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%).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.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?Success is found in a can.
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
"There is no break even point."
Of course there is
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 anywhereNot your argument?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
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
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.
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 ...