The Anthropocene

[elektra]

3) As size goes up, the electrical output of a wind turbine increases faster than the mass of its base and tower
4) The larger the turbine, the faster it pays for itself. The CO2 released during production is made up for in days while the unit will keep spinning for decades

hahahahahah, now lil cricket is making stuff up.

nobody in the industry makes these claims, lil cricket

 

[Crick]

Yes my source, citing part of wind turbine, from 2014, from a thread that is from 2016. It is not a mistake to discuss just part of a wind turbines cost to the environment. The mistake is when crick took part of a wind turbine from 10 years ago, and then did the math as if crick was representing the entire wind turbine.

Wind turbines today weigh 2500 tons, lil cricket used 241 tons from 2014 to do his/her calculations. Lil cricket also used today's installed capacity with the weight of a wind turbine from 10 years ago.

Nothing is more dishonest

Okay. Let's say that the construction of a modern wind turbine emits ten times as much CO2 now as it did in 2014. That would indicate that that CO2 would be compensated for in a max of, what, two months? The turbine continues to work for another 19 years and 10 months. How has the final result changed? Wind turbines are still reducing CO2 emissions by staggering amounts and you're still a fucking ignorant twat.

 

[ding]

What are you talking about? How is science colluding with politcs?

The entire AGW narrative is political.

 

[Crick]

The entire AGW narrative is political.

Show us the politics at www.ipcc.ch.

 

[elektra]

Okay. Let's say that the construction of a modern wind turbine emits ten times as much CO2 now as it did in 2014. That would indicate that that CO2 would be compensated for in a max of, what, two months? The turbine continues to work for another 19 years and 10 months. How has the final result changed? Wind turbines are still reducing CO2 emissions by staggering amounts and you're still a fucking ignorant twat.

No, wind turbines increase the CO2 in the atmosphere. Wind Turbines are simply too inefficient to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power.

You also, dishonestly use figures that do not account for the intermittent, wind gusts, and the no wind at night, and periods of extended no wind.

A modern society can not rely on unpredictable wind for electricity. Especially when it is so inefficient the government must bail out the wind turbine industry, over and over again.

 

[Crick]

No, wind turbines increase the CO2 in the atmosphere. Wind Turbines are simply too inefficient to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Explain your math. You keep pointing out that the construction of a wind turbine will require the production of CO2 but then you just want to move on to the next wind turbine being made. You're completely ignoring the FACT that the first one you looked at is now producing megawatts of energy with out producing ANY CO2, unlike the coal/petroleum/natural gas plant it IS replacing.

You also, dishonestly use figures that do not account for the intermittent, wind gusts, and the no wind at night, and periods of extended no wind.

That is a lie. When I got done with my calculations back in post #125, I generously said let's assume it only produces power 25% of the time. In reality, it produces power over 70% of the time. But even at 25% efficiency, it made up for it production CO2 in a matter of days.

A modern society can not rely on unpredictable wind for electricity.

That is irrelevant to this question and you only bring it up to try to detour the conversation.

Especially when it is so inefficient the government must bail out the wind turbine industry, over and over again.

When has the government EVER bailed out the wind turbine industry? EVER?

 

[elektra]

Explain your math. You keep pointing out that the construction of a wind turbine will require the production of CO2 but then you just want to move on to the next wind turbine being made. You're completely ignoring the FACT that the first one you looked at is now producing megawatts of energy with out producing ANY CO2, unlike the coal/petroleum/natural gas plant it IS replacing.

My math was in regards to this 2500 ton wind turbine, it is not working so your idea that it is somehow producing electricity is ridiculous.

 

[Crick]

My math was in regards to this 2500 ton wind turbine, it is not working so your idea that it is somehow producing electricity is ridiculous.

No, that is not your math. That is you once more trying to avoid the question. Please explain, with numbers, why you think wind turbines are net CO2 producers.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No, that is an excuse, very lame. Beings how you are very well liked, your words, if that post is true, we should see at least 10 thanks, if we do not see 10, this is another lie of cricks.

His Cult Gives Him Invisible Participation-Likes

 

[elektra]

No, that is not your math. That is you once more trying to avoid the question. Please explain, with numbers, why you think wind turbines are net CO2 producers.

you have ignored all the numbers figures and links I have provided in other threads and comments in the past now you act as if this was not produced in response to your previous posts.

Wind Turbines are not providing us with the electricity we need. They are intermittent and do not work most nights.

I better question, is why did you use numbers from 10 years ago from a small wind turbine and then use the output of a larger wind turbine today to come up with your convoluted idea that you can supply our economy with electricity, sometimes, when, that is anybody's guess.

This pic is relevant, you do not include the output of this monster in your calculations. Either way, how does the most inefficient, most expensive, intermittent source of electricity improve our standard of living. You can not say they reduce the CO2 emissions. You have proven that nobody is using real numbers, least of all you.

 

[ding]

Show us the politics at www.ipcc.ch.

So you are denying that AGW is a political issue; a political football so to speak?

 

[Crick]

So you are denying that AGW is a political issue; a political football so to speak?

Yes, I am. And I see that no one has been able to identify any politics at the IPCC website.

you have ignored all the numbers figures and links I have provided in other threads and comments in the past now you act as if this was not produced in response to your previous posts.

Wind Turbines are not providing us with the electricity we need. They are intermittent and do not work most nights.

I better question, is why did you use numbers from 10 years ago from a small wind turbine and then use the output of a larger wind turbine today to come up with your convoluted idea that you can supply our economy with electricity, sometimes, when, that is anybody's guess.

This pic is relevant, you do not include the output of this monster in your calculations. Either way, how does the most inefficient, most expensive, intermittent source of electricity improve our standard of living. You can not say they reduce the CO2 emissions. You have proven that nobody is using real numbers, least of all you.

Again, please explain, with numbers, why you think wind turbines are net CO2 producers.

 

[elektra]

Yes, I am. And I see that no one has been able to identify any politics at the IPCC website.

Again, please explain, with numbers, why you think wind turbines are net CO2 producers.

been there done that

It is really about common sense, they are physically bigger than any other power plant in the world. They physically take up more land, cutting more trees. Not by a little bit mind you, but by the square mile, 100's if not 1000's of square miles. Wind Turbines also have a very weak output compared to their size. Wind Turbines never ever provide continuous electricity which makes them extremely inefficient.

Size does matter. When you build the biggest things in the world and get the least return from them, common sense must take into account how much of the earth's natural resources went into the manufacturing of wind turbines.

2500 tons each, and growing bigger every year. We are now at the point where again, all the old wind turbines are being replaced by new ones. Germany says they can not replace their old ones because they can not build them fast enough to keep up with the failure rates of the old wind turbines.

I gave lil cricket an OP with the numbers, but lil cricket wants the traffic in his unrelated OP I dont blame lil cricket, it is nice to see a thread with tons of replies and at the top of the page for a long time.

That is most likely all this is about for lil cricket, keeping his stale anthro OP at the top, seen, even if it means lil cricket has hijacked his/her own thread.

I will again, reply to your comment in the thread that is relevant, you can quit pretending you have not been replied to.

 

[Crick]

been there done that

No you have not. You've ignored every kW they produce. You go on and on about all the CO2 produced during manufacture (ignoring the growing percentage of power produced without CO2 emissions) and after that your only comments are "unreliable" and "can't replace a fossil fuel plant". You ignore the FACT that they ARE replacing fossil fuel plant and they ARE putting hundreds of gigawatts into the US grid. You moan about the CO2 produced by the power plants you prefer when those turbines are manufactured, yet you completely ignore the 20 more years of emissions those plant would produce if those towers were NOT built. You call that good engineering? I call it disingenuous BULLSHIT.

It is really about common sense

No, it's not. But you're going to try to use "common sense" to avoid actually showing any calculation, to avoid paying any attention to the power they put into the grid or to the fossil fuel emissions they replace.

they are physically bigger than any other power plant in the world.

If you were an engineer, you'd quantify that statement. And if you were an engineer, you'd try to explain what that should matter to us. And when you failed, you'd admit it.

They physically take up more land, cutting more trees.

Wind turbines require very few trees cut down. They coexist quite nicely in farmer's fields and vacant lots and, lately, offshore.

Not by a little bit mind you, but by the square mile, 100's if not 1000's of square miles.

Let's have a look at that. Here's a good article about the foundation designs used for onshore wind turbine installations

Wind Turbine Foundation: 5 Foundation Types Explained

Find out the features for 5 types of wind turbine foundations: the shallow mat extension, the ribbed beam basement, the underneath piled foundation, the uplift anchors and the new type.

www.steelwindtower.com

It tells us that the foundations range from 15 to 22 meters in diameter. That would average 18.5m diameter and 268.8 square meters in area. Let's call it 270 m^2. According to

How many turbines are contained in the U.S. Wind Turbine Database? | U.S. Geological Survey

As of January 2022, the U.S. Wind Turbine Database (USWTDB) contains more than 70,800 turbines. These turbines have all been constructed since 1980 in approximately 1,500 wind power projects spanning at least 44 states (plus Puerto Rico and Guam). Learn more: Wind Energy

www.usgs.gov

the US has 70,800 utility scale wind turbines. 70,800 turbines x 270 m^2/turbine = 19,116,000 m^2 which equals not 1,000s of square miles or even 100s of square miles, but 7.38 square miles. I wouldn't be surprised if that is less area than is currently being occupied by the nation's fossil fuel power plants.

If you don't want to look stupid, don't say stupid things you don't have to. Break out your fucking calculator and do a little math before you spout off.

Wind Turbines also have a very weak output compared to their size. Wind Turbines never ever provide continuous electricity which makes them extremely inefficient.

If you were an engineer, you'd quantify that statement. "Very weak"? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? When the wind is blowing continuously, wind turbines provide continuous power. Your claim of the contrary is just more ignorant nonsense.

Size does matter. When you build the biggest things in the world

We already went through this. Wind turbines are not the biggest things in the world - not by a long shot. And it wouldn't even matter if they were. That you have given up providing numbers tells me you have realized that for YOUR arguments, it's a waste of time. Numbers only show that you are wrong and that you don't know what you're talking about.

and get the least return from them

This is just idiotic, babbling.

common sense must take into account how much of the earth's natural resources went into the manufacturing of wind turbines.

Have wind turbines created a shortage of concrete? Rolled steel? Copper wire? Is any of that material unrecoverably lost?

2500 tons each, and growing bigger every year.

Bigger turbines produce more power. Why don't you work out kW/pound for wind turbines from 1 MW to 15 MW. You could cross plot it.

We are now at the point where again, all the old wind turbines are being replaced by new ones. Germany says they can not replace their old ones because they can not build them fast enough to keep up with the failure rates of the old wind turbines.

Link?

I gave lil cricket an OP with the numbers

I gave wee ding-a-ling several pages of math using his numbers showing clearly and indisputably that he's a liar and a fool. And you didn't give us this thread. You are not the OP here and neither am I. This thread was started by poster Coyote. Do you EVER look anything up? Is it that you don't think anyone will check or that you think you've got a perfect memory?

but lil cricket wants the traffic in his unrelated OP

Unrelated? Tell us all what the fuck wind turbine size has to do with the Anthropocene you useless twat.

I dont blame lil cricket

I do blame wee ding-a-ling.

it is nice to see a thread with tons of replies and at the top of the page for a long time.

I find it deadly boring to see post after post after post of your pointless and ignorant twaddle.

That is most likely all this is about for lil cricket, keeping his stale anthro OP at the top

Coyote's thread, not mine, you brainless, cumbergrounding, bobolyne dalcop.

seen, even if it means lil cricket has hijacked his/her own thread.

Astounding that you would make the same error three times in a row without, apparently, ever thinking to take the five seconds it would require to check facts.

I will again, reply to your comment in the thread that is relevant, you can quit pretending you have not been replied to.

I wasn't pretending. You have made factual claims without the slightest effort to provide supporting sources. You have impeached your own sources when I used them to reveal your shortcomings. You have ignored requests to show the least bit of technical work (you know: adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing) establishing the validity of your claims. Your entire argument across multiple threads has been repeatedly and completely refuted. Your argument has FAILED.

 

[ding]

Yes, I am. And I see that no one has been able to identify any politics at the IPCC website.

Not sure how you can say that with a straight face. Politics is the reason they don't include dissenting opinions in their reports.

 

[Crick]

Not sure how you can say that with a straight face. Politics is the reason they don't include dissenting opinions in their reports.

The chartered purpose of the IPCC is to provide policy guidance to the governments of member nations on anthropogenic global warming. As noted, the IPCC does not provide singular predictions of future climate states but provides scenario-based ranges for a variety of climate parameters. Those ranges incorporate all the opinions of the experts drawn from nominations by their member-state governments.

So, I have no problem whatsoever saying that the IPCC is not a political organization with a straight face because, as of yet, no one has provided the slightest shred of evidence otherwise.

 

[ding]

The chartered purpose of the IPCC is to provide policy guidance to the governments of member nations on anthropogenic global warming. As noted, the IPCC does not provide singular predictions of future climate states but provides scenario-based ranges for a variety of climate parameters. Those ranges incorporate all the opinions of the experts drawn from nominations by their member-state governments.

So, I have no problem whatsoever saying that the IPCC is not a political organization with a straight face because, as of yet, no one has provided the slightest shred of evidence otherwise.

I disagree. The IPCC is the biggest political animal in the history of science.

 

[Crick]

I disagree. The IPCC is the biggest political animal in the history of science.

And still, you have no evidence.

 

[ding]

And still, you have no evidence.

You mean besides they squelch dissenting opinions in their reports so as to speak with one voice? That's not science. That's politics.

 

[Crick]

You mean besides they squelch dissenting opinions in their reports so as to speak with one voice? That's not science. That's politics.

And, still, you have no evidence.