Wind Turbine's CO2 Emissions increasing and largest new source of CO2

[Crick]

wrong again, that would be million times less, a billion times less electricity for a trillion times the price.

the price is so high because of the amount of raw materials processed by fossil fuels to make the wind turbines and solar panels

and last but not least, it is like saying, "we can eat raw sewage because there is some nutritional value, and it is free, being thrown away"

Comparing solar and wind to anything, is like pretending wind and solar work.

So since you believe they put out billionths of their rated power, would you be willing to grab the output cables of a 3 MW wind turbine?

 

[elektra]

So since you believe they put out billionths of their rated power, would you be willing to grab the output cables of a 3 MW wind turbine?

yes, very much so, any night in the dead of summer or the dead of winter, absolutely,

 

[Crick]

yes, very much so, any night in the dead of summer or the dead of winter, absolutely,

Would you grab them under their average wind conditions?

 

[elektra]

Would you grab them under their average wind conditions?

yes, absolutely, average wind conditions are not suitable for Wind Turbines to produce electricity.

 

[Crick]

yes, absolutely, average wind conditions are not suitable for Wind Turbines to produce electricity.

That is false. Wind turbines are installed in locations in which they will work as often as possible. If a turbine required more wind speed than the average for a given location, no one would spend the money to install one there.

"Good places for wind turbines are where the annual average wind speed is at least 9 miles per hour (mph)—or 4 meters per second (m/s)—for small wind turbines and 13 mph (5.8 m/s) for utility-scale turbines."​

Where wind power is harnessed - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Wind electricity generation in the United States with a list of the top 5 wind energy producing states.

www.eia.gov

Note that the legend on this map is in meters per second, not mph.

 

[elektra]

That is false. Wind turbines are installed in locations in which they will work as often as possible. If a turbine required more wind speed than the average for a given location, no one would spend the money to install one there.

No one spends the money to install wind turbines. They are richly subsidized enticing investors.

The government spends the money.

 

[Crick]

No one spends the money to install wind turbines. They are richly subsidized enticing investors.

The government spends the money.

Lower wind turbine pricing has pushed down installed project costs over the last decade. Wind turbine prices averaged $800–$950 per kilowatt (kW) in 2021. The average installed cost of wind projects in 2021 was $1,500/kW, down more than 40% since the peak in 2010. Lower installation costs lead to energy produced at a lower cost, with the average levelized cost of energy for utility-scale wind power down to $32/MW-hours in 2021.

Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2022 Edition

The U.S. wind industry installed 13,413 megawatts (MW) of new wind capacity in 2021, bringing the cumulative total to 135,886 MW.

www.energy.gov

Levelized cost of energy includes subsidies and it's not zero. Another elektra "fact" failure.

 

[elektra]

Lower wind turbine pricing has pushed down installed project costs over the last decade. Wind turbine prices averaged $800–$950 per kilowatt (kW) in 2021. The average installed cost of wind projects in 2021 was $1,500/kW, down more than 40% since the peak in 2010. Lower installation costs lead to energy produced at a lower cost, with the average levelized cost of energy for utility-scale wind power down to $32/MW-hours in 2021.

Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2022 Edition

The U.S. wind industry installed 13,413 megawatts (MW) of new wind capacity in 2021, bringing the cumulative total to 135,886 MW.

www.energy.gov

Levelized cost of energy includes subsidies and it's not zero. Another elektra "fact" failure.

it is all paid for by the government subsidy

 

[Crick]

it is all paid for by the government subsidy

As my source and any other source you can find will tell you, it is NOT.

 

[elektra]

As my source and any other source you can find will tell you, it is NOT.

that makes you about as stupid as stupid gets, the production tax credit is alive and well and the biggest part of the Inflation Reduction act.

 

[Crick]

that makes you about as stupid as stupid gets, the production tax credit is alive and well and the biggest part of the Inflation Reduction act.

I would seem to have sufficient intellect to understand what I'm saying. You have been claiming that the cost of installing wind turbines has been entirely covered by government subsidies. It is not.

 

[elektra]

I would seem to have sufficient intellect to understand what I'm saying. You have been claiming that the cost of installing wind turbines has been entirely covered by government subsidies. It is not.

The production tax credit has been increased so that it no longer only covers construction but also the production. Just so that the companies do not go bankrupt once the installation is complete.

I seen the cycle in california, build go bankrupt, the next company operates them until they break than they go bankrupt. Then they a scrap company buys the junk. Rinse repeat. Rinse repeat.

I read the stories in the papers. I lived there. I saw. You claim you live in Vallejo, on a side note you should go buy one of those antique toasters from that place just off the 80 that rebuilds them, right past the hot dog joint and that famous breakfast joint that bakes their own bread. Anyhow, the Altamont pass, how many of the 1000's of original wind turbines are still there? Is it the original company still operating the new monsters they are installing?

 

[Crick]

The production tax credit has been increased so that it no longer only covers construction but also the production. Just so that the companies do not go bankrupt once the installation is complete.

I have never attempted to claim that wind turbines (and solarEV and hydroelectric and petroleum) aren't subsidized. I am stating that your claim that ALL construction costs are covered by subsidies is a blatant falsehood.

I seen the cycle in california, build go bankrupt, the next company operates them until they break than they go bankrupt. Then they a scrap company buys the junk. Rinse repeat. Rinse repeat.
I read the stories in the papers. I lived there. I saw.

You look like a fool when you attempt to claim superior local knowledge. A nerd in some Antarctic research station with an internet connection could easily know far, far more about this topic than you've gleaned from an occasional, local news story on your TV and driving past a couple windmills every day.

You claim you live in Vallejo

I did not. I said that I lived in Vallejo, courtesy of the USN when my boat (sub) was undergoing overhaul at the yards there. That was in the 1970s.

on a side note you should go buy one of those antique toasters from that place just off the 80 that rebuilds them, right past the hot dog joint and that famous breakfast joint that bakes their own bread.

Jesus, I've never met anyone proud to be living in Vallejo. I loved the Bay, but Vallejo was its absolute armpit. I am sort of a reverse snowbird now. We had lived in south Florida for many years but the summer heat was getting unbearable. Upon our retirement, we bought a small house in northern Wisconsin and we spend our summers there instead.

Anyhow, the Altamont pass, how many of the 1000's of original wind turbines are still there? Is it the original company still operating the new monsters they are installing?

Not a clue. But I found this in Wikipedia under "Wind power in California". I see the titles didn't come across. The reddish one is MW of capacity while the yellowish one is GW generated.

 

[elektra]

I have never attempted to claim that wind turbines (and solarEV and hydroelectric and OIL) aren't subsidized. I am stating that your claim that ALL construction costs are covered by subsidies a blatant falsehood.

You look like a fool when you attempt to claim superior local knowledge. A nerd in some Antarctic research station with an internet connection could easily know far, far more about this topic than you've gleaned from an occasional, 2 minute local news story on your TV and driving past a couple windmills every day.

I did not. I said that I lived in Vallejo, courtesy of the USN when my boat (sub) was undergoing overhaul at the yards there. That was in the 1970s.

Jesus, I've never met anyone proud to be living in Vallejo. I loved the Bay, but Vallejo was its absolute armpit. I am sort of a reverse snowbird now. We had lived in south Florida for many years but the summer heat was getting unbearable. Upon our retirement, we bought a small house in northern Wisconsin and we spend our summers there instead.

Not a clue. But I found this in Wikipedia under "Wind power in California". I see the titles didn't come across. The reddish one is MW of capacity while the yellowish one is GW generated.

Yawn

Yes, installed power. Not output.

Vallejo, nice, so you have no idea the mess that is wind and solar in California. The picture is much different when you live there, read the local papers, listen to the local news, meet and talk to the people.

Wind and solar is pure greed. Nothing less

 

[Crick]

Yawn

If you're tired, get some sleep

Yes, installed power. Not output.

The second graph was indeed output. Did you miss that?

Vallejo, nice, so you have no idea the mess that is wind and solar in California.

I suspect that 2 minutes on the internet would tell me more than ten years driving I-80.

The picture is much different when you live there, read the local papers, listen to the local news, meet and talk to the people.

Of course it is. That's because you get to just make it up.

Wind and solar is pure greed. Nothing less

Shouldn't that have read "Wind and solar ARE pure greed"?

I can't tell you how unimpressed I am with arguments like this.

 

[elektra]

I suspect that 2 minutes on the internet would tell me more than ten years driving I-80.

2 minutes on the internet will tell you more than ten years driving on I-80. I agree, the Altamont pass wind turbines are on I-580 so you are right.

 

[Crick]

2 minutes on the internet will tell you more than ten years driving on I-80. I agree, the Altamont pass wind turbines are on I-580 so you are right.

You having quoted me almost exactly here, makes your post in "The Green Agenda is a Hoax" in which you claimed I said something else altogether, an entirely willful lie.

Your long-running contention that wind turbines are not only a net CO2 source but the "largest new source" is de facto evidence that you don't know a wind turbine - and a great many other things - from a hole in the ground.

 

[elektra]

You having quoted me almost exactly here, makes your post in "The Green Agenda is a Hoax" in which you claimed I said something else altogether, an entirely willful lie.

Your long-running contention that wind turbines are not only a net CO2 source but the "largest new source" is de facto evidence that you don't know a wind turbine - and a great many other things - from a hole in the ground.

bull crap lil cricket

the hole in the ground, for one single wind turbine requires a 1000 tons of rebar and a 1000 to 2000 tons of concrete. It also requires a ton of studs. It is very hard to find this information, it is not like the Wind Turbine industry posts all the information on the internet.

The internet is mostly propaganda. As crick proves. If you do not dig deep, or have the proper education to search the proper terms all that is returned is the propaganda.

People pay google to have their propaganda on the 1st page. Also proven in court, Google is politically biased.

 

[Crick]

bull crap lil cricket

the hole in the ground, for one single wind turbine requires a 1000 tons of rebar and a 1000 to 2000 tons of concrete. It also requires a ton of studs. It is very hard to find this information, it is not like the Wind Turbine industry posts all the information on the internet.

The internet is mostly propaganda. As crick proves. If you do not dig deep, or have the proper education to search the proper terms all that is returned is the propaganda.

People pay google to have their propaganda on the 1st page. Also proven in court, Google is politically biased.

Using actual numbers from reliable sources, show us that wind turbines are "the largest new source" (that's an actual quote of what you actually said) of CO2. That has been a massive shortcoming in all your posts on this idiotic topic. You use terms like 'biggest' and 'huge' and 'thousands' and 'millions' and 'billions' but you never actually get some real numbers and do some real math to demonstrate there is any validity to your claim AT ALL. NONE.

 

[elektra]

Using actual numbers from reliable sources, show us that wind turbines are "the largest new source" (that's an actual quote of what you actually said) of CO2. That has been a massive shortcoming in all your posts on this idiotic topic. You use terms like 'biggest' and 'huge' and 'thousands' and 'millions' and 'billions' but you never actually get some real numbers and do some real math to demonstrate there is any validity to your claim at all. NONE.\\

I have, given numbers and sources. Crick, you either forget or refuse to look when I post those numbers with links.

Common Sense. How come you can not use common sense, crick? I am not trying to flame of troll. A simple honest question. Why can you not apply common sense to what you, we, can physically see.