[ - ] germ22 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 11:32:36 ago (+1/-0)
Has someone done the calculations on how much energy it requires to make all that concrete and steel and other materials? And then compare that to actual power output of those wind turbines. Not the rated power output, what it actually produces with the no wind situations and what not. I've tried calculating it for the steel only, if my memory is correct and my math was right, it would take one wind turbine to run for 30 years to produce enough electricity for the production of just one wind turbine tower. But might be better if someone smarter than me would do the math again.
My short answer for this is that even without subsidies, there is an economic profit for any "green" installation. I don't believe in the "green revolution" at all, but the economics tell the true story.
Wind turbines are built by companies and sold to power companies. The wind turbine building companies pay retail rates for their power (can do off peak, etc, but every power company makes a profit on every kwh produced). The wind generated power is sold by the power company at wholesale rates to other power companies and big clients, as well as at retail rates to end users.
If a wind turbine total/true cost of materials etc exceeded the cost recovery by the power company - even excluding the huge huge subsidies - these power companies would never sign off to buy them.
Same goes for every mining and production system.
If the actual cost to build something exceeds the demand price - economically that would lead to the death of that product and company.
Mining and refining and manufacturing are expensive, but at scale, these costs become cheap enough for demand to skyrocket.
[ - ] dassar 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 14:27:08 ago (+1/-0)
Simple, Because they are price gouging the profit margin of the power output produced is why it remains 'profitable'. The power is actually free - it is just the infrastructure required to harness it. It is the same for all forms of power production under a shareholder Profit sharing business model.
[ - ] localsal 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 18:00:42 ago (+1/-0)
It isn't just power, but every industry.
Does the vast land area of concrete produced every year (a hugely energy intensive process) cost more to make in electricity than they sell it for? Nope.
How about the huge steel beams and cables for bridges/spans, etc? Nope, those are cheap and the cost to produce that steel in electricity is easily covered by the sale price, even in mass quantities.
Nobody - even the non-kiked among us - will do anything at a loss.
And don't forget that insurance companies are still covering all manner of wind and solar - and the insurance kikes are for sure making huge profits off those policies.
Everybody is making money off the green nonsense, and the government subsidies are just an easy way to double dip.
Everybody is making money off the green nonsense, and the government subsidies are just an easy way to double dip.
Sure, i agree, but maybe i'm not very clear with what i mean - the profit margin on the services provided (less the material cost) is massively 'hiked' to the actual cost of creating it.
It's why in NZ, when the Govt sold off our State telecommunications company (and the infrastructure for a measly $2 billion back in the late 80's, the buyer Telecom began posting after tax profits of several hundred million yearly, reaching 600 million for a couple of years running (against a population base of around 4.5 million) and literally complained when it dipped under $300 million (after tax profit) - so massively just the prices (again) to fulfil their shareholder obligations - (by putting the full cost to provide services onto the individual consumer - as it were claimed previously as 'subsidized' by big business telecommunication fees)
Not making enough profit is very different that not making any money. And greedflation is everywhere now - because any possible (((reason))) a company can use to raise more money will always be used - take the plandemic and the planned supply chain disruption, and the prices are still just as high...
The question at hand here is whether the wind turbines actually pay for themselves. If wind turbines did not make any money, that would be evident over the last 30+ years of power company investments.
Most power companies are regulated monopolies - for good or (mostly) bad. This means these companies have to submit all costs and projections to (((governments))) to get rate increases. This isn't universal of course, but the regulators that do have this control look at the capital expenditures and the projected power production and planning.
If these regulators are in any way non-retarded (a huge ask!) they would see a wind turbine that would never pay for itself and ask why the customers should have to pay for a non-usable device.
On the flip side, if it did take more electricity to make a wind turbine that it would produce, the wind turbine building company would never be able to stay in business.
This is the same economic principle as solar power in the far north climes. Adjusted for clouds, etc, the capacity factor of solar anywhere above 40 degrees latitude can be 10 to 15% or even lower. Meaning that it will produce 10% of rated output on average.
An made up economic analysis of this would show that an 8kw solar install at $35,000, estimated to last 20 years would cost $5 per day in capital investment, and on average would produce about 20kwh per day. The electricity cost would have to be greater than 25 cents per kwh to make the investment worth it.
The average capacity factor for solar in Canada is 6% - which would make that solar install produce about 10kwh per day - and now the electrical cost needs to be 50 cents per kwh to make it worth it.
And the kwh "cost" applies to both a power company or a single home user. No regulator would (or should) sign off on a solar farm that required a $0.50/kwh price to make a profit. Power companies have to justify all this to get any project approved for a rate increase - and all capital projects (installs AND decomissionings) are paid for by rate increases and need to go through regulators.
Long story short (too late!) the cost of a wind turbine is actually very low, and each one will make a profit over its design life, otherwise it would never be installed.
The communications example is a good one that could be examined in greater detail in a separate post.
[ + ] germ22
[ - ] germ22 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 11:32:36 ago (+1/-0)
I've tried calculating it for the steel only, if my memory is correct and my math was right, it would take one wind turbine to run for 30 years to produce enough electricity for the production of just one wind turbine tower. But might be better if someone smarter than me would do the math again.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 2 points 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 12:25:02 ago (+2/-0)
Wind turbines are built by companies and sold to power companies. The wind turbine building companies pay retail rates for their power (can do off peak, etc, but every power company makes a profit on every kwh produced). The wind generated power is sold by the power company at wholesale rates to other power companies and big clients, as well as at retail rates to end users.
If a wind turbine total/true cost of materials etc exceeded the cost recovery by the power company - even excluding the huge huge subsidies - these power companies would never sign off to buy them.
Same goes for every mining and production system.
If the actual cost to build something exceeds the demand price - economically that would lead to the death of that product and company.
Mining and refining and manufacturing are expensive, but at scale, these costs become cheap enough for demand to skyrocket.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 14:27:08 ago (+1/-0)
The power is actually free - it is just the infrastructure required to harness it.
It is the same for all forms of power production under a shareholder Profit sharing business model.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 18:00:42 ago (+1/-0)
Does the vast land area of concrete produced every year (a hugely energy intensive process) cost more to make in electricity than they sell it for? Nope.
How about the huge steel beams and cables for bridges/spans, etc? Nope, those are cheap and the cost to produce that steel in electricity is easily covered by the sale price, even in mass quantities.
Nobody - even the non-kiked among us - will do anything at a loss.
And don't forget that insurance companies are still covering all manner of wind and solar - and the insurance kikes are for sure making huge profits off those policies.
Everybody is making money off the green nonsense, and the government subsidies are just an easy way to double dip.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 14, 2023 15:20:34 ago (+0/-0)
Sure, i agree, but maybe i'm not very clear with what i mean - the profit margin on the services provided (less the material cost) is massively 'hiked' to the actual cost of creating it.
It's why in NZ, when the Govt sold off our State telecommunications company (and the infrastructure for a measly $2 billion back in the late 80's, the buyer Telecom began posting after tax profits of several hundred million yearly, reaching 600 million for a couple of years running (against a population base of around 4.5 million) and literally complained when it dipped under $300 million (after tax profit) - so massively just the prices (again) to fulfil their shareholder obligations - (by putting the full cost to provide services onto the individual consumer - as it were claimed previously as 'subsidized' by big business telecommunication fees)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 14, 2023 15:56:13 ago (+0/-0)
The question at hand here is whether the wind turbines actually pay for themselves. If wind turbines did not make any money, that would be evident over the last 30+ years of power company investments.
Most power companies are regulated monopolies - for good or (mostly) bad. This means these companies have to submit all costs and projections to (((governments))) to get rate increases. This isn't universal of course, but the regulators that do have this control look at the capital expenditures and the projected power production and planning.
If these regulators are in any way non-retarded (a huge ask!) they would see a wind turbine that would never pay for itself and ask why the customers should have to pay for a non-usable device.
On the flip side, if it did take more electricity to make a wind turbine that it would produce, the wind turbine building company would never be able to stay in business.
This is the same economic principle as solar power in the far north climes. Adjusted for clouds, etc, the capacity factor of solar anywhere above 40 degrees latitude can be 10 to 15% or even lower. Meaning that it will produce 10% of rated output on average.
An made up economic analysis of this would show that an 8kw solar install at $35,000, estimated to last 20 years would cost $5 per day in capital investment, and on average would produce about 20kwh per day. The electricity cost would have to be greater than 25 cents per kwh to make the investment worth it.
The average capacity factor for solar in Canada is 6% - which would make that solar install produce about 10kwh per day - and now the electrical cost needs to be 50 cents per kwh to make it worth it.
And the kwh "cost" applies to both a power company or a single home user. No regulator would (or should) sign off on a solar farm that required a $0.50/kwh price to make a profit. Power companies have to justify all this to get any project approved for a rate increase - and all capital projects (installs AND decomissionings) are paid for by rate increases and need to go through regulators.
Long story short (too late!) the cost of a wind turbine is actually very low, and each one will make a profit over its design life, otherwise it would never be installed.
The communications example is a good one that could be examined in greater detail in a separate post.
[ + ] Anus_Expander
[ - ] Anus_Expander 4 points 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 13:06:05 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] gimpyoldman
[ - ] gimpyoldman 2 points 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 14:37:10 ago (+2/-0)
https://tvpworld.com/74560645/7500-wind-turbines-in-spain-to-be-dismantled-within-five-years
[ + ] Spaceman84
[ - ] Spaceman84 2 points 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 14:45:19 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] BitterVeteran
[ - ] BitterVeteran -1 points 1.4 yearsDec 13, 2023 20:59:39 ago (+0/-1)