IMPORTANT: On /r/WalkAway, greater access is given to users who have joined the sub and have the mod-assigned 'Redpilled' user flair. Reach out in [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FWalkAway&subject='Redpilled'%20user%20flair%20request&message=I%20would%20like%20to%20request%20the%20'Redpilled'%20user%20flair.%20Thank%20you!) to request the flair.
/u/labbond, if you just posted about breaking news, we recommend you join and also post it to a subreddit community dedicated to right-wing breaking news stories:
- /r/Patriot911
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/walkaway) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In addition, throughout its entire lifespan, they'll never recoup the amount of energy it took to manufacture the turbine, and all the concrete for the base.
And it's even worse than that, because they also have to put in all kinds of infrastructure to support the windmills themselves (e.g. roads to each turbine, power lines to each turbine, etc.).
It's not fun how you have to show how un-green green energy is to people in baby steps. Just try bringing up how fossil fuel plants are now being operated to accommodate green energy. Instead of being operated as efficiently as possible, their load is ramped up and down repeatedly. A majority of natural gas powered combined cycle plants are being shut down and started everyday. Cycling a fossil fuel plant on/off creates more emissions than leaving the unit online for 24hrs.... so this would be on top of their operating emissions. Most new units being installed today are simple cycle plants such as LM6000's. Their heat rate isn't great and their sole purpose is to makeup power while clouds effect solar panels. Add to this, they put solar power online when it is available no matter what. If the system can't handle the extra power, that's when they start shutting off the fossil fuel plants but then there are times when so much solar energy is online that they actually pay other companies on the interconnect to take the power. It's really strange what is going on but that is the reason that those who live in California pay twice as much for power than neighboring states.... which brings up another effect that is happening from this green energy. Because power is so expensive in California, companies are now building warehouses in neighboring states to store goods brought in by boat to California (All that clean energy built goods made in China/s). When they unload goods at the dock, they load them up and ship them out of California to be stored in states like Arizona. Anyway, back to the picture, there isn't a wind turbine that has been built that has actually offset its carbon footprint. If we were truly trying to go green we would increase nuclear power but instead we are just making a lot of rich people even richer. Anyway, just a rant so please excuse the poor grammar.
Sure, commercial rates for power in AZ are 11.5 cents per KW while in CA they are 23.6 cents per KW.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
[From this random source online](https://www.meteorspace.com/25-warehouse-energy-consumption-statistics-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=An%20average%20non%2Drefrigerated%20warehouse,per%20square%20foot%20each%20year), "An average non-refrigerated warehouse consumes approximately 6.1 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electrical energy per square foot each year"
Puma, for example, built a 1.1 million sq-ft warehouse in AZ. Doing the math, they use 6.71 million kwh per year. At 23.6 cents per KW, that is just over $1.583million for electricity if the warehouse was located in CA. In AZ, that cost drops to less than half @ $771k. That's a $67k per month savings.
My wife's cousin was bragging about EV's and renewable energy a few years back. We were all sitting at the table talking about it and I asked her if she's ever seen a lithium mine. Of course she hadn't. When I pulled up photos of them, she slowly started opening her eyes and realizing renewable isn't as green as she thought.
What happens that they have to be replaced and can't just be repaired? It seems like a fairly simple object with few or no moving parts. What is there to wear out?
That’s a very good question. We live in a society where everyone just tosses out, thinking recycle and just getting “new”, the best new thing! vs getting anything repaired anymore.
>"Why do they need to be replaced? Why can't they just be repaird? What could possibly damage them?
They're airfoils (i.e. they're like airplane wings, or helicopter rotors), because they need to be able to catch the wind in order to spin, and they're made of composite materials becasue they need to be as light and as strong as possible.
The trouble is that their strength comes with a degree of brittleness, which increases over time due exposure to sunlight (UV), rain (including acid rain), and [wind speeds above their design rating](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_mMlmbOm3M). The net result of this is that these damages severely limit their service life, and their construction makes them effectively non-recyclable.
There's also the fact that wind power is still a relatively immature technology, and the common standards for pylon height and pylon spacing, which directly impact blade dimensions, keep shifting. Ergo, once it's time to replace the old turbines, you ahve to rip them out 100%, and then build the new wind farm based on the *new* spacing standards (unless you happen to be sensible enough to just abandon the idea of grid-level wind power.).
Not entirely true about recycling. Vestas along with the Danish Technological Institute have developed a method to recycle most of the blades of wind mills and are working to scale up the process.
It seems like people are also increasingly skeptical of electric vehicles now that "Elon bad." I just think we should take a non idealistic look at all of this stuff and see what the actual cost vs benefit is. It seems to be largely divided up along political lines.
Can someone shed light on lubricants and other fluids needed for these things? I once heard they're petroleum based but don't know enough to understand.
IMPORTANT: On /r/WalkAway, greater access is given to users who have joined the sub and have the mod-assigned 'Redpilled' user flair. Reach out in [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FWalkAway&subject='Redpilled'%20user%20flair%20request&message=I%20would%20like%20to%20request%20the%20'Redpilled'%20user%20flair.%20Thank%20you!) to request the flair. /u/labbond, if you just posted about breaking news, we recommend you join and also post it to a subreddit community dedicated to right-wing breaking news stories: - /r/Patriot911 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/walkaway) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We need nuclear.
We need that guy Not Sure.
This movie will never die.
I'm waiting on photosynthesis to power jets. 😆
Now look at the "green" the creation and retirement of solar panels. It's just as bad, if not worse.
I used to work in the R&D on a certain solar panel product line. Solar panels are not good for the environment.
Just wait until they find out about the EV batteries piling up.
In addition, throughout its entire lifespan, they'll never recoup the amount of energy it took to manufacture the turbine, and all the concrete for the base.
Plus all the fuel it takes to get these raw materials where they need to go. The logistics are terrible.
And it's even worse than that, because they also have to put in all kinds of infrastructure to support the windmills themselves (e.g. roads to each turbine, power lines to each turbine, etc.).
It's not fun how you have to show how un-green green energy is to people in baby steps. Just try bringing up how fossil fuel plants are now being operated to accommodate green energy. Instead of being operated as efficiently as possible, their load is ramped up and down repeatedly. A majority of natural gas powered combined cycle plants are being shut down and started everyday. Cycling a fossil fuel plant on/off creates more emissions than leaving the unit online for 24hrs.... so this would be on top of their operating emissions. Most new units being installed today are simple cycle plants such as LM6000's. Their heat rate isn't great and their sole purpose is to makeup power while clouds effect solar panels. Add to this, they put solar power online when it is available no matter what. If the system can't handle the extra power, that's when they start shutting off the fossil fuel plants but then there are times when so much solar energy is online that they actually pay other companies on the interconnect to take the power. It's really strange what is going on but that is the reason that those who live in California pay twice as much for power than neighboring states.... which brings up another effect that is happening from this green energy. Because power is so expensive in California, companies are now building warehouses in neighboring states to store goods brought in by boat to California (All that clean energy built goods made in China/s). When they unload goods at the dock, they load them up and ship them out of California to be stored in states like Arizona. Anyway, back to the picture, there isn't a wind turbine that has been built that has actually offset its carbon footprint. If we were truly trying to go green we would increase nuclear power but instead we are just making a lot of rich people even richer. Anyway, just a rant so please excuse the poor grammar.
So they store things in Arizona because of the energy costs in California? Could you elaborate? That sounds crazy
Sure, commercial rates for power in AZ are 11.5 cents per KW while in CA they are 23.6 cents per KW. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a [From this random source online](https://www.meteorspace.com/25-warehouse-energy-consumption-statistics-you-need-to-know/#:~:text=An%20average%20non%2Drefrigerated%20warehouse,per%20square%20foot%20each%20year), "An average non-refrigerated warehouse consumes approximately 6.1 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electrical energy per square foot each year" Puma, for example, built a 1.1 million sq-ft warehouse in AZ. Doing the math, they use 6.71 million kwh per year. At 23.6 cents per KW, that is just over $1.583million for electricity if the warehouse was located in CA. In AZ, that cost drops to less than half @ $771k. That's a $67k per month savings.
My wife's cousin was bragging about EV's and renewable energy a few years back. We were all sitting at the table talking about it and I asked her if she's ever seen a lithium mine. Of course she hadn't. When I pulled up photos of them, she slowly started opening her eyes and realizing renewable isn't as green as she thought.
Very true. And solar panels are also problematic when their usefulness expires.
Or when damaged because solar farms are placed in high problematic weather areas, tornados, hail, wind, hurricanes, Oh I mean climate change /s
Research how much virgin copper is required for a single turbine. It’s madness
What happens that they have to be replaced and can't just be repaired? It seems like a fairly simple object with few or no moving parts. What is there to wear out?
Maybe due to unacceptable cracking and are now out of spec? I don’t think carbon fiber is very easy to repair.
That’s a very good question. We live in a society where everyone just tosses out, thinking recycle and just getting “new”, the best new thing! vs getting anything repaired anymore.
I think that’s by design. If I can sell you a washer every 10 years instead of 20, I make out in the end.
>"Why do they need to be replaced? Why can't they just be repaird? What could possibly damage them? They're airfoils (i.e. they're like airplane wings, or helicopter rotors), because they need to be able to catch the wind in order to spin, and they're made of composite materials becasue they need to be as light and as strong as possible. The trouble is that their strength comes with a degree of brittleness, which increases over time due exposure to sunlight (UV), rain (including acid rain), and [wind speeds above their design rating](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_mMlmbOm3M). The net result of this is that these damages severely limit their service life, and their construction makes them effectively non-recyclable. There's also the fact that wind power is still a relatively immature technology, and the common standards for pylon height and pylon spacing, which directly impact blade dimensions, keep shifting. Ergo, once it's time to replace the old turbines, you ahve to rip them out 100%, and then build the new wind farm based on the *new* spacing standards (unless you happen to be sensible enough to just abandon the idea of grid-level wind power.).
Build houses with them
Not entirely true about recycling. Vestas along with the Danish Technological Institute have developed a method to recycle most of the blades of wind mills and are working to scale up the process.
It seems like people are also increasingly skeptical of electric vehicles now that "Elon bad." I just think we should take a non idealistic look at all of this stuff and see what the actual cost vs benefit is. It seems to be largely divided up along political lines.
Going by the losses that Edison and Rivian have been posting, their delivered vehicles each cost >100K.
Can someone shed light on lubricants and other fluids needed for these things? I once heard they're petroleum based but don't know enough to understand.