# Worlds 2nd largest windfarm



## panhandle9400 (Jan 17, 2010)

They are in the building process right now to erect the USA largest wind farm in my area, supposed to be 800 to 1300 towers up by 2020 . I am fighting my head, not looking forward to all the ruined view . I signed a contract with them but hate to see them coming in .We all know that wind energy will never keep this country powered , if you do think so I bet you will be wrong . The name of the farm is going to be called ''Wind catcher '' i think ?


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

They are so unsightly.....I would hate to have to look at them all the time.


----------



## Farmerbrown2 (Sep 25, 2018)

It’s all perspective I grew up next to an airport only time I hear or see an airplane is if it flies right over my house which they are not supposed too. When people stop over it freaks them out. I usually don’t Evan notice unless they are out of there flight path


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

Sight isn't the only thing.The noise is annoying.And I've had it many times when some one is hear say wtf is that noise.Yea you get used to it but it's like a plane that never goes away,if the winds blowing you here them,sometimes worse then others.High humidity they are louder or direction of the wind if it's towards you.And then there is the shadows.

They can't compete without being subsidized but the greenies like them.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

swmnhay said:


> Sight isn't the only thing.The noise is annoying.And I've had it many times when some one is hear say wtf is that noise.Yea you get used to it but it's like a plane that never goes away,if the winds blowing you here them,sometimes worse then others.High humidity they are louder or direction of the wind if it's towards you.And then there is the shadows.
> 
> They can't compete without being subsidized but the greenies like them.


Not mention all the birds and bats they kill. If those dead birds were covered in oil then oh my god the greenies would be doing everything possible to stop that.


----------



## NewBerlinBaler (May 30, 2011)

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind makes up about 5% of the nation's total electricity production (as of Dec 2016). By comparison, solar makes up 0.9%. Of course, both of those numbers will increase in the coming years. One reason for the increase is because total electricity consumption is decreasing so wind & solar's contribution to the total will seem higher even if total output remains unchanged. Electricity use is decreasing because of efficiency improvements, primarily the proliferation of LED lighting.

Compared to traditional power plants, wind & solar installations are not very cost effective to build and often require public subsidies. However, once they are built, their operating costs are far lower because there's no fuel expense. So when electricity demand decreases, fossil fuel burning plants will cut back but renewable plants will keep running at full output.

Good or bad, wind & solar are politically popular right now. Time will tell us how much impact they really have.


----------



## RockmartGA (Jun 29, 2011)

The Greenies don't like nuclear, coal, and fracking (which as increased the natural gas supply and lowered costs). Their only alternative seems to be wind and solar, but if you ask them "What happens when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?", they give you a blank stare and have no answer.

Bottom line, America needs baseload capacity to power it's industrial base. Solar has made significant improvements in efficiency in the past few years, but it cannot compete with the traditional power sources. Case in point, a nuclear power plant has a capacity factor in excess of 90%. For solar, the capacity factor is around 12% or so. A guy who works for the power company told me that to replace the two new nuclear units currently under construction in Ga, you would need a solar field of 135 square miles - and that's if they could develop a battery storage system capable of handling that much load.

Where solar has merit (IMHO) is in distributed generation on top of big box buildings such as Walmarts and shopping malls. Takes the peak load off during the heat of the day when air conditioners are running at their max and the electrical grid is at it's peak.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

mlappin said:


> Not mention all the birds and bats they kill. If those dead birds were covered in oil then oh my god the greenies would be doing everything possible to stop that.


Never have seen a dead bird or bat under one.Did have a dead pelican that hit the transmission line laying under that.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

NewBerlinBaler said:


> Compared to traditional power plants, wind & solar installations are not very cost effective to build and often require public subsidies. However, once they are built, their operating costs are far lower because there's no fuel expense. So when electricity demand decreases, fossil fuel burning plants will cut back but renewable plants will keep running at full output.
> 
> Good or bad, wind & solar are politically popular right now. Time will tell us how much impact they really have.


It's not like there is no expense.Yes it's less but maintenance can be fairly high.Every yr they take some down to replace a generator etc.Wonder what it costs just for the crane to be hauled in and set up?17 semi loads.At the community meeting I was at it they said a warranty could be bought and they advised it.It was quite high but forget the exact amount.One wind farm got some bad generators and all were replaced within a couple yrs.There is a maintenance building/shop here for 130 windtowers there is 8?people work there maintaining the towers.They also have to maintain the windmill roads and do snow removal on them,30-40 miles??

So my point is they don't run for free after they are built.

Our local REA has a few wind towers of their own.They also are share holder of one of the huge coal powered electric plants in ND.In there news letter it states exactly what each one costs.Coal is way cheaper.But if you want to buy just green energy you can pay more if you like to get that goody green feeling.

Elec co's are mandated to have a percentage of green energy by 2020?No matter what the cost,it's just passed on to the customer.Thanks Obama


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

RockmartGA said:


> The Greenies don't like nuclear, coal, and fracking (which as increased the natural gas supply and lowered costs). Their only alternative seems to be wind and solar, but if you ask them "What happens when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?", they give you a blank stare and have no answer.
> 
> Bottom line, America needs baseload capacity to power it's industrial base. .


Exactly!The fact remains we still need capacity for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.So when you are useing from the green power source and not as much from the nuclear,coal,hydro it actualy makes them less efficient and adds costs to the bottom line.

It's about impossible to store electricity in any amount,batteries are not feasible on a large scale.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

NewBerlinBaler said:


> Compared to traditional power plants, wind & solar installations are not very cost effective to build and often require public subsidies. However, once they are built, their operating costs are far lower because there's no fuel expense.


That doesn't make much sense to me. To me, that is like saying that the $100K Ford F150 is not worth it, but if you make an 80k down-payment, the rest of the payments are not too bad thereby making the truck a better deal?

It is a zero-sum game; you can't just write off part of the expense because it makes the bottom line look worse.

Mark


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

glasswrongsize said:


> That doesn't make much sense to me. To me, that is like saying that the $100K Ford F150 is not worth it, but if you make an 80k down-payment, the rest of the payments are not too bad thereby making the truck a better deal?
> 
> It is a zero-sum game; you can't just write off part of the expense because it makes the bottom line look worse.
> 
> Mark


I'm purity sure the gubmit has figured that one out


----------



## RockmartGA (Jun 29, 2011)

One more thing...

Even if you have a large solar field of say 50 megawatts, if a cloud bank floats over the solar field and the output goes from 50 megawatts to 20 megawatts, the power consumption is still happening. So where does that 30 megawatts come from to make up the shortfall?

Answer: the power company has to have "spinning reserves" of power that they can ramp up and stabilize the grid. Which means they have coal, gas or nuclear units running at reduced capacity and when the solar output drops, they can raise load on the other units.

In the future, when battery technology is improved, you may not need as much "spinning reserves" because the battery banks can provide temporary power. At the present time, that technology just is not there.


----------



## NewBerlinBaler (May 30, 2011)

Full disclosure here: I'm a retired electrical engineer and worked in the energy sector for 30+ years. I'm going to respond to several comments that were posted above.

1) To swmnhay - costs to maintain a wind farm (crane rental for generator replacement, snow removal, etc) are insignificant compared to the cost of fuel for a fossil-fuel power plant which for a utility-size plant are millions of dollars per day. So once the wind farm or solar array is built, a "conventional" power plant cannot compete on a $ per kilowatt-hour basis. Also, virtually every state now has some sort of incentive plan for renewable power generation. These plans were enacted on a state-by-state basis, it didn't come out of Washington. PA implemented theirs in 2006 - long before Obama was elected.

2) To glasswrongsize - your point about not ignoring the initial cost of building a wind farm or solar array is certainly valid and I agree. However, the way energy auditors look at it is different. They separate the construction costs from the operating costs. As I mention in the previous paragraph, renewables are much less expensive to operate on a $/kilowatt-hour basis

3) To RockmartGA - your "spinning reserve" comment is spot-on correct. Your earlier comment on the capacity factor of 12% for solar is also spot on. Here in PA, it's only 9%. Fossil fuel power plants aren't going away anytime soon.

Like many on HT, I also know a lot of Sierra Club members and others with similar green thoughts. All of them have totally unrealistic ideas about much energy can be produced with wind & solar. They think we can solve all our energy problems if we just put up a few more solar panels and a few more wind mills. Perfect example of magical thinking.


----------



## Shetland Sheepdog (Mar 31, 2011)

Here in NH, the greenies are fighting against an 11MW DC power line from Hydro Quebec, because the RoWs will "blight the landscape"!

Absolutely no concept of the need for power in the region!

They say "NH has all the power we need", why should we allow a transmission line that will benefit others?

Again, no concept of the inter-connected grid!


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

What's the true cost of wind power
http://www.newsweek.com/whats-true-cost-wind-power-321480


----------



## NewBerlinBaler (May 30, 2011)

A former colleague of mine once referred to wind mills as "tax credit generators".


----------

