Slashdot Mirror
First US Offshore Wind Farm To Usher In New Era For Industry (ap.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Associated Press: The nation's first offshore wind farm is set to open off the coast of Rhode Island this fall, ushering in a new era in the U.S. for the industry. Developers, federal regulators and industry experts say the opening will move the U.S. industry from a theory to reality, paving the way for the construction of many more wind farms that will eventually provide power for many Americans. Deepwater Wind is building a five-turbine wind farm off Block Island, Rhode Island to power about 17,000 homes. The project costs about $300 million, according to the company. CEO Jeffrey Grybowski said the Block Island wind farm enables larger projects because it proves that wind farms can be built along the nation's coast. Offshore wind farms, which benefit from strong winds because of their location, are being proposed near population epicenters that lack the space to build on land. Indeed, several states are pushing ambitious clean energy goals, which include offshore wind. Among them is California, which has a target of generating 50 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2030. Vermont hopes to hit 55 percent by next year and Hawaii has called for 100 percent renewable power by 2045.
As a former marine engineer I have doubts. Unless materials science has changed dramatically, things do not thrive in ocean environments. Those materials that last longest tend to be very expensive. Maintenance on land based windmills is expensive and dangerous ... out there it will be a serious problem.
...omphaloskepsis often...
it will take 16.96 years to pay that $300 million back.
That is about a 6% ROI, at a time when banks get 3.5% on 30 year mortgages. Seems like a good investment to me.
Meanwhile, in England, Theresa May just semi-canceled the Hinkley Point nuclear project because the falling price of wind energy was making new nukes uncompetitive.
I wonder why it costs $300 million to build FIVE wind turbines. Are they built by a defense contractor or something? Really, wind turbines cost $10 million a piece,
AAnd again where slashdot has eaten my smaller signs. I've meant to say "Really, wind turbines cost < $10 million a piece". $10 million is an upper bound, and very highly put (most turbines cost way less than that).
Note: it takes 17 years to recoup your initial investment; you'll make profit only for the last 3 years of the 20 year lifespan. Assuming the annual income rate is (1/17 * 300 million) $17.6 million, you're looking to make $53 million on that investment, over a 20 year period. That's about a 0.82% rate. And that assumes your maintenance costs are zero...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
At the average price for electricity(14.4 cents per kW/h) in RI at the average household electricity usage per month(602 kW/h) it will take 16.96 years to pay that $300 million back. That assumes no operating costs or maintenence costs. Which is obviously bullshit. Turbines have, at max, a 20 year lifespan. But of course, green energy is viable, blah blah blah. Oh, and all this assumes constant delivery, which is never the case for wind as well.
You seem to be knowledgeable in the field, so can you give us some more detail about Turbans(*)?
1) Will the cost be $300 million per 5 turbines for any number of turbines, or will there be an economy of scale when building bigger installations?
2) Will the cost be $300 million per 5 turbines forever, or will they get increasingly cheaper (or more expensive) in the future?
3) Will the average price for electricity go up, down, or generally stay the same over the next 20 years?
4) Will the costs of generating electricity using current technology (95% el-gen is natural gas in RI) go up as natural gas reserves are depleted?
5) Will the average 20 year lifetime of turbines get better for future turbines?
6) You mention assumptions ("assumes constant delivery") in your post. Are there any other assumptions that I should be asking about?
(*) Yes, it was on purpose. See here.
You mean the reactor design that the company itself hasn't quite figured out how to get to work right in a full scale reactor instead of the smaller ones in Finland? That Hinkley Point? Not to mention that you managed to ignore the fact that it doesn't include maintenance costs. Or that a significant number of NG plants will have to be installed to spool up the extra electricity as needed given wind turbines uneven electricity generation, which means it'll take even longer than the 16.96 years assuming everything works perfectly. Or that no studies have been done on the lifetime of wind turbines exposed regularly to saltwater, but the probable result is a shortened lifespan.
http://www.deepwaterresistance...
Lets see the company was banned from Narraganset
Promised hundreds of new jobs from the project which will actually only deliver 6
Last Project off Block Island will cost tax payers half a billion to fix.
Overall sounds like great return on equity. Maybe they will try investing at the federal level next.
You don't need constant delivery, you only need to make sure that electrical generation is always greater than electrical demand.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Building anything to handle a 100% salt spray exposure dramatically increases the cost. Have a boat on a lake? Takes some maintenance. Have the same boat on the ocean/saltwater harbor and required maintenance skyrockets. Saltwater is incredibly corrosive. What works in fresh water will quickly die in saltwater (even stainless steel will corrode away in saltwater). Add in parts that have full 360 degree spins so open bearing races (sure, lubricated - but still open) and you're asking for a lot of trouble.
On land, you can use a lot of materials that simply will not hold up to constant salt spray exposure (like aluminum).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Even on land wind turbines are barely worth it because of the constant maintenance costs. You literally have to have men climb up them and oil them every few months. Don't forget to add in the cost of the men who fall off and die.
Wind is a trash method of generating electricity.
you'll make profit only for the last 3 years of the 20 year lifespan.
The "max 20 year lifespan" is something that Ravenshrike (the GPP) pulled out of his butt. There are offshore turbines in Denmark that already exceed that, and we have learned a lot about building offshore turbines since then. For instance, modern turbines are much bigger and installed much higher above the water than they were 25 years ago. These turbines will stand more than 100 meters above the sea. There is very little salt spray up that high. They will likely be active for much longer than 20 years.
Note: it takes 17 years to recoup your initial investment; you'll make profit only for the last 3 years of the 20 year lifespan.
In 20 years, when the accountants finally add up the sums . . . the folks who organized all this will be retired and drinking cocktails on the beach in the Caribbean. So it will not be a problem for them if the whole thing is later exposed as a scam.
The next generation of younger politicians will sweep the mess under the carpet . . . so that they can profit from a newer, more ambitious project.
And that assumes your maintenance costs are zero...
Flipper and Aqua Man have agreed to do the maintenance for free!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
If you factor in the 3.5% they could earn on that $300M the pay back time is closer to 50 years. Plus, as you say, factoring in less than 100% output all the time, maintenance, and operations it's clear the this will never be cheaper than current sources of electricity. I suppose one selling point is that subsequent offshore wind farms will be cheaper to build as they get more experience.
So how long do they last? You castigate Ravenshrike for pulling things out of his butt, but you do the same and say they will be active for much longer than 20 years.
Additionally, direct spray isn't needed to corrode your metal. Ask anyone who lives near the ocean - direct exposure isn't needed, and most salt spray/salt fog tests do not need to directly spray saltwater at the object - just high salt content moisture in the air is damaging.
Lastly, given that Denmark has extremely high power rates (about 3X that in the US), perhaps they are the perfect example of why offshore wind is not really a good bet - the power generated is very expensive due to very high maintenance costs. What I see is that offshore wind maintenance costs are on par with the TOTAL cost of electricity for much of the US. Just maintenance alone costs more than the entire cost of power generation. That's not a good sign...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
That is about a 6% ROI
No, it isn't. The asset is fully depreciated after 20 years. That alone eats your ROI.
It's slashdot not talk radio so how about numbers in megawatts instead of "enough to power X homes" or volkswagens per libraries of congress or similar utterly useless descriptions?
Which is what I meant and exactly what wind turbines don't do. Which is why you have to supplement the with other sources, preferably NG plants.
When you're on an island electricity costs a whole lot more ($0.44/kWh), plus a summertime surcharge.
This wind project also connects Block island to the mainland grid
The initial agreed upon energy pricing is $0.244 per kWh, Thus the return will be ~10% per year.
Thus a check mark in the win column for all parties..
The wind turbines will fail way before 16.96 years have gone by and the company that put it in place would be just a memory.
Australia gives gas and coal power generators billions in subsidies per year, they are not viable either.
Maybe we have to look at the other side of the equation - our over consumption.
We've lived the good life at the cost of the planet, time for us all to get real
Go well
The lesser than sign is also the opening character of an HTML tag. Try <
The project costs $300 million. As stated elsewhere on this thread, the project consists of more than just 5 turbines.
Yes. I pulled it out of my ass. Interestingly, my ass now has a web address.
http://www.windmeasurementinte...
Found on my ass are significant amounts of text. Among them the following.
A modern wind turbines will be designed to work for 120 000 hours throughout their estimated life-span of 20 years. This would be the turbine operating for approximately 66% of the time for two decades. This is far more than modern car engine which is built to last for 4 000 to 6 000 hours of use. This equates to an average of 49 minutes driving a day over the same two decades.
The initial agreed upon price assumed a project cost of 200 million. It went up by 50% before they've even broke ground. Final cost is likely to be even higher.
They won't just be buying five turbines. They have to install them offshore which is more expensive than pouring a concrete foundation onshore. Plus they will be setting up the cables to transmit the electricity and data monitoring back to onshore. This will be expensive, especially for the closest mile or so to shore where any cables will need to be buried. But this cost is shared between the turbines and if they get permission to expand the wind farm in the future the only additional expense will for the new turbine and base and the connection to their new grid.
Note: it takes 17 years to recoup your initial investment; you'll make profit only for the last 3 years of the 20 year lifespan. Assuming the annual income rate is (1/17 * 300 million) $17.6 million, you're looking to make $53 million on that investment, over a 20 year period. That's about a 0.82% rate. And that assumes your maintenance costs are zero...
Wrong-A-Rio. That 20 years maximum limit, after which the turbines are apparently going to blow up an all the parts will kill every puppy in teh world is maximus bullshit. It's the same sort of BS that people use to say that solar panels die immediately after the warranty period, or any of the other FUD they spout.
These devices are built to be maintained, and are capital equipment just like a Natural gas turbine of Nuc power generating plant. You don't abandon those plants 3 years after their payback now do you? Abandon the Nuc plant instead of changing out the fuel? Probably not. You maintain and continue to use them.
The offshore wind plants are more expensive to build, obviously And while we've been building a lot of the turbines here in the US - we've had the advantage of having a lot of open land and windy places to put them, unlike Europe where things are a little more crowded.
But they are doing just fine, a capital investment just like any other type of power generation method.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Most species of seabirds will soon be extinct, but our benevolent government assures us that it's not due to offshore wind farms.
OK, so why is offshore wind about the worst source of electricity when you look at the levelized cost? It lags behind onshore wind and PV - significantly. Costs for offshore are very high - and maintenance is a big killer. Should you abandon after 20 years? Probably not - but the reality is your return is MUCH closer to what I posted (0.82%) than what the GP posted (6%).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So how long do they last? You castigate Ravenshrike for pulling things out of his butt, but you do the same and say they will be active for much longer than 20 years.
Well, its no more pulled out of his ass than the turbines around here, where they get shut down every so often, get some maintenance, and start right back up. These things are not built to be disposable, and capital depreciation and every single element that any other power generation method is in force. Wind power does not have special laws of business and physics that makes them unmaintainable and self destruct after whatever period you choose to have them self destruct at.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If they made so many installations then they must have made some headway on maintenance in a salt water environment.
Or they "must" be paying a ton of money to keep the white elephants spinning.
I've seen the future of wind farms, at the southern tip of Hawaii, in the plains of California... after fifteen to twenty years of playing with the toys they all end up as decaying eyesores once people realize they cost a lot more than they give back in power.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So how long do they last?
The first wind turbines were installed in Denmark 25 years ago, and are still operational. So they last at least 25 years. Modern turbines are expected to last much longer, due to better materials, better design, and much greater height above the sea (100 meters for the Rhode Island turbines), which means less exposure to salt.
No, Morton Salt reactors, in the Utah.
A modern wind turbines will be designed to work for 120 000 hours throughout their estimated life-span of 20 years. This would be the turbine operating for approximately 66% of the time for two decades. This is far more than modern car engine which is built to last for 4 000 to 6 000 hours of use. This equates to an average of 49 minutes driving a day over the same two decades.
Does it say why exactly why a wind turbine is impossible to maintain, or exactly why they fall apart after 20 years? And why you have to start over again on all aspects? Pretty scary, because that means a whole shitload here are going to fail at the same time, are halfway through their unalterable lifetime, and we better tell the people maintaining them that they are waisting their time. because there is no point. 20 years after installation, it invariably goes completely kaput.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So in a multiple item auction, the only way to prevent more people from winning than there are items is to add more items as needed? That's funny!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
OK, so why is offshore wind about the worst source of electricity when you look at the levelized cost? It lags behind onshore wind and PV - significantly. Costs for offshore are very high - and maintenance is a big killer. Should you abandon after 20 years? Probably not - but the reality is your return is MUCH closer to what I posted (0.82%) than what the GP posted (6%).
Location location location. The alternative for the Island is diesel fuel. Diesel fuel has known problems, but is relatively compact. So you use what makes for the best source. A nuc plant would take up valuable resources like space. As well, the evacuation plans in case of an emergency would be a problem on a small island. And yes, a fair number of people don't like it.
So yeah - an offshore windfarm is a compromise. But all power sources are compromises. So we have an island that is about 9.7 square miles, and a population of 1041 (2010 census) Apparently the Turbines are going to power about 17,000 homes, so obviously there will be power goint to the mainland as well.
So what is your solution?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
America's latest 500 year rainstorm is underway right now in Louisiana:
https://psmag.com/americas-lat...
This tends to reduce agricultural output and habitable land.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Putting wind farms near "population epicenters" (points on the earth's surface directly above the origin of the population?) makes me think of vast colonies of mole people...
Thanks for the info. I figured as much. In 20 years we can replace the turbines at $10 million apiece and get another 20 years of service for much less.
It seems lots of people on this site are four-square against any type of renewable energy, and try to rationalize their claims to the audience by making reasonable-sounding economic arguments.
The arguments just don't pass the sniff test, and completely ignore evidence from other countries and seem rather short-sighted, given that natural gas is a fixed resource.
I've often wondered if the Koch brothers or other moneyed interests actually pay people to troll Slashdot with political bias. Tesla bashing is another one.
That would be an awesome hacker leak or insider interview, don't you think? An insider view of a sock-puppet factory, how people get paid to post political opinions on high-traffic newsfeeds.
Eh, no, in the US-of-A, externalized costs of fossil-fuel magically disappears and never has to get picked up by anyone.
(Evidence: See pretty much 90% of the posts in this thread)
No, but as a European resident, I can say, "We've had these things for 20 years--where've you guys been, anyway?"
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Two of my great uncles were killed in the coal mines. My granddad ended up with black lung eventually, even though he only spent about 10 years working there before he got out of Kentucky.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You must be one of those accountant types who believe that depreciation somehow means that something is worthless and needs to be thrown away.
The wind turbines will fail way before 16.96 years have gone by and the company that put it in place would be just a memory.
Why? What makes them magically fail? Industrial gear lasting 17 years? hahahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahhahahahhaahh yeah we'd still be in the bronze age if that was true.
No not every turbine is going to fail in 20 years. Some will fail sooner, some later and maybe one will fail at exactly 20 years, but I doubt it. Average means average. Why do you keep trying to bury yourself in this position? The original poster figured out the costs on this particular project were not very good. QED.
The first wind turbines were installed in Denmark 25 years ago, and are still operational. So they last at least 25 years.
Putting aside the fact that the plural^W singular of anecdote does not suddenly become data just because... green, your very own link shows that "last" is a meaningless term in a vacuum:
In 2016, DONG Energy considered shutting down the wind farm, as it is well past its design life and had become uneconomical.
Not to mention the fact that the lifespan of these things averages 20 years so you only get a few years of profitability. But in 20 years, the money will be worth less so the replacement cost will likely be about 50% more (using CPI). Sure, you make some 70 to 80 million in those three years (which won't get passed on to the customers, btw), but then the replacement cost will eat through that in a heartbeat. Basically, the project will lose money in perpetuity.
Another reason is that the electricity it produces will cost more than twice the standard price.
Power to the mainland, you say? So something like a "transmission line" will be built? Well then - put the turbines on land, run a transmission line - and you're done! No need for offshore, is there?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Power to the mainland, you say? So something like a "transmission line" will be built? Well then - put the turbines on land, run a transmission line - and you're done! No need for offshore, is there?
Land is the problem in this case. There is no doubt that an on-land set of wind turbines would be more economical and easy to service. But then you'd be running perhaps 17 miles of cables instead of 8 or so. (I'm not certain of the specific placement of the towers) But there's possibly a substation that can be eliminated.
But we are talking about Rhode Island, which is a pretty densely populated place. Land for Turbines doesn't just show up easily.
But yeah - obviously there will have to be transmission lines going to both places.
Near us, along the Allegheny front, there are a lot of turbines going up, and more are being built. Only a few are complaining, and they seem to have a back to the caves mentality. You know, back when we only had woodburning computers, and we were grateful for them.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
A rise in the Earths temperature of 2C (which is about the forecast at the moment) means a MASSIVE increase in agricultural output and expansion of habitat land.
Extremely unlikely. The seasons don't change, so everything that is ice free still has its long winter and long summer and no spring and no autumn.
Where should the land come from? We simply have no idea
o which areas will suffer from
a) more rain
b) more heat
o wich areas will gain from
c) more rain
d) more heat
The idea that with 2C temperature increase we have more food is idiotic at best.
even if you believe the fantasy CO2 has anything to do with warming ...
Believes are for religion not for science
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There is no doubt that an on-land set of wind turbines would be more economical
Your parents are idiots, and you start falling for them.
NO! Land based wind farms are not more economical. They are much more expensive because of their relatively low yield and relatively low capacity factors.
The exact same turbine installed offshore will probably produce 4 to 8 times the energy a land based will. Because: at sea is more wind! And you place them higher! Which again leads to _more wind_. And then again: you have more windy hours in a year on sea than on land, which means: even more air passing thru your turbines! Off shore wind farms have CFs between 40% and 120% in single cases even close to 150% (EnBWs BALTIC I and BALTIC II plants e.g.) The same turbines that where used in the BALTIC wind farms placed on land would idle a good deal of time because: no wind. And they would produce much less energy when not idling because the wind speed on land is much lower.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And you must be one of those idiots who keeps tools around after they become useless for their assigned task. These are offshore wind turbines. That means placement area is at a premium, they can't just erect more when their power output drops. Thus, if the turbines are needed to put out X amount of power, but because of their age have an output of X - Y, you can't just easily build more, you have to scrap the existing ones and erect new ones. Now, you can probably keep the tower, depending on corrosion, but that's one of the cheaper parts. Not to mention depending on how they build them it might just be more economical to scrap what's there than to try and retrofit everything in place.
arguably, even if the ROI was absolutely nihil, 300M to experiment with a non-carbon technology are still a reasonably good investment for the long term security of Americans. Better than, say, half a wing of one of these:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
Power output dropping? Man you have no idea do you. Power output doesn't magically drop with age. You restore power generation equipment to as new condition with a simple bearing change. The only thing that causes output to drop is catastrophic failure. Hell the turbines we run at our plant are 40 years old and they have never been rewound, are on the original stators, one suffered a dislogged rotor bar at one point but even that has now a 20+ year old rotor in there. They still produce the same amount of power with the same efficiency rating as they day we bought it. ... Could use a coat of paint though.
But hey don't take my word for it. The oldest offshore windfarm in the world is 25 years old. It still produces as much power today as it did on the first day it was turned on. The only reason it's shutting down is because it was an experiment to prove a concept using older technology that relied on government subsidies which have been withdrawn this year.
The only reason something like this becomes "useless" is if the external economics changes significantly from the design criteria.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to go buy a new car. It was fully depreciated on the company books 5 years ago and as such you just pointed out to me that it has become useless, and I don't want to own a useless car.
I'm from California. We've been playing this game since the 70s. Every time the subsidies are pulled the project dies.
Every. Single. Fucking. Time.
So here is my answer going forward to any retard that says "oh but this time man its totally going to make money... we swear."... I say "well, good... then you don't need public funding because IF you're not either lying or retarded then you should be able to get private funding for your almost certainly retarded idea."
So that's the answer.
Now, still waiting for what you people would accept as evidence for YOU being wrong.
I cited my criteria which I feel are sensible, self consistent, and reliable.
Please please... give me your criteria.
My experience is that no criteria will be offered because the precept that wind energy is a good idea is ultimately a tautology of belief and not in any way based on any empirical reality.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Vermont targeting 100% by 2017?! Way to go, Bernie! You should run for president!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Not sold at cost - you really don't get this capitalism thing do you?
So the government should step in and stop the wind generators?
Lend me some roubles comrade, I need to line up for toilet paper in your perfect society.
All this naive charging at windmills would have your great-grandad laugh at you and smack you on the back of the head. There's a novel that's been out for centuries that shows how stupid this shit is.
1. Care in shopping for power is irrelevant. The power is competitive or it is not.
2. Nuclear power is mostly government involved because of regulation and fear of misuse of the technology for purposes other than power generation. It also has massively inflated costs in current times due to anti nuclear activism that has made it impossible to store spent fuel despite all reasonable precautions being addressed. A better assessment of the economics of nuclear power would be looking at Russia or China where you can see they find the technology to be vastly more cost efficient due to not having to deal with the same political interference.
3. Hydroelectric dams are actually very cost efficient and break even with investment rather rapidly. The only reason you get government involvement is because you're reshaping mountains, eminent domaining entire valleys, and changing water rights through the rivers. The regulations involved with moving rivers, reshaping valleys, and voiding the deeds to entire populations is why it goes government... not because of the money.
With solar you have none of the problems of nuclear or hydro electric dams. In fact, your situation is much more comparable to coal or natural gas in that your technology isn't dangerous and doesn't need to deal with huge amounts of red tape because of zoning... So conflating your needs with that is not rational.
If you want solar, the best method is to encourage more people to put solar panels on their roofs... not fund giant solar plants. Look at all that unused roof space. In many parts of the US, solar on roofs is being discouraged... fees are being charged to people that install these on their roofs because the local utilities are losing money. Effectively, solar installers are being fined for being efficient.
The same thing should happen with wind. Rural and suburban America should have solar and wind on their own property as they see fit. The suburbs and rural areas should be able to self supply to a large extent on that basis. Urban areas should get over their irrational fears of nuclear and just accept it as the best form of energy for the cities... which is what it is and shall remain until we get something better. Solar and wind ain't it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. I addressed the nuclear power issue.
2. The hydro issue is again a conflation of environmental politics with economic viability. Politics is not economics or logistics.
3. Solar is generally good on 99.9 percent of roofs. Fly over a suburb and spot the roofs that are not totally exposed to the sky. Its very very very few.
4. Cities have increasing populations because of subsidies. The housing is subsidized, the food is subsidized, the medical care is subsidized, the education is subsidized... and the birth rate in cities is shit... and has always been shit. We hear endlessly about how people want to improve the economy and improve birth rates... well... consider not subsidizing stupid urban planning. Just a thought. The higher the urbanization the worse it gets. Consider that it is a false correlation to associate urbanization with modernity. That was a context of the industrial revolution which is not prescriptive on future logistical paradigms.
5. As to examples of the fees utilities charge solar installations... well known and easily found... anyone that can use google will find many examples of it. Here is one:
http://www.scientificamerican....
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Nope. You simply ignored everything and made the same dumb argument people like you always make. The issue was addressed. Nuclear is entirely competitive outside political interference by anti nuclear activists.
2. Your lack of agreement that 1+1=2 is not required for 1+1=2
Politics is not economics or logistics.
3. Anyone that walks around in the suburbs or rural areas and just has eye balls can see it.
4. Jobs exist in places where labor is... its a dynamic relationship. Cut the subsidies and the labor won't be there and the jobs will follow the labor. You can't evaluate economics if you don't understand economics.
5. I made a claim and I substantiated that claim when asked for a citation. Your goalpost move is noted for what it is and ignored.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Negative, it is competitive outside of that interference as you yourself conceded. End of story. The only difference is that you think that interference is legitimate. That's a different discussion and one I'm not interested in right now. You've already conceded the point. You're just not clever enough to see it.
2. Hydro cannot be conflated with solar as one requires government involvement for damming rivers where as putting some solar panels on the ground does not. Your unwillingness to concede the obvious is not required.
3. As to who I trust, cite your source if you want to play the citation game. I'll make you very sorry for doing this but if you want to be punished for acting like an idiot, I am happy to do that. Cite your source please. Direct citation. This is a very stupid move on your part. But if you want to do it. Do it.
4. You say "reasons" but don't say what any of them are... I gave reasons because ironically, it is you that is ignorant and not myself.
5. You asked for a citation and I gave you one. Your distress as being contradicted with a citation is not my problem and if you goal post move, I'll note the goal post move because I'm not an intellectual lightweight.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. You're making the Somalia argument... I think I'll call this argumentum ad somalia.
2. Your dam rebuttal makes no sense in the context of dams. You're now arguing that the regulatory burden of daming a river and creating artificial lakes is the same as putting solar panels on the ground. This is literally stupid. And since you made this argument you're either fail trolling or are yourself stupid. Either way your point is not acceptable on any logical basis.
3. No citation from your google source... so I can ignore that now. Thanks.
4. Failing to give reasons means you simply referring to an argument that you didn't actually make. Absent you making an argument about economics that has any falsifiable component, I can't address it because it is not actually an argument. You're just saying you have an argument... but you're not defining it so its a null argument until defined. I can as easily respond that I have a rebuttal to the argument you're not making.
5. A goal post move will remain a goal post move indifferent to how badly you need to move the goal post. The problems with your own argument are not my problem.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. Baseless insult.
2. Nuclear power operates very efficiently outside their influence. Thus the impact of the influence is prescriptive on efficiency.
3. Cite your source for why I'm wrong or this is just posturing.
4. Baseless insult.
5. I could use the same argument against people using the Great Depression as the singular economic example and yet everyone seems to do it. This is just more posturing on your part.
We can go into things if you're at all able to do more than posture and insult. But I rather suspect that's all you've got.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You realise that the energy derived from fossil fuels in the US is propped up by gutting money from health care, education and other vital fields? Not to mention the knock on effect that the burning of those fuels has on the environment and health (hint: the added health care coasts run into the hundreds of billions per year). You may be saving at the socket, but you are paying for it elsewhere.
Sure, the Danes are paying more for their power. But they also enjoy an affordable, top-tier health care system, well-funded educational institutions, one of the highest life expectancy rates in the world and an overall higher standard of living than in the US.
Enjoy your cheap electricity, buddy.
You got me thinking, given they don't just blow up, that we should consider the cost of having to dismantle and remove them as there service life comes to an end.
I suspect no one has taken that into consideration.
If I were to hazard a guess, it will end up being a "George Washington's original Axe - with three new heads and four new handles" sort of thing.
The output of wind turbines has been constantly going up. The towers probably are essentially permanent - perhaps the blades may need replacement. over time.
But for the most part, if we repair or replace as parts wear, and do regular maintenance, I would surmise they would last a long time. Certainly longer than the 20 years quoted by so many. I'm guessing that unless the main stalk gets fatigue cracked by the pushing of the turbine, 50 plus years is not out of th question
Another thought. How much of the cost of a wind turbine farm is buying the land, cutting the roads, and pouring the bases? Even a total replacement of the arial part of the structure will probably cost less than starting over again.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Your argument makes no sense unless you are comparing with the alternatives. ie what are the comparable costs for Coal, Nuclear, Steam, Hydro, Solar etc?
I personally have no idea, but a 17 year pay back sounds awfully good for this type of project.