Yep between 1 10 and 1 20 past Ft Stockton there are thousands of them .. On Feb 17, 2017 3:55 PM, "Cameron Crum" <cc...@wispmon.com> wrote:
> The worst part for me is the freaking eye-sore these things create. I > drive a couple times a year from Fort Worth to Taos, NM and west Texas is > littered with these things as far as the eye can see. Looks like shit and > half of them are never even spinning. I'd much rather see the boring > prairie than these things. But, it's not my land so I can't complain too > much. I sure wouldn't want to live nearby though. The are somewhat noisy. > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: > >> As part of the zoning approval, they pretty much get forced to put in >> that language. Otherwise, they could avoid setting aside money to restore >> the land, and just skip town leaving the landowners with rusting hulks and >> concrete blocks to clean up. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy >> /sarcasm >> *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 12:32 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread >> >> >> >> The lease on the turbine on the old ladies family estate has the 10 year >> renewing lease (it auto renews with a bunch of numbers about changes to the >> calculation) but it does state it is intended to cease operation in 30 >> years. There is a residual trust on each one to cover the cost of removal, >> going into detail about what that consists of, essentially says it will >> return the property to its original purpose state, in this case, farmland. >> >> The lease was like 35 pages, im not a lawyer, so I may have misread it >> when I looked at it while drunk. I did find it odd to only use something >> with that much expense for 30 years (taxpayer funded, so who cares) maybe >> it just means it will be refurbished and the lease revisited, I dont know >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> wrote: >> >> Just a note: check the calculations on that page, and the charts. >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> wrote: >> > " >> > >> > Summary of the calculations >> > >> > First of all I want to state that my calculations might include >> > mistakes that I have not realized. Also, I know for a certain I have >> > not included any accounting gimmicks that big companies might use to >> > make their returns look better. Also, the fixed tariff price that I >> > used in every calculation might give wind power some advantage over >> > solar. >> > >> > Without subsidies the profitability of solar energy is surprisingly >> > low. Especially when considering that it is the one from these three >> > that seems to be the most talked about in India. Although all that >> > changes when subsidies are added in to the calculation. >> > >> > Also the hydropower gives a mediocre return on invested capital but it >> > makes it up with its flexibility. By this I mean that hydropower can >> > be used whenever the electricity prices are high. It should also be >> > noted that in these calculations I used lifetime of 50. If the >> > lifetime was 100 the ROCE would be higher. The subsidies did not >> > affect the hydropower’s profitability that much. Unfortunately I >> > didn’t find any subsidy schemes for large hydropower plants. >> > >> > In these calculations the wind power is easily the most profitable >> > form of energy. The incentives didn’t change the ROCE that much >> > because most of the incentives were tax based and only show on the >> > profit line. Although, I believe that the used electricity price is a >> > bit too high for wind power. >> > >> > As for Atlantic Tele-Network’s statement, solar power can be >> > profitable without subsidies but only barely." >> > >> > From: http://www.huntingvalue.com/renewable-energy-profitability/ >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >> >> I think you're reading too much into the provision in the land lease >> to remove the concrete foundation and restore the land at the end of the >> lease. >> >> >> >> If you watch the whole process of developing a wind farm, the actual >> wind turbines are a small part of it. The question would be, if it's still >> profitable at the end of 20 or 30 years, what would it take to extend the >> land leases and refurbish the infrastructure to keep it running? I'm >> guessing a small fraction of the original cost. Maybe just inspect the >> towers and foundations, replace the blades. They still have the power >> wires, access roads, permits, etc. It seems that a certain number of >> turbines get worked on each year as part of regular maintenance. I've seen >> blades break, they just go out with a crane and replace them, it doesn't >> seem to be that big a deal. These things are in rural areas and have >> access roads, they plan on regular inspections and maintenance. >> >> >> >> A lot depends on the regulatory environment, are there subsidies, is >> the power company required to buy the power, what does it cost to generate >> power from coal/nuclear/gas, has some other renewable energy like solar >> taken off. >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds >> >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 11:36 AM >> >> To: af@afmug.com >> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread >> >> >> >> So 30 years of generating power - (certain maintenance types + >> production resource usage) >> >> >> >> I can't see that not being not only carbon neutral, but carbon >> negative. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:30 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> the turbines here are on 20 year renewing land leases with an expected >> >>> removal at the 30 year mark if theyre still in production >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com >> > >> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> "The manufacturing, transportation, and erection of these things is >> >>>> not offset by the gains, its a net carbon loss at the end of the >> day." >> >>>> >> >>>> I haven't seen any data that corroborates that statement. You >> >>>> basically have to look at how long they plan for them to run, the >> >>>> power generated during that time, include maintenance, and compare >> >>>> that to the cost to manufacture and erect. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >> >>>> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> > realistic dependency reduction is something we havent seen, >> >>>> > regulating industries out of buisines or to the point consumers >> >>>> > cannot afford things is not the way to go. >> >>>> > Imagine how many of these millions of windmills we have in the US >> >>>> > without huge consumptions of oil. exactly zero. The manufacturing, >> >>>> > transportation, and erection of these things is not offset by the >> >>>> > gains, its a net carbon loss at the end of the day. They dont even >> >>>> > account for the technician carbon footprint driving from turbine to >> >>>> > turbine. I would like to see an actual report on the oil cost per >> >>>> > turbine, taking into account all factors, including the oil for >> >>>> > fedex to deliver replacement parts, and oil consumption in rope and >> >>>> > rigging. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Solar is a joke en mass, from a carbon perspective, especially here >> >>>> > where all our power comes from nuclear. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > hydroelectric, maybe not a whole lod of oil consumption, but >> >>>> > ecological impact is catastrophic, what do we have now 2 salmon >> >>>> > variants >> >>>> > >> >>>> > shut it all down >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Josh Reynolds >> >>>> > <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >> >>>> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> That's a pretty irrational stance to take, being 100% against a >> >>>> >> resource I mean. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> It is not irrational to reduce dependency on anything though, for >> >>>> >> a variety of reasons. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:08 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> > Try to make industrial amounts of electricity without oil. Even >> >>>> >> > hydroelectric turbines need lube. Transformers are filled with >> oil. >> >>>> >> > If >> >>>> >> > you >> >>>> >> > are against oil, be against oil. >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds >> >>>> >> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:58 AM >> >>>> >> > To: af@afmug.com >> >>>> >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > I'm trying to figure out what electricity has to do with oil >> >>>> >> > from your statement. >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > You can also make a decision to reduce oil consumption where >> logical. >> >>>> >> > This would be a good thing from a monetary and national defense >> >>>> >> > standpoint among other things. >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:55 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Being against oil but using oil... >> >>>> >> >> Think FedEx can do its thing without oil? >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> If you are truly against oil, stop using it. >> >>>> >> >> Go to the forest. No kerosene lamps, deer fat tallow candles >> >>>> >> >> perhaps. >> >>>> >> >> No guns, takes oil to make guns... >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> etc >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds >> >>>> >> >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:53 AM >> >>>> >> >> To: af@afmug.com >> >>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> Would you mind clarifying the follow a bit? Thanks >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> "Being against oil but using electricity and vehicles and >> FedEx." >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:32 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> I like driving my gas and diesel vehicles. >> >>>> >> >>> I like the products derived from oil like the jacket on CAT 5 >> >>>> >> >>> cable and printed circuit boards. >> >>>> >> >>> I like the price of oil to be as low as possible. >> >>>> >> >>> I prefer having sources in this hemisphere and not funding the >> >>>> >> >>> Arab world. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> I too have built many miles of copper and fiber over public >> >>>> >> >>> and tribal lands. I have gone through the exact same NEPA and >> >>>> >> >>> FLPMA process as the pipeline many many times. I consider >> >>>> >> >>> myself a NEPA expert and am currently advising the US Senate >> >>>> >> >>> on ways to make that process work faster. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> Pissing and moaning that folks with more money than you are >> >>>> >> >>> building a pipe to make even more money than you sounds like >> >>>> >> >>> sour grapes and jealousy. >> >>>> >> >>> If >> >>>> >> >>> you are against the “commons” don’t use common frequencies. >> >>>> >> >>> Don’t use ROWs. >> >>>> >> >>> Don’t use electricity. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> I don’t get several things: >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> Being against oil but using electricity and vehicles and >> FedEx. >> >>>> >> >>> Being against certain forms of arguably safer and more >> >>>> >> >>> efficient oil transportation. >> >>>> >> >>> Being against certain rich people doing business but >> >>>> >> >>> attempting to become a richer person yourself. >> >>>> >> >>> Being against the use of public and private ROWs for oil >> >>>> >> >>> pipelines but not for water pipelines, natural gas pipelines, >> >>>> >> >>> sewers, fiber cables or electric. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> And being a second or third generation wanna-be 1960s social >> >>>> >> >>> justice warrior going thousands of miles to hang with other >> >>>> >> >>> like minded people and think you are really doing anything be >> >>>> >> >>> being cold, being an ass, being stupid and wasting your time >> >>>> >> >>> and the resources of local, state and federal authorities. >> >>>> >> >>> Those folks are punks. (Their parents probably have BA in >> >>>> >> >>> liberal arts). >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> And yes, BTW, I too have made deals with tribes. It is as >> >>>> >> >>> Lewis describes. >> >>>> >> >>> You make the deal, you pay the money and more often than not >> >>>> >> >>> when tribal leadership changes, the deal no longer exists and >> >>>> >> >>> you have another round of payola. I have native American >> >>>> >> >>> heritage in my blood. Don’t get all butt hurt when I say it is >> >>>> >> >>> called “indian giving” for a reason. Tribes have communal >> >>>> >> >>> property. You never own anything, you just possess it for a >> >>>> >> >>> time until some other tribal member decides they need it. >> >>>> >> >>> That spills over to dealing with non tribal members. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > -- >> >>>> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >> >>>> > team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the >> >>>> > team. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >> >>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> > >
