ABMax24
Active VIP Member
First 2 points are somewhat true. 3rd is incorrect, many studies have been done and most windmills become carbon neutral 8-16 months after they start generating power.
NWR - Sturgeon Refinery producing diesel! Will prices drop??
- Thread starter ZRrrr
- Start date
First 2 points are somewhat true. 3rd is incorrect, many studies have been done and most windmills become carbon neutral 8-16 months after they start generating power.
It tries to load twice..... gets to 186% then fails lol
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
Cdnfireman
Active VIP Member
Not a chance. Factoring in energy input costs to extract, process and construct the components of the wind turbine itself, plus the energy input costs of the site preparation and construction, a wind turbine never breaks even. Add to that a wind turbine never has a 100% utilization rate, and when decommissioning and recycling costs after its projected lifespan are included, a wind turbine becomes a bigger net drain on and bigger cost to the environment.
The only benefit to society a wind turbine produces is the warm and fuzzy feeling it gives to all the social justice tree hugging crowd. The world would be far better off if instead of wind farms, companies planted trees.
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
Lol. So all these people and articles are wrong?
Its pretty straight forward math to back check the findings in these articles. Try it, your opinion would change.
https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
Cdnfireman
Active VIP Member
These people aren’t wrong, they just pick the facts to support their bias towards their particular alternative power source. If you drill down into the data, you notice they mostly gloss over or ignore the energy input costs and concentrate on the operating costs versus power generated.
And when you factor in the fact that because wind power is unpredictable, alternate generating capacity has to exist somewhere else in the system for when the wind is either not blowing or blowing too hard. Add the costs of this extra generation capacity wind power looks even worse.
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
Many of these studies include these sources of emissions as well and they are still far less carbon emitting than fossil plants.
And peaking power plants have to exist anyway to support demand during peak times. Most modern natural gas plants can start in minutes and be at full output in well under an hour.
FernieHawk
Active VIP Member
Read a government issued report on the actual output of all the wind farms in Spain or Germany... cant recall exactly, but the 10 year average of all the farms was 10% of the rated output. Individual farms varied between 8 and 12%.
The report also stated that the maintenance costs were substantially higher than estimated and the lifespans of the structures did not look like they would meet original goals.
The report also stated that the maintenance costs were substantially higher than estimated and the lifespans of the structures did not look like they would meet original goals.
Cdnfireman
Active VIP Member
So... we need the fossil fuel plants anyway.....then we build a wind farm with all its costs and impact on the environment from an energy input perspective, then a lot of the time we have to run the fossil plants to supplement the wind farms( which to be accurate extends the payback period of the wind farms).
this just proves what a whirling white elephant these things are. And if the numbers from the above post are accurate, the wind farms only operating at 10-12% of their rated capacity....wow.
FernieHawk
Active VIP Member
Yup...drove past a wind farm in Washington state yesterday...not one of them was moving.
Checked into windmills around 8 years ago for an off grid property on a cliff band above the Kettle river...after finding out about the real world results of small scale off grid wind generation, well, I decided to pass on the idea.
LennyR
Active VIP Member
What a sorry sad mess we're gonna be leaving for our kids and grandkids if these people who believe we can replace fossil fuel power generation with wind generators get their way. Lots of folks with agendas on both sides, but the wind proponents, they are ignoring the pathetic results that have been seen in countries that are way farther down the path than we are. Bit of a hangover I think from before when so many scientists were being funded by government grants to study global warming. Now miraculously, when the grant money stopped, so many are speaking up as to what a hoax it all really is.
Last edited:
ABMax24
Active VIP Member
What you are talking about is called capacity factor, and 20-30% is a very common figure for wind power. This occurs because the wind doesn't blow all the time. 8-12% is a BS number. Unless the turbines were installed wherever just to profit off grant money for constructing them, which is quite possible as the Spanish grant system was an utter joke at one point.
Or we build hydro-electric plants and use that when the wind doesn't blow. Over time it is possible to do correctly, however when a government forces an unreasonably high amount of renewable generation to be created in a matter of a decade like happened in Europe it is going to be a disaster.
As said above using poorly managed examples from European countries is not a true reflection of what is possible. Not really sure what is such a sad mess? People that are willing to try something different in the hope of improvement?
Look at California they have similar monthly power bills as the rest of the US yet generate 30% of their power from renewable energy.
We will move away from fossil fuels, hydro power is another option, and I have found research showing possible dam sites on the Wapiti, Smoky, and Peace Rivers here in this area. I don't know about you but I'd rather look at a wind turbine than loose these rivers to hydro power.
52weekbreak
Active VIP Member
The argument against wind and solar power is a weak one. Regarding carbon input, that exists whether you are building a windmill or solar panel or a coal fired generator. The difference is that with wind and solar, the carbon output is greatly reduced (they do need to be maintained so there is some) as compared with the coal fired plant that spews out more.
Wind and solar will always be used when available until a reliable low cost method of storage is developed. I spent about 1/2 a day touring around the windmills down by Pincher Creek and did not see any dead birds nor did I hear any hum/noise from any distance although I am sure some birds get killed and some likely do make an annoying noise.
I think the argument against development of the technology is a "flat earth" stance. Like the BS we all heard about what a mess the fuel injection systems would be on our sleds in the early 90's, this will get better but we will likely always have need for fossil fuels. No rush to burn it all right now.
BTW, I still have a 95 Polaris 500 EFI SKS that started on the third pull in minus 25 C after sitting for two years. Almost no additional effort above what I spent firing up the 800 ETEC with electric start.
As to the new Sturgeon refinery - Woo Hoo! Much better to add the value locally than ship it out at reduced prices.
Wind and solar will always be used when available until a reliable low cost method of storage is developed. I spent about 1/2 a day touring around the windmills down by Pincher Creek and did not see any dead birds nor did I hear any hum/noise from any distance although I am sure some birds get killed and some likely do make an annoying noise.
I think the argument against development of the technology is a "flat earth" stance. Like the BS we all heard about what a mess the fuel injection systems would be on our sleds in the early 90's, this will get better but we will likely always have need for fossil fuels. No rush to burn it all right now.
BTW, I still have a 95 Polaris 500 EFI SKS that started on the third pull in minus 25 C after sitting for two years. Almost no additional effort above what I spent firing up the 800 ETEC with electric start.
As to the new Sturgeon refinery - Woo Hoo! Much better to add the value locally than ship it out at reduced prices.
Cdnfireman
Active VIP Member
The argument against renewables is an economic one.... nowhere in the world do they succeed without huge government subsidies. its a feel good farcical way to generate power.
52weekbreak
Active VIP Member
Kind of like the energy industry subsidies I guess.
Cdnfireman
Active VIP Member
The energy industry has never been "subsidized ". They get tax incentives and occasionally tax deferments, but they never get guaranteed contracts to buy their products at a set profit rate regardless of demand like the green power industry does. Windmills don't run on wind, they run on government subsidies. where subsides have been removed from alternative power projects (like in Arizona and Nevada ), the companies quickly fold... they're money losers.... research stocks in renewable energy companies... they're all dogs...
52weekbreak
Active VIP Member
As I once worked in Alberta Treasury Finance Department I am probably a little more aware of what goes on behind the scenes. The energy companies get many percs that are not made public and I am not going to get into that in this forum nor anywhere else firstly as it is confidential and second as I understand the reasons why these practises exist. The little bit that goes into a renewable energy is a drop in the bucket by comparison so not really relevant. Renewable are much better than you seem to think and will get better. No need to slag them with heresay
Cdnfireman
Active VIP Member
The fact remains that nowhere in the world has there been a green energy program started and kept operating without massive government subsidies. And where conventional or nuclear power systems have been replaced with renewables, electricity costs have skyrocketed. Germany is a prime example of both.
52weekbreak
Active VIP Member
I was in Berlin last summer for a couple weeks visiting my daughter who had a summer student position with the Institute of Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam (Google it if you want - I am sure it will really annoy you). The Germans are doing very well and have no complaints about their power prices. The average person on the street (well in the bars and cafes which was where I chatted with most of them) seems particularly proud and supportive of the direction they are going.
But once again, the thread is about the Sturgeon refinery which can Alberta's raw bitumen stock and turn it into a useful and valuable resource while having the lowest carbon footprint of anything comparable. I think that is a good thing as I also think wind power and solar energy are good things. While we have lots of bitumen, it is a finite resource whereas wind and power do not.
You seem unaware of the billions of dollars of federal and provincial money went into the development of key portions of the technology that makes the oilsands work which were then turned over to the energy companies for use. I doubt the alternative energy sector will ever get that amount of investment and if they do, it is because someday oil will be too expensive to casually burn as we do today. Certainly not in my lifetime and maybe not in yours but that day will come. I certainly hope they have a number of things to replace it.
But once again, the thread is about the Sturgeon refinery which can Alberta's raw bitumen stock and turn it into a useful and valuable resource while having the lowest carbon footprint of anything comparable. I think that is a good thing as I also think wind power and solar energy are good things. While we have lots of bitumen, it is a finite resource whereas wind and power do not.
You seem unaware of the billions of dollars of federal and provincial money went into the development of key portions of the technology that makes the oilsands work which were then turned over to the energy companies for use. I doubt the alternative energy sector will ever get that amount of investment and if they do, it is because someday oil will be too expensive to casually burn as we do today. Certainly not in my lifetime and maybe not in yours but that day will come. I certainly hope they have a number of things to replace it.
Similar threads
