Political funny pictures thread, part IV. Bring on the leather!

[jamil]

So, a "modern day lynching" is a hoax perpetrated for some yet to be explained reason. Apparently.

 

[WanderingSol07]

There is a web page by Thomas Homer-Dixon that says the quote is fraudulent and meaningless. He goes on to say the turbine should pay for itself in about 3 years at a good site. They don't put them up at poor sites!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So, a "modern day lynching" is a hoax perpetrated for some yet to be explained reason. Apparently.

Modern day law is becoming like core math. The correct answer isn't important. What's important is that you show how it could be the right answer if you follow bat**** crazy logic.

 

[2A_Tom]

Cannot rep you, that is accurate.

 

[Jerchap2]

Is this true?

Umm, you need to start back s few pages and read the discussion....

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[Jerchap2]

[video=facebook_share;2023919214323451]https://www.facebook.com/turningpointusa/videos/2023919214323451/[/video]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[Route 45]

 

[BugI02]

There is a web page by Thomas Homer-Dixon that says the quote is fraudulent and meaningless. He goes on to say the turbine should pay for itself in about 3 years at a good site. They don't put them up at poor sites!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/16/wind-turbine-payback-period-claimed-to-be-within-8-months/
Wind turbine payback period claimed to be within 8 months

Wind turbines are frequently touted as the answer to sustainable electricity production especially if coupled to high-capacity storage for times when the wind speed is either side of their working range. They offer a power source that has essentially zero carbon emissions.

Coupled lifecycle cost and environmental assessment in terms of energy use and emissions of manufacturing, installation, maintenance and turbine end-of-life processing seems to be limited in the discussions for and against these devices. “All forms of energy generation require the conversion of natural resource inputs, which are attendant with environmental impacts and costs that must be quantified to make appropriate energy system development decisions,” explain Karl Haapala and Preedanood Prempreeda of Oregon State University, in Corvallis.

The pair has carried out a life cycle assessment (LCA) of 2MW wind turbines in order to identify the net environmental impact of the production and use of such devices for electricity production. An LCA takes into account sourcing of key raw materials (steel, copper, fiberglass, plastics, concrete, and other materials), transport, manufacturing, installation of the turbine, ongoing maintenance through its anticipated two decades of useful life and, finally, the impacts of recycling and disposal at end-of-life.

Their analysis shows that the vast majority of predicted environmental impacts would be caused by materials production and manufacturing processes. However, the payback for the associated energy use is within about 6 months, the team found. It is likely that even in a worst case scenario, lifetime energy requirements for each turbine will be subsumed by the first year of active use. Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.

The mistake, or some might call it an inconvenient oversight:

"Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources."

The problem here is the assumption that a wind turbine is the equivalent of a conventional coal or nuclear power plant. It isn’t, and as we know wind is not a constant thing:

“My biggest fear is if you see 20 percent wind on your system, and then it comes off at a time period where you don’t have resources to replace it — that’s going to, could, result in a blackout situation,” he says.

If there was not a backup power source that could be controlled 24/7/365 for those 500 homes, they would be in the dark when the wind falls below minimum levels needed to operate the wind turbine.

As we have seen before, when power is needed most, we can’t always count on the wind to blow at a level that will keep a wind turbine producing, requiring another power source to back it up. Thus, it is a blatant fallacy to claim:

"…each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources."

If you seek a true payback number on that turbine, don't you need to also factor in the cost of whatever electrical storage and back-up or peaking power infrastructure is needed to make it practical?

 

[nonobaddog]

If you seek a true payback number on that turbine, don't you need to also factor in the cost of whatever electrical storage and back-up or peaking power infrastructure is needed to make it practical?

I agree absolutely. Some wind power proponents argue that all electrical generation methods need back up so they want to ignore this cost. However in reality wind power needs the back up more and will use the back up a lot more frequently than conventional power generation methods.

 

[Route 45]

 

[eldirector]

How to make cows "carbon neutral"