Deranged Democrat

[RavenHawk]

6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Wind turbines and farm fields seem to be a natural mix around here.  Electric company rents little parts of the farmers fields and the rest of the area is farmland.

That’s not too bad but in order for it to be profitable, you’ll need fields upon fields upon fields (or desert) that look like this (Near Palm Springs):

What happens when multiple turbines needs maintenance (like replacing blades)?  During growing season?  They’ll have to trample farmland or other fragile environments to get to each turbine.

 

 

[Farmer77]

Just now, RavenHawk said:

What happens when multiple turbines needs maintenance (like replacing blades)?  During growing season?  They’ll have to trample farmland or other fragile environments to get to each turbine

Helicopters

[aztek]

yea, space ships too. lol  

[Farmer77]

@aztek

Edited April 4, 2019 by Farmer77

[Farmer77]

Helicopters Used to Fix Giant Wind Turbines

Quote

If you ever wondered how they get up there to fix those giant wind turbines, here's the answer: Helicopters. And absofreakingnuttely crazylala mechanics.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Farmer77

[aztek]

lol, that is at sea with turbines half a mile apart, post a video of helicopter doing the same at a farm like in second pic. if you find it. then after you fail to find it, think why.

Edited April 4, 2019 by aztek

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

lol, that is at sea with turbines half a mile apart, post a video of helicopter doing the same at a farm like in second pic. if you find it. then after you fail to find it, think why.

You truly are a human facepalm 

We're specifically talking about the logistical challenges surrounding servicing the turbines in the first pic. Those logistical challenges don't exist with the turbines in the second pic thus there is no need for helicopters to service them.

[Gromdor]

15 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Helicopters Used to Fix Giant Wind Turbines

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That’s not too bad but in order for it to be profitable, you’ll need fields upon fields upon fields (or desert) that look like this (Near Palm Springs):

 

What happens when multiple turbines needs maintenance (like replacing blades)?  During growing season?  They’ll have to trample farmland or other fragile environments to get to each turbine.

 

Actually the ones in Iowa are hollow and you either climb up a ladder or take a little elevator.  You would normally just drive up to it, but they really don't break often enough for it to even worry the farmers.  They have around a 20yr lifespan. 

We don't have compact wind farms like in RavenHawk's picture either.  Our whole state is a giant wind farm with the turbines spread out like in my picture shown.  35% of our states power is currently wind power and that number grows every year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa

[aztek]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

You truly are a human facepalm 

We're specifically talking about the logistical challenges surrounding servicing the turbines in the first pic. Those logistical challenges don't exist with the turbines in the second pic thus there is no need for helicopters to service them.

no? lol ok.

wait you mean those turbines do not brake and need no service??  do tell, lol

Edited April 4, 2019 by aztek

[Farmer77]

Just now, Gromdor said:

Actually the ones in Iowa are hollow and you either climb up a ladder or take a little elevator

I just found a show called Deadliest Job Interview  and one of the people they featured was someone trying to get hired on maintaining these behemoths. Dude had to climb all the way up on a ladder. At least its inside the tower until you get to the top, then it gets scary.

[aztek]

nvmd, looked at wrong page

Edited April 4, 2019 by aztek

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, aztek said:

nope, WRONG

as of 2013 Iowa produced 35.8 kilowatts per sq km, as per your link,   NOT 35%

Making up more than 35% of the state's generated electricity, Iowa is a leading U.S. state in wind power generation.^[1

edit to add: as per the link. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Gromdor
edit to credit the link

[aztek]

5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Making up more than 35% of the state's generated electricity, Iowa is a leading U.S. state in wind power generation.^[1

disregard my earlier post, looked at wrong page,

how much power your state consumes?

found it, your state still consumes more of coal and gas power than any other form of power,

https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=IA

you also have 3 mil population, my city alone has 4 times that.

so raw numbers of kw made means little.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by aztek

[Gromdor]

10 minutes ago, aztek said:

disregard my earlier post, looked at wrong page,

how much power your state consumes?

45.7 TWH.  We generate 56.7 TWH.  Excess we sell to the other states.

Edit: this is 2014 information.  I could poke around for 2018, but you get the idea.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Gromdor

[aztek]

10 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

45.7 TWH.  We generate 56.7 TWH.  Excess we sell to the other states.

Edit: this is 2014 information.  I could poke around for 2018, but you get the idea.

yes, and over 50% of power in your state still comes from coal

https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Does_nearly_40_percent_of_Iowa's_electricity_come_from_wind%3F

Edited April 4, 2019 by aztek

[Gromdor]

Just now, aztek said:

yes, and over 50% of power in your state still comes from coal

https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Does_nearly_40_percent_of_Iowa's_electricity_come_from_wind%3F

Well yeah,  It used to be near 100%.  No geothermal or hydroelectric here.  We had a nuke over in Palo, Iowa.  Think it is still up and running.  But before that all coal.  That's why I can say first hand, that I've seen it's decline.

[aztek]

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well yeah,  It used to be near 100%.  No geothermal or hydroelectric here.  We had a nuke over in Palo, Iowa.  Think it is still up and running.  But before that all coal.  That's why I can say first hand, that I've seen it's decline.

no doubt it declined as power production fuel in your state. and i'm sure there may be some decline in the rest of the states for use in power plants,  but it is not the only use for coal,   we also export $10B of coal per year. so it is not going away any time soon. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

21 minutes ago, aztek said:

no doubt it declined as power production fuel in your state. and i'm sure there may be some decline in the rest of the states for use in power plants,  but it is not the only use for coal,   we also export $10B of coal per year. so it is not going away any time soon. 

Everyone seems to export coal, but no one seems to want to import it. Even China and India are phasing out coal.

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

no doubt it declined as power production fuel in your state. and i'm sure there may be some decline in the rest of the states for use in power plants,  but it is not the only use for coal,   we also export $10B of coal per year. so it is not going away any time soon. 

Oh, it won't be completely obsolete.  I did work at a coal gasification plant in North Dakota.  The basically took coal, heated it up and sold the various byproducts they distilled from the fumes.  That being said, coal is not in my investment portfolio for retirement by any means.

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I estimate that we will still need fossil fuels as our primary source for easily the next two hundred years.

Yeah, I guess we can quibble over how long, but it is out there a generation or two at the least.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration's latest International Energy Outlook 2017 (IEO2017) projects that world energy consumption will grow by 28% between 2015 and 2040. Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development  and especially in countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia. Non-OECD Asia (which includes China and India) accounts for more than 60% of the world's total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32912

I think that rate of growth or anything like it would be hard to sustain for the next century without heavier contributions from all current sectors plus fusion if it comes along soon enough.   Is something gonna give?

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Great now we're all gonna get cancer from eating the crops!!!!

No worries, I think Monsanto already took care of that.

[Jerry Gallo]

15 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Boy, that ranks right up there with saying the sound of windmills causes cancer. 

More likely competition from corporate farms drives them out just like Walmart pushes out main street businesses. When did conservatives start kissing  butt on big corporations and start talking about JOBS instead of trades, family businesses, and family farms as the way to build a strong America with strong independent, self-reliant people?  You are destroying the very people who would be the conservatives of the next generation and creating the corporate-dependent welfare state you claim to oppose..  

Blaming big corporations as the sole reason family owned farms are struggling is a bit short sighted. I read the average age of farmers is 55 years old. The next generation seems to have no real interest. The question is, why? I can only speculate, could be that they realize that they can't compete with the corporate farms. Could be they realize farming has been a bit a rigged game where they employ illegal labor (or now, the more palatable asylum seeking labor), gauge prices in droughts and get handouts when things aren't going good. No one answered the question about whether farmers gave their workers a raise when their sales were at their peak. or did they simply enjoy more profit at the expense of the laborers? The answer to that would provide a hint on how virtuous farmers are relative to the evil conglomerates.

As for why Conservatives might be siding with big corp, it may be as simple as wanting to defend them after they became the target of liberals. Exxon was a redheaded step child for lib nation due to their massive revenues. Yet they had a very modest profit margin compared to Apple. Small business owners were assailed as greedy due to their W2, no one caring that they employed hundreds or thousands. But no one bats an eye at an actor or actress making $25 mil a year, because they carry liberal water. The contrast that is the most inconsistent is that Walmart is assailed for their penchant for low-wage labor to keep costs down and profits high, yet we have people actively seeking to exploit non-citizens to take advantage of low-wage labor to keep costs down and profits high. Same principle applied, one is mean and one is divine. This occurs because we can use rhetoric to fire up non-thinkers by pointing to the Walton family wealth as evil, while we make Pa Kettle a victim. It's intellectually dishonest.

[+DieChecker]

On 4/2/2019 at 7:10 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

What's the number of people from other countries that our country can support?

How about giving them all the physical resources they can use, and putting them to work rebuilding the abandoned parts of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland... They get a place to live, a job, and are building up wealth in the area.

The left would probably say that is Cruel and Unusual though, like whatever they do here isn't going to be better then where they came from. US prison is probably better then what they had where they came from. That's why they came here after all.....

Edited April 5, 2019 by DieChecker

[Jerry Gallo]

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

How about giving them all the physical resources they can use, and putting them to work rebuilding the abandoned parts of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland... They get a place to live, a job, and are building up wealth in the area.

The left would probably say that is Cruel and Unusual though, like whatever they do here isn't going to be better then where they came from. US prison is probably better then what they had where they came from. That's why they came here after all.....

I proposed a similar idea regarding prisoners years ago. Pulled up at a stop light on a nice day with the windows down and all I could smell was cigs. Look down at the 5000 butts in the gutter of the street and think, why? Figured perhaps cons could earn some commissary money by doing community cleanup or providing labor to improve infrastructure rather than sitting around lifting weights and playing cards . At the end of the day when I was mocked for thinking it out loud, I concluded that most of these problems are just talking points for the left, many solutions that try to marry solutions with problems doesn't further their agenda. 

My only beef with using border crosser labor is if they don't choose to do these things. Yes, it's probably better than what they had, but to assume someone would jump at only a marginally better hell hole than the one they left creates a bit of hesitancy. At least the prisoners are in a hell hole based on a choice they made. (Necessary disclaimer to head off the liberal rant about the few innocent people locked up unfairly, I mean "most prisoners are there by choices they made). That said, if deporting illegals, especially ones who commit crimes, is so unfair and inhumane, I'm all for them being put on a work detail they haven't chosen. Send them to Flint to get the water situation fixed post haste.

[Jerry Gallo]

19 hours ago, RAyMO said:

The requirement for a welfare state is a direct result of the societal and economic model under which must countries including the US operate. The existence of the welfare state is nothing more than governments owning up to that fact. To do otherwise is both to deny the societal and economic model you glamourise, and  potentially to diminish its longevity.

Is this one of those give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he never goes hungry type parables?