Wind Turbine ********. Just opened the mail and seen the plan for three massive units

[Sodo]

Wind power is a blight on the land but the maintenance, and cost of specialized technicians, and to manage the waste, and to manage the specialized technicians of the waste, and maintenance, is far far less than nuclear. Or nucular

And the risk is less, if the turbine is removed, or even explodes, the land is not poisoned and no catastrophy. With the huge infrastrucure of wind turbines you still have to buy it from big energy, such as price-fixing & legislative boondoggling too.

I can imagine a guy who's paid pretty well at a nuke plant could feel threatened by wind power.

 

[DarkBlack]

Nooo.

You've set up a false argument. You can't compare a centralized reliable 24/7 producing nuke plant to a silly windmill:confused2:
For fact finding starters you have to compare statistics based on MWH for MWH.
Second, windmills don't produce 24/7, so you need to account for all the other forms of energy sources and distribution that have to fill in to get 24/7 with windmills. Once you account for all that, then you, have to factor in all the costs and dangers of the on demand power sources.

And it goes on from there....

 

[DarkBlack]

I love the way windmill profiteers take advantage of reliable power sources filling in for when the wind doesn't blow, yet they promote propaganda to belittle the very steady energy type sources that allow our factories to run 24/7, while the occasional windmill "science experiment" takes taxpayer's dollars and offers nothing more than a pimple of energy on a windy day.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

A nuclear power plant takes days to step up and down power output.

A coal power plant takes 24 hours to step up and down power output.

A natural gas power plant takes hours to step up and down power output.

Now play energy manager and manage your power output with expected demand with the wind as a variable.

Makes energy managers want to kick all the alternative power people in the nads because they still must provide enough overhead power from traditional sources to cover unexpected short-comings from alternative energy sources as well as the cyclical day-night power cycle. So the fact that the energy manager must continue to produce more power to provide service for the expected demand from traditional power sources off-sets the additional power savings that alt energy is supposed to provide.

The problem is increased when it is pointed out that a typical wind generator requires more energy to manufacture and maintain than it will generate over its expected lifetime.

Getting people to pay more (alt energy) for less (the same service), means more profits.

All bets are off if we can get a cost effective method of storing energy, a thing we don't have and is the current pie-in-the-sky Holy Grail, including the upcoming sponge media that will hit the battery market in the next six months.

 

[MossRoad]

Will the Army Corps of Engineers be dredging rivers and harbors for your next boat load of sunshine?

That was very funny! Thanks! :laughing:

 

[MossRoad]

The problem is increased when it is pointed out that a typical wind generator requires more energy to manufacture and maintain than it will generate over its expected lifetime.

As much as I dislike commercial wind power, I find that statement hard to believe. Got any evidence to back it up?

 

[MinnesotaEric]

As much as I dislike commercial wind power, I find that statement hard to believe. Got any evidence to back it up?

A New Study Takes The Wind Out Of Wind Energy - Forbes

Wind Turbines Snap in Half and Catch Fire - Dangers of Wind Turbines - Industry Tap

Salient quote: "Wind turbine manufacturers claim their product should operate problem free for 20 years but insurance industry statistics show that wear and tear issues occur frequently and must be addressed regularly."

I lost the source of data for the energy required to manufacture a giant, commercial wind turbine, but it was a huge number and in context, the wind turbine needed to run without fault well past its own manufactures expected life without fault to break even. So the now hearsay (since I lost my original source) is that wind costs more than it produces as a pure energy question and is funded because it feels good and people have been conditioned by education to be willing to pay more for green energy than from traditional, efficient sources.

 

[MossRoad]

That article does not mention now much energy it takes to manufacture and maintain a wind turbine.

 

[houstonscott]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY


Already been the equivalent of many nuclear wars, we are all fine. HS

 

[dave1949]

A New Study Takes The Wind Out Of Wind Energy - Forbes

Wind Turbines Snap in Half and Catch Fire - Dangers of Wind Turbines - Industry Tap

You are not comparing the energy payback period in that article. It references pollutant reduction. Most articles I have read that discuss the life cycle analysis for wind power put the energy payback at less than one year.

There is a reason why wind and solar power is being implemented. It's not like someone just decided to add these pesky power sources to the grid for the fun of it. As alternative energy technology matures it will be better integrated into grid operations with lower standby requirements. None of that could happen without an initial installation of significant wind or solar generation.