Look at all the pretty windmills....

[jc456]

I agree on the time aspect. 300 years isn't enough? Windmills are great for local usage, like the water pumping one I posted, but for large scale electricity production they are less than useless. They are a fraud. Reno bought 4 of them at huge cost and after three years they pulled them down because they calculated they would need 200 years to repay their cost, and maintenance expenditures.

Then they over-paid and put them in the wrong location......... You gonna judge the entire industry by what happened in Reno? Really?

They were sited where the experts said to place them. They were top of the line windmills at the time. 2005 IIRC

Even experts can be wrong........
It's working in other areas, lots of other areas.

no, no it's not. there are statistics that are showing you wrong.

If you say so Sparky....... By the way, I'm not a global warming nutjob....... Bet that throws a monkey wrench into your "he's a liberoid" mantra.......

I would say you're someone who doesn't understand that wind turbines aren't working. but that's for another day or thread I guess.

 

[Ringel05]

Nobody said it was perfect, look how long it took to get to where we are now in many ways and in many fields, it takes time, money and effort and there are a lot of missteps along the way. We fuck up we learn....... well, in some areas....... Hell it's not like they're trying to perfect a DVD rewinder..........

I agree on the time aspect. 300 years isn't enough? Windmills are great for local usage, like the water pumping one I posted, but for large scale electricity production they are less than useless. They are a fraud. Reno bought 4 of them at huge cost and after three years they pulled them down because they calculated they would need 200 years to repay their cost, and maintenance expenditures.

Then they over-paid and put them in the wrong location......... You gonna judge the entire industry by what happened in Reno? Really?

They were sited where the experts said to place them. They were top of the line windmills at the time. 2005 IIRC

Even experts can be wrong........
It's working in other areas, lots of other areas.

no, no it's not. there are statistics that are showing you wrong.

Sure thing there Sparknutz. I live out west where we have them everywhere and they are working well out here. Oh well. Oh and I'm not being political about it, you don't like the stats, fine, I could care less.

 

[Ringel05]

Then they over-paid and put them in the wrong location......... You gonna judge the entire industry by what happened in Reno? Really?

They were sited where the experts said to place them. They were top of the line windmills at the time. 2005 IIRC

Even experts can be wrong........
It's working in other areas, lots of other areas.

no, no it's not. there are statistics that are showing you wrong.

If you say so Sparky....... By the way, I'm not a global warming nutjob....... Bet that throws a monkey wrench into your "he's a liberoid" mantra.......

I would say you're someone who doesn't understand that wind turbines aren't working. but that's for another day or thread I guess.

If you say so but then again this is your field of expertise....... Right?

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="iamwhatiseem, post: 23467397, member: 24610"]Personally, in my limited reading on the subject, solar is a better solution.
Per acre, solar delivers just over 10 times the energy as the best wind farms.
A study of 1,100 wind farms shows that the actual power density they deliver is literally 100 times lower than what they were supposed to deliver.
Which means, of course, the science the companies used to sell the idea to governments was junk science.
IMO - the energy and dollars that have been spent on wind would have been better spent on solar.
Just my limited opinion.[/QUOTE]
^^^^ Ringel05 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Ringel05]

QUOTE="iamwhatiseem, post: 23467397, member: 24610"]Personally, in my limited reading on the subject, solar is a better solution.
Per acre, solar delivers just over 10 times the energy as the best wind farms.
A study of 1,100 wind farms shows that the actual power density they deliver is literally 100 times lower than what they were supposed to deliver.
Which means, of course, the science the companies used to sell the idea to governments was junk science.
IMO - the energy and dollars that have been spent on wind would have been better spent on solar.
Just my limited opinion.

^^^^ Ringel05 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/QUOTE]
I would say limited is an understatement considering it appears your opinion on this is politically based and politically biased.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="iamwhatiseem, post: 23467397, member: 24610"]Personally, in my limited reading on the subject, solar is a better solution.
Per acre, solar delivers just over 10 times the energy as the best wind farms.
A study of 1,100 wind farms shows that the actual power density they deliver is literally 100 times lower than what they were supposed to deliver.
Which means, of course, the science the companies used to sell the idea to governments was junk science.
IMO - the energy and dollars that have been spent on wind would have been better spent on solar.
Just my limited opinion.

^^^^ Ringel05 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would say limited is an understatement considering it appears your opinion on this is politically based. [/QUOTE]
limited is your effort.

 

[Ringel05]

QUOTE="iamwhatiseem, post: 23467397, member: 24610"]Personally, in my limited reading on the subject, solar is a better solution.
Per acre, solar delivers just over 10 times the energy as the best wind farms.
A study of 1,100 wind farms shows that the actual power density they deliver is literally 100 times lower than what they were supposed to deliver.
Which means, of course, the science the companies used to sell the idea to governments was junk science.
IMO - the energy and dollars that have been spent on wind would have been better spent on solar.
Just my limited opinion.

^^^^ Ringel05 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would say limited is an understatement considering it appears your opinion on this is politically based.

limited is your effort.[/QUOTE]
I'll take that as a compliment rdea...... Uummmm, what was your name again?

 

[jc456]

I agree on the time aspect. 300 years isn't enough? Windmills are great for local usage, like the water pumping one I posted, but for large scale electricity production they are less than useless. They are a fraud. Reno bought 4 of them at huge cost and after three years they pulled them down because they calculated they would need 200 years to repay their cost, and maintenance expenditures.

Then they over-paid and put them in the wrong location......... You gonna judge the entire industry by what happened in Reno? Really?

They were sited where the experts said to place them. They were top of the line windmills at the time. 2005 IIRC

Even experts can be wrong........
It's working in other areas, lots of other areas.

no, no it's not. there are statistics that are showing you wrong.

Sure thing there Sparknutz. I live out west where we have them everywhere and they are working well out here. Oh well. Oh and I'm not being political about it, you don't like the stats, fine, I could care less.

they are? hmmm post up those electricity savings they're giving you and their on line times.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="iamwhatiseem, post: 23467397, member: 24610"]Personally, in my limited reading on the subject, solar is a better solution.
Per acre, solar delivers just over 10 times the energy as the best wind farms.
A study of 1,100 wind farms shows that the actual power density they deliver is literally 100 times lower than what they were supposed to deliver.
Which means, of course, the science the companies used to sell the idea to governments was junk science.
IMO - the energy and dollars that have been spent on wind would have been better spent on solar.
Just my limited opinion.

^^^^ Ringel05 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would say limited is an understatement considering it appears your opinion on this is politically based.

limited is your effort.

I'll take that as a compliment rdea...... Uummmm, what was your name again?[/QUOTE]
r who? hahahhahahahaa

 

[Ringel05]

Then they over-paid and put them in the wrong location......... You gonna judge the entire industry by what happened in Reno? Really?

They were sited where the experts said to place them. They were top of the line windmills at the time. 2005 IIRC

Even experts can be wrong........
It's working in other areas, lots of other areas.

no, no it's not. there are statistics that are showing you wrong.

Sure thing there Sparknutz. I live out west where we have them everywhere and they are working well out here. Oh well. Oh and I'm not being political about it, you don't like the stats, fine, I could care less.

they are? hmmm post up those electricity savings they're giving you and their on line times.

Post your stats first, not that I'll read them. I've got to get back to re tiling my bathroom.

 

[Ringel05]

QUOTE="iamwhatiseem, post: 23467397, member: 24610"]Personally, in my limited reading on the subject, solar is a better solution.
Per acre, solar delivers just over 10 times the energy as the best wind farms.
A study of 1,100 wind farms shows that the actual power density they deliver is literally 100 times lower than what they were supposed to deliver.
Which means, of course, the science the companies used to sell the idea to governments was junk science.
IMO - the energy and dollars that have been spent on wind would have been better spent on solar.
Just my limited opinion.

^^^^ Ringel05 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would say limited is an understatement considering it appears your opinion on this is politically based.

limited is your effort.

I'll take that as a compliment rdea...... Uummmm, what was your name again?

r who? hahahhahahahaa

[/QUOTE]
Just another political hack.

 

[jc456]

They were sited where the experts said to place them. They were top of the line windmills at the time. 2005 IIRC

Even experts can be wrong........
It's working in other areas, lots of other areas.

no, no it's not. there are statistics that are showing you wrong.

Sure thing there Sparknutz. I live out west where we have them everywhere and they are working well out here. Oh well. Oh and I'm not being political about it, you don't like the stats, fine, I could care less.

they are? hmmm post up those electricity savings they're giving you and their on line times.

Post your stats first, not that I'll read them. I've got to get back to re tiling my bathroom.

you're my bitch, and you post your western stats that show you're whirly birds are cheaper and working on line 24 hours a day.

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="iamwhatiseem, post: 23467397, member: 24610"]Personally, in my limited reading on the subject, solar is a better solution.
Per acre, solar delivers just over 10 times the energy as the best wind farms.
A study of 1,100 wind farms shows that the actual power density they deliver is literally 100 times lower than what they were supposed to deliver.
Which means, of course, the science the companies used to sell the idea to governments was junk science.
IMO - the energy and dollars that have been spent on wind would have been better spent on solar.
Just my limited opinion.

^^^^ Ringel05 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would say limited is an understatement considering it appears your opinion on this is politically based.

limited is your effort.

I'll take that as a compliment rdea...... Uummmm, what was your name again?

r who? hahahhahahahaa

Just another political hack.[/QUOTE]
says the hack that performed a throw and go with no statistics. yes you!!!

 

[Pilot1]

Due to the unreliability of both Wind and Solar, a unit of reliable power must be built on a one to one basis. This is usually Natural Gas. Nothing wrong with alternatives, but be aware of the huge downside in reliability and high cost.

 

[Ringel05]

Even experts can be wrong........
It's working in other areas, lots of other areas.

no, no it's not. there are statistics that are showing you wrong.

Sure thing there Sparknutz. I live out west where we have them everywhere and they are working well out here. Oh well. Oh and I'm not being political about it, you don't like the stats, fine, I could care less.

they are? hmmm post up those electricity savings they're giving you and their on line times.

Post your stats first, not that I'll read them. I've got to get back to re tiling my bathroom.

you're my bitch, and you post your western stats that show you're whirly birds are cheaper and working on line 24 hours a day.

Dude, if you had started with and honest rebuttal and not the typical hack "you're an idiot " approach them we would have had a real conversation. Obviously that approach is beyond your limited capabilities. Have a nice life........

 

[Ringel05]

^^^^ Ringel05 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would say limited is an understatement considering it appears your opinion on this is politically based.

limited is your effort.

I'll take that as a compliment rdea...... Uummmm, what was your name again?

r who? hahahhahahahaa

Just another political hack.

says the hack that performed a throw and go with no statistics. yes you!!![/QUOTE]
Here, now you can go and claim the site is a far left hack site........ Not that i give a shit.

Overblown: Wind turbines don’t take more energy to build than they will ever produce

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Lord...always about Right vs. Left.
The world needs to get off of fossil fuels... no argument, dollar for dollar absolutely nothing...nothing... delivers power like fossil fuels. It isn't even close.
But... they are finite. They pollute... a LOT.
Renewable energy is the future. Anyone not seeing that has blinders on. The amount of solar energy hitting the planet every few minutes can power whole countries for a year
But the powers that be (pun intended) are not really interested in that.
And THAT is why solar energy has not already taken over fossil fuels.

 

[jc456]

I would say limited is an understatement considering it appears your opinion on this is politically based.

limited is your effort.

I'll take that as a compliment rdea...... Uummmm, what was your name again?

r who? hahahhahahahaa

Just another political hack.

says the hack that performed a throw and go with no statistics. yes you!!!

Here, now you can go and claim the site is a far left hack site........ Not that i give a shit.

Overblown: Wind turbines don’t take more energy to build than they will ever produce[/QUOTE]
I can agree with some of what's in that write up. I'm sure a whirly bird is more productive in certain areas over others. Don't question that at all. the true expense is the value it adds based on its cost. And the facts are the whirly birds are ineffective even at strategic locations. They are not always on line and because of that require a back up source like natural gas. so that has to be included in the costs. And sir, I don't see that written in that article.

 

[ReinyDays]

Did they site these Oklahoma wind farms near places that mandate utilities buy wind power? ... our wind farms are built either side of the two trunk lines going to California ... [ka'ching] ... those puppies down there pay a big premium for wind power ... but we'll see after the first wave of maintenance whether this is a profitable venture or not ... but then again we can just charge Californians more, they're made of money after all ...

 

[Ridgerunner]

lots of other areas.

Overnight Sunday: 16 more demonstrators arrested in Kalaeloa

And that has what to do with what I've posted?

Another area...