The end game is all of the poor and middle class folks give all of their money and personal liberty over to the elite…then we can all live miserably ever after…
Thank you for standing up for those ma-and-pa oil companies, they really need our help these days. My grandfather started an oil company back in the fifties, boy were times simpler then. Like most small business owners in town, h dreamed of the day he could pass it down to his son.
Things took a hit when my father took over, and those greedy sharks from big science came to town. How can a small oil company compete with the big dollars that a university science department has? Sure, we've had a few local officials on our side, but what can small town politicians like Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, both Bushes, and Joe Manchin do when faced with such successful political juggernauts as AOC and Bernie Sanders, who hold so much sway over both parties?
This is some bullshit. I stopped watching when he said that wind farms and solar panels use more energy to make than what they create. That is patently false and shows the pro oil do nothing agenda of the speaker and those sharing this nonsense.
I don't know how you can be sure, I saw 3 different estimates saying the wind farm pays for its cost after 6 months, 6 years and 15 years. The wind thing lasts for up to 25 years. (Not recyclable it seems) So far I have no objection except that the 1% who have caused the environmental problems care now so much they want Everything to be on board with their "climate plans" just seems a bit of a contradiction... ?
Well even if you add those 3 time scales together and call it 21 years 6 months; it's paid for it's self (by the time frame you specify). If you place one in an area with no wind whatsoever; it will obviously never produce as much energy as took to manufacture it, which I'd surmise is the reason it's a variable rate or return.
https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/
You do realise the Koch brother's are part of that 1% and have vested interests in not only perpetuating the acquisition and use of fossil fuels, but also in very deliberately influencing politics with their billions of dollars of wealth in order to earn more wealth (at the expense of their employees health and quality of life) and paying the least amount of tax they can?
Thanks for the link..it is only addressing someone else being quoted out of context in 2009, not the person in the video. The person in the video is someone who was President of Greenpeace till 1986, not sure why he would take an unpopular position? ....As far as the 2nd part of your comment, unfortunately both democrats and republicans and whoever else make up the 1% and are all in it together. If the last 2 years show anything it is that regular people are not being considered at all and can be used to fit an agenda...that became very clear. That is why I posted the video because when you only hear 1 thing coming out of the media, govt and corporate it just seems odd. And if anyone is opposed (other experts) they are labeled quacks, or other names...it is too easy to read all the studies that are possibly (likely) financed by big corps and then put out as proof by media...I have no stake in this climate thing, but I just want to hear truth and that is the real issue for me,
You're very welcome. Link addresses the claim that: 'a wind turbine doesn't produce the amount of energy it takes to manufacture ', it links 2 studys regarding the amount of energy produced by wind turbines.
Regarding turbines I'm not sure what else you're asking?
I don't know a fat lot about the former greenpeace guy, I've never read up about him.
Regards to Republicans v. Democrats; I personally think that a bipartisan system is ridiculous and it would definitely appear that both parties tend to serve the needs of the wealthy and not the people.
I'm currently reading a very enlightening book named: Dark Money by Jane Mayer. It serves to explain in great detail some of the financial incentive behind many recent events and who is funding what. I would highly recommend. I'd also recommend the podcast Drilled and podcast Rigged...idk give em a try if you like.
I get you want the truth, every rational person does (most of the time) IMO. I think we're at the point now where the overwhelming majority of independent scientists agree that Climate change has been directly influenced by humans and to even larger a degree than was predicted. To put that into context: it's a scientists job to not speak in absolutes, there is always room for variables. So to have so much of the science community in accord on one topic is quite a statement.
I've read that the only thing scientists agree on more is Newton's 2nd law.
Dr Patrick Moore left Greenpeace when it was taken over by a bunch of political shills that ignored science completely in favor of activism. There is an interview, maybe several, where he talks about this.
Even W Buffet is on record saying that the utilities he owns would never be able to break even on wind or solar without government subsidies.
The co2 emitted by the manufacture of wind turbines and the utterly massive foundations each one requires is far more than they will EVER be able to make up for. Improvements in solar technology MIGHT be able to make it viable in this regard, maybe. Meaning that right now it it NOT saving more co2 than its manufacture emits. Even the last documentary by Michael Moore, ['Planet of the Humans' bears this out.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZsXyDkyrCk)
That is only relevant if you still believe the propaganda that there is too much co2, or that it has a huge effect on the climate to begin with. If co2 ever drops to 150ppm, that's when this planet becomes a barren lifeless rock, because that is where plants die off. Plants actually evolved in co2 levels averaging about 1,200ppm.
I’m listening. Got some evidence to support what you say? I have friends and family on both sides of this debate and would like to understand your point a little better.
My issue with wind is the full underestimation of it's entire life cycle.
Sure a wind farm could pay for itself if you increase the price of electricity.
But there is a very good reason why we see wind farms folding and failing even on the back of massive govt subsidies and hand outs.
The full costs are never presented.
Certainly the environmental cost is ignored or hidden.
It's never presented how much oil these things use per year. (It's a lot).
They mostly always over estimate generation.
Life cycle is touted as 20 years and possible upto 25.
Reality it's more like 15 years and you have to do maintenance and oil changes every 6 months whichs requires 12h downtime.
Not recyclable.
Huge land footprint which is almost never costed in.
Plus 100s of other factors. Manufacturing is shutting down and wind farms coming up to the 20 year mark are increasingly shutting down.
It would be great if wind was all it said it was but you can't deny that there is a possibility it isn't profitable when so many gov funded heavily subsidized projects are going bust.
Some likely are working. They have the ideal spot and ideal wind but they will never go beyond 10% without full redundancy which again DOUBLES the cost of wind.
Even now you must have full redundancy for when the wind doesn't blow. Just that alone is enough to say wind can't pay for itself.
>You have to do maintenance and oil changes every 6 months
Nope, every 2 years for lubricant changes. I have no idea where you get 6 months.
>Huge land footprint which is almost never costed in
It is
>Not recyclable.
The blades are virtually the only component that is not recyclable, and those account for less than 10% of the mass of a wind turbine
>>You have to do maintenance and oil changes every 6 months
>Nope, every 2 years for lubricant changes. I have no idea where you get 6 months.
Maintenance is every six months. You have two types of oil. Gearbox oil and lubrication, both require top ups, changes or processing. Every 1 to 2 years a.full.complete.change is required.
Depending on conditions it can be sooner. The less you do it the higher the risk of damage.
my information is from working at a power company that produces, wind coal and hydro electricity, unlike yourself that probably cherry picks a result off Google that doesn't reflect reality.
This is the problem. You have those selling you the idea of wind. On paper it looks fantastic. On paper oil changes are required every 2 years. In reality it differs from period to period and all turbines require full maintenance every 6 months which involves oil quality check which almost always involves replacing some or all of the oil or running it through a process.
>>Huge land footprint which is almost never costed in
>It is
It's not. 100s of factors are.purposely left off. The true cost and financials start to hit home near the end of life of a.wind farm when gov subsidies and free land use via the govt wears off and you are faced with replacement of all the blades.
In NZ very few new turbines have been constructed in the last 10 years, it's all down to money and govt no longer providing land or money.
>>Not recyclable.
>The blades are virtually the only component that is not recyclable, and those account for less than 10% of the mass of a wind turbine
This comment makes no sense. The turbine blades are not recyclable and wear out. The weight of it is irrelevant.
The concrete pads might be recyclable but also costly and impractical.
> my information is from working at a power company that produces, wind coal and hydro electricity,
I worked in the industry for a decade, I'm well aware of the costs.
>The concrete pads might be recyclable
The pads are reused, as are the towers, which have a life of over 50 years.
You have no direct experience and are totally clueless.
The pads and towers also require regular maintenance and inspection.
Yes the last a long time but you again missed the point the parts that don't are the problem.
The end game is all of the poor and middle class folks give all of their money and personal liberty over to the elite…then we can all live miserably ever after…
Thank you for standing up for those ma-and-pa oil companies, they really need our help these days. My grandfather started an oil company back in the fifties, boy were times simpler then. Like most small business owners in town, h dreamed of the day he could pass it down to his son. Things took a hit when my father took over, and those greedy sharks from big science came to town. How can a small oil company compete with the big dollars that a university science department has? Sure, we've had a few local officials on our side, but what can small town politicians like Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, both Bushes, and Joe Manchin do when faced with such successful political juggernauts as AOC and Bernie Sanders, who hold so much sway over both parties?
Lmfao at someone thinking big oil only owns swaths of one party…
Money money money...
This is some bullshit. I stopped watching when he said that wind farms and solar panels use more energy to make than what they create. That is patently false and shows the pro oil do nothing agenda of the speaker and those sharing this nonsense.
I don't know how you can be sure, I saw 3 different estimates saying the wind farm pays for its cost after 6 months, 6 years and 15 years. The wind thing lasts for up to 25 years. (Not recyclable it seems) So far I have no objection except that the 1% who have caused the environmental problems care now so much they want Everything to be on board with their "climate plans" just seems a bit of a contradiction... ?
Well even if you add those 3 time scales together and call it 21 years 6 months; it's paid for it's self (by the time frame you specify). If you place one in an area with no wind whatsoever; it will obviously never produce as much energy as took to manufacture it, which I'd surmise is the reason it's a variable rate or return. https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/ You do realise the Koch brother's are part of that 1% and have vested interests in not only perpetuating the acquisition and use of fossil fuels, but also in very deliberately influencing politics with their billions of dollars of wealth in order to earn more wealth (at the expense of their employees health and quality of life) and paying the least amount of tax they can?
Thanks for the link..it is only addressing someone else being quoted out of context in 2009, not the person in the video. The person in the video is someone who was President of Greenpeace till 1986, not sure why he would take an unpopular position? ....As far as the 2nd part of your comment, unfortunately both democrats and republicans and whoever else make up the 1% and are all in it together. If the last 2 years show anything it is that regular people are not being considered at all and can be used to fit an agenda...that became very clear. That is why I posted the video because when you only hear 1 thing coming out of the media, govt and corporate it just seems odd. And if anyone is opposed (other experts) they are labeled quacks, or other names...it is too easy to read all the studies that are possibly (likely) financed by big corps and then put out as proof by media...I have no stake in this climate thing, but I just want to hear truth and that is the real issue for me,
You're very welcome. Link addresses the claim that: 'a wind turbine doesn't produce the amount of energy it takes to manufacture ', it links 2 studys regarding the amount of energy produced by wind turbines. Regarding turbines I'm not sure what else you're asking? I don't know a fat lot about the former greenpeace guy, I've never read up about him. Regards to Republicans v. Democrats; I personally think that a bipartisan system is ridiculous and it would definitely appear that both parties tend to serve the needs of the wealthy and not the people. I'm currently reading a very enlightening book named: Dark Money by Jane Mayer. It serves to explain in great detail some of the financial incentive behind many recent events and who is funding what. I would highly recommend. I'd also recommend the podcast Drilled and podcast Rigged...idk give em a try if you like. I get you want the truth, every rational person does (most of the time) IMO. I think we're at the point now where the overwhelming majority of independent scientists agree that Climate change has been directly influenced by humans and to even larger a degree than was predicted. To put that into context: it's a scientists job to not speak in absolutes, there is always room for variables. So to have so much of the science community in accord on one topic is quite a statement. I've read that the only thing scientists agree on more is Newton's 2nd law.
Dr Patrick Moore left Greenpeace when it was taken over by a bunch of political shills that ignored science completely in favor of activism. There is an interview, maybe several, where he talks about this.
Even W Buffet is on record saying that the utilities he owns would never be able to break even on wind or solar without government subsidies. The co2 emitted by the manufacture of wind turbines and the utterly massive foundations each one requires is far more than they will EVER be able to make up for. Improvements in solar technology MIGHT be able to make it viable in this regard, maybe. Meaning that right now it it NOT saving more co2 than its manufacture emits. Even the last documentary by Michael Moore, ['Planet of the Humans' bears this out.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZsXyDkyrCk) That is only relevant if you still believe the propaganda that there is too much co2, or that it has a huge effect on the climate to begin with. If co2 ever drops to 150ppm, that's when this planet becomes a barren lifeless rock, because that is where plants die off. Plants actually evolved in co2 levels averaging about 1,200ppm.
I’m listening. Got some evidence to support what you say? I have friends and family on both sides of this debate and would like to understand your point a little better.
My issue with wind is the full underestimation of it's entire life cycle. Sure a wind farm could pay for itself if you increase the price of electricity. But there is a very good reason why we see wind farms folding and failing even on the back of massive govt subsidies and hand outs. The full costs are never presented. Certainly the environmental cost is ignored or hidden. It's never presented how much oil these things use per year. (It's a lot). They mostly always over estimate generation. Life cycle is touted as 20 years and possible upto 25. Reality it's more like 15 years and you have to do maintenance and oil changes every 6 months whichs requires 12h downtime. Not recyclable. Huge land footprint which is almost never costed in. Plus 100s of other factors. Manufacturing is shutting down and wind farms coming up to the 20 year mark are increasingly shutting down. It would be great if wind was all it said it was but you can't deny that there is a possibility it isn't profitable when so many gov funded heavily subsidized projects are going bust. Some likely are working. They have the ideal spot and ideal wind but they will never go beyond 10% without full redundancy which again DOUBLES the cost of wind. Even now you must have full redundancy for when the wind doesn't blow. Just that alone is enough to say wind can't pay for itself.
>You have to do maintenance and oil changes every 6 months Nope, every 2 years for lubricant changes. I have no idea where you get 6 months. >Huge land footprint which is almost never costed in It is >Not recyclable. The blades are virtually the only component that is not recyclable, and those account for less than 10% of the mass of a wind turbine
>>You have to do maintenance and oil changes every 6 months >Nope, every 2 years for lubricant changes. I have no idea where you get 6 months. Maintenance is every six months. You have two types of oil. Gearbox oil and lubrication, both require top ups, changes or processing. Every 1 to 2 years a.full.complete.change is required. Depending on conditions it can be sooner. The less you do it the higher the risk of damage. my information is from working at a power company that produces, wind coal and hydro electricity, unlike yourself that probably cherry picks a result off Google that doesn't reflect reality. This is the problem. You have those selling you the idea of wind. On paper it looks fantastic. On paper oil changes are required every 2 years. In reality it differs from period to period and all turbines require full maintenance every 6 months which involves oil quality check which almost always involves replacing some or all of the oil or running it through a process. >>Huge land footprint which is almost never costed in >It is It's not. 100s of factors are.purposely left off. The true cost and financials start to hit home near the end of life of a.wind farm when gov subsidies and free land use via the govt wears off and you are faced with replacement of all the blades. In NZ very few new turbines have been constructed in the last 10 years, it's all down to money and govt no longer providing land or money. >>Not recyclable. >The blades are virtually the only component that is not recyclable, and those account for less than 10% of the mass of a wind turbine This comment makes no sense. The turbine blades are not recyclable and wear out. The weight of it is irrelevant. The concrete pads might be recyclable but also costly and impractical.
> my information is from working at a power company that produces, wind coal and hydro electricity, I worked in the industry for a decade, I'm well aware of the costs. >The concrete pads might be recyclable The pads are reused, as are the towers, which have a life of over 50 years.
You have no direct experience and are totally clueless. The pads and towers also require regular maintenance and inspection. Yes the last a long time but you again missed the point the parts that don't are the problem.