Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 196 posts

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#11

Post by Alupis »

mikeyouse wrote: post #9
Alupis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follo…

Wind farms generate substantial quantities of power at like $0.04/kwh unsubsidized - they're in no way ridiculous. California generates well over 10% of their total electricity demand via wind, Texas is closer to 25% of their total demand (more than coal and nuclear combined). Hundreds of thousands of cheap, carbon-free GWh produced is an odd definition of "doing almost nothing".

They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless.

The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible.

We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that sink in... follow the votes.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#12

Post by thebruce87m »

Alupis wrote: post #8
pedroma wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms I don't think it's this simple considering politics is usually involved. But if it was a simple profit question I still don't think people would be building wind farms.

Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follo…

> Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are.

What do you mean by this? My country is mostly powered by wind.

Edit: https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#13

Post by rootusrootus »

Alupis wrote: post #8
pedroma wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms I don't think it's this simple considering politics is usually involved. But if it was a simple profit question I still don't think people would be building wind farms.

Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follo…

> Subsidies are bolstered by politics.

That right there is irony.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#14

Post by 7952 »

Alupis wrote: post #8
pedroma wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms I don't think it's this simple considering politics is usually involved. But if it was a simple profit question I still don't think people would be building wind farms.

Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follo…

The main reason for subsidy is that the costs are all upfront and electricity prices are unpredictable. That is not a problem that is unique to wind, particularly in the climate change era. Systems like strike prices can be competitively priced and avoid overpayment.

Arguably the main problem is that countries take a natural monopoly and then try and treat it like a market. When a well run state company could invest with more certainty.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#15

Post by yareal »

pedroma wrote: post #6
yareal wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot less than they create? Like, if it was a negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms. Wind turbines produce whole integer MW, which is way more than they cost to make.

>negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms I don't think it's this simple considering politics is usually involved. But if it was a simple profit question I still don't think people would be building wind farms.

I didn't speak to profit. I spoke to energy return.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#16

Post by mikeyouse »

Alupis wrote: post #11
mikeyouse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind farms generate substantial quantities of power at like $0.04/kwh unsubsidized - they're in no way ridiculous. California generates well over 10% of their total electricity demand via wind, Texas is closer to 25% of their total demand (more than coal and nuclear combined). Hundreds of thousands of cheap, carbon-free GWh produced is an odd definition of "doing almost nothing".

They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless. The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible. We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that…

"Wind can't be the entire solution" is such a different statement than whatever this misinformed smug dismissal is trying to get at.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#17

Post by Alupis »

thebruce87m wrote: post #12
Alupis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follo…

> Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. What do you mean by this? My country is mostly powered by wind. Edit: https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/

Scotland is microscopic in relation to the landmass and population that is the US. Yet... look at the sheer volume of wind turbines Scotland has to operate to get anywhere between 10% - 80% of their power generation, depending on the day and wind conditions.

You cannot build a reliable grid based on wind. It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it's an overcast day?

If you look at that chart - you'll notice Nuclear takes over the heavy lifting when necessary. So... why not just have a couple more nuclear plants and forgo the unreliable sources?

Using wind and/or solar does not automagically make your system better or more green. People have pigeon-holed themselves into a reality where only wind and solar are acceptable... and then we hide away the actual sources that provide the necessary backfill.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#18

Post by Alupis »

mikeyouse wrote: post #16
Alupis wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless. The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible. We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that…

"Wind can't be the entire solution" is such a different statement than whatever this misinformed smug dismissal is trying to get at.

If you were able to read the statement you would clearly see no such thing.

Erecting more and more wind farms to make you feel fuzzy at night is absurd. We have the solution - metaphoric you just doesn't want it because reasons.

Re: Wind farms can offset their emissions within two years, new study shows

#20

Post by pedroma »

yareal wrote: post #15
pedroma wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms I don't think it's this simple considering politics is usually involved. But if it was a simple profit question I still don't think people would be building wind farms.

I didn't speak to profit. I spoke to energy return.

My answer applies to both cases actually.

For example, if one wanted to maximize profits, energy wise, there are better options than wind turbines and batteries. The choice to go with wind seems politically motivated due to optics of the alternatives.

Post reply on HN