2 New Papers Expose The Environmental Nightmare Of Wind Turbine Blade Disposal

Unsustainable: 43 Million Tonnes Of

Wind Turbine Blade Waste By 2050


“If the industry cannot come up with more sustainable manufacturing and disposal processes, public acceptance of wind energy would decline if the public becomes aware of these issues” – Ramirez-Tejeda et al., 2017


Despite an explosion in installed wind capacity since 1990, wind power had achieved just 0.39% of the world’s total energy consumption as of 2013.

Image Source


Germany has assumed a leading role in promoting the consumption of renewable energy.  And yet even in Germany the share of energy consumption from wind power reached only 2.1% in 2016.

Despite its extremely limited infiltration as a world energy source, it is assumed that a rapid expansion of wind power will ultimately be environmentally advantageous both due to its reputation as a “clean” energy and because of the potential to contribute to reduced CO2 emissions.

Recently, however, the austere environmental impacts and health risks associated with expanding wind energy have received more attention.

For example, scientists have asserted that wind turbines are now the leading cause of multiple mortality events in bats, with 3 to 5 million bats killed by wind turbines every year.   Migratory bats in North America may face the risk of extinction in the next few decades due to wind turbine-related fatalities.


Frick et al., 2017

“Large numbers of migratory bats are killed every year at wind energy facilities. … Using expert elicitation and population projection models, we show that mortality from wind turbines may drastically reduce population size and increase the risk of extinction. For example, the hoary bat population could decline by as much as 90% in the next 50 years if the initial population size is near 2.5 million bats and annual population growth rate is similar to rates estimated for other bat species (λ = 1.01). Our results suggest that wind energy development may pose a substantial threat to migratory bats in North America.”


Wind Turbine Blades Last 20 Years…And Then They Are Tossed Into Landfills


Besides reducing wildlife populations, perhaps one of the most underrated negative side effects of building wind turbines is that they don’t last very long (less than 20 years) before they need to be replaced.  And their blades aren’t recyclable.  Consequently, 43 million tonnes (47 million tons) of blade waste will be added to the world’s landfills within the next few decades.


Liu and Barlow, 2017

The blades, one of the most important components in the wind turbines, made with composite, are currently regarded as unrecyclable.  With the first wave of early commercial wind turbine installations now approaching their end of life, the problem of blade disposal is just beginning to emerge as a significant factor for the future. … The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%.”

Although wind energy is often claimed to provide clean renewable energy without any emissions during operation (U.S. Department of Energy, 2015), a detailed ecological study may indicate otherwise even for this stage. The manufacture stage is energy-intensive and is associated with a range of chemical usage (Song et al., 2009). Disposal at end-of-life must also be considered (Ortegon et al., 2012; Pickering, 2013; Job, 2014).A typical wind turbine (WT) has a foundation, a tower, a nacelle and three blades. The foundation is made from concrete; the tower is made from steel or concrete; the nacelle is made mainly from steel and copper; the blades are made from composite materials (Vestas, 2006; Tremeac and Meunier, 2009; Guezuraga et al., 2012). Considering these materials only, concrete and composites are the most environmentally problematic at end-of-life, since there are currently no established industrial recycling routes for them (Pimenta and Pinho, 2011; Job, 2013).”


In a new paper entitled “Unsustainable Wind Turbine Blade Disposal Practices in the United States“, Ramirez-Tejeda et al. (2017) further detail the imminent and unresolved nightmare of wind turbine blade disposal.   The environmental consequences and health risks are so adverse that the authors warn that if the public learns of this rapidly burgeoning problem, they may be less inclined to favor wind power expansion. Advocates of wind power are said to be “largely ignoring the issue”.  It’s an “issue” that will not be going away any time soon.

In light of its minuscule share of worldwide consumption (despite explosive expansion in recent decades), perhaps it is time to at least reconsider both the benefits and the costs of wind energy expansion.


‘Adverse Environmental Consequences’ For A Rapidly Expanding Wind Power Grid


Ramirez-Tejeda et al. (2017)

“Globally, more than seventy thousand wind turbine blades were deployed in 2012 and there were 433 gigawatts (GW) of wind installed capacity worldwide at the end of 2015. Moreover, the United States’ installed wind power capacity will need to increase from 74 GW to 300 GW3 to achieve its 20% wind production goal by 2030.  To meet the increasing demand, not only are more blades being manufactured, but also blades of up to 100 meters long are being designed and produced.”

The wind turbine blades are designed to have a lifespan of about twenty years, after which they would have to be dismantled due to physical degradation or damage beyond repair. Furthermore, constant development of more efficient blades with higher power generation capacity is resulting in blade replacement well before the twenty-year life span.”

Estimations have suggested that between 330,000 tons/year by 2028 and 418,000 tons/year by 2040 of composite material from blades will need to be disposed worldwide. That would be equivalent to the amount of plastics waste generated by four million people in the United States in 2013. This anticipated increase in blade manufacturing and disposal will likely lead to adverse environmental consequences, as well as potential occupational exposures, especially because available technologies and key economic constraints result in undesirable disposal methods as the only feasible options.”


Problems With Landfills


“Despite its negative consequences, landfilling has so far been the most commonly utilized wind turbine blade disposal method. … Landfilling is especially problematic because its high resistance to heat, sunlight, and moisture means that it will take hundreds of years to degrade in a landfill environment. The wood and other organic material present in the blades would also end up in landfills, potentially releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and other volatile organic compounds to the environment.”

The estimated cost to put blade material in landfills, not including pretreatment and transportation costs, is approximately US $60 per ton. [A typical blade may weigh 30-40 tons].  In the United Kingdom, where landfilling organics is not yet prohibited, the active waste disposal cost (which includes plastics) is approximately US $130 per ton.”


Problems With Incineration


“Incineration of blades is another disposal method with potential for energy and/or material recovery. … Combustion of GFRP is especially problematic because it can produce toxic gases, smoke, and soot that can harm the environment and humans.  Carbon monoxide and formaldehyde have been reported as residue from thermal degradation of epoxy resin.  Another residue is carbon dioxide, which poses concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, about 60% of the scrap remains as pollutant ash after the incineration process, some of which is sent to landfills, potentially contaminating the sites. Possible emission of hazardous flue gasses is also among the issues with incinerating wind turbine blades.”

One key issue is that all these thermal processing techniques for wind turbine blades would also require fragmentation of the material into smaller pieces through mechanical processing before being fed into the reactors, increasing energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.”


Problems With Mechanical Processing


“Mechanical processing is a relatively simpler disposal method that consists of cutting, shredding, and grinding the material to separate the fibers from resins, so it can be repurposed. This process is energy intensive and produces small fiber particles with poor mechanical properties that can only be used as filler reinforcement material in the cement or asphalt industries. … The dust emitted in the grinding process of FRP creates occupational health and safety risks for workers. Inhalation, as well as skin and eye contact can produce moderate irritation to mucous membranes, skin, eyes, and coughing. Occupational exposure and prolonged inhalation of such particles have been found to produce alterations of the cellular and enzymatic components of the deep lung in humans, identified as acute alveolitis.”


Problems With Chemical Degradation


“The last method is chemical degradation, which consists of first mechanically reducing the size of the blades, then degrading them using a chemical solution. … Although no industrial-level chemical recycling of thermoset polymers has been done yet, some hazardous chemicals such as nitric acids and paraformaldehyde have been used in testing and development processes.  Occupational exposure to these chemicals can produce harmful respiratory diseases including potential nasal cancer, and dermal health effects.”


Advocates Of Wind Power ‘Have Largely Ignored The Issue’


“Few individuals and organizations recognize the problems inherently related to blade recyclability. This situation creates an obstacle for promoting policy interventions to solve these problems. As a result, manufacturers, wind farm operators, and advocates have largely ignored the issue, focusing efforts on promoting wind energy and addressing other issues such as negative impacts on wildlife and noise generation.”

“If the industry cannot come up with more sustainable manufacturing and disposal processes, public acceptance of wind energy would decline if the public becomes aware of these issues, inhibiting its growth as one of the main sources of electricity generation in the United States.”

158 responses to “2 New Papers Expose The Environmental Nightmare Of Wind Turbine Blade Disposal”

  1. ClimateOtter

    ‘advocates have largely ignored the issue, focusing efforts on promoting wind energy and addressing other issues such as negative impacts on wildlife and noise generation.”’

    Actually they have not only ignored wildlife and noise issues, they actively work to demonize any effort to bring such things to the public’s notice.

    As sod will be along to explain shortly.

  2. SebastianH

    1) Bats: proposals exist to turn off wind turbines in regions with bats at night and low winds. That would reduce their output, but not by much, and would save most bats. Don’t know if that is implemented already.

    2)

    wind power had achieved just 0.39% of the world’s total energy consumption as of 2013.

    1 GWh of renewable energy replaces roughly 3 GWh of fossil fuel energy, thus renewables are under-represented when looking at primary energy consumption. If we could switch to 100% renewables tomorrow the primary energy consumption would be less than half of what it is today, but end energy usage would not change. Growth of renewables is still exponential (https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-new-bp-data-shows-emissions-flat-2016-record-rise-renewables “At recent rates of growth of 16% per year, these renewable sources would outpace the current output from nuclear by 2019, hydro by 2022 and gas by 2030.”)

    3) Recycling the blades seems to be a problem, I agree. The rest of the structure of a windmill has a recycling rate of 80-90% according the company websites in Germany. This survey (https://www.ict.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ict/de/documents/ue_klw_Poster_Recycling%20von%20Windkraftanlagen.pdf) got as result that around 20-30 kT of rotor blase waste will accrue in the 2040s and 30-40 kT in the 2050s (in Germany). Plastic waste in Germany was 5,877 kT in 2015 (https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/abfall-kreislaufwirtschaft/entsorgung-verwertung-ausgewaehlter-abfallarten/kunststoffabfaelle#textpart-1) … so rotor blades would be around 0.5-0.6% of our waste. Just to get a perspective of the “environmental nightmare”.

    1. Juergen Uhlemann

      SebastianH: I love it when someone wants 100% renewables. 😀

      100% is only achievable every so often. Most of the time the percentage will be average to low and from time to time it will be so low that the whole electricity system is down.

      The islands of Tasmania and El Hierro tried to power their economies with 100 percent green energy, but both islands eventually went back to diesel generators after suffering reliability problems.

      South Australia has a high percentage (1.56GW) installed and right now (22:30) it produces only 17%, which covers only 15% of the demand. Just read http://joannenova.com.au/ to see how South Australia is doing.
      Ireland, is quite similar. 15% of the installed capacity and 14% of the demand.
      Denmark looks a bit better, as solar provides 9% of the demand. The wind is worse than Ireland, as it is 10% of the installed capacity and 9% of the demand.

      In all three cases the installed wind capacity is right now about the demand. However, to cover a time like this you would need to increase the installed capacity about 10 times.

      Ireland had between the 18th of June and the 19th of June for about 25 hours just about 2% of the installed wind capacity.

      The data is from: https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=true&solar=true&page=country&countryCode=IE

      Solar and wind are volatile and it doesn’t matter how much you install. I’m not talking about the sun, as this is quite obvious. The wind is very volatile.

      If the world wants to reduce the CO2 concentration through the production and installation of more and more solar, wind and batteries, it will increase the CO2 concentration straight away quite substantial.
      Tesla car battery example: “For every kilowatt hour of storage capacity in the battery generated emissions of 150 to 200 kilos of carbon dioxide already in the factory.”

      1. SebastianH

        Juergen, I love it when people on the internet manage to completely ignore what the post or the comment they reply to was about and just write whatever they had in mind 😉

        But I’ll bite. My mention of 100% renewables referred to every kWh consumed coming from renewable energy sources. Not building 100% the necessary capacity and the discovering that wind and solar have a small capacity factor 😉 It was a hypthetical statement to make the author of the post aware that renewables are under represented in primary energy consumption, because their output more or less matches the input. Fossil fuel has varying efficiency, e.g. 1 kWh of gasoline will move your car the same distance as around 0.2-0.3 kWh of electricity moves an electric vehicle. 1 kWh of coal will produce around 0.4 kWh of electricity and so on. Strangely enough even nuclear electricity generation has a 3:1 factor attached to it … so 1 kWh of nuclear electricity equals 3 kWh of primary energy consumption while 1 kWh of wind electricity equals just 1 kWh of primary energy consumption.

        Got it?

        On the topic of 100% renewables … that’s certainly possible but it’s not entirely clear at what cost. 70% should be achievable without the need for large storage solutions. Fairly small batteries to stabilize the gird and natural gas as backup for the remaining 30% should work just fine. At least in Germany.

        1. AndyG55

          Seb FANTASY LAND yet again !!

          Tell us seb.. how close is the closest big wind turbine to you in your inner city ghetto.

          When you are able to feel wind turbines from your basement window, I will believe you are capable of doing anything but ranting aimlessly.

        2. Juergen Uhlemann

          “My mention of 100% renewables referred to every kWh consumed coming from renewable energy sources”
          I guess this means that the consumption has to be aligned to the production.
          This is what Prof. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker (Co-President of the Club of Rome) mentioned last year in an interview when he said that factory’s are batteries too. They will be turned off when there is no renewable energy and turned on when the energy is back.
          This means the same what you said. The consumption will be 100% the renewable energy sources and while the energy from the renewable energy sources is variable, the consumption has to be too.

          This is the real reason of the renewable energy supporters: Reduce the consumption!
          The only question is to what level?

          1. SebastianH

            This is the real reason of the renewable energy supporters: Reduce the consumption! The only question is to what level?

            No … the final energy consumption is of course the same.

            I guess this means that the consumption has to be aligned to the production.

            No … I have made no statement as to how 100% renewables would be achieved. I just used 100% to illustrate the difference in primary energy consumption when 100% of all usage would be renewable vs. 0% … primary energy consumption would decrease by a factor of 2-3 without the final energy usage changing.

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      “…proposals exist to turn off wind turbines in regions with bats at night…”

      Here’s the species distribution of just ONE of the many there are in Europe.
      https://www.researchgate.net/figure/230713082_fig4_Figure-1-The-European-distribution-of-Daubenton's-bat-Myotis-daubentonii-The-closed
      Good luck with that.

      “1 GWh of renewable energy replaces roughly 3 GWh of fossil fuel energy,…”

      Only if consumers are forced to cut consumption by 2/3, …unless you’ve figured out how to violate energy conservation. (I wouldn’t put it past some of them to claim that.)

      1. SebastianH

        See reply to Juergen above. 1 kWh of wind power equals 1 kWh of primary energy consumption while 1 kWh of electricity generated by a fossil fuel power plant equals around 3 kWh of primary energy consumption. Even nuclear gets that 1:3 conversion. That’s what I meant. No energy conservation problem here … just a definition problem which results in renewables being under-represented in primary energy consumption statistics.

        1. AndyG55

          No, just another seb misinformation strawman.

          Coal doesn’t become energy until it is used in a power station

          If you want to compare that, then you have to look at want percentage of the wind, wind power uses…

          Seeing as MOST energy in the cylinder of wind passing through a wind turbine goes straight through, your methodology is, AS ALWAYS, totally flawed. (what percentage of the whole circle do the blades take up, seb 😉

          Try another baseless analogy, seb..

          That will work 😉

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Oh, you got to that before I could. =)

          2. Juergen Uhlemann

            There is something called the Betz Limit “no wind turbine can convert more than 16/27 (59.3%) of the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical energy turning a rotor”.

            If it would use 100% then there would a vacuum bind the blades and then the air behind it would be sucked in causing most likely the interference with the blades. Would the blades even be forced the other direction?

            Anyway, “the real world limit is well below the Betz Limit with values of 0.35-0.45 common even in the best designed wind turbines.”

          3. AndyG55

            “Limit with values of 0.35-0.45 common even in the best designed wind turbines.””

            The newest coal fired power station in Japan can extract some 55% of the coal’s energy.

            Oh dear, seems seb has been caught out by FACTS..

            … yet again !!!

          4. SebastianH

            http://lmgtfy.com/?q=difference+between+primary+energy+and+final+energy

            Educate yourself instead of ranting baseless nonsense…

    3. Robert Folkerts

      SebastionH says

      “proposals exist to turn off wind turbines in regions with bats at night and low winds. That would reduce their output, but not by much,”

      I wonder if he realises just what he wrote here?

      That TURNING OFF WIND TURBINES WOULD REDUCE THEIR OUTPUT, BUT NOT BY MUCH,

      That is just so funny. Does this mean their normal output is also NOT MUCH, or that when turned off they continue to generate, but at reduced levels?

      What a laugh sebH. Perhaps stand up comedy will be your calling!

      1. SebastianH

        I wonder if you read the sentence only to “at night” and not continued reading to “and low winds”.

        That doesn’t happen too often and therefore the electricity output would not be reduced by much if wind turbines which have high bat casuality rates would do something like that.

        Do you read everything with that amount of attention? Is that why you are a skeptic? 😉

        1. AndyG55

          Poor seb, caught out once again.

          and then just doubles down on his error and ignorance.

          And yes it does happen, VERY OFTEN.

          You KNOW from your own calculations that wind in Germany produces less than 20% of its nameplate for something like 60-70% of the time and produced more than 50% of its nameplate for less than 5% of the time last year.

          PATHETIC and FEEBLE to say the least.

          No wonder you are still a brain-washed BELIEVER, when you DENY your own calculations.

        2. AndyG55

          What you are saying is that wind turbines don’t produce much, and therefore, turning them off means there is very little difference.

          Well done, you may FINALLY have got somewhere close to REALITY..

          .. just this once.

        3. Robert Folkerts

          Yes SebH, I did read all of it. I’m still laughing!

          So, if there happened to be little wind when the bats are flying, why turn them off. The tip speed of the blades under those conditions likely is insufficient to slice bats to pieces.

          SebH, do you want to take a stab at explaining at what point in their lifetime, solar and wind generators begin to produce energy as a credit on the ledger. That is, at what point would their production of energy cancel out the amount of energy required to produce them.

          1. SebastianH

            Bats hunt in low winds and at night. To learn more read here: https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/10/saving-bats-from-wind-turbines/

            That is, at what point would their production of energy cancel out the amount of energy required to produce them.

            Look it up and don’t ask random commenters on blogs! It depends on the location. PV systems produce the amount of energy needed for their production in around 1.5 years in Southern Europe and 2.5 years in Northern Europe. In Sicily it’s just around one year.

            Wind turbines have an energy payback time of less than a year in most regions.

      2. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Nice catch.

    4. AndyG55

      “so rotor blades would be around 0.5-0.6% of our waste. Just to get a perspective of the “environmental nightmare”.”

      so, CO2 can go up to 500, 600 ppm, without any problem at all.

      thanks, bozo. !

      1. AndyG55

        make that 5000 to 6000 ppm.

        according to you, 0.5%-0.6% is not a problem.

      2. SebastianH

        In the year 2011 plastic bags resulted in 68 kT of plastic waste in Germany. That’s almost double as much waste as rotor blades will ever be in the near future. Sorry, but the potential waste from rotor blades is no “environmental nightmare”, no more than plastic bags at least. Improvement is always good, but being an alarmist on this topic is just another form of gaslighting.

        1. Graeme No.3

          SebastianH:
          Plastic bags degrade readily if exposed to sunlight and water. Far quicker than you think. I once had the unpleasant experience of picking up a plastic (4L) bottle from a window sill to have it disintegrate in my hand. It had been on the window sill for convenience in use in the laboratory, behind thick glass, for 18 months, possibly a little longer. Fortunately it was detergent solution, not the nitric acid in the next in the row.
          Fibreglass laminates are far slower to degrade, depending on grades. At one of the fibreglass resin companies where I worked there was thought to include the original fibreglass boat made in Australia into an advertising campaign as it had passed its 25 year anniversary, despite being exposed to sunlight in Sydney Harbour all that time (sunlight in Sydney is far more severe than that in Germany). That was a basic grade, higher (more expensive) grades are expected to have even longer lifetimes, esp. underground.

  3. MGJ

    I take your point about the economics etc. but is sticking some old blades in a hole in the ground really such a problem for the environment? If so, is it worse than the waste from any other form of generation?

  4. sod

    “Despite an explosion in installed wind capacity since 1990, wind power had achieved just 0.39% of the world’s total energy consumption as of 2013.”

    This argument is really really weak. I would stop using it, if i was you. It makes your whole line of argument even much weaker than it already is.

    Data from 2013 is useless today. the situation is changing so fast, that this data is simply garbage.

    the comparison to total energy, instead of electricity is simply a trick to mislead people. The uneducated right wing fools might like it,, but anyone with a working brain will see the trick at once. As Sebastian said above, you simply can NOT compare the numbers. It is total garbage.

    The situation of wind (and solar is changing completely, because they became the cheapest new sources of electricity. We are breaking records every where:

    India:

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/record-level-of-wind-power-produced/articleshow/59259992.cms

    the USA is above 10% now:

    http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/wind-solar-electricity-energy/2017/06/20/id/797104/

    and the UK:

    https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/08/uk-renewable-record-solar-wind-hydro/

    1. Stuart Brown

      sod said:

      ““Despite an explosion in installed wind capacity since 1990, wind power had achieved just 0.39% of the world’s total energy consumption as of 2013.”

      This argument is really really weak. I would stop using it, if i was you. It makes your whole line of argument even much weaker than it already is. ”

      (wish I knew how to block quote)

      From BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017 again – because I’ve got it open:

      Total World primary energy usage 2016: 13,276.3 MTOe
      Total World energy (renewables) 2016: 419.6 MTOe
      … which is 3.2%,rounding up.

      But this is “Based on gross generation from renewable sources including wind, geothermal, solar, biomass and waste, and not accounting for cross-border electricity supply. Converted on the basis of thermal
      equivalence assuming 38% conversion efficiency in a modern thermal power station.”

      So, not only is this figure inflated by a factor of 2.6 to equate electricity to primary energy, it’s for more than wind. So real energy from wind can’t be more than just over 1%.

      Even if you accept the figure of 3.2%, which is better than 0.39%, I agree, it hardly weakens the argument…

      1. sod

        “Even if you accept the figure of 3.2%, which is better than 0.39%, I agree, it hardly weakens the argument…”

        again: the comparison is false. the comparison to total energy includes transportation which is mostly by petrol today. But when this switches to electricity, it will turn into one HALF immediately.
        is this to difficult for you to understand?

        1. AndyG55

          roflmao.

          What a load of fabricated rubbish, sob.

        2. Stuart Brown

          This is way off topic, but I joined in for some reason…

          sod,

          I’m comparing like for like and the 0.39% figure was for total energy which you rejected as coming from 2013. I showed a figure for 2016 which is probably as near to ‘now’ as we can get. Yes, it’s 10 times the figure for 2013, but it includes all sorts of other ‘renewables’ so it’s still really small. Maybe that will change, maybe not – but that is in the future, not today. The 3.2% of primary energy for renewables also includes a factor of 1/0.38 for the fact that it is electricity only, so we already said that the electricity coming from wind directly replaces a bigger proportion of primary energy from coal or whatever, specifically for electricity production. It’s not ‘total garbage’.

          I didn’t look at your point that using total energy mis-represents winds contribution to electrical energy. It’s a fair point, but if you bring up EVs you are definitely back in total energy land again. EVs replacing petrol engines is another maybe for the future – it’s not in place today. I won’t argue with you about whether EVs are more efficient than petrol engines, they may well be, I’ve not looked at it – I do understand what you are saying, I never argued otherwise. A win to you if you like.

      2. yonason (from my cell phone)

        A complete debunking of sod and friends has recently been published in peer reviewed PNAS.
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/21/renewable-energy-cost-and-reliability-claims-exposed-and-debunked/

        “” quote you want “” with the quotation marks removed.

        And if that’s correct, this should work.

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          Oops. No help for you there. Sorry.

          Well. I know how to do it, but not how to format an explanation that doesn’t get messed up because the site interprets the code as if I am using it.

          Look for a good site that explains HTML formatting clearly, then practice using it in a browser like this one.
          http://htmledit.squarefree.com/

          Patience and perseverance will be rewarded. (I should write for “fortune cookie” magazine, eh?)

          1. Stuart Brown

            Thanks anyway

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      India narrative debunked here.
      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/06/25/indias-electricity-transformation/

      The chatbots get everything wrong all the time without fail.

  5. A C Osborn

    SebastianH 22. June 2017 at 1:04 PM

    Now there is a statement I have never seen before and needs some serious backup material “1 GWh of renewable energy replaces roughly 3 GWh of fossil fuel energy”.

    This wonderful new non dispatchable, non base load energy source is 3 times better than FF energy.
    Even though it needs constant FF Energy backup to be of any use whatsoever.

    So come on then Seb, let’s see all the peer reviewed Scientific papers backing up that claim.

    1. SebastianH

      That needs no science paper, you just have to read about how primary energy consumption is calculated. For fossil fuels it should be clear … gasoline used in cars is just that … so if you use 1 liter of gasoline ~10 kWh are added to primary energy consumption. A fossil fuel powerplant might use 10 kWh of coal and produce 3-4 kWh of electricity. Understood so far?

      Nuclear power is mostly used for eletricity generation. To get a value for it’s resource consumption the world seems to have agreed on a 3:1 ratio. So for every kWh nuclear power plants generate, 3 kWh are added to primary energy consumption.

      Renewables don’t have such a conversation rate, at least not in Germany. So 1 kWh or renewable electricity equals 1 kWh of primary energy consumption.

      This results in an under-representation and to a replacement of around 3 GWh of primary energy consumption with 1 GWh when 1 GWh of renewables are added and coal electricity generation decreases by 1 GWh. That’s the electricity part of energy consumption.

      On the gasoline front a vehicle consuming 5 liters per 100 km uses around 50 kWh of primary energy. The same vehicle converted to an electric drive would consume roughly have that in electricity and if this electricity comes from renewables also 2 GWh of primary energy consumption would be replaced by just 1 GWh of renewables without any change in the distance the vehicles travel.

      Got it?

      1. Graeme No.3

        “a replacement of around 3 GWh of primary energy consumption with 1 GWh when 1 GWh of renewables are added and coal electricity generation decreases by 1 GWh.”

        Double, sorry Triple accounting. And who says that coal electricity genertion decreases?????

        1. SebastianH

          My English must be either really bad or you don’t want to understand this. Which one is it?

          Re-read my comment and maybe you’ll get it.

          A coal power plant burns 3 GWh of coal to produce 1 GWh of electricity. So you have 3 GWh of primary energy consumption and 1 GWh of final energy consumption.

          A renewable energy source like wind burns nothing when producing the same 1 GWh of electricity. So we have 1 GWh of primary energy consumption and 1 GWh of final energy consumption.

          If you replace the 1 GWh of coal powered electricity by 1 GWh of renewable electricity, your primary energy consumption decreases by 2 GWh or from 3 GWh to 1 GWh. Simple math.

          And who says that coal electricity genertion decreases?????

          The BP statistical review of world energy: https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-new-bp-data-shows-emissions-flat-2016-record-rise-renewables … electricity generation from coal decreases and coal mining decreases even more.

          1. AndyG55

            Seb, your stats are based on a LIE, just like everything else your child-mind “believes”

            Get over it !!.

            Wind turbines extract 35% of available energy at most.

            Newest coal powered station in Japan extracts 55% of available energy.

            Coal is currently being replaced by GAS.

            Also the general worldwide downturn because of the ridiculous amount of money WASTED on unreliables, is starting to bite.

            China is off-loading millions of cheap solar panels it has no use for, so solar set-ups are cheap.

            And yet still the price of coking coal is at a 6 year high.

            New renewables still provide just a TINY proportion (less than 2 or 3%) of world energy.

            Either you are totally unaware of these facts…

            ….or you are LYING through your a*** as usual.

  6. Günter Weber

    Maybe the readers find this link interesting: http://www.lifebrio.eu/expected-results/

    Plastic bags and coffee ‘to-go’ cups are more of an environmental concern to me.

  7. John from Michigan

    Let’s face it. Windmills are a bad idea.

    Erecting these monstrosities should never have occurred, and every one of them should be decommissioned and destroyed at once. They kill thousands of birds and bats, their ugliness can best be descibed as sight pollution, their non-stop noise is damaging the health of all who live near them (including domestic and wild animals), they’re costly and inefficient and couldn’t exist without vast government subsidies (of our tax money), and they have only about a 23-year life expectancy before replacement (that is, if they’re not struck by lightning first which they often are.)

    Yes, it would be costly to tear them down, but the damage they do with only a meager output (producing only when the wind is blowing)is, in the long run, even more costly.

  8. Mike Johnson

    The problem is that people who begin as interested in some area become partisans for some technology (in this case) and as they are bonded emotionally they refuse of acknowledge that the concept will not develop due to limitations that are inherent and simply insist that more (and more) is the solution. Wind machines are simply a source of very expensive energy and not much of that.
    This experiment has already gone too far and should be terminated now. Existing wind machines should be completely removed as they fail in service to limit the amount of wasted resources. These are energy wasters not energy generators and we require energy at the lowest cost per unit generated to maintain affordability to people and heavy industry.

  9. yonason (from my cell phone)
    1. Rhee

      Then they’ll simply claim the turbine blades self-identify as organic and will be allowed to be buried like all other organics. Same way as persons can self-identify as one of 57 FB approved genders.
      Problem Solved!!!

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)

        Most likely. =)

    2. SebastianH

      Could be a problem … not only for rotor blades, but also for 68 kT of platic bag waste

  10. Stuart Brown

    “Incineration of blades is another disposal method with potential for energy and/or material recovery…”
    “In the United Kingdom, where landfilling organics is not yet prohibited, the active waste disposal cost (which includes plastics) is approximately US $130 per ton.”

    Then we in the UK have the perfect solution – feed them into Drax instead of felled American forest,and perhaps generate more electricity than the wretched things do standing around the countryside.

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      I thought of suggesting that as a joke, but on searching about it I find there are those who are serious! I’ll pass on that pollution.j

      1. Stuart Brown

        I wasn’t serious! I must be careful who I mix with…

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          “I wasn’t serious!” – Stuart Brown

          Sadly, there are some who are!

          And this one by people opposed to the monstrosities!
          https://www.google.com/amp/s/mothersagainstwindturbines.com/2014/09/04/finally-something-useful-to-do-with-turbine-blades-burn-em-for-fuel/amp/

          Almost seems plausible until one reads this good supplement to the NTZ article.
          https://www.google.com/amp/s/co2insanity.com/2011/06/12/broken-wind-turbine-blades-create-mountainous-waste-problem/amp/

  11. John F. Hultquist

    While building a wind power project near us, one of the blades was damaged. Rather than trash it, they placed it beside the visitor’s center. It is at this location: {zoom in}

    47.012861, -120.202028

    Zoom out to view more of the project.

    And here is a summary of the project with stats on sizes, weights, and so on: Fact Sheet

  12. Greg Bacon

    How many bats were killed and are being killed by Fukushima? Or Hanford?

    Or by the insane foreign policy of the USA?

  13. sod

    A message from the real world to the “sceptic” fairy tale wonderland:

    “Coal India, the world’s largest producer of the fossil fuel, is closing 37 mines before March next year as it said they are no longer economically viable due to increasing competition from renewable energy sources.

    The state-run company, responsible for about 82% of India’s total coal output, said the closures would save around 8 billion rupees ($124 million), The Telegraph India reported.

    The country has also announced it will not build any more coal plants after 2022 and predicts renewables to account for more than half its power by 2027.”

    http://www.mining.com/worlds-top-coal-producer-close-37-mines/

    Mines and cola plants are being CLOSED. wind is taking over. INDIA (INDIA!!!) will stop building coal plants in the near future and is SAVING money by closing coal plants and mines.

    The useless wind will make up 50% in 2027 (that is just 10 years from now!). But that is just normal facts from the rest of the world. You folks of course have your own, “alternative” facts….

    1. SebastianH

      India also just cancelled 13.7 GW of planned coal power plants projects for a similar reason:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/india-solar-power-electricity-cancels-coal-fired-power-stations-record-low-a7751916.html

    2. AndyG55

      What a pair of deceitful worms you AGW trolls are.

      India, like China, have significantly overbuilt their capacity requirements for the medium-term future.

      If you read your own links you would know that.

      Why do you consistently LIE with intent to deceive ?

      It seem to be a major part of your slimy, under-handed propagandist meme.

      1. sod

        “What a pair of deceitful worms you AGW trolls are.”

        it is bizarre that these sort of imnsults are how sceptics talk to people.

        “ndia, like China, have significantly overbuilt their capacity requirements for the medium-term future.”

        which part of NO NEW COAL PLANTS after 2022 did you not comprehend?

        “Why do you consistently LIE with intent to deceive ?”

        there is no lie in our posts above. I was simply quoting the facts as stated. we might already be BEYOND peak coal, you fools!

        1. AndyG55

          You LIE by omitting to mention the HUGE build-up of coal fired plants in the last several years.

          What part of massive overbuilding do you not comprehend…

          You are either deliberately LYING or you are being deliberately ignorant.

          Nobody can figure out which.

          1. SebastianH

            Quote from the article:

            He said about it has been accepted that some £6.9bn-worth of existing coal power plants at Mundra in Gujarat were “no longer viable because of the prohibitively high cost of imported coal relative to the long-term electricity supply contracts”.

            Lying by omitting … oh dear AndyG55 … i missed you twisted logic and insult ridden comments in the last few days 😉 Keep going and make yourself look like the clown you are. How can you expect that anyone should take you serious?

          2. AndyG55

            Again, poor seb is trying to hide behind the FACT that both India and China over-estimated their energy requirements.

            The only clowns here are you and your mate sob-sob. and NOBODY takes either of you in the least bit seriously.

            Everybody knows you are both baseless AGW apostles/shills, with ZERO ability to back up even the most base level myth/lie of the AGW scam.

            How’s the fossil fuel powered Mercedes going, btw, seb.

          3. sod

            “Again, poor seb is trying to hide behind the FACT that both India and China over-estimated their energy requirements.”

            you are approaching the horse from behind, AGAIN.

            we told you, that this was overcapacity. we told you, that peak coal might have already been passed. we predicted tons of stranded assets in coal power. we predicted falling demand in developted countries and slowing demand in developing countries.

            you were wrong on all of this and now use your false claims from the past to excuse the false claims your are making now.

            everything you write is wrong.

          4. AndyG55

            “you are approaching the horse from behind,”

            Its hard to communicate with you while you have your head up the horse’s arse, sob-sob. !!

            Over-capacity will only last a short while.

            The ONLY reason for falling coal demand in once developed countries is the massive subsidies paid for unreliables.

            and of course GAS. !!

            And ..oh look what’s happening

            https://www.platts.com/podcasts-detail/spotlight/2017/june/asia-thermal-coal-prices-062317

            Get your head out of the horse’s ar*e so that you can see something other than horse sh*t.

          5. AndyG55

            “that peak coal might have already been passed”

            ROFLMAO

            There you go with the FANTASY LAND BS again.

            What sort of hallucinogenic cocktail do you smoke… It sure seems to produce a load of BS. !!

          6. yonason (from my cell phone)

            I posted this link above, but it bears repeating.
            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/06/25/indias-electricity-transformation/

            “…as the Global Coal Plant Tracker revealed, there is nearly three times as much capacity in the pipeline but not started, as there is under construction. Given that the 50 GW under construction is already more than is needed, it is hardly surprising that projects not even started yet are being shelved.”

            Lots more there showing the chatbots need massive reprogramming if they are to get anything right at all.

  14. sod

    Tall buildings Like Trump towers…) kill more birds that wind power. fact.

    “There are way more bird deaths from birds striking tall buildings, like the type of towers that the president owns, than there are from birds striking wind turbines,” Mandelbaum said. “If the president’s concerned, maybe he should take a look at his own portfolio.””

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trumps-putdown-of-wind-energy-whips-up-a-backlash-in-iowa/2017/06/22/4e299a9a-578b-11e7-840b-512026319da7_story.html

    1. AndyG55

      “There are way more bird deaths from birds striking tall buildings, …. than there are from birds striking wind turbines”

      Load of rubbish.

      Mandelbaum is a lawyer for a rabid environmental cuase, and would never admit to knowing of the statistical maleficence that went into making up that fraudulent statistic. His “fact’s” are about as relevant to reality as Al Gore’s or any other AGW religion cultist.

      Wouldn’t you have to look at bird deaths per tall building.

      That is usually your get-out line, sob-sob.

      1. SebastianH

        Wasn’t there a discussion about pointless ad hominem attacks? Attack the argument not the person, AndyG55.

        Causes of bird deaths:
        http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/
        http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm

        Glass windows are cleary dominating. Do you disagree?

        1. AndyG55

          roflmao.

          So you actually BELIEVE these reports from WIND INDUSTRY consultants.

          You actually BELIEVE they are based on actual FACTS ?????

          You are truly the most GULLIBLE little AGW proponent in existence. !!!

        2. AndyG55

          seb, do you really DENY that “Mandelbaum is a lawyer for a rabid environmental cause”?

          Are you that DEEP into DENIAL ?

          LIE to yourself all you want…

          … but it is pointless LYING to us.

          1. SebastianH

            Oh Andy, how I missed your BS … the comment section isn’t the same without you 😉

          2. AndyG55

            Seems you CAN’T STOP LYING, even to yourself.

            “Do you really DENY that “Mandelbaum is a lawyer for a rabid environmental cause”?”

            Simple question… and obviously you AGREE that he is.

        3. AndyG55

          “Glass windows are cleary dominating.”

          And how many glass windows are there in the world, seb ???

          Why did you avoid the point…
          “Wouldn’t you have to look at bird deaths per tall building.”

          Are you just being deliberately DISHONEST.. as usual, seb ??

          1. SebastianH

            Why would you want to look at deaths per tall building when you want to know what the top cause of bird deaths is. Do you also want to know how many birds a single cat kills?

            What do you do with this figure? Compare it to the number of birds each wind turbine kills and then deduce that 1 cat is probably causing less bird deaths than one wind turbine?

          2. AndyG55

            EVASION of the FACTS, yet again seb.

            Poor petal.

    2. yonason (from my cell phone)

      More ENRON accounting.

      How many bats are killed by skyscrapers, sod? How many raptors?

      Don’t use starlings and sparrows to cover up eagle and vulture elimination. And don’t forget the bats.

  15. DirkH

    Can’t we just combine solar and wind technology and build gigantic SOLAR WIND TURBINES in orbit? That would look cool and all that glas fiber would just stay in orbit forever. Also it would be a great use for all of those rockets.

    1. DirkH

      So I’m googling whether a “scientist” already suggested that. And I find:
      Scientists suggest to put solar panels on wind turbine blades.
      http://inhabitat.com/scientists-develop-solar-powered-wind-turbine/
      Because electronics really likes being exposed to vibrations. Maybe we can get self-incinerating blades!

  16. Curious George

    No reason to limit our utilization of wind power to a generation of electricity. How about an ocean transportation? Sailships had almost 100% of the commerce before 1800. Back to Wasa!

  17. scott allen

    Sebastian H and Sod.
    wind produced energy only accounts for 1.6% of total energy produced world wide. This information is from the Renewable Energy Policy Network (which is an advocate of wind and solar energy) see page 30 for the graph and break down of the energy supply source.
    http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/170607_GSR_2017_Full_Report.pdf

    wind turbines actually consume electricity when the wind quits blowing, so your idea of turning off the turbines is laughable and terribly wasteful of energy. By the way wind turbines use almost 10% of the energy they produce to just keep the blades facing the wind and in proper tilt/angle of the blades, this energy is NOT subtracted from the reported energy they say is produced.

    http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html

    And just to make your brain go completely off the rails. Here’s an article on how just the production of electric cars produces more CO2 then 8 years of average use of an internal combustion engine.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/tesla-car-battery-production-releases-as-much-co2-as-8-years-of-gasoline-driving/

    1. sod

      The Tesla story is simply false.

      http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/

      “By the way wind turbines use almost 10% of the energy they produce to just keep the blades facing the wind and in proper tilt/angle of the blades, this energy is NOT subtracted from the reported energy they say is produced.”

      what are you talking about? This is at best the same with other sources! the wind power output is REAL.

      1. AndyG55

        Have you purchased or ordered that EV yet, sob-sob??

        Are you mentally old enough to drive yet??

        Why do you NEVER answer any questions about your EV…

        … enquiring minds want to know 😉

        1. AndyG55

          Noted that you are STILL evading the question. !!

          Obviously your rabid support for EVs doesn’t actually involve actually owning one. 😉

          Its all just baseless, meaningless yapping.

    2. SebastianH

      1.6% of total energy produced world wide

      No, it’s 1.6% of total final energy consumption. That’s an important difference. And it’s the percentage of all eletricity producing renewables, without hydropower.

      wind turbines actually consume electricity

      Of course they do, but don’t believe BS on the internet that starts with “Could it be” and “is there some vast conspiracy”. Asking questions that imply something without actually saying that it’s the case … very classy.

      “Hey, could it be that scott allen can’t swim? Nothing has been published to the contrary. If so he would drown when jumping into a pool.”

      You see how this works? Nothing substantial in those sentences and yet most people reading this will think that you can’t swim.

      From http://www.aweablog.org/fact-check-wind-turbines-produce-much-more-energy-than-they-consume/

      “After generating 7,327 megawatt hours, the turbine consumed only 12.7 megawatt hours.”

      And just to make your brain go completely off the rails. Here’s an article on how just the production of electric cars produces more CO2 then 8 years of average use of an internal combustion engine.

      Yeah, some magazine started with the 8 year thing and compared a Tesla S with a gasoline car that uses 5.4 liters of gas per 100 km. Well done magazine! Also well done half the internet for unreflected re-publishing of that story instead of just reading the actual study that makes no mention of something like that and includes figures for CO2 emissions to produce a battery pack in different countries (with different CO2 per kWh output).

      Compare a Tesla S to a more comparable Mercedes E Class with similar engine power and you’ll have CO2 parity in less than 60000 km.

      Has your brain gone off the rails, because of all the corrections? Nothing you wrote is actually true … well done!

      1. AndyG55

        Well seb, when are you getting a Tesla… rather than your Mercedes.

        Or are you just on yet another hypocritical mindless rant ??

        Very obviously, you DO NOT BELIEVE most of the CRAP that you write. !!

      2. scott allen

        Your claim that wind turbines produce more energy, then stated by the Renewable Energy Group is non sense, what happens to the excess energy you say is being produced by the wind turbines. Does it just disappear and no one uses it. If it is not being consumed why produce it.

        Even by your own admission/claim wind turbines use energy.

        Your claim of parity in less then 600,000 km is equally laughable, that would be 372,822 miles. I think by the time that either vehicle reaches that milage they would have been sent to the scrap heap. (Tesla’s batteries need to be replace at about 150,000 mile, even by the most optimistic company estimates).

        1. SebastianH

          That is an amazing reply. You managed to get everything wrong again. Has your brain really gone “off the rails”? 😉

          The produced energy of wind turbines gets consumed by you and me … the end users of electricity.

          If it is not being consumed why produce it.

          Not consumed by the turbine itself. Did you not read the complete sentence?

          Even by your own admission/claim wind turbines use energy.

          Yes, 12.7 MWh during the same time it produced 7327 MWh of electricity.

          Your claim of parity in less then 600,000 km is equally laughable, that would be 372,822 miles.

          You probably need glasses. One less zero at the end … 60000 km.

          Tesla’s batteries need to be replace at about 150,000 mile, even by the most optimistic company estimates

          Tesla gives 8 years warranty without a km/mile limitation. Tesla Model S cars with more than 300000 km distance driven exist …

  18. P Gosselin

    lol! Here’s one für sod: http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/22/wapo-points-out-flaws-with-solar-power-after-trump-suggests-putting-panels-on-the-border-wall/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
    On the “problem” of vertical panels, a simple angle bracket will do the job. Moreover, the power could be supplied to all the factories located just south of the border.

    1. SebastianH

      That would be wonderful, the US supplying Mexico with cheap solar power and this somehow pays for the wall 😉 Trump, our master dreamer 😉

      1. AndyG55

        The concept of cheap solar is obviously meaningless to you seb.

        Take your foot out of your mouth…

        … and try another irrelevant child-minded analogy !!

      2. AndyG55

        I’ve seen a proposed design for said wall, designed by REAL engineers !

        It would certainly work at least as well as normal solar panels, and the fact that it would have panels facing in different directions as the wall winds its way through the countryside, makes it more reliable than a fixed direction set-up.

        Gees seb, I thought you would have been totally for the idea……

        … or is it a bad idea just because of where it came from. 😉

        1. AndyG55

          A solar farm, with an actual REAL and WORTHWHILE PURPOSE…

          … an amazing thought !

          No wonder the greenies, and the AGW cultists and scammers are against it.

        2. sod

          “… or is it a bad idea just because of where it came from.”

          it did not come from Trump. Why do you believe all his obvious lies?

          1. AndyG55

            Poor sob-sob, played like the fool he is.

            You are so predictably DUMB !!!!

        3. sod

          “It would certainly work at least as well as normal solar panels, and the fact that it would have panels facing in different directions as the wall winds its way through the countryside, makes it more reliable than a fixed direction set-up.”

          no. you know absslutely nothing about this subject, do you?

          1. AndyG55

            Oh dear, sob-sob doesn’t know about solar tracking, and the FACT that panels facing a variety of directions gives a longer, flatter daytime solar output. Too much to figure out, is it, little troll ??

            The ignorance is strong with little sob-sob. !

    2. sod

      “On the “problem” of vertical panels, a simple angle bracket will do the job. Moreover, the power could be supplied to all the factories located just south of the border.”

      this is a typical Trump thing.

      everything about it is wrong. This was not his idea, the wall will not be build, the Mexicans will not pay for it and it will not have solar panels.

      What would happen, if the Trump lies turned true for once?

      Then you would have invested billions of dollars into solar panels on the mexican side of the border and not one of it would survive the first year of mexicans paying the wall.

      1. AndyG55

        “into solar panels on the mexican side of the border and not one of it would survive the first year of mexicans ”

        Which is precisely the reason that Trump wants to halt the flow of Mexicans into the USA.

        The only time you take your left foot out of your mouth, sob-sob.. is to make room for your right foot.

    3. sod

      One funny fact, before Trump claims that he said it first: Of course any kind of border construct these days will come with a lot of technical equipment and will be run on solar and battery. So the wall will massively profit from real people investing in real solar PV.

      And as Trump will claim that any kind of fence build with any kind of money at any piece of the border was his idea and is his wall, he will also claim the single solar panel stuck on a border fence is his “solar wall”

      1. AndyG55

        Your ignorance of what is going on is quite hilarious.

        Your manic hatred of Trump, the DULY ELECTED POTUS, is quite bizarre, and can only come from your deep-seated far-left insanity.

  19. AndyG55

    Two climate change videos from Jo Nova. Enjoy the politics. 🙂

    https://player.vimeo.com/video/124391891

    https://player.vimeo.com/video/124392955

    1. sod

      this is damaging to a great show.

      look, american comedy is great these days, because the comedians and night talkers are telling the TRUTH about trump.

      Comedy that is always lying, like this piece, is garbage.

      1. AndyG55

        poor sob-sob.. please don’t have tanty.. I would laugh too much.

        The TRUTH is never part of your meme is, it little child.

        You probably don’t even comprehend half of what was said.

        American comedy… low-level, low-IQ, zero-thought pap…

        … just down your alley.

        1. sod

          Andy, you just wrote a dozen posts without a single argument.

          1. AndyG55

            sob-sob.. you have just spent over 2 years writing posts with no rational argument or science in them.

          2. AndyG55

            And plenty of content in my posts, if you can actually read and comprehend what I said.

            Do at least TRY. !!

      2. AndyG55

        “this is damaging to a great show.”

        On the contrary, it takes the show where it has always been…

        …. making a MOCKERY of current agendas.

        Sorry you don’t have the wit to understand the humour, sob-sob.

        1. sod

          “…. making a MOCKERY of current agendas.”

          you did not understand the show.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister

          1. AndyG55

            roflmao.

            It seems English is your third or fourth language.

            One you barely comprehend. !!

            Either that, or you are the dimmest bulb in the pack.

  20. MikeW

    Wind turbines require far more energy in their construction, maintenance, backup and decommissioning than they can ever produce in their lifetime. In addition, these grotesque monstrosities kill birds and bats, destroy wildlife habitat, pollute landfills, and the mining of their rare earth elements pollute vast amounts of ground water. There is nothing “economic” nor “green” about wind power.

    1. sod

      “Wind turbines require far more energy in their construction, maintenance, backup and decommissioning than they can ever produce in their lifetime. ”

      no. come on, why are people believing such garbage? this is stupid!!!

      1. AndyG55

        Why do you believe people who produce propaganda pap for the wind turbine industry??

        Its GARBAGE and misinformation.

        Are you REALLY that GULLIBLE, little sob-sob????

    2. SebastianH

      On which disinformater website have you read those things, MikeW? Do you really think that wind turbines are an energy sink? Have you ever thought on checking if that is actually a valid statement?

      1. Robert Folkerts

        SebH, you might not have read it, but I asked if you would like to indicate how long it takes for wind and solar electricity generators to recover the energy required to produce and install these things.
        That is, how long into their lifetime is it before there is a positive result.
        I suspect they don’t produce an awful lot on the positive side of the ledger before they are knackered.

        1. sod

          wind pays back in months. Both wind and solar have now good pay back times, even including some battery storage.

          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-harvest-enough-energy-now-to-pay-back-manufacture-plus-add-storage/

          1. AndyG55

            Aren’t subsidies grand. 😉

          2. sod

            “Aren’t subsidies grand.”

            your comments are stupid beyond belief. energy pay back has no connection to subsidies at all.

            But yes, subsidies for renewables have worked great, because they are the cheapest new source of electricity today.

            chapeau, you managed to make two gigantic false claims in a three word sentence!

        2. SebastianH

          Answered that below. Energy payback time for wind is under a year, solar in Sicily is around a year, Solar in Southern Europe is 1.5 years and Solar in Northern Europe around 2.5 years.

          Don’t trust your feelings (“I suspect”) … lookup the numbers yourself if you don’t trust a random guy on the internet providing them for you because you can’t use a search engine 😉

          1. Robert Folkerts

            Looks like payback time for smaller turbines for individual properties is quoted as between ten to fifteen years.
            I suspect your months payback ideas utilize some rather creative accounting. And LARGE SUBSIDIES.

            I don’t believe any significant investment can pay for itself so quickly.

      2. AndyG55

        Not one of the wind propaganda sites, that is for sure.

        Truth is NOT in their agenda.

        1. sod

          “Not one of the wind propaganda sites, that is for sure.”

          wind power is producing up to 50% of electricity in several countries and states. they would have figured out, if they did not produce anything at all by now.

          In the real world, greenpeace was doing a realistic assessment of renewables, while the EIA got it about as wrong as is possible. Most of the time they were predicting renewable percentages for the future that were already reached ion reality.

          https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i8F.GB.lxH2g/v2/1200x-1.png

          The facts support my side on this topic and completely contradict “sceptic” positions…

          1. SebastianH

            Coal is decreasing for several years now (even your graph clearly shows that): https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-new-bp-data-shows-emissions-flat-2016-record-rise-renewables

            Renewables and nuclear (both CO2 free) covered half the increase in energy consumption in 2016. And “At recent rates of growth of 16% per year, these renewable sources would outpace the current output from nuclear by 2019, hydro by 2022 and gas by 2030.”

            That’s exponential growth for you. As with other things that involve numbers, you are either intentionally missunderstanding how things work or just don’t know better. I lean to the first explanation.

          2. AndyG55

            “wind power is producing up to 50% of electricity in several countries and states.”

            Tiny out of the way countries that never had a decent power supply to start with.

            You would NEVER live like those people are forced to, with intermittent power supply.

            You are WAY too hypocritical for that.

            How’s the EV going, btw??

            Why the continued DECEIT and mis-information, sob-sob.??

            And Greenpiece. roflmao !!!! Environmental criminals. !!

            You truly “believe” their LIES and BS, don’t you, poor gullible little child.

          3. sod

            “The share of energy consumption from wind is less than 1% on a worldwide scale.”

            this number is completely irrelevant to this discussion. IF wind power was using more electricity than it produces, the places with high wind penetration would notice immediately.

            solar will kill coal fast. Looking at the past will not help you. the facts are clear.

            https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/solar-power-will-kill-coal-sooner-than-you-think

          4. sod

            “It’s only “irrelevant” to you because you don’t like it.”

            no. your argument and its logic is false.

            It has the same structure like this:

            nuclear does not work. It has a similar percentage of global power as renewables have.

          5. AndyG55

            “your argument and its logic is false. ”

            Your hallucinogenic state precludes you having even the most basic rational logic. !!

            It is YOU that is irrelevant, a far-left anti-science NON-ENTITY !

          6. AndyG55

            Costa Rica, is mostly hydro.

            wind and solar.. a bit player at most

            WHY do you ALWAYS refuse to tell the whole TRUTH , sob-sob ???

            Is LYING really your whole pitiful existence?

          7. SebastianH

            Kenneth, haven’t you seen my inbetween reply?

            To do that, the share of non-fossil fuel energies consumed must increase substantially so as to replace or supplant the consumption of fossil fuels

            They are already covering half of the yearly increase in energy consumption (rest, see above).

            Continue the current trends just 5-10 years and you’ll have decreasing absolute values for fossil-fuel energy consumption/production.

  21. Energy Future | Independence Associates, LLC

    […] Future: Wind Wind Power Unsustainable: 43 Million Tonnes of Wind Turbine Blade Waste by 2050 Why offshore wind turbines can’t handle the toughest […]

  22. Energy Future | Mark Schwarzmann

    […] Future: Wind Wind Power Unsustainable: 43 Million Tonnes of Wind Turbine Blade Waste by 2050 Why offshore wind turbines can’t handle the toughest […]

  23. 2 New Papers Expose The Environmental Nightmare Of Wind Turbine Blade Disposal – Infinite Unknown

    […] – 2 New Papers Expose The Environmental Nightmare Of Wind Turbine Blade Disposal: […]