Look at all the pretty windmills....

[Toro]

Sitting idle because the wind is blowing too hard! This west of Amarillo at 9:54 Veterans Day 2019.

And?

Old school windmills seem to work just fine. This little sucker, right alongside the big boys, was happily moving water.

Okay. And?

Merely pointing out how worthless wind farms are. They cost more energy to produce than they ever create.

This is an example why.

We invest in wind farms. The IRRs are about 10%.

So I’m not sure where you are getting your information.

 

[Flash]

I have a good friend who is an executive at one of the largest power companies in the US.

He tells me that most power companies are putting in stupid solar arrays and wind farms.

However, it is not to produce useful energy. The "green" projects are always an inefficient generation. Tremendously inefficient. Big waste.

They do it because of the requirements of the EU banks, that supply operating lines of credit and expansion capital to US companies. The stupid EU requires that the banks invest in filthy green technology and that is the only way the American companies can borrow the billions needed to keep their companies operating. It is a big scam by the Euro trash Environmental Wackos.

It is even worse because all the stupid projects are subsidized by the idiot US government on both the Federal and state level. As tax payers we are all paying for this stupidity.

 

[harmonica]

so pretty--like flowers ..I like to gather flowers that are pretty

 

[Flash]

And to trigger the cultists more, some hard data. Yeah, that wind power sure is failing.

(Wind power generation in the USA in GWH)

Take away government subsidies and mandated green requirements and that would go to almost zero.

 

[Erinwltr]

I have a good friend who is an executive at one of the largest power companies in the US.

He tells me that most power companies are putting in stupid solar arrays and wind farms.

However, it is not to produce useful energy. The "green" projects are always an inefficient generation. Tremendously inefficient. Big waste.

They do it because of the requirements of the EU banks, that supply operating lines of credit and expansion capital to US companies. The stupid EU requires that the banks invest in filthy green technology and that is the only way the American companies can borrow the billions needed to keep their companies operating. It is a big scam by the Euro trash Environmental Wackos.

It is even worse because all the stupid projects are subsidized by the idiot US government on both the Federal and state level. As tax payers we are all paying for this stupidity.

LOL! I doubt that.

 

[Flash]

I have a good friend who is an executive at one of the largest power companies in the US.

He tells me that most power companies are putting in stupid solar arrays and wind farms.

However, it is not to produce useful energy. The "green" projects are always an inefficient generation. Tremendously inefficient. Big waste.

They do it because of the requirements of the EU banks, that supply operating lines of credit and expansion capital to US companies. The stupid EU requires that the banks invest in filthy green technology and that is the only way the American companies can borrow the billions needed to keep their companies operating. It is a big scam by the Euro trash Environmental Wackos.

It is even worse because all the stupid projects are subsidized by the idiot US government on both the Federal and state level. As tax payers we are all paying for this stupidity.

LOL! I doubt that.

You can doubt it all you want. Moon Bat denial is something we are use to hearing. However, that is a credible explanation of why the power companies are spending money on creating solar and wind farms that really don't do jackshit to produce energy compared to fossil fuels.

 

[August West]

Sitting idle because the wind is blowing too hard! This is west of Amarillo at 9:54 Veterans Day 2019.

Nothing can be prettier than Mt. top removal.

 

[mamooth]

Poor hairball...What's the matter...couldn't find anything to support your claim that raptors are flying into buildings?

First, the point was your inability to back up any of the fraud that you tried to peddle. You are so busted. You're still running away.

Second, I genuinely didn't think common knowledge needed to be documented.

Humans behind majority of raptor deaths in Ontario, Canada
---
Among deceased raptors submitted to the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative over a 23-year period, a majority of the wild birds died of trauma and starvation, said pathobiology professor Nicole Nemeth.

"The most common cause of death was from trauma, which often included colliding with a vehicle or flying into stationary objects, such as buildings," said Nemeth.
---

You should have learned by now that, unlike you, I can always back up what I say.

All that I have seen on the topic shows that raptors are making use of buildings as perches from which to hunt.

That's because you didn't spend the 10 seconds needed to learn more than you knew. You can spout the cult talking points, and you don't want to know any more than that.

And true, some birds are killed by other means, but the bottom line is that wind turbines are driving raptors, migratory birds, and bats into extinction and for no other reason than environmentalist waco's fantasy.

You just made that up too. That's why you won't be able to back it up.

Proceed now to piss and scream more, to divert from your complete inability to back up any of your conspiracy babbling.

 

[SSDD]

First, the point was your inability to back up any of the fraud that you tried to peddle. You are so busted. You're still running away.

Second, I genuinely didn't think common knowledge needed to be documented.

Humans behind majority of raptor deaths in Ontario, Canada

Poor hairball...do you never tire of being made a fool of? One doofus in Ontario agrees with you? How pathetic is that?

Here, some actual science on the topic.


psw_gtr191_1029-1042_erickson.pdf


Clip: In general, these studies focused on obtaining raptor fatality estimates with other bird fatalities recorded coincidentally. An early 2-year study documented 182 bird deaths on study plots, 68 percent of which were raptors and 26 percent of which were passerines. The most common raptor fatalities were Red-tailed Hawk (36 percent), American Kestrel (Falco sparvarius) (13 percent), and Golden Eagle (11 percent). Causes of raptor mortality included collisions with turbines (55 percent), elec- trocutions (8 percent), and wire collisions (11 percent).

You should have learned by now that, unlike you, I can always back up what I say.

No..the fact is that you rarely have anything to back up your claims...and when you do, it is like the above...only looking at ontario.

That's because you didn't spend the 10 seconds needed to learn more than you knew. You can spout the cult talking points, and you don't want to know any more than that.

10 seconds is about all you spent...that is why you produced a steaming pile rather than useful information.

 

[mamooth]

Here, some actual science on the topic.

psw_gtr191_1029-1042_erickson.pdf

Let's reference the parts of the paper that you conveniently left out. I do so enjoy destroying you with your own sources.

---
Based on the estimates derived or reviewed in this paper, annual bird mortality from anthropogenic sources may easily approach 1 billion birds a year in the US alone (table 2). Buildings, power lines and cats are estimated to comprise approximately 82 percent of the mortality, vehicles 8 percent, pesticides 7 percent, communication towers 0.5 percent, and wind turbines 0.003 percent.
---

Hmmm. 82% vs 0.003%. And yet you focus on the 0.003%.

Let's try some more.
---
The high levels of raptor mortality associated with the Altamont wind plant has not been documented at newer wind plants constructed in other states (table 1).
---

Everyone agrees Altamont is a crappy spot for wind turbines, and the turbines there are of old fast-spinning bird-killing design. That would mean focusing exclusively on Altamont is a very dishonest cherrypicking fallacy. Thus, it's your go-to tactic.

Let's look exclusively at the raptors.
---
Based on these statistics, we estimate 933 raptors are killed annually (2003) by turbines in the United States,
---

That's including Altamont.

933 for all raptors is nuthin'. Red-tailed hawks number about 2 million. Kestrels, about 4 million. And yet you're yammering about "extinction", meaning you don't appear to be sane.

 

[SSDD]

Let's reference the parts of the paper that you conveniently left out. I do so enjoy destroying you with your own sources.

Guess you are unaware of what a passerine is. They are birds, generally small with feet adapted for perching...sparrows, finches...etc. The birds you generally see at your bird feeder...Not raptors, which is what this discussion is about.

The high levels of raptor mortality associated with the Altamont wind plant has not been documented at newer wind plants constructed in other states (table 1).

It stands to reason that new turbine sites would not have had time to kill many birds doesn't it? Do you live in a permanant fog? And how many of those new sites are in areas where other sites already exist which have already decimated the raptor population?

Based on these statistics, we estimate 933 raptors are killed annually (2003) by turbines in the United States,

And that is OK with you? And it stands to reason that as the population decreases, there will be fewer raptors to kill. Eventually, the grand total of any species of raptor killed by any source will be 1. The fact is that wind turbines are driving raptors, migratory birds, and bats to extinction...

 

[mamooth]

And that is OK with you?

No, that's why I support the ongoing improvements. I'm just laughing hard at your "exctinction" BS, and your misplaced priorities.

And it stands to reason that as the population decreases, there will be fewer raptors to kill. Eventually, the grand total of any species of raptor killed by any source will be 1. The fact is that wind turbines are driving raptors, migratory birds, and bats to extinction...

So according to your logic, since power lines have always killed raptors, all raptors should now be extinct.

Your logic would appear to have a few problems.

 

[Old Rocks]

And to trigger the cultists more, some hard data. Yeah, that wind power sure is failing.

(Wind power generation in the USA in GWH)

Take away government subsidies and mandated green requirements and that would go to almost zero.

And you are an idiot. Here is the levelized cost of new generation in 2018, without subsidies.

 

[Flash]

And to trigger the cultists more, some hard data. Yeah, that wind power sure is failing.

(Wind power generation in the USA in GWH)

Take away government subsidies and mandated green requirements and that would go to almost zero.

And you are an idiot. Here is the levelized cost of new generation in 2018, without subsidies.

I would like to see the itemized cost basis of that stupid chart. It looks like bullshit to me. Maybe that is the reason there is no reference given.

For instance, when you look at the cost of nuclear you need to factor in the enormous permitting cost, which is nothing more than a filthy government driven expense. Something like a billion dollars per facility that is not necessary. I know because I have worked on those permits.

In fact a few years ago I worked on doing a section for a NRC permit for expanding a nuclear power plant in Texas. The section I help write was a requirement to discuss alternative energy to the nuclear power. I have actual experience doing these cost estimates. Not just Googling some biased chart off the internet.

Fossil fuels are the cheapest forms of energy in the world now and has been for quite awhile. Nuclear would be a close second if it wasn't for the tremendous bureaucracy burden the confused environmental wackos have managed to put on through government permitting.

The only way that wind and solar is even close to being competitive is with stupid government subsidies of some form or another.

By the way, I am a retired environmental engineer and sometimes I teach a college class in Environmental Science. One of the subjects I cover is alternative energy. As a class assignment I have the students determine how much an alternative energy would cost to replace what they have in their home. Even with subsidizes when you include all the cost the alternative sources are never competitive. Without subsidizes it ain't even close.

You should sign up for one of my classes. You might learn something then you wouldn't come across as an uneducated low information environmental wacko.

 

[SSDD]

And that is OK with you?

No, that's why I support the ongoing improvements. I'm just laughing hard at your "exctinction" BS, and your misplaced priorities.

And it stands to reason that as the population decreases, there will be fewer raptors to kill. Eventually, the grand total of any species of raptor killed by any source will be 1. The fact is that wind turbines are driving raptors, migratory birds, and bats to extinction...

So according to your logic, since power lines have always killed raptors, all raptors should now be extinct.

Your logic would appear to have a few problems.

Tragic to be as twisted as you hairball...simply tragic.

 

[mamooth]

The only way that wind and solar is even close to being competitive is with stupid government subsidies of some form or another.

Because you say so? Yeah, that's convincing. But it's clearly all your side has.

By the way, I am a retired environmental engineer and sometimes I teach a college class in Environmental Science.

Then you should be able to back up your claims. Yet you can't.

One of the subjects I cover is alternative energy. As a class assignment I have the students determine how much an alternative energy would cost to replace what they have in their home.

So, you don't understand economies of scale. Instead, you're pushing a story that everyone has to build their own little windmill farm.

Your lack of common sense gives away the fact that you're conservative.

 

[Old Rocks]

And to trigger the cultists more, some hard data. Yeah, that wind power sure is failing.

(Wind power generation in the USA in GWH)

Take away government subsidies and mandated green requirements and that would go to almost zero.

And you are an idiot. Here is the levelized cost of new generation in 2018, without subsidies.

I would like to see the itemized cost basis of that stupid chart. It looks like bullshit to me. Maybe that is the reason there is no reference given.

For instance, when you look at the cost of nuclear you need to factor in the enormous permitting cost, which is nothing more than a filthy government driven expense. Something like a billion dollars per facility that is not necessary. I know because I have worked on those permits.

In fact a few years ago I worked on doing a section for a NRC permit for expanding a nuclear power plant in Texas. The section I help write was a requirement to discuss alternative energy to the nuclear power. I have actual experience doing these cost estimates. Not just Googling some biased chart off the internet.

Fossil fuels are the cheapest forms of energy in the world now and has been for quite awhile. Nuclear would be a close second if it wasn't for the tremendous bureaucracy burden the confused environmental wackos have managed to put on through government permitting.

The only way that wind and solar is even close to being competitive is with stupid government subsidies of some form or another.

By the way, I am a retired environmental engineer and sometimes I teach a college class in Environmental Science. One of the subjects I cover is alternative energy. As a class assignment I have the students determine how much an alternative energy would cost to replace what they have in their home. Even with subsidizes when you include all the cost the alternative sources are never competitive. Without subsidizes it ain't even close.

You should sign up for one of my classes. You might learn something then you wouldn't come across as an uneducated low information environmental wacko.

Gee, a lot more really dumb asses have joined this board.

https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

A winning combination in Australia.

 

[Old Rocks]

When something is a success, you build on it;

 

[Flash]

And to trigger the cultists more, some hard data. Yeah, that wind power sure is failing.

(Wind power generation in the USA in GWH)

Take away government subsidies and mandated green requirements and that would go to almost zero.

And you are an idiot. Here is the levelized cost of new generation in 2018, without subsidies.

I would like to see the itemized cost basis of that stupid chart. It looks like bullshit to me. Maybe that is the reason there is no reference given.

For instance, when you look at the cost of nuclear you need to factor in the enormous permitting cost, which is nothing more than a filthy government driven expense. Something like a billion dollars per facility that is not necessary. I know because I have worked on those permits.

In fact a few years ago I worked on doing a section for a NRC permit for expanding a nuclear power plant in Texas. The section I help write was a requirement to discuss alternative energy to the nuclear power. I have actual experience doing these cost estimates. Not just Googling some biased chart off the internet.

Fossil fuels are the cheapest forms of energy in the world now and has been for quite awhile. Nuclear would be a close second if it wasn't for the tremendous bureaucracy burden the confused environmental wackos have managed to put on through government permitting.

The only way that wind and solar is even close to being competitive is with stupid government subsidies of some form or another.

By the way, I am a retired environmental engineer and sometimes I teach a college class in Environmental Science. One of the subjects I cover is alternative energy. As a class assignment I have the students determine how much an alternative energy would cost to replace what they have in their home. Even with subsidizes when you include all the cost the alternative sources are never competitive. Without subsidizes it ain't even close.

You should sign up for one of my classes. You might learn something then you wouldn't come across as an uneducated low information environmental wacko.

Gee, a lot more really dumb asses have joined this board.

https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

You dumb shit.

You dumbass Moon Bats don't know any more about alternate energies than you know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Levelized Avoided Cost of ElectricityLCOE does not capture all of the factors that contribute to actual investment decisions, making the direct comparison of LCOE across technologies problematic and misleading as a method to assess the economic competitiveness of various generation alternatives. As illustrated by Figure 1 below, on average, wind LCOE is shown to be the same or lower than solar photovoltaic (PV) LCOE in 2021, with more wind generating capacity expected to be installed than solar PV. Wind LCOE continues to be about the same or lower than solar PV LCOE on average in 2040, but EIA projects much more solar PV capacity to be installed than wind during that time.

Comparing two different technologies using LCOE alone evaluates only the cost to build and operate a plant and not the value of the plant’s output to the grid. EIA believes an assessment of economic competitiveness between generation technologies can be gained by considering the avoided cost: a measure of what it would cost to generate the electricity that would be displaced by a new generation project. Avoided cost provides a proxy measure for potential revenues from sales of electricity generated from a candidate project. It may be summed over a project’s financial life and converted to a level annualized value that is divided by average annual output of the project to develop itslevelizedavoided cost of electricity (LACE).6 Using LACE and LCOE together gives a more intuitive indication of economic competitiveness for each technology than either metric separately when several technologies are available to meet load. If several technologies are available to meet load, a LACE-to-LCOE ratio (or value-cost ratio) may be calculated for each technology to determine which project provides the most value relative to its cost. Projects with a value-cost ratio greater than one (i.e., LACE is greater thanU.S. Energy Information Administration | Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources AEO20194 LCOE) are more economically attractive as new builds than those with a value-cost ratio less than one (i.e., LACE is less than LCOE).