is this true about Wind Turbines?

[Anonymous No.15528428]

[Anonymous No.15528431]

>>15528428
no.

[Anonymous No.15528436]

>>15528428
Wind turbines produce 10% of americas’s electricity and liken 100% of some countries’ electricity. You really think over 10% of America’s energy and over 100% off some countries’ energy goes towards making wind turbines?

[Anonymous No.15528470]

>>15528428
Why not mention the 50+ gallons of petroleum oil needed every year just for lubrication?

[Anonymous No.15528477]

The fact that they do not know the image between a windmill and a wind turbine is a pretty good indication that you shouldn't consider them an expert on either.

[Anonymous No.15528480]

>>15528477
difference, not image
oy vey, should really proofread when I decide to change the sentence halfway through

[Anonymous No.15528482]

>>15528477
Yea what an idiot, I bet he calls vehicles cars too because he is an ignorant piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.15528549]

>>15528482
I call all automobiles cars.
I don't know anything about cars or automobiles in general, and any claims I make about them should not be taken seriously.
Point in my favour.

[Anonymous No.15528554]

>>15528549
Ok good job scoring points on the ignorant piece of shit leader board, I guess, but it does seem like a weird thing to be proud of and brag about.

[Anonymous No.15528651]

>>15528477
Are you going to dispute the facts in the image or just sperg over semantics like a jew?

[Anonymous No.15528661]

>>15528651
>are you going to dispute a misquoted passage from an David Hughes essay
No - you can check it for yourself.

[Anonymous No.15528684]

>>15528428
I looked at some numbers here, just looking at the steel alone (60-70 of the mass of a wind turbine)
Mass of steel = 201 tons
coal needed = 0.770 * 201 = 154
energy in coal = 24 * 154000 = 3,696,000 MJ
assuming 25% operating capacity,
3,696,000 = 2 Mega Joules per second * t seconds * 0.25
=> t = (3,696,000/2)/0.25 = 7,392,000 seconds = 85 days
So it takes a while, but the claim is bunk
Unless im a retard and did something fucked with the units
>>15528661
It really wasnt rocket science

[Anonymous No.15528690]

>>15528684
You didn't account for transportation, fuel costs, disposal costs, or for the oil needed for maintenance at least.

[Anonymous No.15528691]

>>15528690
True enough, ill take a look and see if there are some easy numbers to extract
I'll have to make quite a few assumptions though, like where the ore is mined, where it is turned into steel, and where the steel is turned into turbine

[Anonymous No.15528692]

>>15528684
>It really wasnt rocket science
And it wasn't necessary. In the actual quote the author tells you how much years it takes to reach net zero.

[Anonymous No.15528693]

>>15528692
well it would be good to supply that information
otherwise im just assuming im being told the truth

[Anonymous No.15528697]

this has been deboonked
chuds
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-windturbines-misleadingmeme-idUSL1N2R31IG

[Anonymous No.15528703]

>>15528690
Those are second order effects. They’ll be an order of magnitude lower than what he calculated.

[Anonymous No.15528705]

>>15528697
That doesn't really debunk it, it just says that you have to place them in "good" wind places.
It fails to mention that the wind can't be too good since wind turbines have to shut down if the wind makes them spin too fast or they risk burning it out, so they generally just shutoff at wind speeds of 55+ MPH.

>>15528703
Is that why >>15528697 went from the 85 days anon claimed to 3+ years, if at all?

[Anonymous No.15528707]

>>15528705
It went from never to just 3 years actually, which completely destroys OP like always

[Anonymous No.15528713]

>>15528705
Don’t blame your retardation on me please

[Anonymous No.15528714]

>>15528707
No, it went to maybe 3 years at best if you pick a "good" place to put the turbine and probably never for the rest of the places that aren't good places for the turbine.

[Anonymous No.15528717]

>>15528713
I didn't, I blamed you for misquoting the link and failing to address the part about how it only works if you find a good place.

[Anonymous No.15528718]

>>15528714
And you would build it on a place that's not good because... ?

[Anonymous No.15528721]

>>15528714
Wrong. 20x more energy on average. Shit up chudtard

[Anonymous No.15528722]

>>15528718
Because you get a lot of subsidies for building them anyway since government officials just see green energy good rather than doing their due diligence and understanding all the dirty energy that makes green energy work.

[Anonymous No.15528724]

>>15528714
>puts turbine inside his house
>doesn’t work
>hurr durr science is pwned
Gay and retarded

[Anonymous No.15528727]

>>15528721
>build it
But not maintain and dispose or transport materials.

[Anonymous No.15528740]

>>15528724
What percent of land is a "good" place for a wind turbine? What percent of the people have energy needs? How much of that gets lost during energy storage and/or long distance transmission?

[Anonymous No.15528746]

>>15528740
100% of the lands windturbines are built on, transmission losses are about 5% of total energy generation. Not looking good for OP

[Anonymous No.15528751]

>>15528727
Actually yes including that. Read the studies chudtard
>>15528740
>I know I’m wrong but do my homework for me
Shut up chudtard

[Anonymous No.15528756]

>>15528746
Then how did they find out there are good places and bad if 100% of the places a wind turbine has ever been built turned out to be a good place?

[Anonymous No.15528757]

>>15528756
>anon doesn't know you can measure the wind before you build a 2 MW windturbine

[Anonymous No.15528759]

>>15528751
Sure, they need massive government subsidies to get built because they work so well on their own that the free market is falling over itself trying to build them.

[Anonymous No.15528761]

>>15528756
Are you genuinely retarded?

[Anonymous No.15528765]

>>15528759
>muh subsidies
Shut up chudtard. You’ve been proven wrong. Don’t deflect.

[Anonymous No.15528771]

>>15528761
You are the one who thinks every wind turbine ever has been built in a good spot when >>15528697 clearly says that some never recoup their costs.

[Anonymous No.15528772]

>>15528757
You mean the ones they have to turn off half of the year because there is too much wind and it will destroy the turbines?

[Anonymous No.15528775]

>>15528771
>>15528772
>deflect deflect deflect
Loser

[Anonymous No.15528776]

>>15528765
You haven't proven anything, all you said was muh studies as if that proves anything or discounts the fact that energy companies don't actually have enough confidence to build them without the government footing the bill and investing in all the research for each place they get built.

[Anonymous No.15528779]

>>15528775
Its not deflecting it is bringing up facts you fail to take into account with your bullshit wind is 100% good all the time narrative.

[Anonymous No.15528782]

>>15528428
>obfuscating the matter with fake math to distract people from how many birds these things murder
How much is big wind paying you?

[Anonymous No.15528799]

>>15528782

[Anonymous No.15528802]

>>15528799
>unironically posting government propaganda

[Anonymous No.15528845]

>>15528799
Now I understand why there has been a push in the last few years, mostly from official sources, for the narrative the cats kill birds! They are blaming the turbine bird genocide on cats. I was wondering why they were pushing this and now I finally found it.
I live in a city of 225 km^2 filled with cats and birds and I can't remember the last time a cat killed a bird. You have to be insane to believe cats kill 2.4 billion birds in the US. If there is 1 cat/10 mutts that's 40 million cats, 2.4B/40M = 60 birds/cat/year killed, that's 1 bird every 6 days. We all know this is false, if it would be true I should be seeing piles of dead birds and yet I see none, only the occasional roadkill.

[Anonymous No.15528849]

>>15528845
>I personally haven't seen every single bird that has ever died, so it must not be true

[Anonymous No.15528852]

>>15528428
Glad to see another fucking thread devolve into /pol/ tier bullshit. Good times.

[Anonymous No.15528856]

>>15528845
lmao

[Anonymous No.15528857]

>>15528775
He's right and you're just mad about it
>>15528852
Wind turbines are a purely political means of generating energy. The OP pic is incorrect but sometimes it takes up to a decade to get to energy break even if wind turbine placement
Wind turbines are highly visible signs to the public that you're fighting "climate change" and make people feel small. Never mind when one breaks it contaminates hundreds of acres of farmland with fiberglass. Nevermind each wind turbine kills thousands of birds every year. All that's just good for the planet! Fuck investing in solar and nuclear when we can just further enrich the aerospace industry!

[Anonymous No.15528859]

>>15528857
if wind turbine placement is shitty which it often is

[Anonymous No.15528864]

>>15528845
Your cat must hate you if it doesn't regularly bring you back offerings of dead birds.

[Anonymous No.15528873]

>>15528799
>source: US Fish and WIldlife
So Fish and Wildlife is definitely surveying every single wind turbine including all the ones on private and offshore property that's not in their jurisdiction and that companies have to voluntarily show them? They're totally not just multiplying the few wind turbines they were allowed to study by the total number of turbines in the US and just coming up with a number that way, right?
>>15528845
>>15528849
>>15528864
>muh cats
Who the fuck cares what the comparative amounts are, something "good" for the planet should not be destroying life on the planet, even one bird strike in a wind turbine is too much

[Anonymous No.15528881]

>>15528857
>solar
As if that is any better than wind and does suffer the same major hurdle of intermittency necessitating massive amounts of batteries to store what you collect.

[Anonymous No.15528885]

>>15528873
Life is pretty retarded, there isn't a single thing that exists and even imaginary things that life hasn't found a way to destroy itself with.

[Anonymous No.15528887]

>>15528873
>So Fish and Wildlife is definitely surveying every single wind turbine including all the ones on private and offshore property that's not in their jurisdiction and that companies have to voluntarily show them? They're totally not just multiplying the few wind turbines they were allowed to study by the total number of turbines in the US and just coming up with a number that way, right?
Good question! Why not do a research on it?

[Anonymous No.15528888]

>>15528881
Solar is better by several viable metric
>scalability isn't even comparable, you can shit out a million solar panels in the time it takes to do one wind turbine
>efficiency gets better every day
>cost less than ever before
>more easily deployed
I'm not even advocating for a switch to green energy, I'm just saying using wind power for "green" energy is utterly retarded and shows the whole thing is a sham

[Anonymous No.15528892]

>>15528887
>do a research
I'm not going to spend too much time researching just to prove a point to an ESL, but a quick web search did show me offshore wind turbines are under the purview of NOAA
So that's two separate government agencies, and since you're clearly not American and wouldn't know this, U.S. government agencies are notorious for not talking to each other or sharing data.

[Anonymous No.15528899]

>>15528873
So then I'm to assume you're a vegan, since any animal death is too many?

[Anonymous No.15528922]

>>15528428
you're upsetting the science community. stop.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mptNDINqYnQ

[Anonymous No.15528923]

>>15528892
Ok so you don't want to actually find out what is the more realistic amount and we're just going to assume that turbines are killing birds in a huge amount because it's convenient?

[Anonymous No.15528924]

>>15528849
I walk in this city every day for 40 years. If each cat would kill a bird/6 days the streets should be a bird slaughterhouse by now you imbecile.

[Anonymous No.15528948]

>>15528470
Because that also doesn't mean shit?

[Anonymous No.15528952]

>>15528888
>>scalability isn't even comparable, you can shit out a million solar panels in the time it takes to do one wind turbine
That doesn't mean it actually pays for itself and its full manufacturing cycle with its energy production.

>efficiency gets better every day
That just mean you will have to upgrade sooner before the current generation has paid for itself.

>cost less than ever before
It is more subsidized than ever before.

>more easily deployed
Some next gen wind turbines are pretty easy to deploy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_wind_turbines#O-Wind_turbine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_Bladeless

>>15528948
It means green energy isn't as green as they are letting on.

[Anonymous No.15529087]

>>15528721
20x more energy only impresses brainlets.
That's absolutely atrocious
Solar panels would give you 2000

[Anonymous No.15529090]

>>15528924
Oh you live in a city that explains everything
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5952375/

[Anonymous No.15529123]

>>15528924
How often do you see cat shit? Where do you think all the birds they eat end up?

[Anonymous No.15529134]

>>15529087
You can conveniently express your energy gains all written out like that? My solar panels would give you 2e8, you should think about upgrading.

[Anonymous No.15529183]

>>15528480
>should really proofread when I decide to change the sentence halfway through
fuck, i do that constantly, makes me sound ESL

[Anonymous No.15529196]

>>15528428
No, a quick calculation shows they produce enough energy to pay for their own manufacture in a few days. Hundreds of tons of coal are no big deal when the windmill puts out 48 MWh a day. I think 1 ton of coal can produce over 2 MWh.
I still love coal

[Anonymous No.15529199]

>>15528477
>The fact that they do not know the image between a windmill and a wind turbine i
Same shit. Do you think anyone cares if its only used for grinding grain? Your precious windmills were used for everything.

[Anonymous No.15529206]

>>15528690
>You didn't account for transportation, fuel costs, disposal costs, or for the oil needed for maintenance at least.
Insignificant compared to the energy cost of smelting steel but if you disagree then explain what these costs are so they can be added to the picture for a <1% correction

[Anonymous No.15529212]

>>15528857
>The OP pic is incorrect but sometimes it takes up to a decade to get to energy break even i
Fake, it takes about 3 months. The financial payback is much slower because energy is dirt cheap and the cost of the turbine isnt just the cost of the coal used at the smelter

[Anonymous No.15529219]

>>15529206
You are the one claiming you have accounted for all the costs, yet you didn't account for those and can't account for your 1% rounding.

[Anonymous No.15529226]

>>15529219
>You are the one claiming you have accounted for all the costs,
I just know its a meaningless correction but if you think im wrong then prove it. Its obvious that moving hundreds of tons of steel isn't as energy intensive as smelting that metal and if you dont agree then you are mentally ill. Go ahead and calculate if you want to know precisely how insignificant the cost is.

[Anonymous No.15529247]

>>15528428
Trump is going to prison, and I'm having a party when he does.

[Anonymous No.15529311]

>>15529219
>You are the one claiming you have accounted for all the costs,
Lets see 260 tons of steel. Whats the cost to move that around? Variable since it depends on the location.
The biglow canyon wind farm has 450 Mw of windmills installed. Its located about 120 miles from Portland, which has a steel mill (evraz oregon steel mills)
A cargo of 270 tons of steel can be carried by 10 18 wheelers. With a fuel economy of 10 MPG it cost 12x10=120 gallons to move that steel. Thats about 450 liters of diesel which are equivalent in energy ti about half a ton of coal.
The OP claims it costs 300 tons of coal to smelt that steel, so including the cost of transport of steel would amount to a correction of 0.5/300 or about 0.15%

[Anonymous No.15529317]

>You are the one claiming you have accounted for all the costs,
Lets see 260 tons of steel. Whats the cost to move that around? Variable since it depends on the location.
The biglow canyon wind farm has 450 Mw of windmills installed. Its located about 120 miles from Portland, which has a steel mill (evraz oregon steel mills)
A cargo of 270 tons of steel can be carried by 10 18 wheelers. With a fuel economy of 10 MPG it cost 12x10=120 gallons to move that steel. Thats about 450 liters of diesel which are equivalent in energy ti about half a ton of coal.
The OP claims it costs 170 tons of coal to smelt that steel, so including the cost of transport of steel would amount to a correction of 0.5/3170 or about 0.3%

[Anonymous No.15529319]

>>15529219
>You are the one claiming you have accounted for all the costs,
Lets see 260 tons of steel. Whats the cost to move that around? Variable since it depends on the location.
The biglow canyon wind farm has 450 Mw of windmills installed. Its located about 120 miles from Portland, which has a steel mill (evraz oregon steel mills)
A cargo of 270 tons of steel can be carried by 10 18 wheelers. With a fuel economy of 10 MPG it cost 12x10=120 gallons to move that steel. Thats about 450 liters of diesel which are equivalent in energy ti about half a ton of coal.
The OP claims it costs 170 tons of coal to smelt that steel, so including the cost of transport of steel would amount to a correction of 0.5/170 or about 0.3%

[Anonymous No.15529342]

>>15528799
>600 million birds die by flying into building windows
What a retarded fucking meme graph, I seriously hope this is made up completely and not an actual published chart from some government bureaucracy

[Anonymous No.15529356]

>>15529319
What about transporting all the raw materials to the steel mill and transporting all the waste to a dump or is there an iron mine, coal factory, and landfill in the basement of the Portland steel mill?

[Anonymous No.15529371]

>>15529356
>ok I'm wrong
That's all you have to say. You're no longer engaging in the argument at hand, you're playing a game of "changing the definition until you 'win' the argument." It's okay to be wrong and learn something. It's emotionally mature to admit actually.

[Anonymous No.15529386]

>>15529342
I don't find that very surprising. Considering how many skyscrapers you idiot americans build.

[Anonymous No.15529388]

>>15529371
Wrong about what? That materials don't just magically show up and turn into other things with no transportation costs or waste production like a video game?

[Anonymous No.15529392]

And that's not counting the maintenance. Look up how deicing is done...

[Anonymous No.15529395]

>>15529356
>What about transporting all the raw materials to the steel mill a
Its an even smaller third order correction since that gets transported by rail or ship with a much lower fuel consumption

[Anonymous No.15529401]

>>15528799
Cats kill sparrows and other small birds of which there is an abundance. Wind turbines kill eagles, falcons, hawks, kestrels, etc.

[Anonymous No.15529407]

>>15529386
>urban sprawl
>skyscrapers
pick one
or complain about both

[Anonymous No.15529425]

>>15529401
they will evolve

[Anonymous No.15529435]

>>15529388
>materials account for <1% of the windmill for one leg of it
>surely the transport of OTHER materials will be different

[Anonymous No.15530394]

>>15528857
>Nevermind each wind turbine kills thousands of birds every year. All that's just good for the planet!
So, less than cats?

[Anonymous No.15530450]

So do wind turbines violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

If they dont then yeah it takes more energy to make them. Oh they dont? Yeah it takes more energy ti make them. Solar panels too.

[Anonymous No.15530455]

>>15528428
this is nonsense, the kind of nonsense you find on facebook that boomers will keep sharing
this is like saying that oil won't produce anything cuz of all the expensive equipment needs to find it, drill for it refine it and transport it all around the globe

[Anonymous No.15530456]

>>15530455
I tell you right now there has never existed a device in all of human history that circumvents thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.15530459]

>>15530456
i mean yeah, but that's not what renewables nor what fossil fuels do
they both get energy from a source
in the case of fossil fuels from said fossils, in the case of wind turbines harvesting the power of the wind that happens naturally around us
wind mills are not creating the wind they are harvesting

[Anonymous No.15530465]

>>15530459
There are no natural forces that allow human devices to work efficiently outside of thermodynamic principles. This is not a secret short cut. You are not escaping reality. There is not and will never be a device that can outpace this. Natural forces are quite literally within the system of entropy, you cannot add them later on into the equation they were there immediately.

[Anonymous No.15530468]

>>15530465
what the fuck point are you trying to make?
there is energy around us that we are harvesting with wind turbines and solar panels
it's not rocket science mate

[Anonymous No.15530469]

>>15530468
There is no such thing as green or renewable there is just an extended timescale(barely) from doing such complicated shenanigans. It is wholly a waste of everyone's time.

[Anonymous No.15530476]

>>15530469
everything is finite, the earth and sun will die in billions of years (we wont be around for that)
fossil fuels are limited on our planet and we will waste them eventually
the earth will keep spinning, the sun will keep blasting us with energy waves for billions of years which is why this energy is "renewable" compared to the extremely finite resource that is fossil fuels cuz those are very complex things that take a long time to form (not to mention pollutive)

[Anonymous No.15530491]

>>15530476
No, it's not. They are marginally no different than each other. We can expect the exact same timespan for all of this. You are delusional about materials and how they work.

[Anonymous No.15530494]

>>15530491
you are genuinely retarded, i tried to simplify my explanation as much as i can but you lack braincells
oil = finite, very limited amount
solar rays = infinite as long as the sun keeps its reactor going, which is a couple billion years

[Anonymous No.15530499]

>>15530494
Lets give you some reality

>oil is not finite, we overconsume this naturally occuring substance
>solar radiation is a force that is quite strong, yes, however, this is literally one of the main drivers of entropy, to pretend this is "free" and "without consequence" is nonsense.
>rare earth minerals should stay in the ground, we are assholes and cowards for destroying the earth to save ourselves and calling it green while we do it

[Anonymous No.15530503]

>>15530499
>entropy
are you implying that we are accelerating the heat death of the universe by harvesting solar power? as if we matter that much?
rare earth metal mining is a pretty pollutive thing to do i am aware, but it's better than constantly spewing out CO2 from every power station using a finite resource

[Anonymous No.15530511]

>>15530503
CO2 is nice and we don't have enough until we are 10 feet tall. Fuck off if you think otherwise. Megafauna was peak earth. Life and how it thrives is the core requesite to acknowledge here. Maintaining the exact snapshot of the earth we know at this exact point in time is stupid. We cannot and should not lock the earth into a specific year's climate that we find appealing.

No, I am not claiming we accelwrate entropy, I am saying you are directly employing a destructive force and acting as if it would somehow be a net gain.

[Anonymous No.15530515]

>>15530511
CO2 won't make us gigantic nor turn into megafauna kek
honestly i am laughing now and i forgot the point of this argument, let's agree to disagree

[Anonymous No.15530516]

>>15530515
Literally foolish, we become big by virtue of the other things that will become big.

Get a new brain.

[Anonymous No.15530517]

>>15530511
>>15530515
the reason i am laughing cuz your post reminded me of pic related

[Anonymous No.15530521]

>>15530517
I have always thought this actor was intensly ugly, so ugly I have never understood why he is famous. I cannot even look at his face. It's awful.

[Anonymous No.15530524]

>>15530521
same, but this is the future libtards want

[Anonymous No.15530535]

>>15530517
>>15530524
>Posts a proto-giraffe

Do you know how giraffes were made, anon?

[Anonymous No.15530539]

>>15530535
they did a fusion dance

[Anonymous No.15530542]

>>15530539
lmfao

[Anonymous No.15530572]

>still responding to the bot

[Anonymous No.15531514]

>>15528428
2 MW is tiny by today's standards, 10 - 15 MW is the norm.
And is 260 tons steel correct? Battle tanks are about 50 tons and 5 m long, so with an armoured shell you get 25 m tall tower. This seems a bit suspicious.