Star Tribune: Regulators table Canby area wind farm over labor concerns Union said developer of Bitter Root project relies on out-of-state labor.
MN PUC Site T1, T2, T3 & T4 are causing quite the fuss out in that area. The MN farmers want the income and the SD lake cabin folks do not want these monster units within 3 miles of the lake.
Vestas: Here is more detail on these big units.
MN PUC Site T1, T2, T3 & T4 are causing quite the fuss out in that area. The MN farmers want the income and the SD lake cabin folks do not want these monster units within 3 miles of the lake.
Vestas: Here is more detail on these big units.
Higher priced electricity with no effect on climate. And shreds birds. What a bargain.
ReplyDeleteI just did not ever see you as a "tree hugging bird loving environmentalist". :-)
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting and exhaustive report
ReplyDeleteBesides all the reduced emissions, I had never even thought of all the water use reductions. I mean they just sit there and spin, no boilers, turbines, piling of fuel, removal of ash, etc.
A friend of mine has a very entrepreneurial brother who bids on unique jobs...
ReplyDeleteHis newest business has to do with bidding on jobs to tear down wind turbines.
I can't find it easily, but supposedly the life-cycle CO2 cost of a windmill, starting with mining of the materials, is essentially a zero net reduction. It costs more CO2 to build one than it ever saves in operation. And shreds birds. And only produces electricity about 35% of the time, and the rest of the time we run natgas or coal-fired generators. Those produce CO2, you know.
ReplyDeleteFacts and Data 1
ReplyDeleteNow you do remember that coal fire power plants were fed with unit trains of coal...
Here is conservative leaning source
ReplyDeleteYou must include, in the life-cycle CO2 (+capital and maintenance) cost of a windmill, the coal-fired power plant that sits beside it for the 2/3 of the time the wind isn't blowing.
ReplyDeleteLook at it this way: If wind power were actually cheaper to the consumer, wouldn't we all happily buy it? WHY do we have all these mandates, and why is our electric bill going UP?
Thankfully most of those coal fired power plants are going away as new natural gas plants are brought on line. No trains full of material, no big conveyors, fewer personnel, fewer emissions, no ash disposal, etc...
ReplyDeleteI compare it to before I converted my fire place from wood to natural gas. Previously I had to cut wood, haul wood, deal with smoke, clean ashes, etc. Now I just pus a button. And since the fireplace is used randomly, it should last a long time and use little fuel.
I have no idea what is driving electricity rates up... Maybe normal inflation... There are a lot of people employed in that industry.
An interesting discussion of costs.
ReplyDeleteYour second post certainly proves my point. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteNot really. It just says that people need to be complete and accurate in reporting the costs of each.
ReplyDeleteBut maybe your confirmation bias biased your interpretation.
"If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?"
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe you need to answer the obvious question. TANSTAAFL
And yet the devils are in the details.
ReplyDeleteNow if we really want to compare apples to apples... I wonder how many fossil fuel costs are hidden from the customers and paid for by us citizens.
Ah, yes. A tax deduction is a public "expenditure." Liberal math. Did we measure these "subsidies" as a percentage of total energy consumption? Pretty sure we can do it with windmills. Remember Buffett shut down his wind farm because "without the subsidies it made no sense."
ReplyDeleteHere is a simple proposition for you. Make wind electricity cheaper than coal, and we'll all buy it, happily. Can you do that?
ReplyDeleteApparently Buffett is still heavily betting on alternative energies
ReplyDeleteAnd the technologies keep improving
Forbes Renewable Costs Dropping
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting discussion of the real cost of fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteI liked this summary...
"Ultimately it's a significant problem that we rely so heavily on coal to meet our energy needs due to its artificially low market price. It's like eating junk food for every meal. It's cheap, it tastes good, but it's not healthy and eventually you'll pay the price through poor health, high medical bills, and a shortened lifespan.
We may not pay the costs of climate change, lost biodiversity, air and water pollution, adverse health effects, etc. up front, but we do have to pay them eventually. We need to follow the recommendations of Epstein et al., transform our energy infrastructure, and move away from our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels."
Let's see, we can light and heat our homes, refrigerate our food and medicines, run our water filters, air filters, MRIs, factories and transportation systems, or we can live the long, clean life of the 16th century, when your life expectancy was half what it is now.
ReplyDeleteI don't know who Epstein is, but if he thinks windmills and solar cells are transformative, he should be ignored. Find a better solution, one that smart Google engineers could not find in 4 years of looking.
And you have to stop thinking that producing CO2 is important and will cause these terrible problems. Data from the IPCC, EPA, NOAA and RSS ALL contradict what those organizations SAY on the subject.
You are humorous. The belief that by moving to futuristic energy sources will some way send us back in time...
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should go back to burn cow pies...
Burning fossil fuels releases a lot more nasty stuff than just C02.
If you doubt this go visit any third word city...
"futuristic" energy sources? LOL! Windmills have been used since at least the 1600s, and we dried fruit and grain and clothes with the sun for millenia.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are making my point about coal. If you want to control CO2 to save the planet, you are barking up the wrong tree. Clean up the fly ash, SO2, NOx, etc, which the US has done but the rest of the world has not. CO2 is not "nasty," it's natural.
Again, all you have to do for "futuristic energy" is first, FIND it, and if it is cheaper and more easily distributed and reliable, we will all happily buy it, no mandates or subsidies required.
I'm still waiting for commercialization of the Ohio State process that doubles the efficiency of coal burning and removes most of the nasty stuff in the process.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure there were no wind mills quite like this back in the 1600s.
ReplyDeleteOr these from GE
So? We didn't burn much coal back then, either, but when the choice became available, look what happened. If you propose these new windmills are cheaper and better than coal, then why does it cost more for the electricity they produce? And if not, why would we ever buy one?
ReplyDeleteBecause the electricity consumer pays all the costs of wind energy... Well except for the dead birds, noise, aesthetics, flicker, etc...
ReplyDeleteWhere as the electricity consumer pays only part of the "costs of coal"... The costs of poor air quality, water contamination and possible global warming are passed on to everyone. Remember the junk food comparison...
You are arguing for the "social cost of carbon" and I don't care; most of it is junk science anyway. It's real but very difficult to quantify, especially on a cost-benefit basis. Can we accept a little more lung problems in exchange for the MRIs and refrigerated medicines to treat them?
ReplyDeleteWhat you are seeing with wind power is the fact that somebody has to pay the huge capital cost for putting them in, in addition to the nearby coal-fired plant that must keep running 2/3 (often more) of the time. Hiram always complains when we suggest building a private school system in addition to the public school system we already have. With this example, at least, he has an excellent point.
I prefer fewer lung and asthma problems and more MRI's etc...
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe a few less Starbuck's Lattes for people...
VOX Coal Begs for Handouts
And you are happy with dead birds, poor people freezing in their homes, and zero improvement to the climate? Someplace we have to recognize the trade-0offs, and wind blows.
ReplyDeleteKeeping Warm isn't much of a problem where most of the people live, they have bigger fossil fuel related problems.
ReplyDeleteIndia health concerns
Export US pollution control tech to them, but let them burn coal. It will be easier for us snowballs to heat our homes if the extra CO2 actually does warn the climate as you seem to believe.
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting tidbit for you. If we wanted to get to 100% carbon free by using windmills, we couldn't do it, because at some point the windmills would not generate enough surplus power for us to build a windmill.
You are so funny
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get this stuff?
and you are illogical. Put aside your blind religious faith and think about it. If we install enough windmills to replace the entire current fossil fuel electrical generation capacity, we will have roughly 1/3 the electrical generation capacity we did before. We would have to assume that limited supply would go to the most essential needs and not to building more windmills. I'm suggesting that we get smart long, long before we come to that point. The NIMBYs have a point, and I don't think they should be in anybody's backyard, unless somebody wants one for their private use.
ReplyDeleteAnd your other website simply proves that adaptation is cheaper than prevention.
Between hydro, solar, wind, new advanced batteries and natural gas generation...
ReplyDeleteI think we will be fine...
Then you have simply not done your homework. Those things are doomed to "incidental" in the energy mix. Even China, planning ten more dams the size of Three Gorges, has 700 new coal plants on the boards. Natural gas, yes, but that emits CO2 and, by the way, also emits the most powerful greenhouse gas-- H2O. But we have the technology we need to use it efficiently. If you find a new energy technology that is cheaper, readily distributed and reliably available, we'll all happily buy it, and if it happens to reduce CO2 nobody will care. So, what is it?
ReplyDeleteSources?
ReplyDeleteNumber one – I was told by Chinese officials when I was there. Decried by environmentalists.
ReplyDeleteNumber two – common knowledge, decried by the Climate Change Cartel.
number three – basic chemistry and climate science.
Number four – common knowledge and common sense
Number five – basic laws of economics, requires no proof.
The question: where is this miracle technology that the Google engineers could not find?
Well this is what a source look like...
ReplyDeleteChina Energy Plan
China Energy Plan Challenge
The good news is that H2O separates easily and regularly from the atmosphere... Just pass cool the air and out it comes... No problem there.
ReplyDeleteGas vs Goal Economics
The challenge with gas
Sometimes I tire of your sources, frankly, because anybody can write just about anything. Just because it is on the internet doesn't make it even true, let alone reasonably cogent. One still must think critically about what one reads. So it is with your last post here. One of the articles says burning gas makes economic sense, and it does. Easier to transport, easier to burn, etc. It's great as backup capacity for those stupid windmills because it fires so quickly, though it is usually left "idling" when the wind blows and still produces CO2 and H2O (i.e minimal CO2 reduction). The other article simply starts with the assumption that CO2 BAD and we must DO SOMETHING. I basically skimmed it after that point and found nothing. It does, however, makes me wonder how long before coal gasification "takes off." THERE may be the new technology you are looking for?
ReplyDeleteMaybe...
ReplyDeleteLet's go back to the more fundamental question of WHY windmills? I say it is to avoid the phony-baloney, plastic-banana idea of CO2-caused Global Warming.
ReplyDeletethe Big Lie
"all pain, no gain"
ReplyDeleteThis Judith Curry that your source relied on for credibility is interesting. She seems aligned with me...
ReplyDeleteI may need to read more of her blog posts
"If all other things remain equal, it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet," she told the committee.
But, she went on, not all things are equal. She says there's so much uncertainty about the role of natural variation in the climate that she doesn't know what's going to happen. She says a catastrophe is possible, but warming could also turn out to be not such a big deal.
And she focuses on uncertainties and unknown unknowns far more than on the consensus of climate scientists, who say we know enough to be deeply worried.
"I've been trying to understand how there can be such a strong consensus, given these uncertainties," she told the committee.
The minute you invoke the word "consensus," I know you are not thinking for yourself, and worse, you are letting a few loud know-nothings tell you what to believe.
ReplyDeleteAnd Dr. Curry is right. She used to be a global warming believer, you know, until she looked at the actual science and had her job threatened for being a "heretic." What she did was what I have been telling you for months-- if you want to believe what the climate models say, fine, because what they say is that radical cuts to CO2 do essentially nothing for the climate. So again, WHY windmills?
Because Curry is correct...
ReplyDeleteWe do not know what moose may be in the fog.
Letting off the accelerator until we do is the correct thing to do.
Did you notice the personnel choices she is making in her life?
No, no, no. You cannot have it both ways! If the models predict a global warming catastrophe and we must believe them because the models are right, then when those very same models tell us that radically curbing CO2 will do nothing to prevent that catastrophe, we have to believe that, too! And if you believe the models are wrong, as I do, then there is no moose anywhere on the island. If Global Warming is the problem, windmills are not the solution. If global warming is NOT a problem, windmills are just stupid.
ReplyDeleteMore from Curry and the Writer...
ReplyDelete"Advocates for action say we shouldn't run that experiment on our planet. Curry's response?
"Well, I think the experiment is going to happen whether people say we should run it or not. We're not going to convince China and India and other developing countries not to burn fossil fuels."
By now, of course, Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy. But like all of us, she does have a personal point of view. And hers, at root, is not about science; it's about individualism.
"I walk to work, I drive a Prius, I'm a fanatic about turning lights off and keeping air conditioning high and heating low, so I try to personally minimize my own carbon footprint. But in terms of telling other people what to do, I don't have any big answers."
But leaving climate change actions to individuals will not solve the problem. You can't affect global warming simply by buying a Prius and adjusting the thermostat. And there's no uncertainty about that."
She is correct that Americans can not solve the problem on their own.
ReplyDeleteHowever providing a good example and technology for the Chinese, Indians and every one else who does need cheap clean energy would be showing leadership.
And would likely be good for business.
BS. There's no profit in killing one's competitiveness in service to some threat that isn't even real.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, ask the models what happens if the whole world meets the proposed Paris accords on CO2, and you get a substantially larger (10X) effect-- 0.3 degrees over 100 years. About the difference between 9:30 AM and 9:36 AM on a spring morning.
"You can't affect global warming simply by buying a Prius and adjusting the thermostat" And you can't effect the climate if EVERYBODY does it, either.
I am happy to say that rational folks like Curry and me disagree with folks like you. :-)
ReplyDeleteReally? Curry says that extreme CO2 reductions will have a negligible effect on global temperatures, and agrees with the climate models in that. I agree with her. If you agree with her, you agree with me. Yet you still insist there is a moose in the fog, when we have, in "scientific" computer models, simulated the drive and found no fog and no moose anywhere. Stop believing the prophets of doom and start believing the science!
ReplyDeleteAs for wind being the solution....
ReplyDeletewind too costly
Here's a more comprehensive take on the subject. .
ReplyDeleteChoose
Speaking of water use reductions, you do know that increased CO2 makes plants grow faster AND use less water, do you not? Count that a positive?
ReplyDeleteHere is what Curry apparently believes...
ReplyDelete"If all other things remain equal, it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet," she told the committee.
But, she went on, not all things are equal. She says there's so much uncertainty about the role of natural variation in the climate that she doesn't know what's going to happen. She says a catastrophe is possible, but warming could also turn out to be not such a big deal.
And she focuses on uncertainties and unknown unknowns far more than on the consensus of climate scientists, who say we know enough to be deeply worried.
"I've been trying to understand how there can be such a strong consensus, given these uncertainties," she told the committee. "
That sure sounds like what I have been saying for years...
ReplyDeleteAnd yes we have discussed the pros / cons before.
ReplyDeleteSS Pro / Con
ProCon Pro Con
Vitana Pro Con
OK, have it your way, that the climate models could very well be wrong, and the amount of warming prevented by drastic cuts to CO2 is much LESS than the 0.03 degrees over the next 100 years that the climate models predict. Will the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars we spent on windmills be worth that "benefit"?
ReplyDeleteBTW, she also says, "all things are not equal."
I like your third citation. It fears "global warming." OK, fine. But what if these terrible things are completely natural, as suggested by your second citation? Curry, the climate models and I agree that if it IS warming, it is unlikely caused by fossil fuels.
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to keep misreading the comments as long as you wish.
ReplyDeleteI have better things to do today.
Well, I keep going back to the original source of the information, not somebody's interpretation of the data, or misinformation about what was said. The models, Dr. Curry, the EPA, basic math, the IPCC DATA (not their political pronouncements) and I all agree that radical curbs to CO2 will not significantly reduce global warming. What am I misreading?
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding you are correct and incorrect...
ReplyDeleteWhere you are correct:
The USA has only 320 million of the 7,700 million humans on our Earth... (~4%) So what we do alone will have little impact...
Where you are incorrect:
However we are the wealthiest and most technologically advanced country in the world, therefore we can afford the R&D and Improvements so others can implement them cheaper while our businesses benefit.
The reality is that if the rest of the world starts creating and using energy like the USA does currently, it will be disastrous for all of us. Therefore it is in our country's best interest for multiple reasons to lead the world on this topic.
Not stick our heads in the sand and pinch our pennies.
I think you are wrong. You assume that R&D will make some "magic" carbon-free technology appear and that we can sell that to the rest of the world. Remember the Google engineers could foresee NO such technology becoming widely available and if it did, it would take 40 years to be economically widely available. The most advanced technologies are COAL gasification in Asia, in situ COAL gasification in the US, fracking in the US, pebble bed COAL burning in the US, and assorted nuclear technologies, mostly elsewhere because we're soooo scared of it.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the world WILL start using energy like the US, and based on those assumptions the models DO predict a lot of warming. Of course, the models could be wrong. The US is cutting CO2 more than almost any other nation right now, because of fracking and natgas. If we quit worrying about CO2 and look just at efficiencies, while researching BETTER energy systems, we'll be fine, but spending all this money on windmills is just spinning our wheels.
By the way, we already have the technology to clean our smokestacks of 90+% of the bad stuff (not CO2), but the rest of the world doesn't seem interested in acquiring it. But if we can burn coal more efficiently, /saving money/, that we could probably sell. That CO2 goes down is incidental, and if you think that's a benefit, it's free.
ReplyDeleteG2A Cost of Power Generation
ReplyDelete