If 25% of a commodity is removed, will the consumers' cost go up?

[kaz]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Yes, clearly all the other States have massive amounts of open land with lots of reliable wind they can build massive wind farms on like Texas does. Oh wait ...

Well, at least Texas can just keep building more wind farms as their energy needs grow. It's not like they have already used the best spots or anything. Oh wait ...

 

[justinacolmena]

Doesn't mean much with the left's push toward electric vehicles. Demand could be decreased by twenty-five percent as well

Drunken drivers on the left side of the road high on marijuana behind the wheel of their leccy vehicles.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Read what I wrote, I addressed all this repeatedly in detail.

You're not really a financial guy. No one who is would agree to an investment you break even on in ten years and even then is just a piddling size investment. But I'll let someone else explain that to you, I already have

Exactly. If alternative energy was any real investment, you wouldn't need government subsidizing and pushing it. If you invest in a windmill, the only investment you made is feeling like you did your part to save the planet.

From what I understand, if you have a storm and it knocks your electricity out, your windmill is not going to keep your house going because that's not the way it's setup. That windmill may be a spinning, but your power is out just like everybody else. I'd rather invest in a natural gas backup generator if I were to spend any additional money on energy.

 

[danielpalos]

Doesn't mean much with the left's push toward electric vehicles. Demand could be decreased by twenty-five percent as well

Drunken drivers on the left side of the road high on marijuana behind the wheel of their leccy vehicles.

Can't wait for fully automatic EV.

 

[NightFox]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Yes, clearly all the other States have massive amounts of open land with lots of reliable wind they can build massive wind farms on like Texas does. Oh wait ...

I didn’t say that, why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?

Well, at least Texas can just keep building more wind farms as their energy needs grow. It's not like they have already used the best spots or anything. Oh wait ...

Actually they already are in the process of adding 1500 more MW of wind capacity and plan for more beyond that. Apparently Texas is larger than you thought.

 

[FA_Q2]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

But would you call that the primary source when it is less than half the generation of nat gas? Of course, overall production does not reflect what one county may rely on vs another, the complete picture is more detailed than I would even begin to know. Either way, some form of other power must remain in the off chance that the wind decides to change its mind - we are nowhere near being able to predict weather and wind patterns with complete accuracy even if we do know some areas that are fairly reliable.

It just seems odd to me that there is so much opposition to the very concept of alternative power. I am against the government getting involved and offering any kind of incentives whatsoever but without any incentives wind and solar will still expand on their own as they are economically viable in some situations.

 

[FA_Q2]

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

It's very windy here in the northeast Ohio area. I used to deliver to a company owned by one of these global warming nuts. He had a windmill to operate his small business.

One day the guy unloading me said the boss was throwing a party at the end of the day. The windmill finally paid itself off, and all his electricity from that point on will be free.

I went there a month later, and the windmill was gone. The owner was by the docks and I asked him what happened to the windmill? He just put his arms up as if he was getting robbed, swished them down towards the ground and said "Aaaah."

So he lost nothing? He could have built a gas generator on his property instead but when that had finally broken down he certainly would not have broke even. It would have cost him ten times as much.

I am unsure what the point of that story was? Further, there is no small scale power generation system that is efficient, period. The economy of scale works in power generation as it does with producing oranges. The dream from some that we are all going to have mini solar and wind farms on our homes to take care of all our power needs is just silly.

 

[FA_Q2]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Read what I wrote, I addressed all this repeatedly in detail.

You're not really a financial guy. No one who is would agree to an investment you break even on in ten years and even then is just a piddling size investment. But I'll let someone else explain that to you, I already have

Ya, no one would do that.

Yet people are investing in wind where it makes sense. So apparently one of your premises is incorrect.

 

[kaz]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Yes, clearly all the other States have massive amounts of open land with lots of reliable wind they can build massive wind farms on like Texas does. Oh wait ...

I didn’t say that, why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?

Well, at least Texas can just keep building more wind farms as their energy needs grow. It's not like they have already used the best spots or anything. Oh wait ...

Actually they already are in the process of adding 1500 more MW of wind capacity and plan for more beyond that. Apparently Texas is larger than you thought.

Or they could build a few natural gas plants and not buttify their countryside, but whatever

 

[kaz]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Read what I wrote, I addressed all this repeatedly in detail.

You're not really a financial guy. No one who is would agree to an investment you break even on in ten years and even then is just a piddling size investment. But I'll let someone else explain that to you, I already have

Ya, no one would do that.

Yet people are investing in wind where it makes sense. So apparently one of your premises is incorrect.

And they're investing in wind where it doesn't make sense.

And they are doing it at the expense of investments that would have a far greater return, like replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So he lost nothing? He could have built a gas generator on his property instead but when that had finally broken down he certainly would not have broke even. It would have cost him ten times as much.

I am unsure what the point of that story was? Further, there is no small scale power generation system that is efficient, period. The economy of scale works in power generation as it does with producing oranges. The dream from some that we are all going to have mini solar and wind farms on our homes to take care of all our power needs is just silly.

You don't use natural gas generators to save on electricity, you get one to provide you with power when your power goes out like in a storm.

Yes, the business owner did break even, but then what was the point of getting a windmill in the first place? Well, it made him feel better, but that was about it.

He was a goofy one. He was unloading me at their new warehouse he rented up the street. This was in the middle of winter. He came running up to my truck and asked if I would turn it off. He said something about having these dance classes for kids in the building until they find somewhere else to go, and didn't want the truck fumes in the warehouse.

First off, trucks emitted much less pollution than they did years ago. Secondly, in the winter, you keep all your doors closed. How was my clean burning truck going to pollute his warehouse? I drove a 53' trailer, and there is a couple of feet more between that and the tractor. As I said, it's windy all the time. He wasn't worried about fumes, it just drove him crazy that I had my engine running on idle to keep the heat on.

 

[NightFox]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Yes, clearly all the other States have massive amounts of open land with lots of reliable wind they can build massive wind farms on like Texas does. Oh wait ...

I didn’t say that, why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?

Well, at least Texas can just keep building more wind farms as their energy needs grow. It's not like they have already used the best spots or anything. Oh wait ...

Actually they already are in the process of adding 1500 more MW of wind capacity and plan for more beyond that. Apparently Texas is larger than you thought.

Or they could build a few natural gas plants and not buttify their countryside, but whatever

Uh-huh, sorry reality didn't go your way on this one kaz, better luck next time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But would you call that the primary source when it is less than half the generation of nat gas? Of course, overall production does not reflect what one county may rely on vs another, the complete picture is more detailed than I would even begin to know. Either way, some form of other power must remain in the off chance that the wind decides to change its mind - we are nowhere near being able to predict weather and wind patterns with complete accuracy even if we do know some areas that are fairly reliable.

I don't know about that. Maybe I'm wrong, but if there is no wind, there is no electric generation. If it's too windy, I was told those windmills shutdown. I was told after they start spinning to fast, it just locks out and doesn't start up again until the wind dies down.

 

[FA_Q2]

So he lost nothing? He could have built a gas generator on his property instead but when that had finally broken down he certainly would not have broke even. It would have cost him ten times as much.

I am unsure what the point of that story was? Further, there is no small scale power generation system that is efficient, period. The economy of scale works in power generation as it does with producing oranges. The dream from some that we are all going to have mini solar and wind farms on our homes to take care of all our power needs is just silly.

You don't use natural gas generators to save on electricity, you get one to provide you with power when your power goes out like in a storm.

Yes, that is the point. Small scale energy generation is extremely inefficient. Hence why getting your own windmill is just a silly thing to do because you want to and why your antidotal story is pretty much pointless. The fact that his windmill broke even is actually a pretty damn good example of its efficacy, in its most inefficient state he did not lose anything.

Yes, the business owner did break even, but then what was the point of getting a windmill in the first place? Well, it made him feel better, but that was about it.

As I said, no point at all. It is a silly dream that we are going to power our lives off inefficient devices we place on our own property when you can centralize them and gain massive efficiency boosts.

He was a goofy one. He was unloading me at their new warehouse he rented up the street. This was in the middle of winter. He came running up to my truck and asked if I would turn it off. He said something about having these dance classes for kids in the building until they find somewhere else to go, and didn't want the truck fumes in the warehouse.

First off, trucks emitted much less pollution than they did years ago. Secondly, in the winter, you keep all your doors closed. How was my clean burning truck going to pollute his warehouse? I drove a 53' trailer, and there is a couple of feet more between that and the tractor. As I said, it's windy all the time. He wasn't worried about fumes, it just drove him crazy that I had my engine running on idle to keep the heat on.

Yes, goofy guy. I mean, he DID buy a windmill and it seems that he thought it was going to be something worth doing. All irrelevant in discussing the efficacy of wind power generation.

 

[FA_Q2]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Read what I wrote, I addressed all this repeatedly in detail.

You're not really a financial guy. No one who is would agree to an investment you break even on in ten years and even then is just a piddling size investment. But I'll let someone else explain that to you, I already have

Ya, no one would do that.

Yet people are investing in wind where it makes sense. So apparently one of your premises is incorrect.

And they're investing in wind where it doesn't make sense.

And they are doing it at the expense of investments that would have a far greater return, like replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal

I am glad you know better than the entire market. I guess you are the poster child for centralized power than?

 

[FA_Q2]

But would you call that the primary source when it is less than half the generation of nat gas? Of course, overall production does not reflect what one county may rely on vs another, the complete picture is more detailed than I would even begin to know. Either way, some form of other power must remain in the off chance that the wind decides to change its mind - we are nowhere near being able to predict weather and wind patterns with complete accuracy even if we do know some areas that are fairly reliable.

I don't know about that. Maybe I'm wrong, but if there is no wind, there is no electric generation. If it's too windy, I was told those windmills shutdown. I was told after they start spinning to fast, it just locks out and doesn't start up again until the wind dies down.

Hence why I said it is not a good primary source, you need something that can handle power requirements when wind, solar or any other variable power source cannot. If we ever develop sufficient power storage this may change but we are nowhere near that capability and it may never make good sense. I am not sure what you were trying to get at with this response in relation to my statement?

 

[Blenda]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

Name a single thing the federal goverment has made cheaper without massive taxpayer funded subsidies.

 

[Blenda]

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

FACT:
About a quarter (25%) of U.S. oil and an eighth of the nation's natural gas is produced on federal lands.
Supporting link: U.S. oil and natural gas production to fall in 2021, then rise in 2022 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

FACT:
If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?

PROOF!!!

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden​

Biden's attack on U.S. energy producers, starting with his freeze on federal oil and gas leases, will assuredly take a toll on output down the road and cause prices at the pump to rise.
But today, Biden has pushed those prices, which were already rising because of severe weather, even higher by gratuitously alienating Saudi Arabia. The Gulf kingdom just surprised energy markets by announcing it would not raise oil output, despite developing supply constraints and rising prices.
Oil prices jumped on the news, popping 4 percent to pre-pandemic levels for the first time in a year; the surge rattled markets alread

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden

What a bunch of hooey. Freezing oil and gas leases is on public lands has no effect on production whatsoever. They did the same thing under the Obama administration in production went up.

They’re not giving out new leases because there’s nothing left to lease. Any lands had any possibility of production have already been tapped.

Your article seems to be claiming that Biden intends to shut down the existing production on federal lands and there’s no indication that he does. The question of what happens if the 25% of oil and gas that is produced on federal lands is shut down is moot.

Joe Biden is one of the people who is responsible for the United States of America reach achieving energy independence. It is ridiculous for the right wing media to now clean that Joe is out to destroy that energy independence.

Hi George, the site's Chinese disinformation officer.

Just so you know, wells don't last forever. So yes, freezing leases may take time to cut production, but since reserve aren't infinite, yes, they will reduce and eventually end production.

You really are qualified to spread Chinese disinformation, you know nothing about everything!

Every time you get your ass handed to you on a plate, you come up with the Chinese bullshit line. One would think since it’s been an absolute failure since you started calling me Mrs. Mao, that you would’ve given up on it by now but you’re not that smart.

Since the USA is reducing its dependence on oil and moving to green energy why would you need to drill new wells? Demand is decreasing.

Trump just spent billions trying to bring back coal, only to have coal mines continue to go bankrupt and close.

Evolve or die. These are your options. Take a good look what is happening out west this week. You’ve ignored climate change for the past 40 years and people are dying. It’s all fun and games until hundreds of people start losing their lives.

So keep promoting carbon fuels, low gas prices and continue along the path of idiocy that you’ve been on under successive Republican administrations. Maybe when enough people stop dying you people smarten your ass is up.

I love how the green energy fools don't have a clue of which they support.

The batteries of electric vehicles are far heavier than gas powered cars. To make up for the weight EVs use far more plastic in their build. Where does plastic come from? Fossil fuels. From what is the bulk of the electricity used to power electric cars created? Fossil fuels. And let's not forget the mining required to obtain the rare earth metals used in creating the batteries and chips is mainly in China and uses both toxic chemicals and slave labor to extract.

Much like the morons who support wind energy. Once again China is mining the rare earth metals used to create each windmill and often even creates every single part. Those parts need to be shipped to the US on large ships that use oil. Once the parts get to the US they are once again shipped to a new destination using oil. Then, after the massive amounts of oil used to even get the windmills in place, they need to use diesel to jump start the windmill. Not to mention the lubricants used to keep the windmill running correctly are derived from oil. Besides every single windmill killing thousands of birds, bugs, and bats on its own every year, they only last about a decade. After they are no longer useful they are loaded up once again on semis that use oil to transport the parts to a landfill where they are buried.

Leftist twits on their electronic devices, wearing clothes and shoes, and sitting on furniture created using oil: nuh uh! Oil is evil and MUST be gotten rid of!

 

[healthmyths]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

I believe the point was that it *could* result in contraction of the domestic production possibilities curve in the future for those commodities, which is true, however given that the market isn't as simple as some apparently believe it doesn't necessarily entail corresponding price increases, for example we import crude oil, refine it and then turn around and export the refined products, contraction of the domestic crude oil PPC might involve reducing such exports to meet domestic demand.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

7% in 2020 (on a downward sloping trend line).

BlindBoob want's to keep funding terrorist supporting and oppressive governments and not develop energy domestically. He's a dick that way.

But in his defense, BlindBoob realizes that terrorist supporting and oppressive government's aren't on the earth as we are and drilling oil there and shipping it across oceans doesn't affect our environment.

Arguing with leftists is always an experience in stupid

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

We had cheap gas when Trump was POTUS. Hell it was 1.50 or less. Now, under your boy Biden its 2.85 or higher. With his try at ending drilling for oil on Fed land and his wanting to end fracking he hasn't done America any favors.

Hell when I was a kid gas was 19 cents a gallon. The supposed oil shortage in the 70's ended that.

During the pandemic there was NO demand to oil.. so there was a glut of oil on the market and prices went down. $73 a barrel is a good price.. US domestic producers can survive on that.

The oil shortage in the 1970s was a result of the Yom Kippur war.

NO SHIT! Beaver! Because the USA imported more oil in the 70s! Geez...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I love how the green energy fools don't have a clue of which they support.

The batteries of electric vehicles are far heavier than gas powered cars. To make up for the weight EVs use far more plastic in their build. Where does plastic come from? Fossil fuels. From what is the bulk of the electricity used to power electric cars created? Fossil fuels. And let's not forget the mining required to obtain the rare earth metals used in creating the batteries and chips is mainly in China and uses both toxic chemicals and slave labor to extract.

And then the question is, what do we do with all these used up car batteries? It will be like nuclear waste. We will be scrambling around to find places to get rid of the crap.