# Windmills Harm the Environment by Consuming Energy



## KissMy (Sep 16, 2010)

Urban windmills harm the environment


> A small windmill on your roof or in the garden is an attractive idea. Unfortunately, micro wind turbines deliver hardly enough energy to power a light bulb. Their financial payback time is much longer than their life expectancy and in urban areas *they will not even deliver as much energy as was needed to produce them.* Sad, but true.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 16, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Urban windmills harm the environment
> 
> 
> > A small windmill on your roof or in the garden is an attractive idea. Unfortunately, micro wind turbines deliver hardly enough energy to power a light bulb. Their financial payback time is much longer than their life expectancy and in urban areas *they will not even deliver as much energy as was needed to produce them.* Sad, but true.



But it's so fun acting 'greener' than your neighbors.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 16, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Urban windmills harm the environment
> 
> 
> > A small windmill on your roof or in the garden is an attractive idea. Unfortunately, micro wind turbines deliver hardly enough energy to power a light bulb. Their financial payback time is much longer than their life expectancy and in urban areas *they will not even deliver as much energy as was needed to produce them.* Sad, but true.



But this doesn't weigh in the "I am better than you because I care" factor.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 16, 2010)

Democrats are Soooo Stuuupid!!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Urban windmills harm the environment
> ...



As if your post required proof:

In fact, more than half of the Prius buyers surveyed this spring by CNW Marketing Research of Bandon, Ore., said the main reason they purchased their car was that it makes a statement about me. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/business/04hybrid.html


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## Oddball (Sep 16, 2010)

JWBooth said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Urban windmills harm the environment
> ...


The National Weather service has just issued a stage 3 smug alert!


----------



## KissMy (Sep 16, 2010)

Observations of an economist environmentalist


> The word efficiency carries a meaning immersed in all things positive &#8211; you never hear that being more efficient could possibly be detrimental. In fact, if you can bear the evangelical fervour, you may have read about achieving &#8216;Factor Four&#8217; or &#8216;Factor Five&#8217; gains in energy efficiency, as part of a &#8216;Natural Capital&#8217; revolution comprising a &#8216;decoupling&#8217; economic growth from a growth in the consumption of exhaustible resources &#8211; also known as &#8216;sustainability&#8217;. You may even have heard about the equation I=PAT or I = P x A x T, where environmental impact (I) is a function of population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T), and that becoming more efficient will enable a desired level of affluence with far less environmental cost.
> 
> Historical experience shows that these claims are untrue, and indeed the facts suggest greater energy efficiency is counterproductive to the stated aims of curbing resource use and decreasing negative environmental externalities.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 16, 2010)

Which brings me back to corn based ethanol.  More energy is used to produce the product than is released when it is used as a fuel.  Which is an absolutely useless fact when confronting a politician trying to buy votes in the corn belt.

*[SIZE=-1]"Alcohol is for drinking,             gas is for cleaning parts, and nitro is for racing!"[/SIZE]*[SIZE=-1]
            Don Garlits (among             others)[/SIZE]


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 16, 2010)

Look at the usual suspects gather around red meat to rejoice a passage in a blog by Low-Tech Magazine on a topic they hope and pray to be true.

You know, it's fittingly amusing that you clowns will adhere to a blog that quote:

_Low-tech Magazine *refuses to assume that every problem has a high-tech solution. A simple, sensible, but nevertheless controversial message; high-tech has become the idol of our society*._​
Low-tech Magazine: About

Meanwhile, your entire M.O., almost to a man, is to DENY the concern over the drawdown of hyrdo-carbon energy sources by leaning on the assumption of technology advances!!!!!!

So which is it, exactly? You guys don't seem to know WHERE you stand. All you know is that progress is bad, and status quo meal tickets like Big Oil? Gooooood.

LOL... Cons...  Rest assured that when faced with a fresh con claim, you can just lift the rock and watch the bugs scurry.

Either way, some day, you morons will wish we put up the renewable infrastructure when we had the chance.... Costs will be irrelevant.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 16, 2010)

JWBooth said:


> Which brings me back to corn based ethanol.  More energy is used to produce the product than is released when it is used as a fuel.  Which is an absolutely useless fact when confronting a politician trying to buy votes in the corn belt.
> 
> *[SIZE=-1]"Alcohol is for drinking,             gas is for cleaning parts, and nitro is for racing!"[/SIZE]*[SIZE=-1]
> Don Garlits (among             others)[/SIZE]



There is a slight energy gain from corn ethanol. If you raised corn just to make ethanol that gain is only about 2:1. The thing energy only critics fail to factor in is the corn was already being raised to feed livestock. The DDG feed that comes out of the ethanol plants still feeds the same amount of animals. The plants just convert the corn starch into ethanol for cars. The corn protein still remains for the animals. This makes the energy gain much higher than 2:1.

The other advantage of ethanol is that it replaces the MTBE adaptive in gasoline. MTBE was a major cause of ground water pollution.

Corn ethanol is only part of the answer. It will only provide 36 billion gallons of fuel in the USA.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 16, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Here is another good quote from the article.


> I felt like the Camry Hybrid was too subtle for the message I wanted to put out there, Ms. Gatch said. I wanted to have the biggest impact that I could, and the Prius puts out a clearer message.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 16, 2010)

I'm simply amazed. I never knew there were so many authorities on the environment, global warming, and now alternative fuels and energy on this board.  I feel so inferior.  I'll add my two cents to this post.  You can burn cow shit if you dry it out long enough.  It's grain that's been recycled down to it's lowest form and still useful.  Look!  I'm an energy wiz too!  We're all energy nurds - or turds.  Whatever.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 16, 2010)

KissMy said:


> There is a slight energy gain from corn ethanol. If you raised corn just to make ethanol that gain is only about 2:1. The thing energy only critics fail to factor in is the corn was already being raised to feed livestock. The DDG feed that comes out of the ethanol plants still feeds the same amount of animals. The plants just convert the corn starch into ethanol for cars. The corn protien still remains for the animals. This makes the energy gain much higher than 2:1.



So, now you're hijacking your own thread, and punting to corn?

Wait, are you actually going to stump for ethanol? This should be fun. Good luck.


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 16, 2010)

Count Dracula said:


> I'm simply amazed. I never knew there were so many authorities on the environment, global warming, and now alternative fuels and energy on this board.  I feel so inferior.  I'll add my two cents to this post.  You can burn cow shit if you dry it out long enough.  It's grain that's been recycled down to it's lowest form and still useful.  Look!  I'm an energy wiz too!  We're all energy nurds - or turds.  Whatever.




Plus, if you put a lid over it while it drys you can get a touch of methane too.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 16, 2010)

JWBooth said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> > I'm simply amazed. I never knew there were so many authorities on the environment, global warming, and now alternative fuels and energy on this board.  I feel so inferior.  I'll add my two cents to this post.  You can burn cow shit if you dry it out long enough.  It's grain that's been recycled down to it's lowest form and still useful.  Look!  I'm an energy wiz too!  We're all energy nurds - or turds.  Whatever.
> ...



There is not as much methane in cow shit from cows that eat DDG feed from ethanol plants. This also helps the environment.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 16, 2010)

KissMy said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > Count Dracula said:
> ...



Well, I guess we can't say you don't know shit...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2010)

Like everything else, alternative energy on the home scale depends on a number of factors. For solar, you have to have an area that gets enough sunlight. For wind, you need to live in a wind area for a small turbine to be effective.

And, finally, if one wants the most bang for the buck, you have to be reasonably intelligent and able to follow simple construction instructions. If all of the above apply, here is where one can begin;

How To Make Solar Power Generator Panels - Build Wind Turbine Power Generator - Home Use Solar Power Electricity


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 17, 2010)

Big Black Dog said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 17, 2010)

Again, which is it? Is technology gonna save us, or do we adhere to "Low-Tech" web sites for all our answers?

Which is it, Palin disciples?


----------



## Oddball (Sep 17, 2010)

There's nothing high tech or new about windmills.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 17, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Again, which is it? Is technology gonna save us, or do we adhere to "Low-Tech" web sites for all our answers?
> 
> Which is it, Palin disciples?



Why are only so called Green Technologies going to save us? 

Drilling for our own oil is a technology you know


----------



## KissMy (Sep 17, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Like everything else, alternative energy on the home scale depends on a number of factors. For solar, you have to have an area that gets enough sunlight. For wind, you need to live in a wind area for a small turbine to be effective.
> 
> And, finally, if one wants the most bang for the buck, you have to be reasonably intelligent and able to follow simple construction instructions. If all of the above apply, here is where one can begin;
> 
> How To Make Solar Power Generator Panels - Build Wind Turbine Power Generator - Home Use Solar Power Electricity



The large wind generators cost over $137,000 a year each to maintain. Are they figuring in all the EROI of the parts & maintenance that it takes to maintain these wind generators.


----------



## Zander (Sep 17, 2010)

Who can put a price on feeling smug and superior?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 17, 2010)

Apperatnly they can be dangerous to us all too
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1156470/windmill_destruction/


----------



## Oddball (Sep 17, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Like everything else, alternative energy on the home scale depends on a number of factors. For solar, you have to have an area that gets enough sunlight. For wind, you need to live in a wind area for a small turbine to be effective.
> ...


Lest we forget to mention the dreaded "carbon footprint" it takes to manufacture, transport, erect and maintain those eyesores.


----------



## 007 (Sep 17, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Again, which is it? Is technology gonna save us, or do we adhere to "Low-Tech" web sites for all our answers?
> 
> Which is it, Palin disciples?



Well well... I see we have a new mouth breather here... did you vote for OWEbama?

If so, shut up, 'cause you're dumber'n a sack 'a shit.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 17, 2010)

Any one watch the video in the link I put up.

When Windmills attack lol


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 17, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Again, which is it? Is technology gonna save us, or do we adhere to "Low-Tech" web sites for all our answers?
> 
> Which is it, Palin disciples?



If this shit was SO great.... why are'nt we using nothing but windmills?

I can tell ya...... because they are'nt a vialble alternative to fossil fuel!

If you green freaks were being serious, you'd be behind nuclear power. Bottom line its the most clean and vialble alternative to fossil fuel and YOU KNOW IT!

The only good answer for you green idiots is for the whole of society to waste a few tons of lead for us to all eat one solitary bullet.

Thanks, but no thanks..... you punks first!


----------



## JWBooth (Sep 17, 2010)

Oddball said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Those fan blades come through here at a rate of a couple a day.  1 blade loaded per tractor pulling an specialised trailer accompanied by two escort vehicles.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Like everything else, alternative energy on the home scale depends on a number of factors. For solar, you have to have an area that gets enough sunlight. For wind, you need to live in a wind area for a small turbine to be effective.
> ...



Where on that site do you find that number?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2010)

Zander said:


> Who can put a price on feeling smug and superior?



For sure, in your own eyes, you are priceless


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2010)

Operation and maintenance costs of wind generated power

Due to the relative infancy of the wind energy industry, there are only a few turbines that have reached their life expectancy of 20 years. These turbines are much smaller than those currently available on the market. Estimates of O&M costs are still highly unpredictable, especially around the end of a turbine&#8217;s lifetime; nevertheless a certain amount of experience can be drawn from existing, older turbines.




Based on experiences in Germany, Spain, the UK and Denmark, O&M costs are generally estimated to be around 1.2 to 1.5 eurocents (c&#8364 per kWh of wind power produced, over the total lifetime of a turbine. Spanish data indicates that less than 60 per cent of this amount goes strictly to the O&M of the turbine and installations, with the rest equally distributed between labour costs and spare parts. The remaining 40 per cent is split equally between insurance, land rental  and overheads.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 17, 2010)

Of course the mills are so inefficient that they are going up in double digit increases of power every year. A 39% increase in 2009 over 2008. And here is a site in which you can see the increase over the pass ten years.

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 17, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> Well well... I see we have a new mouth breather here... did you vote for OWEbama?
> 
> If so, shut up, 'cause you're dumber'n a sack 'a shit.



Hey there, cracker-jack! Not new at all, and no, I didn't vote for him... But you're muddling your white-power talking points. See, this thread is about energy, not partisan race-baiting.

Just a little FYI, mm-kay? You won't ever be telling me when to be quiet. Well, not effectively, anyway. 

Back to your regularly scheduled Klan meeting. Bu'bye.


----------



## 007 (Sep 17, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Well well... I see we have a new mouth breather here... did you vote for OWEbama?
> ...



I see... so we not only have a new cherry mouth breather, we have a liar as well. I didn't make any mention of race there skippy. You're off to a really shitty start. Your arrogance and sass won't get very far here. There's plenty of folks here that can take you off at the knees jiggy jingle nuts. Just keep that in mind.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 18, 2010)

Pale Rider said:


> I see... so we not only have a new cherry mouth breather, we have a liar as well. I didn't make any mention of race there skippy. You're off to a really shitty start. Your arrogance and sass won't get very far here. There's plenty of folks here that can take you off at the knees jiggy jingle nuts. Just keep that in mind.



Again, clown-and-a-half, I'm not new, and I didn't vote for him. 

Arrogance and sass are what you and your allies here rely upon on an hourly basis, because you have nothing else. Your situational ethics are showing. I guess it's only OK for you side to fire off the vitriol, right? We understand. Tool.

Idle threats won't get you very far, internet tough guy. I'm right here, and not going anywhere. Just remember: You ran your mouth first, so you'll get exactly what you deserve. Neg rep me all you like. Only shows you're just another rage-addled, insecure CONservative who has no problem with what Bush did (torture, raping Bill of Rights, scrap Habeus Corpus, socialize losses, privatize gains), but big problems with the same stuff Obama does . That, by deduction, is racism.

Again, this thread is about energy. Not Obama-bashing, mmm-kay? Maybe you can write up a new "witty" anti-Obama slogan in German now.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 18, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I see... so we not only have a new cherry mouth breather, we have a liar as well. I didn't make any mention of race there skippy. You're off to a really shitty start. Your arrogance and sass won't get very far here. There's plenty of folks here that can take you off at the knees jiggy jingle nuts. Just keep that in mind.
> ...



I love how you think claiming you did not vote for him. Somehow changes the fact that you are clearly drinking his koolaide up with glee.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Well, I voted for President Obama and will do so again. 

Now, back to the subject. Do you, Charlie and Palid Ragger have any real scientific evidence to contribute to the discussion? Or are you just going to go with the same old mindless Conservative talking points?


----------



## JiggsCasey (Sep 18, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> I love how you think claiming you did not vote for him. Somehow changes the fact that you are clearly drinking his koolaide up with glee.



I do? How, exactly? I'm said over a half dozen times he's failing badly on energy, which is the topic of this entire sub-forum.

You seem like one of the rare, respectful, competent, pro-fossil fuel posters around here, so please don't reduce yourself by assuming and/or misrepresenting my position.

Obama is not my leader of choice, not by a longshot... But he's a far better option than anyone the "drill baby drill" cons can trot out there right now.


----------



## KissMy (Sep 20, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Click on the "1.5MW @ 128 net 49%" link at the very bottom of the page.


----------



## Spoonman (Sep 20, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Urban windmills harm the environment
> 
> 
> > A small windmill on your roof or in the garden is an attractive idea. Unfortunately, micro wind turbines deliver hardly enough energy to power a light bulb. Their financial payback time is much longer than their life expectancy and in urban areas *they will not even deliver as much energy as was needed to produce them.* Sad, but true.



Depends on where you live.  We have some huge windfarms near us. From what I hear they are generating a ton of power.  Also people along the lake power their entire houses with wind.


----------



## Spoonman (Sep 20, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, I voted for President Obama and will do so again.
> 
> Now, back to the subject. Do you, Charlie and Palid Ragger have any real scientific evidence to contribute to the discussion? Or are you just going to go with the same old mindless Conservative talking points?


Do you also bang your thumb with a hammer everytime you are driving a nail?


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 20, 2010)

JWBooth said:


> Which brings me back to corn based ethanol.  More energy is used to produce the product than is released when it is used as a fuel.  Which is an absolutely useless fact when confronting a politician trying to buy votes in the corn belt.
> 
> *[SIZE=-1]"Alcohol is for drinking,             gas is for cleaning parts, and nitro is for racing!"[/SIZE]*[SIZE=-1]
> Don Garlits (among             others)[/SIZE]



Not only that, when you take corn out of the food chain people start starving and food prices go up, up, up.

Producing ethanol also runs the risk of contaminating ground water, thanks to the way it's processed. I wrote a lengthy article on it a few years ago when our region was looking to get into it in a big way. Contamination risk factor is huge.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 20, 2010)

windmills don't create enough energy to justify the huge amounts of energy it takes to build and run them. The only way the industry survives is through gargantuan subsidies. They can't support themselves.

I can't throw a rock in my area without hitting one of the stupid things. and our electricity is SKY HIGH.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 20, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> windmills don't create enough energy to justify the huge amounts of energy it takes to build and run them. The only way the industry survives is through gargantuan subsidies. They can't support themselves.
> 
> I can't throw a rock in my area without hitting one of the stupid things. and our electricity is SKY HIGH.



Mind if I support that premise?

"According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA), if one includes all the capital, operating and fuel costs, electricity from wind still costs about 50 percent more than conventional coal and 100 percent more than natural gas, says Ronald Bailey, science correspondent with Reason Magazine.
Proponents point out that the costs of turbines are coming down, but the costs for the considerable infrastructure needed to manage wind are still daunting.

 	The wind, even at favorable sites, doesn't always blow, so the facility produces power at about 38 percent of its actual capacity, or roughly about 51 megawatt hours of electricity on average. 

 	The Department of Energy projects that wind power production capacity will more than double by 2014, fueled by federal tax subsidies, economic recovery stimulus spending and state renewable energy mandates.  This means that thousands more gleaming stately spinning towers will soon rise above the amber waves of grain in the heartland of America.  Beautiful, says Bailey, but costly.

Wind Turbines Are Beautiful - Reason Magazine


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 20, 2010)

JWBooth said:


> Count Dracula said:
> 
> 
> > I'm simply amazed. I never knew there were so many authorities on the environment, global warming, and now alternative fuels and energy on this board.  I feel so inferior.  I'll add my two cents to this post.  You can burn cow shit if you dry it out long enough.  It's grain that's been recycled down to it's lowest form and still useful.  Look!  I'm an energy wiz too!  We're all energy nurds - or turds.  Whatever.
> ...



My electric co-op is putting a generating plant on top of a landfill to run off the gases produced.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 21, 2010)

KissMy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



*Odd, what I find is an estimate of $25,000 per year per unit. That is rather reasonable.*


https://sites.google.com/site/cbpwindturbine/1-5mw

(11)margins against failure under fatigue loads, 
We do not have data for this.

(12)approx.how many installations your company has already. 
For now about 200 units by our partner in China.

(13)What maintenance is required, 
Check consumable components regularly.

(14)how frequent and 
per month or each quarter

(15)what are average costs?
US$25000 estimated per year per unit 

(16)Would you provide connection from wind mills to 20kV electricity grid including all the electric equipment, or you require this to be done by customer? 
Yes, we can provide transformer with extra costs


----------

