14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA

I am placing this in Political Madness because of the govt. scam that lurks behind "green energy" projects like this. I am afraid that I may end up with one of these wind farms in my back yard of Lake Erie. What a pretty sight..

There are many hidden truths about the world of wind turbines from the pollution and environmental damage caused in China by manufacturing bird choppers, the blight on people's lives of noise and the flicker factor and the countless numbers of birds that are killed each year by these blots on the landscape.

The symbol of Green renewable energy, our saviour from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the subsidies taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it's too cold or the wind speed is too high.

In some regions with wind farms, the blades must be tethered up to 4 months of the year so that they do not effect migratory bird patterns.

The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.

www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com...

toryaardvark.com...

I certainly don't want this mess in my beautiful Lak Erie. The lake in which I sail every Summer.

They want to start with 5 turbines that will cost well over $100million when said and done.

It will take a bit more time than originally hoped for to get five wind turbines up and running in Lake Erie.

Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation President Lorry Wagner says, "We definitely were a little over-ambitious. It's 2013. Our original goal was 2012."

There's still lots of work to do and lots of regulatory permits to obtain. Wagner says two or three are in hand with fifteen more needed.

The project need $100 million for turbines, plus more for a ship or ships to carry them.

www.wkyc.com...

Hopefully they read about the 14,000 abandoned turbines and can pick one up on EBay on the cheap.

[color=mediumorchid]They just put hundreds of them up around my area. They are everywhere. And they are almost never running...

Why spend all summer building them and never turn them on?

reply to post by jibeho


There is no such thing as "green" energy. Nothing is renewable, and nothing comes without a price. I hate the whole debate! The only solution is energy conservation.

Wind Turbines rob energy from the atmosphere that would have served some other purpose. If we get anywhere near a significant amount of energy from it, then we have surely affected the natural cycles in the atmosphere.

Solar energy typically strikes the earth or is reflected back to the atmosphere. If we harness it, we change the dynamic.

Wave action can be captured, but at what effect on the ocean? Tidal action can be captured, but at what effect on the planet? Geothermal can be exploited, but in order to get anywhere near the power we consume, what will it do to the inner processes of the Earth?

100% of our energy comes from the sun. Be it solar, atmospheric, geothermal, or fossil fuels. There is a finite amount of existing energy reserve, and there is a finite amount of new energy striking the earth. We will reach a point where our consumption has depleted all reserves and outpaces daily renewal. We will eventually kill our planet.

Not really sure why so many wind turbines are not operational. Have always assumed that breakdowns and lack of interest was the main reason. Was not aware of bird migration being another cause of down time. You are right about the "eye sore" problem, it is also a problem with solar farms. Every time I see a hybrid car I cringe about what will happen with the batteries. My old Buick gets more MPG carrying 4 adults than my neighbor's hybrid carrying 2 adults. Something's wrong with this picture.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
100% of our energy comes from the sun. Be it solar, atmospheric, geothermal, or fossil fuels.

You are wrong about geothermal. It has 0% to do with the Sun. The inner heat in Earth is generated mostly by decay of unstable isotopes.

And regardless... I can't see how it is a bad idea to use solar energy in any shape or form. You see, we are doing it on a large scale in order to survive -- basically ALL agriculture is utilizing Solar power to synthesize certain chemicals, some of which are quite yammi

reply to post by getreadyalready


So, if we use alternative energy we are killing the Earth too!? Sorry, not buying it. If I use a PV panel on my roof, I am soaking up some of the sun's rays that would otherwise absorb into the planet or bounce off back into space? Please source how one PV system is disrupting or soaking up too much of the sun. That is a very bold claim to make without any sources.

Edit:

reply to post by jibeho


You are linking to one of the more hardcore "global warming is a fiction" sites, and one that supports the idea that EPA should be eliminated and we need to drill drill drill.

[YAWN]Sorry, but I'll pass [/YAWN]

reply to post by getreadyalready


How is windpower a bad thing?
I am a little confused on that.

I agree nothing comes without a price but how does making a big fan spin and collecting the energy harmful?
Its wind and it makes a giant fanblade spin?

I don't want to get picky but do you think harnessing energy from Niagara Falls is a bad thing environmentally?

To me its about trying to monopolize and make people pay for things that they might figure out how to get for free but i am still interested why you would think windpower might not be as good as it sounds environmentally?

I like the idea of free energy idea...I am just skepical to if it is actually going to be free.
When all the oil is gone......well,thats another topic.

BTW the killing of the planet thing....I tend to agree on that part.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Wind Turbines rob energy from the atmosphere that would have served some other purpose.

Some useful purpose... Like hurricanes?

Solar energy typically strikes the earth or is reflected back to the atmosphere. If we harness it, we change the dynamic.

God forbid we'll stave off global warming. He sent it to us as punishment, it's silly to resist.

Wave action can be captured, but at what effect on the ocean?

Again, you are right! Erosion of the seashore is there for a reason, and destruction of the beaches was meant to be in the grand plan.

Geothermal can be exploited, but in order to get anywhere near the power we consume, what will it do to the inner processes of the Earth?

OK, I hate to break it to you but it won't do jack to natural radioactivity inside the planet.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by jibeho

 

You are linking to one of the more hardcore "global warming is a fiction" sites, and one that supports the idea that EPA should be eliminated and we need to drill drill drill.

[YAWN]Sorry, but I'll pass [/YAWN]

Didn't realize that, just sourcing all of the relevant articles. However, the EPA needs to go anyway because someone seems to have granted them legislative/regulatory authority outside the guidelines of our Constitution.

The following is from Rand Paul...

Since its creation in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has done more harm than good. EPA regulations cost more than 5 percent of our annual gross domestic product - the equivalent of the costs of defense and homeland security combined. Since EPA regulations have expanded, unemployment in America has increased by 33 percent. This abuse of power by the implementation of regulations infringes upon our basic constitutional rights.

Seventy-five percent of Americans believe that the size of the federal government must be reduced and with the imposition of such regulatory abuse, it is no wonder why. Americans are being treated as subjects of an administrative state rather than citizens of a free nation.

www.washingtontimes.com...

reply to post by buddhasystem


It isn't a "bad" strategy, it is just an incomplete one.

As for radioactive decay, it originated by fusion in the sun. Or, in a relatively small amount of instances, it might be created by forces of compression and gravity within the Earth, but those things are also regulated by our relationship with the sun and other planetary bodies.

At some point, it is entirely possible to exhaust all of the natural processes of this planet and leave it as dead as our moon or Mars.

Can we has independent verification that 14000 turbines have truly been "abandoned?
that is an awful lot. Your source is not a good source for that data since it is heavily biased to say the least. At the wind farms ar still being built!

I stand in the center on this issure. There are pros and cons aboout the turbines that have not been fully addressed before they started handing out money fo outfits to throw them up. --And much of that money went to China for the turbines.

reply to post by DrumsRfun


Tell me the acreage it takes up, to start? It takes up more than people think or even what the government puts out for their data.I have seen the mills up close, it decimates the land around them and makes it inert. It is no different than mining, fracking or whatever else.
Who is paying for all the start up costs? It is not a free enterprise. They can pay their own way as everyone else.
Add in the lack of regulation and we have a mixture for another raping of the country and the citizens that actually own the sites.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Not sure I want one of these off the coast to capture wave energy either. Certainly this would have an impact on the delicate oceanic ecosystem. They want these in a 17 square mile area of ocean. That's 4 times the size of the city I live in.

Pelamis (sea-snake in greek) electrical generators: giant steel tubes, 590 feet long, 13 feet in diameter and weighing 1433 tons. The four generators inside each Pelamis are filled with hundreds of gallons of hydrauic fluid, that is forced through turbines using the power of the motion of the sea to make electricity.
Up to forty of the 600 foot monsters are placed in an “array” – that industry PR men also like to call “wave farms.” Each “array” covers a couple of square miles of ocean.

noyonews.net...

Wow these responses are frightening!

Harnessing wind power will change atmospheric processes. It is impossible to know exactly what the repercussions are, but there will be repercussions.

Wave action and Tidal Action do a whole lot more than just erode beaches. And, living in Florida, it is painfully clear that every action we take to stop beach erosion only accelerates it at some other point. Here very near to me is Alligator Point and Bald Point. They tried to stop the erosion at a few points, and now every state agency involved is scrambling to undo 50 years worth of doing exactly the opposite of what would have helped!

I do see one benefit to Solar Power. If we put it on existing rooftops, while it generates electricity, it also provides shade and a cooling effect to the building below, and thereby reduces consumption. It does have that going for it, but the majority of solar farms are built on existing fields, meadows, and prairies. In that case, it is no better than any other fuel type.

The only real solution is energy conservation on a major scale.

Originally posted by mugger
reply to post by DrumsRfun

 

Tell me the acreage it takes up, to start? It takes up more than people think or even what the government puts out for their data.I have seen the mills up close, it decimates the land around them and makes it inert. It is no different than mining, fracking or whatever else.
Who is paying for all the start up costs? It is not a free enterprise. They can pay their own way as everyone else.
Add in the lack of regulation and we have a mixture for another raping of the country and the citizens that actually own the sites.

Each has a parcel of about 40 acres and 2 of that are taken out of production. Please stick with the facts. And yes I do know what I'm talking about. There's a lot of farming in the shadow of them windmills and a lot of money for the farmers that let them on their land

Originally posted by getreadyalready
~snip~
Wind Turbines rob energy from the atmosphere that would have served some other purpose. If we get anywhere near a significant amount of energy from it, then we have surely affected the natural cycles in the atmosphere.
~snip~

I don't know man, given the average thickness of the troposphere is 43k feet and the largest wind turbine is a bit over 400' in diameter, even if the entire surface of the globe was covered with the largest turbines available we'd still only be "stealing" from about 1% of the atmospheres available cross-section, and even then, only from the very edge "down here" where it's pretty mellow. To think that we'd somehow be able to rob enough to significantly alter anything, to me, seems a bit of a stretch.

That said, I am aware of the systemic nature of things, and even though it's only 1% (way less in terms of "energy", my 1% represents "cross section") it is the 1% that's closest "to us", and that alone is enough to warrant erring on the side of caution in terms of how far we're willing to push this particular tech.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Wow these responses are frightening!

.

edit on 21-11-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

Not trying to frighten you.
I am just looking for answers to why you have that opinion.
I am a little befuddled and just looking for clarification.

One thing to consider with the turbines is the scale of the effort. These farms of giant/eye sore turbines is is a function of the large energy corporations, milking federal dollars, and charging whatever is required to profit. If that fails, fire sale the entire deal, blame someone else, and stay rich by screwing over everybody in your way.

An alternative which still provides jobs and taps into wind power is smaller, more localized. Granted the big turbines provide more power but how much does a single building or group of building require? For over a hundred years, US agriculture utilized wind power to augment its needs. It was cheap and simple. The wind mill companies made 1000s of them and in turn provided jobs.

The environmental impact was negligent. The optics factor was minimal. Anybody could fix them.

The discussion is publicly mis-framed for a reason.

Originally posted by Aliensun
Can we has independent verification that 14000 turbines have truly been "abandoned?
that is an awful lot. Your source is not a good source for that data since it is heavily biased to say the least. At the wind farms ar still being built!

I stand in the center on this issure. There are pros and cons aboout the turbines that have not been fully addressed before they started handing out money fo outfits to throw them up. --And much of that money went to China for the turbines.

It's 14,000 abandoned over the course of 30 years. Still trying to find some original stats on the subject. When I go to the DOE site it just talks about money allocated for wind generation and the plan to go to 20% wind by 2030 (that's a hell of a lot of turbines built by GE)

energy.gov...