"Decommissioning" of a Wind Farm 3

[SnTMan]

Interesting video, if you haven't seen it. I haven't found any real info about it. End of life (functional of just economic?) I guess. Anyone seen anything on it?

(Sorry for any ads)

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[1503-44]

I've passed by three of the Spanish plants. Two towers and one parabolic mirror focused on pipe runs. All seem to be doing well and the towers are impressive in the evening sun over the cotton fields.

 

The birds there aren't doing quite as well, too many get vaporized.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[IRstuff]

"I feel like we (the public) sometimes get hoodwinked by overly optimistic life cycle costs for green energy."

Bash away, but the same was said of nuclear power. And while solar panels are relatively clean at the back end, their production isn't necessarily so, as with most semiconductor production.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

Then let's talk about construction cost overrruns for nuclear builds and refurbishments. 220% of starting budget is the worldwide average.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[1503-44]

Let's not. Its about as far OT as you can get.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Then let's talk about construction cost overruns for nuclear builds and refurbishments. 220% of starting budget is the worldwide average.

True, but those nuclear plants are usually privately funded by the power companies themselves, right? If so, then they aren't duping anybody but themselves.

My issue is with what appears to be deliberate deception to the owner who's getting rooftop panels, the media who (so that they'll promote the company's "green energy" talking points), or the government that is subsidizing the company's business plan.

 

[1503-44]

Just to be sure, subsidy actually means a "direct payment". So do you mean subsidies, or tax incentives, or other form of grants? Not sure how it works where you are. And isn't there much more of that going on with the direct payments made to farmers, which are not really old guys driving around on tractors farmers, but actually rather giant corporations these days, not to deflect the issue entirely. The swamp is indeed large.

Anyway, we generally don't mind baying for benefits derived from flying, having a roof over our heads, pizza night, or a few beers at the bar, so let's just say that a solar subsidy, if they exist, is similar in that we pay for benefits we have been receiving from the Earth for the last few million years while we conveniently let the collection hat pass us by. Just like maintenance costs of a power plant, they cant be ignored and will eventually catch up with us.

Fraud is an issue for the state attorney general. We won't solve that problem here.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Just to be sure, subsidy actually means a "direct payment". So do you mean subsidies, or tax incentives, or other form of grants?

I was being deliberately vague. Not all subsidies are the same. If the goal is to increase jobs, then the "subsidy" should only kick in once those jobs exist and should disappear when those jobs disappear.

As far as "green energy" goes, I get tired of all the government subsidies for rick people to put solar panels on their homes or buy a fancy (but impractical) electric car. Essentially, the government is subsidizing rich people's "virtue signaling" to their neighbors about how environmentally "woke" they are.

I take a much more "economics" approach to climate change. What is the most efficient way for the government to spend money right now to reduce our carbon emissions within the next couple of years? In terms of $$ per ton of reduction in CO2 emission. The billions of dollars spent subsidizing rich people's solar panels and Teslas are NOT the most efficient use of these funds. A more efficient use of them is to replace coal plants with combined cycle gas turbines or nuclear power.

That doesn't negate some support of these other industries. Like I said earlier, I'm okay with the 1.6 billion in loan guarantees to the Ivanpah solar power plant. You throw a few more plants like this (or a next generation one that is better and more efficient) in places like Arizona and such that has bright sunlight in the months where power usage is highest and you go a long way towards a sustainable low carbon power grid in certain areas.

 

[dauwerda]

As far as "green energy" goes, I get tired of all the government subsidies for rick people to put solar panels on their homes or buy a fancy (but impractical) electric car. Essentially, the government is subsidizing rich people's "virtue signaling" to their neighbors about how environmentally "woke" they are.

I understand this sentiment, but is that really the only result? Yes, rich people receive a direct benefit, but isn't the more important thing that is happening is that it is driving the market for these technologies forward? This is producing more research and development so that ultimately these products can become better and more affordable to the masses. These things would never be developed to begin with if (rich) people weren't given incentives to consume them as there are currently much cheaper alternatives.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

This is producing more research and development so that ultimately these products can become better and more affordable to the masses.

That's certainly a valid point. And, I will acknowledge the importance of that. Certainly we wouldn't be where we are now with electric and/ or hybrid cars without this.

But, if we're talking about most efficient use of government money vs CO2 reduction, then solar panels are not the way to do it. Solar panels are GREAT for people who want to live off the grid and such. Or, have that type of flexibility. But, they will always be a niche market and are unlikely to be a long term solution to our power issues and CO2 emission issues.

 

[1503-44]

Are you proposing that we just eat less beef and more alge? Than what is your preferred method of reducing CO2?

Look at NASA. How commercial has that ever been? Forget the subsidy aspect and just make a gov corp. It was an entire industry paid for by gov. Whats the difference between having a gov payroll and just dishing out directly. Same same. And I also don't think you can say we didn't derive many and various benefits from their research and activities. And in 20yrs, I think you will look back and say, glad we did that, or on the other hand if it falls through, you may be hooking up the buggy to a horse wondering what the heck happened to oil and gas.