Wind turbine farms with blinking lights

Clip4 said:
316 coal plants. 92 nuclear power plants.

The cost per megawatt hour for nuclear is $175 vs $40 for wind. Can we bury the nuclear waste in your back yard?
Click to expand...

Those numbers look like bs to me, but you can hook up to the wind turbine, I'll hook up to the nuke plant. Good luck when the wind isn't blowing.
 
Clip4 said:
Yea, clean energy is such an eye sore, coal fired and nuclear power plants are more attractive.
Click to expand...
Wind, Solar and hydroelectric combined cannot handle the electric energy needs of the current US population. A high density energy source is still, and will always be necessary. That requirement can only be met at present by oil/gas/coal/nuclear. The population will continue to grow, demands increased, less available land mass for solar/wind farms. Increased use of hydro reservoirs for irrigation of crops to feed the growing population as well as ever increasing domestic water use lead to further draw down of water levels. Let's also add the strain on the grid produced by electric cars for these ever increasing masses and see where this fictitious clean energy gets us.

I am not opposed to developing cleaner fuels but reality dictates that, in the current form, it is more of a feel good proposition. You must also consider the processes involved in making these solar panels and wind mills and the resultant pollutants generated: "Clean" energy is not as clean as it looks on face value except hydroelectric.
 
robin ardoin said:
Wind, Solar and hydroelectric combined cannot handle the electric energy needs of the current US population. A high density energy source is still, and will always be necessary. That requirement can only be met at present by oil/gas/coal/nuclear. The population will continue to grow, demands increased, less available land mass for solar/wind farms. Increased use of hydro reservoirs for irrigation of crops to feed the growing population as well as ever increasing domestic water use lead to further draw down of water levels. Let's also add the strain on the grid produced by electric cars for these ever increasing masses and see where this fictitious clean energy gets us.

I am not opposed to developing cleaner fuels but reality dictates that, in the current form, it is more of a feel good proposition. You must also consider the processes involved in making these solar panels and wind mills and the resultant pollutants generated: "Clean" energy is not as clean as it looks on face value except hydroelectric.
Click to expand...

Any hydro messes all sort of things up with the environment too.
 
The amount of electricity consumed in the US in 2022 was 4.05 trillion kwh. How many 1 megawatt windmills would it require to produce that much power? Well if the windmills could run 24/7, producing their full rated power, for 365 days, there would need to be 462,328,767,123 windmills. The average wind turbine produces about 15 to 30% of it's rated capacity, so my estimate would need to be multiplied by 4. But wait, where does the electricity come from when the wind doesn't blow?

Once you start looking at the real numbers, alternative power in it's present form doesn't cut the mustard.


As of 2022, there were about 70,800 wind turbines in the US.
 
PaulS said:
The amount of electricity consumed in the US in 2022 was 4.05 trillion kwh. How many 1 megawatt windmills would it require to produce that much power?
Click to expand...

I must have missed the part where someone argued to replace everything with wind. Quit tilting at windmills.
 
172andyou said:
I must have missed the part where someone argued to replace everything with wind. Quit tilting at windmills.
Click to expand...
But they could make it a bit more difficult to manage an engine out situation in bumblefoot Iowa.
 
EdFred said:
Any hydro messes all sort of things up with the environment too.
Click to expand...
Certainly so. I guess one of my points is that 'Clean Energy' is not necessarily a benign panacea as some groups with certain agendas present. Unless we stop reproducing, this limited planet will be doomed to a demise much like that observed on a contaminated Petri dish once all the various occupants exhaust the food supply and die in their own excrement. :D
 
172andyou said:
I must have missed the part where someone argued to replace everything with wind. Quit tilting at windmills.
Click to expand...

It's the same insanity for solar and hydro. Once you look the numbers it falls apart. Face reality.
 
Last edited:
Stan Bergey said:
Or when the blades are all iced up à la west Texas in 2021.
Click to expand...

If you want to critique wind farms, try and be a little more accurate. First the natural gas plants in Texas had more issues than the wind farms, second the nature gas plants took longer to recover. Third, it was not blades icing that was the real issue. The real issue was Texas choose to not winterize the turbines in the wind farms, so under sustained low temperatures the turbines froze. The whole energy crisis over winter in Texas was predicted back around 2001, and again in 2011. And Texas, still has not fixed yet, and I doubt Texas will.

Tim
 
Interesting - if it's airport related "so sad to bad" to the complainants.

If it's a silent blinking red light on the horizon, well that has GOT. TO. GO!

##
sounded like a slow news day to be honest.. but if we're going to entertain the efficacy of lighted vs unlighted:

-these are all charted, no? is a light really required? Not every shallow area of a bay or navigable waterway is marked with a bouy, but they are charted and the boater must beware

-how many aircraft strike structures when otherwise operating normally (the caravan hit a stack in Idaho, but they were below GS if I recall correctly)

-are hill tops marked with lights?? rhetorical -

-have a "ton" of red lights seems slightly overkill.. and personally I've always thought the red lights atop buildings and structures was a bit silly... but I also have a hard time believing that people are seriously upset by lights on the horizon. Seems more like an easy political angle to play vs a valid rational one.
 
172andyou said:
I must have missed the part where someone argued to replace everything with wind. Quit tilting at windmills.
Click to expand...
Then you haven't been paying attention. (Not on the board specifically, but there are a bunch of people in the general public and even position of political influence that have argued that.)
 
tspear said:
If you want to critique wind farms, try and be a little more accurate. First the natural gas plants in Texas had more issues than the wind farms, second the nature gas plants took longer to recover. Third, it was not blades icing that was the real issue. The real issue was Texas choose to not winterize the turbines in the wind farms, so under sustained low temperatures the turbines froze. The whole energy crisis over winter in Texas was predicted back around 2001, and again in 2011. And Texas, still has not fixed yet, and I doubt Texas will.

Tim
Click to expand...

While that is all true, the wind turbines were essentially producing nothing anyway because there wasn't much wind happening at that point in time. Freezing weather and night time in TX (when the power failures first started) don't normally coincide with high levels of wind. Either way, ERCOT screwed it up from the get-go. Nuclear/nat gas are still better options than wind for base load energy.
 
SoonerAviator said:
While that is all true, the wind turbines were essentially producing nothing anyway because there wasn't much wind happening at that point in time. Freezing weather and night time in TX (when the power failures first started) don't normally coincide with high levels of wind. Either way, ERCOT screwed it up from the get-go. Nuclear/nat gas are still better options than wind for base load energy.
Click to expand...

Feds and state governments are forcing companies like ERCOT to shut down perfectly viable fossil power plants with no concept of how their mandates are affecting production. The New England grid is teetering on the brink of brown outs or worse at the worst possible time because of the "war on coal" and fossil fuels.
 
Domenick said:
Yes, let's trade an occasional small footprint continuously producing power plant, for THOUSANDS of enormous, sprawling, intermittent wind farms.
Click to expand...

Every coal fired power plant has to dispose of hazardous waste from the mercury, cadmium and arsenic in the ash. In North Carolina alone, Duke Energy has to dispose of 80 million tons improperly stored hazardous waste from 6 sites that commonly pollute streams and groundwater.

This doesn't take into account the pollution that is occurring near the mining sites and the death and occupational illnesses of the mine workers.
 
ateamer said:
No kidding! When we got LED light bars, a few of us pointed out that they are way too bright at night, at least once we’re stopped. Disorienting not just for passersby, but for us on the stop, too. I even showed the sergeant in charge of our vehicles that the fleet services shop could program the lightbars to go to half brightness when the car was in Park. He didn’t care.
Click to expand...

There have been a few studies showing the overly bright flashing lights ATTRACT impaired (drinking or tired) drivers in increase the risk of them hitting the cruiser.
 
Clip4 said:
316 coal plants. 92 nuclear power plants.

The cost per megawatt hour for nuclear is $175 vs $40 for wind. Can we bury the nuclear waste in your back yard?
Click to expand...

So, are you going to let them bury the old turbine blades in your backyard?

Also, the wind turbine costs are subsidized, so not exactly apples to oranges.

Another issue, wind turbine calculations assume full output all the time, but over a year, the actual output is under 20% of the rated output.
 
Clip4 said:
Every coal fired power plant has to dispose of hazardous waste from the mercury, cadmium and arsenic in the ash. In North Carolina alone, Duke Energy has to dispose of 80 million tons improperly stored hazardous waste from 6 sites that commonly pollute streams and groundwater.

This doesn't take into account the pollution that is occurring near the mining sites and the death and occupational illnesses of the mine workers.
Click to expand...

But Duke Energy puts out enough power to supply their customers without any assistance. Ever see the pollution around a lithium mine, or the health risks to those workers?
 
So it sounds like they put over-bright leds on these things, in order to meet the FAA lighted tower reg, which I assume does not offer a "max brightness" requirement -- and may now need one
 
Silvaire said:
This discussion isn't about lights anymore is it?
Click to expand...

No, it drifted. Back to the lights, the way I fly, I figure if I'm about to hit a tower at 200 feet agl, the pooch is already screwed and something will get hit. It irks me when I see the same 50 notams for blown out tower lights, flight after flight, month after month.
 
PaulS said:
No, it drifted. Back to the lights, the way I fly, I figure if I'm about to hit a tower at 200 feet agl, the pooch is already screwed and something will get hit. It irks me when I see the same 50 notams for blown out tower lights, flight after flight, month after month.
Click to expand...

The way I see it the wind farms are clearly identified on sectional charts. If they present a hazard on your route, it is up to you to plan accordingly.
 
Are there really that many people doing night ops under 1,000’? I don’t.

I know there are plenty in the daytime.
 
Clip4 said:
316 coal plants. 92 nuclear power plants.

The cost per megawatt hour for nuclear is $175 vs $40 for wind. Can we bury the nuclear waste in your back yard?
Click to expand...

Facts aren't supposed to be malleable. Making an unsupported claim distorts the truth. Your unattributed quote is missing important information.

Lazard, a leading investment and asset management firm, uses Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) to estimate the average cost of various forms of energy. Lazard found that utility-scale solar and wind is around $40 per megawatt-hour, while nuclear plants average around $175. Because LCOE is often used to argue for renewables and against nuclear (Lovins and Reuters both use LCOE in the articles referenced above), it requires closer examination.

Mark Nelson, environmentalist and managing director of Radiant Energy Fund, explains that LCOE was developed as a tool to describe “the cost of energy for power plants of a given nature.” But this tool fails when it attempts to compare the different energy sources needed to provide reliable, 24/7 electricity supply.

Another factor that cost analyses like levelized cost of energy miss is the energy density of each form of electricity and the subsequent environmental impact of the facilities themselves. A wind facility would require more than 140,000 acres — 170 times the land needed for a nuclear reactor — “to generate the same amount of electricity as a 1,000 megawatt reactor,” according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. The institute notes that while nuclear requires 103 acres per million megawatt-hours, solar needs 3,200 acres, and wind uses up 17,800 acres.

Considering the LCOE of new sources also misses the comparatively low cost of existing generation, according to a 2019 report by the Institute for Energy Research.

“The average LCOEs for existing coal ($41/megawatt-hour), CC [combined-cycle] gas ($36/MWh), nuclear ($33/MWh) and hydro ($38/MWh) resources are less than half the cost of new wind resources ($90/MWh) or new PV solar resources ($88.7/MWh) with imposed costs included,” the report states. Imposed costs include the need to keep baseload energy like coal or natural gas idling in case the wind or solar are not producing enough energy to meet demand; such costs are often ignored by advocates of wind and solar.

Thus, levelized cost of energy misrepresents the cost of solar and wind as too low, puts nuclear energy’s costs as too high, and misses key parts of the picture.

https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2022/nuclear-wasted-why-the-cost-of-nuclear-energy-is-misunderstood

Princeton University’s Net-Zero America Project maps out potential energy pathways to a carbon-free U.S. economy by 2050. The most land-intensive plan eliminates all nuclear plants. To build the amount of wind and solar needed to support the grid, the U.S. energy footprint would quadruple in size, and wind farms would occupy areas equivalent to Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma.

The nuclear technologies of tomorrow are based on the proven, safe, affordable technologies of today. Advanced nuclear will be smaller, simpler, and more versatile—all while sustaining the reliability we already enjoy.

What makes nuclear power so reliable, and also an ideal companion to wind and solar, is its high capacity factor, which measures how often a power plant runs for a specific period of time. Nuclear energy facilities have an average capacity factor of 90 percent, meaning the average nuclear plant remains online, generating electricity more than 90 percent of the time, which is much higher than intermittent sources like wind and solar.

By contrast, wind farms had an average capacity factor of 34.6% in 2021 and solar farms had an average capacity factor of 24.6% in 2021 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Nuclear energy also has high energy density, which is the amount of energy contained in a fuel. With our current energy system, energy dense fuels are easily moved from place to place. Because wind and solar are spread out, they require more transmission lines to bring the electricity that powers homes and businesses.

“Transmission line capacity would need to more than triple under the high-renewable scenario laid out by the Princeton researchers. Without it, many new wind and solar projects would be stranded,” said Bloomberg journalist Dave Merrill.

https://www.nei.org/news/2022/nuclear-brings-more-electricity-with-less-land
 
172andyou said:
I must have missed the part where someone argued to replace everything with wind. Quit tilting at windmills.
Click to expand...

The number of people across the world from the president of the United States down to placard carrying demonstrators that advocate replacing the vast majority of fossil fuel power production with wind and solar are in the tens of millions. Their mantra ignores basic immutable facts, like the one you responded to.

Your comment is disingenuous.
 
Last edited:
73.6% of statistics are made up
 
Racerx said:
73.6% of statistics are made up
Click to expand...

Especially by internet posters. That's why facts and statistics that I post are backed up by published sources that cite easily verifiable information.
 
aircraft that fly low generally do it during VFR conditions during the day. Crop dusters, ultralights, pilots with stol aircraft fooling around.... Not all of those have transponders.
For night ops, unless the wind farms are on the glidepaths into airports, aircraft flying low would be medivac and military & law enforcement? They'll generally have transponders (hope they're working) to turn on the wind turbine lights if they go that route.
So keeping the lights off unless a ModeC transponder is picked up sounds like it'd cover most bases.
 
UngaWunga said:
aircraft that fly low generally do it during VFR conditions during the day. Crop dusters, ultralights, pilots with stol aircraft fooling around.... Not all of those have transponders.
For night ops, unless the wind farms are on the glidepaths into airports, aircraft flying low would be medivac and military & law enforcement? They'll generally have transponders (hope they're working) to turn on the wind turbine lights if they go that route.
So keeping the lights off unless a ModeC transponder is picked up sounds like it'd cover most bases.
Click to expand...

Need a fail safe mode though.

Tim
 
You guys with windmills are lucky.

Less than a mile from the airport we have a big field of solar panels that are not lit at night...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top