Fighting 'Solar Farm' Installation

[Hay Dude]

Wind, solar and hydro generation produces 20% of US electricity. Wind and solar will account for 60% of added generation capacity in the US this year. Nuclear power plants generate 18% of power with that figure declining rapidly. Five nuclear plants were shuttered in the last two years. Renewable energy is the path we are on.

Well, ya I know that.
Doesn’t mean it’s right.
And as far as the “path we are on”, it doesn’t mean it’s the correct path, or a path that isn’t subsidized with trillions of taxpayer money.

 

[Hay Dude]

It is kinda funny that there is such animosity towards using natural resources to our advantage. Farms used windmills long ago before electricity. We have used hydropower for quite a long time and you hear very few complaints about that.

Of course I think fossil fuels as a natural resource as well. Use it all and any of it if you want.

No animosity from me.
My animosity comes from the amount of that has to be subsidized because it‘s so much more costly to produce and uses a lot of foreign made equipment to produce it.

My state alone sits atop a NG reserve that could power the US for hundreds of years!
Yet we don’t use it to our advantage and continue to import a lot of foreign made equipment to generate American energy.

It is profoundly stupid to do this and subsidize it with taxpayers money, especially when the extraction, transportation and energy generation infrastructure is already in place!

 

[K5lwq]

No animosity from me.
My animosity comes from the amount of that has to be subsidized because it‘s so much more costly to produce and uses a lot of foreign made equipment to produce it.

My state alone sits atop a NG reserve that could power the US for hundreds of years!
Yet we don’t use it to our advantage and continue to import a lot of foreign made equipment to generate American energy.

It is profoundly stupid to do this and subsidize it with taxpayers money, especially when the extraction, transportation and energy generation infrastructure is already in place!

I do not disagree with your point. But I do believe there is validity in utilizing wind and solar power. The cost to utilize it should be a lot less than it is though. If it was done properly the subsidies wouldn’t be a part of the equation. The incentives would come from companies doing what they do best.

I try to stay out of the political side of discussions because it never leads anywhere although I bet my views do not differ much from yours.

 

[walhondingMF]

No animosity from me.
My animosity comes from the amount of that has to be subsidized because it‘s so much more costly to produce and uses a lot of foreign made equipment to produce it.

My state alone sits atop a NG reserve that could power the US for hundreds of years!
Yet we don’t use it to our advantage and continue to import a lot of foreign made equipment to generate American energy.

It is profoundly stupid to do this and subsidize it with taxpayers money, especially when the extraction, transportation and energy generation infrastructure is already in place!

Do we have numbers on how much more it costs to produce? Do those numbers over lap with the costs that all the people in my area spend on cancer treatment because their risk of lung cancer is 15% higher then the rest of the country due to all the coal that WAS (not still) burnt in the area?

I do not know the situation in your state, but there have been ZERO issues in my state and the surrounding state with extracting natural gas. So much so, that the corporations that owned the 3 coal plants within a few hours of my home made a business decision (before the current administration was even an option) to either close them down or convert them to natural gas. The infrastructure is not all still there. There are hundreds of miles of oil pipelines all over the country that are due for repair or replace but companies are fighting over who should pay for it because its not profitable for them (read about the lines that run under the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan).

I am with you on not wanting to buy anything really from China, especially anything related to this topic. What a great way for America to start getting back to manufacturing, which is one of the reasons those subsidies are used. They are the same subsidies that coal and oil companies have received for years. The reasons China is the primary provider of these materials is because they saw how the markets were going to go and made a good economical decision. Now, we are behind.

Also, if you were to look at the trends on the increased use of alternatives, including cleaner natural gas, they were trending up fast long before the current subsidies were put in place. That is because there is actually a market for these options in our country.

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

How about this (EPA):
"Propane is an environmentally-friendly choice. While it does emit a low level of carbon dioxide, it's relatively clean burning when compared to gas or diesel. It does not emit sulfur dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, and other wastes. The 1990 Clean Air Act lists it as an approved source for clean energy."
And yet the current administration wants to ban the sale of propane gas stoves!
This $1,200,000,000,000 spending package is insane.

 

[Hay Dude]

Do we have numbers on how much more it costs to produce? Do those numbers over lap with the costs that all the people in my area spend on cancer treatment because their risk of lung cancer is 15% higher then the rest of the country due to all the coal that WAS (not still) burnt in the area?

I do not know the situation in your state, but there have been ZERO issues in my state and the surrounding state with extracting natural gas. So much so, that the corporations that owned the 3 coal plants within a few hours of my home made a business decision (before the current administration was even an option) to either close them down or convert them to natural gas. The infrastructure is not all still there. There are hundreds of miles of oil pipelines all over the country that are due for repair or replace but companies are fighting over who should pay for it because its not profitable for them (read about the lines that run under the Mackinac Bridge in Michigan).

I am with you on not wanting to buy anything really from China, especially anything related to this topic. What a great way for America to start getting back to manufacturing, which is one of the reasons those subsidies are used. They are the same subsidies that coal and oil companies have received for years. The reasons China is the primary provider of these materials is because they saw how the markets were going to go and made a good economical decision. Now, we are behind.

Also, if you were to look at the trends on the increased use of alternatives, including cleaner natural gas, they were trending up fast long before the current subsidies were put in place. That is because there is actually a market for these options in our country.

But we do. And we buy FAR too much from them, and they are hostile towards us. Yet on we go buying transformers, batteries and solar panels from them. Why do we give them our money instead making the equipment here? I mean like 99% here, not 10% or even 50 or 70%.
If taxpayers are paying for an energy production system thats supposed to lead us away from fossil fuels, I’d be on board if:
1. it was American made and created American jobs
2. it did not require massive subsidies to overtake dependable fossil fuels.

 

[two_bit_score]

I do not disagree with your point. But I do believe there is validity in utilizing wind and solar power. The cost to utilize it should be a lot less than it is though. If it was done properly the subsidies wouldn’t be a part of the equation. The incentives would come from companies doing what they do best.

I try to stay out of the political side of discussions because it never leads anywhere although I bet my views do not differ much from yours.

One of the problems with windmills that a lot of people are not aware of is that they have a tremendous concrete base below the surface. So converting a wind farm back from a wind farm is going to be extremely costly in addition to the non-recyclable blades.

I know a family who turned down a tremendous lease for a windfarm on some land in west Texas because of the amount of concrete in the
bases. They had no need of the money so that helped.

 

[tradosaurus]

The parts for that is only $20k. The installer has marked up labor and "system design" by $15k because with the ignorance of the market they can.

Since it would be ground mounted I was wondering how hard it would be to do it myself and then hire an electrician to run the wires to my house?

 

[Hay Dude]

One of the problems with windmills that a lot of people are not aware of is that they have a tremendous concrete base below the surface. So converting a wind farm back from a wind farm is going to be extremely costly in addition to the non-recyclable blades.

I know a family who turned down a tremendous lease for a windfarm on some land in west Texas because of the amount of concrete in the
bases. They had no need of the money so that helped.

What an ugly rape of the land. Talk about destroying ecosystems. That foundation probably took out 5+ acres. Each site is a small “strip mine” adding up to millions of acres filled with concrete.

This “environmentalist” approach to energy transformation has some lies and deceit.

 

[MossRoad]

When the turbine's complete life is over, why would someone want to take the concrete foundation out? That's silly. You can plow and plant right up to the base that's sticking up out of the ground. You'd have about a 20 foot diameter circle that couldn't be farmed. That's a little over 300 square feet. There's over 43,500 square feet in an acre.

So in the big picture, it would take 145 wind turbine bases to remove 1 acre of crop land once the towers are removed.

 

[MossRoad]

Iowa State University Research Finds Wind Farms Positively Impact Crops

AMES, Iowa — Iowa State University researchers have found that wind turbines located in agricultural fields are a plus for the crops growing around them. The overall effects on crops growing in wind farms appear to be positive said Gene Takle, Iowa State agronomy professor. He has led a team of...

www.cals.iastate.edu

 

[buckeyefarmer]

And the dead birds underneath are free fertilizer.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

 

[Hay Dude]

And the dead birds underneath are free fertilizer.

And the whooshing sounds don’t alarm cattle or cows at all. And thankfully that won’t put stress on the animals and their overall weight, quality or dairy output.

 

[Hay Dude]

When the turbine's complete life is over, why would someone want to take the concrete foundation out? That's silly. You can plow and plant right up to the base that's sticking up out of the ground. You'd have about a 20 foot diameter circle that couldn't be farmed. That's a little over 300 square feet. There's over 43,500 square feet in an acre.

So in the big picture, it would take 145 wind turbine bases to remove 1 acre of crop land once the towers are removed.

Well, I can tell you from farming around concrete structures that anything in the path of machinery must be steered around, creating an ellipse where no crop can be planted or harvested. This amounts to inefficiency, more fuel use and crop loss.

My state gets 3% of its’ energy from renewables and agriculture is our states #1 industry.
So I guess windmills and farming aren’t such a great fit.

Why does every stupid idea have to be dumped on the farmer. It’s always the farmer making the sacrifice, having to adapt, having to change.

Why don’t cities and suburbs make the sacrifice for solar & windmills? That’s the only people who want them. They can put up with the large mirror reflections or the whooshing sounds

 

[MarkF48]

A snapshot of New England electric grid resources 4/17/23 at 7:50am. Much of the natural gas being used through the Winter months is imported from other countries due to a lack of pipeline infrastructure through New York. New York (Governor Andrew Cuomo) squashed the requested permitting for additional pipeline capacity due to concerns about carbon dioxide emissions. New England has paid record high prices for electricity and heating by gas this season due to the higher cost of imported natural gas. Renewables still remains only a small contribution to the power put onto the grid. While solar and wind have increased somewhat, many people in rural areas do not want large scale solar or wind projects which would mar the New England landscape and devalue properties.

 

[Fuddyduddy1952]

"Turbines, as a vessel for up to 1,400 liters of oil, hydraulic fluid and lubricants have many opportunities to leak."
"Clean energy"...yea, right

 

[kenmbz]

Energy companies pay taxes based on where they "sell" the product like NG.
So they pay less when they buy overseas instead of in the US. Refined is usually considered point of sale.

Another reason why it's unusual to see refineries being built here in the US.

And on top of that, deferment on taxes allows them to pay in times when they make less profit:

How Oil Companies Pay Such Low Taxes

Big oil corporations pay much lower taxes than other corporations; learn about tax exemptions and the option to defer.

www.investopedia.com

 

[JJT]

When the turbine's complete life is over, why would someone want to take the concrete foundation out? That's silly. You can plow and plant right up to the base that's sticking up out of the ground. You'd have about a 20 foot diameter circle that couldn't be farmed. That's a little over 300 square feet. There's over 43,500 square feet in an acre.

So in the big picture, it would take 145 wind turbine bases to remove 1 acre of crop land once the towers are removed.

All the wind farm contracts I have seen include a demolition bond, the removal of at least 4' of concrete is prepaid before construction ever begins. there's no need to remove more than 4' of concrete. The farmland lost to an active wind turbine is less than an acre, most of that is for the access road. The concrete base is about 30' in diameter.

 

[MossRoad]

Well, I can tell you from farming around concrete structures that anything in the path of machinery must be steered around, creating an ellipse where no crop can be planted or harvested. This amounts to inefficiency, more fuel use and crop loss.

My state gets 3% of its’ energy from renewables and agriculture is our states #1 industry.
So I guess windmills and farming aren’t such a great fit.

Why does every stupid idea have to be dumped on the farmer. It’s always the farmer making the sacrifice, having to adapt, having to change.

Why don’t cities and suburbs make the sacrifice for solar & windmills? That’s the only people who want them. They can put up with the large mirror reflections or the whooshing sounds

Educate yourself and others with accurate statistics or your opinion will not be taken seriously by most.

Your 5 acres of concrete per turbine and millions of acres of farmland comments are outrageous and not accurate.

The 'stupid idea' is being embraced by the farmers that are leasing their land. It's not being dumped on them.

It's hard to locate a wind turbine in a city due to safety issues.

Rural communities are embracing wind and solar, not just cities.

Solar panels reflect less light than window glass, flat water, or steel.

Many airports have solar farms on or near the grounds. If glare was an issue, I'd think they wouldn't allow that.

FAA Issues Policy on Solar Projects on Airports | Federal Aviation Administration

The FAA published its final policy on requirements for proposed airport solar projects on May 11, 2021.

www.faa.gov