Comment

Comment by Willy on October 30, 2012 at 2:15am

CLFD

Using your logic regarding "free wind" then electricity produced by wind turbines should be much cheaper than fossil fuel or nuclear produced electricity. Also there would be no need for any type of subsidies. If your assumptions were correct then it would make sense for every home in America to be equipped with their own wind turbine because after all the wind is free. What if Mother Nature decides to hold back the "free" wind. What then? I guess we will still need that nasty, expensive fossil fuel after all. Just imagine we will have to maintain wind turbines and fossil fuel plants as well plus higher electrical rates. I see a duplications of services here that's going to bankrupt us while stealing subsidy money from our pockets.

Comment by brubaker on October 29, 2012 at 10:41pm

well then vote for the 1% cap on the electricity billing then we all are locked in.

Comment by AQUAMAN on October 29, 2012 at 10:34pm

I guess these newbies, again, have all the answers for us Torchers. Well guys, with assistance from X or whomever, I would hope you would review our much earlier thread on this subject matter, again, asking for your cooperation and indulgence, into reading our archives. All this was discussed in great detail, and another Michigander from down state gave us one link after the other, including videos, that clearly illustrate and prove our moot points, time after time, also in differing states than Michigan. So, please, do us all a little favor, don't try to derail this with railroads, super-highways, airlines (thought we had a lot of bankruptcies there, in the "private sector"), and your fancy heating system, which only sounds like what I have had in place for over 12 years, simple Thermal, from my water well. It ups my electricity bills up the ying yang too, but, I take this new "green" machine in stride irregardless, it's not oil nor gas. Good reading guys.

Comment by XLFD on October 29, 2012 at 8:56pm

Because of its heating system, mine has a hard time retaining its heat.

While some Northern states did invest in railroads the vast majority of early railroads were privately owned, and the 'subsidization' came via the use of land the government owned by those who planned on making railroads making that land pass to the railroad.  It was one of those few 'partnerships' between private and public entities that benefitted all. 

Comment by CLFD on October 29, 2012 at 8:21pm

XLFD,

Why did you congratulate me on my house? Doesn't everybody in these parts have to heat their home in the winter? Some people in the county do not pay anything for their heating fuel because years ago they worked out agreements with natural gas drillers to provide a certain amount of natural gas for free just for the right to put the drilling rigs on their land.

I am not so certain that investors would be flocking to invest in wind turbines that make money, as it is such a huge capital investement. I am not so certain that all Wind Towers around the entire country are all government subsidized. And I am no so certain that all Wind Towers lose money.

 

In the mid 1800's, the railroads that helped connect and unite one end of the United States to the other end  was heavily government subsidized and highly profitable for not only the private investors in the railroads but also highly profitable for many of the people and companies that utilized the railroads.

In the mid 1900's (especially) under the leadership of President Eisenhowser, construction of super-highways that connect every state with every other state in the continential United States was heavily subsidized by the government. Yet, it would take several of the best accountants to accurately assess the untold trillions of net worth that the government subsidized helped to create.

Public air transportation is heavily subsidized by the governement because none of the private airlines could afford to exist without government assistance unless the airlines raised consumer airfare so high that only the very very wealthy could afford ticket prices.

So unless someone provides irrefutable proof that all wind towers throughout the world are not profitable, then I will remain skeptical whenever I hear unfounded claims that they are not worth the time & money that is invested into them, along with the inconvenience factor toward whatever surrounding area they may occupy.

Comment by XLFD on October 29, 2012 at 7:49pm

CLFD, I congratulate you on your house.  Some of our friends here have places out in the country where they recycle the deadfall and leaner trees on their property to fulfill the heating costs of their house 100% during the cooler months. 

A wind turbine has a finite life of perhaps 20 years, requires some regular maintenance, and takes a bit of money to install initially.  Any true report on the costs of wind energy takes these factors into consideration.   CLFD, if wind energy actually would make money on its own, investors would be flocking to do it, and there would be no need for subsidization or arbitrary percentages and deadlines that some state legislators make. 

Comment by CLFD on October 29, 2012 at 7:29pm

I have a 95% efficient heating system for my home. This means that for every btu of energy used to create the heat, it returns 95% of that energy directly into my home to help keep me and my family warm during cold winter days & nights. I paid good money to purchase the heater and have it installed. That was my initial capital investment. But before I get even one BTU of heat from the heater, I still have to pay for the fuel to produce the heat and also pay for the electricty to circulate the heat throughout my home. The 95% efficiency rating of my heater is based only upon the recurring energy costs that convert a fuel source into heat. If I never had to pay for fuel or electricity to produce or circulate the heat, then my only cost would have been my capital cost for the heater and installation. Isn't that the idea behind a Wind Generator? Pay the capital and installation costs for the mechanism amd installation and utilize the 'free' wind.

I have read the statements in this discussion that the Wind Towers are only 22% efficient.
Since the wind is free, then what difference does it make whether 22% efficient, m/l ?
.

Comment by brubaker on October 29, 2012 at 6:15pm

Hey Bernard thankyou for the link .      I can say I do enjoy to throw out some oneliners on here just to stir the pot for that is all it takes to get the local radicals started. Fact of the matter I am Independant and live detbt free life style not bound to anyone and far from the liberal tag from others on  this fourm. Most studys indicate there will be unrest for those who are not on the take whith no profit gain.

Comment by Bernard Tower on October 29, 2012 at 2:10pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlAib32buQo

Sure. A pleasure.. a 35% ROI is a pretty good reason to add plenty of Wind Turbines to Mason county!

Comment by XLFD on October 29, 2012 at 1:52pm

Intellectuals of Michigan?  Isn't that one of them there oxymorons or something?   Our wind turbines aren't on-line yet, so we will miss this opportunity to make oodles of electricity from Sandra, just to see how well their braking mechanisms work.  Bernard or Brubaker, show me how these wind turbines are a good investment in the forum section, or by not doing so, show that Sandra won't be the only thing providing us with hot air this autumn.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page