Green energy, solar and wind are collapsing....it can't happen fast enough.

[Mushroom]

My solution is to deny third world countries foreign aid while keeping them out of first world countries.

And how exactly would that accomplish anything?

 

[Hector12]

And how exactly would that accomplish anything?

Figure it out.

 

[Mushroom]

Figure it out.

No, you made the statement, it is up to you to explain it.

How would any of that stop the ever growing global population?

 

[Stryder50]

Solar seems to be doing well here in Florida and has been used in some fashion for generations.

Is it producing enough electricity to cover the cost of producing the solar devices, their operations,, and disposal once worn out ???

 

[Stryder50]

Company unveils bladeless ‘honeycomb’ wind turbines — here’s how this super-efficient technology could let clean energy take another leap forward​

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[JBG]

Company unveils bladeless ‘honeycomb’ wind turbines — here’s how this super-efficient technology could let clean energy take another leap forward​

MSN

www.msn.com

If it can come to market and win without subsidies, more the better.

 

[Mushroom]

If it can come to market and win without subsidies, more the better.

Honestly, I doubt it will ever come to market at all.

At least three or four times a month, something like this comes out. And it is really a great example of bad journalism. They essentially take a press release from a start-up company that is a one trick pony trying to build something. And they talk up how incredibly awesome and game changing what they have developed is, and all they need is money to make it a reality.

Meanwhile, in 99% of them there is no vetting beforehand, they simply accept everything written up in the press release as gospel without any actual research into if it is even possible. But all that matters is that they promise to reduce CO2 levels, produce "green energy", or anything else that they know will get them attention.

And the thing is, there are scores of these that have come and gone over the years. Most incredibly stupid ideas, that actually develop absolutely nothing, but made the founders a lot of money before they eventually go bankrupt and produce nothing.

Gravity batteries? Free diamonds from removing CO2 from the air? Free water from the air? Solar freaking roadways? I can go on and on, but it is pointless because the brain dead that "want to believe" will scream how awesome such things are, even with absolutely no evidence there is actually anything there.

They are the ultimate suckers, burn every minute.

 

[Crick]

Honestly, I doubt it will ever come to market at all.

At least three or four times a month, something like this comes out. And it is really a great example of bad journalism. They essentially take a press release from a start-up company that is a one trick pony trying to build something. And they talk up how incredibly awesome and game changing what they have developed is, and all they need is money to make it a reality.

Meanwhile, in 99% of them there is no vetting beforehand, they simply accept everything written up in the press release as gospel without any actual research into if it is even possible. But all that matters is that they promise to reduce CO2 levels, produce "green energy", or anything else that they know will get them attention.

And the thing is, there are scores of these that have come and gone over the years. Most incredibly stupid ideas, that actually develop absolutely nothing, but made the founders a lot of money before they eventually go bankrupt and produce nothing.

Gravity batteries? Free diamonds from removing CO2 from the air? Free water from the air? Solar freaking roadways? I can go on and on, but it is pointless because the brain dead that "want to believe" will scream how awesome such things are, even with absolutely no evidence there is actually anything there.

They are the ultimate suckers, burn every minute.

Utility scale gravity batteries are in use all over the freaking planet.

 

[lg325]

Is it producing enough electricity to cover the cost of producing the solar devices, their operations,, and disposal once worn out ???

Over the long term. From what I have observed.

 

[Crick]

Is it producing enough electricity to cover the cost of producing the solar devices, their operations,, and disposal once worn out ???

Solar and wind easily make back the carbon cost of their manufacture. Hardly something you can say for natural gas, coal or petroleum. And the appearance of the word "cost" always makes me think to compare the cost of fuel between wind, solar and natural gas, coal or petroleum. And I think you know where that leads.

 

[ding]

Hardly something you can say for natural gas, coal or petroleum.

Really? You think they are losing money?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solar and wind easily make back the carbon cost of their manufacture. Hardly something you can say for natural gas, coal or petroleum. And the appearance of the word "cost" always makes me think to compare the cost of fuel between wind, solar and natural gas, coal or petroleum. And I think you know where that leads.

How does that cheap fuel impact the cost of solar electricity at midnight?

 

[Stryder50]

Solar and wind easily make back the carbon cost of their manufacture. Hardly something you can say for natural gas, coal or petroleum. And the appearance of the word "cost" always makes me think to compare the cost of fuel between wind, solar and natural gas, coal or petroleum. And I think you know where that leads.

I'd need to see reliable documentation on these claims. I've come to learn that you have partisan bias and rare objectivity or accurate disclosure.

For example, it's been posted here often that the main gears on wind mills are wearing out quicker than planned for, hence their usable lifespan is shorter than projected. Also the components have little to no recycle use hence we see large landfills where they are being buried.

Another factor is the land space=footprint of wind and solar for what they return in energy, which makes them more expensive in that regard compared to more dense/concentrated forms of electrical generation.

Note also that significant carbon resource ~ petroleum and natural gas are used as raw material for their components as well as for transportation and installation of these devices, and then for remove and disposal.

One aspect of 'wind mill' source is how much does the energy taken out of the moving air/wind impact weather ??? Do they have a significant impact on movement/exchange of warm and cool air masses.

Government subsidies are also an actual cost that some fail to factor in. Such are a REAL cost shared by taxpayers and/or consumers and reflect upon the total lifetime costs of such systems. Especially when comparing one system to another which can sometimes be like "apples to oranges" so to speak.

I'm all for developing and using forms of energy generation that reduce carbon resource use, but these should not create more real cost per kwh than current sources if at all avoidable. This is where nuclear appears as a more desirable source than some forms of solar and wind.

And I still advocate for solar being through orbital devices and beamed down to receiving grids which could be 'net' shaped structure with crops and/or other vegetation(habitat) underneath. Orbital solar systems also provide spinoff via the space transport, habitat, and worker systems needed being partially paid for in providing a space based living, mining, and manufacturing establishment to make the orbital solar arrays(OSA) along with providing products that can only be made in no-air and no-gravity environments.

Per my signature: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." and so far many of these alternatives have been misrepresented as being "cheaper" than they actually are, along with loaded with more future environmental and pollution hazards than being acknowledged.

 

[Crick]

I'd need to see reliable documentation on these claims. I've come to learn that you have partisan bias and rare objectivity or accurate disclosure.

This information and links supporting my contention have been posted here repeatedly. And since I post significantly more links to more objective supporting resources than any other poster in this forum, your accusation is simple bullshit.

For example, it's been posted here often that the main gears on wind mills are wearing out quicker than planned for, hence their usable lifespan is shorter than projected. Also the components have little to no recycle use hence we see large landfills where they are being buried.

It is the blades that are difficult to recyle. The main gears are solid metal and completely recyclable.

Another factor is the land space=footprint of wind and solar for what they return in energy, which makes them more expensive in that regard compared to more dense/concentrated forms of electrical generation.

Feel free to nitpick and fantasize costs all you want but be aware that it is quite obvious you are intentionally ignoring the elephant in the room: fuel costs. The bottom line is that solar and wind are cheaper per kWh than any fossil fuel power source and the cost of those fuels is never going to go down.

Note also that significant carbon resource ~ petroleum and natural gas are used as raw material for their components as well as for transportation and installation of these devices, and then for remove and disposal.

Which is quickly made up by the production of power with zero GHG emissions.

One aspect of 'wind mill' source is how much does the energy taken out of the moving air/wind impact weather ??? Do they have a significant impact on movement/exchange of warm and cool air masses.

Jesus, dude, can we say S-T-R-E-T-C-H-I-N-G.

Government subsidies are also an actual cost that some fail to factor in. Such are a REAL cost shared by taxpayers and/or consumers and reflect upon the total lifetime costs of such systems.

The US government provided over $10 billion to the oil industry in 2022.

Especially when comparing one system to another which can sometimes be like "apples to oranges" so to speak.

I'm all for developing and using forms of energy generation that reduce carbon resource use, but these should not create more real cost per kwh than current sources if at all avoidable.

Then you should be pleased because wind and solar dramatically reduce carbon emissions and cost less per kWh.

This is where nuclear appears as a more desirable source than some forms of solar and wind.

I love nuclear power. Bring it on.

And I still advocate for solar being through orbital devices and beamed down to receiving grids which could be 'net' shaped structure with crops and/or other vegetation(habitat) underneath. Orbital solar systems also provide spinoff via the space transport, habitat, and worker systems needed being partially paid for in providing a space based living, mining, and manufacturing establishment to make the orbital solar arrays(OSA) along with providing products that can only be made in no-air and no-gravity environments.

You're not going to express your concern at the amount of GHGs produced in rocket exhaust to get all that into orbit?

Per my signature: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

I agree.

and so far many of these alternatives have been misrepresented as being "cheaper" than they actually are, along with loaded with more future environmental and pollution hazards than being acknowledged.

But some lunches are a whole lot cheaper than others. Wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuel in every regard.

 

[ding]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Mushroom]

Government subsidies are also an actual cost that some fail to factor in. Such are a REAL cost shared by taxpayers and/or consumers and reflect upon the total lifetime costs of such systems. Especially when comparing one system to another which can sometimes be like "apples to oranges" so to speak.

These are the kinds of things that many fail to account for. Also there is the lifespan.

Most of these "green" solutions people are pushing for have fairly short lifespans. As in around 20 years. And most are built on the edges of larger cities, in what are now rural areas.

But what are those areas going to be like in 20 years when it is time to replace them?

Now lifespan of more conventional sources like a natural gas power plant is 50+ years. And for the amount of power produced, they have a much smaller footprint and have coexisted inside of large cities for a century in some places. I know of many that were built in the 1960s and 1970s that were once in rural areas are now inside of the cities, with minimal impact. But you are not going to see large communities springing up around wind turbine farms for many reasons.

And I already predict that it is only going to be a matter of time before the two of them butt heads, and when it comes time to start replacing turbines in some areas local pressures will instead force them farther away. Increasing costs exponentially as they have to buy even more land and move the infrastructure to support them.

I am likely not going to be around to see it, but I expect that in 20 years or so there is going to be a lot of pressure in many areas to move solar and wind farms to even more remote locations as urban areas push into them. I have already seen that in California, where many of the early wind farms were built in remote areas that are now on the edge of urbanization. And it is only a matter of time before they will be forced to move elsewhere.

I always find it interesting to watch NIMBY in action, especially when it is a case of urbanization moving into the area of pre-existing infrastructure. Because in most instances like that, the NIMBY types win and the infrastructure is forced to move or be torn down.

 

[JBG]

Honestly, I doubt it will ever come to market at all.

There's a picture of a windmill off the South Fork of Long Island with blades the size of a football field. Allegedly it is supplying power to Long Island. I wonder how much it cost to build and how long it will take to amortize its cost. See

Governor Hochul Announces South Fork Wind Delivers First Offshore Wind Power to Long Island.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The goal isn't to produce more, reliable, cheaper, efficient energy....the goal of the left is to limit access to energy to give them more control over the life choices we have....

Hopefully the scam of green energy will collapse at an accelerated rate...

Green Dreams Going Up In Smoke

Wind and solar are both terrible methods of generating electricity, both expensive and unreliable. The one thing that can make the situation worse is the drive to electrify everything, including mo…

www.powerlineblog.com

This thread shows the stupidity, shallowness, and cruelty of the right wing, all wrapped up a one little, steaming turd.

 

[JBG]

I'd need to see reliable documentation on these claims. I've come to learn that you have partisan bias and rare objectivity or accurate disclosure.

For example, it's been posted here often that the main gears on wind mills are wearing out quicker than planned for, hence their usable lifespan is shorter than projected. Also the components have little to no recycle use hence we see large landfills where they are being buried.

Another factor is the land space=footprint of wind and solar for what they return in energy, which makes them more expensive in that regard compared to more dense/concentrated forms of electrical generation.

Note also that significant carbon resource ~ petroleum and natural gas are used as raw material for their components as well as for transportation and installation of these devices, and then for remove and disposal.

One aspect of 'wind mill' source is how much does the energy taken out of the moving air/wind impact weather ??? Do they have a significant impact on movement/exchange of warm and cool air masses.

Government subsidies are also an actual cost that some fail to factor in. Such are a REAL cost shared by taxpayers and/or consumers and reflect upon the total lifetime costs of such systems. Especially when comparing one system to another which can sometimes be like "apples to oranges" so to speak.

I'm all for developing and using forms of energy generation that reduce carbon resource use, but these should not create more real cost per kwh than current sources if at all avoidable. This is where nuclear appears as a more desirable source than some forms of solar and wind.

And I still advocate for solar being through orbital devices and beamed down to receiving grids which could be 'net' shaped structure with crops and/or other vegetation(habitat) underneath. Orbital solar systems also provide spinoff via the space transport, habitat, and worker systems needed being partially paid for in providing a space based living, mining, and manufacturing establishment to make the orbital solar arrays(OSA) along with providing products that can only be made in no-air and no-gravity environments.

Per my signature: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." and so far many of these alternatives have been misrepresented as being "cheaper" than they actually are, along with loaded with more future environmental and pollution hazards than being acknowledged.

The enviros want lockdown, not a free lunch.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The enviros want lockdown, not a free lunch.

Paranoid delusion, spoonfed by paid liars who don't care if you drop dead.