• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The wind power hoax

They're not replacing fossil fuel plants globally, they're used to diversify energy sources. The desire and goal isn't to stop using fossil fuels entirely and switch solely to wind. They're placed to simply provide an alternative where it's applicable - just as nuclear power and hydropower are used. Neither burn fossil fuels, and none are planned to become our only source of energy.

Part time power is not an alternative, it is a joke a very expensive joke.
 
Part time power is not an alternative, it is a joke a very expensive joke.

You've complained about it before - we get your issue with it. It's not 24/7/365 so it's evil and intolerable.
 
What factored in was gov subsidies. nobody would invest in this crap without them.

The federal government built Bonneville and still subsidizes it. Same with Niagra Falls and virtually all of the large hydro. Like large hydro, calculating cost and effectiveness is not a matter of days, months, years, but decades. Also a factor, overall generation. Again for all it's on and off nature, wind currently supplies 10% of Oregon's need.

I agree that wind is not an alternative on the large distributed scale - it's an add-on. However, in the realm of individual non-distributed power, in certain regions, it can indeed be an alternative (driving down the need for distributed power). Lot of 12, 24 and 32 volt appliances still rusting away in midwest barns that attest to that.
 
No just a waste of tax payer dollars and a non answer to our energy needs.

You know what - I just had a revelation about you - you just like to bitch and complain about everything. Engaging you in conversation - I might as well be feeding the trolls.
 
You know what - I just had a revelation about you - you just like to bitch and complain about everything. Engaging you in conversation - I might as well be feeding the trolls.

I bitch about my tax dollars being wasted yes. Care to tell me when a 4 mill wind mill breaks even and pays us back? I won't hold my breath.
 
The federal government built Bonneville and still subsidizes it. Same with Niagra Falls and virtually all of the large hydro. Like large hydro, calculating cost and effectiveness is not a matter of days, months, years, but decades. Also a factor, overall generation. Again for all it's on and off nature, wind currently supplies 10% of Oregon's need.

I agree that wind is not an alternative on the large distributed scale - it's an add-on. However, in the realm of individual non-distributed power, in certain regions, it can indeed be an alternative (driving down the need for distributed power). Lot of 12, 24 and 32 volt appliances still rusting away in midwest barns that attest to that.

Dams produce mega power and the cost benefit factor was high. Windmills are money down a rat hole. A 4 million dollar wind mill will never break even.
 
And here's some more facts to think about. The cost of a windmill is in the millions. How long until a 3 mill wind mill pays for itself? The answer is..... NEVER! Without gov subsidies nobody would put these monstrosities up.

"Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed. Wind turbines have significant economies of scale. Smaller farm or residential scale turbines cost less overall, but are more expensive per kilowatt of energy producing capacity. Wind turbines under 100 kilowatts cost roughly $3,000 to $8,000 per kilowatt of capacity. A 10 kilowatt machine (the size needed to power a large home) might have an installed cost of $50,000-$80,000 (or more) depending on the tower type, height, and the cost of installation. Oftentimes there are tax and other incentives that can dramatically reduce the cost of a wind project.

How much do wind turbines cost? | Windustry


Interesting. You ignore the sentence above that cost (in bold, mind you) that states that the cost is 1.3-2.2 million per 2MW turbine because they have significant economies of scale. You probably just ignored that because it was too hard to understand any you wanted to prove something with bigger numbers.

The quote he ignored?

The costs for a utility scale wind turbine in 2012 range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. This cost has come down dramatically from what it was just a few years ago.
 
So you admit that not one dam will be torn down and not one fossil fuel plant will go away because of wind powers sporadic production.
I mean exactly what I said. No one expects wind power to completely replace all other power sources. It's one source among many.

As already noted, no one expects a wind turbine to generate electricity 24/7. Fossil power plants don't run at 100% max capacity all the time, either. Power consumption is not constant, it typically peaks during the late afternoon.
 
Interesting. You ignore the sentence above that cost (in bold, mind you) that states that the cost is 1.3-2.2 million per 2MW turbine because they have significant economies of scale. You probably just ignored that because it was too hard to understand any you wanted to prove something with bigger numbers.

The quote he ignored?

The costs for a utility scale wind turbine in 2012 range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. This cost has come down dramatically from what it was just a few years ago.

What you ignored and the part I went with is that MOST are now in the 4 million area. If I wanted to be biased and dis honest like you I'd have gone with the 6 Million number.
 
I mean exactly what I said. No one expects wind power to completely replace all other power sources. It's one source among many.

As already noted, no one expects a wind turbine to generate electricity 24/7. Fossil power plants don't run at 100% max capacity all the time, either. Power consumption is not constant, it typically peaks during the late afternoon.

Here's the problem with so called green energy. It is so unreliable that you still have to have every dam and every fossil fuel power plant we have now up and running so wind and solar in reality replace nothing. They are unnecessary and duplicitous money pits that make people feel good but accomplish nothing. You have to have enough traditional power to meet all needs at all times at all peak hours because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Having said that I am all for roof top solar and home wind mills, I am only anti corporate versions.
 
Hydro power can only be done in a VERY few places on certain rivers- it will at best be a supplemental source of power. Less than 10% of our total electricity power. Certainly not going to help me here in Oklahoma, but here we have several wind farms and they do turn damn near everyday. They are not high speed turbines, they produce power at low propeller RPMs. I think the scoffers look at this all wrong, everyday the wind turns those blades is a day we don't use as much fossil fuel and if enough are built they will produce more energy than the hydro plants that can't be located across the nation like wind farms can.

Who knows oneday wind power will provide the bulk of the Midwest's electricity with standby gas plants as supplemental power. Wind isn't a hoax, and two day's observation proves nothing, I see Saddle Mountain's wind turbines everyday, they are some working windplants!

The mindset shouldn't be one method to generate all our power- I recall something about all your eggs and one basket....
 
Hydro power can only be done in a VERY few places on certain rivers- it will at best be a supplemental source of power. Less than 10% of our total electricity power. Certainly not going to help me here in Oklahoma, but here we have several wind farms and they do turn damn near everyday. They are not high speed turbines, they produce power at low propeller RPMs. I think the scoffers look at this all wrong, everyday the wind turns those blades is a day we don't use as much fossil fuel and if enough are built they will produce more energy than the hydro plants that can't be located across the nation like wind farms can.

Who knows oneday wind power will provide the bulk of the Midwest's electricity with standby gas plants as supplemental power. Wind isn't a hoax, and two day's observation proves nothing, I see Saddle Mountain's wind turbines everyday, they are some working windplants!

The mindset shouldn't be one method to generate all our power- I recall something about all your eggs and one basket....

I was comparing the hundreds if not thousands of windmills to the dam right below them. In the pacific north west hydro produces well over 50% of our elec. I myself hate these dams because they destroy salmon runs and ruin wild rivers. Since I fish and kayak this irritates me to no end but I accept it as reality. We need the elec these dams produce. If wind could make good reliable power and allow us to take the dams down I would be winds biggest cheer leader but I live in reality not la la land.
 
I was comparing the hundreds if not thousands of windmills to the dam right below them. In the pacific north west hydro produces well over 50% of our elec. I myself hate these dams because they destroy salmon runs and ruin wild rivers. Since I fish and kayak this irritates me to no end but I accept it as reality. We need the elec these dams produce. If wind could make good reliable power and allow us to take the dams down I would be winds biggest cheer leader but I live in reality not la la land.

You might live in la la land if you think the one set of wind turbines equals the entire potential of wind generation. You give ZERO numbers to back your contentions- just not seeing the blades turning one day. In 2002 there was 10.3 thousand mega watt hours of wind generation in the USofA, 2012 there is over 140 thousand mega watt hours. The reality of it is wind generation hasn't even begun to come online.

Your premise is flawed, to call wind generation a hoax- well you could call coal generation a hoax as well. It didn't allow the dam to be knocked down so you could fish either. So your hoax tag is bogus.

For that matter hydro power is a hoax as is produces roughly 25% of the washington,oregon,idaho annual electricity use and is very dependent on drought, snow melt, and irrigation needs. It didn't replace coal in one of the world's most favorable hydro areas in the world.

Oregon in 2001 produced 88,597 mega watt hours via wind. In 2011 it produced 4,961,000. looks like wind is making great strides even in hydro country.

I can't find any Oregon wind farm with thousands of towers, what is the name of this vast sea of towers you speak of?

Perhaps the best way to view wind power is it will replace coal plants and not drain fossil fuel away from gasoline production so your 'real' truck can keep on truckin'.... :peace
 
You might live in la la land if you think the one set of wind turbines equals the entire potential of wind generation. You give ZERO numbers to back your contentions- just not seeing the blades turning one day. In 2002 there was 10.3 thousand mega watt hours of wind generation in the USofA, 2012 there is over 140 thousand mega watt hours. The reality of it is wind generation hasn't even begun to come online.

Your premise is flawed, to call wind generation a hoax- well you could call coal generation a hoax as well. It didn't allow the dam to be knocked down so you could fish either. So your hoax tag is bogus.

For that matter hydro power is a hoax as is produces roughly 25% of the washington,oregon,idaho annual electricity use and is very dependent on drought, snow melt, and irrigation needs. It didn't replace coal in one of the world's most favorable hydro areas in the world.

Oregon in 2001 produced 88,597 mega watt hours via wind. In 2011 it produced 4,961,000. looks like wind is making great strides even in hydro country.

I can't find any Oregon wind farm with thousands of towers, what is the name of this vast sea of towers you speak of?

Perhaps the best way to view wind power is it will replace coal plants and not drain fossil fuel away from gasoline production so your 'real' truck can keep on truckin'.... :peace

I'll just pick the most obvious and easy to destroy of all the BS in your post, just don't have the time for a point by point rebuttal.

"Hydropower provides over half of the electricity in the Pacific Northwest each year. This is clean, renewable energy that keeps our carbon foot print low. It’s also a low cost energy resource that helps attracts business and jobs to the region. The majority of Pacific Northwest hydropower is generated by projects on the Columbia River."

Hydropower
 
I'll just pick the most obvious and easy to destroy of all the BS in your post, just don't have the time for a point by point rebuttal.

"Hydropower provides over half of the electricity in the Pacific Northwest each year. This is clean, renewable energy that keeps our carbon foot print low. It’s also a low cost energy resource that helps attracts business and jobs to the region. The majority of Pacific Northwest hydropower is generated by projects on the Columbia River."

Hydropower

You say obvious and I say lazy.

I looked up the total production of the Columbia river, Snake, P-C-Flathead and Kooteney river which comes in at 35 MW and then the combined usage for Washington state, Oregon, and Idaho as it has a good part of the productive river in it and came up with 146.4 mega watts.

Now answer the other part, the glaring part where wind power has dramatically increased in your area and show little sign of reaching capacity- unlike hydro.

You have the time, just not the facts....:2wave:
 
What you ignored and the part I went with is that MOST are now in the 4 million area. If I wanted to be biased and dis honest like you I'd have gone with the 6 Million number.

LOL. The utility sized fields- which is what you're talking about- are in the 1-2 MM dollar range.
 
LOL. The utility sized fields- which is what you're talking about- are in the 1-2 MM dollar range.

The site I gave you says most mills going in now are in the 4 million dollar range, deal with it. Still waiting for somebody to tell me when a 4 million dollar wind mill starts actually making money. Don't forget operating cost, maintenance and leases.
Operation and Maintenance Costs

"From experience, the maintenance costs of a new turbine will be very low but as the turbine ages these costs will increase.

Studies done in Denmark on the 5000 wind turbines installed in the country since 1975 has demonstrated that each new generations of turbines has had lower repair and maintenance costs than the previous generation. (The studies compared wind turbines which were built and erected at approximately the same time, but which belong to different technological generations).

Older wind turbines have an annual maintenance cost are on average 3% of the original cost of the turbine. Because newer turbines are usually quite substantially larger you get an economy of scale, lower maintenance costs per kW of rated power. This is simply because you do not need to service a large turbine any more often than a small one. Couple this with the constant development of new materials and techniques and you will make savings on the maintenance costs. For modern machines the estimated maintenance costs are in the range of 1.5% to 2% of the original investment per annum.

Most of maintenance cost of a wind turbine will be a fixed amount each year for regular servicing, but is can be preferable to base the maintenance cost on a per kWh rate. This is purely because of tear and wear increasing on the turbine with increasing production, so there is a balance between savings compared to cost.

Economies of Scale

As well as the economies of scale which you would benefit from based on the size of the turbine, there may be savings that can be made when operating wind parks over individual turbines. These economies would be based on the six-monthly maintenance visits, surveillance and administration, of the site. This would be saving on a per kW basis.

Turbine Reinvestment (Refurbishment, Major Overhauls)

Every machine has a set design lifetime based on how long the parts are expected to last. Some of the components within a wind turbine are subject to more wear and tear than others. Generally a moving part wears out faster than a static part and an exposed component faster than its shielded alternative. So the parts which wear out fastest are the rotor blades and gearboxes.

In many cases, when a wind turbine comes to end of its technical design life, it may be more cost effective to refit the existing turbine to increase its lifetime rather than replace it. A major overhaul would include a replacing some of the internal workings and the rotor blades. In many cases the tower itself would be in good condition and safe for a considerable while.

Although the typical price of replacement components (set of rotor blades, a gearbox and generator) is 15% - 20% of the price of a new turbine, a thorough check has to be made of the existing components to be sure that they are safe and suitable."


Wind Turbines


I did my own research and it is no wonder you guys don't want to talk about the break even point on mills. They are lucky to reach that point just as they have reached their operational life span. For the most part though they are tits up well before they break even. Talk about a bridge to nowhere and this is on a relatively cheap small wind mill, sheeesh.


"Another very important figure is the Break Even Point or how long until your investment is paid for.

To figure this, we need the annual profits found above of $54,041 and the total cost found above of $1.3 million.

Math Equation 42

Therefore, the Break Even Point in our example is 24.05 years. As you can see here, when you have a product life of 20 years, your product will have paid for itself after 24.05 years.

WindPower Profitability and Break Even Point Calculations
 
Has anyone suggested that wind power should be a baseline power source?
 
I bitch about my tax dollars being wasted yes. Care to tell me when a 4 mill wind mill breaks even and pays us back? I won't hold my breath.
The figures I have seen with regard to industrial scale windmills is that based on their shelf life and cost it is a null effort. They end up paying for themselves over a 25 year span, at which point they tyically need to be replaced. BUT...in the interim...where used and viable, they produce clean energy. Thats a plus, n matter how you slice it.

residential units pay for themselves with years. A two turbine system with batteries will cost about 15k.
 
The figures I have seen with regard to industrial scale windmills is that based on their shelf life and cost it is a null effort. They end up paying for themselves over a 25 year span, at which point they tyically need to be replaced. BUT...in the interim...where used and viable, they produce clean energy. Thats a plus, n matter how you slice it.

residential units pay for themselves with years. A two turbine system with batteries will cost about 15k.

The long if ever break even point on industrial mills is why nobody does them without huge gov subsidies that amount to an electricity tax really. Where feasible home wind is great though. I looked into it but I just don't get enough wind here so I went with solar.
 
The long if ever break even point on industrial mills is why nobody does them without huge gov subsidies that amount to an electricity tax really. Where feasible home wind is great though. I looked into it but I just don't get enough wind here so I went with solar.

I agree we shouldn't subsidize these.

We should institute a carbon tax and let the free market decide the best alternative energies.
 
Carbon tax and free market are mutually exclusive terms.


............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
 
Back
Top Bottom