# America’s wind energy industry is booming



## ScienceRocks (Aug 9, 2017)

America’s wind energy industry is booming
Economic challenges facing wind energy are nothing new, industry says.
Mark Hand
Aug 9, 2017, 4:18 pm 


> The wind energy industry reached an important milestone in 2016 when it passed the generating capacity of hydroelectric power for the first time to become the nation’s top renewable generating source. Wind energy’s growth — at least in the next few years — is showing few signs of slowing down, with 142,000 megawatts of new and proposed wind capacity lined up to connect to the nation’s electric power grid, according to new data released by the Department of Energy.
> 
> The total amount of wind capacity in the queue represents 34 percent of all generating capacity waiting to connect to the grid, higher than all other generating sources, DOE said. The wind energy industry added more than 8,200 megawatts of capacity in 2016, representing 27 percent of all energy capacity additions for that year.





https://thinkprogres...m-7c5a2fcdfdae/

Nothing stopping wind! Not even Donald Trump can stop it!


----------



## shockedcanadian (Aug 9, 2017)

Trump doesn't want to stop it, he just doesn't want taxpayers to foot the bill for these business adventures and crony capitalism.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 10, 2017)

Global fossil fuels subsidies are around $5.3 trillion each year.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf

That makes wind energy look like an even bigger bargain.


----------



## BlackFlag (Aug 10, 2017)

shockedcanadian said:


> Trump doesn't want to stop it, he just doesn't want taxpayers to foot the bill for these business adventures and crony capitalism.


If Trump doesn't stop it IMMEDIATELY, then he's a cuck RINO who hates coal miners.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Aug 13, 2017)

I guess if wind energy cannot be stopped it is time to remove all subsidies for it. Sounds like a win win situation. I just want to know how we are going to address the severe decline in the bird population. Wind power needs to be environmentally conscious too right?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 13, 2017)

Shrimpbox said:


> I guess if wind energy cannot be stopped it is time to remove all subsidies for it. Sounds like a win win situation. I just want to know how we are going to address the severe decline in the bird population. Wind power needs to be environmentally conscious too right?


My what a lying little fuck you are. The mills are one of the least dangers to birds.






Causes of Bird Mortality - Sibley Guides


----------



## Shrimpbox (Aug 13, 2017)

Man if I called someone a lying little fuck mods would be on me in a heartbeat.
Is it alright to put up a link that disputes your case?

Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe For Birds?

You know your chart is from 2003. My little,Audubon study is for North America only. Furthermore, raptors are more likely to be killed and much like wolves at the top of the food chain, their demise is of more concern.


----------



## Slash (Aug 14, 2017)

Shrimpbox said:


> I guess if wind energy cannot be stopped it is time to remove all subsidies for it. Sounds like a win win situation. I just want to know how we are going to address the severe decline in the bird population. Wind power needs to be environmentally conscious too right?



Hmmm, Oil and gas got what?  Over a century of subsidies?   Still getting them.  Are you calling for those to stop too?   I mean wind power is a drop in the bucket of that tax break/subsidy money.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Aug 14, 2017)

Yes stop all subsidies. Solar, wind, ethanol, coal, oil, mat gas, everything in the energy portfolio. Stop giving Elon musk billions for a scam. Stop subsidizing electric cars that do not help the environment. Can you hear me now?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 17, 2017)

Shrimpbox said:


> Yes stop all subsidies. Solar, wind, ethanol, coal, oil, mat gas, everything in the energy portfolio. Stop giving Elon musk billions for a scam. Stop subsidizing electric cars that do not help the environment. Can you hear me now?


LOL  Really hate the fact that Musk has a car that this almost totally built in America, that beats anything of comparable price anywhere in the world. You hate the fact that the Americans building those cars are paid well. You hate the fact that Musk has built the biggest battery factory in the world, and is now producing grid scale batteries there, as well as batteries for EV's. In other words, you hate American success.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 17, 2017)

Shrimpbox said:


> Man if I called someone a lying little fuck mods would be on me in a heartbeat.
> Is it alright to put up a link that disputes your case?
> 
> Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe For Birds?
> ...


LOL  Call me that, and they will give you a pat on the back. And that chart is still valid. There are more raptors killed on the highways that run beside the wind farms than are killed by the wind farms. Yet you whinging little turds don't even mention that. 

Those wind turbines are owned by private utilities. So you hate private business, eh? LOL


----------



## Death Angel (Aug 22, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> America’s wind energy industry is booming
> Economic challenges facing wind energy are nothing new, industry says.
> Mark Hand
> Aug 9, 2017, 4:18 pm
> ...


Why do you hate birds and bats? These are killing fields. Wind is not a good power source.


----------



## miketx (Aug 22, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> America’s wind energy industry is booming
> Economic challenges facing wind energy are nothing new, industry says.
> Mark Hand
> Aug 9, 2017, 4:18 pm
> ...


Global warming an stop it. Studies show the warmer it gets the less the wind blows.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 23, 2017)

miketx said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > America’s wind energy industry is booming
> ...


LOL  Link?  But then you just pulled that out of your ass, and that "fact" smells like it. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 23, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > America’s wind energy industry is booming
> ...


*016*



*Annual installed global capacity 2001-2016*



*Global Cumulative Installed Capacity 2001-2016*



*Annual Installed Capacity by Region 2008-2016*



*Global cumulative and annual offshore wind capacity end 2016*

GLOBAL STATISTICS | GWEC

*Looks like billions of people around the world disagree with you. *

*Causes of Bird Mortality*




A chart showing estimated numbers of birds killed annually by each of several different causes. Data from various sources.

Causes of Bird Mortality - Sibley Guides

*Looks there are far more dangerous bird killers than windmills. So when are you going to start your crusade against windows? LOL*


----------



## American_Jihad (Aug 24, 2017)

One *Picture* Worth Ten *Thousand Words*"






Starting forest fire's





The left-wing's god





...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 24, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> America’s wind energy industry is booming
> Economic challenges facing wind energy are nothing new, industry says.
> Mark Hand
> Aug 9, 2017, 4:18 pm
> ...



Yeah look at the language of that statement

Wind advocates like to use "installed capacity"

Do you know why ?

Because on average wind only has an ACTUAL output of 25% of it's rated capacity so until the installed capacity of wind is 4 times that of hydro wind will produce less electricity than hydro


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 24, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > ScienceRocks said:
> ...




ACTUAL wind power produced equals installed capacity times .25


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 24, 2017)

*What is important is the cost per kw/hr.* 

Cost of Wind vs. Fossil Fuels - MEIC

*Cost of Wind vs. Fossil Fuels*

In Montana, wind energy is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, especially coal. In fact, wind energy is less much less expensive than coal for customers of NorthWestern Energy – the state’s largest utility. The graph below comes from data from the Montana Public Service Commission and it compares the costs of various resources in NorthWestern’s portfolio. The Judith Gap wind facility is about $32.11 per megawatt-hour (or 3.1 cents per kilowatt-hour) while the coal-fired Colstrip Unit 4 is about $64.55 per megawatt-hour or (6.4 cents per kilowatt hour).

*Wind power in Montana is less than half the price of coal generated power. So who cares if the wind towers are only putting out a fraction of their rated power, if that fraction is cheaper electricity per kw/hr.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 24, 2017)

American_Jihad said:


> One *Picture* Worth Ten *Thousand Words*"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*At Least 5 Killed in Blast at Power Plant in Middletown, Conn ...*
www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/nyregion/08explode.html?pagewanted=all
Feb 7, 2010 - A massive gas explosion rocked a power plant in Middletown, ... as workers purged natural gas lines in preparation for the plant to open this year. .... and the plant's turbines were manufactured by Siemens Power Generation.
*February 2010 explosion at the Kleen Energy power plant*
www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/KleenUrgentRec.pdf
natural gas- fueled power plant under construction in Middletown, Connecticut, experienced a catastrophic natural gas explosion that killed six and injured at least 50. (similar to a jet engine) drives an electric generator to produce electricity; the second uses the turbine exhaust heat to generate stearn.
*4 injured, 200 evacuated after Washington natural gas plant explosion ...*
www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/.../4_injured_200_evacuated_after.html
Mar 31, 2014 - A large explosion and fire Monday at natural gas processing plant near the Washington-Oregon border injured four workers and led to the ...
*Potential for Natural Gas and Coal Dust Explosions in ... - OSHA*
Safety and Health Information Bulletins | Potential for Natural Gas and Coal Dust Explosions in Electrical Power Generating Facilities | Occupational Safety and Health Administration
to remind employers who operate electrical power generation facilities about ... investigated a powerplant explosion in 1999 that resulted in 6 fatalities and 14 ... This boiler was fired with natural gas, coal, and blast furnace gas to produce ...
*Explosion and Fire Forces Gas-Fueled Combined Cycle Power Plant ...*
www.powermag.com/explosion-and-fire-forces-gas-fueled-combined-cycle-power-pl...
Jan 31, 2017 - An explosion and fire at the Delta Energy Center—an 835-MW combined cycle powerplant located in Pittsburg, Calif.—forced the station offline ...
*This Week In Natural Gas Leaks and Explosions – March 25, 2013 ...*
www.naturalgaswatch.org/?p=1844
Mar 25, 2013 - An explosion at a natural gas-powered power plant in Long Beach, ... the natural gas-fired AES Alamitos Generating Station caused the blast, ...
*You were saying what? *


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 24, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *What is important is the cost per kw/hr.*
> 
> Cost of Wind vs. Fossil Fuels - MEIC
> 
> ...



What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?

And the point is that you have to install 4 times as many windmills to get the installed capacity to equal power output until wind is operating at 90% rated capacity it will never be as reliable as other power sources


----------



## tecoyah (Aug 24, 2017)

The use of multiple energy sources is required in the renewable energy concept and government subsidy is not required (though important at this stage) as it certainly is with petroleum based and coal.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 24, 2017)

tecoyah said:


> The use of multiple energy sources is required in the renewable energy concept and government subsidy is not required (though important at this stage) as it certainly is with petroleum based and coal.



Is an intermittent power source that runs at 25% capacity a worthwhile investment ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 26, 2017)

LOL  Cannot answer to the fact the by the kw/hr, wind is now cheaper than any fossil fuel. So you resort to percentage of installed capacity, ignoring the fact that it is the cost per kw/hr that the customer pays. Yes, if it runs at 25% capacity, and that 25% is cheaper than the electricity from the fossil fuel plant running at 90% capacity, then the power from the windmills are a very good deal. 

As for the intermittancy, not a problem in the very near future as there are a bunch of very technological savvy people installing and building grid scale storage right now.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 26, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  Cannot answer to the fact the by the kw/hr, wind is now cheaper than any fossil fuel. So you resort to percentage of installed capacity, ignoring the fact that it is the cost per kw/hr that the customer pays. Yes, if it runs at 25% capacity, and that 25% is cheaper than the electricity from the fossil fuel plant running at 90% capacity, then the power from the windmills are a very good deal.
> 
> As for the intermittancy, not a problem in the very near future as there are a bunch of very technological savvy people installing and building grid scale storage right now.



You of course refuse to even factor in the return on investment of wind turbines because like all your numbers that is also based on installed capacity.  A wind turbine that produces 25% of its rated capacity will never produce enough salable power so as to recoup the cost if its purchase and installation especially since the life span of a turbine is only 20 years.

It just doesn't make any economic sense to go all in on wind power as you want to do

Wind will never be able to provide enough power to meet our needs today never mind in the future.

You do realize that getting off of fossil fuels will most likely triple our electricity needs in the future as electricity becomes the standard for heating, transportation, and industrial processes. 

And you do realize that battery production on the scale you want is extremely environmentally unfriendly don't you?  What are the usable life spans of those batteries?  How much do they cost and what will that cost add to the price of electricity?

And the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the failure of wind power in Europe tells me that you are nothing but a pie in the sky idealist moron rather than being pragmatic and realistic

Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders

And tell me what has happened to electricity prices in Germany since they decided to go all in on "renewable" power?

Hint:  They sure as hell haven't gone down


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 26, 2017)

*My, my, Skull, why don't you just hie your silly ass down to Texas and tell them all about why the wind farms don's work?*

Wind Power In Texas: Not Just Hot Air - Law360

Texas’ total wind electricity production — and wind energy share as a percentage of total net generation — is also expected to continue to rise in the coming years, as investment in wind generation nationwide, and particularly in the state, continues to expand.

Indeed, on Nov. 29, 2016, Spanish wind energy giant Gamesa announced that it was awarded a contract to supply 75 additional 2.1 megawatt (MW) turbines to Terna Energy, a Greek renewable energy company, for the development of another wind farm in the lower Texas Panhandle near Fluvanna (for additional capacity totaling 155 MW), the financing for which closed on Dec. 16. Delivery and commissioning are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2017.

The EIA’s report is based on annual wind energy production, but this does not take into account changing wind energy production levels on a daily basis. For example, on Nov. 27, 2016, Texas set a new record for wind power generation.

According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the electric grid operator for the state of Texas, wind farms that day were providing approximately 15,000 MW of electricity, which accounted for about 45 percent of the total demand for electric power at the time, far exceeding the 9.9 percent annual figure for Texas in 2015.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 26, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *My, my, Skull, why don't you just hie your silly ass down to Texas and tell them all about why the wind farms don's work?*
> 
> Wind Power In Texas: Not Just Hot Air - Law360
> 
> ...



The billions spent on wind still can't come close to meeting today's demand never mind the future demand as we phase out of fossil fuels altogether

Germany learned that lesson the hard way and hod to build NEW coal fired plants to make up for the decommissioned emission free nuclear plants they used to have.

Wind will NEVER EVER meet our current demands for power never mind the greatly increased future demands we will see as we eliminate fossil fuels

And tell me why is electricity in France where almost 80% of its electric power is nuclear costs so much less than Germany' electricity?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2017)

Fig. 1: Gross electricity production by fuel, EU-27







Overview of the electricity production and use in Europe

*To 2010.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2017)

Eight nations that have the most wind power.

France                     2.4%
Canada                   2.6%
United Kingdom      3.1%
Spain                      5.3%
India                       5.8%
Germany               10.4%
US                         17.2%                  
China                     33.6%

8 Countries that Produce the Most Wind Energy in the World | REVE

The percentages are each nations share of the total wind produced electricity in the world.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?



$5+ trillion a year for fossil fuels.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Still Total More Than $5 Trillion Annually

Global subsidies for all renewable energy are less than $100 billion per year.

So, fossil fuels get subsidized over 50 times more. If subsidies went away, wind power would be much more attractive.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 28, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Fig. 1: Gross electricity production by fuel, EU-27
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And why does electricity cost so much more in Germany with their dedication to wind power than in France where almost 80% of their electricity is nuclear?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 28, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?
> ...





mamooth said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?
> ...


Did you even read the article?

They actually call not getting taxed for air pollution or global warming an indirect subsidy

And wind power will never never meet our current demands never mind our greatly increased future demands as we convert from fossil fuels to a totally electric society.

To get our "installed capacity" to equal actual output we would have to at least quadruple the number of wind turbines then factor in the estimated 20 year life span of a turbine (it's probably less) and the unknown cost of the vaporware grid scale batteries and the problems of that like energy losses due to DC to AC conversions and battery degradation and wind power becomes an unsustainable investment black hole.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2017)

Skull, you dumb fuck, not getting taxed for the air pollution created by fossil fuels is an indirect subsidy. Were the coal companies to have to pay for the health problems that their product creates among the population, you would see them go out of business tomorrow. They can kill the rest of us for their profit, and you approve of that.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 29, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull, you dumb fuck, not getting taxed for the air pollution created by fossil fuels is an indirect subsidy. Were the coal companies to have to pay for the health problems that their product creates among the population, you would see them go out of business tomorrow. They can kill the rest of us for their profit, and you approve of that.


No they are getting taxed to subsidize the wind installation and that wind power proved to be so unreliable that Germany actually had to build NEW coal fired power stations to make up for their decommissioning of emission free nuclear power plants

Not only did they build new coal fired plants but the have to be kept running at all times because the lag in time needed to ramp them up to full production would cause major power disruptions when the wind stops blowing 

Yeah that's a real good for the environment


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2017)

*Tesla To Install World’s Largest Grid-Scale Battery In South Australia*
July 7th, 2017 by Steve Hanley 

Tesla has announced that it will install the world’s largest grid-scale battery — 100 MW/129 MWh — in South Australia. The installation will be located in Jamestown in the north of the Australian state and will receive electricity to be stored from a wind farm operated by French energy company Neoen. Tesla broke the news late yesterday and CEO Elon Musk retweeted it out.


 Follow


Elon Musk 

✔@elonmusk
This will be the highest power battery system in the world by a factor of 3. Australia rocks!! https://twitter.com/teslamotors/status/883163847594360833 …

8:42 PM - Jul 6, 2017


 1,5341,534 Replies


 9,7749,774 Retweets


 35,42135,421 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy




The story of how this project came to be is a fascinating tale. On September 28, 2016, freakishly high winds swept across South Australia, home to the city of Adelaide. The storm toppled a number of towers supporting the region’s high-voltage power lines, some of which connected South Australia to generating facilities in nearby Victoria. In the aftermath, members of the Australian government from the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, on down inexplicably blamed the blackout on too much renewable energy surging through its electrical grid.

This reaction came despite a statement by Australian Energy Market Operator, the grid operator, which categorically denied that renewable energy had anything to do with the blackout:

“There has been unprecedented damage to the network (i.e., bigger than any other event in Australia), with 20+ steel transmission towers down in the north of the State due to wind damage (between Adelaide and Port Augusta).

“The electricity network was unable to cope with such a sudden and large loss of generation at once.

“Australian Energy Market Operator’s advice is that the generation mix (i.e., renewable or fossil fuel) was not to blame for yesterday’s events — it was the loss of 1000MW of power in such a short space of time as transmission lines fell over.”

That statement was pretty clear, no? Nonetheless, it didn’t stop anti-renewables talking heads and media outlets from politicizing the unprecedented event.

Tesla To Install World’s Largest Grid-Scale Battery In South Australia

*Just the beginning. *


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2017)

*Battery Will Be In German Salt Mine*
July 18th, 2017 by Steve Hanley 


Flow batteries offer significant advantages over lithium-ion batteries. They have a much longer lifespan, can be fully discharged and recharged many thousand of times without damage, and have no danger of explosion or fire due to overheating. They also tend to be heavy and bulky, which makes them unsuitable for use in automotive applications.



Known to the scientific community as redox (reduction oxidation) batteries, they involve two tanks of liquid — one positively charged and one negatively charged — separated by a membrane which allows electrons to pass between the two tanks but not molecules. In the right setting, they can store prodigious amounts of electricity safely and inexpensively.

German utility company EWE says it is planning to build the world’s largest battery based on flow technology in a pair of salt caves currently used to store natural gas. Taken together, the caves have a volume of 3.5 million cubic feet — enough to store up to 700 megawatt-hours of electricity with an output capacity of 12o megawatts, according to _Digital Trends_.

To put that into perspective, a battery with that much capacity could meet the electrical energy needs of the city of Berlin for an hour or 75,000 homes for a day. “We need to carry out some more tests and clarify several issues before we can use the storage principle indicated by the University of Jena in underground caverns. However, I expect that we will have an operating cavern battery by about the end of 2023,” says Ralf Riekenberg, head of the project, which has been named brine4power.

World’s Biggest Grid-Scale Battery Will Be In German Salt Mine

*As these batteries become more efficient and cheaper, they will replace the coal fire plants around the world. And you will see much more wind and solar. That is clear right now.*


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 29, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> *Battery Will Be In German Salt Mine*
> July 18th, 2017 by Steve Hanley
> 
> 
> ...


you believe this yet you discount a molten salt reactor that actually existed and has been proven to work and that the US is currently working with China to develop.


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Did you even read the article?
> 
> They actually call not getting taxed for air pollution or global warming an indirect subsidy
> 
> ...



You see it's things like these that wreck your argument and take it from a logical argument to one that is biased.   

(It's probably less).   What is that based on?  Are you bringing up a topic you have experience with or knowledge of, or just making a wild assumption with no evidence to back it up and hoping nobody calls you out on it?   Like saying  "Coal plants (that probably kill babies) aren't very efficient."   I'd better have evidence for my claim.  

Can they meet the worlds energy needs?   According to studies at Stanford and U of Delaware, yes...  The saturation potential, they say, is more than 250 terawatts if we could place an army of 100-meter-tall wind turbines across the entire land and water of planet Earth. Alternatively, if we placed them only on land (minus Antarctica) and along the coastal ocean, there is still some 80 terawatts available.   The world uses about 7 terawatts of power currently.  




Yes there are energy losses along the way.  That is a topic that coal supporters usually shy away from seeing as coal plants in the US tend to be the least efficient source of energy, which is a big reason why they are going away.  You can see that worldwide, China, US, Japan....   

The issue is with wind energy, you are taking wind and turning a generator with it.   With coal, you first have to burn the coal, then use that energy to heat up a water source, then using high pressure steam turn the turbine that powers the generator, then pump millions of gallons of cool water through piping to use as a condenser and turn the steam back into water to use again.  It's why Lazard's study (a top asset management firm in US) showed that wind energy unsubsidized vs. unsubsidized was less expensive than coal.   

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

No one is saying "just shut down every coal, gas, nuclear and other plant in the world in 10 years and make it 100% wind".  But shutting down the most polluting, least efficient, and most costly ones that need major rebuilds?   Of course if we have the power from wind and other sources to take that over.   Why fight to build something inefficient and costly like more coal plants?


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Fig. 1: Gross electricity production by fuel, EU-27
> ...




Interesting.   I'd say the high cost of fossil fuel energy.  France mostly uses fossil fuels for when their reactors are down to supplement the lost energy like they did last year when shutting down lots of their nuclear plants for inspection, they fired up their coal plants and energy costs spiked.   France gets less than 8% of their energy from fossil fuels.   Germany meanwhile is HEAVILY invested in coal, and gets about 55.6% of their energy from Fossil fuels.  

France Burns Coal Like It's 1984 as Prices Jump on Atomic Woes

Why Germany’s nuclear phaseout is leading to more coal burning


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 30, 2017)

Slash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Did you even read the article?
> ...




_



Slash said:





Skull Pilot said:



			Did you even read the article?

They actually call not getting taxed for air pollution or global warming an indirect subsidy

And wind power will never never meet our current demands never mind our greatly increased future demands as we convert from fossil fuels to a totally electric society.

To get our "installed capacity" to equal actual output we would have to at least quadruple the number of wind turbines then factor in the estimated 20 year life span of a turbine (it's probably less) and the unknown cost of the vaporware grid scale batteries and the problems of that like energy losses due to DC to AC conversions and battery degradation and wind power becomes an unsustainable investment black hole.
		
Click to expand...


You see it's things like these that wreck your argument and take it from a logical argument to one that is biased.  

(It's probably less).   What is that based on?  Are you bringing up a topic you have experience with or knowledge of, or just making a wild assumption with no evidence to back it up and hoping nobody calls you out on it?   Like saying  "Coal plants (that probably kill babies) aren't very efficient."   I'd better have evidence for my claim. 

Can they meet the worlds energy needs?   According to studies at Stanford and U of Delaware, yes...  The saturation potential, they say, is more than 250 terawatts if we could place an army of 100-meter-tall wind turbines across the entire land and water of planet Earth. Alternatively, if we placed them only on land (minus Antarctica) and along the coastal ocean, there is still some 80 terawatts available.   The world uses about 7 terawatts of power currently. 




Yes there are energy losses along the way.  That is a topic that coal supporters usually shy away from seeing as coal plants in the US tend to be the least efficient source of energy, which is a big reason why they are going away.  You can see that worldwide, China, US, Japan....  

The issue is with wind energy, you are taking wind and turning a generator with it.   With coal, you first have to burn the coal, then use that energy to heat up a water source, then using high pressure steam turn the turbine that powers the generator, then pump millions of gallons of cool water through piping to use as a condenser and turn the steam back into water to use again.  It's why Lazard's study (a top asset management firm in US) showed that wind energy unsubsidized vs. unsubsidized was less expensive than coal.  

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

No one is saying "just shut down every coal, gas, nuclear and other plant in the world in 10 years and make it 100% wind".  But shutting down the most polluting, least efficient, and most costly ones that need major rebuilds?   Of course if we have the power from wind and other sources to take that over.   Why fight to build something inefficient and costly like more coal plants?
		
Click to expand...

_
 real world numbers from Germany and the UK show that actual output is anywhere from 17 - 25% of rated capacity

And here is where the probably less as regarding lifespan of a wind turbine comes from. 
Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study

_The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.


_
 I never said we should build more coal plants.

If we want a 100% fossil fuel free energy supply it doesn't make sense to base it on intermittent power sources?

As we move from fossil fuels our electricity demand will skyrocket as homes are heated with electricity rather than oil or gas, transportation and industrial processes switching to electricity will be the biggest requirement.

And then there is the security of the grid and our generating you are talking about long distance transmission for much of our power supply not to mention the as of yet proven to be worthwhile grid scale battery storage.

I have made no bones about the fact that I think nuclear power is the best option.


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?
> 
> And the point is that you have to install 4 times as many windmills to get the installed capacity to equal power output until wind is operating at 90% rated capacity it will never be as reliable as other power sources



The interesting thing is we are seeing that happen.  In the UK wind is being subsidized now less than Nuclear per kw/hr again.  In the Netherlands for an offshore energy bid, the bid dropped 25% in 5 months.  In the Netherlands a bid price for wind energy dropped 50% in 3 years.   In a German auction in April, the average winning bid for the projects was far below expectations, with some bids coming in at the wholesale electricity price -- “meaning no subsidy is required.”   Wind energy is booming even with the Obama Bailout deals expired.   Back then it was over 5 cents per kw/hr of subsidies and now down to about a penny.   The reason it's booming is the costs are falling, up to 10% a year in reduced costs. 

I guess that question of what happens if government subsidies go away goes for every energy source.  None would be a better example than nuclear power. I mean almost the entire funding of getting that off the ground was built upon efforts by the US military (atomic power, and putting it on ships).  The first nuclear power plant in the US was run by the Navy.  The first one to put power to the grid run by the Army. 

We've got multiple countries studying energy costs.  Australia put wind cheaper than coal since 2013.  Germany put wind comparable with coal in their study a few years ago. Japan (pre fukushima) 7 years ago put wind and nuclear as comparable.  The UK had wind quotes onshore wind as the least costly energy source.  US Energy Information Administration put wind as the cheapest source regardless of subsidies, and in the past 7 years, wind and solar being the two with the fastest dropping costs. 

The subsidies wind currently gets aren't to keep it alive anymore.  It's to put the funds into where they are getting the biggest return.  Reducing the cost of energy.  That's where I want subsidies, not to support the energy markets, but to help them spend on reducing the costs of their energy and cut costs to the consumers.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 30, 2017)

Slash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > What are the government subsidies and what happens when they go away?
> ...



We need to modernize our nuclear program that we stupidly shelved.

Light water reactors that are the norm are obsolete at this point in time not only because they are less safe than other proven designs but because they need huge tracts of land and enormous amounts of water.

We shelved two reactor designs when we shut sown our nuclear research that were proven to be walk away safe.  One in particular, the molten salt reactor, has the most promise.  In fact we are currently helping China research and build this very reactor.

The old design can be modified to a smaller unit that can be built off site and shipped by rail.  It can use our stockpiles of light water reactor waste as fuel.  We can insert it into our existing grid without any major modifications and it allows us a redundancy factor that is better than any intermittent renewable power source as well as the elimination of long distance power transmission needed for renewable power.  Land needs are at a bare minimum since these next generation reactors can be buried underground in many cases on land already used for both coal and natural gas electricity generation. This and the meltdown proof design greatly increases the security of our power generation facilities and frees up the millions of acres of land that will be needed for a renewable power grid.

Despite the alarmists who think that the China Syndrome was more than a bad movie the fact is nuclear power is very safe now even with our light water reactors and the next generation reactors will only improve that safety record.


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> real world numbers from Germany and the UK show that actual output is anywhere from 17 - 25% of rated capacity
> 
> And here is where the probably less as regarding lifespan of a wind turbine comes from.
> Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study
> ...



That is an interesting article.  Do you have any applicable to US wind tech?  Or from impartial sources rather than think tanks that campaign against wind farms?  Why do they claim to have a peer reviewed study, but won't list who peer reviewed it?  Why did the UK dept of Energy contradict those findings?  Why didn't they look at the 90's era turbines still in operation at 15-20 years but instead just go off of calculated projections?  Do you believe that wind turbine technology has gone backwards?  

I mean Imperial College did a study of 19 year old turbines (interesting, how they exist if they won't last beyond 15 years) and based on actual output rather than the projected output the other study uses, said that turbines are exceeding their predicted lifespans.  

Wind turbine life span: New study confirms 25 years

To me it just seems odd to want to choose the study by a group against wind energy that fails to look at actual turbines in that 15+ year lifespan, who fails to list the peers that reviewed their study, and their study opposes reality and other studies.  I think that would be a study I would be critical of rather than base my argument on.  


As for intermittent power sources, I don't know what you mean there.  Nuclear isn't constant.   Coal isn't constant.  The power grid is based on plants going down for maintenance and safety issues.  Nuclear and coal plants in drought affected area's get reduced or shut down all the time due to lack of sufficient cooling water.   As for long distance power travel, we already have that.  Nuclear is almost entirely east coast and new building is becoming increasingly rural.  Same with Coal, they aren't able to put up plants in large metropolis area's anymore.  Why does wind have to transmit further?   

I mean we do currently transmit that energy a long ways... Almost half the wind power in Kansas where I live is exported to other states, as far as California.  Wind energy is a huge boon for my state.  

I think nuclear is a potential option as well but there are some big worries there.  

 Fukushima was reported to cost about 200 billion once all is said and done, wind turbines don't melt down and spew radiation.  It's a lot less of a gamble, you aren't needing billions to build a turbine, or fix one if something goes wrong.  

Nuclear is failing financially currently due to the costs.  Westinghouse went chapter 11 due to 9 billion lost in their nuclear plants (there goes that 8.5 billion dollar gov't loan guarantee).   SO now we have 4 plants that may never be finished.  GE is scaling back it's nuclear program due to concerns about the economic viability of it.  Toshiba is pulling back it's plans for reactors due to not being profitable.  General Atomics has the same worry that nuclear energy isn't financially viable.  Exelon corporation while making billions in profits, is pushing for legislation of increases on electrical bills to keep their nuclear plants financially viable.  Their reasoning was "What it will help us do is not make profits but avoid losses that otherwise would be treated by retiring plants” and that with the raise in rates, there would be no guarantee they would even keep those plants open.  Entergy Corp lists billions in profits, but hundreds of millions in losses on their nuclear side of things according to their 2016 financial reporting.  

Sure most studies peg it currently about twice as expensive as wind, with wind energy dropping currently at a much faster rate.   But like you say and I agree, wind isn't the end all and we may have to use a more expensive option to supplement it.  Maybe what's needed is spending more taxpayer dollars on nuclear energy to make new nuclear plants viable again like Andrew Cuomo has suggested?  I don't know.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 30, 2017)

Slash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > real world numbers from Germany and the UK show that actual output is anywhere from 17 - 25% of rated capacity
> ...



We do not have the same experience with wind performance as does Germany or the UK

I fail to see how our numbers should or even would be different.

The insistence of wind advocates using only installed capacity rather than actual output tells me that none of their numbers are to be trusted.

Installed capacity doesn't have any meaningful value.  Output is all that matters when it comes to power generation.

Where wind has been gone to in Europe the cost is always higher than estimated, power generation is always less than estimated.

In order to replace a coal or gas power plant of say 500 Megawatts we would need to install 2000 Megawatts of wind capacity and also some nonexistent grid scale battery system and upgrades to our transmission facilities to convert large amounts of DC power to AC power and to transmit that power over much longer distances than we do now.

None of that is necessary with upgraded nuclear power production since there is a one to one replacement ratio  and nuclear plants have an expected lifespan of 60 or more years.

Researchers at MIT predict a 500 MW next generation molten salt reactor could be built for half the price of a same size light water reactor or about 1.7 billion.

Now to install 2000 MW of wind capacity needed to produce the 500 MW output and the cost per MW of installed wind power being about 2 million per MW the equivalent wind power would cost 4 billion so there is a price differential in favor of nuclear with quite a margin so even if nuclear costs more than the estimates there is still an economic argument for it.  But we also don't know what grid scale batteries will cost and even if they will work efficiently enough, we have to add infrastructure improvement costs of new roads and transmission lines and realize that these turbines very well might have to be replace as many as three times during the lifespan of a nuclear plat


So with wind we have actual installation costs of 4 times the rated capacity to replace an equivalent fossil fuel plant, a need for as yet untried grid scale batteries, major grid upgrades, reliance on power transmitted over very long distances which in all reality makes power outages more not less likely and those outages will impact a much larger population, an uncertain life span of turbines and the use of significantly more land that could be developed in the future. 

Going to a 100% nuclear power generation that could use the existing sites of both coal and gas fired plants would save both installation costs and keep power generation and use more local as well as adding more plants on much smaller areas of land than even our current nuclear plants use would add both security and redundancy to our power grid.


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> We do not have the same experience with wind performance as does Germany or the UK
> 
> I fail to see how our numbers should or even would be different.
> 
> ...



I agree, we don't have the same experience (though Vestas is Danish).   So I'm not sure why you felt the need to go with a UK study that's not very solid in the first place.  


I am surprised you want to use France as your example.  You keep talking France and their Government run nuclear energy program that isn't showing how much it is subsidized.  Electricide de France is what? 36 billion in losses now?  Aren't they cutting back their power production from 75% nuclear to 50% nuclear over the next 10 years?  Didn't they base that on their plants getting older and new plants being 6 years behind schedule as well as the price tripling to over 10 BILLION dollars?? 

 The only reason they kept building it was a 3 billion dollar bailout.  How are cost overruns, massive subsidies, and reducing the use of nuclear energy in favor of wind and solar a selling point?  Not to mention their governments most recent study that just closing their old power plants is going to be about a billion dollars a pop.  The spike I showed in France's power costs were because 1/3 of their plants had to be shut down for safety inspections after lawsuits from other countries using their gov't funded reactors.  

SO EDF, 36 billion in debt, Westinghouse chapter 11, and Toshiba now losing nearly 10 billion a year.  That's over half the nuclear power in the world in those three.  

And who is using max capacity on wind turbines?   I'd MUCH rather use actual output as those studies have used to show the cost of wind turbines than some non-realistic number.   Max capacity is a simple number.  If your wind turbine is able to run at a max wind speed of 55 mph it will produce X power.   

NOBODY is expecting winds to sustain at 55 MPH 24/7.   That's why that number is so useless and not used.   Reality is winds in Kansas average 8 MPH so your expected capacity is X.   

It's like saying "well your car's maximum speed is 155 mph so if we don't make this 300 mile trip in under 2 hours you aren't driving efficiently". Just because you can physically eat 8000 calories a day, doesn't mean it's a bad thing if you are only running at 25% of your capacity.  

Most facilities are built to be able to run at max capacity, but few do.  If it's not a hot day and A/C's aren't running we just don't keep pumping max capacity out, we cut back, that's not a negative.  For example coal plants (though the oldest third run at less than 50%).  But for obvious reasons this isn't true on wind.  The fact is when comparing ACTUAL capacity to ACTUAL capacity, nuclear is becoming financially unsubstainable.  They aren't going under because of some theoretical max capacity for wind, they are going under because of the higher cost per actual kw/hr to produce.  

Infrastructure improvements?   That's one of the least costly things here.  I mean Coal had an entire rail system built for it.  Coal and nuclear need millions of gallons of cooling water.  Wind you put on farms with dirt roads reaching them by me.  Those are kinda the most numerous things we have.  

And as for batteries, do we use them for the coal plants running at less than 50%?  Do we use them for when we shut down a nuclear reactor?  No, other sources take over.  Like I said earlier, Kansas wind energy is blowing up.  Nearly doubling every year.  Up over 25% of total energy now.   With how many of those necessary batteries?   We are looking 2030 at best as a nation to hit 20% of our energy from wind.  12 years ago the best battery operated car looked and drove like a golf cart.  Today it's the fastest production vehicle made.   As prices continue to fall there, I'd rather we used battery storage for any energy we create much less only wind energy, it's a bank of energy that can be stored.  Instead of increasing capacities immediately on power plants if one goes down, we'd have a reservoir to help balance that.  


If you wanted to increase wind turbine usage as a percentage of max capacity that is simple.  Just limit the max wind speed allowed by the turbine.  That gives you a number you'd like.  Limit your turbines to 20 MPH wind speeds or less and they are much closer to running at max capacity right?  Granted it would actually have a NEGATIVE effect in turbine generation (if winds exceeded your lower number you would lose actual capacity).


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

I actually as recently as 5 years ago was 100% on board with the full nuclear energy movement.   But what's happened with the costs of wind energy, and the costs of Solar on the way there has caused me to rethink that.  It almost mirrors the dawn of the computer age.  Started out they were insanely prohibitive and didn't do a whole lot for the most part.  But they stuck with them and saw the future and prices plummeted as they also became much better.  

Nuclear energy isn't getting much cheaper.  While it's plants have longer lifespans, costs for running them, insurance, safety checks, and god forbid an accident (and the insurance for that) are quite prohibitive and at the end you still need to spend a billion to shut them down.  I'm not for building more when they are much more expensive and take up more of our precious water resources than other options. 

With wind already cheaper, and Solar looking not far behind, short of any breakthroughs, I'd not move forward with more nuclear plants.  I've not heard much about stabilizing fusion lately, and while the Thorium Salt ones show promise, I believe China is kinda leading the way there with hopes of the first operational reactor in 2030.  So while it's future may look bright, at the present it's not a low cost alternative in the next 15-20 years.  

What might be is that wind/solar heavily supplements coal/petroleum, and the thorium salt/fusion in another 25 years begins phasing them out and replacing our current nuclear powerplants which kinda would time right in with the 60 year retirements of a lot of our nuclear reactors (heavy construction push on them began in early 1970's).


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 30, 2017)

Slash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > We do not have the same experience with wind performance as does Germany or the UK
> ...



I notice you are only using current and quite frankly outdated nuclear facilities as your measure here basically disregarding the rediscovery and improvements made on the older designs of molten salt reactors.  MSR reactors do not require water for cooling, do not require huge steel and concrete containment domes because they run at atmosphere and not under pressure they can be made smaller so as to be manufactured on assembly lines rather than on site they can be buried underground virtually anywhere thereby increasing security, they can be plugged into our already existing grid with no additional modifications

And tell me which power supply is better one that consistently runs at 90% output or better of peak capacity for decades  and will run for an estimated 20 or more years on one fueling using nuclear material we are already storing or one that will put out only 25% of peak capacity for a shorter time frame and will rely on the yet nonexistent grid scale battery storage for it to be practical and now factor in that our electricity needs are bound to skyrocket as we move off of fossil fuels completely.

And yes the new infrastructure has to be factored into the cost of wind especially when you realize that a modernization of our nuclear program would need no such upgrades.  And let's not forget the huge tracts of land required for wind turbines

And France has made the same mistakes we have as far as nuclear power is concerned.  They stuck with light water reactors and did not research newer better reactors as replacements in hopes of possibly converting to wind and solar.  IMO France is in for a shit storm of trouble because of their shortsightedness.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 30, 2017)

Slash said:


> I actually as recently as 5 years ago was 100% on board with the full nuclear energy movement.   But what's happened with the costs of wind energy, and the costs of Solar on the way there has caused me to rethink that.  It almost mirrors the dawn of the computer age.  Started out they were insanely prohibitive and didn't do a whole lot for the most part.  But they stuck with them and saw the future and prices plummeted as they also became much better.
> 
> Nuclear energy isn't getting much cheaper.  While it's plants have longer lifespans, costs for running them, insurance, safety checks, and god forbid an accident (and the insurance for that) are quite prohibitive and at the end you still need to spend a billion to shut them down.  I'm not for building more when they are much more expensive and take up more of our precious water resources than other options.
> 
> ...



Wind costs as compared to outdated nuclear tech you mean.

Researchers at MIT have estimated that a 500 MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion dollars.  The cost of the installed 2000 MW of wind power to be equivalent to one reactor would at today's prices be 4 billion dollars.  So even if the new reactors cost twice as much as predicted they still beat wind for as far as cost per MW produced.  The reactors would not need grid scale batteries at who knows what cost and would not need the construction of miles upon miles of new transmission lines and the upgrade of power stations to convert the DC power for grid scale batteries to usable AC power.

The further away from the point of use power is generated the less secure our power supply. A hurricane in Texas could very well means large parts of the county's interior will see significant and lasting power disruption where small reactors generating power for use in the immediate area will mean less power disruption overall.

If the goal is 100% fossil fuel free power then nuclear fits the bill better than any other option


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> I notice you are only using current and quite frankly outdated nuclear facilities as your measure here basically disregarding the rediscovery and improvements made on the older designs of molten salt reactors.  MSR reactors do not require water for cooling, do not require huge steel and concrete containment domes because they run at atmosphere and not under pressure they can be made smaller so as to be manufactured on assembly lines rather than on site they can be buried underground virtually anywhere thereby increasing security, they can be plugged into our already existing grid with no additional modifications
> 
> And tell me which power supply is better one that consistently runs at 90% output or better of peak capacity for decades  and will run for an estimated 20 or more years on one fueling using nuclear material we are already storing or one that will put out only 25% of peak capacity for a shorter time frame and will rely on the yet nonexistent grid scale battery storage for it to be practical and now factor in that our electricity needs are bound to skyrocket as we move off of fossil fuels completely.
> 
> ...



I'm using real life.  Nuclear power plants that are being built NOW.   How's that outdated?  Because sometime in the 2030's we may have better options if the experiments work out?  

And your 2nd question is interesting.   1.  Who cares what peak power is.  Lets say I build a reactor that puts out 450 MW.  And I say it's peak is 500 mw.   Then the next day I say it's peak is 1000 MW.    I just cut my reactors peak power from 90% to 45% in one day.   What actually happened?  

I don't see why you are so against battery storage, a technology that some countries are already using with success but an experimental tech is acceptable.  

Like I said, maybe in 15 years this might be an option.   But right now, it is not.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 30, 2017)

Slash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > I notice you are only using current and quite frankly outdated nuclear facilities as your measure here basically disregarding the rediscovery and improvements made on the older designs of molten salt reactors.  MSR reactors do not require water for cooling, do not require huge steel and concrete containment domes because they run at atmosphere and not under pressure they can be made smaller so as to be manufactured on assembly lines rather than on site they can be buried underground virtually anywhere thereby increasing security, they can be plugged into our already existing grid with no additional modifications
> ...



We have already had a molten salt reactor built and running so the tech is already known and the design has been improved upon  China will have their first prototype up and running in less than 3 years with our help I might add.

We dropped the ball when we shut down our nuclear research program because a bunch of idiot politicians thought that the China Syndrome was more than just a bad movie.

And wind isn't a viable option right now either because we do not have the grid scale batteries to make it practical as more than a supplementary intermittent power supply.  it will take more than 15 years to have wind and or solar ramped up to replace fossil fuels on any meaningful scale.

If we go all in on wind we will have to build more fossil fuel powered plants just like Germany had to build more coal fired plants to take up the slack


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Wind costs as compared to outdated nuclear tech you mean.
> 
> Researchers at MIT have estimated that a 500 MW molten salt reactor can be produced for 1.7 billion dollars.  The cost of the installed 2000 MW of wind power to be equivalent to one reactor would at today's prices be 4 billion dollars.  So even if the new reactors cost twice as much as predicted they still beat wind for as far as cost per MW produced.  The reactors would not need grid scale batteries at who knows what cost and would not need the construction of miles upon miles of new transmission lines and the upgrade of power stations to convert the DC power for grid scale batteries to usable AC power.
> 
> ...



It's interesting that you use 4 billion for the wind when the most recent costing I can find shows about 3.5 million for a 2 MW (at 27% usability that is 540kw producing) turbine.    Which gets us up to 3.2 billion installed.  Where'd you get the extra 25%?  

And if we are taking estimates of future costs, based on wind costs dropping at a pace to halve every 8-12 years (expected to continue or so and the closest Thorium plant being 12 years away at best.... that puts a wind estimate by that point at... about 100 million less even if  there is no cost overruns to that hypothetical thorium plant. 

How much do wind turbines cost?

If you want to expand costs, we can look at actual energy projects vs. their budgets.   France, triple the costs and you are there.  US (Kemper project) Triple the costs and you are there.   Even if you take a great scenario and only double the costs of a 4 year old study, you are more costly than wind today.   Much less in 10 years or so when we have the technology.   

And yes they would need grid scale batteries, or other power supplies when they shut down for maintenance and safety checks.   I mean this is the very first one ever we are talking about.

I don't get your point about the further away bit.  That's the joy of what they are doing in Europe, putting wind turbines out on the water.   And those costs are really dropping (Vestas has a new 9MW max turbine that is changing the game there).    Yup.  40% of American's live near the coast.  And we have an energy source that could potentially take up 0 land in the US for them, yet be nearby.  


Again, MAYBE that will be the path to go.  Maybe billions will be invested and we won't find a consistent low cost way to do it.  But right now and for the near future that doesn't exist.  China is about 15 years away from potentially having one and that's the closest date I've seen.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 30, 2017)

Slash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Wind costs as compared to outdated nuclear tech you mean.
> ...


How much do wind turbines cost?

The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.

I used 4 per 2 MW turbine million because installation never comes in at the low end.

And prices of wind turbines will not drop as the demand rises.  So I don't know how you can predict lower prices that far into the future.  Right now we don't even produce them here.  The parts are made all over the world then shipped here which adds to the fossil fuel footprint of wind power.

Installing turbines offshore will necessarily be more expensive than on land and salt water exposure shortens the life span and increases maintenance costs of all equipment

And the further away your power comes from the more likely and easier it is to be disrupted.

Tell me what would a category 4 hurricane do the the thousands of wind mills you want off the coast of TX or FL  or up the eastern seaboard?

And our grid is designed to run on base load power or smooth power constantly delivered at 60 Hz day and night 365 days a year.  That is simply not possible with the choppy production from wind power and the daylight only power from solar.

So what will it cost to provide that base load power using wind, solar and the yet to be built grid scale batteries?

So what is the goal here?

To reduce carbon emissions?
To be 100% fossil fuel free?

I daresay that a domestically produced molten salt reactor that will run for 60 years or more and produce 100% emission free reliable power 24/7/365 with absolutely no need to adapt the grid in any and all conditions has a lower total carbon footprint than the multi tonne steel wind towers their components ( especially the rare earth magnets) and the shipping from overseas to this country


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> We have already had a molten salt reactor built and running so the tech is already known and the design has been improved upon  China will have their first prototype up and running in less than 3 years with our help I might add.
> 
> We dropped the ball when we shut down our nuclear research program because a bunch of idiot politicians thought that the China Syndrome was more than just a bad movie.
> 
> ...



Prototypes?   No.  I am talking about deploying them commercially.  China with their 2030 goal is the soonest I can find by anyone.  

Again where are you getting the wind not being possible?  It powers 25% already in some states.  Without batteries.   The US goal is something like 20% overall by 2030.   

Why do all of a sudden we need these giant banks of batteries NOW, when other countries can get 40% of their power from wind without them? What are you saying is the saturation point even?  When will that occur?  I mean we've got battery packs on the grid with 20-40 MW capacities but those aren't moving quick enough, but the best Thorium has right now is a 10 MW capacity test plant in 2025 possibly?  

Like I said, I am all for it.  Based on your costs, without overruns, it may even be competitive with wind cost-wise when it makes it to the market.   But when do you think that thorium will be powering 1 gigawatt on the US grid?  10?  100?


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> How much do wind turbines cost?
> 
> The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.
> 
> ...



It never comes in on the estimated range you say?  Always only at the very top end?   Any proof to that?  Or do you just want to fudge your numbers up for personal reasons?  

Why won't the prices drop?   They are building them bigger and more efficient.  The demand for wind energy is the fastest growing demand of any energy and prices are half what they were 8 years ago.   Your logic isn't based in the reality of what is happening.  

As for what happens in a hurricane?  Well 10 year old tech, they put the windmills in hurricane mode and started them up as soon as Hurricane Sandy's winds died down.   And the great thing is, you don't have to shut down and get your people through flooding or disaster to work to turn them back on.  1 of 13 windmills in the Ardrossan wind farm failed with wind speeds over 160 mph (unlike their nuclear power plant that had to be shut down for days).  Yes, they make windmills in hurricane area's to withstand hurricanes.    

And again, while you are talking about the power range, like I've said Denmark has consistent power, without batteries basing 40% of their electrical grid on wind power.   That's decades and decades out for us.


----------



## Slash (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> The parts are made all over the world then shipped here which adds to the fossil fuel footprint of wind power.




Now you are just lying here.  

I lived in Windsor Colorado for years.   I've seen the Vestas manufacturing plant that takes raw materials and churns out wind turbines and put them right on rail cars.   Colorado has another 3 of them in the state.  Siemens and GE also build in the US.  I now live in Kansas where they take those straight off the rails (train is most efficient way to move freight) to the yard then ship them by semi to wherever they will be placed.  

Over 500 factories in 43 states, employing 25,000 people are building wind turbines right here in the USA.   

What’s the state of American wind power manufacturing? - Into the Wind


Ok, look.  I thought we could have a decent debate on this but you are just flat out coming up with lies that aren't in any way reality now.   That's not a debate anymore.  That's you just willing to use any lie you can to back up your argument.   Never mind.  Enjoy your day.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> > I actually as recently as 5 years ago was 100% on board with the full nuclear energy movement.   But what's happened with the costs of wind energy, and the costs of Solar on the way there has caused me to rethink that.  It almost mirrors the dawn of the computer age.  Started out they were insanely prohibitive and didn't do a whole lot for the most part.  But they stuck with them and saw the future and prices plummeted as they also became much better.
> ...


Estimated by people that have an interest in seeing them built. And when has a nuclear plant ever come in on or under budget? Never.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 31, 2017)

Slash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > We have already had a molten salt reactor built and running so the tech is already known and the design has been improved upon  China will have their first prototype up and running in less than 3 years with our help I might add.
> ...



25% with constant fossil fuel back up.  They learned that in Germany when they had to build new coal plants to take up the slack.  Fossil fuel plants that back up wind power have to be run constantly to be ready to keep power flowing when the wind stops they can't just be turned on from a cold start.

and if we wanted to we could have our nuclear program expanding with molten salt reactors in less than 20 years.  Right now we have little or no research going on in this country and we are using our money and brain power to help China expand their nuclear program.  How much sense does that make?


We've already done the research on them.  We already had one up and running.  We already have proven them to be walk away safe.  One simple design change to convert them to a burner style reactor rather than a breeder and the design is done.  And BTW people at MIT have already completed that design change.

And 2030 is less than 13 years away.  So 13 years to implement power sources that are emission free  do not need the yet to be produced grid scale batteries.

I really can't see how anyone can think an intermittent power source is better than one that produces a constant predictable, reliable output 24/7/365.

There is no way wind and solar can even come close to meeting our energy demands in 30 years let alone the vastly increased demands 100 years from now as we transition to completely fossil fuel free power


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 31, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Slash said:
> ...


You mean just like your grid scale batteries?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 31, 2017)

Slash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The parts are made all over the world then shipped here which adds to the fossil fuel footprint of wind power.
> ...



Really?

They produce the steel, mine the rare earth magnets, manufacture the blades all in that one spot or do they just assemble them there? 



Foreign companies control wind manufacturing - Blown Away: Tracking stimulus grants for renewable energy | Investigative Reporting Workshop

U.S. Imports | Global CCS Institute



Even US companies have much of their manufacturing overseas.

So stop lying to yourself and don't confuse manufacturing with assembly of imported parts


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 31, 2017)

Slash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > How much do wind turbines cost?
> ...



So a bigger turbine will cost less because it uses less steel, less rare earth elements requires less freight to ship it?  As demand , however misplaced it may be, increases prices will decrease?

And Denmark?  Really? FYI Denmark has the highest electricity prices in Europe so where is all this cheap wind jive?

Not to mention it's puny compared to the US


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 31, 2017)

You people can't see the writing on the wall

Europe’s wind energy failures a bad omen for Vermont - Watchdog.org

So much for Denmark huh?

In May, the Danish government cancelled construction of five wind farms because the cost of wind-based electricity was too expensive for consumers. The energy projects, approved in 2012, were cancelled after regulators discovered a sharp spike in the cost of renewables.

According to one analysis, Danes are paying the highest electricity costs in the European Union. As much as 66 percent of Danes’ electric bills goes to paying green taxes and fees. Just 15 percent goes to pay for the electricity generated.

While green taxes on energy are necessary to subsidize renewable energy, the $10.6 billion cost of using power from the five wind farms is far beyond what Danes can pay.

“We can’t accept this, as the private sector and households are paying far too much. Denmark’s renewable policy has turned out to be too expensive,” Denmark’s Climate Minister Lars Christian Lilleholt said in May.

Lars Aagaard, CEO of the Danish Energy Association, warned earlier this year that the high cost of renewables would force Danes to use more energy from traditional energy sources.


Hundreds Of European Wind Turbines Are Operating At A Loss



As Warren Buffet said:  The only reason to invest in wind energy is the tax subsidies


----------

