14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA

Originally posted by DrumsRfun

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?

birds can be killed by flying into the rotateing blades for one, the space they take another. the best spot would actualy be on top of buildings (already wasted space)

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

tho not as bad as most hydro set ups, it is still adding heat polution to the water, as well as thy fact that it has caused (through human work), the natural errosion to stop. niagra falls is not and has not been a natural wonder since they put the hydro generation station in. most hydro set ups also desrtoy vast ammounts of good land by damming rivers and flooding it. as well as interfering with things like fish spawning. in all honesty given the choice between nuke or hydro, it's nuke all the way. at least with nuke it takes carelessness to damage the enviroment, whereas hydro does the damage before it's even online. in other words hydro damages the enviroment right away where nuke takes some sort of accident or bad planning before doing major damage.

Green energy is a farse it always has been simple fact the sun doesn't shine everyday nor does the wind blow but the kicker here is nope can't use them to save the animals?

Ridiculous whats even more ridiculous is to base a technology using nature aka the climate when they scream and shout oh noes! Global warming which means to push a global dominance on technology that changes what ever way the wind blows literally.

It's the same with a nuclear plant or coal plant everyone screams grand ol ideal until they want to put on in their own back yard and then its oh hell no.

Want to solve the worlds energy crisis bottle the bs that comes from the government and the "save the planet" crowd.

reply to post by jibeho


Most of those abandoned wind energy farms were simply relocated. The one in Hawaii, for example, upgraded the turbines and picked a new location.

Have a problem with it? Take it up with the privately owned energy companies that keep buying them.

Could not agree more with your post, we live on Lake Huron and the last time we drove up the coast to Grand Bend we saw 5 out of 10 turbines sitting still.
Ugly bastards they are and they are costing us big bucks to line the pic pockets of the investors.
Here is a good read I just came across this morning.
Link
www.telegraph.co.uk...

S&F to the OP
Regards, Iwinder

Coal - bad for the air and the environment it was harvested from
Oil - bad for the air and the environment it was harvested from
Nuclear - gives everyone cancer and could meltdown at any given moment
Solar - unsightly and might destroy the environments that are filled with sun
Wind - unsightly and it could kill some birds. Never mind that it might mess up the butterfly effect.
Hydro - unsightly and might destroy the marine environment.



So WTF exactly are we supposed to use for energy?

Damn green people tick me off.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
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.

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

I see your point, kinda. If you have existing roofs and put PV systems on those, there would be no difference.
I hope you do see that your "real solution" is only a band-aid fix.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

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.

Wrong again, and on both accounts. There is no nucleosynthesis inside Earth. And you can't form heavy elements (heavier than iron) in any serious quantity, in the chain of stellar nucleasynthesis. So Sun is out of the picture. These are formed in supernova explosions. Besides, it's all said and done, what we do with the planet won't affect stars and supernovas.

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.

You can't stop radioactive decay regardless of geothermal energy utilization. You can't stop fusion in the Sun by installing photovoltaic panels on Earth. So your points are completely and utterly without merit.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Coal - bad for the air and the environment it was harvested from
Oil - bad for the air and the environment it was harvested from

Agreed.

Nuclear - gives everyone cancer and could meltdown at any given moment

Outside of catastrophic events, nuclear energy does not give anyone cancer and its emissions are less than those of a coal-fired plant.

Solar - unsightly and might destroy the environments that are filled with sun

If you cover 10% of the Nevada desert with solar panels, you'll have enough power for the country. I don't think that's a big deal. You still get to keep 90% of the desert.

I want to know some more about these abandoned wind turbines. Can I go up there and just take a couple of them apart and bring them home with me? I'll put em up in my backyard, or use them for something else. Hell, I just want the turbines, I could hook them up to any old engine and have power. How can they be just abandoned?

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.

Most of turbines in my part of the country north-central and western Texas are build on ridges, not tillable land.

The claim 14,000 sounds bogus.

The OP article cites ZERO sources, provides no accounting as to where this 14,000 number comes from, and uses a old wind farm site in Hawaii that consists of exactly 32 windmills. Where are the other 13,963? The wind farm used as an example was built in 1985 - early adopters of that technology, and we don't know the reason for it shutting down. Was it a problem with the technology or a financial reason? Private utility companies come and go.

You can just as easily ask how many abandoned coal mines are there, how many abandoned power-plants exist?

Is it the government subsidies for renewable energy that is the beef here? How much does the coal industry take in by way of government subsidies? From 2002 to 2008, that amount was 17 billion. (Environmental Law Institute)

The U.S. coal industry enjoyed subsidies of around $17 billion between 2002 and 2008, including tax credits for production of "nonconventional" fuels ($14.1 billion), tax breaks on coal royalties ($986 million), exploration, and development breaks ($342 million), according to a study by the Environmental Law Institute.

[...]

There are huge subsidies, direct and indirect, for the coal industry in the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), H.R. 2454, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last year.

People complain too when they see an inactive windmill. Did you know the utilities, with input from the coal and gas industry, places LIMITS on how much electricity a windmill can place back on the power grid? What happens when they exceed that amount - they have no choice but to shut down.

(Wind Energy Bumps Into Power Grid’s Limits
Firms paid to shut down wind farms when the wind is blowing (this is from the UK)
Why we need to build a national HVDC electrical grid

The national electrical grid (also heavily subsidized by the government) is owned and operated by 500 companies, most coal and gas utilities, some nuclear. The grid wasn't built to accommodate influxes of electricity, so it's easier to block these rival energy producers than to upgrade the grid - which is nearing 100 years in age. Want to know why those brand-new wind mills are just sitting there, not spinning? No place for the electricity to go, and a coal/gas industry owned utility grid that won't accommodate them.

Another reason individual wind mills at large-scale wind farms are shut down has to do with the purchase contracts between operators and the utilities. Southern California Edison has agreed to purchase 1,500 megawatts from Tehachapi wind farm. When it exceeds that amount it will shut down some of it's wind mills. In addition it constantly replacing it's older, less efficient mills with newer-generation ones. Calling the older ones "abandoned" is dis-honest. Tehachapi is still a strong producer of electricity in southern Ca. It is not 'abandoned' by any means, and will likely continually increase it's output as newer wind mill designs become more and more efficient. (I only mention Tehachapi since it was illustrated in one of those articles links from the OP).



The real problem with wind farms/wind mills is that they are a new technology, and the grid itself needs upgrading. Solar photovoltaic arrays run into this same problem (on a smaller scale) they too can't sell back all their electricity to a grid that cant/won't handle it, when the grid is under rival ownership. The technology will need years to work out and subsidies - coal receives subsidies, the electrical grid received massive subsidies to build, hydro-electric power was only possible with government funding (think a private company could ever build Hoover dam?), the nuclear industry received heavy subsidies especially in it's infancy. Wind power won't be any different.

I live about 80 miles north of a wind farm...I have watched these things in operation...one thing they certainly are NOT is a "bird chopper." I detest the use of inflammatory language in order to steer public opinion...that is one reason why I dislike the terms global warming and climate change...we have, comparatively speaking, MINIMAL data in regard to the entire issue and the EPA and others who act out of hat on the basis of this information are highly irresponsible...

That being said, these wind turbines (three 80 foot blades on a 200 foot tall tower...best guess) spinning at 1 revolution every 20 seconds is hardly going to chop a bird or mess with migratory routes...The sand crane migrates through the area, but they are near to a mile up...

reply to post by buddhasystem


I never said we would stop the solar processes. Only a limited cross-section of earth is struck by radiation and particles from the sun. Only a limited amount of accumulated fossil fuel and radioactive maaterial exists on earth. We are fast approaching a point whwere we will consume more energy eacjh day than what the sun can replenish. Estimates range from 20 to 120 years, but we will reach that point. Then we will exhaust the existing resources rather rapidly. I'm on my droid right now, but I have one stimate saved at home that shows we could, at current growth rates, reach a point where all existing energy is exhausted between the years 2350 and 2700. Let's not forget, we cannot harness 100% of the suns energy. It has to heat the atmosphere and earth.

It isn't difficult to calculate. Say the earth is 4 billion years old and has accumulated energy for that time period. It radiates a certain amount, and accumulates the rest. Now, we are using it up at an ever-accelerating rate. It only has one logical outcome.

And yes hurricanes do serve a purpose, so do thunderstorms, erosion, earthquakes, and tsunamis. If we harness it all, we kill the planet.

Most of these 14,000 abandoned turbines are old sub MW size that were built over 30+ years ago.

And yes you can buy them if you want to pay to tear them down. you will need to get a insurance policy for the tear down people.

I know of a rancher that has got 6 now to power his ranch and to run pumps on the ranch.
plus he sells the extra power to the power company.to pay his taxes.

There are about 150 small sub MW units at Tehachapi, CA.
And no they are not Abandoned but just unused as they were shut down as not profitable for the big wind power companies.

The word Abandoned is used way to much.
I owned a mine in the Calif desert for years and though it kept being labeled as Abandoned by everyone from the environmentalist to the media it was not. A number of people were arrested for breaking in as it was posted as private property. (I love game cameras)

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Only a limited cross-section of earth is struck by radiation and particles from the sun.

Why do you think "radiation and particles from Sun" are important? Or do you call light "radiation" -- which is the case, actually... But not clear from your statement.

Only a limited amount of accumulated fossil fuel and radioactive maaterial exists on earth.

True, but there is enough nuclear fuel to last a very long time -- especially if you consider Thorium. There will be enough for hundreds of years, and then we'll get thermonuclear going, and that would be good for millenia.

It isn't difficult to calculate. Say the earth is 4 billion years old and has accumulated energy for that time period.

If you consider nuclear fuel, this statement does not make any sense at all. It sort of applies for fossil fuels, but we didn't even start harvesting solar in earnest.

And yes hurricanes do serve a purpose, so do thunderstorms, erosion, earthquakes, and tsunamis. If we harness it all, we kill the planet.

A large part of Netherlands is located below the sea level, so humans did harness the sea to get living space. According to you, the Dutch need to evacuate and flood the country, so as to avoid "killing the planet".

The Age of Man is about forming an environment suitable for somewhat comfortable survival. If you think we can reduce all sort of footprints to zero, that's too fantastical. Hurricanes are way low on the list of things we want to preserve. A nice tropical storm will do.

Reply to post by buddhasystem

Tell that to the environMENTALists.

lol


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yes, I said radiation and particles intentionally. It does include light, but also all forms of energy, heat, and fusion elements from the sun.

I agree to a certain extent with you about the nuclear material on Earth, but with an ever-growing need for consumption of energy, the nuclear material won't last as long as we would like. If we ever get thermonuclear fusion working, then we might have a sustainable source, but it will eat up other resources unless we harvest materials off-world somehow. I personally do not believe we will ever master the fusion process effectively.

I didn't say we should wipe out the Netherlands. In fact, I haven't said anything negative about anything, except that "green energy" doesn't exist, and if we continue on the current growth rate we will kill the planet. It isn't any one cause, or one effect, or one group of people or circumstances, it is the whole, cumulative effect that will get us!

I'm actually working on converting my home to 100% solar. I already have a solar pool heater and a solar water heater, and I'm on a well, and I have propane and a huge woodburning fireplace for heat. I've dropped my electrical bill and gas bill in half over the last 3 years, and I haven't even started adding pV cells yet.

There is nothing wrong with all of these ideas, but we have to realize they are all an incomplete solution, and they all come with unintended consequences. In my opinion the Wind Turbines and the Wave Action generators are the scariest and least studied for environmental impact. I would hate to see entire climates and weather patterns shifted to different areas or ocean currents moved about unintentionally.

In the short-run, all of these ideas are great, but in the long-run they all have unintended consequences and limited effectiveness.

The only real solution, as I have been saying, is conservation. We need to learn to recycle our heat production, limit our inefficient waste, and put a cap on total consumption. If we can add that to all of the other ideas, we will be on a long-term sustainable plan, and maybe at some point our technology will catch up to our consumption.

reply to post by getreadyalready

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.

Really like what you said here, in spite of only copying your last paragraph. Agree that the concept of "green" has been sorely perverted and/or politicized into something far more nefarious than the original intent.

We will eventuallly kill our planet. Certainly alter it, but perhaps not kill it. We might kill it insofar as humanity is concerned, and I think we're well on the way to doing that.

We have a small wind genny. I believe this is the way things should be done -- on a personal scale. Certainly our wee 250 watt wind genny changes the complexion of our wind patterns or localized climate in some small minute and presently unmeasurable way. We also have 1200 watts of PV panels. They absorb 30% of the solar radiation that would otherwise hit my white roof. Again, I cannot quanitify this minute change.

Back when people worked with their hands and trapped and farmed and hunted for their own needs, they made an impact upon the Earth. If they did not survive, their trace was soon obliterated by the wave of nature. Industry came, and the Earth was [semi-]permanently changed.

I think that when changes are made on a small, personal level, they are incremental and the planet is able to deal with them.

We didn't choose our wind genny because of a minimal impact to the planet. We chose it because it would produce significant power at 5 mph windspeed, and because it cost USD $750. We live in a 'wandering wind' -- hardly every consistent in direction or force. If everyone were given a credit or incentive to invest in such a thing, would they? Should they? I can't answer that.

You bring up some important issues GRE. What are the costs in resources to produce "green" products? We should never mount that high-horse and take it for a ride without truly knowing the entire impact.

reply to post by DrumsRfun

How is windpower a bad thing?

Health problems caused by them (a lot of people report frequent migrains)

Destroys the natural look of the horizon .. they are almost always built in remote areas, on hill tops etc.. so not only is it ugly to look at, but has an effect on the land they are built.

Most inefficient cost to power produced than any other power source.

Spend more time off than on

Kills birds

Poor lifespan ..

The list goes on .. wind "farms" are the absolute worst form of energy.. I'd rather get my energy from coal than wind.

Calling it the Climate Religion is spot on.



Seems to me Coal energy is less harmful, both to the environment and to birds.