Cost of Wind vs. Fossil Fuels (Montana Environmental Info center)

[abu afak]

You're looking from a single perspective of renewable vs. fossil fuels ... yet .. renewable energy requires a substantially more infrastructure, costs as much if not more and most often creates environmental consequences. The two wind farms create a total of 175 Megawatts when in full production. When .. meaning .. they have to be spinning at full velocity, which isn't going to be the case 24x7. Reliability is also a problem, as they won't provide consistent results.

Good idea as a supplement .. not a great resource for 100% renewable energy..

No.
I was starting to at least make a comparison that Elektra absolutely and Partisan-Hackly ignored.
Blindingly bashing 'Dirty Wind' with 4 threads. (including the idiotic/anecdotal ONE falling down)
You failed to EVER confront him due to Your bias, (Still UNANSWERED by you) and now confront me again, AND again without any numbers, just an assertion that has no figures.

As a non-regular here you probably don't know (even tho I posted it many times) that Iowa is already 63% renewable, mostly wind.
N Dakota 53%, Oklahoma 47%.
The farm and plains states love it. It's the new Cash Crop. (at 2K to 12K per).
Dotted through the corn/wheat fields (ir empty plains/grazing land), it really takes no room.

Does every type of energy fit everywhere? Of course not.
But FYI we could get 100% of our energy from Solar alone from an area no bigger than Lake Michigan.
Tho if it was divided up throughout the sparse SW, no one would even notice. (forget what MAGAt Elektra says, he's partisan Hack.
Yes, the transmission lines would be a problem, but obviously that not the solution for every state/region.

In fact, unlike him, and unlike you, I started a thread to discuss just how much renewable was possible. (it would be zero for Elektra-Trump).
For me maybe 50-80% pretty quickly. Then the hard parts.

How much of the Mix can Renewables be?​

How much of the Mix can Renewables be?

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky. We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021). How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon. I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in...

www.usmessageboard.com

Anyone else that fair/rational/non-partisan?
No.
That's because I am in the 'STEM party' and 80% of the posters here are 2 digit IQ RW Trolls.
`

 

[Harry Dresden]

Because you deserved the feedback/discounting I gave.
Most here know that posting weather is Bush league/idiotic.
The Issue here is about GLOBAL WARMING, not your backyard.

And after years you didn't know the snow (or not) in your backward has nothing to do with GW/AGW
IOW you admit you are not worth a response, but a laugh/mock/mere feedback.
Don't expect any more answers kindergarten boy..
So many posts/mbs and you still don't know shlt about a basic issue.
Bye.
`

typical aboo farook.....run from a topic....you dont know shit asswipe...everyone in that fucking thread was talking about the weather where they were at but yet you did your typical driveby....you are a dipshit farook....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which is why the transition won't be complete until the technology is able to meet the demand. You seem to think we will eliminate all fosile fuel sources before renewables are able to meet the demand. That's childish and dumb.

That's the green movement, childish and dumb.

 

[jotathought]

Which is why the transition won't be complete until the technology is able to meet the demand. You seem to think we will eliminate all fosile fuel sources before renewables are able to meet the demand. That's childish and dumb.

Well .. yes .. that's exactly what Gavin Newsom is driving towards -- he's set the series of milestones, has 10 - 12 years to meet the first one (at 90% renewables) and there is just no way he will accomplish it: meaning .. they will be eliminating dependency on fossil fuels quickly .. and they aren't ready to do that with the failing system he already owns - with a large dependency on fossil fuels.

So who is being childish and dumb?

 

[jotathought]

No.
I was starting to at least make a comparison that Elektra absolutely and Partisan-Hackly ignored.
Blindingly bashing 'Dirty Wind' with 4 threads. (including the idiotic/anecdotal ONE falling down)
You failed to EVER confront him due to Your bias, (Still UNANSWERED by you) and now confront me again, AND again without any numbers, just an assertion that has no figures.

As a non-regular here you probably don't know (even tho I posted it many times) that Iowa is already 63% renewable, mostly wind.
N Dakota 53%, Oklahoma 47%.
The farm and plains states love it. It's the new Cash Crop. (at 2K to 12K per).
Dotted through the corn/wheat fields (ir empty plains/grazing land), it really takes no room.

Does every type of energy fit everywhere? Of course not.
But FYI we could get 100% of our energy from Solar alone from an area no bigger than Lake Michigan.
Tho if it was divided up throughout the sparse SW, no one would even notice. (forget what MAGAt Elektra says, he's partisan Hack.
Yes, the transmission lines would be a problem, but obviously that not the solution for every state/region.

In fact, unlike him, and unlike you, I started a thread to discuss just how much renewable was possible. (it would be zero for Elektra-Trump).
For me maybe 50-80% pretty quickly. Then the hard parts.

How much of the Mix can Renewables be?​

How much of the Mix can Renewables be?

50-80% looks very possible to me. After that, it's very tricky. We have been adding renewables in Vast majority last 5 years: 2/3 (2016) - 85% (2021). How much of the mix is possible/can they ultimately be.. how soon. I posted this pair years ago as part of my series of the most Major issues in...

www.usmessageboard.com

Anyone else that fair/rational/non-partisan?
No.
That's because I am in the 'STEM party' and 80% of the posters here are 2 digit IQ RW Trolls.
`

There is no bias .. it's just basic science and common sense that wind power produces a small footprint of alternative energy, it doesn't consistently produce power, costs are substantially high, it requires a large amount of real estate and the results are neglible.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well .. yes .. that's exactly what Gavin Newsom is driving towards -- he's set the series of milestones, has 10 - 12 years to meet the first one (at 90% renewables) and there is just no way he will accomplish it: meaning .. they will be eliminating dependency on fossil fuels quickly .. and they aren't ready to do that with the failing system he already owns - with a large dependency on fossil fuels.

So who is being childish and dumb?

Again, you are being childish and dumb. Get back with me when fossile fuels are eliminated before renewables are able o fill the need. Always whining about what you think might happen.

 

[abu afak]

There is no bias .. it's just basic science and common sense that wind power produces a small footprint of alternative energy, it doesn't consistently produce power, costs are substantially high, it requires a large amount of real estate and the results are neglible.

How about the Common sense, that NO ONE Is advocating Wind Alone?
I just posted 50-80% Renewables of ALL types with NG Back up.
Say 60%? (I suspect mostly Solar of the two)
Any answer from you KNOW-NOTHING Guy?

My post to Elektra May 14th, 2023:

elektra​

How Much Land Would it Require to Get Most of Our Electricity from Wind and Solar?​

A recent study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory offers a detailed and heartening answer.
blog.ucsusa.org

"...Solar's abundance and potential throughout the United States is staggering: PV panels on just 22,000 square miles of the nation's total land area – about the size of Lake Michigan – could supply enough electricity to power the entire United States.".."

How Much Land Would it Require to Get Most of Our Electricity from Wind and Solar?​

A recent study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory offers a detailed and heartening answer.
blog.ucsusa.org
- - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - -
Call it 50% with Wind and some NG back up, that's really Nothing for the Solar portion. 10,000 sq miles.
Or 100x100 miles spread out over the whole country.
(you could easily fit and not notice it in the Sunny/sparse 4 corner states alone, but wouldn't for transmission reasons)

`

 

[jotathought]

Again, you are being childish and dumb. Get back with me when fossile fuels are eliminated before renewables are able o fill the need. Always whining about what you think might happen.

Lol .. shooting the messenger for Gavin Newsom's executive orders .. Liberals are hell-bent on renewable energy and prioritizing its use (in California) when they aren't ready to transition off of fossil fuels. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this simple principle.

 

[abu afak]

Lol .. shooting the messenger for Gavin Newsom's executive orders .. Liberals are hell-bent on renewable energy and prioritizing its use (in California) when they aren't ready to transition off of fossil fuels. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this simple principle.

Conspicuously whiffed on my detailed reply with numbers/acreage.
`

 

[2aguy]

How much does the wind cost when you factor in the fossil fuel backup you need?

You had to bring up facts....

 

[2aguy]

abu afak apparently doesn't answer the cost to production comparison, especially since wind farms produce substantially less megawatts than fossil fuel equivalent, and cost as much if not more to build and maintain. The answer to the question was 135 Megawatts for the wind farm, and 1300 Megawatts for the coal power plant. Natural gas is even more efficient and costs less per Megawatt.

Dont forget nuclear

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You had to bring up facts....

My bad.

 

[abu afak]

So much for ALL of elektra's Cost and 'Dirty Wind' posts/lies.
He never puts up the Ongoing cost or Pollution of coal.
NEVER any Comparison of cost OR emissions between the two.
Just a lot of BIG NUMBERS re Wind turbines.
Wind is Cheaper than Hydroelectric dams in Montana!
This from the Montana Environmental Information Center.
(a/o 2015/2021, and Wind gets more efficient/Cheaper every Year due to Turbine efficiency improvements)

Cost of Wind vs. Fossil Fuels
Montant Environmental Energy Center

In Montana, wind energy is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, especially coal.
In fact, wind energy is Less much less expensive than coal for customers of NorthWestern Energy – the state’s largest utility.

The graph below comes from data from the Montana Public Service Commission and it compares the costs of various resources in NorthWestern’s portfolio.
The Judith Gap wind facility is about $32.11 per megawatt-hour (or 3.1 cents per kilowatt-hour) while the coal-fired Colstrip Unit 4 is about $64.55 per megawatt-hour or (6.4 cents per kilowatt hour).

Nationally, financial analyst firm Lazard found in December 2016 unsubsidized wind projects costing between $32 and $62 per megawatt-hour while coal cost between $57 and $148 per megawatt-hour.

Updated in 2021: Here’s a chart of the cost of renewable energy per megawatt hour.

[............]

Cost of Wind vs. Fossil Fuels - MEIC

When comparing the cost of wind vs. fossil fuels its important to consider fuel costs, integration costs, operating costs, and the cost of tax incentives.

meic.org

`

An easy claim to make for a state that imports energy and produces a very tiny amount of energy.

Abuafuk's ideas are all proven false. We can simply look at how the government gives 60% of the cost to all solar and wind projects/corporations and how the corporations then give part of our money back as campaign donations.

Aba fuc can not show us anywhere in the USA where the price of electricity has gone down.

Traditional sources of electricity cost 30$ per mwh, green energy costs, $200 per mwh.


Anything different is only temporary government policy dictating the price.

 

[abu afak]

Remember this Clown/elektra?
How much does it ""cost""

`