gp37
Varsity
Posts: 4,663
|
Post by gp37 on Jul 30, 2020 15:21:03 GMT -6
We voted him down on the Wind Turbine application and some did not want the Wind Turbine in their back yard and others new it was a farce and he just wanted to get his hands on the money. He took some people to Seadrift to see their Wind Turbine and that model got shutdown because the maintenance was to high and they could not afford it. Vanmatre got a $800,000 grant and said now we can hire more math teachers. Sinton out in new artificial turf on the football field.
|
|
|
Post by Clemensbuff on Jul 31, 2020 5:58:26 GMT -6
We voted him down on the Wind Turbine application and some did not want the Wind Turbine in their back yard and others new it was a farce and he just wanted to get his hands on the money. He took some people to Seadrift to see their Wind Turbine and that model got shutdown because the maintenance was to high and they could not afford it. Vanmatre got a $800,000 grant and said now we can hire more math teachers. Sinton out in new artificial turf on the football field. Can you elaborate a little on this 'farce' of the wind turbine for me? although I do see them as a huge 'eye sore', they are pretty damn efficient at producing power now. For example, a 1MW turbine can power about 220 average sized homes. I think most that are now being installed are over 2MW and some go all the way to 4MW. A new 3MW turbine cost about $3m or so to install. That turbine can power about 660 homes. 660 homes at $200/month electric bill is $132k/month. If my math is correct that is a payoff of that turbine in about 23 months. Add to that the fact that there is no harmful emissions from the turbine makes it even nicer. I've also heard that the land owner's rent checks they receive are a hell of a lot more than they can get for either farming it or selling cattle or goats. To me the only thing not good about them is having to see them all over some really beautiful country!
|
|
gp37
Varsity
Posts: 4,663
|
Post by gp37 on Jul 31, 2020 7:51:39 GMT -6
I don't know what the rules are at present but when they put those in over near Gregory, the people building them got a Tax credit and sold it to have the money to put up the Wind Turbines. In other words the Tax Payers paid for the Wind Turbines that produced electricity that went to San Antonio at a higher cost to the electric company than oil or gas. The contract was take or pay. In other words you used their Wind Turbine elctricity even though oil and gas was cheaper. The Wind Turbines came in on ships in Corpus Christi and created jobs in Spain and Germany. There is one of them between Portland and Taft at present that is a pile of junk because it caught fire and burned down. It is near my son in laws farm and he has 3 of them on his farm. The farce on the one near the school in Sinton was it was close to school and houses and supposed to be used to teach students about Wind Turbines. Sinton school was going to have to maintain it at their expense. Wind Turbines do have a foot print on farm land and wind turbines do not produce food. There are many days the wind does not start blowing off the coast until about 10:00 AM. I went through Taft the other day and there were about 3 Wind Turbines barely turning out of the 100 plus over near Portland and Gregory. It is not unusual for the wind to not blow at night along the coast. These Wind Turbines have a life expectancy before they have to be replaced. The more expensive is the Solar Panels. If you plastered the whole US with Solar, it would not supply enough electricity. I am not against Wind Turbines. I just think the company's building them should pay for them and not my Tax dollars.
The federal production tax credit (PTC) currently provides 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of a privately owned wind turbine’s production for ten years.
|
|
gp37
Varsity
Posts: 4,663
|
Post by gp37 on Jul 31, 2020 7:58:34 GMT -6
What keeps a wind turbine turning?
Yes, it’s a trick question.
You need a good breeze, of course – but there’s something else that’s essential, something that you might not associate with wind power. And that something, would be oil or natural gas. Yep. Wind power depends on the hydrocarbon.
That’s because inside those turbines are gears, axles, a generator – all sorts of moving, turning parts – and moving parts need lubrication – and lubrication means oil. Which shouldn’t be surprising. Petroleum products are in all sorts of other products, including other sources of energy.
And those moving parts? The windmill blades have been getting longer and longer, which is good for the work of catching the wind – but the only way to make blades like that, is through carbon-reinforced resins made from petrochemicals.
Wind power in the U.S. produces about 5.5% percent of our electricity these days, so long as you’ve also got the oil to keep those turbines lubricated and running (and to make those wind-catching blades).
|
|
|
Post by Clemensbuff on Jul 31, 2020 11:20:40 GMT -6
I don't know what the rules are at present but when they put those in over near Gregory, the people building them got a Tax credit and sold it to have the money to put up the Wind Turbines. In other words the Tax Payers paid for the Wind Turbines that produced electricity that went to San Antonio at a higher cost to the electric company than oil or gas. The contract was take or pay. In other words you used their Wind Turbine elctricity even though oil and gas was cheaper. The Wind Turbines came in on ships in Corpus Christi and created jobs in Spain and Germany. There is one of them between Portland and Taft at present that is a pile of junk because it caught fire and burned down. It is near my son in laws farm and he has 3 of them on his farm. The farce on the one near the school in Sinton was it was close to school and houses and supposed to be used to teach students about Wind Turbines. Sinton school was going to have to maintain it at their expense. Wind Turbines do have a foot print on farm land and wind turbines do not produce food. There are many days the wind does not start blowing off the coast until about 10:00 AM. I went through Taft the other day and there were about 3 Wind Turbines barely turning out of the 100 plus over near Portland and Gregory. It is not unusual for the wind to not blow at night along the coast. These Wind Turbines have a life expectancy before they have to be replaced. The more expensive is the Solar Panels. If you plastered the whole US with Solar, it would not supply enough electricity. I am not against Wind Turbines. I just think the company's building them should pay for them and not my Tax dollars. The federal production tax credit (PTC) currently provides 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of a privately owned wind turbine’s production for ten years. I never said nor thought that wind turbine production was less expensive than gas or coal. There are very, very few newer technology things that cost less than the one before it, right? Yes, I realize as well that they turbines do not produce food but I'd rather see a 2000 acre field with 50 turbines on it turning and that farmer still planting 90% or more of that field in grain every year than to see 10,000 new homes or more built on that same 2000 acres in the next 20 years! The fact is they are making them more and more efficient all the time and more and more cost effective. Last, exactly what kind of power generation system doesn't have a 'life expectancy'? lmao
|
|