New Commercial Wind Farms & Solar Farms to be Terminated

[Melensdad]

Indiana is an odd state. We do NOT give consumers any sort of state credit for installing solar panels or small turbines to generate energy, but we have vast, commercial "wind farms" that are subsidized by federal (and I presume state?) tax dollars. Ditto for "Solar Farms" with acres upon acres of solar panels.

Now I am not complaining about not getting a tax subsidy for personal solar or wind projects on people's homes. In fact I think it is morally wrong to tax my neighbors to subsidize my projects and visa-versa.

But when we objectively look at WIND power and SOLAR power we have to admit it is the most expensive energy we can produce and it is far less "green" than many will claim. That all may be coming to an end. At least for the next 4 years.

 

[tommu56]

I think all subsites are wrong with one exception national security.
I know that broad for example but we should be able to make steel, build ships, support the armed forces with merchant marines with US products equipment.

 

[FrancSevin]

We don't make the windmills here. They cost upwards of $6 million each. And last for, at best, 20 years.
We don't make solar panels here and they last, at best, 20-24 years.
China loves our liberal gubmit that mandates both of these technologies to replace hydro and fossil fuel generation of electric power.
China has the largest Hydro electric dam in the world, and is building another one. These structures are so big they have changed the rotation of our planet. They need them, along with dirty coal fired plants, to manufacture windmills and solar panels for export to the USA.
They are our enemy. Economically and militarily.

Our Gubmit mandates we move to this method of generating electric power.



What part of this concept makes any sense?????

 

[Melensdad]

We don't make the windmills here. They cost upwards of $6 million each. And last for, at best, 20 years.
We don't make solar panels here and they last, at best, 20-24 years.
China loves our liberal gubmit that mandates both of these technologies ...
They are our enemy. Economically, morally and militarily.

Fixed that for you.

And it does not make any sense.

I drive thru a huge windmill farm 2 to 3 days a week when coach at Purdue. Most people don't realize how often those blades need to be replaced either. The main unit may have a lifespan of 20-ish years but the blades do not. If you see a windmill with new blade the tips of the blades appear to be pushing forward, away from the tower. A few years later the tips are pushed back and are closer to the tower. The blades have a limited lifespan and are only at peak efficiency for a portion of that lifespan.

Oddball am I, but it seems like the safest, greenest and most reliable energy is nuclear. But for the wack-job enviro-lawsuits and some absolutely insane regulations, it would also be the cheapest. It is, unlike wind and solar, scaleable too.

Don't get me wrong, I do favor an "all of the above" sort of grid. Solar panels on rooftops makes sense for those who can afford it. Ditto small-ish wind turbines that put out 1.5 to roughly 3kw of power if in an area suitable for those.

But it strikes me that lots of modular reactors, which have interchangeable parts, makes more economic sense than wind/solar. And given the realities of getting a reactor started, the bridge is going to be clean burning NATURAL GAS. Anyone who thinks we can power our needs, economically, without N.G. is living in a fantasyland. It is the current and best source of power that is available to us.

 

[FrancSevin]

Fixed that for you.

And it does not make any sense.

I drive thru a huge windmill farm 2 to 3 days a week when coach at Purdue. Most people don't realize how often those blades need to be replaced either. The main unit may have a lifespan of 20-ish years but the blades do not. If you see a windmill with new blade the tips of the blades appear to be pushing forward, away from the tower. A few years later the tips are pushed back and are closer to the tower. The blades have a limited lifespan and are only at peak efficiency for a portion of that lifespan.

Oddball am I, but it seems like the safest, greenest and most reliable energy is nuclear. But for the wack-job enviro-lawsuits and some absolutely insane regulations, it would also be the cheapest. It is, unlike wind and solar, scaleable too.

Don't get me wrong, I do favor an "all of the above" sort of grid. Solar panels on rooftops makes sense for those who can afford it. Ditto small-ish wind turbines that put out 1.5 to roughly 3kw of power if in an area suitable for those.

But it strikes me that lots of modular reactors, which have interchangeable parts, makes more economic sense than wind/solar. And given the realities of getting a reactor started, the bridge is going to be clean burning NATURAL GAS. Anyone who thinks we can power our needs, economically, without N.G. is living in a fantasyland. It is the current and best source of power that is available to us.

WHAT HE SAID!