Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

Memes - Abandon all hope - Ye who enter....

Recommended Posts

Just try to tell me you did not laugh after seeing this one. 😂

213B0BCE-C23E-4305-8803-88F1E3850117.jpeg

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Irishman said:

Just try to tell me you did not laugh after seeing this one. 😂

213B0BCE-C23E-4305-8803-88F1E3850117.jpeg

He's probably glad he didn't buy her those glasses with the corrective lenses......

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a meme ... but it needs to be.

image.png.ea10838c77a491489a9910bf237c35d4.png

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tough one...was pulling for the Boilers Saturday night....but one can't ignore the humor..........

Purdue.JPG

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Image may contain: text

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wind-idiot-power/

The meme selectively paraphrases language from an article written by an economist. The actual quote is below. You can see how the meme intentionally misrepresents the author's point: 

"The concept of net energy must be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wind-idiot-power/

The meme selectively paraphrases language from an article written by an economist. The actual quote is below. You can see how the meme intentionally misrepresents the author's point: 

"The concept of net energy must be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it."

I'll be honest, I would be very skeptical that there's that much steel in the windmill, I would assume there would be a much greater use of composites and alloys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wind-idiot-power/

The meme selectively paraphrases language from an article written by an economist. The actual quote is below. You can see how the meme intentionally misrepresents the author's point: 

"The concept of net energy must be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it."

Wasn't it Warren Buffet that stated that building them only makes sense with tax credits?  Also, on average wind facilities operate at approx 30% of capacity and must be backed up by natural gas?  Has that changed much over the past couple of years?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I'll be honest, I would be very skeptical that there's that much steel in the windmill, I would assume there would be a much greater use of composites and alloys. 

I think the snopes page indicated that the original article that this meme was taken from was published sometime prior to 2008, so maybe he was refering to an "old school" windmill.

I'll ask my friend Quixote to investigate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I'll be honest, I would be very skeptical that there's that much steel in the windmill, I would assume there would be a much greater use of composites and alloys. 

Lots of steel IO...at least according to this article.  84% iron and steel

http://www.designlife-cycle.com/wind-turbines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TrojanDad said:

Wasn't it Warren Buffet that stated that building them only makes sense with tax credits?  Also, on average wind facilities operate at approx 30% of capacity and must be backed up by natural gas?  Has that changed much over the past couple of years?

 

This is one of those areas where relevant technologies are changing all the time, so the economics are changing all the time as well. Just as an example, the meme (which dates to atound 2008) talks about a 2 MW windmill, but 3 MWs are the current standard, with 4 MW rapidly replacing it. That's a two-fold increase in energy output per windmill over about 10 years. 

The fact that the wind is not always blowing at the "right" time (to coincide with demand) is like the "sun don't shine at night" problem for solar. But there is lots of good research going on now with energy capture technologies, so these are hardly insurmountable problems. Wind and solar are currently as cheap or cheaper forms of energy (without subsidies) compared to fossil fuels in many areas of the country. As the energy storage technologies mature, they will slowly take over from fossil fuels in most areas.  Just as the new fracking technologies allowed the US to produce natural gas and oil that was formerly too costly to attempt to extract, pushing coal as a power source closer and closer to extinction in this country, the technologies will come, probably in our lifetimes still, for solar and wind to do the same to natural gas and oil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW - It was just a meme........But here goes....

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2017/05/09/costbenefit-of-wind-energy-must-be-publicized/

Wind turbines produce energy only about 40 percent of the time and must be backed up by “firm” generation sources such as gas or coal, which blows electricity costs skyward. OTPC already charges a 7 percent “Renewable Resource Adjustment” on North Dakota electric bills to cover the cost of renewable generation. Other utilities charges various Renewable Energy Surcharges, bury the extra cost of renewables by raising rates across the board or implement a rate fee that is a combination of both.

In Germany, with the largest combined wind and solar capacity in Europe, affixes a renewable energy surcharge on residential bills of almost 24 percent of household electricity price. The surcharge has risen tenfold since implementation and has been partially responsible for a hike in German residential electric bills of 68 percent since 1998, according to https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what do you do about the NIMBY syndrome towards wind farms at the county level?  Tippecanoe, Hamilton, and to an extent Clinton have all told wind power companies to basically take a hike and don't come back.  And those are the counties I am aware of.   I'm sure there are more.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, swordfish said:

BTW - It was just a meme........But here goes....

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2017/05/09/costbenefit-of-wind-energy-must-be-publicized/

Wind turbines produce energy only about 40 percent of the time and must be backed up by “firm” generation sources such as gas or coal, which blows electricity costs skyward. OTPC already charges a 7 percent “Renewable Resource Adjustment” on North Dakota electric bills to cover the cost of renewable generation. Other utilities charges various Renewable Energy Surcharges, bury the extra cost of renewables by raising rates across the board or implement a rate fee that is a combination of both.

In Germany, with the largest combined wind and solar capacity in Europe, affixes a renewable energy surcharge on residential bills of almost 24 percent of household electricity price. The surcharge has risen tenfold since implementation and has been partially responsible for a hike in German residential electric bills of 68 percent since 1998, according to https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power.

U.S. residential electricity costs have gone up by 64% since 2000. http://www.in2013dollars.com/Electricity/price-inflation

So it sounds like we've paid just about as much as the Germans over approximately the same period, but have fallen far behind them in adopting the next gen technology. Not good. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

But what do you do about the NIMBY syndrome towards wind farms at the county level?  Tippecanoe, Hamilton, and to an extent Clinton have all told wind power companies to basically take a hike and don't come back.  And those are the counties I am aware of.   I'm sure there are more.

 

 

Citation needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

But what do you do about the NIMBY syndrome towards wind farms at the county level?  Tippecanoe, Hamilton, and to an extent Clinton have all told wind power companies to basically take a hike and don't come back.  And those are the counties I am aware of.   I'm sure there are more.

 

 

Don't know about the others, but Tippecanoe is tied to population density as well as as the growing size of the structures.  BC tends to have just a bit over 21 people per square acre while TC has over 350 per square mile.  Hamilton is denser than that.  The density also makes it more likely to encroach/impact on folks that aren't involved than in a place BC.  Tippecanoe County will still allow for private turbines, just not industrial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...