scrap in just 20 years

[cropgrower]

. wonder did these eyesores make enough power in their short 20 year life to pay for themselves ? heap of scrap now , parts no longer available !

[Guest]

Wonder if they have an orphan fund ?
154 tons , holy fu k!

[cropgrower]

Wonder if they have an orphan fund ?
154 tons , holy fu k!

would be very interesting to know how much of return on iivestment their was from them , 154 tons of scrap would be worth a bit !

[AlbertaFarmer5]

would be very interesting to know how much of return on iivestment their was from them , 154 tons of scrap would be worth a bit !

Most of it is not worth a thing. Composite materials that cannot be recycled.

[WiltonRanch]

Most of it is not worth a thing. Composite materials that cannot be recycled.

They find a place in the desert and use an army of D8’s to bury the blades.

[furrowtickler]

They find a place in the desert and use an army of D8’s to bury the blades.

It’s in Wyoming , the fossil fuels used to make these structures far out ways the “free” b/s energy they produce.
This is simply a war between the petro dollar and the “green” dollar for your energy usage, zero with saving a penguin 🐧
Do they help reduce oil energy output, yup , but it’s way over exaggerated like climate change fanatic hype.
Follow the money , that’s all it’s about

[furrowtickler]

The things they don’t want you to see .......

[chuckChuck]

Wrong again!

As you can see by the following chart the Life cycle greenhouse gas emission estimates for wind and solar are all much much lower than all the fossil fuels. So instead of pedaling falsehoods and lies maybe you guys should do some homework first.

NREL considered approximately 3,000 published life cycle
assessment studies on utility-scale electricity generation
from wind, solar photovoltaics, concentrating solar power,
biopower, geothermal, ocean energy, hydropower, nuclear,
natural gas, and coal technologies, as well as lithium-ion
battery, pumped storage hydropower, and hydrogen storage
technologies. A systematic review, comprising three rounds
of screening by multiple experts, selected references that met
strict criteria for quality, relevance, and transparency.
Less than 15% of the original pool of references passed
this review process.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

[chuckChuck]

Hoping this will make the chart bigger and more readable. If you want to see the chart better open the link. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

Wrong again!

As you can see by the following chart the Life cycle greenhouse gas emission estimates for wind and solar are all much much lower than all the fossil fuels. So instead of pedaling falsehoods and lies maybe you guys should do some homework first.

NREL considered approximately 3,000 published life cycle
assessment studies on utility-scale electricity generation
from wind, solar photovoltaics, concentrating solar power,
biopower, geothermal, ocean energy, hydropower, nuclear,
natural gas, and coal technologies, as well as lithium-ion
battery, pumped storage hydropower, and hydrogen storage
technologies. A systematic review, comprising three rounds
of screening by multiple experts, selected references that met
strict criteria for quality, relevance, and transparency.
Less than 15% of the original pool of references passed
this review process.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf


[ATTACH]10369[/ATTACH]

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Wonder if they have an orphan fund ?
154 tons , holy fu k!

Chuck and I went through this before. No orphan fund, no upfront recycling fee, no end of life regulations. No reclamation requirements.
Just a giant double standard.
That in itself is a massive subsidy.