• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wind Machines Neither Clean Nor Green?

AlbqOwl

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
23,580
Reaction score
12,388
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Matt Ridley in "The Spectator" presents what appears to be a very good argument against all those miles of wind turbines we frequently drive past out here in fly over country.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#

One factoid in the story suggests that all those thousands and thousands of wind turbines are creating only .46% - that is less than 1/2 of 1% - of the global energy consumption. Solar and tide are creating less than that.

And for wind turbines to generate enough electricity to keep up with just the increase in demand each year would require an area the size of Russia.

I can't verify how accurate his facts are in this story, but it sure makes for a good argument of why we need to find feasible ways to use our fossil fuels for some time into the future.

Discuss.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
Matt Ridley in "The Spectator" presents what appears to be a very good argument against all those miles of wind turbines we frequently drive past out here in fly over country.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#

One factoid in the story suggests that all those thousands and thousands of wind turbines are creating only .46% - that is less than 1/2 of 1% - of the global energy consumption. Solar and tide are creating less than that.

And for wind turbines to generate enough electricity to keep up with just the increase in demand each year would require an area the size of Russia.

I can't verify how accurate his facts are in this story, but it sure makes for a good argument of why we need to find feasible ways to use our fossil fuels for some time into the future.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

We can just use less energy and eat less meat. Then we will only need half of Russia and they can keep the rest.

;)
 
A known conservative hack of a paper.. so the article has to be taken with a massive grain of salt. It is basically a hachet job... why?

Well the whole argument is that gas and nuclear are the future and wind and solar are not. The article claims that ½ of 1% of global energy production is made by wind. Not exactly true I suspect if you actually look at the numbers. For example, there is more wind power generated on a global scale than there is nuclear power... funny how the article forgets to mention that part... in fact the article only mentions nuclear twice, despite starting out by advocating for nuclear and gas!

Nuclear power production - 392553 MWe
Window power production - 432419 MWe
Solar power production - 256000 MWe

So basically from the start, the whole article starts out with a lie. Now is Gas, Oil and Coal the big producers of energy? you betcha, but it is declining, which pisses off the oil and coal industry, who pay a lot of bribes.. err sorry campaign contributions to right wing conservative politicians world wide.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Matt Ridley in "The Spectator" presents what appears to be a very good argument against all those miles of wind turbines we frequently drive past out here in fly over country.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#

One factoid in the story suggests that all those thousands and thousands of wind turbines are creating only .46% - that is less than 1/2 of 1% - of the global energy consumption. Solar and tide are creating less than that.

And for wind turbines to generate enough electricity to keep up with just the increase in demand each year would require an area the size of Russia.

I can't verify how accurate his facts are in this story, but it sure makes for a good argument of why we need to find feasible ways to use our fossil fuels for some time into the future.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
No. Please. No more "Russia"! :mrgreen:
 
mike2810 said:
and reduce the population of humans. Less humans , less demand.:mrgreen:

They also are not bird safe.
"Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy"
Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe For Birds? | Audubon
Click to expand...

Sorry, "environmentalists" only care about wildlife if it benefits their Marxist agenda. :(

Wind turbines are also devastating to bat populations, a critical part of the ecosystem.
 
PeteEU said:
A known conservative hack of a paper.. so the article has to be taken with a massive grain of salt. It is basically a hachet job... why?

Well the whole argument is that gas and nuclear are the future and wind and solar are not. The article claims that ½ of 1% of global energy production is made by wind. Not exactly true I suspect if you actually look at the numbers. For example, there is more wind power generated on a global scale than there is nuclear power... funny how the article forgets to mention that part... in fact the article only mentions nuclear twice, despite starting out by advocating for nuclear and gas!

Nuclear power production - 392553 MWe
Window power production - 432419 MWe
Solar power production - 256000 MWe

So basically from the start, the whole article starts out with a lie. Now is Gas, Oil and Coal the big producers of energy? you betcha, but it is declining, which pisses off the oil and coal industry, who pay a lot of bribes.. err sorry campaign contributions to right wing conservative politicians world wide.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power plants generate 14 percent of the world's electricity, but some countries are more dependent on this power source than others. France relies on nuclear for 75.2 percent of its electricity; the United States, about 20 percent.
​
A Nuclear-Powered World : NPR

As for wind generated energy, some countries benefit more than others:
Today, wind power provides 1.9 percent of all the energy consumed in the United States. Though wind power has increased substantially since 1970, it constitutes only a small fraction of U.S. electricity supply. In 2015, wind power accounted for 4.7 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S.​
http://instituteforenergyresearch.o.../wind-Energy-Consumption-updated-mar-2016.png

I couldn't find a source citing the percentage of wind generated energy on a global scale.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Matt Ridley in "The Spectator" presents what appears to be a very good argument against all those miles of wind turbines we frequently drive past out here in fly over country.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05...r-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#

One factoid in the story suggests that all those thousands and thousands of wind turbines are creating only .46% - that is less than 1/2 of 1% - of the global energy consumption. Solar and tide are creating less than that.

And for wind turbines to generate enough electricity to keep up with just the increase in demand each year would require an area the size of Russia.

I can't verify how accurate his facts are in this story, but it sure makes for a good argument of why we need to find feasible ways to use our fossil fuels for some time into the future.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

IMO the future will be powered by hydrogen fuel cell. It will eventually allow the vulnerable and inefficient electrical grid to be dismantled, and will be fueled by the most abundant chemical element in the Universe and on Earth.

What will be required to get there is energy that is cheap and available. And that is fossil fuels.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Matt Ridley in "The Spectator" presents what appears to be a very good argument against all those miles of wind turbines we frequently drive past out here in fly over country.
Click to expand...
Or.... not

Wind generates around 5.5% of the electricity in the US, and 13% in Germany. Its carbon footprint is near zero. There are definitely issues with birds, but other types of power generation does far more damage to wildlife than wind and solar. There is definitely more room for growth in wind.

We will still need to use fossil fuels for some time. That doesn't mean that we should stop using or developing wind.


For wind turbines to generate enough electricity to keep up with just the increase in demand each year would require an area the size of Russia.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that sounds like nonsense. Especially since it doesn't go up every single year.
 
Driving along I-40 between Albuquerque and Amarillo - 287 miles - you see numerous wind turbines along the edge of the caprock in New Mexico, and probably 30 miles outside Amarillo you see a massive wind farm more than 20 miles long and I'm not sure how deep but they extend as far to the north as we can see.

Every now and then we pass a loooooooong flatbed truck transporting a single blade for one of those turbines--that's all the weight the truck can handle. Looking at that enormous hunk of metal--it takes three of them for every turbine plus a massive base that is sunk deep into the ground--and the high maintenance requirements for them--you wonder how much energy it requires to manufacture, transport, assemble, operate, and maintain them compared to the amount of energy one produces in its lifetime.

I have been told that the designed life span for the better made turbines is about 20 years. That's an awful lot of scrap metal to have to deal with.
 
ocean515 said:
IMO the future will be powered by hydrogen fuel cell. It will eventually allow the vulnerable and inefficient electrical grid to be dismantled, and will be fueled by the most abundant chemical element in the Universe and on Earth.

What will be required to get there is energy that is cheap and available. And that is fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

You could be right. I have no doubt that by the time the world uses up the fossil fuels--and that won't be in our lifetime or that of our grandchildren--the brightest and best of technological expertise will have discovered and developed far more safe, effective, and efficient energy.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Every now and then we pass a loooooooong flatbed truck transporting a single blade for one of those turbines--that's all the weight the truck can handle.
Click to expand...
uh...no. it is a matter managing the size.
 
Visbek said:
Or.... not

Wind generates around 5.5% of the electricity in the US, and 13% in Germany. Its carbon footprint is near zero. There are definitely issues with birds, but other types of power generation does far more damage to wildlife than wind and solar. There is definitely more room for growth in wind.

We will still need to use fossil fuels for some time. That doesn't mean that we should stop using or developing wind.



Yeah, that sounds like nonsense. Especially since it doesn't go up every single year.
Click to expand...

How can you say that a device weighing more than 140,000 tons and made of stuff requiring a LOT of energy to manufacture, transport, install, and maintain has no carbon footprint?
 
AlbqOwl said:
You could be right. I have no doubt that by the time the world uses up the fossil fuels--and that won't be in our lifetime or that of our grandchildren--the brightest and best of technological expertise will have discovered and developed far more safe, effective, and efficient energy.
Click to expand...

I would guess EXXON and others will be leading the effort. They are, after all, energy companies, and it doesn't seem to me they would stick to a finite source of energy forever.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Nuclear power plants generate 14 percent of the world's electricity, but some countries are more dependent on this power source than others. France relies on nuclear for 75.2 percent of its electricity; the United States, about 20 percent.
​
A Nuclear-Powered World : NPR

As for wind generated energy, some countries benefit more than others:
Today, wind power provides 1.9 percent of all the energy consumed in the United States. Though wind power has increased substantially since 1970, it constitutes only a small fraction of U.S. electricity supply. In 2015, wind power accounted for 4.7 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S.​
http://instituteforenergyresearch.o.../wind-Energy-Consumption-updated-mar-2016.png

I couldn't find a source citing the percentage of wind generated energy on a global scale.
Click to expand...

As you can see from your own investigation, the OP article is utter biased right wing bull****.
 
To our friends on the right, who are extremely concerned about the birds:

Bird-friendly Bladeless Wind Turbine Mimics Nature

Technology...amazing... It's like, you can take something new that is problematic, think about it a bit, and make it less problematic. Where do I go to patent this methodology?? I'm about to be a millionaire...oh...nevermind...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
uh...no. it is a matter managing the size.
Click to expand...

The total blade assembly weighs about 36 tons. 1/3 of 36 is 12 tons. So you're probably right. The size is more of a consideration. I'll accept the correction. :)
 
AlbqOwl said:
Looking at that enormous hunk of metal--it takes three of them for every turbine plus a massive base that is sunk deep into the ground--and the high maintenance requirements for them--you wonder how much energy it requires to manufacture, transport, assemble, operate, and maintain them compared to the amount of energy one produces in its lifetime.
Click to expand...
Unsurprisingly, this has already been calculated. It's about 1% that of coal, 1.7% that of gas, 30% of rooftop solar PV.

Only hydro and nuclear have significantly smaller carbon footprints than wind.
 
countryboy said:
Sorry, "environmentalists" only care about wildlife if it benefits their Marxist agenda. :(

Wind turbines are also devastating to bat populations, a critical part of the ecosystem.
Click to expand...

How did I know you would respond that way.
- I am not an environmentalist.
- I placed the link in jest.
- Some environmentalist protest solar panels arrays. They can cook the birds.

What many forget is environmental impact statements must be written and approved for such projects. It allows for public input.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom