Iowa Reaches Milestone on Wind-Energy Production - 64%

[abu afak]

Tell us how much was spent

Lying AGAIN moron.
I did not say Turbines were cheap, I said they and the power they produced was cheaper than Fossil Fuels, and ergo the Boom. (IA 64%, SD, 56%, OK 45%, TX 31%, etc.)
And I have two thread starts Documenting that fact still near the top of the section. (One citing the IEA).
And there is the FACT of the BOOM and mainly in Red States in Wind.

You and your freaky questions/Demand Endless Detail Fallacy lose again!!
`

 

[elektra]

You and your freaky questions/Demand Endless Detail Fallacy lose again!!

Abu, you made the claim that renewables are cheaper. I asked how much do they cost.

How much did we spend on wind turbines is called a, "freaky question" by our expert on the cost of wind turbines.

 

[abu afak]

Abu, you made the claim that renewables are cheaper. I asked how much do they cost.

How much did we spend on wind turbines is called a, "freaky question" by our expert on the cost of wind turbines.

I made the the statement (many times here and in at least 3 OPs) that renewable energy (plants) are now cheaper than fossil fuels, roughly starting in 2020. (after a decade of 85-90% improvment in efficiency and ergo cost per KWH.)
I Never made a statement what a single Turbine cost, nor does it matter to the success of the tech.
It IS "Freak"/Irrelevant/stupid.

It's clear the tech works and is booming because of it.
YOU LOST the true game. (and you didn't answer my posts at all.
Nor justify your Buffett Conspiracy/Lie.

Each Turbine is probably more expensive and bigger now as it is more cost-effective (again per KWH) larger.
So the cost per Turbine is academic, and efficiency is key. They may be two times more expensive but produce 3x the power. It also may depend on setting to decide size/cost.

You are either low IQ and think you can pull stupid semantics on others but you are not nearly smart enough to play with me. Or maybe you're just stupid and think all turbines are the same size and/or efficiency and/or price since Year 2000. Idiotic.

And the above just one example of your dishonest 20-questions style of piling up [again] endless irrelevant detail that no one could answer.
It matters NOT "what we spent since Y2K/over time" (WTF!), it matters what it cost recently and now/should we invest.
``

 

[elektra]

It matters NOT "what we spent since Y2K/over time, it matters what it cost recently and now/should we invest.

Abu says it does not matter what we spent
Abu claims solar and wind are cheap

Okay, how much, will this cost.

Abu wont tell us how much was spent and abu certainly wont tell us how much more we have to spend

How much more needs to be spent abu

 

[abu afak]

Abu says it does not matter what we spent
Abu claims solar and wind are cheap

Okay, how much, will this cost.

Abu wont tell us how much was spent and abu certainly wont tell us how much more we have to spend

How much more needs to be spent abu

Not a honest response. Impossible for the Dishonest/low IQ Elektra.
What is "this?"

I said and Backed with credible links, and of course the reality of Wind's booming success, it's cheaper than Fossil Fuels.

So the question/cost relative to FFs may in fact be, ""how much will we SAVE.""

Again, you are not smart enough to play with me.

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I made the the statement (many times here and in at least 3 OPs) that renewable energy (plants) are now cheaper than fossil fuels, roughly starting in 2020. (after a decade of 85-90% improvment in efficiency and ergo cost per KWH.)
I Never made a statement what a single Turbine cost, nor does it matter to the success of the tech.
It IS "Freak"/Irrelevant/stupid.

It's clear the tech works and is booming because of it.
YOU LOST the true game. (and you didn't answer my posts at all.
Nor justify your Buffett Conspiracy/Lie.

Each Turbine is probably more expensive and bigger now as it is more cost-effective (again per KWH) larger.
So the cost per Turbine is academic, and efficiency is key. They may be two times more expensive but produce 3x the power. It also may depend on setting to decide size/cost.

You are either low IQ and think you can pull stupid semantics on others but you are not nearly smart enough to play with me. Or maybe you're just stupid and think all turbines are the same size and/or efficiency and/or price since Year 2000. Idiotic.

And the above just one example of your dishonest 20-questions style of piling up [again] endless irrelevant detail that no one could answer.
It matters NOT "what we spent since Y2K/over time" (WTF!), it matters what it cost recently and now/should we invest.
``

I made the the statement (many times here and in at least 3 OPs) that renewable energy (plants) are now cheaper than fossil fuels,

LOL!

 

[MarathonMike]

Going up by about 2% a year.
Granted IOWA is more conducive due to it's rural population, but it gives one an idea.
The Southwest could easily get near or above this with wind and solar.

Monday, July 17, 2023​

​

Sixty-four percent of Iowa's energy production now comes from wind - a new record for the state, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Green-energy advocates call it a big step along the road to fossil-fuel independence.​

​

Iowa has been a wind-energy leader for decades, but the Iowa Environmental Council Staff Attorney Michael Schmidt said the IEC has a goal of becoming fossil-fuel independent by 2035.​

​

"The energy mix in Iowa has shifted from being dominated more by coal with some natural gas," said Schmidt, "to being dominated by wind with a much smaller fraction of coal and natural gas."​

​

The IEC contends that wind is the Least Expensive source of energy generation, even without considering tax credits or subsidies, and says it is dramatically lower than the costs of coal - especially when accounting for factors such as human health and crop damage from fossil fuel-based energy production.​

​

Iowa Reaches Milestone on Wind-Energy Production

Sixty-four percent of Iowa's energy production now comes from wind - a new record for the state, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Green-energy advocates call it a big step along the road to fossil-fuel independence. ...

www.publicnewsservice.org

​

​

`​

So this was educational for me, I give credit where it is due. I had no idea a state had this level of wind energy production. I still contend it is dangerous to "hang your hat" on this energy source due the unpredictability of the wind, the maintenance of the windmills, their lifespan of about 20 years, etc. Also states like Iowa and Texas have ideal geography for wind power. What are you going to do with states like New York?

 

[abu afak]

So this was educational for me, I give credit where it is due. I had no idea a state had this level of wind energy production. I still contend it is dangerous to "hang your hat" on this energy source due the unpredictability of the wind, the maintenance of the windmills, their lifespan of about 20 years, etc. Also states like Iowa and Texas have ideal geography for wind power. What are you going to do with states like New York?

I've posted on this previously and when they hit lower thresholds. My post at the top of this page included ""(IA 64%, SD, 56%, OK 45%, TX 31%, etc.)""
It's super-popular not just because of cost efficiency, but the farmers/ranchers get app 10K per year, per turbine. So even much of the 'cost' goes in good part back to local individuals, localities, and states. (and Federal Income tax)

I have been banging around the numbers and tried a thread on it including citations from websites that thought we eventually reach 100%.

​

Thread 'How much of the Mix can Renewables be?'

Sep 9, 2022

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

1. Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.

"...Today’s models, at least, appear to agree that “a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100% renewables. This is...​

• abu afak
• Replies: 191
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 

and I feel it's somewhere around 60% avg for a max with current tech. Of course with improving batterty tech that's another click.
Higher in the SW which is both very sunny and windy, lower in NE population centers like NYC/the I-95 corridor.

IA's back up is from their standard plants and get coal from WY and O&G elsewhere. They also buy power from neighboring states for stress times.

Thanks fo your reply.
The Hostility level here from the board's overwhelming (90%) MAGA troll infestation is horrific and unchecked.
`

 

[MarathonMike]

I've posted on this previously and when they hit lower thresholds. My post at the top of this page included ""(IA 64%, SD, 56%, OK 45%, TX 31%, etc.)""
It's super-popular not just because of cost efficiency, but the farmers/ranchers get app 10K per year, per turbine. So even much of the 'cost' goes in good part back to local individuals, localities, and states. (and Federal Income tax)

I have been banging around the numbers and tried a thread on it including citations from websites that thought we eventually reach 100%.

​

Thread 'How much of the Mix can Renewables be?'

Sep 9, 2022

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

1. Is 100% renewable energy realistic? Here’s what we know.

"...Today’s models, at least, appear to agree that “a diversified mix of low-CO2 generation resources” add up to a more cost-effective path to deep decarbonization than 100% renewables. This is...​

• abu afak
• Replies: 191
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 

and I feel it's somewhere around 60% avg for a max with current tech. Of course with improving batterty tech that's another click.

IA's back up is from their standard plants and get coal from WY and O&G elsewhere. They also buy power from neighboring states for stress times.

Thanks fo your reply.
The Hostility level here from the board's overwhelming (90%) MAGA troll infestation is horrific.
`

Just so you know I'm MAGA all the way but I try to keep an open mind. I am still very skeptical about how wind can keep up with population growth, and what happens with the turbines all reach end of life at the same time, environmental impacts to birds etc. But in those states with consistent wind and lots of wide open space, it seems feasible to be a big piece of the energy pie.

 

[abu afak]

Just so you know I'm MAGA all the way but I try to keep an open mind. I am still very skeptical about how wind can keep up with population growth, and what happens with the turbines all reach end of life at the same time, environmental impacts to birds etc. But in those states with consistent wind and lots of wide open space, it seems feasible to be a big piece of the energy pie.

What "population Growth"? Our main growth is from immigrants/First gen immigrants and offspring.
Trump just said we need more babies and is toying with a $5000 for each reward.

On that note.. there are NO Manufacturing jobs TO bring back!
We are at Full Employments (4.1% Unemp) and have a 500,000 man SHORTAGE OF MANUFACTING Workers! People here don't want to put screws in an iPhone. (ETC)
Bring back what?... to who?
Biden alread solved the problem with the successful Chips/Infra acts, and have grown to our limit and through it.
`

 

[MarathonMike]

What "population Growth"? Our main growth is from immigrants/First gen immigrants and offspring.
Trump just said we need more babies and is toying with a $5000 for each reward.

On that note.. there are NO Manufacturing jobs TO bring back!
We are at Full Employments (4.1% Unemp) and have a 500,000 man SHORTAGE OF MANUFACTING Workers! People here don't want to put screws in an iPhone. (ETC)
Bring back what?... to who?
Biden alread solved the problem with the successful Chips/Infra acts, and have grown to our limit and through it.
`

You kind of went off topic. I was referring to a state like Iowa for example that seems to be doing a reasonable job supplying enough wind based energy with relatively low energy demands now. Their largest city has a population of about 200,000. What happens if and when it grows to 500K or 1 million? What happens if and when EV cars are taking a big percentage of the grid power? I'm saying there are many things to consider long term before committing to wind energy supplying 80-100 percent of your grid power.