New scientific paper: offshore wind turbines alter marine eco-system, could shift ocean currents

[emeryjre]

Given that those shattered solar panels are hazardous waste containing toxic substances, the environmental cleanup is a heck of a lot more than "sweep up the panels". Your time frame is downright laughable.

As usual, you show no concern at all for the environment. It was like an earlier post where what Australian environmentalists called "virgin rainforest" you distainfully called "undeveloped land". Or your total lack of concern for the wildlife - birds, bats, insects, whales, etc. being slaughtered by wind turbines. Environmentalists are known as "tree huggers" but the climate industrial complex are massive tree destroyers. "Save the Whales" is a slogan of true environmentalists, but the climate industrial complex does not care that they slaughter whales, including the critically endangered Atlantic Right Whale.

Your disregard of facts is incredible

 

[emeryjre]

Some people drink the green kool aid from the climate industrial complex. I have presented material from lots of experts and commentators who all parts of the philosophical spectrum from Michael Moore on the left to Nigel Farage on the right who all agree that intermittent land-intensive wind and solar cost too much and destroy the environment.

I have challenged those who claim it is "low cost" energy to point to one place that has gone heavy into wind and solar where it has reduced the cost to consumers. They cannot, because the reality is that deploying lots of wind and solar always raises the actual cost to consumers, both families and businesses. On the other side of the coin, I posted an example where retail electric rates dropped by 70% when a new nuclear power plant opened in Finland.

"Levelized cost of power" is a sham. What counts is what power costs when it gets to your meter box and shows up on your bill.

Germany using wind and solar to replace nuclear cost them an extra 600 Billion euros over 20 years. Now the high energy costs with wind and solar are creating threats to German chemical and automotive industries.

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2024/08/27/study_quantifies_germanys_disastrous_switch_away_from_nuclear_power_1053889.html

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abstract

Here again is one of the experts who can explain all of this to you:

You have presented tons of biased opinions
Big difference between opinions and facts
Your presentations are always opinion pieces

 

[emeryjre]

Ignored???? NO, I was the first one to post it. $10.5 Million cleanup cost for one shattered blade.

What YOU ignore is the subsequent news that I posted where the operator of that wind farm refuses to obligate itself for future cleanups. This shattered blade happened in the testing phase in calm weather and the manufacturer covered it. Whether they would do that once the project is certified and turned over to the developer is very questionable.

And the question you keep avoiding. What happens when a hurricane destroys a whole offshore wind farm or series of windfarms? Who is going to clean that up?

Asked and answered
Several times
You just ignore the posts with answers

 

[Carolinian]

Same undocumented nonsense, different day, Brett. As usual, you refuse to tell us where it is from, and it is clearly the product of the climate industrial complex. Why do you post the same thing over and over and over again? You have probably posted this one over 20 times.

Your numbers for capacity on the grid seem to be "installed capacity" which is a very different thing between different energy sources. One of your own posts stated that in their best locations, solar panels actually produced only about 20% of installed capacity. Wind is not much better. On the other hand, conventional power plants actually produce around 90% of installed capacity. Upshot? The numbers on your chart are meaningless.

 

[Carolinian]

Your disregard of facts is incredible

Well NO. I present the facts from sources all over the spectrum. You present the self serving spin of the climate industrial complex and its mouthpieces. On the other hand, I present environmentalists and those concerned with the flawed economics of intermittent energy.

solar panels contain toxic substances = fact
used solar panels are hazardous waste = fact
cost of cleanup of one shattered blade of an offshore wind turbine was $10.5 million = fact

YOUR disregard of those facts is incredible.

 

[Carolinian]

Asked and answered
Several times
You just ignore the posts with answers

You dodge and weave and ignore when it comes to the issues of hurricanes and major destruction of offshore wind farms. All you can point to is a manufacturer paying $10.5 million for the cleanup on one blade during the testing phase of a project. That means doodly squat as to a major hurricane cleanup and it really doesn't even mean much for that very project after it is certified and turned over to the operator. The operator has already said, as I posted, that it will not accept responsibility, and the manufacturer has not promised anything after the operator takes over, either.

 

[Carolinian]

You have presented tons of biased opinions
Big difference between opinions and facts
Your presentations are always opinion pieces

Your assertions are ridiculous. Opinion pieces???? In that very post you are responding to is an academic paper published in a professional journal that you gloss right over. Here it is again:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abstract

You present the opinions of the climate industrial complex and their mouthpieces. I have posted on more scientific studies than you have, and generally on more facts. You dodge and weave when it comes to facts on the environmental harm from land intensive wind and solar like this set of facts I previously posted which is an official calculation by a government agency on the number of trees destroyed in just one country and just on government land to put up wind turbines:

https://docs.wind-watch.org/Scottish-Forestry-FoI-19-02646.pdf

That number, by the way, is 13.9 million trees destroyed n just one country on government land to put up wind turbines

The climate industrial complex are not much of tree huggers, now are they?

 

[Brett]

Your disregard of facts is incredible

.

 

[ScoopKona]

 

[Carolinian]

View attachment 119579




.


View attachment 119581

Brett, your participation would be more useful if you actually engaged in discussion instead of just repetitive posts from somewhere else that you usually fail to even identify.

You post cost claims based on "levelized cost of power" a measure that is a sham. You refuse to answer when pointed out that in every country that jumps heavily into wind and solar, the cost to actual consumers goes UP, not down, and usually by a lot. You refuse to come back and discuss those things.

Your fake subsidy claims are also something that would be more productive to discuss in detail. Every business gets tax deductions. Some apply to any business, some to only certain businesses, and some are unique to a particular business. I can see the last category being called subsidies to fossil fuels, but is it honest to also include the others? As far as "underpriced environmental costs, hinder climate goals, and divert funds from clean energy" those are absolute nonsense.

Here is what the National Center for Energy Analytics has to say about fossil fuel subsidies:

Setting the Record Straight on U.S. Fossil Fuel Subsidies - National Center for Energy Analytics

Download Issue Brief Listen to the Issue Brief The Issue The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law by President Trump in July 2025 cut back on many of the tax credits for wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022.1 While...

energyanalytics.org

But I am sure you will not come back for a rational discussion, just keep repeating big letters posts from anonymous sources that you have already posted many times.

 

[davidvel]

Some people drink the green kool aid from the climate industrial complex. I have presented material from lots of experts and commentators who all parts of the philosophical spectrum from Michael Moore on the left to Nigel Farage on the right who all agree that intermittent land-intensive wind and solar cost too much and destroy the environment.

I have challenged those who claim it is "low cost" energy to point to one place that has gone heavy into wind and solar where it has reduced the cost to consumers. They cannot, because the reality is that deploying lots of wind and solar always raises the actual cost to consumers, both families and businesses. On the other side of the coin, I posted an example where retail electric rates dropped by 70% when a new nuclear power plant opened in Finland.

"Levelized cost of power" is a sham. What counts is what power costs when it gets to your meter box and shows up on your bill.

The recent Wall Street Journal article I linked earlier explained that wind and solar were sold to European citizens as being cheaper electricity but the reality was the other way around and it is considerably more expensive.

Germany using wind and solar to replace nuclear cost them an extra 600 Billion euros over 20 years. Now the high energy costs with wind and solar are creating threats to German chemical and automotive industries.

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2024/08/27/study_quantifies_germanys_disastrous_switch_away_from_nuclear_power_1053889.html

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abstract

Here again is one of the experts who can explain all of this to you:

About 15 years ago we paid 7,500 dollars for solar that powers our house 24 hours a day (we sell our excess to SDGE who then gives us "free" power at night). Our bill then was around $200 and now would be close to $350. Our cost at the meter and on our bill is zero. I dont know what the levelized cost is and do not care.

We're not in Germany or any other country you continually refer to. We don't pay in euros because our power is freezer! We are not an eastern European caveman like you.

Did we raise the cost, drink the Kool aid, or have we had free energy for the past 10 years?

P.S. our system generates about 85% of what it did when we bought it. Also, I'm at the beach and it is 68 degrees. No link required.

Coo coo.

 

[davidvel]

Brett, your participation would be more useful if you actually engaged in discussion instead of just repetitive posts from somewherre else that you usually fail to even identify.

You post cost claims based on "levelized cost of power" a measure that is a sham. You refuse to answer when pointed out that in every country that jumps heavily into wind and solar, the cost to actual consumers goes UP, not down, and usually be a lot. You refuse to come back and discuss those things.

Your fake subsidy claims are also something that would be more productive to discuss in detail. Every business gets tax deductions. Some apply to any business, some to only certain businesses, and some are unique to a particular business. I can see the last category being called subsidies to fossil fuels, but is it honest to also include the others? As far as "underpriced environmental costs, hinder climate goals, and divert funds from clean energy" those are absolute nonsense.

Here is what the National Center for Energy Analytics has to say about fossil fuel subsidies:

Setting the Record Straight on U.S. Fossil Fuel Subsidies - National Center for Energy Analytics

Download Issue Brief Listen to the Issue Brief The Issue The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law by President Trump in July 2025 cut back on many of the tax credits for wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022.1 While...

energyanalytics.org

But I am sure you will not come back for a rational discussion, just keep repeating big letters posts from anonymous sources that you have already posted many times.

Every business gets subsidies claims sweet Caroline, despite no evidence. Coo coo.

 

[Brett]

About 15 years ago we paid 7,500 dollars for solar that powers our house 24 hours a day (we sell our excess to SDGE who then gives us "free" power at night). Our bill then was around $200 and now would be close to $350. Our cost at the meter and on our bill is zero. I dont know what the levelized cost is and do not care.

We're not in Germany or any other country you continually refer to. We don't pay in euros because our power is freezer! We are not an eastern European caveman like you.

Did we raise the cost, drink the Kool aid, or have we had free energy for the past 10 years?

P.S. our system generates about 85% of what it did when we bought it. Also, I'm at the beach and it is 68 degrees. No link required.

Coo coo.

I'm guessing the sun didn't charge you anything

 

[Carolinian]

Every business gets subsidies claims sweet Caroline, despite no evidence. Coo coo.

Ask your tax professional about business deductions. You might learn something. Or you could read the article I posted from the National Center for Energy Analytics. Coo Coo you.

 

[Carolinian]

About 15 years ago we paid 7,500 dollars for solar that powers our house 24 hours a day (we sell our excess to SDGE who then gives us "free" power at night). Our bill then was around $200 and now would be close to $350. Our cost at the meter and on our bill is zero. I dont know what the levelized cost is and do not care.

We're not in Germany or any other country you continually refer to. We don't pay in euros because our power is freezer! We are not an eastern European caveman like you.

Did we raise the cost, drink the Kool aid, or have we had free energy for the past 10 years?

P.S. our system generates about 85% of what it did when we bought it. Also, I'm at the beach and it is 68 degrees. No link required.

Coo coo.

The same mistakes cause the same results. It does not matter what country. Coo coo you.

Germany and the UK should be cautionary tales for those proposing the same path. It is no wonder that the party with a double digit lead in the British polls calls Net Zero "Net Stupid" and proposes to terminate it, and that one of the two parties competing for second place has also recently denounced Net Zero as well. It is also not surprising that the party leading in the polls and expanding that lead in Germany calls for removing all the wind turbines in the country.

As far as power costs, for most people it is what comes on your monthly power bill. Congratulations on working the system, but that set of circumstances applies to only a small percentage of electric customers.

 

[ScoopKona]

But I am sure you will not come back for a rational discussion, just keep repeating big letters posts from anonymous sources that you have already posted many times.

Exactly who do you think you're going to sway?

Seriously. What's the point? We get it, you love petroleum. You're probably making money from an oil well or something. Bully for you! But you're not going to convince a single person that it isn't a dirty, dirty business. Because it is.

You're basically advocating for smoking cigarettes, using position papers from the American Tobacco Institute as evidence.

"Scientifically proven to be good for your T-Zone!"

 

[Carolinian]

Exactly who do you think you're going to sway?

Seriously. What's the point? We get it, you love petroleum. You're probably making money from an oil well or something. Bully for you! But you're not going to convince a single person that it isn't a dirty, dirty business. Because it is.

You're basically advocating for smoking cigarettes, using position papers from the American Tobacco Institute as evidence.

"Scientifically proven to be good for your T-Zone!"

My post was directed at Brett suggesting he try to have a rational discussion instead of repetitively posting the same big letter posts, mostly from anonymous sources, over and over and over.

Sorry to bust your stereotyping bubble, but what I like is reasonably priced reliable energy, and that comes from conventional power plants, not intermittent sources. Geothermal is more like a conventional power plant in that it is dispatchable base load power, and the same is true of hydro, although many would class them as "renewable". I support both of them. As to building new plants, I think the small modular nuke plants have great potential. Gas is also a good source of power. I would not prematurely close coal plants but keep them running as long as they are viable. Prematurely replacing plants drives up power costs. We have an abundant supply of coal in the US and we need to research better ways to potentially use it. All in all, nuclear seems the best option for new grid scale power. I like trees and birds and whales, so I don't care much for wind turbines or solar "farms" especially since their power supply is unreliable and costs more by the time it gets to my meter box and electric bill..

For cars, I am for petroleum. My MG and Cutlass convertible run on it. Oil is no longer a major source of electricity generation, however.

I wish I could find a link to an editorial cartoon I saw a year or two ago that showed a German tank covered with solar panels. That is how ridiculous some of this "green" agenda is getting. The sad thing is that the climate agenda while passed off as "green" actually harms traditional environmental interests.

 

[ScoopKona]

That is how ridiculous some of this "green" agenda is getting. The sad thing is that the climate agenda while passed off as "green" actually harms traditional environmental interests.

So you're stuck in the 19th century. Not just here but also with metals. Probably a lot of other things as well.

If I was going to invest in something, it would be a scheme that pays dividends every time you use quotation marks needlessly. I'd be a millionaire every month.

 

[davidvel]

The same mistakes cause the same results. It does not matter what country. Coo coo you.

Germany and the UK should be cautionary tales for those proposing the same path. It is no wonder that the party with a double digit lead in the British polls calls Net Zero "Net Stupid" and proposes to terminate it, and that one of the two parties competing for second place has also recently denounced Net Zero as well. It is also not surprising that the party leading in the polls and expanding that lead in Germany calls for removing all the wind turbines in the country.

As far as power costs, for most people it is what comes on your monthly power bill. Congratulations on working the system, but that set of circumstances apply to only a small percentage of electric customers.

So we made a mistake? I don't see how you establish that at all. (We are not in the UK, or Finland, or Germany, FYI.) The west coast has a few people by the way, not "only a small percentage of electric customers." Why do you keep bringing up inferior euro countries? The west cost has about 25% of the population of euroland.

I presented a perfect case for solar and your only response is we worked the system? That is the whole point, the system (solar) works. Your repeated failures in trying to say solar doesn't work, is more expensive than fossil fuels, etc. is completely destroyed in a single comment, and you have no coherent response.

Your cultish opposition to solar is proven wrong, as all your other thoughts. You live in a "world" that no one else does. It is highly irrational, babble-talk.

 

[davidvel]

So you're stuck in the 19th century. Not just here but also with metals. Probably a lot of other things as well.

If I was going to invest in something, it would be a scheme that pays dividends every time you use quotation marks needlessly. I'd be a millionaire every month.

Hell must have frozen over, I agree with you. I mean this guy prides himself on driving an Oldsmobile. Talk about a dinosaur. Must not have much time left on this planet.

 

[Brett]

Hell must have frozen over, I agree with you. I mean this guy prides himself on driving an Oldsmobile. Talk about a dinosaur. Must not have much time left on this planet.

And he's got a hoard of silver coins buried in his back yard for when the liberals zombies attack

 

[Carolinian]

So you're stuck in the 19th century. Not just here but also with metals. Probably a lot of other things as well.

If I was going to invest in something, it would be a scheme that pays dividends every time you use quotation marks needlessly. I'd be a millionaire every month.

The world's central banks agree with me, not you, on gold. They are buying it and gradually reducing their holdings of all fiat currencies. If you think you know more than the world's central banks, more power to you, but I like the appreciation I have gotten, especially in the last year from precious metals. Our rental real estate is not doing so badly either.

So, you think nuclear power and geothermal are "19th century"??????? Curious!

 

[ScoopKona]

I'm willing to wager $1 that you're also a fan of the Ludwig von Mises Austrian school of economics.

When rational wiki is your enemy, it's time to re-evaluate your life choices.

 

[davidvel]

The world's central banks agree with me, not you, on gold. They are buying it and gradually reducing their holdings of all fiat currencies. If you think you know more than the world's central banks, more power to you, but I like the appreciation I have gotten, especially in the last year from precious metals. Our rental real estate is not doing so badly either.

So, you think nuclear power and geothermal are "19th century"??????? Curious!

Show your work. What have you earned on your "precious metals?" What would you have earned on QQQ? Fail.

 

[Carolinian]

So we made a mistake? I don't see how you establish that at all. (We are not in the UK, or Finland, or Germany, FYI.) The west coast has a few people by the way, not "only a small percentage of electric customers." Why do you keep bringing up inferior euro countries? The west cost has about 25% of the population of euroland.

I presented a perfect case for solar and your only response is we worked the system? That is the whole point, the system (solar) works. Your repeated failures in trying to say solar doesn't work, is more expensive than fossil fuels, etc. is completely destroyed in a single comment, and you have no coherent response.

Your cultish opposition to solar is proven wrong, as all your other thoughts. You live in a "world" that no one else does. It is highly irrational, babble-talk.

The economics for various energy sources are largely the same country to country. Yes, there are some variations, but largely the same. Wind and solar are not less intermittent in one country compared to another. There is a backlash against the climate agenda in much of the western world. It was sold as cheaper and has turned out more expensive.

Europe shows where this wind / solar fad goes. It should be a warning to get off the part they went down before we get as far along it.

Cultish? I have presented quite a range of opposition to wind and solar from leftwing sources like Michael Moore to conservative leaders like Nigel Farage, with the co-founder of the environmentalist group Greenpeace, and various others in between, as well as research reports from experts..

Some states overcompensate for that rooftop power by reimbursing at the retail rate instead of the wholesale rate, something that is not fair to other electric customers. Don't know if your state is one of them. We would never put those hideous solar panels on the roof of our antebellum historic home and our Historic Preservation Commission would not allow it anyway.