Abandoned Wind Farm in the Oklahoma Panhandle: Revisited 2021

[Meredith Poor + 883]

Content for 'I told you sos':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSb-33aXK3E

 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Dempsey Ridge or Wind-Catcher Farm?

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Yep those Greenies are crying a River that meets all EPA standards of course!!! There large ugly structures that are not recyclable at all, costly to transport and erect and no where to put other then bury when obsolete....

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

From the get go any Decarbonization plan without a massive expansion of hydropower nuclear and a development of geothermal is basically bullshit, there are countries that are mostly nuclear electricity, or a good chunk, Sweden, France, Ukraine(cheapest power in the world tho) Hungary, Czech Republic

There are many countries in which Hydropower is most if not all electricity, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Brazil, Canada,

Iceland is the only country where most the energy comes from Renewable, cavet, is all Hydro and Geothermal, so when people in Australia thinks that Solar will be like Hydro and Geothermal, is kinda laughable

The biggest expansions in clean energy had been Nuclear and Hydro , and Period.

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Sebastian Meana

[Boat + 1,315]

Actually I have read where older wind and solar get obsoleted just by advances in technology. In 15 years what’s going in today may lose their competitiveness to the latest version. 
While some wing dings laugh at greenies for old tech and how it’s legacy messes are handled just remember it’s your state legislature that is responsible. Like big oil has millions of legacy wells you can add solar, wind and battery messes to come. Do you have faith in red states doing a better job cleaning up/preventing their mess or blue states. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Boat

[ronwagn + 6,290]

What would create the most ugly, dangerous, polluting clean up problems? Loss of health and longevity?

Nuclear plants, nuclear waste, nuclear pollution including mining, cost of guarding the nuclear waste for thousands of years?

Oil wells and pipelines that may leak or are are left in various stages not in compliance with best practices? They have very little visual pollution. Maybe someone can tell me how awful they are, I have never noticed.

Wind turbines?

Dams and reservoiers that are filled in with silt and pollution?

Coal waste that is left in somewhat precarious locations that can rupture or leak. The emissions that have various toxic chemicals, and the filtered substances that are collected from the smokestacks. 

Natural gas plants and pipelines. 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

What would create the most ugly, dangerous, polluting clean up problems? Loss of health and longevity?

Nuclear plants, nuclear waste, nuclear pollution including mining, cost of guarding the nuclear waste for thousands of years?

Oil wells and pipelines that may leak or are are left in various stages not in compliance with best practices? They have very little visual pollution. Maybe someone can tell me how awful they are, I have never noticed.

Wind turbines?

Dams and reservoiers that are filled in with silt and pollution?

Coal waste that is left in somewhat precarious locations that can rupture or leak. The emissions that have various toxic chemicals, and the filtered substances that are collected from the smokestacks. 

Natural gas plants and pipelines. 

 

Look Ron I'm all about the gas. Highest rates of return in the energy and chemical industry come from cheap gas. But I really wish you would look into how much nuclear waste there really is, and compare that to toxic waste volumes produced by other industries. It really isn't that bad. 

[hemanthaa@mail.com + 64]

Wind farm came to an end not due to lack on wind; I hear plenty of gusts in the background.

This resonates very well with the fate of the Stone Age despite the presence of plenty of stones!

[NickW + 2,714]

On 3/9/2021 at 8:24 PM, RichieRich216 said:

Yep those Greenies are crying a River that meets all EPA standards of course!!! There large ugly structures that are not recyclable at all, costly to transport and erect and no where to put other then bury when obsolete....

All that Steel, Aluminium and Copper isn't recyclable?

Good job there are no derelict coal, oil, or gas infrastructure around the USA (or other countries) or your comment would look really stupid. 

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

23 hours ago, Boat said:

Actually I have read where older wind and solar get obsoleted just by advances in technology. In 15 years what’s going in today may lose their competitiveness to the latest version. 
While some wing dings laugh at greenies for old tech and how it’s legacy messes are handled just remember it’s your state legislature that is responsible. Like big oil has millions of legacy wells you can add solar, wind and battery messes to come. Do you have faith in red states doing a better job cleaning up/preventing their mess or blue states. 

As most of the expense is upfront its sunk investment costs so they will continue to operate to the end of their  useful lives. The 1500W of solar on my roof will remain there until they fail no matter how good the new products become. 

In terms of commercial farms In some cases they will be redeployed due to planning restrictions. We see this in the UK with existing solar and wind sites being repowered (easier to get PP on an existing site) with the older panels / smaller turbines being resold on the 2nd hand market. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by NickW

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

18 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Look Ron I'm all about the gas. Highest rates of return in the energy and chemical industry come from cheap gas. But I really wish you would look into how much nuclear waste there really is, and compare that to toxic waste volumes produced by other industries. It really isn't that bad. 

It just takes one to go wrong...then you regret the whole thing. Think the Japan problem...who wants that here.  Tenth anniversary of the Japan problem coming up this year.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Ecocharger

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Look Ron I'm all about the gas. Highest rates of return in the energy and chemical industry come from cheap gas. But I really wish you would look into how much nuclear waste there really is, and compare that to toxic waste volumes produced by other industries. It really isn't that bad. 

I see your point. The fact is that It is not a popular technology and is not politically acceptable in America or Canada or most places in the world. 

It is not economically competitive and takes about ten years to build one if everything goes well. This may be due to red tape but I don't think that many new plants will be built for whatever reason. 

Financing is not available due to the terrible results of attempting to build new ones.

It is as they say a "moot point" IMHO. 

I have spent ten years researching all the best energy options and continue to do so. I am ready to accept real proof that will move me from natural gas, methane, biogas, biomass etc. I am OK with oil too. OK with wind in non scenic areas and especially over the horizons of the oceans and Great Lakes. 

OK with solar to the max especially in buildings and rooftops of large warehouses etc. 

Nuclear power plants are now losing money but are being subsidized by the customers due to politicians on the take. 

Dangers and Real Costs of Nuclear Plants and Radioactive Waste

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by ronwagn

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I see your point. The fact is that It is not a popular technology and is not politically acceptable in America or Canada or most places in the world. 

It is not economically competitive and takes about ten years to build one if everything goes well. This may be due to red tape but I don't think that many new plants will be built for whatever reason. 

Financing is not available due to the terrible results of attempting to build new ones.

It is as they say a "moot point" IMHO. 

I have spent ten years researching all the best energy options and continue to do so. I am ready to accept real proof that will move me from natural gas, methane, biogas, biomass etc. I am OK with oil too. OK with wind in non scenic areas and especially over the horizons of the oceans and Great Lakes. 

OK with solar to the max especially in buildings and rooftops of large warehouses etc. 

Nuclear power plants are now losing money but are being subsidized by the customers due to politicians on the take. 

Dangers and Real Costs of Nuclear Plants and Radioactive Waste

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

 

It kinda is in India China Russia and will be again in france once they go trough the 6th Republic

Coal is the fuel of the third world and it is because it needs very little infrastructure, for natural gas you need a long system of pipelines that handle 70 bar of pressure, with compression stations every few tens of km, and a compressor system to store it underground, and constantly consuming source and a producing source, liquefaction regasification terminal which are expensive

Coal, you can just put it in a truck, or a normal barge, or train, because is solid, it keeps its shape.

The average wholesale electricity price of  Palo Verde, South Texas project, and Donald C. Cook is 25-30U$D/MWh, while for CCGT is around 30-45U$D/MWh, the whole radioactive waste thing, i'm not gonna waste myself explaining it, separate cesium and strontium, and at worst it will last 300 years, plutonium will not kill you unless you eat it because Alpha radiation is just Helium.

Natural gas has been a popular fuel because gas turbines are really efficient, and because natural gas is now really cheap, it will for some reason or another go back to 4U$D/MMbtu (200U$DT) again which is the historical average price,

And is going to go out from power generation like oil simply because we will find something better to do with it rather than burning it, oil didn't get out of power generation because we forgot or couldn't extract it for 150U$D/T, oil exited power generation because refineries would pay more for the same barrel than powerplants since they produce a higher value product.

What is a better business buying 200U$D of natural gas to sell 350U$D of electricity, or buying 200U$D of natural gas to sell 500 U$D of synthetic fuel? or synthetic oil if the oil price gets out of hands

Wind and solar is between a waste of time and a scam

Common, you just have to look annual reports and search other sources for revenue that they don't explicity state, Orsted is weird for some reason they dont declare the cost of every wind farm the build or how much revenue that wind farm makes or how much electricity it actually generated

Avangrid had a wind and solar generation of 14.7 TWh and a revenue of 6.32 billion U$D, thats 430U$D/MWh
Orsted offshore wind operations had a revenue 5.63 billion U$D, and generated 15.2TWh thats 370U$D/MWh

Countries that mantained a bit the power prices like Denmark and Germany after renewables have really high taxes, because other places like south australia at 330U$D/MWh has some of the most expensive electricity in the world

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Sebastian Meana

[john bozeman + 42]

Interesting that Gary Maddox mentioned two wind farms other than the one I am aware of.  I think the video is of the Dewind farm Southeast of Guymon.  Dewind seems to be the name of the manufacturer and the owner/operator.  I think they were/are a subsidiary of Daewoo.  In articles other than those put out by wind promoters, I have seen rates of return of 3%.  3% on an investment with and advertised life span of 20-25 years (or maybe 10 years if you are in Texas County Oklahoma) looks pretty shaky.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

7 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Wind and solar is between a waste of time and a scam

Common, you just have to look annual reports and search other sources for revenue that they don't explicity state, Orsted is weird for some reason they dont declare the cost of every wind farm the build or how much revenue that wind farm makes or how much electricity it actually generated

Avangrid had a wind and solar generation of 14.7 TWh and a revenue of 6.32 billion U$D, thats 430U$D/MWh
Orsted offshore wind operations had a revenue 5.63 billion U$D, and generated 15.2TWh thats 370U$D/MWh

Countries that mantained a bit the power prices like Denmark and Germany after renewables have really high taxes, because other places like south australia at 330U$D/MWh has some of the most expensive electricity in the world

They make their money by capacity not production.  Their power is contracted out years in advance and they get paid in advance. At some future date, when they can't deliver, they'll just pay a fine, totally worth it. 

https://cpowerenergymanagement.com/why-doesnt-texas-have-a-capacity-market/