Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Saturday, October 2. 2021

Posted by The News Junkie at 15:15 | Comments (36) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Oh oh! Now you've done it. We will get two compositions on AGW and 15 written proofs that you are wrong from Zach. Wait for it...
#1 OneGuy on 2021-10-02 16:48 (Reply)
It would seem that Z is so consumed with refusing to admit that covid is not the most dangerous virus to ever happen, that it has no time to regurgitate climate change talking points.
#1.1 B. Hammer on 2021-10-02 17:56 (Reply)
Add in the cement and rebar for the base…not to mention the neodymium magnets.
#2 rocdoctom on 2021-10-02 17:49 (Reply)
Is a shovel sustainable?
#3 snopercod on 2021-10-02 18:03 (Reply)
What! No Z yet! The guy who knows everything about everything.
#4 Stargazer on 2021-10-02 18:27 (Reply)
Math is hard.
#5 snopercod on 2021-10-02 19:23 (Reply)
I've known that for 25 years, ever since I saw the raw data for the first time while working as an intern and research assistant at an energy research lab on nuclear waste classification systems.

They called me a "climate denier" back then, and still do today.

When in fact the true climate deniers are those that claim the climate was perfect and never really changed until people started driving a lot of cars in the 1970s.
#6 JTW on 2021-10-02 21:51 (Reply)
I'm not sure I understand this graphic - Does the author think there is some kind of energy balance calculation made in designing a power generation setup?

I thought the calculation is an economic one. How much does the equipment cost, how much to install and operate, how long does it last, how much product does it produce, how much can we sell if for?

What the caption says might or might not be true, but - is it relevant? Not sure it is.
#7 Aggie on 2021-10-02 23:05 (Reply)
You couldn't be more wrong.
The calculation is about as far from economic as could be,
Primarily because there is no calculation, it is entirely about the expression of political power by those catering to Wokels.
#7.1 bilejones on 2021-10-03 10:48 (Reply)
I don't think I'm wrong at all. I've run high-capital projects as a career: Generated the concepts, estimated the costs, took them to sanction with partners and corporate boards, negotiated the contracts, and then ran the operations through to completion. It is precisely that, believe you, me. When people are putting big money on the line to be spent, they demand justification for the investment, with backups. They want to have high confidence in the return. That's in the O&G Business and utilities aren't much different, except they're a lot less risky. How do you think they can get Bond issues? Why not tell me how you think it's different?
#7.1.1 Aggie on 2021-10-03 12:00 (Reply)
It is relevant and the answer was in the last sentence. These kinds of "sustainable" power sources require massive amounts of fossil fuel to build, transport, install and maintain. The net computation is that they use more energy in the process of building these than they can ever produce.

The real purpose of this grift is to make a few people and companies very rich. The politicians subsidize this because it gets them votes. Without that subsidy AND the transfer of costs to the consumers no one would even consider putting up these white elephants. But the grift is perfect until the truth is more widely known. Probably one American in 10 understands the equation pointed out in this graphic. Most actually believe these are "green" technologies. Education is the stake through the heart of these grifters.
#8 JustMe on 2021-10-02 23:26 (Reply)
This graphic is made even worse by the fact that windmills in the US produce, on average, 15 - 30% of their installed capacity.
So our 2 MW windmill will actually produce only .3 -.6 MW of electricity.
#9 SteveP on 2021-10-03 00:19 (Reply)
QUOTE:
A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.

We were waiting to see if anyone would bother to check. Just think a little. Do you really believe countries all over the world would be building wind turbines if they cost more than they produced?

The energy payback on most wind turbines is less than a year.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm

https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/energy-balance-analysis-7.html

This really isn't that hard.
#10 Zachriel on 2021-10-03 08:23 (Reply)
OK, I'll step up and do what has to be done:

Zach asks "Do you really believe countries all over the world would be building wind turbines if they cost more than they produced?"

Answer: Of course, because they are not spending their own money. They socialize the costs, and privatize the profits (money for the well-connected, and virtue-signalling status for the promoters of the graft). Direct evidence for this is that these projects (wind and solar) never happen without government subsidies and legislative mandates.

This really isn't that hard.
#10.1 Hairless Joe on 2021-10-03 09:55 (Reply)
Hairless Joe: Of course, because they are not spending their own money.

Some countries installing wind turbines are democratic, so the people have a say. Others are not democratic, but clearly want to promote economic development. Do governments, democratic or otherwise, sometimes promote nonsensical policies? Sure, but it raises the question. The actual answer requires a look at the actual data.

QUOTE:
MF {ignoring obvious signs of falsity in favor of preconceptions}: Wind turbines will never pay back the energy investment.

Z: {Hmm. That doesn't seem to make sense for a number of reasons: the economics are wrong, the scale is wrong, etc. Let's look at it in more detail . . .}

Z: Here are a number of citations showing that energy payback on wind turbines is less than a year.

MF commenter: Is not.

Z: Here's more support:
http://drømstørre.dk/wp-content/wind/miller/windpower%20web/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm

MF commenter: IS NOT!

Lucky guess? The fact is that energy payback is less than a year for wind turbines.
#10.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-10-03 10:13 (Reply)
Z: If you don't believe me, just ask me.

Those aren't studies so much as commericials.
#10.1.1.1 jack walter on 2021-10-03 10:47 (Reply)
jack walter: Those aren't studies so much as commericials.

Jack walter says "Is not."

Crawford, Life cycle energy and greenhouse emissions analysis of wind turbines and the effect of size on energy yield, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2009: "The life cycle energy requirements were shown to be offset by the energy produced within the first 12 months of operation."

Rajaei & Tinjum, Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Balance and Emissions of a Wind Energy Plant, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2013: "The energy payback ratio (25.5), energy payback time (12.3 months) and the total grams of equivalent CO2(eq) per kWh of energy (16.9) produced were calculated over the life time of this onshore wind farm."
#10.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-10-03 10:56 (Reply)
The windmills DO payback in less than a year. IF you ignore the fact that 80% of the cost is subsidized by government and not counted in that calculation. And IF you ignore the fact that the government mandates that the electric utility buy the energy at about 10 times what it costs from a dam or fossil fuel fired plant. And IF you ignore the fact that for PV and wind sourced energy fossil fuel power plants must be constructed and placed on standby 24/7 to be ready for the 20 hours out of 24 every day that the PV and wind simply produces little to no energy. THEN and only then does the math work.
#11 OneGuy on 2021-10-03 10:38 (Reply)
OneGuy: The windmills DO payback in less than a year. IF you ignore the fact that 80% of the cost is subsidized by government and not counted in that calculation.

The question concerned energy payback, not economic payback, as Aggie noted above.
#11.1 Zachriel on 2021-10-03 10:47 (Reply)
An electric utility can buy electricity from a dam or coal fired power plant for $.02-$.04 kwh. Power from a windmill actual cost (before subsidies) is about $.35-$60 kwh. The subsidies hide the real cost and distort the payback period. The simple fact is that the windmill will never in it's lifetime produce as much energy as was used to build it. BUT with a little slight of hand the $.02 per kwh energy that was used to build it can be manipulated and the $.35 per kwh energy produced can make it appear that the windmill pays for itself.

But if you really believe your hype, why the huge subsidies??? Why not simply let the private companies build the windmills on their own dime and sell their power on the energy market without any subsidies or mandates? HMMMMM!!!!!
#11.1.1 OneGuy on 2021-10-03 12:01 (Reply)
OneGuy: An electric utility can buy electricity from a dam or coal fired power plant for $.02-$.04 kwh.

The question concerned energy payback, not economic payback. As for economic payback:

Levelized cost of energy
#11.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-10-03 13:22 (Reply)
Almost 100% of the cost of a windmill is energy costs. The mining of the ore, transporting the ore, transforming ore into useable raw materials, transforming raw materials into parts and components, transporting the finished product to it's installation site, installing it, maintaining it. Very little of the cost is not the cost of energy. Once in place the only value it has is energy produced. It produces so little energy that it requires massive subsidies up front and a continuing endless subsidy to deliver the energy. It is ALL about energy costs. It will never produce enough electricity at a rate of $.02/kwh to ever in it's lifetime pay off the sunk costs. So they must charge the utility $.35-$.60/kwh even after a HUGE subsidy to the company to put it in place. It is literally an energy sinkhole. Unsustainable. Illogical. Only made possible by fraud, waste and abuse of power on a massive scale.

Your job and the dirty politicians job is to be obtuse, deceptive, disingenuous, crooked and to lie about everything and change the subject and defame anyone who disagrees with the party line. Basically to be a lying sleazebag. BUT, that's your job and you are doing the best you can with what you've got.
#11.1.1.1.1 OneGuy on 2021-10-03 16:28 (Reply)
OneGuy: Almost 100% of the cost of a windmill is energy costs.

We've provided six citations. Presumably, you haven't looked at any of them.

OneGuy: So they must charge the utility $.35-$.60/kwh even after a HUGE subsidy to the company to put it in place.

Wind energy is about 3¢ per kwh without subsidies.
https://www.irena.org/costs/Power-Generation-Costs/Wind-Power
#11.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-10-04 08:36 (Reply)
And yet we continue to subsidize it anyway? Why? Because it is all a lie. You can cite a million sources that are all lies. If wind and pv was cost effective you wouldn't need subsidies, period!
#11.1.1.1.1.1.1 OneGuy on 2021-10-04 10:34 (Reply)
OneGuy: And yet we continue to subsidize it anyway? Why?

To encourage the conversion to green energy; and to compensate for the externalities not paid by the burning of fossil fuels.

OneGuy: You can cite a million sources that are all lies.

OneGuy 'argues,' "Is not!"
#11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2021-10-04 11:18 (Reply)
In this case, Zachriel is basically correct. As a simple check: The capital cost of onshore wind is about $1300 per kilowatt, so a 2 MW wind turbine costs about $2.6 million. The companies that make and install wind turbines are profit-seeking companies, so the cost of the energy used for the production and installation *is included in the selling price*, along with labor costs, etc and any profit made.

A 2MW plant will, conservatively, produce about 16 MWH per day, which is 16000 kwh. If this electricity is sold for a wholesale price of $.03/kwh, that is $480/day or $175K/year. Payback for ALL the capital costs associated with the wind turbine, of which embedded energy is only a part = 14.8 years.

This analysis from Vestas deals specifically with energy payback:

https://www.offshorewindadvisory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Vestasv802MWbrochure.pdf

and cites an energy payback of 7.7 months. Vestas makes these things, so they're presumably biased, but even if they're off by 3:1, that's still less than 2 years.

There is plenty wrong with wind, including intermittency, vast amounts of land utilization, and ruination of scenic views, but negative life-cycle energy is not among the flaws.
#12 David Foster (Link) on 2021-10-03 10:49 (Reply)
David Foster: There is plenty wrong with wind, including intermittency, vast amounts of land utilization, and ruination of scenic views, but negative life-cycle energy is not among the flaws.

And those are important considerations. At this point, wind power can only supplement conventional energy sources and reduce the amount of fossil fuels required, but not replace them.
#12.1 Zachriel on 2021-10-03 10:58 (Reply)
Since the ROI happens so quickly, I guess we can end all government subsidies. Now.
#13 Sixtyville on 2021-10-03 11:01 (Reply)
True. If the payback is less than a year, there is no need for subsidies.
#13.1 Talnik on 2021-10-03 13:46 (Reply)
Wind turbines are responsible for the death of millions of migrating birds every year.
#14 nunnya bidnez jr on 2021-10-03 14:12 (Reply)
The left doesn't give a shit about birds unless you are harvesting trees or mining resources.
#14.1 OneGuy on 2021-10-03 16:31 (Reply)
Or unless they can use the dead birds for political capital to shame those that "don't agree with established science".
#14.1.1 Dangerous Dean on 2021-10-04 07:46 (Reply)
I attempted to post this meme on Facebook and within seconds it was censored by the Ministry of Truth as being "fake news". Therefore it must be true.
#15 T. Wiley on 2021-10-03 21:21 (Reply)
It seems like there are two views that are conversing at cross purposes. One is that windmills "pay back" their costs. Maybe they do, when the costs are what it takes to buy and install the windmill. The other is that windmills can never "pay back" the amount of energy that it takes to create them. They probably cannot, as it is impossible to create them without a lot of fossil fuel use.

Certainly most green investments involve some kind of welfare of grift. That's fairly obvious.
#16 tim ferrell on 2021-10-04 12:28 (Reply)
tim ferrell: The other is that windmills can never "pay back" the amount of energy that it takes to create them. They probably cannot, as it is impossible to create them without a lot of fossil fuel use.

Energy payback on wind turbines, including manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and decommissioning takes less than a year.
http://drømstørre.dk/wp-content/wind/miller/windpower%20web/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm
#16.1 Zachriel on 2021-10-04 13:25 (Reply)
Pure BS. You obviously skipped your economic classes in school.
#16.1.1 InYourDreams on 2021-10-05 12:54 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.