Wind power--Wyoming blows

Massive wind farms are sprouting up in the desolate wastelands of Wyoming. The state is ideal for wind turbines: the wind blows almost constantly, the land is useless for anything else (too high-elevation to farm, and not enough water), and there's plenty of empty space. Most of the power generated will end up in Southern California and the Pacific Northwest. Wyoming will get a big cash dump, because they will tax the power generated at $1 (or much more) per mwh.

The project has been twenty years in the making. The fossil fuel companies basically own and operate Wyoming, and they've been coming up with various and sundry obstructions, including faux environmental concerns, such as that wind turbines chop up the poor little birdies. But, as was ever thus...money talks. And that nice windy tax money will be a continuing and growing freebie, since the state won't have to do anything to maintain the wind farms.

Notably, the fossil fuel companies pay no tax on the power generation capabilities of the oil and gas they extract. So Wyoming has an incentive to switch over to sustainable energy. There are also plans to install solar farms on large tracts of empty Wyoming land, with a similar tax structure.

So apparently, Wyoming politicians can be bought, and they will abandon their slavish loyalty to the fossil fuel companies if some fat checks are stuffed in their pockets. It's an object lesson for the rest of the country. How do you make a conservative an environmentalist? Pay him.

Iowa gets half its electrical grid from green energy - majority wind.    Seems impossible because according to our resident conservatives...."Derp !  da wind dont always blow "

And you can ask all those farmers how much they hate collecting their annual 10K royaty check for doing nothing but letting the power company put a windmill on their farm.

Much like Obamacare - Democratic green enrgy policies benefit red states more than blue....but the red states vote for the flat-earth society anyway.    what-ya-gonnado?

But dem windy propellor thangs gonna chop up mah chickens! (If they ever get airborne.)

Iowa has never had very much in fossil fuel sources--which means that in that state, the fossil fuel companies don't have a very tight grip. In other states, like Wyoming, that are basically the property of the fossil fuel industry (and its residents its slaves), that grip has been historically tight but has been loosened by that good ol' American lubricant: money. The states can tax sustainable power generation and the MAGA goobers can be paid for the use of their land.

And ya knows what. Elmer? Y'all can still grow wheat on that land where they put in them windy propeller thangs!

(Really, sustainable power generation is so much cheaper and easier than burning fossil fuels, only an idiot--or a MAGA--would support the latter.)

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Rocky Mountain Power, the state’s largest utility company, announced the nearly 30% hike in rates due to rising costs.due to wind.

A major Danish energy company recently scuttled two offshore wind projects in New Jersey and was willing to take a $5.6 billion loss rather than take on this long-term liability. This despite hundreds of billions in tax subsidies since 1992 and countless more direct subsidies under Joe Biden’s Green New Deal, passed into law last year. Other wind power projects have been cancelled in Rhode Island, Ct. & Mass.

Liberal Brookings Institution conceded, “Wind and solar generation require at least 10 times as much land per unit of power produced than coal or natural gas-fired power plants,

New York State Public Service Commission nixed a request for vastly greater subsidies — about $12 billion worth — for 90 alternate-power projects that are supposed to provide a quarter of the state’s electricity. That would have doubled public support, most likely meaning huge increases for ratepayers in a state where power already costs far above the national average and rates are even now rising to help pay for this “transformation.” The companies involved say they’re facing far higher costs, thanks to inflation, supply-chain issues and other developments since they inked the original deals.

Yeah, stupid Tommie-poo, we need to live in the past and generate power the same way we did in 1920.

Once these wind generation plants are built, they require much less maintenance than fossil fuel plants. They need to employ far fewer people. AND, STUPID TOMMIE-POO, THEY DON'T NEED TO BE FED FOSSIL FUELS TO RUN. So, even if costs to build them are rising, the savings over time will more than pay for those costs.

Why are you against all forms of progress, stupid Tommie-poo?

The billions in construction costs will have to be amortized over the life of the plant (20 years) (TWI Global).

Adding all this wind capacity. the cost will be in the hundreds of billions

What happens when the wind isn't blowing/not blowing or it is to cold when electricity is most needed

, Reuters reported that Europe's largest wind producers were experiencing problems—especially Germany. And this week, Bloomberg reported that German electricity prices had more than doubled due to calm winds

If these projects are so profitable, why are they being cancelled?

Stupid kevin.  He thinks money appears like magic

Stupid Tommie-poo thinks that coal and oil are free, are transported magically, without cost, to wherever they need to be burned, don't contribute to air and water pollution, and are in unlimited supply.

Can't reason with someone who thinks like that.

kevin can't answer the key question - what happens when the wind doesn't blow?

To convert to wind/solar would cost $4.5 TRILLION or $36,500 per household.(123m households).That is assuming we have enough concrete, steel & aluminum

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/shifting-u-s-to-100-percent-renewables-would-cost-4-5-trillion-analysis-finds#:~:text=To%20achieve%20100%20percent%20renewable,price%20tag%20to%20%244%20trillion.

That's an idiot question that idiot goobers have been asking ever since wind power was invented.

The answer is: THERE IS NO TIME WHEN THE WIND DOESN'T BLOW SOMEWHERE. And wind power is always installed where the wind blows OFTEN--like the plains of Wyoming.

DUHHHH, you stupid fuck.

The figure you pulled out of your ass is a dumb fantasy. An average house can be outfitted with solar panels and the accompanying electronics for $15,000.

A single wind turbine can power 940 homes. At a cost of $2 million, the turbine costs a little over $2000 per house that it powers.

And in either case, there are only maintenance costs after that. Free electricity.

Wake up and acknowledge the future, you lying idiot.

Tom's pathetic struggles to prove to himself that burning coal for power is better than sustainable energy sources sure makes him look foolish, as he twists and turns and struggles to come up with "facts" that "prove" that we should stay in the 19th century.

But y'know what? Even Tom's spiritual buddies, the dead-red state goobers, have woken up and are embracing renewable energy.. Why?

Because it's cheaper. Once the initial manufacturing and installation costs are paid, electricity is practically free. And though stupid Tom doesn't give a shit about the environment, the benefits are huge.

Stupid Tommie-poo.