rising Costs Slow Offshore Wind;

Accidents involving blades made by GE Vernova have delayed projects off the coasts of Massachusetts and England and could imperil climate goals. (link)

Seems like the people "tilting at windmills" have a point; the "Green" movement can do a lot of damage. Excerpt:

Now, the New York Times is no "denier" rag; quite the contrary. It seems like the spears thrown by "deniers" who "tilt at windows" were not being quixotic at all; frankly the have been right. In this manic race to meet a 2035 deadline of being "carbon neutral" we are destroying much of what nature has to offer. What a pity.

Or is this beside the point? See Warming Alarmists Again Give Away Their Real Objective (link). Maybe, just maybe, the "activists" want the alternative sources of energy to be unworkable. They can't openly say they want to restrict lifestyles; that news has to be broken slowly.


Related thread but old: The Renewable Green Energy Disaster off the Northeastern US is Getting Worse

Someone needs to tell them the climate will be what the climate will be and 120 ppm of incremental atmospheric CO2 won't change that.

 

[elektra]

You believe the failure of a single blade could imperil the nation's climate goals?

Tip of the iceberg ...

 

[Crick]

Tip of the iceberg ...
View attachment 1014587

Why don't you compare that to the damage done by the waste products of fossil fuel energy production?

 

[elektra]

Why don't you compare that to the damage done by the waste products of fossil fuel energy production?

You stated we cant base a decision to not make wind turbines on one blade failure, as if only one blade has failed. Instead of having an honest discussion you make ridiculous comnents and deflect.

Wind Turbines are a waste product of fossil fuels.

How will you produce wind turbines without fossil fuels? Explain!

Energy from fossil fuel took me to a SpaceX interview.

Energy from fossil fuel was wasted on these

 

[Crick]

You stated we cant base a decision to not make wind turbines on one blade failure, as if only one blade has failed. Instead of having an honest discussion you make ridiculous comnents and deflect.

EPA data says that wind turbine actual average lifespan is 20 years with maintenance every six months. Average capacity of a US wind turbine generator is 3.4 MW. On average, they produce power 60% of the time and produce rated capacity 40% of the time. If we use a 50% efficiency factor and thus look at 1.7MW for 20 years, doing that with natural gas would require 12,920 cubic feet per hour x 24 x 365 x 20, or 2,263,584,000 cubic feet of natural gas. In 2023, natural gas in US residences cost $15.20/1,000 cu ft. At that price, producing that energy with gas would cost just under $34 million and would produce just about 124,500 metric tons of CO2. That's the savings from ONE 3.4 MW wind turbine. New turbines are 12-17 MW per unit.

 

[elektra]

On average, they produce power 60% of the time and produce rated capacity 40% of the time. If we use a 50% efficiency factor and thus look ...

If, if, if.
No such thing as an, effciency factor. The industry calls it, capacity factor.

Your statement reads as nonsence.

100%, is reduced to 60%, which is 24, divided by 50% is 12%

Any megawatt you post we must calculate 12% of.

 

[elektra]

EPA data says that wind turbine actual average lifespan is 20 years with maintenance every six months.

The EPA? When did the EPA ever actually look at anything other than a piece of paper.

 

[elektra]

New turbines are 12-17 MW per unit.

???
Show us one 17mw wind turbine

 

[Crick]

???
Show us one 17mw wind turbine

We already went through this.

This is a rendering of an 18 MW unit currently under construction.

GE 17-18 MW unit under construction

Here is a 15 MW in operation

 

[elektra]

We already went through this.

View attachment 1014791
This is a rendering of an 18 MW unit currently under construction.
View attachment 1014795
GE 17-18 MW unit under construction

Here is a 15 MW in operation
View attachment 1014793

None constructed, zero, and they never will be built.

Get back to this when you have more than a computer drawn sketch

 

[Crick]

... and they never will be built.

Care to bet on that?

 

[elektra]

Care to bet on that?

Yes, not built now, will never be, the coming recession says so

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

EPA data says that wind turbine actual average lifespan is 20 years with maintenance every six months. Average capacity of a US wind turbine generator is 3.4 MW. On average, they produce power 60% of the time and produce rated capacity 40% of the time. If we use a 50% efficiency factor and thus look at 1.7MW for 20 years, doing that with natural gas would require 12,920 cubic feet per hour x 24 x 365 x 20, or 2,263,584,000 cubic feet of natural gas. In 2023, natural gas in US residences cost $15.20/1,000 cu ft. At that price, producing that energy with gas would cost just under $34 million and would produce just about 124,500 metric tons of CO2. That's the savings from ONE 3.4 MW wind turbine. New turbines are 12-17 MW per unit.

Has anyone ever done a study on the impact of the energy removed from the atmosphere by wind turbines as they slow the winds flowing through them? Won't the energy loss change the strength of wind patterns?

 

[Crick]

Has anyone ever done a study on the impact of the energy removed from the atmosphere by wind turbines as they slow the winds flowing through them? Won't the energy loss change the strength of wind patterns?

Is the Earth harmed by the wind energy absorbed by new trees? Buildings?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is the Earth harmed by the wind energy absorbed by new trees? Buildings?

Mountains block winds and cause air to lift causing precipitation on one side and desert terrain on the other. Obstacles take energy out of the wind and that affects climate. Skyscrapers in cities can cause wind tunnels and actually increase wind speeds. Why wouldn't artificial windmills decrease wind flow?