Just how green is wind power?

March 30, 2015 by Andreas Binner, Siemens

Wind power may have a positive image, but setting up offshore wind farms is complicated and energy-intensive. Because Siemens promises its customers and the authorities a high degree of transparency for the environmental performance of its giant turbines, it has reviewed the actual benefit of green power for the environment.

Siemens has published a detailed ecological review of its . The key question is how long it takes a wind farm to generate the volume of energy that it consumes during its lifetime, for example for manufacture, installation and disposal. As expected the calculations show that land-based pay off faster than their more powerful counterparts on the open sea. But both showed outstanding results – regardless if onshore or offshore. The study looked at two , each comprising 80 turbines, and two onshore wind projects with 20 turbines each.

Offshore wind farms are particularly good at saving CO2

A wind farm with 80 turbines produces 53 million megawatt hours of electricity during its intended 25-year service life. It emits seven grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour (g/kWh). In comparison, energy from fossil sources burdens the climate with an average of 865 g/kWh, meaning that the wind farm saves a total of 45 million tonnes of CO2 during its entire service life. Absorbing the same amount of greenhouse gases would require 1,286 square kilometers of forest in Central Europe, or about half the area of the German state of Saarland.

Land-based wind farms are ahead when it comes to amortization, or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle. For an onshore facility, assuming an average wind speed of 8.5 meters per second, the amortization period is only 4.5 to 5.5 months. This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account. Offshore wind farms, on the other hand, take a little longer – between 9.5 and 10.5 months – to offset their energy requirements. The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years.

During its expected service life, an offshore wind farm will save 45,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions. To absorb that much in 25 years would otherwise require 1,286 km² of forest.

Explore further: Wind farms perform best when the sun is out

Related Stories

Wind farms perform best when the sun is out

March 20, 2015

When set up in groups, wind turbines in the front rows cast a wind shadow on those behind them, lowering their performance. These effects dissipate fastest under convective conditions, say EPFL researchers in a recent publication.

Denmark champions wind power, sets record

January 10, 2015

Denmark has had a record year for wind power production. Denmark got 39.1 percent of its overall electricity from wind in 2014. That figure is according to the country's Climate and Energy Ministry.

Offshore wind capacity in Germany passes gigawatt mark

January 20, 2015

Germany's offshore wind capacity more than doubled last year as investors warm up to the technology, reported Reuters. The increase was from 915 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2013 to 2.35 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2014. ...

Recommended for you

Team breaks world record for fast, accurate AI training

November 7, 2018

Researchers at Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU) have partnered with a team from Tencent Machine Learning to create a new technique for training artificial intelligence (AI) machines faster than ever before while maintaining ...

121 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Science Officer
2.1 / 5 (17) Mar 30, 2015
The piles of chopped up birds are another advantage of wind power. It leads to fewer organisms exhaling CO2 into the environment.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 30, 2015
The piles of chopped up birds are another advantage of wind power.

Off shore? Chopped up birds? Really? Nesting in the open ocean, are they?

As for killing birds: Wind farms are a negligible contribution compared to house cats*, cars and mobile phone towers.
http://www.bloomb...millions

So unless you write about 100 posts calling for an end to cats for every post you make because of wind turbines killing birds, I'm gonna call you a hypocrit.

(*Although if someone gets the cat-with-strapped-on-buttered-toast-generator to work then that picture might change)
Accata
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2015
According to this peer-reviewed study the shift to renewable energy will just replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals). Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand; hydroelectricity meets about 7 percent. But to match the power generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power stations, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines will gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass. Also the alternators of wind plants consume lotta neodymium. The wind turbines only work when there's wind, although not too much, and the solar panels only work during the day and then only when it's not cloudy.
Accata
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
If the contribution from wind turbines and solar energy to global energy production is to rise from the current 400 TWh to 12,000 TWh in 2035 and 25,000 TWh in 2050, as projected by the World Wide Fund for Nature, about 3,200 million tonnes of steel, 310 million tonnes of aluminium and 40 million tonnes of copper will be required to build the latest generations of wind and solar facilities. This corresponds to a 5 to 18% annual increase in the global production of these metals for the next 40 years. We should realize, that the life-time of wind plants is just twenty years - so after twenty years we are supposed to produce most of concrete and metals again. And 25,000 TWh is still just one sixth of the total world energy consumption.... - this is not how the sustainable evolution is supposed to look like...
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Absorbing the same amount of greenhouse gases would require 1,286 square kilometers of forest

Wouldn't this actually make the world greener.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2015
According to this peer-reviewed study the shift to renewable energy will just replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals)

Erm...how do I put this politley: You are stupid.
Metals and minerals are reusable (i.e. renewable).

Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 1 percent of global demand;

In 2008 renewables generated 10% of world energy consumption (nuclear was only half that). The amount of CO2 used during construction is negligible when compared to the amount saved during operation (That's what this article is about. You may want to try reading it befor posting)
gkam
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
"The study therefore shows that even though wind farms are supposedly energy-intensive to set up, they make up for their energy consumption within just a few months – out of a total expected service life of up to 25 years."
--------------------------------------------------

Compare that to the billion-dollar nuke plants, which leave us with disgusting radioactive waste we still cannot find a way to store.

Calling Eikka!

Calling MR166!

casualjoe
5 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
The goracle is speaking Hindu again..
Dethe
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
Metals and minerals are reusable (i.e. renewable)
So why they're about to deplete?
In 2008 renewable generated 10% of world energy consumption (nuclear was only half that)
Do you mean production? This is not the same, as most of renewable production gets wasted - it's produced in time, where it's not needed. The rest of renewable electricity is represented with hydro plants, which cannot be expanded anymore. And you're talking about electricity only, not about total energy consumption (in household, agriculture and transportation). Contemporary renewable energetics is driven with occupational criterion (which is why it must be subsidized with fossil fuel energetics) - not with rational economics. Renewables are dream only for people, who cannot calculate - it's a dangerous dream.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
" . . . as most of renewable production gets wasted - it's produced in time, where it's not needed"
-------------------------------------

Ummmm, . . no. If it is not needed, it is not produced. There is no production without consumption of electricity. Go to school.

The Deniers and opponents of advanced technologies keep on fooling themselves then tripping themselves up with their own ignorance of how it all works.

So stop babbling about "rational economics" and start reading the science.

And what does "Contemporary renewable energetics is driven with occupational criterion" supposed to mean? Let's discuss the specifics, shall we?

Did you read the article to which you are replying? Perhaps we can use the two new Votgle units for Georgia Power. Let's start with those, their costs, and what they are going to do with the waste.
Dethe
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
There is no production without consumption of electricity. Go to school.
A Dunning Krueger effect applies.... So do you believe, that the solar plants can not and will not generate the electricity without consumption? Do you know, what the "rejected energy" portion of this graph means?
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
Want to see my graph, with the Fantasyland dimension?

Do you know the consumption is sold BEFORE they are built? No?

Would you invest in any kind of powerplant without a secure set of customers? Tell us!
al_hopfer
1 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2015
Is this a joke?

The only numbers that matter, regardless of life-time is the 7 versus 865 gram g/kWh. For get the start-up cost of CO2 if it is measure in 5 months or 10 months)

That is a ratio of 1:124.

If windmills put out 1 gram or 1 ton or 1M tons or 1B tons is it still 1B to 124B in comparison.

I am not a proponent of AGW, but this guys math is very shy.
al_hopfer
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2015
Sun City solar farms very large if not the largest proposed supplier of Solar electricity is still scheduled to lose over a billion dollars (of taxpayer subsidies) by the end of 2016 and no farm as yet to achieve even 18% efficiency. Wind is better, but most wind occurs during Sun light hours and is very quiet at night.

Without massive storage this is just an investment scam.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
That's right, al_.

If I were you I would stay away from alternative energy and concentrate on coal. Some good buys right now.
WillieWard
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
Without CO2, the life of photosynthetic organisms and animals would be impossible, given that CO2 provides the basis for the synthesis of organic compounds that provide nutrients for plants and animals. Furthermore, oil and coal are a kind of fossilized biofuel too; furthermore, human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions.
These eco-fascists, nazis-environmentalists are goofy; they hate one of the indispensable components for life in Earth, the CO2.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Without CO2, the life of photosynthetic organisms and animals would be impossible, given that CO2 provides the basis for the synthesis of organic compounds that provide nutrients for plants and animals. Furthermore, oil and coal are a kind of fossilized biofuel too; furthermore, human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions.

Wow. The amount of ignorance of physics, chemistry and the shere wrongness dislayed in these few sentences is...staggering.

Are you sure you had any contact with an education system in your life?
gkam
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
williward takes The Ignorati Sweepstakes for now. Any other contenders?
WillieWard
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
Wow. The amount of ignorance of physics, chemistry and the shere wrongness dislayed in these few sentences is...staggering.
Are you sure you had any contact with an education system in your life?

williward takes The Ignorati Sweepstakes for now. Any other contenders?


Carbon dioxide is as essential to life as water is. Oil and coal are a kind of biofuel too.
These are upsetting truths.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
"Carbon dioxide is as essential to life as water is. Oil and coal are a kind of biofuel too.
These are upsetting truths."
----------------------------------------------

Willie, do you think you are bleating some kind of secret? Almost anything can be benign or even beneficial in small or moderate amounts, but almost always dangerous with too much.

We have put too much heat absorbing and acidifying carbon dioxide in the environment.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
"Carbon dioxide is as essential to life as water is. Oil and coal are a kind of biofuel too.
These are upsetting truths."
----------------------------------------------
Willie, do you think you are bleating some kind of secret? Almost anything can be benign or even beneficial in small or moderate amounts, but almost always dangerous with too much.
We have put too much heat absorbing and acidifying carbon dioxide in the environment.

Acid rain occurs naturally with or without human intervention. The CO2 emissions increase acid rain locally, but not globally, it is insignificant as "Carbon dioxide exists in the Earth's atmosphere as a trace gas at a concentration of about 0.04 percent (400 ppm) by volume." http://en.wikiped..._dioxide
People should be more concerned about loss of biodiversity caused by deforestation and overfishing instead.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
"People should be more concerned about loss of biodiversity caused by deforestation and overfishing instead."
-------------------------------------------

No, . . you mean "in addition".

And my acidification remark was in reference to the acidification of the oceans.
whisperin_pines
2 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2015
Selective outrage is but one facet of hypocrisy.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
Selective outrage is but one facet of hypocrisy
@whisperin_pines
so is intentional and selective stupidity for the sake of a fallacious belief or GREED

Carbon dioxide is as essential to life as water is. Oil and coal are a kind of biofuel too.
These are upsetting truths
@willie
first of all, this makes it sound like we can't tell the difference between man made CO2 and natural CO2 emissions... well, we CAN tell the difference

also, your logic is seriously flawed
take into consideration Iodine: your body NEEDS it to survive, but get too much or too little, and you will die
So, while we need it to survive, we also will DIE if we get too much in our body

The same actually goes for Oxygen (O2)
Too much or too little will KILL you

This analogy is the same as to the CO2 problem

Don't assume that because something is good for you/plants, it is good for you in huge amounts
That kind of logic leads to problems
Follow the SCIENCE, not the politics/etc
WillieWard
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
Two-faced environmentalism.
If all man-made is awful.
Renewable is man-made as well.
Imagine the future: solar and wind on a large global scale, covering extensive areas, competing and obfuscating the photosynthesis, tremendous impact on environment by humans.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
"Renewable is man-made as well."
---------------------------------

Nope. We use Natural processes, and capture the energy in them.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
I got a one from Oooba, but he/she is too timid or scared to tell us why.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
"Renewable is man-made as well."
---------------------------------
Nope. We use Natural processes, and capture the energy in them.

Solar-energy extraction based on silicon films is natural; rotating blades as natural as leaves. On what planet? Not here in Earth, where almost all forms of life are based on carbon instead of silicon.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
We did not invent the work functions from photons, wherein they can dislodge electrons, when Einstein earned his first Nobel Prize in it.

It is a Natural phenomenon. We can use it to our benefit, if we are sufficiently not only clever, but wise.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
We did not invent the work functions from photons, wherein they can dislodge electrons, when Einstein earned his first Nobel Prize in it.
It is a Natural phenomenon. We can use it to our benefit, if we are sufficiently not only clever, but wise.

In the same way, radiation is a natural phenomenon too. Natural background sources: cosmic radiation, terrestrial radiation, internal body radiation (potassium-40, carbon-14, etc.)
As well, we can also use nuclear power to our benefit, as it is carbon-free, silicon-free, no slaughtering blades, fewer fatalities per unit of energy generated even taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima. Its main drawback is the fear mongers.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
Can we just send the high-level waste to you, then? Hmmmm?

I helped test the safety systems of GE BWR's long ago, and can contend they are not safe. And we have no ideas yet how to clean up Fukushima. How about you? Got any ideas how to save the earth from Fukushima?

Look into how much fossil fuel is used to dig the Uranium, calcine the concrete, refine and forge the rebar, deliver the highest-quality of metals available, and build a nuke powerplant.

Then, tell us how much it will cost to store the deadly waste for several tens of thousands of years.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2015
Why are the Deniers and the Guvmunt-haters on this thread? Is it to change the topic from the embarrassing (for them) one of the desirability and economics of alternative energy?

Shell we compare the numbers above with those for some nuke plants?
fay
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015

This is a science site - not a woo woo spirituality site.

yet the people here seem to think that we can live in this world without fossil fuels just with renewables. This denial/myopia is very similar to the GW denial, if you truly think we can live without fossils you live in the same imaginary world as the "deniers".
gkam
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
fay, what is it that you do not understand about market penetration?

What gave you the idea we would replace one with the other suddenly? What field are you in?

These are capital assets, and have long lifetimes, and will be replaced individually as we go, and as it makes sense. None are even built without a guarantee of loads and customers. None. Do you think we just squat a few billion bucks somewhere, and send the power into the line, hoping somebody buys it?
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
Reuse of radioactive waste, thorium-fueled reactors can be a solution, but the fearmongers will always stay around to overexaggerate Fukushima.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2015
No fear mongers here. I have a little experience in the field of utility power, and I contend they are both unsafe and uneconomical. For example, what will be the price per kWh of that produced by Unit Three at Fukushima?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
No fear mongers here. I have a little experience in the field of utility power, and I contend they are both unsafe and uneconomical. For example, what will be the price per kWh of that produced by Unit Three at Fukushima?
So does Glenn Campbell. And I think we can actually trust his opinions.
https://www.youtu...TNWWO7U0

-Because you for instance think that H2 explosions at fukushima compressed Pu, caused a prompt criticality, and threw vessel parts 130km.

Im sure even Glenn would laugh at that one but he would be too polite to laugh in your face. He might ask you where the fucking crater was tho.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
gkam
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
otto will not read the article I posted, because the headline is:

200-year wait faced at Fukushima —

Plant Chief: "No idea" how to decommission reactors… "the technology does not exist"; "No viable method" to deal with melted fuel
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
"Because you for instance think that H2 explosions at fukushima compressed Pu, caused a prompt criticality, and threw vessel parts 130km."
---------------------------------

No, because others went through the decay chain looking at the resultant products, and other information and said so, not me. It was not my information regarding the creation of Cobalt 60 at Fukushima Dai-ini, miles away. Look up how it is made.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2015
not me
No, just others just like you who think like you and spout like you. This does not constitute a valid consensus.
Look up how it is made
Like I say post your idiot links or STFU.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
Maybe instead of a crater, gkams fukunuke blew a big underground bubble which we havent found yet. Maybe THATS where all your Pu is -?

This one
http://en.wikiped...look.jpg

-was created by an actual weapon, designed for the purpose, and could not even throw debris as far as las vegas 110km away. It couldnt even toss debris 10km away beyond the site boundary.
http://mirror.rob...ball.htm

-Big ass crater tho eh gkam?
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
Here is your link, otto, but you will not understand my point, which was the Neutron flux from the Unit Three criticality which caused the massive detonation.

And I am glad you discovered the power of nuclear weapons. Those were small ones.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
"Maybe instead of a crater, gkams fukunuke blew a big underground bubble which we havent found yet. Maybe THATS where all your Pu is -?"
---------------------------
It's not in what is left of the reactor vessels, that's for sure. A preliminary muon study was done using those from space, and showed all of the fuel was gone from Reactor One, and almost all of it from Reactor Two. The new test they are trying to set up now will be more precise.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2015
Here is your link, otto, but you will not understand my point, which was the Neutron flux from the Unit Three criticality which caused the massive detonation
Link george? Gkam is imagining links like my senile old grandfather imagined people in his house, and nailed his windows shut.
... the power of nuclear weapons. Those were small ones
1) They are small. They still created massive craters. But they couldn't throw debris more than a km.

2) There are no massive craters at Fukushima.

3) you read a MISTRANSLATION of an article which was describing wind borne dust, not PARTS, and proceeded to concoct a crackpot theory about an H2-caused Pu prompt detonation which could throw PARTS 130km.

4) And like my grandfather you have a crack team of physmatist consultants to consult with, who are also imaginary.

George please try to focus. DUST is not PARTS and there is no reason to try to explain an explosion which could throw PARTS 130km. IT WAS THE WIND.
gkam
4 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2015
Otto, give it up. I have proven myself to you and others, and now you are down to misstatements, like the one you accused me of making, when it was YOURS, cut and pasted from somewhere else. Straighten up, otto.

Go discuss things in a field where YOU have some experience or education.
gkam
4 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2015
Been thinking about otto and his grandfather. That makes him about 15, probably. No wonder he was completely ignorant of how things work. No wonder he has no education or experience. He is a little kid.

We should have known by the sophomoric retorts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2015
Otto, give it up. I have proven myself to you and others, and now you are down to misstatements, like the one you accused me of making, when it was YOURS, cut and pasted from somewhere else. Straighten up, otto.

Go discuss things in a field where YOU have some experience or education.
So AGAIN, you're trying to use your purported experience as some sort of excuse to ignore your gross misperceptions, like the tragedy above. That in itself is a gross misperception.

You are the emperor with no clothes on. In your mind that is. But you are indeed running around here naked and it is getting embarrassing. Go put some clothes on or get an orderly to help you get dressed.

And my grandfather died decade ago, obviously. More misperceptions.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2015
Wind power seems to be blowing away the competition. The Deniers are losing again, . . . and again.

A large wind turbine-generator collapsed about a month ago, for a first. Nobody was hurt. No contamination resulted. No fuel contaminated the area. No waste escaped. The parts can be reused, not being radioactive.

Compare that with Fukushima.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2015
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2015
I want the Deniers to show me another generation system which pays back anything like wind does.

It ain't nuke. BTW, with the new offshore wind farm at Fukushima, they can get power as well as the Fukushima radioactive pollution from the wind.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2015
Hey gkam-wiki-woowoo they just found out where your fukuPu went to.

"Molten nuclear powerplant cores from Fukushima – having burned their way down through the planetary crust and plunged into the Earth's centre – are set to emerge again on the other side of the planet and devastate the Falkland Islands, scientists believe.

Sensationally, the Register can reveal full details of the impending disaster in the South Atlantic, despite ongoing efforts by both the British and Japanese governments to keep it secret.

"It's usually called the China Syndrome," explains Dr Petar Glick of the Federation of Concerned Scientists. "The idea is that if a US-based reactor core melted down it would become so hot that nothing could resist it, and it would burn its way down through the planet until it reached China."
http://www.thereg...tlantic/

... bwahaahaaaaaaa
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2015
A large wind turbine-generator collapsed about a month ago, for a first. Compare that with Fukushima
And lets compare that as well to the 1000s of turbines which have already been abandoned...

"Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles—but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy's California "big three" locations—Altamont Pass, Tehachapin (above), and San Gorgonio—considered among the world's best wind sites…
California's wind farms— comprising about 80% of the world's wind generation capacity—ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills…"
The parts can be reused, not being radioactive
-But they wont, will they?
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2015
You can thank your Republican doctors and dentists and used car dealers for abandoning their tax farms. Meanwhile, the professionals are building bigger and better ones. And if you think the copper and steel in those WTGs will not be harvested, you are absent from reality.

BTW, California now has over 5% of Utility-Grade PV producing for us, so we can rest some of the fossil plants.

And you apparently think the missing Corium at Fukushima is funny.

Go there, and have a laugh with them.

gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2015
While at the research company, one of the principals did a BOE calc that seemed to show nuclear plants never produce as much energy as it took to build them. We asked to do a study. The guvmunt responded not just "no", but would cut us off if they found out we did it.

Yeah, it's hearsay. Anybody good with numbers? Just the energy for calcining the concrete and forging of the steels alone would be staggering for a nuke plant.

There are at least four AP1000 new nukes being built, maybe some figures on stuff are there.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2015
Wind power seems to be blowing away the competition. The Deniers are losing again, . . . and again.

Thanks to government subsidies, sorry taxpayers.
"For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." - Warren Buffet
http://dailycalle...e-taxes/
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2015
willie, that may be why Mister Money invests in them, he NEEDS tax dodges, but without power need they would not be built. They satisfy a growing need other types of generation cannot.

How do you get your power?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
and clean, cheap, abundant renewable energy is becoming the cheapest kid on the block - without subsidies, or the externalities of ff.

Even better: Once you have renewables up and running then that's it. No more hunting for ever new lands where to mine/drill. No more hunting for ever new places where you can dump wastes.
At that point ist' just 'maintain' and you can forget about any and all future energy problems and turn your energies towards doing more interesting stuff.
WillieWard
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2015
Eco-friendly, putting down the whole planet in the shadows with giant bird choppers.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
Eco-friendly, putting down the whole planet in the shadows with giant bird choppers.

You're turning in circles. That argument about bird-choppers has already been debunked (as has the 'shadows' argument, BTW)
bluehigh
2 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
'Once you have renewables up and running then that's it.'

Axel Kleidon of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, says that efforts to satisfy a large proportion of our energy needs from the wind and waves will sap a significant proportion of the usable energy available from the sun. In effect, he says, we will be depleting green energy sources. His logic rests on the laws of thermodynamics, which point inescapably to the fact that only a fraction of the solar energy reaching Earth can be exploited to generate energy we can use.

> there's no such thing as a renewable energy source and extracting energy from wind is likely one the most environmentally damaging techniques available. One day perhaps to be regarded as a crime against humanity.

@AA - educate yourself, start here ...

http://www.newsci...19hhXerU

Then research the implications.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
That argument about bird-choppers has already been debunked (as has the 'shadows' argument, BTW)

Ah yeah blame the cats, damn flying cats.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
The disruption of heat and moisture transfer by extracting energy from winds will likely cause serious environmental changes. If you worry about anthropomorphic climate change then best you scrap the windmills.

Go read the original reports by Axel Kleidon.

gkam
3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
"Advanced nukes" are not renwewable sources. They, too will run out of fuel, and cover us with high-level radioactive waste.

That "science" report is being printed in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
bluehigh, that's ridiculous! That's why it is published in Philosophical Transactions, not a science forum.
gkam
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2015
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2015
Birds and cats are renewable sources too.
http://www.youtub...W5cyXXRc

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015

@AA - educate yourself, start here ...

http://www.newsci...19hhXerU

That article is a joke full of undmeonstrated assumptions (some of whch the opposite has alraedy been demonstrated) and full of basic modelling errors. You know that, right? Right?

You can read the original paper that is the basis for the New Scientist article here
http://arxiv.org/...14v1.pdf

Read it and weep.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2015
yet the people here seem to think that we can live in this world without fossil fuels just with renewables. This denial/myopia is very similar to the GW denial, if you truly think we can live without fossils you live in the same imaginary world as the "deniers"
@fay
1- no one is saying we can live right now without them... just saying that we can live without as MUCH as we are using: completely different argument

2- the argument is NOT denial or myopic if we already know of or are living without fossil fuels (the only fossil fuels i use are in my vehicle because of the range limitations of electric vehicles)

3- your argument is a straw man as well as not logical!
basically it is the same thing as saying that:
since drug addicts can't quit cold turkey, we should let them have as much drugs as they want to be happy and that will eliminate all crime from those drug related problems and the addicts
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
Thanks to government subsidies
@little limp willie
your entire argument against renewable resources is political and based upon your fear of conspiracy

when you can add some logical scientific studies to the argument, perhaps you can come back & NOT TROLL THE SITE?

Maybe instead of a crater blah blah blah
@Otto
get a room, will ya?

.
.@Everyone else

THE NUKE PROBLEM
the NUKE problem is simply the SAME as the current one: the amount of fuel and resources

Sure, it will suffice for a short time period that may allow us to get off of fossil fuels... and that could be a great thing

however, it still gets to the problem of the amount of resources as well as the waste disposal problem
IOW - it STILL adds pollution to the planet as well as creates a dependance on a finite amount of fuel

Not sure fusion will be a LOT better, either
not until we have MORE data and a working model that produces as advertised
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2015
The big old dinosaur almost fell off his perch, spluttering spittle and frothing at the mouth. Pudgy paws couldn't type fast enough to express his horror that anyone could dare question his view.

The little sycophantasaurus was outraged, stomping around in circles each revolution a new experience. An outrage that anyone would doubt his masters infallible reasoning.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
"Renewable Energy Won't Save Us Say Google Engineers"
http://www.thereg...gineers/
http://spectrum.i...e-change

"how corrupt the 'green energy industry' has become."
http://fusion4fre...rtunity/
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
@greenonions - it's not my responsibility to defend a publication attributed to a reputable author of a renowned institution. You can take it up with the Max Plank institute if you have a criticism. Perhaps they will accept your debunking, just because your particular gang of bigots say so!
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
Anyway, although I dislike the idea of polluting the environment, I don't give a damn how electricity is generated. Just as long as it's low cost and always available. Caves are too cold, wet and uncomfortable.
WillieWard
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2015
Paraguay, Iceland, Lesotho, Albania, Bhutan, Mozambique, Norway, Costa Rica, Laos, Colombia, Malawi, Nepal, Belize, etc. Almost all these countries don't seem to have highly-developed industrial parks. Choose some big cities, New York, London, etc., and tell to folks to use only solar and wind to power their industrial parks to see whether they will like to become like undeveloped countries prompt to go back to cavemen ages.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 02, 2015
Willie, the biggest technology companies are already doing that. Are you completely in the dark?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2015
I guess you never heard of Norway huh???

Norway and Iceland are ones of most eco-friendly countries in the world by having contributed meaningfully in reducing emissions by killing large amounts of Minke Whales stopping them to breathe out more and more CO2 into the environment.
http://en.wikiped...n_Norway
http://en.wikiped..._Iceland

In spite of Fukushima, Japan has also contributed heavily to reduce this kind of CO2 emissions too.
http://en.wikiped...in_Japan
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2015
And if you think the copper and steel in those WTGs will not be harvested, you are absent from reality
No, absent from reality is trying to convince people that H2 explosions can cause prompt criticalities in molten Pu puddles which then blows vessel parts 130km - without making a crater.

Absent from reality is thinking that microscopic dust isn't carried by the wind. Absent from reality is thinking that people here will believe you when you claim that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer, and that you know this because you once filled out validation forms at a nuke plant.

No, the reality is that those turbines are still standing after so many years because they are too expensive to dismantle. And they are sitting there rusting because their obsolescence was miscalculated by a factor of 2.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2015
But gkam you think those turbines should be salvaged? Then DO IT! Do it, to quote the manic flooding crank.

And stump? As always, bite me.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2015
No,otto, they are sitting there because they were abandoned by the Capitalists who used them as tax dodges, then crept away after they got their profits, leaving us with the junk and leftovers, like corporations do.
Roderick
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2015
Antilias, your comments are misleadng. You state that 10% of the world's energy production came from renewables in 2008. Even today solar and wind power are only a few percent. So how do you get a figure of 10%? May be you included biomass (a source of CO2 emissions) and may be included hydro.

But your intent is to mislead - renewable power is not makng the grade for an obvious reason - low capacity utilization.

I have looked at the 10Ks of large European power producers. Their solar power plants operate less than 10% of the time.

I think you are a good physicist, but you make a lousy energy analyst. The cost of energy depends on the payback on the investment and payback on solar and wind is extremely low.

It is silly to think that green power is low cost because the fuel is free. It is highly capital intensive - you spend a lot upfront and get just a little power over time.

gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
Oh, . . not cheap, like nuclear reactors?

A good energy analyst does not see for the moment, that's bean counter, and you know what we all think of them. Instead, he sees for the future as well, so current equipment and systems can be changed to the new technologies, not just myopic cost reductions.
WillieWard
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2015
Luckless mother Earth, people that are deforesting, overkilling, massacring species, now are saying they will save the world by infesting wide areas with their environmentally hypocrite means of energy production.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2015
No, Willie, we are NOT the folk who are destroying the environment for profit. That's YOUR bunch of Capitalists.

We understand how things work together, like in Nature. You folk try to brute-force everything. Go guard your nuclear waste.
wiggers
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2015
Still need reliable, duplicate, installed capacity for when the wind is too weak or too strong and the turbines shut down. Is that factored into the whole-life costs?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
No,otto, they are sitting there because they were abandoned by the Capitalists who used them as tax dodges, then crept away after they got their profits, leaving us with the junk and leftovers, like corporations do.
I see. So what about this strawman of yours makes them not available for salvage? You saying capitalists passed some fucking LAW that makes it illegal or something??

What an ass you are.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
"What an ass you are."
------------------------------------

Get your face out of it, and you will see I have a brain, too. Better than yours.

YOU said they were not available for salvage, not me, Toots. This is like the time you copied somebody to rebut my assertions, then accused ME of printing that lie. Nice of you to ignore it from there on.

Grow up, otto, and stick with the thread, which is the astounding efficacy and economy of wind power.

Do you have any education or experience?
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2015

The fact is that renewables are not so Eco-friendly as has been systematically stated by the pseudo-environmentalists:

Bat decision could impact Midwest wind industry
http://www.midwes...ndustry/

Concerns over turbine plans for nature reserve
http://www.fifeto...-3737925

Environmental Impacts of Wind Power
http://www.ucsusa...QZI4llyU
http://en.wikiped...nd_power
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
In fact, renewables can cause more extensive impact per unit of energy generated on the environment than nuclear, even taking into account Fukushima, due to large areas required.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2015
" . . . even taking into account Fukushima, due to large areas required."
---------------------------------------

How big is the Pacific Ocean?

But I'm glad you brought up Fukushima. Look up Fukushima Diary dotcom.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
gkam says
And if you think the copper and steel in those WTGs will not be harvested, you are absent from reality
So otto says
those turbines are still standing after so many years because they are too expensive to dismantle
So gkam answers ottos post
No,otto, they are sitting there because they were abandoned by the Capitalists
-which, obviously, has nothing to do with salvage as gkam initially opined.

So again gkam, to belabor the point, If they are such an attractive salvage target as your vision of reality says, why after all these years havent they been salvaged? And what does their continued presence have to do with capitalists?
This is like the time you copied somebody to rebut my assertions
This IS your assertion. I expect you to answer it.
you will see I have a brain, too
So use it to explain WHY those turbines havent been salvaged as you insist. If you cant, use it to admit that you were posting a strawman.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
Otto, ever seen a real wind turbine-generator?

Yeah, some have been reclaimed, but they are not my property, otto. Go ask the doctors and dentists and midwest accountants who used them as excuses to dodge taxes why they don't go back and salvage them. Eocfreaks would have done so. Not selfish Capitalists.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
why they don't go back and salvage them
Why would they salvage them? Theyre not salvage companies. YOU SAID
And if you think the copper and steel in those WTGs will not be harvested, you are absent from reality
-DIDNT YOU? So why havent they been salvaged gkam?
Eocfreaks would have done so. Not selfish Capitalists.
-So WHY havent they done so?? WHO were you thinking of when you said
And if you think the copper and steel in those WTGs will not be harvested, you are absent from reality
-or do you just normally throw shit up in the air and see what gets splattered? Is that your style gkam?

Of course it is. Its what youre full of.
Otto, ever seen a real wind turbine-generator?
Well you have. So WHY are you claiming that they are salvageable even though they are still standing? WHICH is the reality you are talking about gkam?? The one where you dont know WTF you are talking about?
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2015
otto, I do not have the legal right to take those abandoned wind turbines, those that the capitalists used for tax dodges, then walked away from, writing them off, to reduce taxes even more.

Get me permission to recycle them, so I can shut you up.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2015
But I'm glad you brought up Fukushima. Look up Fukushima Diary dotcom.

When compared to all other modes of transport, on a "fatality per mile basis", aviation is the safest. There is a fatal accident ratio of one per million flights; the main cause is pilot in command error.
Even so, when an accident occurs, the sensationalist mass media creates loud alarmism, generating more and more misinformation and polemics between the fearful people.
The same occur with nuclear, even with fewer fatalities per unit of energy generated, the sensationalist mass media is always misleading the population with help of the fear monger prompt to propose ludicrous alternatives such as covering large areas on the planet with their pseudo-eco-friendly means of energy generation.
http://www.forbes...-humans/
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
No, Willie, I oppose it because of Brown's Ferry, because of SL-1, because of Fermi I, TMI II, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

I oppose it because I understand it, having tested parts of some systems, and being a former utility engineer, and watching how the games are played.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2015
Got any statistics for deaths from solar panels???

"...there are 100-150 deaths in the solar roofing industry worldwide each year."
http://nextbigfut...rce.html

"Environmentalists against solar power"
http://www.sandie...t-solar/

"The World's Largest Solar Energy Plant Is Also a Massive Death Ray for Birds"
http://www.thewir.../358244/

"California's new solar power plant is actually a death ray that's incinerating birds mid-flight"
http://www.extrem...d-flight

"Solar Farms Threaten Birds"
http://www.scient...n-birds/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2015
otto, I do not have the legal right to take those abandoned wind turbines, those that the capitalists used for tax dodges, then walked away from, writing them off, to reduce taxes even more.

Get me permission to recycle them, so I can shut you up.
Well mouth, you must know because you said
And if you think the copper and steel in those WTGs will not be harvested, you are absent from reality
-So if you want to shut me up then just EXPLAIN it. Or admit that it was just more of your typical brainless bullshit.

Oh and explain your new bullshit - why does writing off turbines by greedy capitalists make them salvageable?? You can't clear up bullshit with even more bullshit you know. Although you do use this tactic a lot.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2015
"Mass bird fatalities at solar park cause concern"
http://www.dw.de/...17871219

"The world's largest solar thermal power plant is incinerating thousands of local birds"
http://www.engadg...-deaths/

"Wind and Solar Power Not the Answer"
http://www.thenew...e-answer

"Green deaths: The forgotten dangers of solar panels"
http://asiancorre...-panels/

"There is an argument, however, that solar power may ultimately be safer than coal-fired generation because of the reduction in pollution. Ironically enough, however, solar power is far more dangerous than nuclear, even in a year when an accident like the disaster at Fukushima occurs."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2015
Oh and explain your new bullshit - why does writing off turbines by greedy capitalists make them salvageable
Sorry that's 'unsalvageable'.

Answer the question.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
The road to clean energy has been fraught with idiots telling us we can't do it, Big Money telling us we can;'t do it, Big Mouth politicians in the ownership if Big Money telling us we can't do it, greedy Filthy Fuel owners telling us we can't do it.

And we did it.

Meanwhile, otto and the others are left screaming nasty words.

One often has to work with the technology to really understand it, otto.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
Another way wind power is green is the fact we can recycle the parts, unlike much nuclear parts, which can kill you with radiation. And you will not know which ones are deadly or not, unless you have proper equipment. Will those who follow us always know what that is about, and have "proper equipment"?

We have no had a civilization last a thousand years yet, but we need to guard this nasty stuff essentially FOREVER in Human terms.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
Can we get the nukers here to tell us how they are going to store the messes they made, since they cannot get rid of them? Reprocessing just makes more radioactive equipment, and does Not get rid of radioactivity. Nothing does.

I volunteer to take all the radioactive parts from wind turbine-generators. Now, our nukers can make the same promise for their stuff.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2015
Another way wind power is green is the fact we can recycle the parts, unlike much nuclear parts, which can kill you with radiation...

Nuclear power is in terrawatts per acre while wind and solar measure in the megawatts, i.e., nuclear is a million times more in energy density and less in area required, thereby it is far less massive in parts and equipments than solar and wind per unit of energy generated.

Furthermore, Advanced Generation IV Reactor has been designed based on technology goals, including to improve nuclear safety, improve proliferation resistance, minimize waste, improve natural resource utilization, the ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity, and decrease the cost to build and run such plants.
http://en.wikiped..._reactor

Alternatively to fission reactors, Thorium Reactors are to produce much less nuclear waste.
http://en.wikiped...ar_power
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2015
green, I am one of the engineers who try to help folk make the right decision. I understand them, but do not have a job which depends on them, unlike everyone in the industry.

What are they going to tell you, . . . that their ideas may kill us? That we have no way to even store the deadly left-overs? That we need a police state to control the materials? That we will be dependent on the Nuclear Priesthood, like the ones which ran TMI II, Fermi I, Chernobyl, and Fukushima?
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2015
"Nuclear power is in terrawatts per acre"
--------------------------------------

How many acres were put permanently out of commission by Chernobyl?
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2015
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
How many acres were put permanently out of commission by Chernobyl?
--------------------------------------
How green is this?
http://www3.nhk.o...108.html

Statistics tell us the truth.
Even taking in mind Chernobyl and Fukushima, even if compared to solar and wind, nuclear power has caused less fatalities, less lives lost, less environmental impact per unit of energy generated. That is a fact that numbers show to be true. But sensationalist mass media, opportunistic politicians and nuclear fear mongers will always be around.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2015
"Statistics tell us the truth."
-------------------------------------

I asked you for statistics, Willie, and got propaganda and promises from Nukers. Did you watch my link? Do you understand how they work, and why they are so deadly?

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
Earth itself is naturally radioactive. There is nowhere on Earth that you cannot find Natural Radioactivity.
http://www.physic...ural.htm
http://physicswor...ths-heat
Why a fear so irrational? Ignorance and disinformation.

Carbon-monoxide(CO) is highly toxic while carbon-dioxide(CO2) is breathed out by animals and inhaled by plants.
Some birds, such as canaries, are very sensitive and die in presence of the invisible carbon-monoxide gas so serving as alerting inside coal mines in early times.
http://en.wikiped...sentinel

How many birds has Fukushima killed? Probably wind and solar have slaughtered much more birds than Fukushima.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
Tell you what, Willie, . . I'll fill a room with 60% Oxygen and only 40% CO2, and let's see how long you last. At 60%, you'll have all the Oxygen you want.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015

NHK 'Nuclear Watch' transcript, Mar 31, 2015

NHK: [Naohiro Masuda, president of Tepco's decommissioning company] revealed he's not sure if he can comply with the government set plan [for] removing the fuel…

Naohiro Masuda, president of Tepco's Fukushima Daiichi Decommissioning Company: We have no idea about the debris. We don't know its shape or strength. We have to remove it remotely from 30 meters above, but we don't have that kind of technology, it simply doesn't exist... We still don't know whether it's possible to fill the reactor containers with water. We've found some cracks and holes in the three damaged container vessels, but we don't know if we found them all. If it turns out there are other holes, we might have to look for some other way to remove the debris.

NHK: Asked [about the gov't target to begin by 2020], his answer was surprisingly candid.
Masuda: It's a very big challenge. Honestly speaking, I cannot say it's possible."
gkam
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
One must not be so open-minded that one's brains fall out. I am not new to all of this. They had chance after chance, and it STILL makes no sense to use dangerous technology and 3,000,000 degree F Neutrons to boil water.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2015
Major costs of nuclear are political and ideological.

Cost (US$/MWh):
Advanced Nuclear 67 (almost no bird fatalities)
Wind power 60 (a lot of birds slaughtered) with subsidies?
Coal 74–88
Solar 116–312
Gas 87–346
Geothermal 67
Hydro power 48–86
Biomass 47–117
Fuel Cell 86–111
Wave Power 611
http://en.wikiped...82007.29

Cost $/kW-hr
Nuclear $0.10 (almost no bird fatalities)
Wind $0.08-0.20 (a lot of birds slaughtered) with subsidies?
Solar PV $0.13
Solar Thermal $0.24
Coal $0.10-0.14
Natural Gas $0.07-0.13
Geothermal $0.05
Biomass $0.10
Hydro $0.08
http://www.renewa...ces.com/
http://www.eia.go...tion.pdf

"A Comparison: Land Use by Energy Source - Nuclear, Wind and Solar"
http://www.enterg..._Use.pdf
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2015
Willie, they need you at Fukushima. Really.

They are running out of folk to soak up their maximum amount of radiation. Did you look up how many acres were made permanently uninhabitable by Chernobyl? How many made uninhabitable by old wind farms?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
Earth itself is naturally radioactive. There is nowhere on Earth that you cannot find Natural Radioactivity.
http://www.physic...ural.htm
http://physicswor...ths-heat

Unnaturally, the effects of wind and solar have been disastrous to the environment, large amounts of land, fragmentation of wildlife's habitat, piles and piles of slaughtered birds. An environmental nightmare that is currently being hidden systematically by the pseudo-environmentalists, nuclear fear mongers, mass media and opportunistic politicians, through their biased discourses.
Better, just forget these environmentally hypocrite energy solutions and leave the birds and other wildlife forms living in peace.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
"Protecting the global environment is not an excuse to trash the local environment."
http://www.harrog...-7190285

Noise affecting nearby residents,
Shadow flicker irritating for human eyes
Visual impact of the development on the landscape
Bird collisions

Wind turbines destroy ecosystems, kill birds and bats, and disturb wild animals.

Wind plant infrastructure creates an industrial nightmare in wild and natural settings:
Construction of 70ft wide access roads
Installation of new transmission lines
Construction of power substations
Excavations and concrete for turbine foundations
4-6 acres of forest is clearcut for each turbine.
Construction of a 25-turbine wind facility clears enough trees to fill 100 football fields

Turbines are proven to kill birds and bats.
Turbines are proven to disrupt wild animals and natural habitats.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
Go here, Willie:

http://www3.nhk.o...108.html

They need you. There is real work to be done. Why are you still hiding here, like Bush and Cheney?

BTW I do not know where you got your stuff, but none of that happened when we put in the first real wind farm at Altamont. Are you folk SURE somebody is not using you , . . again?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
Go here, Willie:
http://www3.nhk.o...108.html

How many birds has Fukushima killed? Probably wind and solar have slaughtered much more birds than Fukushima.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
One factor, Willie? I volunteer to clean up the leftovers and waste from wind power generation, if you promise to take the high-level radioactive waste from nukes we cannot even store for long periods.

Okay?? Better start thinking of how to do it. Nobody else as found a way, Willie, it is your chance to be a STAR!
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
Check this out, Willie:

http://www.fierce...15-04-05

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.