• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Key Element of the Wind Energy Fraud...

Bamby

New member
Exposed: A Key Element of the Wind Energy Fraud

What’s really surprising about these wind turbines being decommissioned after 20 years is the fact that people were surprised by it. You’d be astonished at how many people I talk to have no idea that wind turbines only last for 20 years, maybe 25. In fact, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory says the useful life of a wind turbine is only 20 years.


Posted on November 26, 2018 by John Hinderaker in Energy Policy
Exposed: A Key Element of the Wind Energy Fraud

In Wisconsin, a wind turbine farm is being decommissioned and disassembled after only 20 years of operation. It turns out that this is typical. My colleague Isaac Orr explains at Center of the American Experiment’s web site:

What’s really surprising about these wind turbines being decommissioned after 20 years is the fact that people were surprised by it. You’d be astonished at how many people I talk to have no idea that wind turbines only last for 20 years, maybe 25. In fact, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory says the useful life of a wind turbine is only 20 years.

This is the point: the federal government produces figures on the “levelized cost of energy,” comparing coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar and so on. Most people naively assume that the government’s numbers are authoritative. In fact, as usual when it comes to energy, the government’s thumb is firmly on the scale in favor of crony energy that funds politicians:

The short usable lifespan of a wind turbine is one of the most important, but least-talked about subjects in energy policy.

In contrast to wind, coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants can run for a very long time. Coal and natural gas plants can easily run for 50 years, and nuclear plants can be updated and retrofitted to run for 60 years. This has profound implications for the cost of electricity on a per megawatt hour basis that seemingly no one is talking about.

When the federal government puts out their cost projections for energy, the numbers they produce are called the Levelized Cost of Energy, or LCOE. These numbers are supposed to act as a measuring stick that allows policymakers to determine which energy sources will best serve their needs, but these numbers are wrong because they assume all power plants, whether they are wind, coal, natural gas, or nuclear will have a 30-year payback period.

This does two things. It artificially reduces the cost of wind power by allowing them to spread their costs over 30 years, when 20 would be much more appropriate, and it artificially inflates the cost of coal, natural gas, and nuclear by not calculating the cost over the entirety of their reasonable lifetimes.


When it comes to energy, you cannot get reliable information from “mainstream” sources or from the government. “Green” energy investors like Tom Steyer have gamed the system, and whoever pays electric bills–i.e., everyone else–is the sucker in their game.

The best place I know for information on energy policy is AmericanExperiment.org.



It surly appears that wind energy is a very poor investment.....:hammer:




 

bczoom

Super Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I don't remember the source but recall hearing that the power used to actually build a wind turbine, including creating the steel and such actually surpasses the lifetime power created by the turbine itself.
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I don't remember the source but recall hearing that the power used to actually build a wind turbine, including creating the steel and such actually surpasses the lifetime power created by the turbine itself.

I've heard the same thing. But that was several years ago. Not sure if the newer technologies and greater efficiencies of the larger commercial turbines have changed that. I would like to find that source and see if it has been updated.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
One of my last jobs before retiring was building a large sub station that received power from 3 locations. HydroQuebec, Niagara Mohawk and Comerford , NH in Graniteville, VT. You should have seen the size of the power conditioners that went in there to balance the high voltage phases from the three sites. Awesome.

The power company in charge of building it, VELCO, Vermont Electric, related to me the extent of the lie that is windmills and what they do to the environment.

Firstly access roads need to be carved up to the ridge lines. Not just a logging road but solid wide well built roads that can handle the large size cranes needed to build and maintain them. Then the large underground 6" duct banks incased in concrete down the mountain. Forget about building the windmills for a moment, just try and imagine the emissions that went into just these two phases of the project.

Now, the windmills do NOT produce electricity anywhere near the voltages the 3 aforementioned generating stations produce so large transformers are needed to step up the voltage into the transmission grid. More loss. More money down the drain. No need to even get into the aesthetics, noise pollution and bird assassination.

Get the point? Even this state has 100% stopped new construction on these horrible monstrosities. They are nothing more then your typical liberal feel good in the moment wet dream.
 

Bamby

New member
So there seems to be no understanding of the so called "Greens" in the population. They seek to eliminate carbon emitting fuels from being utilized for useful purposes while at the same time promoting deforestation of huge swaths of carbon sequestering mountaintop trees to install the wind mills that have a life expediency of 20 years or less.



Now one is only left the question just how long will it take nature to reclaim this seemingly failed experiment?
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
So there seems to be no understanding of the so called "Greens" in the population. They seek to eliminate carbon emitting fuels from being utilized for useful purposes while at the same time promoting deforestation of huge swaths of carbon sequestering mountaintop trees to install the wind mills that have a life expediency of 20 years or less.



Now one is only left the question just how long will it take nature to reclaim this seemingly failed experiment?
The big lie of the green movement in general is that Carbon Dioxide is a "toxic gas." In point of fact it is the building block of everything that is green. Trees do not grow to produce oxygen. they grow to produce structural fibers from,,,; CARBON.

Oxygen is the by-product of that process.
Therefore, it is beneficial to the growth of plant life to have abundant CO2. ask any greenhouse operator.

BTW, most solar panel systems have a life expectancy of 20 years as well. States like Connecticut are cover with acres of them.

Therefore, all the structures and apparatus that supposedly makes us green, is simply covering up (in 20 year or so) the landscape with wrecks and trash. And their emission free operations and exotic materials contribute nothing of benefit to the natural world.
 

pirate_girl

legendary ⚓
GOLD Site Supporter
I used to live not far from Blue Creek wind farm in Van Wert county.
Last I heard, nobody is happy with it anymore.
Awesome to drive by though.
 

mla2ofus

Well-known member
GOLD Site Supporter
As far as I am concerned the wind and solar programs have been nothing but a huge taxpayer scam to benefit a few!!
Mike
 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
There is a difference in the equipment in the generating head of these towers.

The one used is the "cheaper" version with a 125-1 ratio gear box to raise the propeller hub speed up to the required speed of the actual generator.. This gear box is usually the first component to require a major rebuild, and on the top of a 200' tower, the entire generator has to be removed and taken to the ground for repairs.

The other type has a generator that makes it's power at the speed of the hub. Way less moving parts, and the projected life span is closer to 35-40 years, as there are only bearings to replace on the main shaft. The penalty is the initial costs, about 1.5-2X times as much as the conventional type. Because of this cost difference I suppose, I have never seen this type in a wind farm here in Iowa, and we are one of the top states for wind power in our nation. They just don't seem to have any favor, despite the longer life, and much cheaper cost to rebuild.

Once I was in favor of these wind farms. Now I have over 100 10 miles to my East, and just as many 15 miles to the West. Looks at night like a red light district as the flash away at night. Now I find myself glad my landscape is free of all of that.

Regards, Kirk
 
Top