Record Cold in China threatening Food Crops

[rpmGator]

How many windmills depends on the rating of the tower, the wind in the area and so on.

It is about 250 to 300 homes each for one standard type. So using the smaller number, it takes about 200 windmills to run a city of 50,000.

The land area isn't that large as the base is pretty small. So you can run cattle underneath and still create energy above. The spacing is for the above part, not for the base. The blade area is a lot bigger than its base.

Ranchers love it as they can make two profits now. Run the same operation and rent money for towers.

Water is the real issue with wind. Since is uses none to create energy, dry places that don't have the water to waste making watts, can use wind.

Kansas was the leader in wind installation this past year, with Texas still the overall leader.

[G8trGr8t]

How many windmill farms are still operating after 10 years and what is the cost of a kwh of wind generatedd power? Sans subsidies

[jimgata]

One wind farm alone, in Texas, covers apprx. 100,000 acres covering parts of 4 counties.
Windfarms in Texas cover mostly the desert areas, that has a lack of water .

[rpmGator]

Anytime you want to compare the oil depreciation allowance with the wind subsidy, you see one got one hell of a lot more money than wind does.

You will also find in todays budget the same few got the meat of the help, with alternatives havng an on again, off again subsidy system that has kept it from getting anywhere near the help oil does.

At one point, all the combined help for alternative energy for all years, was drawfed by one year that went to oil alone in subsidy costs.

Oil in this nation belongs to the nation. Yet, they let it go for next to nothing so a private industry can profit. Clinton, allowed some oil companies to skip the lease fee's entirely, yet you count the penny's wind gets, and skip the billions of dollars, oil has gotten.

Your asking a new industry how long it has been around, is like asking a brilliant 10 year old how much college he had.

Ask again in ten more years. Since you can replace an entire tower in two days, I doubt time is against wind.

Look some of this up yourself. It is called google. And don't forget to add subsidy cost's to oil, nuke, and coal, before you compare one with the subsidy added and the rest without.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

The pollution there is pretty bad. Coal burning and unchecked industry is the reason, yet some of you want us to be more like them.

So if we relax our rules, somehow we get better, is not much of a plan when the results are easy to see.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...#slide=1986460

We haven't been like them...........ever. And no one want's that for us now. However the leftists are propagating this fictional narrative to promote higher energy prices for us all. Chu might be China's best kept secret. Strangle America's power supply to our industry so China can rule the world economy.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by chemgator

The regulations should be smarter and simpler, not just "more" or "less". And they should be independent of political pressures, not an enforcement arm of a politician's agenda. Clinton seemed very much to want to eliminate heavy industry in the U.S., and the EPA pushed towards that goal. The EPA's goal should be to improve industry, not to hamper it or cripple it. It needs to be run by competent professionals, not unqualified political appointees (like Carol Browner).

I totally agree with your last statement!

In my younger years I worked in a paper. I saw the bad and the good the industry had on the environment.

I was fortunate to work with my dad on the precipitators (air scrubbers), the settling ponds, and water filtration system. The amount of pollutants that were capture was mind blowing. This was back in the early 1970's and the technology was primitive compared to what we have now.

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/01/rec...uld-sow-riots/



and they are burning coal at record rates in old coal fired generators with no pollution control at all trying to stay warm.

a few million young starving chinese men without enough women to go around could be a bad thing for stability.

so while we discuss our warmth, remember that others elsewhere are freezing through a record cold winter. while we debate spending hundreds of billions for minor improvements in CO2 releases, others are not even spending pennies when the improvement would be exponentially larger in amount of pollutants removed. real bad stuff like mercury too, not the just the big bad scary co2 stuff.

I'm still trying to figure out how taxing Americans (Cap & Trade), cools the Earth and lowers the seas levels. GW and CC are nothing more than a trillion dollar scam about power and money, and only a fool would fall for it.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

We are flush with new oil, new natural gas, windpower going in like no other time in our history, yet the pendulum has swung too far for some reason or other.

the liberals wants that pendulum stuck so that they can get their agenda in place. Why? Because they will loose power for years on that downswing.

Originally Posted by rpmGator

Doing it right has a cost, if you don't want to do it right, you cost the rest of us.

it will cost all of us if it is done wrong.

Originally Posted by rpmGator

The population of this nation and the world is at its highest ever and growing.

Just a second opinion: It appears that the world population had peaked.

BREAKING NEWS FROM UN POPULATION DIVISION

world population continueS to grow, but the number of children in the world has now reached its peak.

In 1960 we were 1 billion children below 15 years of age and we were 35% of the world population.
Now there are 1,9 billion children in the world, but they are but 27% of world population.
In 2050 there will still be an estimated 1.9 billion kids, but they will be only 20% of world population.
The reason, 40% of world population has less than 2 children per women and thus compensationg for the 18% that get more than 3 children per women.

http://www.gapminder.org/news/world-...ildren-is-now/

Originally Posted by rpmGator

The pollution problem gets worse with growth alone. Allowing each person to pollute more, when we already have more people, isn't the smart choice.

Fewer people are on this planet will help some.
What will help is a change in world culture on how we use our resources and reduce the damage our footprint leaves on this planet

Originally Posted by rpmGator

Wind has created some damn good jobs in this nation, while you fight for the coal mine jobs. The same coal miners you once hated, for being union. You guys can't even keep up with who you hate...

[
In all the years that I have visited this board I can not recall any Repubs slamming the union coal miners. To be honest with you you can't pay me enough money to go into a dangerous hole in the ground.

By the some union card holders at pissed at Obama for attacking the coal industry.

FAIRMONT, W.Va.—After giving then-Sen. Barack Obama a full-throttled endorsement in the 2008 presidential election, the United Mine Workers of America has decided not to endorse either Obama or the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, in 2012......But politically, the EPA is the culprit for the coal industry’s woes. Throughout Appalachia where Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia converge, the coal industry’s disgruntlement with Obama is plastered on yard signs and billboards.

http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/po...-race-20120809

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

Anytime you want to compare the oil depreciation allowance with the wind subsidy, you see one got one hell of a lot more money than wind does.

You will also find in todays budget the same few got the meat of the help, with alternatives havng an on again, off again subsidy system that has kept it from getting anywhere near the help oil does.

At one point, all the combined help for alternative energy for all years, was drawfed by one year that went to oil alone in subsidy costs.

Oil in this nation belongs to the nation. Yet, they let it go for next to nothing so a private industry can profit. Clinton, allowed some oil companies to skip the lease fee's entirely, yet you count the penny's wind gets, and skip the billions of dollars, oil has gotten.

Your asking a new industry how long it has been around, is like asking a brilliant 10 year old how much college he had.

Ask again in ten more years. Since you can replace an entire tower in two days, I doubt time is against wind.

Look some of this up yourself. It is called google. And don't forget to add subsidy cost's to oil, nuke, and coal, before you compare one with the subsidy added and the rest without.

lot of claims being made there as fact with no links for verification. a whole lot of opinion and propaganda is what I just read. Just fyi, most oil being produced in the US right now is being produced on private property and with the regulatory environment fewer and fewer companies are bidding on fed leases and taking the risk of investing a hundred million or so and losing a lease because 0 didn't think they were moving fast enough. Anytime your leases are on gubmnt property, uncertainty becomes a factor on the cost side and with 0 and chewie in place, that uncertainty factor carries a big multiple.

Subsidies to oil and gas generally are reductions in amounts of taxes collected while subsidies to alternate energies are taking tax dollars and writing them a check. Big difference. Taking less of what somebody earned versus paying somebody to do something. Even you should be able to see that difference.

And oil and gas companies keep providing us energy, jobs, royalties, and taxes while green energy companies keep going bankrupt wasting the subsidies given them. Just a few of the small to mid size oil and gas companies that I follow are going to invest over $6 billion in the US this year building stuff and creating jobs while green energy companies are taking dollars from the gubmnt to produce electricity that costs more thatn nat gas or coal and then going bankrupt once their taxpayer funded subsidies dry up.

I asked about the lifecycle of windmills because I have seen so many of them mothballed between years 5 and 10 as the maintenance costs exceeded the income. Then they just become big eyesores owned by a now defunct subsidiary that does not take responsibility for removing them.

[jimgata]

By the time windmills become cost effective, new technology will have developed new and cheaper forms of energy. Again we will have spent trillions on windmills, which require oil products to make and transport. Aren't most made overseas?
As long as the feds are feeding them they will continue to expand.

[chemgator]

Actually, GE has a large facility in Pensacola that makes wind turbine nacelles and other parts. I don't have a big problem in general with minimal support levels of solar and wind technology (preferably in the research area), but as things are now, it is unlikely to be something that the U.S. can be successful at long-term. The reason is simple: the Chinese own 97% of the world's rare earth metals, and you can't make wind turbines or solar panels without RE metals. When your main competitor owns 97% of the key raw materials, he can charge you whatever he feels like charging you. You're screwed. And China recently announced that they will be reducing exports of RE metals and increasing prices.

Now it might be good policy to use federal money to subsidize the installation of Chinese-made solar panels (if they were reliable). If the Chinese want to dump solar panels on the U.S. market, take advantage of that and pay to install them in the southwest.

The last I read, wind power costs $0.18/kWh, compared to $0.09/kWh for coal, and $0.03/kWh for large nuclear plants. That's probably just operating costs, because a nuclear plant requires a huge capital investment up front that might not be reflected in those numbers.

And you really want to be careful in subsidizing your green energy. I heard of cases in Germany, where power utilities are required to buy back energy from consumers that is produced with solar panels at much more per kWh than what they charge consumers for power. They found out that some of the consumers were selling electricity at night. It turns out that it's profitable to set up lights focused on your solar panels at night (and you get free external house lighting!). Let's hope the democrats never get this stupid (but I suspect they will).

[rpmGator]

Feel free to look things up yourself. I have read things for decades on alternative energy systems, that will never have a link.

Feel free to goodle oil depreciation allowance. Go to wind energy sites, and get the facts on installed power. American Wind Energy. AWEA has all you need to know on where and how much wind is going in.

You may want to know, the Hoover damn is an alternative energy system. Do you want to debate if it works or not.

The Germans had the most wind power in the world for some time. Now the Chinese are going big in that direction. Yet, good ole American's still don't think it works.

When Fulmer invented the steam ship, people said it wouldn't replace wind. Now we have people that say, you can't use wind, to lower the use of steam engines.

All burning for energy from oil, coal, NG, or nuke, is a big tea kettle steam engine. Water is a constant as they all have to be cooled and provide steam.

If you can't figure out how we are an electric giant if we use all our tools, then you must not understand tools.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

You might want to take time to look at wind, its costs, the fact is uses no water to create energy which has its own value in dry states, and how that only NG and coal, come close to its cost.

I have. I am not saying there is no value in wind generated energy. But it is at best a fill-in for a limited number of locations.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

When Fulmer invented the steam ship, people said it wouldn't replace wind. Now we have people that say, you can't use wind, to lower the use of steam engines.

Fulmer? I thought that he coached the Vols and are doughnuts. Did not know that he was a steam engineer.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by jimgata

How many windmills and how much land area will it take to power a city of 50,000?

You get to the important points of scalability and distance.

[rpmGator]

Yep, wrote Fulmer instead of Fulton.

As for wind location, the entire midwest is a wind giant from Texas to the Dakota's.

It helps lower the need for other fuel/water based energy systems in that region.

It doesn't matter where it doesn't work, as long as it is done where it does work.

Central located energy plants already have distance to contend with. Some act like wind has a different type of electric with a different set of transmission logistics, when it is the same with any type of energy system.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

Central located energy plants already have distance to contend with. Some act like wind has a different type of electric with a different set of transmission logistics, when it is the same with any type of energy system.

Indeed. But a natural gas plant has a much smaller footprint and can therefore be located much closer to the users.

Scalability, distance and uniqueness are always considerations.

Wind turbines are only scalable over large tracks of lands where there is a lot of wind. That usually means a location well away from population centers. I assume you understand the physics of lost energy due to long distances?

Similarly, water turbines are only scalable where there is a river to be dammed. Those are also often well away from population centers.