Wind turbine backlash article

[EddieWalker]

Just like we're seeing with Ethanol, windmills are a government feel good idea that doesn't work. While there is no denying that they can generate electricity, they do not create enough to pay for themselves. It's a massive money pit that the tax payer has to support so that a few big companies like GE can make money building them. Take the tax payer dollar out of it and they go bankrupt.

Besides the massive price to put one up, what happens to the electricity that they generate? And even more important, where does the power come from when they are not able to generate electricity? In order to use wind energy, you have to have a backup system up and running. You can't just turn on a coal fired power plant when the wind dies down. It has to be running 24/7. So no matter what the wind is doing, no matter what the windmills are doing, you have to have reliable electricity available at all times.

So not only do the wind turbines not make enough electricity to pay for themselves, they require a power plant to remain in operation around the clock regardless of what the windmills are doing. If you didn't have the windmill there, the power plant would still be there doing it's thing. This is just an extra expense that accomplishes nothing.

Windmills have a proven history of failure. The only excuse to build more of them is the hope that they might some day invent one that actually does what they claim they will do. As long as the taxpayers are paying for something that doesn't work, there is no reason t make it better. The problem isn't so much in the wind turbines themselves, but in storing the power they generate and what happens when the wind isn't at the proper velocity for to generate electricity. Take the government out of it and let private industry either make it work, or abandon it.

Windmills have been around for a thousand years. It's old time time technology that was replaced by coal, oil and nuclear technology. It is not new, it is not cutting edge, it's just a recycled idea that didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.

Eddie

 

[Duffster]

Just like we're seeing with Ethanol, windmills are a government feel good idea that doesn't work. While there is no denying that they can generate electricity, they do not create enough to pay for themselves. It's a massive money pit that the tax payer has to support so that a few big companies like GE can make money building them. Take the tax payer dollar out of it and they go bankrupt.

Besides the massive price to put one up, what happens to the electricity that they generate? And even more important, where does the power come from when they are not able to generate electricity? In order to use wind energy, you have to have a backup system up and running. You can't just turn on a coal fired power plant when the wind dies down. It has to be running 24/7. So no matter what the wind is doing, no matter what the windmills are doing, you have to have reliable electricity available at all times.

So not only do the wind turbines not make enough electricity to pay for themselves, they require a power plant to remain in operation around the clock regardless of what the windmills are doing. If you didn't have the windmill there, the power plant would still be there doing it's thing. This is just an extra expense that accomplishes nothing.

Windmills have a proven history of failure. The only excuse to build more of them is the hope that they might some day invent one that actually does what they claim they will do. As long as the taxpayers are paying for something that doesn't work, there is no reason t make it better. The problem isn't so much in the wind turbines themselves, but in storing the power they generate and what happens when the wind isn't at the proper velocity for to generate electricity. Take the government out of it and let private industry either make it work, or abandon it.

Windmills have been around for a thousand years. It's old time time technology that was replaced by coal, oil and nuclear technology. It is not new, it is not cutting edge, it's just a recycled idea that didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.

Eddie

I agree with what you said for the most part

Except IDK if Ethanol and Wind is a good comparison

Wind is typically backed up by diesel or NG fired generators that can be turned on and off more easily but still why not just run them first

I get a kick out of hear they are clean energy. They recently started building the housings in our town and now the whole town smells like fiberglass resin.. that has to be good for you

Not to mention the 3 acres of productive ground each windmill destroys to build one

 

[EddieWalker]

My point about ethanol is that it was pushed as the answer to oil and a new source of energy. Billions of tax payer money went into building these plants the created a fuel that cut down fuel economy in vehicles, cost more the make then it generated and caused a massive spike in the price of corn. Plus it did untold damage to the environment with the amount of water it took to create this alternative energy.

The comparison is almost identical in the fact that it was pushed by the government on us when the technology isn't there yet. If the government did not get involved, then private industry would be forced to either figure out how to make it work so that you get more out of it then you have to put into it, or they would abandon it and try something else.

I'm all for grants to help fund new technology, but I'm against picking out unproven, and failed technology that is forced on us because it's fashionable. Keep the government out of the private sector. Let them succeed or fail on their own. When they succeed, it's always amazing. When they fail, they are replaced by better and brighter ideas. When the government fails, they just spend more tax payer money and try to blame somebody else for their mistakes.

Eddie

 

[Redneck in training]

I want one on my land. I figured about 20kW unit would run my house with small excess to sell. My problem is not environmental impact on bats or birds or noise but the cost. In fact I find once a while a dead bird in a grill of my car. All our cars have demolished front from hitting deer. I see dead animal pretty much every day on my way to work. Nobody is suggesting outlawing cars. Considering the number of cars relative to turbines cars kill more animals than anything else and generate more noise as well. In fact ag machines are notorious noise producers.
We are in a wind category 3 and in my estimation the turbine might pay for itself in about 20 years. Unless electricity gets more expensive or turbines cheaper. In other words it isn't viable option at this time for us. If we would live in cat 4 I would have one already.
I also know people who have several big one on their land. If you talk to them they would get more of them if possible. One who has 750 kW units told me each brings about 6000 USD/year to his pocket. The other guy has much larger unit and gets, if I remember it right, about 12000USD/year per unit.
I also talked to a guy who is involved in energy storage project not too far from Des Moines and he said that the wind farm with large turbines are cost effective provided they are located in right place (low turbulence wind category 4 or better). Excess energy from the wind farms in central Iowa will be turned into compressed air and pumped underground into sand deposits displacing water. When there is a peak demand the air will be used as combustion air in gas turbines running generators.

Am I against wind turbines? No. Would I want to have one big one close to my house? No.

 

[Redneck in training]

My point about ethanol is that it was pushed as the answer to oil and a new source of energy. Billions of tax payer money went into building these plants the created a fuel that cut down fuel economy in vehicles, cost more the make then it generated and caused a massive spike in the price of corn. Plus it did untold damage to the environment with the amount of water it took to create this alternative energy.

The comparison is almost identical in the fact that it was pushed by the government on us when the technology isn't there yet. If the government did not get involved, then private industry would be forced to either figure out how to make it work so that you get more out of it then you have to put into it, or they would abandon it and try something else.

I'm all for grants to help fund new technology, but I'm against picking out unproven, and failed technology that is forced on us because it's fashionable. Keep the government out of the private sector. Let them succeed or fail on their own. When they succeed, it's always amazing. When they fail, they are replaced by better and brighter ideas. When the government fails, they just spend more tax payer money and try to blame somebody else for their mistakes.

Eddie

To be exact it was the farm lobby, which pushed the ethanol agenda. It takes about 9 gal of fuel to produce 10 gal of ethanol at cost higher than market can bear. That is 10% yield. When you add erosion, fertilizer runoff and cost of food increase you are right, it isn't worth it.

 

[EddieWalker]

To be exact it was the farm lobby, which pushed the ethanol agenda...

Very true. And without going political or naming names, a very prominent former Majority Leader and tax dodger made millions of of this.

Eddie

 

[charlz]

Solar PV is another one... the numbers just don't work out. When I lived in Vegas I looked into putting a grid-tie array on my roof, had the perfect orientation and everything. Nevada didn't have any tax breaks so with the Federal ones I figured the system would take about 20 years to pay for itself. 20 years is also the length of the warranty on the panels.... So it would cost me a ton of money up front, hopefully pay for itself in twenty years and still only generate like 15% of my peak summer daily load.

I also found out that above a certain temp... I want to say 100 degrees F the panels actually start to lose efficiency. Turns out a roof in the desert isn't necessarily the best place for solar PV.

 

[RonMar]

Yep, ethanol only is workable as an energy transfer medium when you have an overabundance of some other source of energy. Take Brazil(or is it argentina?) for instance. Lot of available hydro power, not a lot of domestic fuel. they turn their cheap hydro and local crops into auto fuel, but the effeciency loss is high. Not as high as that required to put hydrogen into a useable quantity, but still pretty high. It dosn't make sense on so many levels to think that lowering the BTU content of a fuel which requires you to use more for a given ammount of work is supposed to be better for the planet. Classic government involvment where it is not needed...

Solar photovoltaic on the homeowner scale at least will pay for itself eventually, but the sun don't shine at night Roofs are not the best location due to the heat, unless they are covering the entire roof surface. There are also ways to passively cool the collectors, but of course that adds to the overall cost. IMO, solar thermal is still the best bang for the buck, but it won't help with the cooling loads in the summer...

 

[Redneck in training]

Brazil makes ethanol from waste left during sugar production. It is much more efficient process because it contains sugar as opposed to starch. Brazil could supply all our current ethanol needs but the farm lobby killed the deal.
Ethanol is a bad deal regardless because it contains 76000 BTU as opposed to gasoline 116000. In other words to produce the same power the engine will consume little less than double volume. The energy deficit is somewhat made up by better combustion efficiency (ethanol bring its own oxygen) but still it can't get even close to gasoline. In fact you get more energy just by burning the corn.

 

[QRTRHRS]

IMO, solar thermal is still the best bang for the buck, but it won't help with the cooling loads in the summer...

I believe that some systems have been built that move the cooler night air over thermal mass which is then released during the daytime.

Even if it did not provide 100%, every little bit helps. Other details such as roof overhangs, air flow, etc. all add up. What would your savings be in construction and operational costs if you could reduce a cooling system from say a 3 ton system to a 1 ton?

I would like to see more research into affordable earth sheltered housing. Besides the heating and cooling advantages, the is a huge potential savings in insurance costs not to mention possibly saving life's due to tornadic activity.