hidden costs, rusting relics.

[Terrierman]

Wind LCA Harmonization (Fact Sheet), NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

People, people, people.  Please understand that facts and a shipload of analyses are available on this subject.  Don't fall prey to clickbait.

[Daryk Campbell Sr]

51 minutes ago, Terrierman said:

Wind LCA Harmonization (Fact Sheet), NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

People, people, people.  Please understand that facts and a shipload of analyses are available on this subject.  Don't fall prey to clickbait.

To be fair,  your reference is also one sided.  As well as quite an old set of data.   I'm just curious to get a layman's report of what it takes to build, and demolish vs the gains.  One reference will tout the benefit,  another touts the problems, but none are giving complete information.   Im really interested,  but I'm not in the field and most information is way above my head.   I am and I believe most people are, easy to sway with missing information.   We don't know what information may be missing.   So, why not be as thorough as can be for the sake of most people.   

Example:  it takes "x" amount of energy to construct this, and "x" amount to deconstruct.   In its life cycle it produces "x" amount of energy.     

 

That's what I'm wanting from an article that's trying to sway me a certain way.  But.....  I guess there no benefit to them for that.  

 

By the way, I'm just having general conversation,  no blame to anyone on information provided.   I enjoy learning about many things, and this really got me interested,  but I feel alot was left out of the articles, and I'm upset with the writers, not the ones who provide it. 

 

Merry Christmas all.

[Terrierman]

1 hour ago, Daryk Campbell Sr said:

To be fair,  your reference is also one sided.  As well as quite an old set of data.   I'm just curious to get a layman's report of what it takes to build, and demolish vs the gains.  One reference will tout the benefit,  another touts the problems, but none are giving complete information.   Im really interested,  but I'm not in the field and most information is way above my head.   I am and I believe most people are, easy to sway with missing information.   We don't know what information may be missing.   So, why not be as thorough as can be for the sake of most people.   

Example:  it takes "x" amount of energy to construct this, and "x" amount to deconstruct.   In its life cycle it produces "x" amount of energy.     

 

That's what I'm wanting from an article that's trying to sway me a certain way.  But.....  I guess there no benefit to them for that.  

 

By the way, I'm just having general conversation,  no blame to anyone on information provided.   I enjoy learning about many things, and this really got me interested,  but I feel alot was left out of the articles, and I'm upset with the writers, not the ones who provide it. 

 

Merry Christmas all.

Data is data.  And gimme a break about the unknown unknowns.  Did you actually read the link?

[Daryk Campbell Sr]

14 hours ago, Terrierman said:

Data is data.  And gimme a break about the unknown unknowns.  Did you actually read the link?

Yes I did.  As well as I could interpret.   

[Terrierman]

43 minutes ago, Daryk Campbell Sr said:

Yes I did.  As well as I could interpret.   

Allow me to summarize.  Wind has total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions on par with other "clean" energy sources.  And far less than coal.

[tjm]

Does that include the mining of materials, manufacture of all the components, transportation of raw materials and finished components to the location and the eventual dismantlement and disposal? Since there is no known way of  satisfactory  of all the fiberglass and carbon fiber components, how can they even guess what that cost is?