Davin News Server

On Sun, 07 Sep 2025 10:09:09 -0400, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 10:10:30 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2025-09-06 07:15, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 15:56:11 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2025-09-05 15:32, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 12:41:16 -0700,  Alan says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> How are rural WINDMILLS any different from rural oil wells and gas
>>>>>>> wells and cell towers and powerline towers? Funny conservatives
>>>>>>> don't complain about THOSE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would I care that other people also use the language poorly
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU WERE WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Windmill" is a perfectly accepted term for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's no one fault you're too much an ego-maniacal narcissist to admit it.
>>>> Putting back all the refutations you snippped.
>>>>
>>>>> They each consume 10'000 liters (more than 2600 gallons) of crude
>>>>> oil based lubricants per year.
>>>> No. They don't.
>>>>
>>>> (And I refuted this in detail in another post)
>>>>
>>> 
>>> Put it right here as that post does not show in my list.
>>> Will you do it?
>>> Of course you won't.
>>
>>"'How much lubricant does a 2 MW wind turbine use in a year?
>>
>>A typical 2 MW wind turbine uses approximately 80 gallons (about 300 
>>liters) of lubricating oil per year for maintenance and operational 
>>efficiency. This figure includes oil used in the gearbox, yaw and pitch 
>>systems, braking systems, and other components requiring lubrication.'
>
>Source?
>
>>
>>So you were only wrong by a factor of 33, Loser!"
>>
>
>And you're confusing me with Alleycat again.
>
>Damn you're dumb.
>
>>In message: <109clc9$1ri16$14@dont-email.me>
>>
>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> When outdated, the wind turbines are being buried deep in forests,
>>>>> out of public view, due to the high costs associated with> recycling
>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> A windmill could spin until it falls apart and it will NEVER, EVER
>>>>> generate as much energy as it was used in building it.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that's just false.
>>>>
>>>> A 2 MW wind turbine generates generates 2 MWh of electricity every hour
>>>> the wind is blowing. It takes about 3,300 - 4,100 MWh of energy to build
>>>> one.
>>> 
>>> "every hour the wind is blowing".  How often does the wind
>>> consistently blow.
>>
>>In some places (like where they put wind farms), it's certainly blowing 
>>a good percentage of the time.
>
>Data required to support your claim.
>
>You are absolutely *terrible* at this.
>
>>
>>> 
>>>>
>>>> So 1,650 - 2,050 hours of wind will pay that off.
>>> 
>>> Show your work.
>>
>>Why should I? Did Loser show any of his?
>
>Laughter!
>
>I'm talking to YOU.  It appears you can't lead by example.
>
>>
>>> 
>>>>
>>>> A year has 8,766 hours.
>>> 
>>> Can't address the waste windmills produce I see.
>>
>>Show that they produce more waste than building any other kind of 
>>electrical generation.
>
>If that's what you believe, then support it.
>
>>
>>Did anyone present figures for how much lubricant per MW-hr a gas 
>>turbine plant uses; or a coal plant? And so on.
>>
>
>Waiting on your data.
>
>>I already presented my source for the capital and running costs of 
>>various forms of electricity, and no one has produced anything of any 
>>authority to refute it:
>>
>><https://www.lazard.com/media/eijnqja3/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025.pdf>
>>
>
>Only trouble is I didn't ask anything about that.
>
>Duh.
>
>>> 
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wind turbines Don't last forever. The metal towers can be recycled
>>>>> normally, but the blades, a mixture of fiberglass, wood, and
>>>>> plastic, cannot.
>>>>
>>>> Also false.
>>>>
>>> 
>>> Tell us the what the "truth" is then.
>>
>>I've been doing that.
>>
>
>You've thrown stuff against the wall hoping that they will stick.  It
>doesn't work that way.  Cite your claims please.
>
>>> 
>>> Laughter!
>>> 
>>>>> In the US, the cheapest option is to send fiberglass blades to
>>>>> landfills, which has caused some controversy. Just
>>>>> one blade is about as long as the wingspan of a large commercial jet
>>>>> like a Boeing 747. And that's just on land. Offshore turbine
>>>>> blades can be twice as long.
>>>>
>>>> And you think they're impossible to cut into pieces?
>>> 
>>> ""The blades are kind of a dud because they have no value," he said.
>>> 
>>> Decommissioned blades are also notoriously difficult and expensive to
>>> transport. They can be anywhere from 100 to 300 feet long and need to
>>> be cut up onsite before getting trucked away on specialized equipment
>>> — which costs money — to the landfill.
>>
>>Decommissioning ANY power plant costs money, doofus.
>
>Your dodge is noted.  Changing turbine blades is not "decomissioning".
>
>>
>>> 
>>> Once there, Van Vleet said, the size of the blades can put landfills
>>> in a tough spot.
>>
>>Because they can't be cut into pieces?
>
>Ask Van Vleet as he seems to have more credibility than *you*.
>
>>
>>> 
>>> "If you're a small utility or municipality and all of a sudden
>>> hundreds of blades start coming to your landfill, you don't want to
>>> use up your capacity for your local municipal trash for wind turbine
>>> blades," he said, adding that permits for more landfill space add
>>> another layer of expenses."
>>> 
>>> https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy
>>
>>'Tackling wind turbine blade waste with innovative shredding solutions
>>
>>EDGE’s HS750 shredder revolutionizes the recycling and repurposing of 
>>decommissioned turbine blades'
>>
>><https://www.recyclingproductnews.com/article/42374/tackling-wind-turbine-blade-waste-with-innovative-shredding-solutions>
>>
>>It's not like they're all being replaced every year, doofus. Wind 
>>turbines have lifespans of 20 years or more.
>
>Uncited.  And you dodged what NPR said.
>
>>
>>The largest wind farm in the US is the Alta Wind Energy Center in 
>>Tehachapi Pass, Kern County, California.
>>
>
>Uncited.
>
>>The wind there blows something like 2,600 to 3,000 hours of the year, so 
>>assuming the above figures for payback are accurate, it will take a 
>>little more than a year to pay back the capital cost of building it.
>>
>
>Uncited.
>
>>Even assuming that the figures weren't as good when it was first 
>>constructed in 2010, it has obviously paid back the entire cost of 
>>building it many times over.
>
>Uncited speculation.
>
>You cannot be taken seriously.

And Alan runs away.
Again.