GM is pulling back on EVs

[AZlb5.0]

I didn’t say that at all. My point was that you can’t oppose the idea based solely on the means of energy production.

Generally speaking I oppose it in all forms… BUT…there comes a time when it’s necessary also. Eg, building a new highway, extending an airport or hospital etc etc.

My point would be that if we’re making exceptions for fossil fuel industries, we need to extend that to renewables. Or, we stop on both counts.

Listen I’m not a fan of eminent domain for any reason. The government shouldn’t take anyone’s land. Pay them what’s it’s worth not pennies on the dollar or build around them. You still think that I’m some kind of cheerleader for government to take for oil or something like that. I despise the word eminent domain. It’s the governments way of stealing from those who’ve worked hard for something their whole life, want to be compensated fairly for it and the government gives them the middle finger and say we taking it no matter what. They then turn and sell it to the contractor and make all the profit. No it’s not right in any case period.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

Hello; General reply to Burley's posts about my links to computer models. Seems faulty to say as long as the models support the agenda it does not matter they are not accurate in the real world bench tests. The models can be "tuned" after all. Not my idea of basing life altering changes onto future generations.

Also, back to the Covid era policy of attacking the link source when it does not match the agenda.

Hello; I recorded a rerun of a PBS NOVA program last night. About the release of methane from perma frost soils. In the program they talked about how the climate models had not factored in natural methane sources before. Also of interest was one of the scientists acknowledging the methane explosion craters were a new and unknown thing. They ( scientist) had thought permafrost soils were permanent. Point being we do not yet know everything about natural earth processes
The program of course ties these natural gas emission sources to human activities. My point being an observation and perhaps a couple questions. I know of natural methane sources most of my life. Some call it swamp gas. Shallow ponds and lakes bubble up methane from under the muddy bottoms. Any place there is organic material without oxygen the anaerobic bacteria live and methane is a waste gas of their metabolism.
The methane producing bacteria predate photosynthesis in the ancient chain of events. Seems very likely natural methane releases has been part of natural earth history.

A question might be concerning the "tuned" climate models. They tuned the models to be sure, what if the tuning winds up putting a lump of natural greenhouse gasses onto the "human" side of the scales?

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-size.php

More on windmills

 

[sk47]

https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-size.php

More on windmills

Hello; Not something I want to live near. Of course someone will have to live near them, I winder who will lose that lottery?

Thousands of tons of parts and concrete. Sweeps up to two acres for the biggest.

Someone explain to me again how environmental tradeoff of these which are being built in places which use coal as the energy source for their manufacture works out. We know that using a EV in areas with something like 48% coal -electric generation can take around 68,000 miles of driving to start to beat an ICE.
What is the break-even point of one of these windmills built in say China? China where coal is used a lot to generate electricity? Of course have to add in all the ICE power equipment to transport materials, dig foundations, pour concrete and such.
How many years will these have to run to break even to be cleaner than for the older existing power plants they replace? Guess the equation will have to add enough individual windmills to equal the output of an old power plant. Have to factor in that an old power plant can run an output 24/7/365 while windmills have varying outputs of electricity.
Surely some clever person has done the calculations by now. Will it be six months per windmill? will it be six years. Will it be 20 years?
Seems a worthy question. If the answer is favorable the champions will have the answer soon. If the answer is unfavorable the question will be ignored as is the norm.

 

[K4fxd]

Can wind turbines help avoid blackouts?

No. Wind turbines themselves need power from the grid to work. A blackout knocks them out, too. If they were providing power at the time, that loss aggravates the effect of the blackout.

From my last link.

Didn't know this. Another reason TX had the major blackout

 

[Burkey]

Listen I’m not a fan of eminent domain for any reason. The government shouldn’t take anyone’s land. Pay them what’s it’s worth not pennies on the dollar or build around them. You still think that I’m some kind of cheerleader for government to take for oil or something like that. I despise the word eminent domain. It’s the governments way of stealing from those who’ve worked hard for something their whole life, want to be compensated fairly for it and the government gives them the middle finger and say we taking it no matter what. They then turn and sell it to the contractor and make all the profit. No it’s not right in any case period.

I wasn’t suggesting that you were an advocate.
I think most people are against it.
I also agree that in cases where it MUST be done, the owner ought to be PROPERLY compensated. What that looks like is a different discussion, and one that I’m sure is worthwhile, but not here perhaps.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; General reply to Burley's posts about my links to computer models. Seems faulty to say as long as the models support the agenda it does not matter they are not accurate in the real world bench tests. The models can be "tuned" after all. Not my idea of basing life altering changes onto future generations.

Also, back to the Covid era policy of attacking the link source when it does not match the agenda.

Hello; I recorded a rerun of a PBS NOVA program last night. About the release of methane from perma frost soils. In the program they talked about how the climate models had not factored in natural methane sources before. Also of interest was one of the scientists acknowledging the methane explosion craters were a new and unknown thing. They ( scientist) had thought permafrost soils were permanent. Point being we do not yet know everything about natural earth processes
The program of course ties these natural gas emission sources to human activities. My point being an observation and perhaps a couple questions. I know of natural methane sources most of my life. Some call it swamp gas. Shallow ponds and lakes bubble up methane from under the muddy bottoms. Any place there is organic material without oxygen the anaerobic bacteria live and methane is a waste gas of their metabolism.
The methane producing bacteria predate photosynthesis in the ancient chain of events. Seems very likely natural methane releases has been part of natural earth history.

A question might be concerning the "tuned" climate models. They tuned the models to be sure, what if the tuning winds up putting a lump of natural greenhouse gasses onto the "human" side of the scales?

The point I’m making is that the definition of accurate needs to be addressed.
They are more than accurate enough for the job they’re being asked to do, which is to give a gauge of how much influence CO2 emissions are likely to have on the planet.
I recently had a guy wanting me to rip some tImbers down to size for him. The directive was to make them 16mm wide. I asked him”How close to 16mm do you need them?” If 16.1mm is near enough, I’ll settle on that. If he needs them at 16.01mm, I’m going to have to spend a lot of extra time adjusting the table saw.
His needs dictated the level of precision being exercised in the same way that a climate model doesn’t need to be a perfect representation of the entire system in order for the results to have utility.

 

[sk47]

The point I’m making is that the definition of accurate needs to be addressed.
They are more than accurate enough for the job they’re being asked to do, which is to give a gauge of how much influence CO2 emissions are likely to have on the planet.
I recently had a guy wanting me to rip some tImbers down to size for him. The directive was to make them 16mm wide. I asked him”How close to 16mm do you need them?” If 16.1mm is near enough, I’ll settle on that. If he needs them at 16.01mm, I’m going to have to spend a lot of extra time adjusting the table saw.
His needs dictated the level of precision being exercised in the same way that a climate model doesn’t need to be a perfect representation of the entire system in order for the results to have utility.

Hello; Now you are getting into the realm of "significant numbers". Example - You send team out to measure for a structure of some sort. Say one guy measures to the nearest 1/16 inch. Another guy measures to nearest 1/4 inch. another to the nearest 1/2 inch and the last guy to the nearest inch.
Down the road as the structure starts going together the parts can be out of whack by as much as two inches. Floor joists might not reach the gap or some such. No matter how good the other measures are the critical measure is the one at the nearest inch, which winds up being +/- and inch with enough individual measures.
Not sure what would be a better example but say you were building rail tracks with several bridges over the route. Might not seem an inch plus or minus would make a difference, but have that range of error over miles it will add up. Even at 1/2 inch it will be off over distances.

Seems the same ought to work for these models out to years of time. Next time a hurricane track is shown ought to be a clue. They use maybe seven or eight different computer models. Each individual models track is shown in a different color. Within a few hours the tracks stay together. A day later the tracks start to spread. three days out some tracks are curving far away from the rest. Out a week hardly any of the tracks are close to the others.
The weather men average all the tracks to get a somewhat likely path, but the hurricane does not have to be anywhere near that average on the ground. Might not even follow any one of the model tracks as well. I think last season a hurricane was something like 30 miles off the averaged track when it hit Florida.

Seems to me tracking a hurricane out a week uses only a mere tiny fraction of computer power accuracy than tracking climate for the earth out 50 years will require. One of my links you put down pointed out how several climate models were averaged by a world organization.

This quote stands out from that post of mine.

“But one of the models actually works. According to University of Alabama’s John Christy and his colleagues, only the Russian model, designated INM-CM4, gets things right. So why not weight heavily on the model that is working? Perhaps because it has less global warming in it than all the other U.N. models?”

 

[sk47]

Hello; Question. What will be the etiquette when buying a used EV? Say you have an EV you decide to sell. You have the 2nd level charger installed at your home. Does the charger unit go with the sale of the vehicle?
Say the charger unit is specific to the vehicle and not available retails any more? (orphaned)

Say you are witching back to an ICE and just do not need/want the charger at your place. Who pays the electrician to remove the unit?

Say you sell an older EV, keep the charger and years later get a different EV which uses a different charger?

 

[sk47]

Hello; I searched for how to determine the break even point of wind turbines for there manufacture using fossil fuels to make them. Have not found a clear answer yet but found an interesting site. I know nothing about the site so cannot vouch for the information. I think it is called Quora.

How many years does a wind turbine need to produce electricity to break even, in cost and CO2 produced during its manufacture? - Quora

Virgil Fenn Studied Mathematics & Science at Public LibrariesAuthor has 3.5K answers and 1.3M answer views5y

The wind turbine sales people want you to ignore the environmental costs of manufacture, intermittentcy, and disposal. They would have you think that even their concrete is environmentally friendly. Don’t be fooled. Think it through for yourself.

There are far better solutions.

John Dolschenko Robotics and CNC Maintenance Technician (1984–present)Author has 1.5K answers and 1.8M answer views4y

Don't let these fools kid you. WInd Turbines use 70 tons of steel, and hundreds of barrels of oil to build. It takes 2 tons of coal to smelt 1 ton of pig iron. Because of preferential bias to purchase wind energy. Many tons of coal are wasted. Because of cycling costs to to base line power plants, replacing parts, and down time cost more CO2 than a wind turbine saves. It pretty much turns a fair idea into nothing more than A whirligig lawn ornament.

There is a 4 cent/KwH subsidy for wind power. That is billed at about 5–8 cents to the 50% of us that pay taxes.

The tossed the Romanovs down a well for less than that.



How long does it take for a wind turbine to break even producing energy (considering mining natural resources, manufacture, transportation, installation, maintenance, and repair, reduced efficiency of traditional power production, and cycling costs)? - Quora

Brian C McCalla Designed 155MW (45MW built/operating) of wind power systems.Author has 1.5K answers and 4.5M answer views3y

Related How many years does a wind turbine need to produce electricity to break even, in cost and CO2 produced during its manufacture?

We don't measure it in years. That's far too long a period. Years ago (back in the 1980’s), this used be an issue with photovoltaics. Solar panels required more energy to produce than they could generate during their useful life, making them, effectively, inconvenient batteries. Today, however, that's far from the case. Indeed, most PV panels will generate the energy required to produce them in weeks.

The same is true of wind turbines. Naturally, this does depend on where they're located. But, unless they're installed inside of a building, wind turbines will always exceed that figure relatively quickly.

Call it 20 weeks to 30 WEEKS for wind turbines. It's dropping every day



Mike Former Self EmployedAuthor has 34K answers and 8.9M answer views2y

Related How many wind turbines are required to produce 500mw of energy?

That depends. If such a thing existed, it could be produced by one 500 MW (not mw) wind turbine running at design conditions.

The largest wind turbines today are about 13 MW (GE Halide) so it would take 39 of those at design conditions. At 62% capacity factor it would take 62 of these wind turbines to average 500 MW.

Right now the world’s average size wind turbine is about 3 MW with a capacity factor of about 35%. These “averages” are getting larger over time because older wind turbines tend to be smaller and newer wind turbines tend to be larger. Larger wind turbines have a taller mast and a larger swept area, so better capacity factor.

But if you wanted to know how many “average” wind turbines it would take, the answer is around 476.

Q: How many wind turbines are required to produce 500mw of energy?


Michael Karnerfors Lives in Sweden (1973–present)Author has 4.8K answers and 10.1M answer viewsUpdated 3y

Related How long does a wind turbine not work (in percent) because there is no wind?

That is irrelevant The relationship between power and energy is time. Multiply power with time, and you have energy; 1 kW for 1 hour = 1 kWh. A wind turbine has a max power rating. If a wind turbine rated at 1 MW had run at 100% of capacity for an entire year, it would have delivered 8 760 000 kWh.

A wind turbine almost never delivers power at 100% capacity. A wind turbine delivers power somewhere between 0% and 100% of its max power rating depending on wind speed, like so:

Red is wind speed, blue is energy output.

Higher wind speeds gives much more power, but since it rarely blows that fast, this happens much more seldom.

So… back to that 1 MW wind turbine. Out of those 8 760 000 kWh, how many can we expect to actually get? How many percent do we get?

This is called capacity factor. And here is a sample of that:



As you can see, wind power varies with the seasons, but on average about 30–35% over the year.

2.9K views

View upvote

 

[sk47]

“How many years does a wind turbine need to produce electricity to break even, in cost and CO2 produced during its manufacture?”

Answer = “Call it 20 weeks to 30 WEEKS for wind turbines. It's dropping every day”

Hello (my comment); 20 weeks is about five months. 30 weeks is about seven and a half months. This is an estimate for Co2 produced I guess. One other answer was six months so I will use six months.

Note – not clear the above break even point includes the moving and setting up part of putting a wind turbine in place and into operation. Might only reflect the break even point of manufacturing the parts???

“How many wind turbines are required to produce 500mw of energy?”

Answer = “Right now the world’s average size wind turbine is about 3 MW with a capacity factor of about 35%. These “averages” are getting larger over time because older wind turbines tend to be smaller and newer wind turbines tend to be larger. Larger wind turbines have a taller mast and a larger swept area, so better capacity factor. But if you wanted to know how many “average” wind turbines it would take, the answer is around 476”



Hello (my comments); Here is the way I decided to approach my original question. I imagine some will take exception. Also keep in mind it is not clear I have found the proper information in the searches I recently made. Here goes.

(6) Six months for one wind generator to break even in Co2. The average wind turbine (WT) might produce 3 MW so it takes 476 of them to replace one (500 MW edit)fossil fuel electricity power plant.

Multiply 6 x 476 = 2856 months of break even time. That is 238 years of Co2 to break even for the environmental Co2 from manufacture of enough of these things to replace a 500mw power plant. Seems a lot doesn't it??

I get that a wind farm of 476 turbines will be working all at the same time so it is not that one runs six months then the next runs and so on. The answer would be better in tons of Co2 during WT manufacture compared to the Co2 break even point in tons of Co2, but this is what I found so far.

I am sure some of you are much better at these searches than I am.

 

[K4fxd]

So basically in order to power the country with "green" energy we would need to cover the entire state of tx with solar panels and have 4 windmills every square mile for the rest of the country.

I'm hearing the twilight zone theme music.

 

[sk47]

So basically in order to power the country with "green" energy we would need to cover the entire state of tx with solar panels and have 4 windmills every square mile for the rest of the country.

I'm hearing the twilight zone theme music.

Hello; That sounds awful, but i have no real idea if such is the case. I hope in a way it is not the case for fear the "green" agenda will be put in place and if true will be awful.
Hard to find the answers for me so far.

Your post a bit back has me thinking along different lines is why i started looking at the environmental footprint of a wind turbine. They are massive in size and in weight of materials.

 

[Strokerswild]

Your post a bit back has me thinking along different lines is why i started looking at the environmental footprint of a wind turbine. They are massive in size and in weight of materials.

Not to mention the impact on their surroundings.

My mother and her siblings own a large tract of prime farm land, and some time ago they were approached with the prospect of placing several turbines on said land for compensation. Long story short, once the turbines reach end of life and are out of commission and removed, the giant buried block of concrete they rest on would become the land owner's responsibility. Also, and I forget the exact amount, but each turbine emits atomized oil as it runs, and it was a relatively significant amount considering the surrounding land grows food crops. Needless to say, it was a hard no for the family.

 

[K4fxd]

They are massive in size and in weight of materials.

They run at about 30% efficiency due to wind not blowing all the time. Appearently they are maintenance intensive. I know the several times I drove out to California out of 1000 windmills about 25% were actually turning. Turns out many of those were not in working order.

For a 500 mega watt solar farm it takes just a bit less than a square mile of panels. So with gaps ect we can call it a square mile of land for 500 MW.

We use 4000 billion Kwh's per year. The number is so large I cannot convert it to MW. It may or may not require the entire State of tx but with increase in demand it will be close over time.

Sponsored