(February 18, 2021 at 11:59 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(February 18, 2021 at 9:40 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Fixing the energy crisis with windmills is akin to bailing the Titanic with a teacup.


https://www.city-journal.org/wind-power-...the-answer

Fossil fuel plants, despite being heavily subsidized, are losing the pure economic race to wind in texas.  The reason that they're building turbines now is that it's cheaper to put them up than it is to simply run last gen plants.  Not build them, just run them.  Additionally, that frees up fuel for export.

Your link is hilarious.

Quote:As a new study confirms, turbines would have to be stacked across state-sized swaths of the American landscape

That's exactly what texas is doing, because it makes economic sense.  53 billion and the return speaks for itself.  Take it up with them.  : shrug :

Economic sense?

What form of number twisting are you using?

3mw windmill = about 6 million. This does not cover maintaining it.

Factor in - downtime due to lack of wind - storm damage - basic catestrophic failure due simple things such as a faulty governor or a 90 degree wind shift causing the rotor head destroyin itself from gyroscopic forces...

Now -tell  me genius - what is the difference between your blue sky, never breaks down optimistic projection of payoff of initial investment - versus - the real world where mechanical shit breaks on a regular basis?

Oh... And don't forget to figure in the NIMBYTarians who are going to lawyer up and sue your ass for lowering their property values. You get to add in your lawyer cost to your initial investment cost.

Windmills are the solution - to the problem of selling windmills... And don't forget your government kickbacks... Government is great at backing losing horses...

Some number of machines will always be down, some number of machines will always be in need of repair. Wind or coal, this is a shared burden -though not equally shared - turbine generation has fewer divergent paths for failure of operation. Really just three.

Is it standing.
Can it spin.
Is the wind blowing.

Here again I'll just tell you to take it up with texas. This storm has damaged their production...but the one thing still running, wind. Texas produces nearly a quarter of all wind energy in the us. They've made a massive investment, despite having an excess of fossil fuels, and they would be worse off, right now, if they hadn't.

(February 18, 2021 at 12:56 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(February 18, 2021 at 11:59 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Fossil fuel plants, despite being heavily subsidized, are losing the pure economic race to wind in texas.  The reason that they're building turbines now is that it's cheaper to put them up than it is to simply run last gen plants.  Not build them, just run them.  Additionally, that frees up fuel for export.

Your link is hilarious.

That's exactly what texas is doing, because it makes economic sense.  53 billion and the return speaks for itself.  Take it up with them.  : shrug :

Economic sense?

What form of number twisting are you using?

3mw windmill = about 6 million. This does not cover maintaining it.

Factor in - downtime due to lack of wind - storm damage - basic catestrophic failure due simple things such as a faulty governor or a 90 degree wind shift causing the rotor head destroyin itself from gyroscopic forces...

Now -tell  me genius - what is the difference between your blue sky, never breaks down optimistic projection of payoff of initial investment - versus - the real world where mechanical shit breaks on a regular basis?

Oh... And don't forget to figure in the NIMBYTarians who are going to lawyer up and sue your ass for lowering their property values. You get to add in your lawyer cost to your initial investment cost.

Windmills are the solution - to the problem of selling windmills... And don't forget your government kickbacks... Government is great at backing losing horses...

I'd like to know when there's downtime with the wind here.  I haven't experienced it in the nearly 15 years I have lived here.

Wind and solar are welcomed sources.  Only nattering naybobs suggest otherwise.  The difference underpinning Texas' failure with varied sources is the inability to tap neighboring grids.

Of course, Biker would Cite an article by a known Climate change "skeptic " who works for a think tank funded by ExxonMobil and the fucking Koch Brothers.

https://www.desmogblog.com/robert-bryce

---

Also, the reason the Wind Turbines froze is that they were not winterized because shock it's Texas 

https://interestingengineering.com/wind-...ld-weather

The property values argument is dodgy at best not to mention not a reason not to implement them

A friend from Lubbock sent me this 45 in 78.  We both thought it was hilarious.  Now, it's even funnier.

(February 18, 2021 at 1:40 pm)Ranjr Wrote: Wind and solar are welcomed sources.  Only nattering naybobs suggest otherwise.  The difference underpinning Texas' failure with varied sources is the inability to tap neighboring grids.

They are both only "economical" when subsidized by tax dollars.

Wind power has been around for centuries.

If it was more economical than other sources of energy it would have replaced steam power in the 19th century.

And biker compares modern wind turbines to windmills lol and no even without subsidies both are economical. Take fossil fuels billions in government handouts away though and watch it collapse.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmo...abd5bb5a6b

(February 18, 2021 at 5:21 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: They are both only "economical" when subsidized by tax dollars.

Wind power has been around for centuries.

If it was more economical than other sources of energy it would have replaced steam power in the 19th century.

You're comparing a source of electricity to a source of mechanical force, while ignoring the facts of the day.  Nattering naybob.

(February 18, 2021 at 5:57 pm)Ranjr Wrote:

(February 18, 2021 at 5:21 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: They are both only "economical" when subsidized by tax dollars.

Wind power has been around for centuries.

If it was more economical than other sources of energy it would have replaced steam power in the 19th century.

You're comparing a source of electricity to a source of mechanical force, while ignoring the facts of the day.  Nattering naybob.

It's a bit like saying "we had the power of flight for centuries, Kites, Hot Air Balloons, Gliders, so why didn't they replace sailing ships for international travel. Thus modern planes must suck by comparison. It's not like ancient technology can be improved or anything.