Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above Normal

[Skull Pilot]

Each and everyone of us is going to die. That is the circle of life. What we do in our lives that make it better or worse for our children will be the measure of our value to society.

I don't have any kids and could give a fuck about society.

The facts are that there is no possible way wind and solar will meet our current and future demands for power

A fact you all want to ignore

Then why should any body give a fuck about you, or anything you say or think? You just as well be a cow out in a field. On second thought, the cow is more useful.

I'm dealing in fact not pie in the sky bullshit like you

There is no way wind and solar will ever meet our current needs never mind our future needs they are the empty calories of power. They are not energy dense and therefore need huge tracts of land most likely in the middle of nowhere and not where the power is needed

We should be focusing our energy hopes on nuclear power and not the ancient LW reactors we are using now but the new smaller easily manufactured and installed MSR that is incapable of meltdown and will use much of our current stockpile of waste from our outdated LW reactors and can run for decades between refuels

 

[Skull Pilot]

Each and everyone of us is going to die. That is the circle of life. What we do in our lives that make it better or worse for our children will be the measure of our value to society.

I don't have any kids and could give a fuck about society.

The facts are that there is no possible way wind and solar will meet our current and future demands for power

A fact you all want to ignore

Then why should any body give a fuck about you, or anything you say or think? You just as well be a cow out in a field. On second thought, the cow is more useful.

A cow is more useful than a windmill that wastes 70% of its nominal output

 

[Old Rocks]

Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar

Past history counts. Nuclear in the past has made the same promises over and over again, and has always ended up costing far more. That is the history, and I see nothing that has changed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar

Past history counts. Nuclear in the past has made the same promises over and over again, and has always ended up costing far more. That is the history, and I see nothing that has changed.

And you're still ignoring the newer technology.

And FYI a huge art of the cost is legal and has nothing to do with the actual construction

Besides MSRs do not run under pressure therefor do not need huge concrete and steel containment domes. They do not need to be on premium real estate near large bodies of water, they are inherently safer and can be buries underground making them more secure

All estimates say they will be far far less expensive than the LWRs you use for all your examples

 

[Old Rocks]

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source

Here nuclear is still spendy. Not saying that we should not build nuclear plants, but that we had better take a good look at what we get for the money.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar

Past history counts. Nuclear in the past has made the same promises over and over again, and has always ended up costing far more. That is the history, and I see nothing that has changed.

And you're still ignoring the newer technology.

And FYI a huge art of the cost is legal and has nothing to do with the actual construction

Besides MSRs do not run under pressure therefor do not need huge concrete and steel containment domes. They do not need to be on premium real estate near large bodies of water, they are inherently safer and can be buries underground making them more secure

All estimates say they will be far far less expensive than the LWRs you use for all yoar examples

Damned right there are legal expenses. After what the WHOOPS project did here on the West Coast to many of our small utilities, we had better expend every effort to dot the i's and cross the t's. That is also part of the legacy of nuclear.

 

[Skull Pilot]

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source

Here nuclear is still spendy. Not saying that we should not build nuclear plants, but that we had better take a good look at what we get for the money.

What kind of reactors are being used in the estimates?

Once again you who say you are all pro science and don't hesitiate to call other troglodytes are purposely ignoring the new tech

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar

Past history counts. Nuclear in the past has made the same promises over and over again, and has always ended up costing far more. That is the history, and I see nothing that has changed.

And you're still ignoring the newer technology.

And FYI a huge art of the cost is legal and has nothing to do with the actual construction

Besides MSRs do not run under pressure therefor do not need huge concrete and steel containment domes. They do not need to be on premium real estate near large bodies of water, they are inherently safer and can be buries underground making them more secure

All estimates say they will be far far less expensive than the LWRs you use for all yoar examples

Damned right there are legal expenses. After what the WHOOPS project did here on the West Coast to many of our small utilities, we had better expend every effort to dot the i's and cross the t's. That is also part of the legacy of nuclear.

The legacy of OLD OUTDATED nuclear

 

[Skull Pilot]

Safer Nuclear Power, at Half the Price

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Having trouble reading Todd?

"This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account"

Having trouble reading, Crick?

or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle

This "amortization" figure is not discussing the break even point in DOLLARS.
I don't care if the energy needed to build and run the stupid windmill is generated by the stupid windmill in 5.5 months.
I care that it takes 40 years for the windmill to pay for itself, but it only lasts 25 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

You, on the other hand, are a pathetic denier cult imbecile, wasting your time posting bullshit and lies on two-bit Internet forums, living in your mother's basement and paying for nothing.

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

Really? How long? 50 years? 60? Longer? Why don't you show me your calculations?
Use the actual output, not the theoretical, best case output. TIA

Actually, you poor brainwashed retard.....

Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.
(source - PhysOrg)
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.
(source - PhysOrg)

Durr.

What?....too many big words for you to understand, Toad-the-Parrot?

In short words then, you poor retard....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free.

As long as you ignore the dollar cost, lots of things are virtually free. Durr.

You guys are even worse at economics than you are at science. Fucking morons.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The alarmists will spew their lies about costs of wind generation over and over again no matter how many times we show their fraud..

Enough said!

 

[RollingThunder]

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

"Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly."

Really? How long? 50 years? 60? Longer? Why don't you show me your calculations?
Use the actual output, not the theoretical, best case output. TIA

Actually, you poor brainwashed retard.....
Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.
(source - PhysOrg)
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Durr.

What?....too many big words for you to understand, Toad-the-Parrot?

In short words then, you poor retard....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

"After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free."

As long as you ignore the dollar cost, lots of things are virtually free. Durr.

You guys are even worse at economics than you are at science. Fucking morons.

Your posts are meaningless and specious, Toad-the-Parrot. You spew hot air with no backing, no evidence, and no substance.

When I say that....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

"Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly."

Really? How long? 50 years? 60? Longer? Why don't you show me your calculations?
Use the actual output, not the theoretical, best case output. TIA

Actually, you poor brainwashed retard.....
Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.
(source - PhysOrg)
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Durr.

What?....too many big words for you to understand, Toad-the-Parrot?

In short words then, you poor retard....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

"After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free."

As long as you ignore the dollar cost, lots of things are virtually free. Durr.

You guys are even worse at economics than you are at science. Fucking morons.

Your posts are meaningless and specious, Toad-the-Parrot. You spew hot air with no backing, no evidence, and no substance.

When I say that....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Now find a source that shows the dollar breakeven point and I'll stop pointing out your idiocy.
At least this specific idiocy. LOL!

a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.

Why are you harping on this? Is it because some green energy idiocy never breaks even, energy wise?

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

Yeah, I don't care how much energy it takes to recycle your money losing green boondoggles.

."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Yeah, that's why your source doesn't even mention dollars. Durr.

 

[RollingThunder]

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

"Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly."

Really? How long? 50 years? 60? Longer? Why don't you show me your calculations?
Use the actual output, not the theoretical, best case output. TIA

Actually, you poor brainwashed retard.....
Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.
(source - PhysOrg)
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Durr.

What?....too many big words for you to understand, Toad-the-Parrot?

In short words then, you poor retard....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

"After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free."

As long as you ignore the dollar cost, lots of things are virtually free. Durr.

You guys are even worse at economics than you are at science. Fucking morons.

Your posts are meaningless and specious, Toad-the-Parrot. You spew hot air with no backing, no evidence, and no substance.

When I say that....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Now find a source that shows the dollar breakeven point and I'll stop pointing out your idiocy.
At least this specific idiocy. LOL!

a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.

Why are you harping on this? Is it because some green energy idiocy never breaks even, energy wise?

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

Yeah, I don't care how much energy it takes to recycle your money losing green boondoggles.

."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Yeah, that's why your source doesn't even mention dollars. Durr.

You are just further demonstrating your ignorant idiotic blind denial of reality, Toad-the-Parrot. You are obviously too stupid to understand the information you were shown.....too stupid to 'get it' that when they say that: "a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.".....the word "pay" means 'in dollars', you poor deranged retard.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

"Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly."

Really? How long? 50 years? 60? Longer? Why don't you show me your calculations?
Use the actual output, not the theoretical, best case output. TIA

Actually, you poor brainwashed retard.....
Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.
(source - PhysOrg)
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Durr.

What?....too many big words for you to understand, Toad-the-Parrot?

In short words then, you poor retard....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

"After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free."

As long as you ignore the dollar cost, lots of things are virtually free. Durr.

You guys are even worse at economics than you are at science. Fucking morons.

Your posts are meaningless and specious, Toad-the-Parrot. You spew hot air with no backing, no evidence, and no substance.

When I say that....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Now find a source that shows the dollar breakeven point and I'll stop pointing out your idiocy.
At least this specific idiocy. LOL!

a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.

Why are you harping on this? Is it because some green energy idiocy never breaks even, energy wise?

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

Yeah, I don't care how much energy it takes to recycle your money losing green boondoggles.

."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Yeah, that's why your source doesn't even mention dollars. Durr.

You are just further demonstrating your ignorant idiotic blind denial of reality, Toad-the-Parrot. You are obviously too stupid to understand the information you were shown.....too stupid to 'get it' that when they say that: "a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.".....the word "pay" means 'in dollars', you poor deranged retard.

"a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy"

What kind of moron thinks "pay for all of the energy" means pay for manufacturing, installation, maintenance, operation, rent, etc etc etc of a stupid windmill?

Oh, right, there you are. Durr.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well now, when they produce power 33% of the time at half the cost of the other sources of power, then they are still doing well. And when the do produce power, here in the northwest, that is water that we have in reserve for hydro-power later in the year. You see, you are trying to pretend like we are going to replace all our power with windmills, when that is just one part of the power formula. And a very good part.

Well now, when they produce power 33% of the time at half the cost of the other sources of power, then they are......

Then they are still 50% more expensive than the other sources of power. Durr.

 

[flacaltenn]

Average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history
Our Hemisphere’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone—Faster Than Expected

Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal” mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago. That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.

wow, but I guess it is all a fraud and bs, right?

Really? This is what you take as EVIDENCE Matthew? A breathless blogger from Slate bloviating about random statistics?

From the satellite record --

you clearly see that late Feb (early Mar) IS a giant anomaly.. But it doesn't indicate "a trend". It's an interesting spike. That's about all it is.

And it is influenced by seasonal effects in the Arctic and El Nino.. If you intend to panic over every measurement that comes in -- you're gonna expire soon..

Furthermore -- no 2degC limit has been breached that I can see. The freaking graph doesn't show a 2degC anomaly in that blog page. And if thats N.H. data only and the baseline normalization is the 20th Century average -- its STILL missing about 0.5degC. You'd have to go back to 19th century to find that 0.5degC. A time when the CO2 increase had very little effect on the planet temperature.

You don't breach a 2degC trigger to doom with a MONTHLY record. That's not in the rule book..

It's clear the blogger is going for emotion and drama and not clarity and science.

But --- I guess you love that stuff..

 

[RollingThunder]

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

"Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly."

Really? How long? 50 years? 60? Longer? Why don't you show me your calculations?
Use the actual output, not the theoretical, best case output. TIA

Actually, you poor brainwashed retard.....
Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.
(source - PhysOrg)
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Durr.

What?....too many big words for you to understand, Toad-the-Parrot?

In short words then, you poor retard....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

"After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free."

As long as you ignore the dollar cost, lots of things are virtually free. Durr.

You guys are even worse at economics than you are at science. Fucking morons.

Your posts are meaningless and specious, Toad-the-Parrot. You spew hot air with no backing, no evidence, and no substance.

When I say that....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Now find a source that shows the dollar breakeven point and I'll stop pointing out your idiocy.
At least this specific idiocy. LOL!

a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.

Why are you harping on this? Is it because some green energy idiocy never breaks even, energy wise?

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

Yeah, I don't care how much energy it takes to recycle your money losing green boondoggles.

."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Yeah, that's why your source doesn't even mention dollars. Durr.

You are just further demonstrating your ignorant idiotic blind denial of reality, Toad-the-Parrot. You are obviously too stupid to understand the information you were shown.....too stupid to 'get it' that when they say that: "a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.".....the word "pay" means 'in dollars', you poor deranged retard.

"a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy"

What kind of moron thinks "pay for all of the energy" means pay for manufacturing, installation, maintenance, operation, rent, etc etc etc of a stupid windmill?

Well, moron....since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....and you just quoted that, so you obviously already know....it seems you are the imbecile here, Toad-the-Parrot!

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

YOU ARE SOOOOO INSANE!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope! Wrong again, you poor retarded fool. Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly.

"Wind turbines produce valuable energy that allows them to pay for themselves fairly quickly."

Really? How long? 50 years? 60? Longer? Why don't you show me your calculations?
Use the actual output, not the theoretical, best case output. TIA

Actually, you poor brainwashed retard.....
Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.
(source - PhysOrg)
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Durr.

What?....too many big words for you to understand, Toad-the-Parrot?

In short words then, you poor retard....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."

"After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free."

As long as you ignore the dollar cost, lots of things are virtually free. Durr.

You guys are even worse at economics than you are at science. Fucking morons.

Your posts are meaningless and specious, Toad-the-Parrot. You spew hot air with no backing, no evidence, and no substance.

When I say that....a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine. After that, for the next 25 years, the energy it produces is virtually free. And, as the article states..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Now find a source that shows the dollar breakeven point and I'll stop pointing out your idiocy.
At least this specific idiocy. LOL!

a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.

Why are you harping on this? Is it because some green energy idiocy never breaks even, energy wise?

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

Yeah, I don't care how much energy it takes to recycle your money losing green boondoggles.

."....that is specifically INCLUDING, not "ignoring", "the dollar cost", as the article made very clear. You are a blind brainwashed moron!

Yeah, that's why your source doesn't even mention dollars. Durr.

You are just further demonstrating your ignorant idiotic blind denial of reality, Toad-the-Parrot. You are obviously too stupid to understand the information you were shown.....too stupid to 'get it' that when they say that: "a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy it takes to manufacture and operate the wind turbine.".....the word "pay" means 'in dollars', you poor deranged retard.

"a land based wind turbine produces enough energy in about the first five months of its operation to pay for all of the energy"

What kind of moron thinks "pay for all of the energy" means pay for manufacturing, installation, maintenance, operation, rent, etc etc etc of a stupid windmill?

Well, moron....since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....and you just quoted that, so you obviously already know....it seems you are the imbecile here, Toad-the-Parrot!

..."This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account."....

YOU ARE SOOOOO INSANE!

since that study of wind turbine amortization specifically said that those cost factors were included in their calculations....

Only the energy costs, fucktard.

Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-green-power.html#jCp

Energy it takes to run, energy it takes to manufacture, energy it takes build, operate, maintain, dismantle and recycle.

Not a single word in the entire article mentions dollar cost.
If they did, it might mention rent, interest and other financing costs.
But thanks for the laughs, idiot.