Lies lies lies, green energy is black.

I have been looking into wind turbines recently.

Ffs for something that is supposed to save the world the actual resources and carbon emissions such as the rebar for the concrete foundation’s, the mining for the concrete foundations, the amount of electricity as well as diesel used to produce components.

The manufacturing of the blades themselves as well as the carbon fibre and manufacturing of fibreglass and Kevlar, as well as the manufacturing of the resins needed to make the blades, seems not to be taken into account.

Also the components are usually made in Europe,the carbon emitted to transport these worldwide seems not to be considered.

Though the hilarious part of it all is the blades cannot be recycled so are used for furnace fuel to make concrete…..lol.

m.youtube.com...

energyskeptic.com...


As the comedian said it’s all lies.

a reply to: Cavemannick

That took you long enough. It takes over 120 tons of coal to make each wind turbine. Not very clean at all.

Funny how no one tells anyone about that fact but it has been known for years.

a reply to: Cavemannick

I've been screaming this from every rooftop for about the past 15 years, ever since the first wind turbines started to blight the landscape in my home state of Wyoming.

"Green" energy is a ruse. It's only 'green' for the people selling all the wind turbines and other green garbage. Green in their wallets!

Plus, it gets even worse with wind power. The power distribution grids can't handle getting that power from where it's generated to where it is consumed. In fact, the grid is the exact opposite of this. It tapers down as the grid moves further away from population centers. So what do they do? They "park" the wind turbines (i.e. lock the blades so they don't spin). Can you say "hose job"? The American taxpayer got completely hosed by Obama and all his cronies. Green my ass!

And now, it's even worse than that. Now the turbines have been parked so long they're obsolete. So, even if you could distribute the power, the turbines would have to be replaced with new ones first because there's no spare parts available for the existing ones! Oh, and where are the companies who built all these damn things? Bueller?...Bueller? They all took the money and ran, so you can't even go after them.

Green energy is one of the biggest criminal enterprises ever perpetuated BY GOVERNMENT on the American taxpayer!

(Oh, and don't even get me started on Ethanol !! ATS doesn't have enough server space to contain my rant on that one!)

a reply to: Cavemannick

Don’t forget, they put these in areas that require destruction of land, out west they have to carve out mounting pads, roads, and power line tracts. Complete destruction to some beautiful/scenery land now destroyed by ugly wind turbines. Where are the tree huggers??? They destroy ecosystems, trees, and kill birds. The land will be scarred just like abandoned open pit mines.

I’ll drive by and see a group of hundreds, NOT one turning.

a reply to: 38181

... Where are the tree huggers??? ...

They have selective vision because of their complete hypocrisy!! GRRRRRRRRR!

originally posted by: 38181
a reply to: Cavemannick

Don’t forget, they put these in areas that require destruction of land, out west they have to carve out mounting pads, roads, and power line tracts. Complete destruction to some beautiful/scenery land now destroyed by ugly wind turbines. Where are the tree huggers??? They destroy ecosystems, trees, and kill birds. The land will be scarred just like abandoned open pit mines.

I’ll drive by and see a group of hundreds, NOT one turning.

Greenpeace is just political hacks, sadly, everyone seems to have a price, and for some, it's not a very large amount.

Wait until you find out recycling is an equal ruse.

Its takes way more energy to clean the old product, ship it, process it, ship it again then remanufacture it.
When compared to simply making a new plastic container. Now micro plastics and plastic contamination are very real threats and the recycling process of grinding down plastic doesn’t help any.
Aluminum on the other hand is highly recyclable and we should be using instead of plastics for most things.

What we need is more responsible packaging. Back to wax paper for meats instead of trays and plastic wraps ect. Packaging should be as basic and degradable as possible, but packaging is coupled with advertising so it’s a up hill battle
a reply to: Cavemannick

It is actually mind boggling, how much they throw money at all this worthless, BS technology.
And they do it all to cover up or divert people from realizing one little truth.

Even if we completely stopped using all plastic tomorrow, we can't ever clean it all up. That is the actual biggest problem we have right now.

Plastic.

Too much money made from it, Too much money to clean up what we could.
So they keep screaming:
CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!! GREEN ENERGY!!!!.

a reply to: Cavemannick
In our upside down world literally everthing which could be good is weaponised into a money extracting scam and ends up being bad because of shadowy evil agendas and greegy evil people.

One sure fire way pf seeing if something is corrupted by the dark ones is to ask this-Is it trying to play on the emotions of goodness,kindness,wanting to help others,be loving,generous,charitable,help the downtrodden,be fair?

If the answer is yes-then its been twisted by the dark ones.

Damn I sound jaded,but am i wrong?

They are supposed to last 25 years, and installation and maintenance will cost 3.5 million over their lifetime. The electricity generated is around 350k per year, so it will take you 8+ years to break even, but then you will make around 6 million, which is not too bad if you were just looking at the investment.

Have any lasted 25 years? And what is the rate of actual failure.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Then there is this that never gets talked about….

Gear oil: around 800 gallons per turbine for gearboxes.
Transformer oil: approximately 1200 gallons per turbine for transformers.
Annual oil consumption: averages 80 gallons per turbine.
Diesel Engines: Windmills rely on diesel engines for initiation and electric heating in gearboxes, impacting oil usage.

An average wind turbine requires approximately 80 gallons of oil annually for proper lubrication.
Scaling up, a wind farm with 150 turbines would need around 12,000 gallons of oil each year to operate efficiently.
To power a city like New York with wind energy, an estimated 3,800 turbines would consume about 304,000 gallons of refined oil.
The oil consumption for wind turbines raises questions about sustainability and the environmental impact of oil usage in renewable energy production.

twogreenleaves.org...

a reply to: Cavemannick

While you are at it, look into the toxic metals leached from deteriorating solar cells into the ground beneath them. You will see how green they are not.

Then there is the batteries. Solar and wind power requires lots of batteries to store the energy for when there is no sunlight and wind. They can't make enough batteries for that so they have to rely on the same power generation that has been in place for decades to make up the slack production. But this causes problems because they work most efficiently under constant load and not generating only at night and during calm winds.

The more you look into green energy projects the blacker they all are.

a reply to: Cavemannick

The lesson about all energy is that there is no perfect kind.

There’s not one source that can be the end all be all (yet).

The best solution is having a diverse energy portfolio that the grid can spread, so that we aren’t vulnerable to an issue, and have energy independence.

Green energy is in its infancy, wont be good for most use cases, and should only be a supplement.

Nuclear would be a good workhorse, but is slow to adjust to fluctuating demand.

Fossil fuels have an existing infrastructure, and can quickly ramp up output to meet grid demands.

Most of these aren’t bad as long as they’re viewed pragmatically and not all or nothing.

originally posted by: Athetos
Have any lasted 25 years? And what is the rate of actual failure.

a reply to: Xtrozero

No clue, that is why is said supposed 😎

All of it is money laundering while at the same time supporting the anarchy of anti-capitalism. The hard work of ensuring the word "photosynthesis" is never spoken

originally posted by: tkwaz
All of it is money laundering while at the same time supporting the anarchy of anti-capitalism. The hard work of ensuring the word "photosynthesis" is never spoken

I don’t think there’s an “innocent” type of power. There’s been corruption behind them all.

I think that’s one of the dangers of putting all the eggs in one basket.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Cavemannick

The lesson about all energy is that there is no perfect kind.

There’s not one source that can be the end all be all (yet).

The best solution is having a diverse energy portfolio that the grid can spread, so that we aren’t vulnerable to an issue, and have energy independence.

Green energy is in its infancy, wont be good for most use cases, and should only be a supplement.

Nuclear would be a good workhorse, but is slow to adjust to fluctuating demand.

Fossil fuels have an existing infrastructure, and can quickly ramp up output to meet grid demands.

Most of these aren’t bad as long as they’re viewed pragmatically and not all or nothing.

in the long long ago, back when people would think about things before they did them, they would have continued using fossil fuels as we have been until we found a BETTER alternative. Only then would we roll out the new energy makers, and it would be done in phases so the local environments could adapt. But now, with runaway global warming that will cook us all, then our ashes washed away by the rising sea levels we have been inundated with, it's imperative that we try everything we can, even the really stupid ideas. Like giant wind farms.

a reply to: network dude

I agree with you. I think it should be driven by market forces instead of the government.

Heavy subsidies won’t drive the technology to improve, market forces will.

I’m interested to see what the technologies yield, not so much from a green aspect, but an energy independence one.

We produce more oil right now than any other nation. Not only that, we produce more than any nation ever has. Not necessarily a bad thing. But these resources are finite. That’s why we are getting sand, shale, deep sea, and other more complex oil sources than low lying sweet crude.

Even nuclear is finite (if we stick strictly to uranium).

There are certainly some low hanging fruit in terms of energy, but that may not always be the case. And all it takes is global tension or other unforeseen force to price out something that was otherwise an economical large scale options.

I’d argue the time to flesh out future diversification options isn’t when you need to, but when you don’t need to… doesn’t mean it has to be pushed by the government though.

a reply to: Cavemannick

How many 600 foot tall wind turbines does it take to equal the output of one nuclear power plant?

Rising from the Randall County dirt is the largest wind turbine in the United States. It's a monster.

The height of the hub is 426.5 feet above the ground. The height of the tip of one of its three blades at its tallest is 653.5 feet above the West Texas plains. The diameter of the rotor is 446.2 feet.

By comparison, most wind turbines in the area are less than 500 feet, from the tip of its tallest blade, above the ground. The previous record-holder for the tallest turbine installed in the United States is about 574 feet above the ground.

www.amarillo.com...

Didn't take long to find the answer. 800 wind turbines equals one nuclear reactor. I guess we really really want these gigantic towers everywhere.

Today, nuclear reactors range in capacity from about 300 megawatts—for small reactors that are still being experimented with—to about 1600 megawatts.1 The average nuclear reactor has about 900 megawatts of capacity.2 (Larger nuclear plants use multiple reactors to achieve much higher capacities.) By comparison, the average capacity of a land-based wind turbine installed in 2022 was about 3 megawatts (offshore wind turbines are larger).3

So even if both types of plants ran at their top performance day in and day out, hundreds of wind turbines would be needed to produce the same amount of electricity as the average nuclear project, says John Parsons, the deputy director of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. 

But nuclear plants also have the highest capacity factor of any energy technology. Once a nuclear plant is powered on, it runs at its top performance the majority of the time: 93% of the time in the U.S., according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.4 That’s significantly higher than the capacity factor of even coal or natural gas, generally considered reliable “baseload” sources we can count on whenever we need them. Wind, on the other hand, has a capacity factor of around 36 percent, because turbines are limited by the amount of wind blowing past them, as well as their turbine size.4 

Multiply these energy sources’ maximum capacities by their capacity factors, and you’ll find that it would take almost 800 average-sized wind turbines to match the output from a 900-megawatt nuclear reactor. 

Yes and just take all the farmland for these towers. Ok.

When it comes to land use, nuclear plants take up as little as 10 hectares per terawatt-hour of electricity produced per year, while wind uses about 100 hectares, measuring just the area taken up by turbines.5 (This rises to an astounding 10,000 hectares if you include all the land covered by a wind farm, but most of this space is open land and can be used for ranching or farming.) 

climate.mit.edu...

Wind is a scam.