View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 1st, 2014, 4:52 pm



Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
 Who wants to learn about wind turbines. 
Author Message
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
steensn wrote:


Do you use the free version or the pay version?


June 9th, 2010, 3:21 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
free, haven't had any problems.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 9th, 2010, 3:26 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
Quick question, steensn. How many birds do your wind turbines kill per year? The fact that clean energy has unintended consequences when it comes to wildlife must drive the libtards nuts, huh?

_________________
Image


June 14th, 2010, 2:47 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
Birds aren't dumb enough to fly into moving non clear things like wind turbine blades so they stay away. Unfortunately they are dumb enough to run into mirrored sky scrapers which kill more birds per year than wind turbines. I have NEVER seen one dead animal near any wind turbine I have worked on, though I know they do get hit. Their is no large kill off of innocent wildlife to worry about. X population(<.1%) not smart enough to fly around the turbines will die and not reproduce. Eventually all birds will fly around as natural selection will weed out the ones that can't. It is no more impactful than anything else we've ever done.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 14th, 2010, 2:53 pm
Profile
Peanut and Beer Salesman

Joined: April 24th, 2010, 5:04 pm
Posts: 23
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
Why not just take the power off the grid at night and put it back in during the day?

http://www.beaconpower.com


June 14th, 2010, 10:50 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
Just gotta be cost effective. There are lots of ideas, the best being at the moment superheated liquid salt storage. That one looks cool too....

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


June 15th, 2010, 12:36 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
From NJROAR
Quote:
The entire energy mandates going on are the same thing. There's no such thing as alternative energy, because you can't substitute one for the other. Ethanol has already proved to be a waste of money while lowering performance. Solar and Wind can't replace coal, nuclear or oil, so they can't be an alternative. They can compliment, but they can't replace. They've been getting subsidies for decades and where has the "progress" been? Its being used as buzz words to make people think they give a damn, when its only served to double gas prices over the last 2 years.


1) Coal and Oil has PERMINENT subsidies built in and wind has a year by year renewal. It only makes them competitive with the subsidize built into the oil and coal... so IMO you kill all subsidies then it isn't an issue. Don't blame wind energy for the gov't medling with the market...

2) Progress: Wind is 20-30% the cost of nuclear. It is 0.50 cent more expensive than coal. It was the only thing producing power in Japan after the quake hit in that area. It can easily accomodate 30-40% of our energy needs.

3) Can't replace? You really don;t know much about power. Coal cannot replace all our needs either. Nuclear can't be 100% of of power supply. NO one solution can be 100% because they all are a PIECE to the puzzle and provide their own benefit. Coal and nuclear cannot react to grid events fast enough and by themselves will lead to more brown outs and black outs. Wind by itself won't produce power 100% of the time. Gas supplies are not large enough to run 100% of our power. You should not make comments like this because it is so far from reality it isn't funny.

No one is even saying wind should be 100% and I beleive I have said this to you before. It can replace a LOT but not 100% of the coal plants. Natural gas and nuclear can take care of coal plant though. So wind can take around 50% of the coal plants out and the rest can take over the others. What is not alternative than that?

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 26th, 2011, 4:52 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2780
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
1 - the subsidies will be removed. They are archaic and shouldn't be in place.

2 - Ok, so its 20-30% the cost and ALL of the wind energy produced in the U.S. is less than 1 of the smallest nuclear plants produces and requires how many acres of space? 30 years of subsidies and solar accounts for 1.9% of all energy production right now. Where's the extra 28-38% going to come from?

3 - Coal, Nuclear, Gas and Oil don't need to replace anything because they are already doing it. Pick one of those existing energy sources and try to replace with your "alternative energy" sources without raising energy costs to consumers. You can't. Even if you were given all the space needed to build, those costs would be passed to the consumer and the costs would skyrocket. If you can't straight up swap one for the other it isn't an alternative. I never once said it had to replace all others and handle 100%. I said it had to replace one of the existing. Unless the government starts seizing up land and giving it to these companies, they can't replace anything. Using the word alternative is just a buzz word to make people think they can. None of the fossil fuels are going anywhere, and the current energy agenda is only going to make prices go up even higher.


April 26th, 2011, 6:07 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
njroar wrote:
1 - the subsidies will be removed. They are archaic and shouldn't be in place.


I'd love it in most cases.

njroar wrote:

2 - Ok, so its 20-30% the cost and ALL of the wind energy produced in the U.S. is less than 1 of the smallest nuclear plants produces and requires how many acres of space? 30 years of subsidies and solar accounts for 1.9% of all energy production right now. Where's the extra 28-38% going to come from?


IDK, you and others not actively and misguidedly being against technology that works :) Wind is ready, someone just have to put it in. You know as well as I do that to replace existing equipement you need to have a reason to. You have ot have old equipement leaving and then replace it or drive demand for new plants with more energy use. It takes years to change over technologies, please don't misuse information out there. The point is the technology exist, it is certainly now READY for a large % of power. It is growing % wise and is planned to grow by quit a bit in the near future. It takes time... it's reality. There is no business case for tearing down perfectly good power plants just to build a different one. Replace them as needed, smart business.

njroar wrote:
3 - Coal, Nuclear, Gas and Oil don't need to replace anything because they are already doing it. Pick one of those existing energy sources and try to replace with your "alternative energy" sources without raising energy costs to consumers. You can't. Even if you were given all the space needed to build, those costs would be passed to the consumer and the costs would skyrocket. If you can't straight up swap one for the other it isn't an alternative. I never once said it had to replace all others and handle 100%. I said it had to replace one of the existing. Unless the government starts seizing up land and giving it to these companies, they can't replace anything. Using the word alternative is just a buzz word to make people think they can. None of the fossil fuels are going anywhere, and the current energy agenda is only going to make prices go up even higher.


HAHA... really? You really are misinformed and seem to love it. Wind turbines parks don't buy land. They lease pand and give the farmers MUCH more income from the small acreage footbprint they take up than the farmer can make farming it. You don't need to buy out all the land... that is just silly. Again... wind power is 20-30% cheaper even on the most generous of estimates to nuclear. Nuclear is EXPENSIVE. Adding wind will not cause rate hikes, adding nuclear will.

Look, you are really enveloped in some nonsense... do some research. Coal is killing people from it's pollution and oil is a national security risk. We need less of both, not for future reasons, but for current issues.

I am so suprised that people are blind to the fact that oil is the single greatest security risk to our country. it has involved us in more wars, cost us more job sending overseas, and harms our health more than any other single issue on the ballot. Republicans say they are for American jobs yet they line their pockets with as they support shipping our cash to the Middle East. Democrats say they want to help people, but won't actually put the money where their mouth is and actually cahrge the causes of a huge amount of our healthcare cost there they come from.

Pollution is causing us huge healthcare problems, all to save .5 cents a kWh? Does that make sense? pay less up front only to have it wiped away with medicare cost? How does that make any finincial sense?

I relaly wish people would start looking at things holistically instead of making up crap. They support nuclear (20-50 cents a kWh), but not wind (5.5 cents a kWh) because it is expensive? They say wind cannot replace coal, yet wind does things a coal plant can't and ERCOT even requires wind plants to make up for that interaction on the grid. The irony is amazing in the age od disinformation.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 26th, 2011, 7:10 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
And over 440,000 birds have died because of wind turbines since you started this thread a year ago! :x

abcbirds.org wrote:
Bird Deaths from Wind Farms to Continue Under New Federal Voluntary Industry Guidelines

For Immediate Release Contact:
Robert Johns , 202-234-7181 ext. 210

(Washington, D.C., February 8, 2011) Draft voluntary federal guidelines issued today by the Interior Department that focus on the wildlife impacts of wind energy will result in continued increases in bird deaths and habitat loss from wind farms across the country, says American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization. Members of the public will have 90 days to provide comments on the proposed guidelines to the Secretary of the Interior prior to a final version being concluded.


“We had hoped that at the end of this multi-year, Interior Department process, we would see mandatory regulations that would provide a reasonable measure of restraint and control on a potentially very green energy source, but instead we get voluntary guidelines,” said ABC Vice-President Mike Parr.


“Bird deaths from wind power are the new inconvenient truth. The total number of birds killed and the amount of bird habitat lost will dramatically increase as wind power build-out continues across the country in a rush to meet federal renewable energy targets,” Parr said.


“We fast-tracked dams in the first half of the last century at the expense of America’s rivers. Now we’re having to tear many of them down. Let’s not fast track wind energy at the expense of America’s birds. Just a few small changes need to be made to make wind bird-smart, but without these, wind power simply can’t be considered a green technology” Parr said.


“This action did not have to result in voluntary guidelines. DOI has the authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to enact regulations protecting migratory birds. Further, it is troubling that this announcement was made without the final documents being available that would enable a review of exactly what is being proposed,” Parr said.


Some of the most iconic and vulnerable American birds are at risk from wind industry expansion unless this expansion is carefully planned and implemented. Onshore, these include Golden Eagles, Whooping Cranes, sage-grouse, prairie-chickens, and many migratory songbirds. Offshore, Brown Pelicans, Northern Gannets, sea ducks, loons, and terns are among the birds at risk.


“Federal government estimates indicate that 22,000 wind turbines in operation in 2009 were killing 440,000 birds per year. We are very concerned that with Federal plans to produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity from wind by 2030, those numbers will mushroom. To meet the 2030 goal, the nation will need to produce about 12 times more wind energy than in 2009.” he added.


“The guidelines ask the wind industry to do the right things, but there is no reason to believe that any will happen with any consistency. The poster child for the wind industry’s environmental track record is the Altamont Pass Wind Farm in California. Despite years of concern voiced by many in the wildlife community about large numbers of eagles and other raptors being killed at Altamont, it took a lawsuit to get the industry to respond,” Parr said.

“Birds continue to be killed at Altamont and other wind farms in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,” he added.


American Bird Conservancy supports wind power when it is bird-smart, and believes that birds and wind power can co-exist if the industry is held to mandatory standards that protect birds. ABC has established a petition for concerned members of the public to lend their support to the campaign for bird-smart wind.


Onshore bird-smart wind power implements siting considerations, operational and construction mitigation, bird monitoring, and compensation, to redress unavoidable bird mortality and habitat loss. Although offshore wind power is not yet operational in the U.S., an analogous set of siting, operating, and compensatory measures needs to be developed to make it bird-smart.


All wind farms should have an Avian Protection Plan that includes ABC’s bird-smart principles and a means of implementing it and tracking and reporting on its implementation. Wind farms should also comply with relevant state and federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and National Environmental Policy Act.


http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/110208.html

In the interests of full disclosure, I really don't give a crap about the birds. If they're stupid enough to fly into a windmill, they deserve the consequences. It's survival of the fittest, or the least dumb in this case. I only posted this article because I wanted to call steensn out as the bird killer that he truly is. Own up to your atrocities before I send PETA out after you. :lol:

_________________
Image


April 26th, 2011, 11:06 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2780
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
I know they lease land, but when you have food shortages due to the subsidies (because they make more not planting food or planting corn for ethanol your not going to have farmland go to windfarms. Comparing costs of new plants when we're talking about existing plants vs the footprint of how much land it will take (even leasing). Its apples and oranges. And trust me, take away the subsidies those farmers get now, and they won't be able to double dip and get a government check and lease the land to you. They're going to need to plant and then you're going to have to buy the land.

And if the technology worked, it wouldn't need government help to get off the ground. Its not cost effective without subsidies. Take away those subsidies and those companies lose money. Its not me and people like me that haven't allowed it to become a bigger part of our nation's power grid. Its the fact that it isn't cost effective and it isn't practical. I agree that It is ideal and would be better, but the technology isn't anywhere near being where it would have to be to truly save anything. This is no more than more "investing" tax dollars into a pipe dream.


April 27th, 2011, 12:29 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2780
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
And since I'm so misinformed, help me get the facts straight.

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour on about 2 square miles.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

The biggest problem? Where you need the most power.....the east and west coasts.... there's not enough land to build wind or solar in that capacity, and they need fossil fuel plants to supplement their output to keep it steady.

And when you lease all this farm land (where you getting all that money?) who's going to grow the food?


April 27th, 2011, 12:56 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
Sly, bad statistics. You can't take the Altimont pass #'s and apply them to the rest of the country. Turbines in the midwest account for less bird deaths than sky scrapers in NY.

The Altimont pass is a special case with thousands of older style WTG's, lattice towers, super fast rotors, etc that attract birds and then shred them. They are getting replaced this year and next by largeer ones with tubular steel towers and slower rotors that will drastically fix the issue and this nonsense will be a thing of the past. The bird thing is a Red Herring, you know it, you post it for fun, but then you force me to make these statements so misinformation doesn't get passed around.

Though someone here will likely grab onto it as an run with it...

To put this into perspective:

1 BILLION birds die each year running into windows... in essence, your living room window kills more birds than a new steel tubular tower WTG. Kinda kills the argument a bit...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 27th, 2011, 10:04 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
njroar wrote:
I know they lease land, but when you have food shortages due to the subsidies (because they make more not planting food or planting corn for ethanol your not going to have farmland go to windfarms. Comparing costs of new plants when we're talking about existing plants vs the footprint of how much land it will take (even leasing). Its apples and oranges. And trust me, take away the subsidies those farmers get now, and they won't be able to double dip and get a government check and lease the land to you. They're going to need to plant and then you're going to have to buy the land.


Holy crap batman... can you say mixing a hundred nonsensical things together into one nonsense argument? They get paid through the lease a % of the energy produced. When the turbine makes X kwH they get $Y. This is not hard to figure out... they aren't double dipping into gov't subsidies to not farm AND getting a paycheck for the leasing. Why do you want to make up stuff you have zero knowledge of? I mean, this one you have to KNOW that you just bulled it outta your butt...

They don't need to double dip, they are paid by the owenr operators MORE fort he usage of their land by paying them a % of the power produced which gives them MORE money per acre of land used than what they can make farming it and selling the food. If you didn't know, farmers don't make squat anymore because food prices are so low.

njroar wrote:
And if the technology worked, it wouldn't need government help to get off the ground. Its not cost effective without subsidies. Take away those subsidies and those companies lose money. Its not me and people like me that haven't allowed it to become a bigger part of our nation's power grid. Its the fact that it isn't cost effective and it isn't practical. I agree that It is ideal and would be better, but the technology isn't anywhere near being where it would have to be to truly save anything. This is no more than more "investing" tax dollars into a pipe dream.


Holy crap dude.... did you not just AGREE with me above that oil, nuclear, and gas are subsidized? Your are PURPOSEFULLY being ignorant at this point... I'm sorry. This is nonsense. Wind has survived 30+ years with a year to year subsidie JUST to make it equal with the subsidies alreayd PERMINENTLY in place for the competition. If you want to ignore the simple math involved here be my guest, but it is starting to look a bit silly bro. If everyone else is getting subsidies... and you are not... who is getting the help? Umm... duh...

Please please please... stop... and think for a bit here.

Fact:

Wind is 20-30% CHEAPER THAN NUCLEAR which you seem to think is a great power production source. Wind is also not far away from coal in price even WITH the built in SUBSIDIES of coal. You can state over and over nonsense all you want, but the REAL data is that wind is right up there as one of the cheapest energy sources and GETTING CHEAPER each year. If you want to ingore this again and again and ingorantly say it isn't cost effective based one... well nothing... be my guest.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 27th, 2011, 10:18 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who wants to learn about wind turbines.
njroar wrote:
And since I'm so misinformed, help me get the facts straight.

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour on about 2 square miles.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

The biggest problem? Where you need the most power.....the east and west coasts.... there's not enough land to build wind or solar in that capacity, and they need fossil fuel plants to supplement their output to keep it steady.

And when you lease all this farm land (where you getting all that money?) who's going to grow the food?


Look at this picture...

Image

I'll make it multiple choice...

How much land in this picture do you think the wind park owner operator needs to lease:

a) All of it dangit!!! That is what my calculations are!!! I'm not budging!
b) Just the land used for service roads and the base of the turbines.
c) None of it! The gov't pays the land owners because no one gets subsidized but new technology! it's unfair to think they would be getting help to make it fair!!!

Hint (it's not a or c)

The footprint of land needed for a wind farm DOES NOT demolish hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland, it uses ABOUT 1 acre per turbine. So you are talking about:

1000 MW = 400 turbines (2.5 MW is typical for new turbines)

400 wind turbines = ~ 400 acres + service roads (for fun let's double that, I can attest it is much less than that)

800 acres = 1.5 square miles.

What was your square mileage for nuclear again? Ouch...

When we lease this minimal amount of farm land, where do we get money? From selling the electricity...

Wind blowing 25% of the time? When we do cost fo energy calculations we factor in the capacity of the site. What are are telling me is that wind produces energy at a quarter of the cost fo nuclear even if it only operates a quater of the time... man... you keep making wind seem better and better!

Where do you need power? Just ship it there with the new and highly needed trans continental electrical grid. Again, you are coming p with fake made up obsticals, not from researching the info or getting better understanding but from making it up as you go. You are very misinfored.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 27th, 2011, 10:31 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.