Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity

[mdn2000]

The high wind issue is not a big deal as long as the control system is working to thread the blades properly.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA[/ame]

The freighter concern isnt really an issue, as only an idiot would place these things anywhere near a shipping lane.

Hmmmm. They want to put these off Cape Cod which is a very busy shipping area all things considered. A big storm plus a ship in trouble... shit happens. Just waiting for the first time it does.



Much harder to service isolated out to sea in a place with strong currents, frequent storms and rough weather... which is where you get the most wind generation. For instance, why would you wan to put tidal power in the bay of Fundy? a 70 foot tide! Windmills go where the wind is highest, makes the sea a good choice in this factor. BUT, they have to be shut down when the wind is too strong which very well may be frequently out there.



Glad you see that.



WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fucking WRONG

They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable. Period. You go to what works best, and that is Coal. That is Nuclear. That is Hydro. You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it. And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.

Remember: Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Cleaner.... That is the nature of improvement and economic efficiency and smart policy. You don't waste money on something that doesn't match this philosophy, unless you have economic suicide as your goal.

All power sources have downsides

Yes, they do. But most are overstated by the econazis to push bad solutions and global fascism on an imaginary crisis. This eliminates the argument that their clean energies are substantially better, when they can't carry the freight.

ranging from finite sources of fuel to high maintenance requirements, to polluting off gasses.

Finite sources. The only ones who 'see the end' of petroleum are those who have a vested interest in it's stoppage. High maintenance is often caused by stupid government regulations and NIMBY bullshit. Polluting gasses, If you include CO2 with that, you're mad. Global warming, or whatever they're trying to rebrand it as today, is not a threat. It is not caused by man. Pretty much every past attempt to do so has ended in their science being debunked by basic logic and cursory investigations of their methods as being fraudulent.

The need for this crap snaps like the dead dry twig it is.

Wind Mills are dead, their own studies state they do not work, sure they say "many factors such as cost, output, reliability are unknown, either way, your talking about stuff that dont matter, the government states it just does not know, I bet every study in favor of Green power states the same thing, no idea if a profit can be made or if the power will be produced

 

[antagon]

Key word from the study: "could". That's not "would" or "will", it's "could".

you seem to be up on the UK. how could this present such a mysterious prognosis for the US despite britain's track record with offshore wind successes?

 

[martybegan]

The high wind issue is not a big deal as long as the control system is working to thread the blades properly.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA[/ame]

The freighter concern isnt really an issue, as only an idiot would place these things anywhere near a shipping lane.

Hmmmm. They want to put these off Cape Cod which is a very busy shipping area all things considered. A big storm plus a ship in trouble... shit happens. Just waiting for the first time it does.



Much harder to service isolated out to sea in a place with strong currents, frequent storms and rough weather... which is where you get the most wind generation. For instance, why would you wan to put tidal power in the bay of Fundy? a 70 foot tide! Windmills go where the wind is highest, makes the sea a good choice in this factor. BUT, they have to be shut down when the wind is too strong which very well may be frequently out there.



Glad you see that.



WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fucking WRONG

They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable. Period. You go to what works best, and that is Coal. That is Nuclear. That is Hydro. You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it. And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.

Remember: Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Cleaner.... That is the nature of improvement and economic efficiency and smart policy. You don't waste money on something that doesn't match this philosophy, unless you have economic suicide as your goal.

All power sources have downsides

Yes, they do. But most are overstated by the econazis to push bad solutions and global fascism on an imaginary crisis. This eliminates the argument that their clean energies are substantially better, when they can't carry the freight.

ranging from finite sources of fuel to high maintenance requirements, to polluting off gasses.

Finite sources. The only ones who 'see the end' of petroleum are those who have a vested interest in it's stoppage. High maintenance is often caused by stupid government regulations and NIMBY bullshit. Polluting gasses, If you include CO2 with that, you're mad. Global warming, or whatever they're trying to rebrand it as today, is not a threat. It is not caused by man. Pretty much every past attempt to do so has ended in their science being debunked by basic logic and cursory investigations of their methods as being fraudulent.

The need for this crap snaps like the dead dry twig it is.

That is a case of a control system not working. Disable a control system on a nuke plant and see how much fun you are going to have.

A shipping lane is a relatively narrow area, ships do not transverse the oceans all willy nilly. Yes a storm could divert a ship into a wind farm, just like a tornado can level a fossil fuel plant (not a nuke plant, those containments are pretty freaking strong)

You misread my point. All I am saying is that alternative energy projects usually need goverment subsidies to be viable, I am not commenting on the right or wrong of it.

And unless you proscribe to the theory of fossil fuel regenration from deep sources, we are using oil/coal deposits faster then they are being recreated.

Edit: I forgot, that video is freaking awsome, one of my favrorite "Engineering whoopsies" right after the Tacoma narrows bridge

 

[mdn2000]

The high wind issue is not a big deal as long as the control system is working to thread the blades properly.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA[/ame]



Hmmmm. They want to put these off Cape Cod which is a very busy shipping area all things considered. A big storm plus a ship in trouble... shit happens. Just waiting for the first time it does.



Much harder to service isolated out to sea in a place with strong currents, frequent storms and rough weather... which is where you get the most wind generation. For instance, why would you wan to put tidal power in the bay of Fundy? a 70 foot tide! Windmills go where the wind is highest, makes the sea a good choice in this factor. BUT, they have to be shut down when the wind is too strong which very well may be frequently out there.



Glad you see that.



WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fucking WRONG

They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable. Period. You go to what works best, and that is Coal. That is Nuclear. That is Hydro. You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it. And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.

Remember: Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Cleaner.... That is the nature of improvement and economic efficiency and smart policy. You don't waste money on something that doesn't match this philosophy, unless you have economic suicide as your goal.



Yes, they do. But most are overstated by the econazis to push bad solutions and global fascism on an imaginary crisis. This eliminates the argument that their clean energies are substantially better, when they can't carry the freight.

ranging from finite sources of fuel to high maintenance requirements, to polluting off gasses.

Finite sources. The only ones who 'see the end' of petroleum are those who have a vested interest in it's stoppage. High maintenance is often caused by stupid government regulations and NIMBY bullshit. Polluting gasses, If you include CO2 with that, you're mad. Global warming, or whatever they're trying to rebrand it as today, is not a threat. It is not caused by man. Pretty much every past attempt to do so has ended in their science being debunked by basic logic and cursory investigations of their methods as being fraudulent.

The need for this crap snaps like the dead dry twig it is.

That is a case of a control system not working. Disable a control system on a nuke plant and see how much fun you are going to have.

A shipping lane is a relatively narrow area, ships do not transverse the oceans all willy nilly. Yes a storm could divert a ship into a wind farm, just like a tornado can level a fossil fuel plant (not a nuke plant, those containments are pretty freaking strong)

You misread my point. All I am saying is that alternative energy projects usually need goverment subsidies to be viable, I am not commenting on the right or wrong of it.

And unless you proscribe to the theory of fossil fuel regenration from deep sources, we are using oil/coal deposits faster then they are being recreated.

Edit: I forgot, that video is freaking awsome, one of my favrorite "Engineering whoopsies" right after the Tacoma narrows bridge

You appear to have no knowledge of energy, period. It is impossible to disable a "control system", on a nuclear power plant, any failure in a control system will initiate a "trip", the plant will automatically shut down, any system failure. Three mile island was human error, Fermi 1 was human error, Waltz Mill was human error, even Chernobyl was human error.

Gross error on your part so I must ask do you really know a lot about windmills.

Fossil Fuels, again, a gross error, Fossil Fuels are needed to make Wind Power Plants, you cannot build a wind mill with anything but fossil fuels and massive amounts of electricity. Its best just to burn the oil or gas to produce electricity directly, instead of creating a new industry and industrial infrastructure. Fossil Fuels demand is increasing exponentially to meet demand for the raw materials to build wind mills, that is why China is purchasing and hording the rare earth metals.

I will now cut and paste directly from the study that this thread is based on.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf

cost of energy produced over the anticipated 20-year life of a project, are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability, and decommissioning costs.

Not one person has read this study yet every one posts as if they know this topic.

Loosecannon lost the argument as soon as he linked to this study, the study disagrees with every supporter of Wind Power.

 

[martybegan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA



Hmmmm. They want to put these off Cape Cod which is a very busy shipping area all things considered. A big storm plus a ship in trouble... shit happens. Just waiting for the first time it does.



Much harder to service isolated out to sea in a place with strong currents, frequent storms and rough weather... which is where you get the most wind generation. For instance, why would you wan to put tidal power in the bay of Fundy? a 70 foot tide! Windmills go where the wind is highest, makes the sea a good choice in this factor. BUT, they have to be shut down when the wind is too strong which very well may be frequently out there.



Glad you see that.



WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fucking WRONG

They need to be SHELVED as policy and pushed back to the lab till they ARE viable. Period. You go to what works best, and that is Coal. That is Nuclear. That is Hydro. You don't play fuck around fuck around pretending that these bad forms of energy production are worthy of support till they PROVE it. And once they become viable, the market will fund them till the day something better comes along.

Remember: Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger, Cheaper, Cleaner.... That is the nature of improvement and economic efficiency and smart policy. You don't waste money on something that doesn't match this philosophy, unless you have economic suicide as your goal.



Yes, they do. But most are overstated by the econazis to push bad solutions and global fascism on an imaginary crisis. This eliminates the argument that their clean energies are substantially better, when they can't carry the freight.



Finite sources. The only ones who 'see the end' of petroleum are those who have a vested interest in it's stoppage. High maintenance is often caused by stupid government regulations and NIMBY bullshit. Polluting gasses, If you include CO2 with that, you're mad. Global warming, or whatever they're trying to rebrand it as today, is not a threat. It is not caused by man. Pretty much every past attempt to do so has ended in their science being debunked by basic logic and cursory investigations of their methods as being fraudulent.

The need for this crap snaps like the dead dry twig it is.

That is a case of a control system not working. Disable a control system on a nuke plant and see how much fun you are going to have.

A shipping lane is a relatively narrow area, ships do not transverse the oceans all willy nilly. Yes a storm could divert a ship into a wind farm, just like a tornado can level a fossil fuel plant (not a nuke plant, those containments are pretty freaking strong)

You misread my point. All I am saying is that alternative energy projects usually need goverment subsidies to be viable, I am not commenting on the right or wrong of it.

And unless you proscribe to the theory of fossil fuel regenration from deep sources, we are using oil/coal deposits faster then they are being recreated.

Edit: I forgot, that video is freaking awsome, one of my favrorite "Engineering whoopsies" right after the Tacoma narrows bridge

You appear to have no knowledge of energy, period. It is impossible to disable a "control system", on a nuclear power plant, any failure in a control system will initiate a "trip", the plant will automatically shut down, any system failure. Three mile island was human error, Fermi 1 was human error, Waltz Mill was human error, even Chernobyl was human error.

Gross error on your part so I must ask do you really know a lot about windmills.

Fossil Fuels, again, a gross error, Fossil Fuels are needed to make Wind Power Plants, you cannot build a wind mill with anything but fossil fuels and massive amounts of electricity. Its best just to burn the oil or gas to produce electricity directly, instead of creating a new industry and industrial infrastructure. Fossil Fuels demand is increasing exponentially to meet demand for the raw materials to build wind mills, that is why China is purchasing and hording the rare earth metals.

I will now cut and paste directly from the study that this thread is based on.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf

cost of energy produced over the anticipated 20-year life of a project, are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability, and decommissioning costs.

Not one person has read this study yet every one posts as if they know this topic.

Loosecannon lost the argument as soon as he linked to this study, the study disagrees with every supporter of Wind Power.

I would argue that human error IS a failure in a control system. And I know more about engineering than you is that I know that NOTHING is impossible, and anything can happen, its just really really unlikely.

Also your point on the turbines and parts of a windmill needing fossil fuels to be made, so what? so do the turbines, boilers, and buildings that are needed to house fossil fuel generating plants? The point you harp on so incessantly is moot. The fact is once they are made they require no fuel input to run.

Again, oppose them on not being efficent enough yet. Note the word "yet" as efficiencies go up they will become more viable on thier own.

 

[mdn2000]

That is a case of a control system not working. Disable a control system on a nuke plant and see how much fun you are going to have.

A shipping lane is a relatively narrow area, ships do not transverse the oceans all willy nilly. Yes a storm could divert a ship into a wind farm, just like a tornado can level a fossil fuel plant (not a nuke plant, those containments are pretty freaking strong)

You misread my point. All I am saying is that alternative energy projects usually need goverment subsidies to be viable, I am not commenting on the right or wrong of it.

And unless you proscribe to the theory of fossil fuel regenration from deep sources, we are using oil/coal deposits faster then they are being recreated.

Edit: I forgot, that video is freaking awsome, one of my favrorite "Engineering whoopsies" right after the Tacoma narrows bridge

You appear to have no knowledge of energy, period. It is impossible to disable a "control system", on a nuclear power plant, any failure in a control system will initiate a "trip", the plant will automatically shut down, any system failure. Three mile island was human error, Fermi 1 was human error, Waltz Mill was human error, even Chernobyl was human error.

Gross error on your part so I must ask do you really know a lot about windmills.

Fossil Fuels, again, a gross error, Fossil Fuels are needed to make Wind Power Plants, you cannot build a wind mill with anything but fossil fuels and massive amounts of electricity. Its best just to burn the oil or gas to produce electricity directly, instead of creating a new industry and industrial infrastructure. Fossil Fuels demand is increasing exponentially to meet demand for the raw materials to build wind mills, that is why China is purchasing and hording the rare earth metals.

I will now cut and paste directly from the study that this thread is based on.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf

cost of energy produced over the anticipated 20-year life of a project, are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability, and decommissioning costs.

Not one person has read this study yet every one posts as if they know this topic.

Loosecannon lost the argument as soon as he linked to this study, the study disagrees with every supporter of Wind Power.

I would argue that human error IS a failure in a control system. And I know more about engineering than you is that I know that NOTHING is impossible, and anything can happen, its just really really unlikely.

Also your point on the turbines and parts of a windmill needing fossil fuels to be made, so what? so do the turbines, boilers, and buildings that are needed to house fossil fuel generating plants? The point you harp on so incessantly is moot. The fact is once they are made they require no fuel input to run.

Again, oppose them on not being efficent enough yet. Note the word "yet" as efficiencies go up they will become more viable on thier own.

Yet the study that you have not disagreed with states you are wrong.

You must increase oil production to increase fiberglass production, you use more energy to make wind mills than they produce, as the study states.

State any amount of electrical output from a wind power farm, lets say it will produce 1 gwh, Lets site the study

are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability

The study says they do not know? The amount of energy they do not know.

so do the turbines, boilers, and buildings that are needed to house fossil fuel generating plants?

Thats your argument, no facts, no analysis,

A wind mill produces a million times less power than a fossil fuel plant.

If the whole idea of a wind mill is not to use fossil fuels why use fossil fuels to make wind mills, demand for fossil fuels is increasing exponentially due to wind power.

You did not even read the study, after all these years, billions of dollars in subsidies, the government which is passing laws states they do not know.

If it was even close to truth, the study would not say they do not know.

 

[antagon]

man, mdn, i've not seen this grade of ignorance exhibited so consistently. part of what went wrong at chernobyl was that a control system was disabled.

 

[mdn2000]

man, mdn, i've not seen this grade of ignorance exhibited so consistently. part of what went wrong at chernobyl was that a control system was disabled.

Which control system was disabled, exactly.

I am a bit tired and will admit if I was wrong.

Just so you know me a bit, I worked all night at Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant, I am working with Westinghouse inspecting a Combustion Engineering System 80 Nuclear power plant. We will finish our inspection of the primary coolant systems heat exchangers (steam generators). Its tough being an Analyst in the field.

 

[martybegan]

You appear to have no knowledge of energy, period. It is impossible to disable a "control system", on a nuclear power plant, any failure in a control system will initiate a "trip", the plant will automatically shut down, any system failure. Three mile island was human error, Fermi 1 was human error, Waltz Mill was human error, even Chernobyl was human error.

Gross error on your part so I must ask do you really know a lot about windmills.

Fossil Fuels, again, a gross error, Fossil Fuels are needed to make Wind Power Plants, you cannot build a wind mill with anything but fossil fuels and massive amounts of electricity. Its best just to burn the oil or gas to produce electricity directly, instead of creating a new industry and industrial infrastructure. Fossil Fuels demand is increasing exponentially to meet demand for the raw materials to build wind mills, that is why China is purchasing and hording the rare earth metals.

I will now cut and paste directly from the study that this thread is based on.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf



Not one person has read this study yet every one posts as if they know this topic.

Loosecannon lost the argument as soon as he linked to this study, the study disagrees with every supporter of Wind Power.

I would argue that human error IS a failure in a control system. And I know more about engineering than you is that I know that NOTHING is impossible, and anything can happen, its just really really unlikely.

Also your point on the turbines and parts of a windmill needing fossil fuels to be made, so what? so do the turbines, boilers, and buildings that are needed to house fossil fuel generating plants? The point you harp on so incessantly is moot. The fact is once they are made they require no fuel input to run.

Again, oppose them on not being efficent enough yet. Note the word "yet" as efficiencies go up they will become more viable on thier own.

Yet the study that you have not disagreed with states you are wrong.

You must increase oil production to increase fiberglass production, you use more energy to make wind mills than they produce, as the study states.

State any amount of electrical output from a wind power farm, lets say it will produce 1 gwh, Lets site the study

are based on a range of factors, many of which are currently unknown and must be projected. In addition to the ICC, these include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, the cost of financing, amount of energy to be generated, long-term system reliability

The study says they do not know? The amount of energy they do not know.

so do the turbines, boilers, and buildings that are needed to house fossil fuel generating plants?

Thats your argument, no facts, no analysis,

A wind mill produces a million times less power than a fossil fuel plant.

If the whole idea of a wind mill is not to use fossil fuels why use fossil fuels to make wind mills, demand for fossil fuels is increasing exponentially due to wind power.

You did not even read the study, after all these years, billions of dollars in subsidies, the government which is passing laws states they do not know.

If it was even close to truth, the study would not say they do not know.

I love people who just dismiss my point without answering it, and then you follow up your dismissing of my analysis with a statement of " a million times less."

As far as studies go I can find 20 different studies that come from the same source and they will have 20 different answers. I trust most "studies" as much as I trust in my ability to walk on water.

Yes, a wind turbine needs inputs including plastics and metals, and yes those need power to create. but so does any other power source. The fact is they still dont need a fuel source once made, and I dont care how big thier fiberglass casing is, in a 15-20 year lifespan the amount of oil to make the casing cannot compare to the oil required to provide the same power in a standard oil fired plant.

 

[mdn2000]

geothermal power does not have to emit pollution at all. geothermal is a broad group of potential power sources from the heat of the earth.

Yet Geothermal does emit pollution, ask Old Crock.

Geothermal is too expensive and extremely toxic, heavy demand on raw materials.

 

[mdn2000]

I don't doubt that wind generated electicity has a place in the energy production mix.

I'm dubious that it alone can be our only source of power.

Not because the power isn't there, but because we need continuous power and that means we need something more dependable than just wind.

Now if we converted wind's power to potential energy (like using it to store potential energy in water that we can run through a hydroelectic system when it's needed) that might help.

But neither wind NOR solar is dependable UNLESS we find ways of storing the excess when we need it to deal with the shortages that are inevitable.

Exactly. The Engineering issues involved have mostly to do with our power grid, making transmission more efficent, and able to switch sources.

Wind will always be blowing SOMEWHERE. If you only counted a portion of the overall wind power provided as constant, you could be assured that it would not go below baseline.

This again assumes increases in materials technology for transmisson wires, and increases in power grid controls.

Which means increase in costs, increase in demand of dwindling resources, increase in tax to pay for this, increase in borrowing, increase in tax on energy sources already developed.

The development of wind power is costly because it does not produce enough power to meet our needs, not even a significant portion of our needs.

Wind Power is part of California's problem, we are bankrupt, billions spent on alternative energy, billions, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wind Power is making the rich, richer, Wind Power is paying off Al Gore and Bill Clinton with speaking fees.

I cannot afford to pay for electricity that comes from wind power, not even one percent of our needs will be wind power, never, its impossible unless you completely shut down industry.

Maybe that is the idea, destroy everything from our health care, to our industry, to our energy, whats next our food supply.

So which point of your did I miss, that the cost is trillions.

 

[martybegan]

I don't doubt that wind generated electicity has a place in the energy production mix.

I'm dubious that it alone can be our only source of power.

Not because the power isn't there, but because we need continuous power and that means we need something more dependable than just wind.

Now if we converted wind's power to potential energy (like using it to store potential energy in water that we can run through a hydroelectic system when it's needed) that might help.

But neither wind NOR solar is dependable UNLESS we find ways of storing the excess when we need it to deal with the shortages that are inevitable.

Exactly. The Engineering issues involved have mostly to do with our power grid, making transmission more efficent, and able to switch sources.

Wind will always be blowing SOMEWHERE. If you only counted a portion of the overall wind power provided as constant, you could be assured that it would not go below baseline.

This again assumes increases in materials technology for transmisson wires, and increases in power grid controls.

Which means increase in costs, increase in demand of dwindling resources, increase in tax to pay for this, increase in borrowing, increase in tax on energy sources already developed.

The development of wind power is costly because it does not produce enough power to meet our needs, not even a significant portion of our needs.

Wind Power is part of California's problem, we are bankrupt, billions spent on alternative energy, billions, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wind Power is making the rich, richer, Wind Power is paying off Al Gore and Bill Clinton with speaking fees.

I cannot afford to pay for electricity that comes from wind power, not even one percent of our needs will be wind power, never, its impossible unless you completely shut down industry.

Maybe that is the idea, destroy everything from our health care, to our industry, to our energy, whats next our food supply.

So which point of your did I miss, that the cost is trillions.

At this point i realize reasonable debate is pretty much impossible, and back away.... slowly.

 

[mdn2000]

Exactly. The Engineering issues involved have mostly to do with our power grid, making transmission more efficent, and able to switch sources.

Wind will always be blowing SOMEWHERE. If you only counted a portion of the overall wind power provided as constant, you could be assured that it would not go below baseline.

This again assumes increases in materials technology for transmisson wires, and increases in power grid controls.

Which means increase in costs, increase in demand of dwindling resources, increase in tax to pay for this, increase in borrowing, increase in tax on energy sources already developed.

The development of wind power is costly because it does not produce enough power to meet our needs, not even a significant portion of our needs.

Wind Power is part of California's problem, we are bankrupt, billions spent on alternative energy, billions, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Wind Power is making the rich, richer, Wind Power is paying off Al Gore and Bill Clinton with speaking fees.

I cannot afford to pay for electricity that comes from wind power, not even one percent of our needs will be wind power, never, its impossible unless you completely shut down industry.

Maybe that is the idea, destroy everything from our health care, to our industry, to our energy, whats next our food supply.

So which point of your did I miss, that the cost is trillions.

At this point i realize reasonable debate is pretty much impossible, and back away.... slowly.

No problem, not one person is able or willing to address the costs.

 

[KissMy]

I love people who just dismiss my point without answering it, and then you follow up your dismissing of my analysis with a statement of " a million times less."

As far as studies go I can find 20 different studies that come from the same source and they will have 20 different answers. I trust most "studies" as much as I trust in my ability to walk on water.

Yes, a wind turbine needs inputs including plastics and metals, and yes those need power to create. but so does any other power source. The fact is they still dont need a fuel source once made, and I dont care how big thier fiberglass casing is, in a 15-20 year lifespan the amount of oil to make the casing cannot compare to the oil required to provide the same power in a standard oil fired plant.

To manufacture & install an offshore wind turbine requires more energy per maximum output rated kilowatt than conventional power plants. Then these wind turbines only spin 25% of the time. Then during this 25% of available wind energy producing time the grid power demand must coincide with this time period or the wind turbines must spill off power wasting even more EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested). So now you are returning under 20% max rated output. Oh and guess what else you did not factor in to your EROEI? You still must use energy to build conventional power plants to generate power when the wind is not blowing.

A conventional power plant gives you far far more Fossil Fuel EROEI in construction. They run at 90% rated output levels. The only way to make wind & solar work is to have massive storage. Who knows what the EROEI is on that. This is likely way over your head & who cares anyhow. For you guys wind sounds fun & PC (politically correct) so stop bringing me down.

 

[antagon]

KissMy, your EROEI is moot after a couple year's operation. that assessment of viability is over the top. i think we both know that. plain 'ol ROI poses a real pinch, however.

 

[KissMy]

KissMy, your EROEI is moot after a couple year's operation. that assessment of viability is over the top. i think we both know that. plain 'ol ROI poses a real pinch, however.

EROEI is factored over the life of the product. I have not read the study on large wind turbines but I have on the small wind below 100kw for small business & residential. They never recover the energy used to create them over their entire lifetime. They increase our dependence on fossil fuels. But hey there is something to be said for that smug your greener than your neighbors look by having one on or near your home.

 

[mdn2000]

KissMy, your EROEI is moot after a couple year's operation. that assessment of viability is over the top. i think we both know that. plain 'ol ROI poses a real pinch, however.

If that is true why does the study of this thread say different.

The government must and is mandating higher electrical rates, higher taxes, and subsidies, without billions of dollars given to wind farm corporations, there is no profit.

Wind Power is steal from the middle class, give to the rich

 

[antagon]

Modern wind turbines rapidly recover all the energy spent in manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and finally scrapping them. Under normal wind conditions it takes between two and three months for a turbine to recover all of the energy involved.

You may download the 16 page report.

offshore wind turbines will generally yield some 50 per cent more energy than a turbine placed on a nearby onshore site. The reason is the low roughness of the sea surface.
On the other hand, the construction and installation of foundations require 50 per cent more energy than onshore turbines.
It should be remembered, however, that offshore wind turbines have a longer expected lifetime than onshore turbines, in the region of 25 to 30 years.

Energy Payback Period for Wind Turbines

not even close. > 20 years recovered in < 6 months. my emphasis.

 

[mdn2000]

Modern wind turbines rapidly recover all the energy spent in manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and finally scrapping them. Under normal wind conditions it takes between two and three months for a turbine to recover all of the energy involved.

You may download the 16 page report.

offshore wind turbines will generally yield some 50 per cent more energy than a turbine placed on a nearby onshore site. The reason is the low roughness of the sea surface.
On the other hand, the construction and installation of foundations require 50 per cent more energy than onshore turbines.
It should be remembered, however, that offshore wind turbines have a longer expected lifetime than onshore turbines, in the region of 25 to 30 years.

Energy Payback Period for Wind Turbines

not even close. > 20 years recovered in < 6 months. my emphasis.

Great you can cut and paste, you should of included a bit of you own analysis and a summary other than six month recovery.

so what is the total energy needed and what types. your link or the danish study references another study they used, so we have to look at second hand information, which is fine to begin but I dont see in this study that they took all energy needed into account.

Further they are specific in the energy source used and the type of material, it states recycled aluminum. Can all wind turbines be made with aluminum, are any made with recycled aluminum, very important question. The difference in cost is close to a 100%, obviously the use of raw materials will make the cost prohibitive otherwise the use of raw materials would be the benchmark.

I see no breakdown of the individual material as well.

So what is the total energy used, from the report you link to, I dont see the number, do you.

The report is at best, not accurate.

I have my information I can share, its not real easy, but it is accurate, I am off to the airport to drop a co worker off so I will come back to this important topic.

The report is also from 1997, why, is this applicable today, as a beginning yes, not as final word.

Why does the study used in this thread, the basis of this thread not reference this report, seems the united states government would not state unknown, if in fact it is known, after the study of this thread is from the Department of Energy.

Coal, maybe for the electricity needed, coal is also real cheap.

So to stop polluting, you use coal, that is extremely polluting but it is the cheapest form of electricity, still is coal able to fire the furnace used to make fiberglass, no.

So what about other energy, is that taken into account, without the actual study how do we know the liberties taken?

In reality subsidies and higher prices for electricity from solar would not be needed if it took three months or even a year to recoup the cost.

Still, we can explore the cost and use this report as a start.

To start the report is missing tons of information.

 

[antagon]

i just think it sounds outrageous to think that making a viable power-generating device could possibly take more energy than it creates over its lifetime. that conundrum was claimed, and that claim was wrong. if the study put forward by the most experienced offshore wind-power users was extremely inaccurate as you've contended -- that it took 2-3 years instead of 2-3 months to break even -- it would still have taken 1/10 of the total life of the product. the study claims it is more like 1/100.

not only do i believe that this is likely fairly accurate information, but i believe without a doubt that what you and KissMy believe is far-fetched-fiction unsupportable by fact. it's so far fetched, i've limited my own analysis to 'not a chance' and 'moot'.