14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA

[Jack Fabulous]

View attachment 67173770

And as I suspected, over the past 15 years there has been no improvement.

Thanks for the graph.

 

[JasperL]

And as I suspected, over the past 15 years there has been no improvement.

Thanks for the graph.

Well, that's a neat rhetorical trick. Ignore a 10 fold decrease in the price per KWH, then after that has been accomplished, and reached rough parity with conventional sources, without all the pollution and other externalities, ask, "Well, what have you done for me lately??!!" LMAO.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Well, that's a neat rhetorical trick. Ignore a 10 fold decrease in the price per KWH, then after that has been accomplished, and reached rough parity with conventional sources, without all the pollution and other externalities, ask, "Well, what have you done for me lately??!!" LMAO.

I specifically asked what has improved over the past 15 years. What the graph indicates is that the point of diminished return has been reached... about 15 years ago. Guess what? Wind needs much more improvement to be a viable alternative. Personally, I hope the technology can advance but it's looking more and more like this road is a dead end.

 

[longview]

I specifically asked what has improved over the past 15 years. What the graph indicates is that the point of diminished return has been reached... about 15 years ago. Guess what? Wind needs much more improvement to be a viable alternative. Personally, I hope the technology can advance but it's looking more and more like this road is a dead end.

The roadblock to both wind and solar being viable was storage.
The technology to store the energy until needed have been invented and is currently in the development stage.
Some of the greens will not like it, because they store the energy as hydrocarbons,
(the same way nature does). It has a advantage over organic hydrocarbons, as it can be made carbon neutral.
A quick calculation from the graph above, if a wind turbine can produce electricity for $0.05 /kwh.
A gallon of gasoline has about 34 kwh of energy, the process is about 60% efficient.
34/.60= 56 kwh to make a gallon of gasoline, 56 X $0.05= $2.80 per gallon.
oil at $90 per 40 gallon barrel is about $2.50 per gallon.
It should not be too long before the cost curves cross.

 

[JasperL]

I specifically asked what has improved over the past 15 years. What the graph indicates is that the point of diminished return has been reached... about 15 years ago. Guess what? Wind needs much more improvement to be a viable alternative. Personally, I hope the technology can advance but it's looking more and more like this road is a dead end.

It's difficult to assign full costs to the various energy sources, but by most measures wind has already reached rough parity with fossil fuels at today's prices, so I'm not sure that it needs to drop much further to be "viable."

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jack Fabulous]

It's difficult to assign full costs to the various energy sources, but by most measures wind has already reached rough parity with fossil fuels at today's prices, so I'm not sure that it needs to drop much further to be "viable."

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only real measure of it's viability is it's profitability. When electricity can be produced more cost effectively by wind than by fossil fuels, it will be. This new hydrocarbon storage technology sounds promising so I guess we'll see.

 

[VanceMack]

If they're no longer working whoever put them there should pay whatever it costs to remove them from the landscape.

And they should get subsidies from the government to do THAT too.

 

[JasperL]

The only real measure of it's viability is it's profitability. When electricity can be produced more cost effectively by wind than by fossil fuels, it will be. This new hydrocarbon storage technology sounds promising so I guess we'll see.

My only problem with that kind of comparison is the direct cost of fossil fuels ignores pretty massive externalities. I don't know what cost to assign to the pollution from coal in my region, but it's not zero, it's massive and ongoing, and we've been bearing those socialized costs for 100 years or more. Same with oil, natural gas (we know little about the long term impact of fracking, but we know small earthquakes are more likely...), and nuclear. So would coal plants be "profitable" if we assigned to coal burning all the related costs? I can't see how it's possible. Nuclear wouldn't exist without massive subsidies, both historical and ongoing, etc.

So I think it's a bit disingenuous for fossil fuel defenders to demand alternatives compete head to head without subsidies, while ignoring both the historical subsidies of fossil fuels and the ongoing indirect socialized costs of those fuels. And that's assuming AGW is a nothing. If AGW is a genuine risk, the socialized costs of carbon based fuels is massive.

 

[longview]

My only problem with that kind of comparison is the direct cost of fossil fuels ignores pretty massive externalities. I don't know what cost to assign to the pollution from coal in my region, but it's not zero, it's massive and ongoing, and we've been bearing those socialized costs for 100 years or more. Same with oil, natural gas (we know little about the long term impact of fracking, but we know small earthquakes are more likely...), and nuclear. So would coal plants be "profitable" if we assigned to coal burning all the related costs? I can't see how it's possible. Nuclear wouldn't exist without massive subsidies, both historical and ongoing, etc.

So I think it's a bit disingenuous for fossil fuel defenders to demand alternatives compete head to head without subsidies, while ignoring both the historical subsidies of fossil fuels and the ongoing indirect socialized costs of those fuels. And that's assuming AGW is a nothing. If AGW is a genuine risk, the socialized costs of carbon based fuels is massive.

This is not about social justice, but about cost of goods sold.
If the alternative energies cannot compete head to head, unsubsidized, they will not be adopted.
You also failed to mention the the very real socialized cost of the higher taxes necessary for the subsidies.
There are likely intangible costs associated with organic hydrocarbon fuels,
but there are also very tangible benefits, like growing enough food to feed everyone.

 

[brothern]

This is not about social justice, but about cost of goods sold.
If the alternative energies cannot compete head to head, unsubsidized, they will not be adopted.
You also failed to mention the the very real socialized cost of the higher taxes necessary for the subsidies.
There are likely intangible costs associated with organic hydrocarbon fuels,
but there are also very tangible benefits, like growing enough food to feed everyone.

Jasper isn't referring to "social justice," but the "social costs" of fossil fuels like how it may cause a population to develop cancer or lung disease. Many of those externalities are not directly reflected in COGS, which is why (for example) it took us until 1995 to remove lead from gasoline despite how everyone understands lead is a potent neurotoxin. It just wasn't a priority for the petroleum companies.

 

[JasperL]

This is not about social justice, but about cost of goods sold.

Who said anything about social justice. You would assign a zero cost to pollution from burning coal? I don't know anyone who would agree there is zero cost to that pollution. But the current pricing scheme ignores those costs. Including them doesn't achieve 'social justice' but what it does do is assign all (or at least some) costs to the entity that caused them to be incurred. If we don't have a carbon tax or something to achieve that, then I support subsidies for alternatives, to achieve a MORE level playing field.

If the alternative energies cannot compete head to head, unsubsidized, they will not be adopted.

Again, you're missing the point. Coal or oil is subsidized to the extent coal plants can (and DO) socialize the costs of pollution (and other costs) onto the public. If you want the various options to compete head to head, unsubsidized, you have to have a mechanism to assess the full costs to each energy source, which we don't do now.

You also failed to mention the the very real socialized cost of the higher taxes necessary for the subsidies

I agree. But see above.

are likely intangible costs associated with organic hydrocarbon fuels,
but there are also very tangible benefits, like growing enough food to feed everyone.

In the current iterations, biofuels, and especially ethanol from corn, is a massive boondoggle for the benefit of behemoth agribusiness corn farmers. We can agree corn subsidies should be zeroed out entirely, or at least that's my view.

 

[joG]

If they're no longer working whoever put them there should pay whatever it costs to remove them from the landscape.

Only the other day, as I was driving down to Spain and lost in France I was thinking how rather partial I am to ruins and decaying symbols of megalomania or archaic society.

 

[shrubnose]

Only the other day, as I was driving down to Spain and lost in France I was thinking how rather partial I am to ruins and decaying symbols of megalomania or archaic society.

Nothing that the human race builds will last forever.

Take a look at the huge Pyramids in Egypt. They've lasted for over 4,000 years, but 100,000 years from now will they exist and who will visit them?

Think about it.

All of that work, for what?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Fact check: About those 'abandoned' turbines ...

So you are saying that the OP is ...

 

[longview]

Who said anything about social justice. You would assign a zero cost to pollution from burning coal? I don't know anyone who would agree there is zero cost to that pollution. But the current pricing scheme ignores those costs. Including them doesn't achieve 'social justice' but what it does do is assign all (or at least some) costs to the entity that caused them to be incurred. If we don't have a carbon tax or something to achieve that, then I support subsidies for alternatives, to achieve a MORE level playing field.



Again, you're missing the point. Coal or oil is subsidized to the extent coal plants can (and DO) socialize the costs of pollution (and other costs) onto the public. If you want the various options to compete head to head, unsubsidized, you have to have a mechanism to assess the full costs to each energy source, which we don't do now.



I agree. But see above.



In the current iterations, biofuels, and especially ethanol from corn, is a massive boondoggle for the benefit of behemoth agribusiness corn farmers. We can agree corn subsidies should be zeroed out entirely, or at least that's my view.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your phrase socialized costs, There is a new buzz word out there about social justice.
There are of course indirect costs associated with most types of energy.
Many of what people call subsidies to the oil and coal industry, are not subsidies but tax law available
to anyone doing business.
My primary point was that if the Government interferes with market forces, and helps the alternatives,
ether through subsidies, or handicapping the competition through taxation.
The resulting solution is likely to not be as good as if it had to stand alone.
If the only people who use the new solution are the ones who want to show their
environmental consensus on the sleeve, the solution has already failed.
When people use a new solution because it is the least expensive choice, on it's own,
that would be a success.

 

[joG]

Nothing that the human race builds will last forever.

Take a look at the huge Pyramids in Egypt. They've lasted for over 4,000 years, but 100,000 years from now will they exist and who will visit them?

Think about it.

All of that work, for what?

For what?! So that I can experience that wonderful melancholy now and then.

 

[JasperL]

Sorry, I misinterpreted your phrase socialized costs, There is a new buzz word out there about social justice.
There are of course indirect costs associated with most types of energy.
Many of what people call subsidies to the oil and coal industry, are not subsidies but tax law available
to anyone doing business.
My primary point was that if the Government interferes with market forces, and helps the alternatives,
ether through subsidies, or handicapping the competition through taxation.
The resulting solution is likely to not be as good as if it had to stand alone.
If the only people who use the new solution are the ones who want to show their
environmental consensus on the sleeve, the solution has already failed.
When people use a new solution because it is the least expensive choice, on it's own,
that would be a success.

But "market forces" produce air like you see in China with any google image search "China Pollution"

Let me google that for you

In the U.S. the estimates vary, but this summarizes an article on the various annual damages. The "Gross External Damages" of burning coal is estimated at $53 billion per year (NOT including any AGW costs). Let's assume the estimate is the work of whackos and the 'true' value is 1/10th of that or $5 billion per year. That's 10 Solyndra's per YEAR, every year, for decades. And that's after the Clean Air Act and EPA regs that already reduce a great deal of the direct damage from burning coal.

The point is without taxes to "handicap" coal, we are as a public giving coal a $5 - $70 billion annual subsidy (including AGW costs), paid for with higher health costs, etc. Well, let's give solar or wind that kind of annual subsidy and see how it "competes" with coal on a level playing field.....

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Apparently this whole wind power thing is falling apart. I can't even imagine how many tax payer dollars have been wasted on this boondoggle and these rusting hulks littering the landscape and killing endangered birds.


"The symbol of Green renewable energy, our saviour from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the subsidies taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it’s too cold or the wind speed is too high.

The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms"


" it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy’s California “big three” locations—Altamont Pass, Tehachapi (above), and San Gorgonio—considered among the world’s best wind sites…
California’s wind farms— comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity—ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills…”
“It’s a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end” therein lies a lesson that is going be learnt by those that sought to make fortunes out of tax payer subsidies, the whole renewables industry of solar, wind and biomass is just an artificial bubble incapable of surviving without subsides from governments and tax payers which many businesses and NGO’s like WWF, FoE and Greenpeace now think is their god given right, as the money is going on Green Climate Religion approved clean energy.

The Green evangelists who push so hard for these wind farms, as usual have not thought the whole idea through, no surprises for a left agenda like Climate Change, which like all things Green and socialist is just a knee jerk reaction:

The problem with wind farms when they are abandoned is getting the turbines removed, as usual there are non Green environmentalists to be seen:

14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA | Tory Aardvark

I like how you think this is all about global warming.

Have you ever thought that maybe we want to take power away from the Middle East and Russia?

Maybe the oil will run out some day or become hilariously expensive?

Global warming isn't a motivation for ****, no one cares because it doesn't exist.

 

[longview]

But "market forces" produce air like you see in China with any google image search "China Pollution"

Let me google that for you

In the U.S. the estimates vary, but this summarizes an article on the various annual damages. The "Gross External Damages" of burning coal is estimated at $53 billion per year (NOT including any AGW costs). Let's assume the estimate is the work of whackos and the 'true' value is 1/10th of that or $5 billion per year. That's 10 Solyndra's per YEAR, every year, for decades. And that's after the Clean Air Act and EPA regs that already reduce a great deal of the direct damage from burning coal.

The point is without taxes to "handicap" coal, we are as a public giving coal a $5 - $70 billion annual subsidy (including AGW costs), paid for with higher health costs, etc. Well, let's give solar or wind that kind of annual subsidy and see how it "competes" with coal on a level playing field.....

I am not going to argue with you on coal, nasty, dirty stuff.
Before we can phase out anything, we must have a suitable replacement, and that replacement
needs to be able to make a profit without any input from taxpayers.
Taxpayers subsidizing research is a good idea, subsidizing the solution is not.
What good does it do for someones electric bill to go down by $100 a month,
but their tax bill go up by $120 a month?
Our Government Regulations are likely limiting much better car technology from reaching the US.
I have driven a nice mid size car in Europe, that got 59 mpg while driving over 80 mph,
It was made by... FORD.
Europe's Ford Focus Econetic 67-MPG Diesel Better Than Hybrids?
Think about how much less emissions we would have if cars got 50% better mileage?

 

[LowDown]

Seems to be working great in Iowa, maybe we need to study why it has been so successful there.

State Wind Energy Statistics: Iowa

Iowa Wind Energy Association

They go on just fine as long as the government pays for them.

 

[JasperL]

They go on just fine as long as the government pays for them.

Coal works great as well when coal burners offload the illness, disease, polluted streams, etc. onto the public to the tune of $53 billion per year. Different mechanism - still a subsidy.

 

[JasperL]

I am not going to argue with you on coal, nasty, dirty stuff.
Before we can phase out anything, we must have a suitable replacement, and that replacement
needs to be able to make a profit without any input from taxpayers.
Taxpayers subsidizing research is a good idea, subsidizing the solution is not.
What good does it do for someones electric bill to go down by $100 a month,
but their tax bill go up by $120 a month?
Our Government Regulations are likely limiting much better car technology from reaching the US.
I have driven a nice mid size car in Europe, that got 59 mpg while driving over 80 mph,
It was made by... FORD.
Europe's Ford Focus Econetic 67-MPG Diesel Better Than Hybrids?
Think about how much less emissions we would have if cars got 50% better mileage?

I think we mostly agree, but it's a key point that fossil fuels get massive subsidies from citizens, just not through the tax system. The subsidies are just as real and just as important to the bottom line of fossil fuel industries, but are indirect and hidden. To have a level playing field requires something to deal with those (mostly pollution, but national defense and other) costs.

 

[longview]

I think we mostly agree, but it's a key point that fossil fuels get massive subsidies from citizens, just not through the tax system. The subsidies are just as real and just as important to the bottom line of fossil fuel industries, but are indirect and hidden. To have a level playing field requires something to deal with those (mostly pollution, but national defense and other) costs.

Just curious, what kind of subsidies do the fossil fuels get from citizens?
Also don't demonize the oil companies too much, as they likely will be providing the green
fuel of the future as well.
They already have the refinery and distribution infrastructure in place,
as well as the chemist, and engineers.
The first stage will likely be transparent to us end users, other than a a different pump selection.
E-gas is already in commercial production in Europe.
Audi e-gas project
and with the Navy's advancements, they can make liquid fuels.
The real risk to rapid adoption will be the greenies themselves who will pay more for green gasoline,
an thereby keep the price artificially out of reach of the masses who buy by price.

 

[JasperL]

Just curious, what kind of subsidies do the fossil fuels get from citizens?
Also don't demonize the oil companies too much, as they likely will be providing the green
fuel of the future as well.
They already have the refinery and distribution infrastructure in place,
as well as the chemist, and engineers.
The first stage will likely be transparent to us end users, other than a a different pump selection.
E-gas is already in commercial production in Europe.
Audi e-gas project
and with the Navy's advancements, they can make liquid fuels.
The real risk to rapid adoption will be the greenies themselves who will pay more for green gasoline,
an thereby keep the price artificially out of reach of the masses who buy by price.

Oil companies do like all the rest and maximize profits, and they perform an obviously necessary good/service, critical to the economy.

But the subsidies are the some $billions in annual costs of the effects of pollution - disease, etc.

 

[longview]

Oil companies do like all the rest and maximize profits, and they perform an obviously necessary good/service, critical to the economy.

But the subsidies are the some $billions in annual costs of the effects of pollution - disease, etc.

You are calling those subsidies, but they are very difficult to qualify.
For the most part the oil companies look to be good corporate citizens.