Bowsite.com

Talk about loss of habitat and public ground use. Only way to make it happen is to place it on private surface at a cost you and I have to reimburse them for on the investment...

I personally believe that we will transition to renewable energy sources in the future and our centralize energy production business model in the U.S. will be replaced with decentralized small "power plants" at individual homes. However, we will likely always need large power plants to produce energy for high demand businesses and manufacturing. It's going to take a mix of sources.

Good discussion.

As far as acreage used for wellpads, that has changed as well with increased tech for directional drilling as along the other beneficial use of natural gas not used in power generation. The footprint for gas production isn't isolated to power production only so the used ground is small.

If private ground is used for these power farms, the cost will always trickle down to the user...

Natural gas is the limited resource of the immediate future. Eventually it will run out too.

The only thing they augment is some fuel savings and a bit of wear and tear. At a cost of construction, additional infrastructure and maintenance.... and yeah, space. They do not "replace" conventional power plants. They are not on demand systems, and not even close. They should not be considered as such when running the numbers.

Every cent produced here, keeps that out of the hands of a saudi prince ready to fund the next bin laden.

I'm not exactly sure what all is included in bioheat. If you take out these two energy sources, the rest of renewables are only about 7% of world energy use. that is still a lot of energy, but with all of the pressure to switch it is still a very small portion of the total.

TD is correct in stating that the main gain from solar and wind electricity production is the minimal amount saved in fuel expenses.

As for coal supplies from the link "Based on U.S. coal production in 2017 of about 0.78 billion short tons, the recoverable coal reserves would last about 325 years, and recoverable reserves at producing mines would last about 26 years. " This does not assume any gain in technology over that period. There is a lot of coal left, though new mines would need to be opened to access a lot of it.

Have you forgotten that thanks to fracking and other advances we are now a net exporter of energy? BTW, electricity has never been generated to any extent by imported oil. You are promoting a false narrative promoted by the left to support their expensive and environmentally destructive green plans.

Although I love the issue of coal. I'm in coal country (Illinois) and I can tell you that we burn coal cleaner than anyone else in the world. So what happens to the coal mines when we stop burning it? They don't all close down.

I was looking out my office window in Hillsboro, Illinois a few years ago, looking at a train loaded with coal from a nearby coal mine. Do you know where that train was headed? To the west coast, where the coal was offloaded to a ship, and transported across the Pacific Ocean, offloaded into trains again, and then distributed to power plants in China. Now, do you think they burn coal as cleanly as we do? Nope! And where does all that dirty(ier) emmissions go? That's right, into the same atmosphere we all use.

So I'd rather we keep burning it as it's cheap and safe, and way cleaner to do it here than send it there.

He also referred to Ocasio-Cortez as a “garden-variety hypocrite,” in response to a New York Post story that said the Democrat frequently used gas-guzzling Uber and Lyft rides during her 2018 campaign instead of taking the subway station near her campaign office.

“You're just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know,” Moore said.

HA/KS- good point about biomass. I should have posted a graph of U.S. I think renewables are around 11%. Enough not to be a joke.

Pig Doc- I see you changed your post.

I have stated this before. The company I work for not only builds wind farms they now own 2 them selves. Wind towers have come a long way since the Enron days. My first wind project was in 98 in Iowa. Putting up .75 MW Zond towers. Today we are bidding on wind sites that range from 2.8 mw towers all the way up to 4.2 mw units. Most wind tower companies now days can couple up with 5 mph winds. GE towers can couple up as low as 3 to 4 mph winds. Rotor sizes have jumped drastically in size in the last few years to help on the low winds. 5 years ago a 107 meter rotor was big. Now days we are bidding 127 meter, 136 and 150 meter rotors.

Towers are getting taller as well. The days of 80 meter towers are over. Everything we bid today is 90 meter, 105 meter and 114 meter hub heights. I can’t remover what the data showed but there was a substantial jump from 80 meters to 90 meters on wind.

As for real estate gobbled up I would have to say solar is the worse. Most solar farms in Mn range from 3 to 5 mw and can gobble up to 20 acres of land.

A single wind turbine will have a pedestal that is 18’ in diameter with a 15’ beauty ring and a 16’ tower access road.

PPA’s for wind have come down drastically for wind. Your average PPA now days is in the $20 per MW from what little bit I have seen.

If your a land owner and want a few towers on your property. I have seen landowner agreements as high as $10000 per tower. For a rancher in the Midwest that is pretty good money.

I by no means want to see wind towers from sea to shining sea. However parts of the Midwest I think are prime for them. Especially eastern Co where there are vast tracks of pasture and not many roads. I believe there impact would be minimal on the environment. The ranchers could make some money and the counties could gain tax dollars.

I am quite certain as to which source is more reliable and requires a smaller footprint. Wind requires maintenance just like anything else and only has one shot at cost recovery.

Natural gas, like nuclear, can meet peak demand load and accomodate on shoulder months when needed. Wind is a crap shoot and only works at keeping the grid stable with reliable ramp up/down sources.

HDE- what you said is absolutely true and renewables can’t be turned on and off like traditional sources. That’s not what the guy in the video was saying. The question was can renewables meet 100% of the demand. He answered “no” and that is correct. But that does not mean that renewables are not a viable source of energy. It is a variable in the equation of our future energy solutions.

As Michael said, the renewable technology is getting bigger and better rapidly. Well stated by the way.

I do biological work regarding wind farms. There are systems out there that can be tied to the turbine operating systems that can sense eagles and bats (echolocation) and turn turbines off automatically. I’ve talk to many wind far operators that can turn any turbine or turbine string off from home in less than 15 minutes. So yes, wind turbines can be turned on and off quickly but the wind does not always blow.

Can you say special interest?

Any scammer in "in the industry." That doesn't mean that investing in the scheme is a good idea. No matter what the "Hard to argue with a guy in the industry" says, the total capacity of other sources still must be able to cover the entire demand when the wind doesn't blow at night.

I totally agree about a combination of natural gas and wind is effective.

“No matter what the "Hard to argue with a guy in the industry" says, the total capacity of other sources still must be able to cover the entire demand when the wind doesn't blow at night.”

This is absolutely false. Since when has the wind stopped blowing over the entire U.S.? It is always windy somewhere. If it’s not windy in IA it may be windy in OK or eastern CO or NE. That is why the many wind projects are connected to a grid which cover huge regions of the U.S. If one is not working they will take the electrons from those that are. Grid manages deal with this variability on a daily basis. Every single day there is renewable energy on the grid powering millions of homes. Everyday and that is fact.

Here is two screen shots. One is the ground wind and the other is our cranes reading in the same town. The cranes anemometer is at 300’.

4 mph at a 15’ elevation and 16.7 to 18.4 at a 300’ elevation.

Good point Michael.

I have actually met Ryan. He is no scammer or biased special interest. But I am sure you know more.

""There are systems out there that can be tied to the turbine operating systems that can sense eagles and bats (echolocation) and turn turbines off automatically"" Link please

KS, Who is paying for the wind project and who will be left holding the bag......

The operating company pays for the contruction of the wind project. The rate payers pay the company. Who’s left holding the bag? I don’t think anyone since homegrown energy is good for national security. If you are referring to what amounts to a ~10% tax credit then I’ll ask who’s left holding the bag with the fossil fuel tax breaks/subsidies?

Anything else slade?

Absolutely NOT!

My poorly made point is that an insider is not necessarily a great source of unbiased information.

Utilities are being forced to purchase "green" energy at various rates by the states. That should not be happening. It forces utilities to switch from cheaper conventional generation and makes it appear that wind and solar are cheaper than they actually are.

BTW, the states with the most wind generation also have the highest rising electricity rates. (link)

I see all the time those in the industry comparing costs. They are disingenuous comparisons at best. They almost never include the subsidized costs. Never include the real costs of still needing a stand alone system that can handle peak demand regardless of the "renewable's" added costs and rarely factor in added infrastructure and maintenance, all over and above the cost of an on demand system. We have some wind monsters here going on 10 years, Near half of them are down at any one time for repairs and maintenance. Very expensive repairs and maintenance. They are saying most will need to be replaced in the next few years.

Why did you state ""There are systems out there that can be tied to the turbine operating systems that can sense eagles and bats (echolocation) and turn turbines off automatically"" as though they are in everyday use, When your own link states otherwise.

I always thought the dead bats related to wind turbines was due to them being hit by the blades. Actually their deaths are related to a change in air pressure in there lungs. The blades disrupting the air flow causes a change in air pressure.

All opinions are biased, some just recognize and admit it.

Slade- is there anything in that statement that is not true? Does it say anything about quantity of use? Claiming I said anything else is being disingenuous.

From my link above (that does not state that the entire difference is because of wind. However it IS comparing high wind generation states with the national average)

"In Kansas, electricity consumers spent $3.8 billion on electricity in 2013. Had Kansas electricity prices risen at merely the national average from 2008-2013, however, Kansas electricity consumers would have spent only $3.1 billion on electricity. That’s $700 million in excess electricity costs in 2013. If we divide that up among Kansas’ 1.1 million households, the extra electricity costs drained $636 from the average Kansas household in 2013."

"Worse yet, the jobs shifted to the wind power industry fail to equal the number of jobs eliminated in other sectors of the economy for two important reasons.

First, wind power employs very few workers. After the tremendous start-up costs necessary to build wind turbines and place them in industrial wind farms, operational wind power facilities employ few workers. Nor does wind turbine manufacturing adds many jobs in top wind power states. Of the world’s top 10 wind turbine manufacturers, only one is located in the United States. Wind turbine manufacturing jobs are created in places like Germany, Denmark, and China more than in the United States.

Even among the top seven manufacturers of the wind turbines that are deployed in the United States, only one is located in the United States.

By contrast, conventional power plant operation requires far more workers than wind farms. More jobs are created in the conventional power industry even while electricity production costs go down. And unlike wind power jobs, nearly all U.S. conventional power plant manufacturing and operational jobs go to American workers – and especially to workers within the resident state of the conventional power plant.

Second, higher electricity prices caused by wind power kill jobs throughout the entire state and national economy. For example, when the average household in Kansas spends an extra $636 on electricity each year due to unnecessarily high electricity prices, that means the average Kansas household spends $636 less on other goods and services. The aggregate effect of such reduced spending in the Kansas economy (equaling $700 million in Kansas economy-wide reduced spending in 2013) eliminates thousands of jobs that would otherwise be created or sustained throughout all segments of the Kansas economy with higher consumer spending.

Any way you cut it, wind power is needlessly raising living costs, reducing living standards, and destroying American jobs."

How many of you would be willing to buy an automobile that uses no fuel for its lifetime, but only runs when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing?

I thought the point of advancing technology is to become more productive, i.e., do more with less. So now employment is the goal? Ok, going Amish makes sense now!

One either believes in free markets or not. If you believe government should not pick winners or losers, that not only includes industries, but inputs used as well. No preference to labor over land or capital. The supplier decides.

Your anti-socialism crusade actually is steering you away from capitalism in this case.

That was my thought. I'd guess that 15 seconds would be a very fast stop to the blades. How far does an eagle fly in 15 seconds? I'd say easily over 1/4 mile. Do the echolocation systems reach out 1/4 mile? This system sounds like a feel good fairy tale to me.

Now if the E stop is hit the brake is applied.

"Over 500 factories build wind-related parts and materials in 43 states, making everything from major wind turbine components such as nacelles, blades, towers, and gearboxes, to internal components like bearings, slip rings, fasteners, and power converters. These facilities supported more than 25,000 manufacturing jobs in 2016. Overall, 100,000 U.S. wind jobs exist across all 50 states."

"The U.S. wind industry supply chain includes eight utility-scale blade facilities, nine tower facilities, and four turbine nacelle assembly facilities. Last year, 88 percent of the wind capacity installed in the U.S. used a turbine manufacturer with at least one U.S. manufacturing facility. According to LBNL, the share of domestic manufacturing content for nacelle assembly exceeds 85 percent, while towers are between 80 to 85 percent. Blades and hubs also have strong domestic content, estimated between 50 to 70 percent."

"•U.S.-based GE Renewable Energy has a turbine manufacturing facility in Pensacola, Florida and a blade facility in New Orleans, Louisiana, as well as an advanced manufacturing research center in South Carolina. GE also recently acquired LM Wind Power, which has two large-scale blade facilities in Arkansas and North Dakota.

•Vestas has a turbine nacelle facility, tower facility, and two blade facilities in Colorado. Combined these four factories employ around 3,200 people.

•Siemens has a nacelle facility in Hutchinson, Kan. with about 360 employees, and a blade facility in Fort Madison, Iowa with about 600 employees.

•Last August, Vestas added 100,000 square feet of new production space and hired 350 new employees at their blade factories in Windsor and Brighton, Colorado. In January 2016, they sought an additional 100 employees.

•GRI Renewable Industries is currently building a new tower manufacturing plant in Amarillo, Texas, which they say will employ at least 300 people and make about 400 wind towers a year.

•LM Wind Power expanded its Little Rock Port Authority facility with a new 44,000 square foot warehouse and pre-molding facility in April 2016.

•Broadwind Energy is expanding its tower facility in Abilene, Texas that will increase annual tower production capacity by 30 percent.

•In May 2016, Jupiter Composites completed a 25,000 square foot expansion of its nacelle cover facility in Pensacola, Florida. Thanks to demand from GE’s nearby turbine facility, Jupiter Composites’ workforce grew from 28 to 250 employees in 18 months.

•Gearbox Express expanded its wind gearbox remanufacturing operations to a new 75,000 square foot facility in Mukwonago, Wisconsin in May 2016 to help meet wind industry demand. The new facility nearly doubles the size of their original building, and they plan to add another 30,000 square feet of manufacturing space to increase annual capacity to 400 gearboxes.

•In November 2015, MM Composite Inc. started operations at a new plant in Mount Pleasant, Iowa that makes composite components for Siemens wind turbine blades.

•In October 2016, PGTEX, a company that produces composite materials for wind and other industries, opened a manufacturing plant in El Paso, Texas – its first in North America. They plan to employ 150 people by 2020."

Utility companies are not doing so because the alternative sources are profitable. Or rather, not profitable without subsidies, grants and zero interest loans. They are doing it by law.

So it looks like we have 6 of these Cameras monitoring tens of thousands of generators........

TD- you are partially correct. Some states do have laws that mandate a certain % of renewables being generated by a certain year a.k.a a "Renewable Portfolio Standard" (RPS). Some RPSs are voluntary and some states have no RPS but have lots of renewable energy projects. These include OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, WY, ID, UT, IN, VA, SC. So if these states (which are mostly republican I might add) have no law mandating renewables, then why are they hotbeds for wind projects...like KS, OK, WY, SD, ND? Also, for those states that do have RPSs, why do they keep building wind projects even though they have met the RPS goal already. For example, TX met its RPS goal 15 years ahead of schedule and they are still building wind farms today. Can you explain that? It appears that the RPS's are not the only driver in renewable energy development; however, I agree that it did play a role early on in the wind industry. Yes, the production tax credit for wind has played an important role; however, because renewable energy components are becoming cheaper and more efficient there are now wind projects that can compete head to head with most other traditional sources. The outlier is natural gas. Nothing can compete with natural gas right now but will it always remain this cheap? I know that wind contracts are set in stone for 25 years...same price for 25 years. Natural gas cost will go up eventually and renewable energy prices are going down.

Yes. they are farming the American taxpayers.

"Overall, 100,000 U.S. wind jobs exist across all 50 states." I guess that is good, but at what cost?

Since these things last 30 years, what will happen to the mfg jobs when the entire nation is covered with these abominations?

Maintenance workers? Same thing that happened to factory workers in my home town that were replaced by automation. It's called structural unemployment. Hopefully today's work force, if educated to think critically, will see the advantage of being multiskilled to be prepared for these types of changes. Advancement, most of us benefit, some will lose jobs. It has always been that way, always will be.

Abominations? A little biased?

"Since these things last 30 years, what will happen to the mfg jobs when the entire nation is covered with these abominations?"

And there it is...you don't like looking at them on someone else's land. I'll bet you would change your tune if you were a landowner with 15 turbines on your land paying you $10,000/turbine or $150,000/year. I have personally talked to the most right-wing conservatives in western KS that couldn't stand turbines until they seen their contract. Then they seem to love renewables.

Seriously, Henry do some unbiased research and look at the benefits of renewables too. I mean you are an educator right? Do what you instruct your students to do...look at both sides of the issues and try not to be bias in your opinion before looking into the facts.

"Do you think the wind companies will just tear the turbines down after 25-30 years?" Not, I don't. If the past is any indication they will just abandon them and the landowners will be stuck with a standing junkyard.

"you don't like looking at them on someone else's land." Nope. I don't like looking at them knowing that my tax dollars went into building them and they are raising my electricity rates - a double charge that I did not want.

If a private landowner wants to build them at their own expense it is up to them - as long as it does not harm adjoining landowner's property rights.

Why aren't they building them on top of big city skyscrapers? That land is already ruined and the generation would be closer to the users so less line loss and transportation expense.

Build them off the shore at Martha's Vineyard - more reliable wind there.

I don't like paying for gas I know I subsidized either. Hope you feel the same.

I own the highest ground in Carroll county MO. I am waiting for them to ask me for a cell tower or windmill. I embrace progress...adapt and prosper is the story of humanity.

2. It’s my tax money too and I think it’s worth the investment.

3. If a private landowner wants to rent his land it’s his right.

4. On top of existing building. I’m no engineer but I’m guessing that is not structurally possible.

5. Ok not in your backyard. Got it.

There are 3 types of repower projects that we have bid. The 1st type is to totally demo out the existing tower as well as the foundation. Then install a new foundation as well as a new wind tower.

The 2nd type of repower project we bid involved 3 tower manufactures. (Vestas, GE and Suzlon). All towers were going to be upgraded to Vestas 2.2 MW units with 116 meter rotors. On the existing Vestas towers it was as simple as removing the old nacelle and rotor and installing new. On the GE and Suzlon towers the same would happen as well as a 3 meter tower section to match up the existing tower to the Vestas nacelle.

The 3rd type involved removing the rotor and drivetrain. Installing a new drivetrain as well as a new rotor.

Neighboring land owners have wind rights. Basically towers have to be so far from the property line. An easy way to to put towers close to property lines is to lease wind rights from the neighbors.

As far as predictability goes for wind blowing, all I have to do is drop my boat in the water and watch the whitecaps appear - maybe I should invest in some lakeside property. Anyone want to go into a business venture...?

That couldn’t be further from the truth but I’ll bet Michael has something to say about that.

them wind tower monsters you have in Hawaii that were built 10 years ago are junk.

A GE or Vestas tower wouldn’t need those repairs.

Back to your 10 year old pieces of junk. When they were built they used the crane I used to operate. We leased out the crane to RMT. They had talked about me going over to operate the crane but i didn’t want to give up my hunting season. Haha.

When I received the crane back after the project they had beat the crap out of it. There was something like 100 grand in damages to the crane.

I think back to the first tower I built in 98 and today and there is a night and day difference.

I am confused on the battery comment. I have yet to see a wind farm sub store any of it’s generated energy.

The only major repair we have had in 7 years has been one generator had to be changed out. The rest had been normal maintenance.

Renewables are not the end all do all that the left make them out to be. Mainly due to the storage issue. Come up with a way to store the energy and you can possible be on the Forbes top 10. You simple can’t dismiss renewables as a novelty as many right wing talking heads claim. Don’t close your mind to new technologies for energy production. It’s home grown energy and good for our energy security. Do renewables have issue and limits...you bet. But the does not mean we don’t adapt and just keep using fuels that have a limited supply. Don’t just listen to Hannity and Limbaugh on the issue. They are spreading falsehoods. Don’t listen to me either. Do some research. Remember when Limbaugh went on and on about phasing out incandescent bulbs? Obama was taking his light bulbs...cry cry. The new energy efficient bulbs were dumb, expensive, and he didn’t like the light color they emitted. Look at the advancement in LED in the short time since Limbaugh went on his childish rant. I just don’t understand why people want to be close minded about new ideas and tech. Yes, some will fail but if we find a new power supply where the fuel is renewable (wind and light) and will not run out...that is a positive thing. It’s a good thing for our kids and grandkids. Renewable energy is not going away...there is too much money to be had with the invention of better ways to harness the energy potential IMO. If we don’t want to be left behind by the world we better invest in the technology. We should be the world leader. Isn’t that the American exceptionalism that Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage and many conservatives like you are always talking about?

LEDs have changed the landscape. But one point you are missing...... they didn't need regulations, mandates and laws for them to take over the market. They built a better, more efficient and overall cheaper mousetrap. That is what did the job. And they are off like wildfire.

Mandates and regulations to push technology that isn't a clear improvement is neither better, more economical or more efficient. When the tech is ready, cost efficient..... in a free market it will take over in a wave, all on it's own. It's been proven time after time. Technology isn't held back by "Luddites". When it matures to the point where it is proven efficient and cost effective, saving time, money, etc. it's done in a relative snap of the fingers.

Just look at smart phones. I know very few people now who even have a landline in their home. We still have one at work (three lines actually).... but only because I have two more years on our fiber optic upgrade contract.... then it will all be a cloud based system. At about 1/3-1/4 the price with 3 times the features. American free markets have always led in adapting to innovation..... creating innovation. Most of it is not the Leather Wall..... =D

In fact..... all this solar and wind experiment...... it's very likely this is the current "florescent twisty bulb" and will all be shortly abandoned for a far better system.

Michael, that ridgeline they built it on..... yeah... I'll bet your equipment was abused.

Funny story, the utility company contacted our gun club and wanted a few of us with bird dogs to go up and find dead birds around the windmills for some study. We told them the dogs are good at live and fresh dead birds.... but not so much at weeks dead or even week dead birds. That's OK they said..... so a few of us walked the area with our dogs.... we found a few but not many dead birds, A couple of pueo (owls) I forget how many, was several years ago. I think we found more live ones (Francoln partridges) than dead. But that's the number they went with...... and sited the use of "professional" bird hunting dogs in their study..... =D

I was in favor of developing solar and wind before you probably ever heard of them. What I as not in favor of was using government money to force them on us.

I hear you on the light bulbs but I disagree. I think the the government program likely accelerated the advancement of LED. It created a market niche. I’m ok with the government being involved with efficiency standards. Cheap isn’t always better.

HA/KS- You don’t sound like a real advocate for new energy tech. Somehow I just have a hard time believing you as you are a scientist that denies science by self admission.

That's just the application of generator technology that other forms of generation use as well. Wind does not have the niche for it and wind does not do it better.

Next...

And you think oil and gas energy has NOT been subsidized by the government? Do a little research. You can start with this link.

Matt

TRnCO- that is typically the largest complaint about turbines. That and noise. The FAA lighting at night is an issue. They are working on turbine lighting tech that only activates when aircraft are in proximity. I believe NREL is doing some testing on those systems now. Not sure if there are positive results using those systems.

Matt

In Canada’s Nova Scotia, the difference between tides at the Bay of Fundy is the world’s highest. The province’s southwest shore has low tides, with heights reaching 3.5 feet at most. At the head of the bay, the situation changes dramatically. Tides reach as high as 53 feet. Ideally, the difference in tide sizes should make Nova Scotia a powerhouse in tidal energy.

That was the expectation in 2009, when Nova Scotia launched its first tidal energy project. Nine years later, however, it is still struggling to install tidal energy as a viable source of energy for its communities.

Nova Scotia’s case is not an isolated instance. For the most part, similar problems are being experienced at other locations which are planning to use tidal energy as a source of electricity. Water is more dense as compared to air, which means that the amount of energy extracted per unit is more. That should make tidal energy attractive to renewable energy developers and policy makers. But tidal energy is yet to catch on. Till date, there are only five tidal power plants in the world.

There are two reasons why tidal energy is yet to take off as an economically sustainable form of renewable energy.

The first one is the high cost associated with generation of tidal energy. Equipment is expensive as are the additional costs for laying connections to the electric grid and infrastructure for smooth functioning and transfer of energy systems. The world’s biggest tidal power station in South Korea cost $560 million in 2011 and has a capacity of 254 MWh. Those costs haven’t come down. The Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon in the UK is estimated to generate 530 GWh per year and will cost $1.6 billion. Based on calculations from this article, that translates to electricity generated at a whooping 19.7 cents per KWh.

By: DAN HEALING, CALGARY HERALD

A line of turbines on metal lattice legs catch the breeze at the Cowley Ridge wind farm in southern Alberta. The 23-year-old facility, Canada’s first commercial wind project, is being decommissioned. TED RHODES / CALGARY HERALD

The oldest commercial wind power facility in Canada has been shut down and faces demolition after 23 years of transforming brisk southern Alberta breezes into electricity — and its owner says building a replacement depends on the next moves of the provincial NDP government.

TransAlta Corp. said Tuesday the blades on 57 turbines at its Cowley Ridge facility near Pincher Creek have already been halted and the towers are to be toppled and recycled for scrap metal this spring. The company inherited the now-obsolete facility, built between 1993 and 1994, as part of its $1.6-billion hostile takeover of Calgary-based Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. in 2009.

“TransAlta is very interested in repowering this site. Unfortunately, right now, it’s not economically feasible,” Wayne Oliver, operations supervisor for TransAlta’s wind operations in Pincher Creek and Fort Macleod, said in an interview.

“We’re anxiously waiting to see what incentives might come from our new government. . . . Alberta is an open market and the wholesale price when it’s windy is quite low, so there’s just not the return on investment in today’s situation. So, if there is an incentive, we’d jump all over that.”

“We’re anxiously waiting to see what incentives might come from our new government. . . . Alberta is an open market and the wholesale price when it’s windy is quite low, so there’s just not the return on investment in today’s situation. So, if there is an incentive, we’d jump all over that.”

“We’re anxiously waiting to see what incentives might come from our new government. . . . Alberta is an open market and the wholesale price when it’s windy is quite low, so there’s just not the return on investment in today’s situation. So, if there is an incentive, we’d jump all over that.”

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

https://www.energycentral.com/news/retiring-worn-out-wind-turbines-could-cost-billions-nobody-has

Remember green weenie lobbing is good.........................

"Pfund and Healey favor government investments in energy"

"A huge driver for renewable energy development in the U.S. would be a price on carbon or the threat of one, which the coal and oil industries vehemently oppose."

In other words, make other forms of energy more expensive so renewables can compete. That is NOT the same as all other energy source changes in the past. All others were moves to more reliable, convenient, abundant, and cheaper energy sources.

As for the information a lot of the so called "subsidies" for traditional energy companies are merely tax rules that apply to other companies. It also includes things as low-income energy assistance as "subsidies" for oil companies.

Another example given in your link "These include one provision passed in 1916 to speed up depreciation of drilling costs. A second one, the oil depletion allowance, which became law in 1926, gives oil companies a tax break for depleting an oil reservoir. "

In fact, these rules allow oil companies to amortize the cost of business in a way similar to all other businesses. However the depletion allowance is only for small independent companies, not for the big corporations.

"It warns that without consistent, stable support during the initial 15-year period, a new technology will find success difficult."

In Kansas, these giant wind corporations mostly pay zero property tax. From the beginning the nuclear power plant paid enough property tax that tax rates were drastically lowered for all other property owners.

However this is their conclusion ""It warns that without consistent, stable support during the initial 15-year period, a new technology will find success difficult."

We are long past the 15 years for solar and wind, so according to this article, they should be cut off the government teat.

The symptoms of bearing damage known as White Structure Flaking, which occur in wind turbines as well as other drive systems, typically become noticeable very early, well before the end of the bearing's expected service life. The causes have long remained unknown, but now, new findings are being made available by bearing specialist NSK, the results of which have led to the development of a new bearing material that offers significant benefits for wind turbine longevity.

This is great news, but what are the costs associated with replacing the tens of thousands of bearings in our current government subsidized wind generators....

The COBRA Joint Industry Project has been set up to investigate the damage caused to leading edge wind turbine blades from the high-speed impacts of foreign objects, such as raindrops, and identify how best to develop protection systems. Rain erosion damage can be significant on unprotected wind turbine blades.

Just wondering, if the premature bearing wear is caused by the rain damage/erosion to the blades, throwing them out of balance....

"Oil Change International is an organization focused on exposing fossil fuel subsidies."

"....They include a spreadsheet breaking down various fossil fuel subsidies ..."

"The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies."

"The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve"

"The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. "

"The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. "

"Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in "oil subsidies.""

According to CNN ""... largest single tax break" — amounting to $1.7 billion per year for the oil industry — is a manufacturer’s tax deduction that is defined in Section 199 of the IRS code." This is a tax credit designed to keep manufacturing in the U.S., but it isn’t specific to oil companies. It is a tax credit enjoyed by highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple, and even foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S. Further, the deduction for oil companies is already limited. Apple is able to take a 9% manufacturer's tax deduction, but ExxonMobil is only allowed to take a 6% deduction."