Good News! Reno Wind Turbine That Cost $21,000 Saves $4!

I’ve always said that I’m supportive in moving towards alternative energy methods, but, when it comes to big wind farms, I’d have to admit that with each new #Fail story, I’ve moved to the “this is really idiot and should be stopped cause it’s madness” side (via Tom Nelson and The New Nostradamus of the North)

(Power Engineering) The electricity produced by NV Energy’s $46 million wind rebate program has fallen far short of expectations.

In a startling example, the city of Reno’s wind turbines — for which the city received more than $150,000 in rate-payer funded rebates — produced dramatically less electricity than the manufacturers of its turbines promised.

“These manufacturers, when they gave us the turbines, they said they were designed to be mounted on a parapet at this height, and that’s what we did,” said Jason Geddes, who runs the city of Reno’s renewable energy program. “But when we started getting actual wind flow patterns, we realized their claims were wrong.”

As first reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal , one turbine that cost the city $21,000 to install saved the city $4 on its energy bill. Overall, $416,000 worth of turbines have netted the city $2,800 in energy savings.

Of course, when we are talking about hooking up political cronies saving Gaia, cost should be no factor. There should be no cost/benefit ration. Or something like that.

Hamilton also believes equipment standards should be in place to minimize faulty turbines, some of which have fallen apart.

That’s happened both in Reno and in rural Nevada. Geddes said one of his turbines that was rated to 110 mph fell apart in a 105-mph gust.

A more catastrophic failure occurred on a farm in rural Nevada, when a large turbine spun apart only days after it was installed. No one was injured, largely because it was in a remote locale.

Well, at least they won’t be sitting there rusting. Besides, it’s Someone Else’s money: why should there be any concern? This will stop the seas from rising and swamping Nevada!

This is the folly of most “green” energy: it’s not ready for prime time, it rarely ever provides the savings it promises, not to mention coming up woefully short on providing actual power. And while Warmists tend to support in theory, there always seems to be at least one enviroweenie group that sues to block the construction. One of the only ones that is proven is hydro-electric, and these watermelons not only block the construction of more hydro-electric dams, but want existing ones torn down to save a fish.

And the above article provides the hard numbers to prove the folly of these projects.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  • What is Wind Energy (April 3, 2012)
    [...] [caption id="attachment_108" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="what is wind energy"][/caption][caption id="attachment_107" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="what is wind energy"][/caption] ...Energy and Appreciating HomeMade Energy   HomeMade Energy is gaining popularity because it [...]

8 Comments

Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-04-03 11:12:07

Saved that much money, huh? Wow. According to liberal policies, that was a resounding success.

Heck, its nothing to spend $30,000 green-bucks to save $4 oil-bucks.

 
Comment by david7134 Subscribed to comments via email
2012-04-03 11:54:24

What is the carbon foot print for the turbine that is on fire in the picture?? If these things produce fire, then they must manufacture heat. Is the heat greater than my outlawed light bulb??

Many deep questions need to be asked.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-04-03 12:24:55

David, please stop trying to confuse and obfuscate the most pressing issue of our time.

The problem with your lightbulb is the amount of CO2 that it produces when you turn it on. You see, by replacing your $0.50 lightbulb with a $30,000 windmill reduces the total Carbon Dioxide footprint. You see, dear David, that it is cheaper, more efficient, more safe, more environmentally friendly to create, build, and construct windmills on wild lands and highly visible mountain sides, than for you to pop in a lightbulb.

Any reasonable liberal can figure that out.


/sarc

 
Comment by YeahRight
2012-04-04 19:40:26

And just think…this is such a great investment it will only take 437.5 years to start seeing your massive return on investment!!! Keep it up Reno!!! We need more programs like this!!! (BTW…I am not a bully here am I? Since Reno is the biggest little city in the world they may take this wrong…)

 
Comment by William Teach
2012-04-04 19:55:05

437.5 years? You might be overestimating. Especially since they have a useful lifespan of 20 years.

 
Comment by John Dooley, Sr.
2012-04-04 20:39:35

This is similar to the solar system at Nellis AFB, NV. The system cost $100,000,000 dollars to install. The base touts that it saves $1,000,000 a year with a life expediency of 20 year. Do you think a free enterprise company would try something this stupid. BTW, they did not have to buy the land it sits on and it covers many acres.

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-04-04 21:58:54

BTW, they did not have to buy the land it sits on and it covers many acres.

Won’t somebody think of the lizards?

What would have made more sense? Is using those available acres to build a gasoline refinery. Increase supply. Eliminate the NIMBY problem as well.

 
Comment by William Teach
2012-04-05 08:18:19

Good points, John. It makes me crazy how much land must be used, especially when clear cut, for these solar farms.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 15617 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE