Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No wonder it takes decades just to build a road when democrats are in charge.The expense for present energy sources is yet to be known. Do we count the military costs of securing access and delivery of oil? Do we count the eventual costs of nuclear (how can we; this is a huge unknown)? There are costs in money, costs in environment, costs in lives.
We have to honestly evaluate all these in order to judge rightly.
That does not alter the fact that we mustThat it costs money to replace existing power infrastructure with completely different technology should surprise no one. That does not alter the fact that we must.
The expense for present energy sources is yet to be known. Do we count the military costs of securing access and delivery of oil? Do we count the eventual costs of nuclear (how can we; this is a huge unknown)? There are costs in money, costs in environment, costs in lives.
We have to honestly evaluate all these in order to judge rightly.
See wikipedia for details.The expense for present energy sources is yet to be known. Do we count the military costs of securing access and delivery of oil? Do we count the eventual costs of nuclear (how can we; this is a huge unknown)? There are costs in money, costs in environment, costs in lives.
We have to honestly evaluate all these in order to judge rightly.
The attempt to understand the expense of energy sources goes under the heading EROEI, or Energy Returned on Energy Investment. This measure by different researchers varies widely depending on what expenses are considered, such as transportation to the end user, amortization of factories, but it hardly ever includes "societal" costs (as you mentioned) such as environmental. See wikipedia for details.
See wikipedia for details.
Okay I did backtrack this silly graph to your source which has a "C" class ranking:
Talk:Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
And C class means:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology/Assessment - Wikipedia
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.
It`s been written by an author who prefers to hide his identity behind User:Σ
And here is his home page:
User:Σ - Wikipedia
This user is a Socialist.
The entire concept is another laughable example demonstrating the stupidity of the make America timid again mob.See wikipedia for details.
Okay I did backtrack this silly graph to your source which has a "C" class ranking:
Talk:Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
And C class means:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology/Assessment - Wikipedia
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.
It`s been written by an author who prefers to hide his identity behind User:Σ
And here is his home page:
User:Σ - Wikipedia
This user is a Socialist.
That's right. As I said, the measure of EROEI depends on the thoroughness of the researcher. The quality of the research can vary depending on the availability of data which isn't always there, but it does give an idea of the order of magnitude of the various technologies. Most graphs provide error bars which are important. The wiki graph does not, and is just an example of how the comparisons can be displayed.
A better way to get an idea of the best technologies is to Google "EROEI graphs" and click "images". That will give a wider overview the trends.
The entire concept is another laughable example demonstrating the stupidity of the make America timid again mob.
Your Googling won`t turn up any of these "studies" that qualify better than a "C" even when they have been peer reviewed by the kind of alarmist nuts who make up the bulk of Wikipedia authors.
This hair-brained concept has a windmill at an EROI of 1 even though it would take about 35 000 to deliver what the 100 times less ("EROI") efficient Grand Coulee dam has been delivering for over 70 years.
Windmills deliver on average only about 20% of their name plate ratings to begin with , if the wind is within the narrow specs and are falling apart after 20 years. Good thing dope smoking Democrats like Choom-gang Obama were not "hip" when the US decided to green light mega projects like Grand Coulee else most of Arizona, Nevada and California would be in the dark and without water today.
That idiotic EROI would rate a donkey wheel better than anything else because you could make Mortadella out of decommissioned donkeys instead of wondering what to do with the fiberglass& plasic garbage 20 years from now when the service life time of a huge amount of windmills expires.
In addition to being stupid you are also delusional to the extreme if you convinced yourself that people who laugh at you are angry instead of realizing you have become their laughing stock.The entire concept is another laughable example demonstrating the stupidity of the make America timid again mob.
Your Googling won`t turn up any of these "studies" that qualify better than a "C" even when they have been peer reviewed by the kind of alarmist nuts who make up the bulk of Wikipedia authors.
This hair-brained concept has a windmill at an EROI of 1 even though it would take about 35 000 to deliver what the 100 times less ("EROI") efficient Grand Coulee dam has been delivering for over 70 years.
Windmills deliver on average only about 20% of their name plate ratings to begin with , if the wind is within the narrow specs and are falling apart after 20 years. Good thing dope smoking Democrats like Choom-gang Obama were not "hip" when the US decided to green light mega projects like Grand Coulee else most of Arizona, Nevada and California would be in the dark and without water today.
That idiotic EROI would rate a donkey wheel better than anything else because you could make Mortadella out of decommissioned donkeys instead of wondering what to do with the fiberglass& plasic garbage 20 years from now when the service life time of a huge amount of windmills expires.
Chill out. That's your opinion. Your anger does not make your argument any stronger.
I assume the 22% uptime has already been factored into the EROI, but I have no idea. The same goes for photovoltaics.
I also assume that those investing big bucks into wind and solar energy already know all about the uptime efficiencies.
So what`s the average "uptime" % of a wind turbine and how does that compare with the Grand Coulee dam which has had a 100% "uptime" ever since it became operational ?I see you are still angry and churlish. Sorry, I meant to say "uptime and efficiencies". Uptime is the amount of time it is generating power. Efficiency is the percentage of wind energy converted to usable electrical energy.
So what`s the average "uptime" % of a wind turbine and how does that compare with the Grand Coulee dam which has had a 100% "uptime" ever since it became operational ?
Wake up and smell the coffee instead of inhaling whacky-tobaccy
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
"— the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years."
"The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years."
And I bet none of the "EROI" experts who are trying to sell us on windmills factor in the conventional power plants which are needed to back up each wind farm because a wind turbine is not able to deliver power on demand as a power grid has to.
The only way to make a windmill look 100 times more "EROI" than a Hydro electric power plant is is by inventing a rating system that works like the one doggie show judges use where a cute, but otherwise useless little Chiwawa can score better than a K9 German Shepard that tracked down and neutralized every scumbag he was supposed to. Expressing the doggie show EROI scores in numbers and plotting them on a graph completes the illusion that "EROI" is based on math instead of what the doggie show judge fancied.So what`s the average "uptime" % of a wind turbine and how does that compare with the Grand Coulee dam which has had a 100% "uptime" ever since it became operational ?
Wake up and smell the coffee instead of inhaling whacky-tobaccy
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
"— the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years."
"The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years."
And I bet none of the "EROI" experts who are trying to sell us on windmills factor in the conventional power plants which are needed to back up each wind farm because a wind turbine is not able to deliver power on demand as a power grid has to.
I don't know what your point is. Any EROI chart that I have seen shows that hydroelectric is more cost effective than any other source. That should be obvious. It shows wind power is less, which is also obvious.
The article you cited says at the end,
“Better turbines are being developed all the time, so it’s absurd to focus purely on the past as this report does, and pretend that that’s the way things are going to be in the future.”
If you want to know details on how EROI is computed read the background assumptions in each chart. That is better than "betting" what EROI experts are assuming.
EROI charts are not all compiled by wind aficionados trying to sell something. I am certainly not trying to sell it either. I simply gave there4eyeM a heads-up on how some researchers are trying to answer his question in post #221 above.
.
Hahaha you are asking me what is my point after you finally realized that you tried to make a point with a pointless concept. Of course there is nothing to argue about and never was because it`s a clear-cut&dry case deciding which technology is superior.The concept of EROI is used for comparing different energy sources. You are turning it into a fight between hydro and wind. That is not the purpose of EROI and it's not my purpose. It's your purpose. Just what is your point? Hydro is better than wind? Of course it is! It's not a fight. Hydro wins every time. I have no idea why you are ranting about EROI because it proves your point, a point that everyone knows. It seems you want to argue, but there is nothing to argue about.
The only way to make a windmill look 100 times more "EROI" than a Hydro electric power plant is is by inventing a rating system that works like the one doggie show judges use where a cute, but otherwise useless little Chiwawa can score better than a K9 German Shepard that tracked down and neutralized every scumbag he was supposed to. Expressing the doggie show EROI scores in numbers and plotting them on a graph completes the illusion that "EROI" is based on math instead of what the doggie show judge fancied.So what`s the average "uptime" % of a wind turbine and how does that compare with the Grand Coulee dam which has had a 100% "uptime" ever since it became operational ?
Wake up and smell the coffee instead of inhaling whacky-tobaccy
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
"— the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years."
"The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years."
And I bet none of the "EROI" experts who are trying to sell us on windmills factor in the conventional power plants which are needed to back up each wind farm because a wind turbine is not able to deliver power on demand as a power grid has to.
I don't know what your point is. Any EROI chart that I have seen shows that hydroelectric is more cost effective than any other source. That should be obvious. It shows wind power is less, which is also obvious.
The article you cited says at the end,
“Better turbines are being developed all the time, so it’s absurd to focus purely on the past as this report does, and pretend that that’s the way things are going to be in the future.”
If you want to know details on how EROI is computed read the background assumptions in each chart. That is better than "betting" what EROI experts are assuming.
EROI charts are not all compiled by wind aficionados trying to sell something. I am certainly not trying to sell it either. I simply gave there4eyeM a heads-up on how some researchers are trying to answer his question in post #221 above.
.
No I am not misreading it. They define It as a ratio of "invested energy" over "returned energy".The only way to make a windmill look 100 times more "EROI" than a Hydro electric power plant is is by inventing a rating system that works like the one doggie show judges use where a cute, but otherwise useless little Chiwawa can score better than a K9 German Shepard that tracked down and neutralized every scumbag he was supposed to. Expressing the doggie show EROI scores in numbers and plotting them on a graph completes the illusion that "EROI" is based on math instead of what the doggie show judge fancied.So what`s the average "uptime" % of a wind turbine and how does that compare with the Grand Coulee dam which has had a 100% "uptime" ever since it became operational ?
Wake up and smell the coffee instead of inhaling whacky-tobaccy
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
"— the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years."
"The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years."
And I bet none of the "EROI" experts who are trying to sell us on windmills factor in the conventional power plants which are needed to back up each wind farm because a wind turbine is not able to deliver power on demand as a power grid has to.
I don't know what your point is. Any EROI chart that I have seen shows that hydroelectric is more cost effective than any other source. That should be obvious. It shows wind power is less, which is also obvious.
The article you cited says at the end,
“Better turbines are being developed all the time, so it’s absurd to focus purely on the past as this report does, and pretend that that’s the way things are going to be in the future.”
If you want to know details on how EROI is computed read the background assumptions in each chart. That is better than "betting" what EROI experts are assuming.
EROI charts are not all compiled by wind aficionados trying to sell something. I am certainly not trying to sell it either. I simply gave there4eyeM a heads-up on how some researchers are trying to answer his question in post #221 above.
.
The only way to make a windmill look 100 times more "EROI" than a Hydro electric power plant is is by inventing a rating system...….
Are you misreading the chart?
Hydro returns most....coal second most.
Wind isn't even close.
No I am not misreading it. They define It as a ratio of "invested energy" over "returned energy".The only way to make a windmill look 100 times more "EROI" than a Hydro electric power plant is is by inventing a rating system that works like the one doggie show judges use where a cute, but otherwise useless little Chiwawa can score better than a K9 German Shepard that tracked down and neutralized every scumbag he was supposed to. Expressing the doggie show EROI scores in numbers and plotting them on a graph completes the illusion that "EROI" is based on math instead of what the doggie show judge fancied.So what`s the average "uptime" % of a wind turbine and how does that compare with the Grand Coulee dam which has had a 100% "uptime" ever since it became operational ?
Wake up and smell the coffee instead of inhaling whacky-tobaccy
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
"— the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years."
"The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years."
And I bet none of the "EROI" experts who are trying to sell us on windmills factor in the conventional power plants which are needed to back up each wind farm because a wind turbine is not able to deliver power on demand as a power grid has to.
I don't know what your point is. Any EROI chart that I have seen shows that hydroelectric is more cost effective than any other source. That should be obvious. It shows wind power is less, which is also obvious.
The article you cited says at the end,
“Better turbines are being developed all the time, so it’s absurd to focus purely on the past as this report does, and pretend that that’s the way things are going to be in the future.”
If you want to know details on how EROI is computed read the background assumptions in each chart. That is better than "betting" what EROI experts are assuming.
EROI charts are not all compiled by wind aficionados trying to sell something. I am certainly not trying to sell it either. I simply gave there4eyeM a heads-up on how some researchers are trying to answer his question in post #221 above.
.
The only way to make a windmill look 100 times more "EROI" than a Hydro electric power plant is is by inventing a rating system...….
Are you misreading the chart?
Hydro returns most....coal second most.
Wind isn't even close.
Right. I told you that right from the start. As Todd said, it's right there in the chart I posted at square one. Hydro is superior. The same goes for solar. So you never did have any point.Hahaha you are asking me what is my point after you finally realized that you tried to make a point with a pointless concept. Of course there is nothing to argue about and never was because it`s a clear-cut&dry case deciding which technology is superior.
