That is bull shit we need wind turbines sure we use oil and resources to make them but everything needs it but it will reduce the need for it we need solar we need hydro we need wind it is proven that it will create more jobs and it's 100% cleaner
...and guess what happens when the world starts to be 25% or 50% renewable energy. Yes, you got it! The wind turbine steel is made with electricity (nucor) and transported by electric vehicles that get their power from the sun and hydro. Wind turbines in Denmark have "spinning reserve" from hydro in other parts of Scandinavia. We have a form of solar power which has effective storage for 8 days and can run all night or for a week of clouds. This can also, and easily, back up intermittent wind.
There is no climate change and never was. The only green energy is the money paid to the government by corrupt 'shell companies' like Solindra to corrupt, lying politicians in the Democratic party who would enslave us like Obama. Can't take the heat, huh?
There is no climate change and never was. The only green energy is the money paid to the government by corrupt 'shell companies' like Solindra to corrupt, lying politicians in the Democratic party who would enslave us like Obama.
The only true thing here is that turbines need energy to be manufactured, transported and operated.
99% of this energy is provided once in the turbine's lifetime, and is returned many times over.
Whether the steel they are made of is melted with coal or wind electricity depends on which is available. Transportation can be made with electricity, lubricants can be synthetic. Even if they are made with fissil energy I think this is a better investment of energy than the alternative.
Subsidizing energy is a problem if it cannot make its way in the market on its own then it is not viable...period. Did coal and oil fired electrical generation plants have to get huge government subsidies to put them in place? I'm sure somewhere someone got a tax break for building one, but I doubt the government ever paid out the huge subsidies it does for solar, ethanol and wind for any viable fossil fuel plant.
This is the tripe. Wrong in so many ways, and a back door ad for the fossil fuel companies. BS and stupid. Have nothing to do with this channel and the IER.
Obviously produced by big oil/gas. There is a lot of good data on "Total Carbon Defecit" for all types of energy producing materials; including, nuclear power plants, wind, hydro, solar PV & thermal, bio-mass etc. What this video fails to cover is that if one is to view total carbon defecit, or life-cycle-carbon-cost-benefit, a wind turbine (just like a PV array etc.) has a lower overall lifetime carbon defecit than fossil fuels.
The benefits of wind power do outweight the costs. The problem is our country is built upon a fossil fuel economy. Transitioning to alternatives will take decades, and needs to include things like wind, solar and nuclear power. If power plants were run by electiricty from wind turbines and cars ran on electicity from wind turbines, the use of fossil fuels would be reduced dramatically.
@Rovinpiper Are you serious? Cars use internal combustion engines that rely entirely on fuel for their use. Good luck getting and usability out of a car you push everywhere. Bikes are powered by a human, and the materials that go into providing transportation per person is much less. That is why less developed economies and places where fuel cost are high, bike us is much more prevalent. If it cost more fuel for a bike why would poor people have them?
This is quite helpful in that in the back of my mind i knew those details were there but i didn't really want to think about them as you want the renewable alternative. Everything has negative points i guess. Only criticism is that you didn't outline if the benefits of wind power outweighed the negatives or not. This would be a helpful summary in deciding the best option :)
@joeshow099 You act as if coal and oil are not in your interest. Do you think the owner of Exxon hunts for oil for his personal use? give me a break....
Wind turbines are a blight. I'll take one nuclear plant over 2000 three hundred foot monstrosities any day. If you think wind power is green, check out altamont pass or Palm Springs. They literally make me (motion) sick.
@bigpchamber You Americans have certainly managed to build some ugly-ass wind farms, and I can see how those fast-spinning blades on old small-capacity turbines could cause motion sickness. I live near Whitelee Wind Farm, the second largest wind farm in Europe, and the big 2.3MW turbines in it are very unobtrusive and quite graceful. I see them whenever I walk my dog, and they don't bother me in the slightest.
IER, just another corporate serving think tank using lies to defend the status quo. Unfortunately, videos like this are all too effective on people that would rather have their existing biases confirmed than to challenge their beliefs with an open-minded examination of the issues. China is investing heavily in this technology, don't blame it on the greenies when China gains the competitive advantage in this technology and controls the industry.
@Getttitboii How would you move good around the world simply with electricity? You still need fossil fuels to produce and build the parts of technologies we use everyday. People need to see these as a supplementation and not competition for each other. Ex. Places that have erratic wind conditions should never even consider wind farms, they make no sense.
PART2: I am going to make a video on how we only really have 2 sources of energy... Geothermal and nuclear. Nuclear meaning the sun, because fossil fuels were created millions of years ago by the sun, wind energy is created by thermal convection in the earths atmosphere due to the sun, solar panels create electricity from the sun, ethanol is made from corn that gets its energy to grow from the sun.
And have you heard of synthetic and natural plant oils?
Lets cut the bull, anybody can talk... tell me some numbers. How much CO2 is released in the production of one turbine? How much fuel is consumed? What size turbine is this? How much energy will that turbine produce over its lifetime? How would that break down into fossil fuels? Then do a little math
This video is as useless as Glen Beck's rhetoric...It is falsely educating. Though there are trinkets of truth, these truths are wrapped in false logic.
That's cruel, any person who is uninfomed or uneducated enough could believe the information given in this ViD! This scares me alot! I am just glad there are lots of negative comments on this video!
We are the people, we have the power in our vioces and in our hearts, i hope we can achiev further funding for Windenergy projects and positive legislation!
Remember, more than a half of all chairmen around the world dropped out from college, or even from high school. Maybe 'uneducated' people do the math?
Actually most of this videos points are valid. Wind has only around a 30 percent capacity factor. In other words it doesn`t generate electricity all the time. So you need base load power stations like Coal or Nuclear. Unfortunately some green groups skip the science and go to fairy land. Wind and Solar can supplement, they just cannot replace Coal or Nuclear.
Now if you want to pay for wind go ahead. Just don`t use my TAX MONEY!
A terribly uninformed, biased view of wind. Of COURSE things require energy, and of course since fossil fuels provide most energy now, anything new - like wind, hydro, geo, etc. - will require fossil fuels. If you want to Kick the Fossil Fuel Habit, you don't go cold turkey.
This argument has been made to discredit every form of alternative energy set to compete with fossil fuels. They did it very effectively against ethanol. They did it effectively against solar in the 1970s. It is a ridiculous argument. If we had electric cars and trucks powered by wind turbines and electric cranes etc. etc. Then this argument would be seen as stupid. Well we need the turbines up and running first and then we can get after the vehicles in our world to be run off of electricity.
I would love to see who pays the funding for the "Institute for energy research"
This psuedo science mickey mouse establishment only proves the fact that there is considerable political force out there to try and curb positive change.
Every single "scientific" statement they made is laughable to anybody who is informed on the subject. My real worry is that the uninformed public come across this video and are decieved by it which is exactly the purpose of this video :(
And another thing, if what you say is true then our way of life is going to end soon, because we have already reached our peak in Oil production that means it will slowly diminish until it is finaly gone, and when it is gone, if we dont have the proper infrastructure in place to use flow resources to generate electricity to maintain our standard of living then were fucked. Back to the ol' horse n buggy.
And another thing, if what you say is true then our way of life is going to end soon, because we have already reached our peak in Oil production that means it will slowly diminish until it is finaly gone, and when it is gone, if we dont have the proper infrastructure in place to use flow resources to generate electricity to maintain our standard of living then were fucked. Back to the ol' horse n buggy.
Yea this video is pretty dumb, sure they require fossil fuels to make, just like almost everything else we use >.> There are alternatives to oil based lubricants that can be made from biomass (ie, canola oil, ethanol type stuff). Ontop of that, the wind NEVER stops blowing everywhere at once, so if we could get more turbines placed over a large piece of land, like ontario, with the proper infrastructure we could have a constant source of clean energer once the turbines are built.
Gee, I wonder who's paying for this blatant misinformation campaign? The fossil fuel industry perhaps?
The 'emodied energy' is paid back quickly with wind. That's the point. EROEI is 35 to 1. IE, you get back 35 units of energy for every one you invest. Compare that to the average EROEI on oil today: 5 to 1. Oil used to be over 100 to 1. It's the best deal we're finding out there today. The intermittent issues are real but not insurmountable with emerging storage technologies.
This is the least informed video I have ever seen. Of course wind turbines don't pop up by magic, neither do hydro stations, geothermal stations, gas turbines etc. Wind turbines generate the embodied energy required to make them within 6-12 months - which is the fastest of any type of energy. It takes a gas turbine two years to generate the same amount of energy as involved with it's construction. See the BWEA site for references. what about the huge subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives?
@behrenspaul Not to mention coal ALSO has to be transported, using the same fossil fuel that the wind turbine. The difference is that when the wind generator makes electricity it isnt polluting like fossil fuels. Thumbs up to behrenspaul....
This video is such a Petroleum Industry circle jerk. Petroleum is already heavily subsidized in the United States. The fact that the petroleum industry is afraid of wind energy which currently only makes up about 1 percent of the US energy make up is really saying something. BP would have better off putting the millions that they invested into IERDC into oil spill lean up and prevention. Disgusting.
So what if wind energy needs some fossil fuel to operate. As long as it produces more energy than it needs of fossil fuel it will still have a positive effect.
As long as a large portion of fossil fuels come from countries ran by those camel jockeys I'm up for whatever. The life of a wind turbine and all it's production offsets all those inputs. If your gonna hate the wind revolution you should go protest Wal-mart and their thousands of trucks feeding this glutton society
I'm not an advocate for wind mills because of heavy government subsidies and because they're unsightly, and they're unreliable (no wind=no power)!
If you research wind energy you'll conclude that it's just another way for "private enterprise" to profit from the largesse of heavy government (tax-payer) subsidy.
Like another person has said, ban ALL government subsidies for ALL energy production. Period!
but...OIL and COAL are BY FAR the most subsidized industries, not wind. Check out MAG-LEV Vertical Axis Wind Turbines. There are 500W portables that operate on a breeze.
We should ban subsidies to all energy sources to foster a competitive energy market. Renewables, such as wind and solar, are intermittent, expensive, inefficient energy sources. Despite thirty years of subsidies, they still make up only a fraction of our energy use.
@EmmaHJackson Wind is the third cheapest energy source available. MUCH cheaper than coal and not much more expensive than coal. Why shouldn't it be part of the solution? Especially when it has minimal env effects.
This video fails to do any math, just list a whole lot of seemingly terrible things without any real data. It enforces an idea that you can't move to new technology because you have to use old technology to make it. We'd still be using stone tools with this brilliance...
I do agree with the video because I feel wind is way too much hyped.
It have it's advantages but saying it's cheaper then coal and can replace all fossils fuels is brainwashing. It can be backed pretty easily with gas but that's all. So far it cannot supply baseload electricity. Until then, we gotta find something else (nuclear, clean coal, gas, efficiency).
I'm sorry but I personally on every level disagree with this video, Wind energy is in every way better than Fossil Fuels, so you can go and just plain give up, it's something that will hopefully save our world so unless you go any brighter ideas just ***t up. This is just lame. it's even childish, claiming it's bad because it was built using fossil fuels, what if wind turbines powered everything, and cars ran on electricity, then what, how would they be bad then?
The worst bunch of hogwash I ever heard. Whoever is behind this video is doing lobby work for the oil industry. And only stupid people are buying it :)
Turbines are made in places like China. When their production is subsidised your government is basically giving billions of taxpayer's money to an energy company which then pays billions to a Chinese company. Then to recover costs they slap you in the face another time by increasing your energy bills. You pay two times for something that is inefficient and only serves the whims of politicians and corporations.
@aronswritingdeskyt I want to ask you two questions that I'm not sure I know and I want your opinion:
Do you have any idea how many products are imported from China?
and
Why are energy bills increased (i.e. political reasons, wars and relations with major suppliers of petroleum, or maybe natural disasters that may interrupt petroleum production and transportation)?
Also just out of curiosity, you used "your government." Meaning your not from the US?
I think this video must be satire... I mean, even a five-year-old can be taught the difference between a small expenditure for long term benefit and a constant sizable expenditure of fuels. HA! These guys are funny! And EVERYONE fell for the joke!
This is ludicrous. Those are short term costs, we don't import the same equiptment everyday. Once the turbines are here, they're here to stay... obviously we're not moving them back and forth. If they want to make that arguement, the rebuttal's child's play, "fossil fuels=fossil fuels" (same transport methods..).
The wind turbines aren't run on fossil fuels...this clip is an insult to our intelligence. How stupid do they think we are? Wind turbines are an investment.
This is a ludicrous argument. Let's not take into account that a turbine's average life span is at least 25 years.... Sure the initial construction and installation requires *some* fossil fuels, but are you really trying to argue that negates 25 years of clean energy production?
Oh no! They use fossil fuels to design, produce and transport hybrid and electric vehicles. They probably should be scrapped too since there is no net savings in fossil fuel consumption.
This is totally misleading and a terrible strawman argument. No one is claiming wind will be 100% of our energy source but rather a big %. We are advancing technology, we have to use the technology AVAILABLE at the time to create new and better technology. Coal steam engine railroads brought the material to build and produce the first diesel powered trains. Coal plants supplied the power to build the first nuclear power plants. Horse and buggies brought the components to build the first cars.
Great video. You might add that it would take 724 of these wind turbines, on 1,615 acres, to equal just 20 onshore natural gas wells on less than 8 acres. Today, at least in Ohio, the final environmental footprint of a natural gas well is about the size of the average dining room!
The analysis in this video doesn't pass the laugh test. We will always need petroleum for chemical and pharmaceutical industries. It makes no sense to burn it in cars. There are many areas of the country that can provide consistent wind. You build excess capacity to cover variations in wind. Coal, natural gas and nuclear do the same - ever heard of shutdowns for maintenance? The saddest part of all is the low level of scientific understanding demonstrated by some of these comments.
..wind energy that net it's benefits, or even do a sufficient job with the ones it brings up (like support generation to level the persistently intermittent output of wind. I know, a sound byte at a time, but free market energy advocates know we are running out of time to stop this ridiculous wind energy charade, and we need to be concise, sourced, disclosing the numbers in terms people can relate to, and exposing the misleading claims made by the wind industry. Nice format, poor content.
The argument in this video is only valid to the degree wind energy vs. traditional generation net off a higher percentage of their lifetime productivity energy in the subject activities. it doesn't tell us directly whether that is true, and only alludes to subsidy allocation imbalance toward wind and away from fossils, and future carbon laws being the vehicles allowing wind energy to "make fossil fuels more expensive."
This video is narrow in scope compared to the arsenal of arguments.....
People with common sense claim that not just proponents of wind energy. How come you guys from the institute of bullshit research didn't say how many times a wind farm pays back the energy used to make, transport and maintain it's wind turbines? oh that's right... because your whole argument would become crap.
@LHFX Well, in terms of dollars, wind is given 13% capacity credit at PJM. at $2MM per installed MW, that brings the development cost of reliable energy to over $15MM per MW, and at $40 per MWH wholesale, retuns only $45,500 worth of secure capacity per year per installed MW, a 300 year break even for reliable capacity on a 20 year expected life device. How's that for "paying back?"
First of all i was talking about paying back the energy to manufacture and operate a wind farm (this video suggests that wind power relies on fossil fuels). You got it all wrong dude. It has nothing to do with them being competitive with coal and gas plants under current market conditions because at the moment they are not. In the long term though fuel prices can only go up (by their very nature) and wind power can only become cheaper from economies of scale (check Enercon E-126).
I believe that the prospects for coal, nuclear and natural gas becoming wildly expensive are only likely if the far left makes laws limiting their use. These resources are vast, and according to DOE EIA, will last civilizations for many centuries. But if you are speaking from the Chicken Little perspective, and hoping for outrageously expensive electrical power, then I see your point. Maybe someday sprawling weather power and energy storage will win in economic dispatch, God help us.
The Iowa State Fair has a wind turbine that successfully generates all of the energy used on the fairgrounds each year. The problem is that the turbine generates 365 days a year, and the fairgrounds actually uses 98% of its total energy consumption during 10 days in August! So the Iowa State Fair Board pays their electric utility basic rates for PRIME Electricity during August, and sells back excess electricity every other day of the year at THE SAME $s per watt they pay for their electricity.
@weuteweute That IS a problem. Unlike dollars paid for enerrgy, energy itself is PERISHABLE, so you have to use it precisely when it's made or lose it. Oh, you could store it - behin hydro you'd have to build or in batteries that are worse for the environment than burning coal and storing depleted fuel rods. And did I mention quadruping the price of energy stored? That doesn't just affect your electric bill, it affects the competitiveness of all products manufactured in the US.
I am tired of our Politicians thinking they know enough to pick winners and losers. Doesn't matter if it is energy, health insurance, banking, manufacturing. It is time The People of this nation stand up and Demand a truly FREE MARKET!!!
This is a great distortion of the truth.What this video says is technically true (except that this information is a "secret"), but they have only addressed a small piece of the picture. Wind machines deliver over 20 times the energy that it takes to make, deliver and install them. A turbine will typically pay back the energy it takes to deploy it in less than a year. Yes, it's true, unfortunately, that the energy that is used to make it, at this point, is still mostly from fossil fuels.
@jackzeiger, that's a great distortion of the truth. according to the department of energy's OWN WEBSITE the 20 times number is for a 2.5 MW turbine operating at maximum 24/7 and this is before you apply the Capacity Factor. We all know that ain't gonna happen! An average U.S. household uses about 10,655 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity each year. Windpower is like E-85 or Socialism, looks good on paper but wont work in the real world.
There is no such thing as wind energy; it is not a stand alone thing. Wind always operates in conjunction with combustion turbines or hydro(and there's not much of that to go around).
That EROEI of 20 gets nibbled down by producing energy when and where nobody wants it; by increased use of spinning reserve, by increased use of single cycle gas turbines during weeklong periods of low wind. The carbon savings over CCGT natural gas turbines are questionable.
@jackzeiger That's a great argument, Jack, except that you failed to say who would be paying back the cost of the infrastructure, ratepayers at mandated higher prices, or taxpayers who generally don't understand that electricity's value comes as much from precise delivery timing in exacting quantities than from its "average annual production."
Wind energy costs about $2M per MW, $0.03 per kWh in maintenance (after the warranty), and its contribution to secure capacity is < 10% of nameplate.
I doubt your maintenance cost claim. The output from wind energy can be put into the existing infrastructure and be delivered wherever it's needed (which is constantly changing) while it's created, offsetting the existing generation. They don't store energy now, why would it need to be stored from wind turbines? Also, what figure do you have for maintenance of the existing system? Seems to me that heat driven turbines would take more maintenance than wind driven.
Wind Energy has a capacity value of 0! That is right a big fat 0! We have given foreign countries 1.2 billion of our stimulus funds for jobs in THEIR countries. People this is a HUGE scam called windgate. We want our money back, Obama!
WInd energy is a way for big companies to hide income. It is a huge tax shelter that you and I do not get to join.
@gypsy1961 designed to last the life of the vehicle and recycled by the auto manufacturer. in fact, some manufacturers (toyota) offer a $200 "reward" for turning in a hybrid battery. by the way, i also don't think hybrids are really the answer. some high efficiency gas and diesel cars get almost as good mpg and don't have the complicated/expensive hybrid systems.
by the way, not saying wind turbine is the answer. maybe its nuclear, solar, thermal, something else, who knows. we should still research wind turbine and if it's too expensive or technically not viable then abandon it. but claiming it shouldn't be done because the truck that delivers the turbine runs on diesel is lame.
this is ridiculous. it's the same argument that hybrids require more energy, fuel and resources to produce which negates the fuel savings. it's been disproven (prius vs. hummer); over the long term the fuel savings far exceeds the additional up front resources required in manufacturing. this video has no quantitative analysis on how much fuel is required in production, transportation and maintenance compared to the energy the turbine produces in its lifetime.
we will always require some form of fossil fuels, and i don't think these turbines are meant to replace fossil fuels altogether, but to help weaken our dependency on dirty energy. smaller versions of these turbines do not require the same treatment as these towering monsters. put it to you this way, you can use fossil fuels to refine more fossil fuels, or use those fossil fuels to refine less fossil fuels, and build turbines that will compensate for the extra loss in fossil fuels. it's simple.
If We can make Electrical Energy by Fossil Fuels for 6 cents a KW and the Turbine is COSTING 9 cents a KW.....Whats Up with that Shit????? I Think the American People NEED to Pull Together and put there Work Boots back on and Clean this Country up...Starting in Washington, DC. This is OUR COUNTRY not HIS.
I'm glad that the truth is finally coming out about wind turbines. No one is making any money on those things except the people who make and sell them. The hoax which has been perpetrated upon the world about "global warming" is beginning to come out, too! All of those wind trubines were suppose to keep the country from having to use fossil fuels so that they could prevent global warming. What a joke! Unfortunately a lot of the citizens of the U.S. are gullible.
What a croc. Has anybody totalled up the fossil fuel required to build one, set it up and get it running versus how much fossil fuel it will save over it's service life? I think I know where the answer lies. This video might as well have been produced by the damned Democrats. It makes as much sense as their garbage.
Naturally it requires fossil fuel to build a wind generator. Fossil fuel is also used to build a nuclear plant. A natural gas plant also. A nuclear plant would take some 10 years to build, and 35 years for it to pay off. Natural gas 5 years to build, 10 years to pay off.
And, what can be manufactured without the use of fossil fuel??
Why are they being built overseas, which requires more fossil fuel. Why not right here in the USA?.
The Wind Power Farms will produce 0.025 MW per acre. Ignoring effectiveness of these units, it will need 44000 acres (68.75 sq miles 0r 8.29 miles X 8.29 miles) of windmills to match one 1100 MW nuclear power plant. Both the wind power farm and solar power site remote locations will require large expenditures to extend the power grid to accommodate plants. Texas estimates $9 billion dollar investment to extend the power grid into the panhandle region to support the wind farms in that region.
how much WORK does it take to get from point A to point B.....say for instance....moving 12 tons from point A at elevation 0 ft to point B at elevation 1000 ft in say 20 minutes....the electric motor would need to be the size of small bus with batterties about the size of small house...where as an internal combustion engine of diesel variety is the size of steamer trunk and only requires 1 gallon of diesel fuel.....
People resist change and that is natural and we also tend to be suspicious when something gets popular or it seems too good to be true. It good to question such things. The comments make better points than the goofy video. Being involved deeply in the wind business a few years I have seen that profit can be made even without the PTC, and I have seen how much power a turbine can produce with almost zero maintenance. Wind turbines ARE an effective fossil fuel reducer. Nothing is perfect.
I HATE them. I live in Colorado and to see them destroy our beautiful landscape is just wrong. I have also heard them referred to Bird Blenders because of the number of birds that they kill. Where in the heck are the environmentalists on this one?
Effective video. The layers upon layers upon layers of inconsistency, deception, and hypocrisy are gagging me. So, for relief from the grade-Z movie and farce that the Obamessiah's utopian energy policy is, I turn instead to the "debate" on healthcare-entitlement legislation. No, wait! - THAT soap opera is even worse, if that's humanly possible. HELP!
While the US twiddles its thumbs with wind and solar energy (which I support if viable in the free market) China, Russia, Brazil, Norway, and most of the middle east are drilling themselves into prosperity. Please President Obama, Sierra Club, Envirocontrollers, let the US snap out of this recession in a few months by deregulating and opening up substantial fossil energy sources. The best part, lots and lots of high paying jobs!!!
These inefficient monstrosities only come to market through government subsidies. They take up millions of acres to produce energy equal to one nuclear plant, and when the wind does not blow fossil fuel is the back up to keep the grid humming. Nuclear, natural gas, and oil are the cheapest, least invasive, most plentiful energy sources. That is why they came about in the free market, not joined at the hip by the taxpayer.
Effective video. The layers upon layers upon layers of hypocrisy, inconsistency, and deception are gagging me. So for relief from the Grade-Z movie and farce that the Obamessiah's utopian energy policy is, I turn instead to the "debate" on healthcare-entitlement legislation. No, wait! - THAT soap opera is even worse, if that's humanly possible. HELP!
Wind towers use concrete and aluminum too which requires oil and gas to produce. But I hear also some are using carbon fiber blades which is pure fried crude. Look wind/solar produce NO PRODUCTS! The point is its not the fossil energy they replace but the raw fossil fuel needed for them to exist. Want more wind or solar? Then you're going to need a lot more OIL and GAS! What about paint? roads? tyres? medicine? ink? detergents...etc.etc. etc....
Living near the largest wind farm in Pennsylvania, I doubt AES would have spent the millions to build the turbines here if they were going to waste all their money on fossil fuel expenses. They'll make their money back selling the energy. So wind turbines depend on more than wind to be built and maintained? You mean the parts themselves don't float in on the wind? Where did you think they came from?
@indigonegative What happens when the wind doesn't blow? Gotta crank up the motors on the turbines (oh-oh, powered by (horrors) REAL FOSSIL FUELS). Have you ever driven by these dang eyesores that go for miles and miles and miles and miles through New Mexico and Texas? Takes up so much valuable land it's downright creepy. That constant humming is enough to even drive a lib-tard crazy! Don't want to be a bird either---not good. Nothing wrong with stepping back in time I suppose.....hmmmm
@spunkermunker There is no motor in those things to make them spin when the wind isn't... that makes no sense and defeats the purpose. Each wind site has a certain wind rating and average power is estimated to determine the energy and financial benefits of putting them up in that location. There are windy seasons and low wind seasons, but the average wind and estimated benefits give each project a justification. When the wind doesn't blow, they don't spin. Would you rather have coal stacks?
@steensn You miss the point. They have moving parts. It doesn't matter what moves them, they need lubricant to continue moving. The oil isn't there to make them move when the wind doesn't blow--it's there to counteract the effects of metal on metal friction when the wind is blowing.
@moneyfornathan Yeah, what is the point? Most use synthetic oil which uses no petroleum at all. What you don't get is that a LITTLE oil (few barrels) for lubrication to offset HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of barrels of oil or hundreds of TONS of coal seems like a little stupid point to make doesn't it? I know exactly how a wind turbine works, much better than you do, trust me.
@moneyfornathan Use synthetics then? Lubricant isn't using tons and tons of oil. Lubricant is a non issue and small beans. Why does a little lubricant somehow equal large amounts of oil?
I believe you miss the point because this video tries to show that SOOOO much pollution is created by wind turbines when in fact the energy payback for wind turbines is like 5-9 months on a 20 year lifetime. It is asinine to say that the old technology we need to make new technology is somehow a hinderance. PMme
Have you ever looked at the cost of a nuclear power plant ? Lets be honest here, I'm all for nuclear power but look at the ones being built in florida . 100 to 200 million over budget . Don't take my word for it , look it up . If equal amounts of money are spent which one is more efficient ?
I have to agree with MrOldphart. Until our "Elected Learned" on the hill pull their collective heads from their behinds and quit trying only " to get their way or get even with one another", the common good will never be served.
What a croc. Has anybody totalled up the fossil fuel required to build one, set it up and get it running versus how much fossil fuel it will save over it's service life? I think I know where the answer lies. This video might as well have been produced by the damned Democrats. It makes as much sense as their garbage.
Yes, many people have. Wind turbines take more energy to manufacture than they will produce in approximately 25 years. But with all the government handouts in the form of tax credits, we now see them popping up all over beautiying the countryside.
@MrOldphart The point is not how much it saves, I don't think anyone argues that, or at least they shouldn't as you are right, the point is though that the darn thing requires coal and oil to exist, so we still need oil and coal as a raw material to make our products. Wind produces NO PRODUCTS!
tell boxer and nobama and all the rest of the GD damnrats who lie lie lie and lie. Tell algore to stay home and plant trees Positive carbon !!! No jey fuel burned!!!! Why don't we get the WHOLE entire truth from the idiots???? Because they DON'T KNOW or understand!!!!
I am a friendly commenter, but I do have a concern: When mentioning the use of fossil fuels required to transport turbines, etc., you have to show that over the long haul, these turbines do not eventually bring about a net reduction in fossil fuel use. I suspect that they do not, but you haven't demonstrated that here.
Also 80% of Obama's energy stimulus jobs are going to foreign countries to produce green products such as wind turbines and solar panels.not to mention how he wants to close 11,000,000 acres in the West by Executive Order to keep Americans from our natural resources. Looks like Pres. Jimmy Carter will be the good old days.
No fake jake. Head move, foot fake, misdirection, and voila, you have our notorious politicians, read corrupt, telling us the truth again and how good it is going be for us. But, it is ok to lie if it is green.
@kingsofkingsjax it's proven that going green will provide more jobs then useing fossil fuels dip shit
TheGoyanks 3 weeks ago
@hornyforyourcunt you must have been dropped on your head when you were a baby because only stupid ass dip shits think that global warming is a myth
TheGoyanks 3 weeks ago
That is bull shit we need wind turbines sure we use oil and resources to make them but everything needs it but it will reduce the need for it we need solar we need hydro we need wind it is proven that it will create more jobs and it's 100% cleaner
TheGoyanks 3 weeks ago
...and guess what happens when the world starts to be 25% or 50% renewable energy. Yes, you got it! The wind turbine steel is made with electricity (nucor) and transported by electric vehicles that get their power from the sun and hydro. Wind turbines in Denmark have "spinning reserve" from hydro in other parts of Scandinavia. We have a form of solar power which has effective storage for 8 days and can run all night or for a week of clouds. This can also, and easily, back up intermittent wind.
mtcox2779 4 weeks ago
OMG my teacher said that it would save fossil fules from going... It turnes out it just makes it WORSE!
TheFelix267 1 month ago
There is no climate change and never was. The only green energy is the money paid to the government by corrupt 'shell companies' like Solindra to corrupt, lying politicians in the Democratic party who would enslave us like Obama. Can't take the heat, huh?
Horny4yourcunt 1 month ago
There is no climate change and never was. The only green energy is the money paid to the government by corrupt 'shell companies' like Solindra to corrupt, lying politicians in the Democratic party who would enslave us like Obama.
Horny4yourcunt 1 month ago
All true, but the parts get recycled, and the energy in is far less than the energy out during manufacture.
amemy1 2 months ago
The only true thing here is that turbines need energy to be manufactured, transported and operated.
99% of this energy is provided once in the turbine's lifetime, and is returned many times over.
Whether the steel they are made of is melted with coal or wind electricity depends on which is available. Transportation can be made with electricity, lubricants can be synthetic. Even if they are made with fissil energy I think this is a better investment of energy than the alternative.
coleloto 4 months ago
Subsidizing energy is a problem if it cannot make its way in the market on its own then it is not viable...period. Did coal and oil fired electrical generation plants have to get huge government subsidies to put them in place? I'm sure somewhere someone got a tax break for building one, but I doubt the government ever paid out the huge subsidies it does for solar, ethanol and wind for any viable fossil fuel plant.
romel1088 4 months ago
This is the tripe. Wrong in so many ways, and a back door ad for the fossil fuel companies. BS and stupid. Have nothing to do with this channel and the IER.
rollinswitch 5 months ago
Obviously produced by big oil/gas. There is a lot of good data on "Total Carbon Defecit" for all types of energy producing materials; including, nuclear power plants, wind, hydro, solar PV & thermal, bio-mass etc. What this video fails to cover is that if one is to view total carbon defecit, or life-cycle-carbon-cost-benefit, a wind turbine (just like a PV array etc.) has a lower overall lifetime carbon defecit than fossil fuels.
depatnaude 5 months ago
Green Jobs have destroyed jobs where they are promoted. Green cost jobs!
kingofkingsjax 6 months ago
behrenspaul said all that is needed.
TheIdealGasLaw 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The benefits of wind power do outweight the costs. The problem is our country is built upon a fossil fuel economy. Transitioning to alternatives will take decades, and needs to include things like wind, solar and nuclear power. If power plants were run by electiricty from wind turbines and cars ran on electicity from wind turbines, the use of fossil fuels would be reduced dramatically.
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
Comment removed
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
Stay tuned for my next video:
Bicycles = fossil fuels!!!
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
@Rovinpiper they do genius where you going to get the oil and rubber for the bike? or the metal?
polevaultrockstr 8 months ago
polevaultrockstr
Exactly! So clearly a bicycle uses just as much fossil fuel as a car. Maybe even more!
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
@Rovinpiper Are you serious? Cars use internal combustion engines that rely entirely on fuel for their use. Good luck getting and usability out of a car you push everywhere. Bikes are powered by a human, and the materials that go into providing transportation per person is much less. That is why less developed economies and places where fuel cost are high, bike us is much more prevalent. If it cost more fuel for a bike why would poor people have them?
polevaultrockstr 8 months ago
This is quite helpful in that in the back of my mind i knew those details were there but i didn't really want to think about them as you want the renewable alternative. Everything has negative points i guess. Only criticism is that you didn't outline if the benefits of wind power outweighed the negatives or not. This would be a helpful summary in deciding the best option :)
SianElectric 8 months ago
Nuclear power is the way forward.
nitty56 9 months ago
According to the LA Times, the IERDC is ""a Washington-based hotbed of global warming denial supported by oil and coal interests." Not surprising.
joeshow099 10 months ago 2
@joeshow099 You act as if coal and oil are not in your interest. Do you think the owner of Exxon hunts for oil for his personal use? give me a break....
polevaultrockstr 8 months ago
Wind turbines are a blight. I'll take one nuclear plant over 2000 three hundred foot monstrosities any day. If you think wind power is green, check out altamont pass or Palm Springs. They literally make me (motion) sick.
bigpchamber 11 months ago
@bigpchamber You Americans have certainly managed to build some ugly-ass wind farms, and I can see how those fast-spinning blades on old small-capacity turbines could cause motion sickness. I live near Whitelee Wind Farm, the second largest wind farm in Europe, and the big 2.3MW turbines in it are very unobtrusive and quite graceful. I see them whenever I walk my dog, and they don't bother me in the slightest.
Peter5930 3 weeks ago
IER, just another corporate serving think tank using lies to defend the status quo. Unfortunately, videos like this are all too effective on people that would rather have their existing biases confirmed than to challenge their beliefs with an open-minded examination of the issues. China is investing heavily in this technology, don't blame it on the greenies when China gains the competitive advantage in this technology and controls the industry.
wanabeer 11 months ago
That's the stupidest commercial I've ever seen IF YOU USE WIND ENERGY TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY YOU DON'T NEED ALL THOSE TRUCKS TP
Getttitboii 11 months ago
@Getttitboii How would you move good around the world simply with electricity? You still need fossil fuels to produce and build the parts of technologies we use everyday. People need to see these as a supplementation and not competition for each other. Ex. Places that have erratic wind conditions should never even consider wind farms, they make no sense.
polevaultrockstr 8 months ago
PART2: I am going to make a video on how we only really have 2 sources of energy... Geothermal and nuclear. Nuclear meaning the sun, because fossil fuels were created millions of years ago by the sun, wind energy is created by thermal convection in the earths atmosphere due to the sun, solar panels create electricity from the sun, ethanol is made from corn that gets its energy to grow from the sun.
And have you heard of synthetic and natural plant oils?
PROPAGANDA ALERT!
themagicalatsi 1 year ago
Lets cut the bull, anybody can talk... tell me some numbers. How much CO2 is released in the production of one turbine? How much fuel is consumed? What size turbine is this? How much energy will that turbine produce over its lifetime? How would that break down into fossil fuels? Then do a little math
This video is as useless as Glen Beck's rhetoric...It is falsely educating. Though there are trinkets of truth, these truths are wrapped in false logic.
themagicalatsi 1 year ago
this is a fake video
Mr217577 1 year ago
this is fake
Mr217577 1 year ago
That's cruel, any person who is uninfomed or uneducated enough could believe the information given in this ViD! This scares me alot! I am just glad there are lots of negative comments on this video!
We are the people, we have the power in our vioces and in our hearts, i hope we can achiev further funding for Windenergy projects and positive legislation!
Bebsch89 1 year ago
@Bebsch89
Remember, more than a half of all chairmen around the world dropped out from college, or even from high school. Maybe 'uneducated' people do the math?
cmoeha 1 year ago 7
@Bebsch89
Actually most of this videos points are valid. Wind has only around a 30 percent capacity factor. In other words it doesn`t generate electricity all the time. So you need base load power stations like Coal or Nuclear. Unfortunately some green groups skip the science and go to fairy land. Wind and Solar can supplement, they just cannot replace Coal or Nuclear.
Now if you want to pay for wind go ahead. Just don`t use my TAX MONEY!
Allante715 1 year ago
@Allante715 Good comment.
Glad to see someone has a good head on their shoulders
ostapslobodian 10 months ago
A terribly uninformed, biased view of wind. Of COURSE things require energy, and of course since fossil fuels provide most energy now, anything new - like wind, hydro, geo, etc. - will require fossil fuels. If you want to Kick the Fossil Fuel Habit, you don't go cold turkey.
kickfossilfuelhabit 1 year ago
This is just a bad excuse for America to not make wind turbines.
BackflippingTurtle 1 year ago
This argument has been made to discredit every form of alternative energy set to compete with fossil fuels. They did it very effectively against ethanol. They did it effectively against solar in the 1970s. It is a ridiculous argument. If we had electric cars and trucks powered by wind turbines and electric cranes etc. etc. Then this argument would be seen as stupid. Well we need the turbines up and running first and then we can get after the vehicles in our world to be run off of electricity.
joelado 1 year ago 5
I would love to see who pays the funding for the "Institute for energy research"
This psuedo science mickey mouse establishment only proves the fact that there is considerable political force out there to try and curb positive change.
Every single "scientific" statement they made is laughable to anybody who is informed on the subject. My real worry is that the uninformed public come across this video and are decieved by it which is exactly the purpose of this video :(
Electropimp26 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
Electropimp26 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And another thing, if what you say is true then our way of life is going to end soon, because we have already reached our peak in Oil production that means it will slowly diminish until it is finaly gone, and when it is gone, if we dont have the proper infrastructure in place to use flow resources to generate electricity to maintain our standard of living then were fucked. Back to the ol' horse n buggy.
kill2474 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And another thing, if what you say is true then our way of life is going to end soon, because we have already reached our peak in Oil production that means it will slowly diminish until it is finaly gone, and when it is gone, if we dont have the proper infrastructure in place to use flow resources to generate electricity to maintain our standard of living then were fucked. Back to the ol' horse n buggy.
kill2474 1 year ago
Comment removed
kill2474 1 year ago
Yea this video is pretty dumb, sure they require fossil fuels to make, just like almost everything else we use >.> There are alternatives to oil based lubricants that can be made from biomass (ie, canola oil, ethanol type stuff). Ontop of that, the wind NEVER stops blowing everywhere at once, so if we could get more turbines placed over a large piece of land, like ontario, with the proper infrastructure we could have a constant source of clean energer once the turbines are built.
kill2474 1 year ago
@kill2474 Energy*
kill2474 1 year ago
If that's so then I wonder why the coal, oil and gas companies are so dead set against them. Hmmmm....
biantai888 1 year ago
But the energy windmills produce, will overcome the energy of their own production.
Flemse911 1 year ago
@Flemse911
Ahuh, modern turbines pay for their energy of production and installation after the third year of generation.
They have a lifespan of 25 years, and refurbishing them for another 25 is very a very labour efficient process
Electropimp26 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Flemse911
Ahuh, Youre right... Modern turbines pay for their energy of production and installation after the third year of generation.
They have a lifespan of 25 years, and refurbishing them for another 25 is very a very labour efficient process
Electropimp26 1 year ago
Gee, I wonder who's paying for this blatant misinformation campaign? The fossil fuel industry perhaps?
The 'emodied energy' is paid back quickly with wind. That's the point. EROEI is 35 to 1. IE, you get back 35 units of energy for every one you invest. Compare that to the average EROEI on oil today: 5 to 1. Oil used to be over 100 to 1. It's the best deal we're finding out there today. The intermittent issues are real but not insurmountable with emerging storage technologies.
sdavis3398 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
google 'stuxnet' its a virus that attacks atomic power stations - nuclear is not the naswer
ChuffChuffWoo 1 year ago
google 'stuxnet' its a virus that attacks atomic power station - nuclear is not the naswer
ChuffChuffWoo 1 year ago
It takes about 6 to nine months for a wind farm to 'pay back' all the fuel used in its total creation process
ChuffChuffWoo 1 year ago 3
This is the least informed video I have ever seen. Of course wind turbines don't pop up by magic, neither do hydro stations, geothermal stations, gas turbines etc. Wind turbines generate the embodied energy required to make them within 6-12 months - which is the fastest of any type of energy. It takes a gas turbine two years to generate the same amount of energy as involved with it's construction. See the BWEA site for references. what about the huge subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives?
behrenspaul 1 year ago 25
@behrenspaul I agree, eliminate the subsidies for the fossil fuel industry!
enduro0276 1 year ago
@behrenspaul Not to mention coal ALSO has to be transported, using the same fossil fuel that the wind turbine. The difference is that when the wind generator makes electricity it isnt polluting like fossil fuels. Thumbs up to behrenspaul....
dusfermc 3 months ago
This video is such a Petroleum Industry circle jerk. Petroleum is already heavily subsidized in the United States. The fact that the petroleum industry is afraid of wind energy which currently only makes up about 1 percent of the US energy make up is really saying something. BP would have better off putting the millions that they invested into IERDC into oil spill lean up and prevention. Disgusting.
ccrunr84 1 year ago 4
Anyone wants to actually learn something about this without the nonsense PM me.
steensn 1 year ago
isnt the fuel suppose to be gone in 2016 or somewhere in this decade
mquiroz90 1 year ago
Comment removed
barrw 1 year ago
If the value of the energy produced is more than the cost to produce and maintain the windmills, then they are probably a net producer of energy.
barrw 1 year ago
So what if wind energy needs some fossil fuel to operate. As long as it produces more energy than it needs of fossil fuel it will still have a positive effect.
Siddis33 1 year ago
@cody1800212 Jesus Crist?
ToTheConquered 1 year ago
As long as a large portion of fossil fuels come from countries ran by those camel jockeys I'm up for whatever. The life of a wind turbine and all it's production offsets all those inputs. If your gonna hate the wind revolution you should go protest Wal-mart and their thousands of trucks feeding this glutton society
jpope1985 1 year ago
I'm not an advocate for wind mills because of heavy government subsidies and because they're unsightly, and they're unreliable (no wind=no power)!
If you research wind energy you'll conclude that it's just another way for "private enterprise" to profit from the largesse of heavy government (tax-payer) subsidy.
Like another person has said, ban ALL government subsidies for ALL energy production. Period!
n8tureboy 1 year ago
Ok? so lets start cutting usage of fossil fuels lol. people think about is cost not the fact that the greenhouse effect can turn us into dust. lol
darkjadice 1 year ago
Wrong. Replace fossil fuels with HEMP and ALGAL OIL. There, problem solved.
drex801 1 year ago
but...OIL and COAL are BY FAR the most subsidized industries, not wind. Check out MAG-LEV Vertical Axis Wind Turbines. There are 500W portables that operate on a breeze.
drjonritz 1 year ago
so, what are you suggest?
kibajustice 1 year ago
We should ban subsidies to all energy sources to foster a competitive energy market. Renewables, such as wind and solar, are intermittent, expensive, inefficient energy sources. Despite thirty years of subsidies, they still make up only a fraction of our energy use.
EmmaHJackson 1 year ago
@EmmaHJackson Wind is the third cheapest energy source available. MUCH cheaper than coal and not much more expensive than coal. Why shouldn't it be part of the solution? Especially when it has minimal env effects.
This video fails to do any math, just list a whole lot of seemingly terrible things without any real data. It enforces an idea that you can't move to new technology because you have to use old technology to make it. We'd still be using stone tools with this brilliance...
steensn 1 year ago 2
I do agree with the video because I feel wind is way too much hyped.
It have it's advantages but saying it's cheaper then coal and can replace all fossils fuels is brainwashing. It can be backed pretty easily with gas but that's all. So far it cannot supply baseload electricity. Until then, we gotta find something else (nuclear, clean coal, gas, efficiency).
badthoughs 1 year ago
I'm sorry but I personally on every level disagree with this video, Wind energy is in every way better than Fossil Fuels, so you can go and just plain give up, it's something that will hopefully save our world so unless you go any brighter ideas just ***t up. This is just lame. it's even childish, claiming it's bad because it was built using fossil fuels, what if wind turbines powered everything, and cars ran on electricity, then what, how would they be bad then?
popcornvideos 1 year ago
The worst bunch of hogwash I ever heard. Whoever is behind this video is doing lobby work for the oil industry. And only stupid people are buying it :)
indigoblue66 1 year ago 2
Turbines are made in places like China. When their production is subsidised your government is basically giving billions of taxpayer's money to an energy company which then pays billions to a Chinese company. Then to recover costs they slap you in the face another time by increasing your energy bills. You pay two times for something that is inefficient and only serves the whims of politicians and corporations.
That's wind power.
aronswritingdeskyt 1 year ago
@aronswritingdeskyt I want to ask you two questions that I'm not sure I know and I want your opinion:
Do you have any idea how many products are imported from China?
and
Why are energy bills increased (i.e. political reasons, wars and relations with major suppliers of petroleum, or maybe natural disasters that may interrupt petroleum production and transportation)?
Also just out of curiosity, you used "your government." Meaning your not from the US?
XsmashX1 1 year ago
I think this video must be satire... I mean, even a five-year-old can be taught the difference between a small expenditure for long term benefit and a constant sizable expenditure of fuels. HA! These guys are funny! And EVERYONE fell for the joke!
steevmoor 1 year ago 2
This is ludicrous. Those are short term costs, we don't import the same equiptment everyday. Once the turbines are here, they're here to stay... obviously we're not moving them back and forth. If they want to make that arguement, the rebuttal's child's play, "fossil fuels=fossil fuels" (same transport methods..).
The wind turbines aren't run on fossil fuels...this clip is an insult to our intelligence. How stupid do they think we are? Wind turbines are an investment.
XsmashX1 1 year ago
This is a ludicrous argument. Let's not take into account that a turbine's average life span is at least 25 years.... Sure the initial construction and installation requires *some* fossil fuels, but are you really trying to argue that negates 25 years of clean energy production?
Oh no! They use fossil fuels to design, produce and transport hybrid and electric vehicles. They probably should be scrapped too since there is no net savings in fossil fuel consumption.
I call shenanigans.
ngiotta 1 year ago
@ngiotta
Shenanigans!!!!
Electropimp26 1 year ago
This is totally misleading and a terrible strawman argument. No one is claiming wind will be 100% of our energy source but rather a big %. We are advancing technology, we have to use the technology AVAILABLE at the time to create new and better technology. Coal steam engine railroads brought the material to build and produce the first diesel powered trains. Coal plants supplied the power to build the first nuclear power plants. Horse and buggies brought the components to build the first cars.
steensn 1 year ago
they used horses to bring the parts to the workshop to make the first generations of cars, how stupid they were.
CARS = HORSES
roryniland 1 year ago
I know! They could have just eaten the horses and had the energy to walk!
lakesidelivin 1 year ago
doesn't it take coal, oil, and natural gas to build other kinds of power plants??
fmjwilly 1 year ago
Great video. You might add that it would take 724 of these wind turbines, on 1,615 acres, to equal just 20 onshore natural gas wells on less than 8 acres. Today, at least in Ohio, the final environmental footprint of a natural gas well is about the size of the average dining room!
OOGEEP1 1 year ago
The analysis in this video doesn't pass the laugh test. We will always need petroleum for chemical and pharmaceutical industries. It makes no sense to burn it in cars. There are many areas of the country that can provide consistent wind. You build excess capacity to cover variations in wind. Coal, natural gas and nuclear do the same - ever heard of shutdowns for maintenance? The saddest part of all is the low level of scientific understanding demonstrated by some of these comments.
pelicanprovideo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With no one to protect them
Put this into the youtube search engine.
If you can get to minute 6 WITHOUT crying...
I'll PERSONALLY send you 25.00 with paypal.
Seriously.
Try it.
macholibre77 1 year ago
..wind energy that net it's benefits, or even do a sufficient job with the ones it brings up (like support generation to level the persistently intermittent output of wind. I know, a sound byte at a time, but free market energy advocates know we are running out of time to stop this ridiculous wind energy charade, and we need to be concise, sourced, disclosing the numbers in terms people can relate to, and exposing the misleading claims made by the wind industry. Nice format, poor content.
SaveWesternOHIO 1 year ago
The argument in this video is only valid to the degree wind energy vs. traditional generation net off a higher percentage of their lifetime productivity energy in the subject activities. it doesn't tell us directly whether that is true, and only alludes to subsidy allocation imbalance toward wind and away from fossils, and future carbon laws being the vehicles allowing wind energy to "make fossil fuels more expensive."
This video is narrow in scope compared to the arsenal of arguments.....
SaveWesternOHIO 1 year ago
People with common sense claim that not just proponents of wind energy. How come you guys from the institute of bullshit research didn't say how many times a wind farm pays back the energy used to make, transport and maintain it's wind turbines? oh that's right... because your whole argument would become crap.
LHFX 1 year ago
@LHFX Well, in terms of dollars, wind is given 13% capacity credit at PJM. at $2MM per installed MW, that brings the development cost of reliable energy to over $15MM per MW, and at $40 per MWH wholesale, retuns only $45,500 worth of secure capacity per year per installed MW, a 300 year break even for reliable capacity on a 20 year expected life device. How's that for "paying back?"
SaveWesternOHIO 1 year ago
First of all i was talking about paying back the energy to manufacture and operate a wind farm (this video suggests that wind power relies on fossil fuels). You got it all wrong dude. It has nothing to do with them being competitive with coal and gas plants under current market conditions because at the moment they are not. In the long term though fuel prices can only go up (by their very nature) and wind power can only become cheaper from economies of scale (check Enercon E-126).
LHFX 1 year ago
I believe that the prospects for coal, nuclear and natural gas becoming wildly expensive are only likely if the far left makes laws limiting their use. These resources are vast, and according to DOE EIA, will last civilizations for many centuries. But if you are speaking from the Chicken Little perspective, and hoping for outrageously expensive electrical power, then I see your point. Maybe someday sprawling weather power and energy storage will win in economic dispatch, God help us.
SaveWesternOHIO 1 year ago
The Iowa State Fair has a wind turbine that successfully generates all of the energy used on the fairgrounds each year. The problem is that the turbine generates 365 days a year, and the fairgrounds actually uses 98% of its total energy consumption during 10 days in August! So the Iowa State Fair Board pays their electric utility basic rates for PRIME Electricity during August, and sells back excess electricity every other day of the year at THE SAME $s per watt they pay for their electricity.
weuteweute 1 year ago
@weuteweute That IS a problem. Unlike dollars paid for enerrgy, energy itself is PERISHABLE, so you have to use it precisely when it's made or lose it. Oh, you could store it - behin hydro you'd have to build or in batteries that are worse for the environment than burning coal and storing depleted fuel rods. And did I mention quadruping the price of energy stored? That doesn't just affect your electric bill, it affects the competitiveness of all products manufactured in the US.
SaveWesternOHIO 1 year ago
I am tired of our Politicians thinking they know enough to pick winners and losers. Doesn't matter if it is energy, health insurance, banking, manufacturing. It is time The People of this nation stand up and Demand a truly FREE MARKET!!!
weuteweute 1 year ago
This is a great distortion of the truth.What this video says is technically true (except that this information is a "secret"), but they have only addressed a small piece of the picture. Wind machines deliver over 20 times the energy that it takes to make, deliver and install them. A turbine will typically pay back the energy it takes to deploy it in less than a year. Yes, it's true, unfortunately, that the energy that is used to make it, at this point, is still mostly from fossil fuels.
jackzeiger 2 years ago
@jackzeiger, that's a great distortion of the truth. according to the department of energy's OWN WEBSITE the 20 times number is for a 2.5 MW turbine operating at maximum 24/7 and this is before you apply the Capacity Factor. We all know that ain't gonna happen! An average U.S. household uses about 10,655 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity each year. Windpower is like E-85 or Socialism, looks good on paper but wont work in the real world.
mta415 1 year ago
There is no such thing as wind energy; it is not a stand alone thing. Wind always operates in conjunction with combustion turbines or hydro(and there's not much of that to go around).
That EROEI of 20 gets nibbled down by producing energy when and where nobody wants it; by increased use of spinning reserve, by increased use of single cycle gas turbines during weeklong periods of low wind. The carbon savings over CCGT natural gas turbines are questionable.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@jackzeiger That's a great argument, Jack, except that you failed to say who would be paying back the cost of the infrastructure, ratepayers at mandated higher prices, or taxpayers who generally don't understand that electricity's value comes as much from precise delivery timing in exacting quantities than from its "average annual production."
Wind energy costs about $2M per MW, $0.03 per kWh in maintenance (after the warranty), and its contribution to secure capacity is < 10% of nameplate.
SaveWesternOHIO 1 year ago
I doubt your maintenance cost claim. The output from wind energy can be put into the existing infrastructure and be delivered wherever it's needed (which is constantly changing) while it's created, offsetting the existing generation. They don't store energy now, why would it need to be stored from wind turbines? Also, what figure do you have for maintenance of the existing system? Seems to me that heat driven turbines would take more maintenance than wind driven.
lakesidelivin 1 year ago
Wind Energy has a capacity value of 0! That is right a big fat 0! We have given foreign countries 1.2 billion of our stimulus funds for jobs in THEIR countries. People this is a HUGE scam called windgate. We want our money back, Obama!
WInd energy is a way for big companies to hide income. It is a huge tax shelter that you and I do not get to join.
thewadsworth 2 years ago
Ah Dtheman72 and where do you throw those spent expensive batteries when you are done with them?
gypsy1961 2 years ago
@gypsy1961 designed to last the life of the vehicle and recycled by the auto manufacturer. in fact, some manufacturers (toyota) offer a $200 "reward" for turning in a hybrid battery. by the way, i also don't think hybrids are really the answer. some high efficiency gas and diesel cars get almost as good mpg and don't have the complicated/expensive hybrid systems.
dtheman72 2 years ago
Thanks!!
llewellynconstr 2 years ago
I am considering dating a girl... im just not sure im a lesbian because i dont like eating out very much!
GirlloveYou382 2 years ago
Drill here, drill now, pay less!
Create jobs in America not Europe!
longterm99 2 years ago
by the way, not saying wind turbine is the answer. maybe its nuclear, solar, thermal, something else, who knows. we should still research wind turbine and if it's too expensive or technically not viable then abandon it. but claiming it shouldn't be done because the truck that delivers the turbine runs on diesel is lame.
dtheman72 2 years ago 2
this is ridiculous. it's the same argument that hybrids require more energy, fuel and resources to produce which negates the fuel savings. it's been disproven (prius vs. hummer); over the long term the fuel savings far exceeds the additional up front resources required in manufacturing. this video has no quantitative analysis on how much fuel is required in production, transportation and maintenance compared to the energy the turbine produces in its lifetime.
dtheman72 2 years ago 2
Prius vs. Honda Civic----Honda Civic Wins!
braffle 2 years ago
we will always require some form of fossil fuels, and i don't think these turbines are meant to replace fossil fuels altogether, but to help weaken our dependency on dirty energy. smaller versions of these turbines do not require the same treatment as these towering monsters. put it to you this way, you can use fossil fuels to refine more fossil fuels, or use those fossil fuels to refine less fossil fuels, and build turbines that will compensate for the extra loss in fossil fuels. it's simple.
lad18913290 2 years ago 2
If We can make Electrical Energy by Fossil Fuels for 6 cents a KW and the Turbine is COSTING 9 cents a KW.....Whats Up with that Shit????? I Think the American People NEED to Pull Together and put there Work Boots back on and Clean this Country up...Starting in Washington, DC. This is OUR COUNTRY not HIS.
wvcaseman5665 2 years ago
I'm glad that the truth is finally coming out about wind turbines. No one is making any money on those things except the people who make and sell them. The hoax which has been perpetrated upon the world about "global warming" is beginning to come out, too! All of those wind trubines were suppose to keep the country from having to use fossil fuels so that they could prevent global warming. What a joke! Unfortunately a lot of the citizens of the U.S. are gullible.
MsTruthandjustice 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree with MrOldphart.
This video is freakin rediculous!!!
What a croc. Has anybody totalled up the fossil fuel required to build one, set it up and get it running versus how much fossil fuel it will save over it's service life? I think I know where the answer lies. This video might as well have been produced by the damned Democrats. It makes as much sense as their garbage.
vu123456789 2 years ago
Naturally it requires fossil fuel to build a wind generator. Fossil fuel is also used to build a nuclear plant. A natural gas plant also. A nuclear plant would take some 10 years to build, and 35 years for it to pay off. Natural gas 5 years to build, 10 years to pay off.
And, what can be manufactured without the use of fossil fuel??
Why are they being built overseas, which requires more fossil fuel. Why not right here in the USA?.
Do some research before jooining this parade!!!
1shkrtlroll 2 years ago 2
dryhole10 2 years ago
Conclusion: WIND IS DUMB.
PORCUPINESTEAK 2 years ago
THE BIG LIE
how much WORK does it take to get from point A to point B.....say for instance....moving 12 tons from point A at elevation 0 ft to point B at elevation 1000 ft in say 20 minutes....the electric motor would need to be the size of small bus with batterties about the size of small house...where as an internal combustion engine of diesel variety is the size of steamer trunk and only requires 1 gallon of diesel fuel.....
trejo8180 2 years ago
People resist change and that is natural and we also tend to be suspicious when something gets popular or it seems too good to be true. It good to question such things. The comments make better points than the goofy video. Being involved deeply in the wind business a few years I have seen that profit can be made even without the PTC, and I have seen how much power a turbine can produce with almost zero maintenance. Wind turbines ARE an effective fossil fuel reducer. Nothing is perfect.
djtexcarr 2 years ago
I HATE them. I live in Colorado and to see them destroy our beautiful landscape is just wrong. I have also heard them referred to Bird Blenders because of the number of birds that they kill. Where in the heck are the environmentalists on this one?
robinspal13 2 years ago
Will somebody PLEASE tie Obama to a chair and make him watch this video.
databuster71 2 years ago
Effective video. The layers upon layers upon layers of inconsistency, deception, and hypocrisy are gagging me. So, for relief from the grade-Z movie and farce that the Obamessiah's utopian energy policy is, I turn instead to the "debate" on healthcare-entitlement legislation. No, wait! - THAT soap opera is even worse, if that's humanly possible. HELP!
FedUpinSpades 2 years ago
While the US twiddles its thumbs with wind and solar energy (which I support if viable in the free market) China, Russia, Brazil, Norway, and most of the middle east are drilling themselves into prosperity. Please President Obama, Sierra Club, Envirocontrollers, let the US snap out of this recession in a few months by deregulating and opening up substantial fossil energy sources. The best part, lots and lots of high paying jobs!!!
eaglecry1957 2 years ago
These inefficient monstrosities only come to market through government subsidies. They take up millions of acres to produce energy equal to one nuclear plant, and when the wind does not blow fossil fuel is the back up to keep the grid humming. Nuclear, natural gas, and oil are the cheapest, least invasive, most plentiful energy sources. That is why they came about in the free market, not joined at the hip by the taxpayer.
eaglecry1957 2 years ago
Effective video. The layers upon layers upon layers of hypocrisy, inconsistency, and deception are gagging me. So for relief from the Grade-Z movie and farce that the Obamessiah's utopian energy policy is, I turn instead to the "debate" on healthcare-entitlement legislation. No, wait! - THAT soap opera is even worse, if that's humanly possible. HELP!
FedUpinSpades 2 years ago
Wind towers use concrete and aluminum too which requires oil and gas to produce. But I hear also some are using carbon fiber blades which is pure fried crude. Look wind/solar produce NO PRODUCTS! The point is its not the fossil energy they replace but the raw fossil fuel needed for them to exist. Want more wind or solar? Then you're going to need a lot more OIL and GAS! What about paint? roads? tyres? medicine? ink? detergents...etc.etc. etc....
caribousteaks 2 years ago
Living near the largest wind farm in Pennsylvania, I doubt AES would have spent the millions to build the turbines here if they were going to waste all their money on fossil fuel expenses. They'll make their money back selling the energy. So wind turbines depend on more than wind to be built and maintained? You mean the parts themselves don't float in on the wind? Where did you think they came from?
indigonegative 2 years ago 9
@indigonegative What happens when the wind doesn't blow? Gotta crank up the motors on the turbines (oh-oh, powered by (horrors) REAL FOSSIL FUELS). Have you ever driven by these dang eyesores that go for miles and miles and miles and miles through New Mexico and Texas? Takes up so much valuable land it's downright creepy. That constant humming is enough to even drive a lib-tard crazy! Don't want to be a bird either---not good. Nothing wrong with stepping back in time I suppose.....hmmmm
spunkermunker 1 year ago
@spunkermunker There is no motor in those things to make them spin when the wind isn't... that makes no sense and defeats the purpose. Each wind site has a certain wind rating and average power is estimated to determine the energy and financial benefits of putting them up in that location. There are windy seasons and low wind seasons, but the average wind and estimated benefits give each project a justification. When the wind doesn't blow, they don't spin. Would you rather have coal stacks?
steensn 1 year ago 2
@steensn You miss the point. They have moving parts. It doesn't matter what moves them, they need lubricant to continue moving. The oil isn't there to make them move when the wind doesn't blow--it's there to counteract the effects of metal on metal friction when the wind is blowing.
moneyfornathan 1 year ago
@moneyfornathan Yeah, what is the point? Most use synthetic oil which uses no petroleum at all. What you don't get is that a LITTLE oil (few barrels) for lubrication to offset HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of barrels of oil or hundreds of TONS of coal seems like a little stupid point to make doesn't it? I know exactly how a wind turbine works, much better than you do, trust me.
steensn 1 year ago
@moneyfornathan Use synthetics then? Lubricant isn't using tons and tons of oil. Lubricant is a non issue and small beans. Why does a little lubricant somehow equal large amounts of oil?
I believe you miss the point because this video tries to show that SOOOO much pollution is created by wind turbines when in fact the energy payback for wind turbines is like 5-9 months on a 20 year lifetime. It is asinine to say that the old technology we need to make new technology is somehow a hinderance. PMme
steensn 1 year ago 2
This is all DUMB & STUPID!
How much electricity can one Wind Turbine produce in a 24 Hour Period?
How much electricity can on Nuclear Power Plant Produce in a 24 hour Period?
We're Done!
Unklebillybob 2 years ago
Have you ever looked at the cost of a nuclear power plant ? Lets be honest here, I'm all for nuclear power but look at the ones being built in florida . 100 to 200 million over budget . Don't take my word for it , look it up . If equal amounts of money are spent which one is more efficient ?
bunnyoneechan 2 years ago
I have to agree with MrOldphart. Until our "Elected Learned" on the hill pull their collective heads from their behinds and quit trying only " to get their way or get even with one another", the common good will never be served.
olddog610 2 years ago
Since Man Made Climate Change is a cacophony of scientific sophistry, what's the point?
wmdasco1 2 years ago 2
What a croc. Has anybody totalled up the fossil fuel required to build one, set it up and get it running versus how much fossil fuel it will save over it's service life? I think I know where the answer lies. This video might as well have been produced by the damned Democrats. It makes as much sense as their garbage.
MrOldphart 2 years ago 7
Yes, many people have. Wind turbines take more energy to manufacture than they will produce in approximately 25 years. But with all the government handouts in the form of tax credits, we now see them popping up all over beautiying the countryside.
netpropheting 2 years ago
@MrOldphart The point is not how much it saves, I don't think anyone argues that, or at least they shouldn't as you are right, the point is though that the darn thing requires coal and oil to exist, so we still need oil and coal as a raw material to make our products. Wind produces NO PRODUCTS!
caribousteaks 2 years ago
tell boxer and nobama and all the rest of the GD damnrats who lie lie lie and lie. Tell algore to stay home and plant trees Positive carbon !!! No jey fuel burned!!!! Why don't we get the WHOLE entire truth from the idiots???? Because they DON'T KNOW or understand!!!!
stersource 2 years ago 2
I am a friendly commenter, but I do have a concern: When mentioning the use of fossil fuels required to transport turbines, etc., you have to show that over the long haul, these turbines do not eventually bring about a net reduction in fossil fuel use. I suspect that they do not, but you haven't demonstrated that here.
ModconTV 2 years ago 2
Also 80% of Obama's energy stimulus jobs are going to foreign countries to produce green products such as wind turbines and solar panels.not to mention how he wants to close 11,000,000 acres in the West by Executive Order to keep Americans from our natural resources. Looks like Pres. Jimmy Carter will be the good old days.
WildFireFilms 2 years ago 3
No fake jake. Head move, foot fake, misdirection, and voila, you have our notorious politicians, read corrupt, telling us the truth again and how good it is going be for us. But, it is ok to lie if it is green.
The789789able 2 years ago 2