Bitcoin Forum

Meanwhile, a very strange paradox (https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/another-possible-bank-failure-pacwest-reportedly-seeks-buyers-stock-drop) has emerged in the US wind energy market:
Negative profitability territory is a more politically correct designation for the billion-dollar losses that the US wind power giants have been suffering for several years, despite the political importance of the climate change agenda and generous government subsidies in the campaign to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.

What I’m seeing is a colossal market failure (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-25/wind-power-s-colossal-market-failure-threatens-climate-fight).

Against the backdrop of growing economic problems in the United States, this green environmental movement is becoming more and more like a large-scale scam to develop budget funds for an initially economically unviable idea.

Share your opinion on this matter.

Are people using this wind power still? There must be enough wind to get the exact result they wished for.

I have never liked this wind power of a thing right from the day one when I was trying to build my first set of mining rigs, years ago some of my friend advised me to use wind power and from my own research I've got to know that the negative impacts on wind power is the climate change, you have to make sure that you're getting a lot of wind in your area before setting up a wind power.

The disadvantage is too high and I don't like it and from my own area I think that using the energy from the sun is far more better than using wind power I have some friends outside country in United State of America from Texas and I hear that it's a good place to set up a wind power generator, because it's always windy.

People are still making the use of wind power supply but you can't compare the percentage of its output and utilization to that in hydroelectric power supply, solar and any other renewable means of power supply such bio gas organic power supply and many more, the capacity to which all these could provide us individuals is vert little compared to an industrial application which more demands for power, this makes it more common today that the best in use is with the hydroelectric power supply, wind power supply probably could be applicable in some certain levels on research purposes or where the demand in limited to high voltage supply.

Obtaining energy from wind is one of the most fastidious branches of energy. Special wind conditions are needed in order for wind turbines to pay off and bring profit. And judging by this news, they didn't bring her either. And it worked only for the future, rather as an experiment. It seems to me that it is necessary to develop this direction, it is eco-friendly, but to strengthen supervision over the appropriation and sale of funds allocated by the state.
Because in any case, in the future it will be a profitable project.

The term of President Joe Badin was the beginning of work to legalize renewable energy industries, but the rise in prices, what happened with Russia and Ukraine, the rise in food prices and inflation all made any policy that a government would implement in the wind. The backlash in political events will delay all sustainable development plans for several years in the future, which will harm the industry. The brilliance is that there are guaranteed funds that will agree to the industry, and therefore the money allocated to research will increase, including cheaper costs and better energy.

There are only two green power industries that really provide value and can be trusted, namely solar and hydro energy, apart from these two industries it seems that it is just a scam business. Especially for wind energy, building one wind turbine requires millions of dollars but the results obtained are not worth the costs incurred. Moreover, since it was first introduced, equipment in this industry is not getting cheaper, in contrast to solar panels which are now getting cheaper. So what the wind business is doing is siphoning money from the government to fulfill their so-called "renewable energy" dream.

That's why it's advisable never to be certain in the dark or without a bright shining "head light".
If your model of the World or existence is wrong, you will likely encounter similar issues.
They missed the fact that life/existence degrades when evil increases. Evil = "anything that creates problems and lowers the quality of existence"

Certainty increases when evil is little to zero, while uncertainty increases when evil is much. Evil darkens the mind, and Prediction/Calculation of a darkened mind is limited or full of errors like the error of missing the behaviors/nature of things in future supply chain , resources extraction, global pandemic etc

All "renewable energy" has a profitability problem. The pitch the elites gave us was that we must pay higher prices for energy in order to save the planet while they were allowed to emit more pollution than some small countries.


I've seen this complacency happen before. People become so comfortable with the state of affairs they actively seek matters to complain about for the sake of activism. Climate change activism is a career for some people. Greta Thunberg has the climate change grift down to a science so much so the UN asked her to give a speech.

AFAIK, there's always a big budget needed for these renewable energy and if it's with wind energy. This scaling is entirely different from the typical that everyone knows which is the solar power and that's more preferred by many than of wind. But then, we're all for the renewable energy and anyway of acquiring them. It's best for them to be placed on the right places where it should be used and if these giant companies are complaining about their profitability, they have to reassess if they're still working on these days because there are some other sources that people do prefer and location is the key pertaining to wind energy.

As for reading this editorial: Wind industry faces a perfect storm of profit pressures (https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/wind-industry-faces-a-perfect-storm-of-profit-pressures/)
It states that the global issue that we're experiencing is one of the major catalysts for why the Wind Energy sector experiencing negativity in profits. Cost of material has increased and that's all because of the war, covid19 and inflation.
I think this is all a domino effect but then US' government and those agencies that are concerning this sector should give some help to these companies that they shouldn't just back out this business and give them some appropriate help of like subsidizing anything on their terms as it will kill a lot of jobs and will cause another domino impact.

If we ignore the drawbacks of employing a wind power source and continue to emphasize its benefits, we will eventually have to deal with serious repercussions that were first disregarded. It is appealing to use since it offers minimal running costs and a renewable energy source. It is difficult for it to be widely embraced because it is limited to specific regions of the world where there isn't always enough wind to operate the turbine. I think it's a great idea to lessen our reliance on fossil fuels, but we shouldn't rely on it too much because it might fail at any point should the source that powers it cease.

Must be a weird situation, why is it a negative loss for them? I have a friend who works in a wind farm company and they have 27 wind farms, not the biggest I know but they are making a hefty profit all the time. They do get some tax cuts as well, so that helps, but USA companies get that too, what makes them lose money? I mean we need to look at what the costs are, that's the trouble because if one nation has wind farms that are profitable and another has it losing money, even when putting up money for it, I feel like there must be something wrong going on, it shouldn't be losing money, it should be making money in buckets. But if the problem is with wind, then if we want clean energy, we do not really need to use wind alone, there are other stuff as well we can use, so it could be no issue at all. Just switch to solar if that's better, depends on the geography I suppose? Not entirely sure, whatever works for you basically, whatever makes profit for that nation, do that. Green energy is a seriously important subject and not a fake deal, we really do need it, but we don't have to insist on a single style, we can give up what doesn't work and switch to something that works and makes profit.

My personal experience operating a wind turbine is that the technology just isn’t there yet. When compared to solar there is considerably more upkeep and ongoing cost for much less output. I think as it currently exists, the only good use for wind turbines are to trickle charge batteries in remote areas or on boats to keep their batteries from dying when not in use.

Wind power is still useful in some places, but unfortunately it isn't really possible to make a lot of money off of this because there are a lot of renewable sources out there that does fair better compared to it. Solar energy, for example, while needing to spend a huge amount on the initial costs, returns a lot of energy in the long run which makes the investment and the maintenance worthwhile. Wind turbines are still useful on small villages that aren't reachable by the power grid, but you don't expect someone to just donate one and run one on a far-off place without getting anything from it.

reading the article its not about losing the climate fight about relying less on fossil fuel.

its about the supply chain of not relying on china.
the article admits china's windfarm capabilities are profitable and competitive. but the US wants to stop feeding china with money for supplies.
so ofcourse using US steel and US labour instead of imports/migrant workers will push the costs up.

but here is the thing.
fossil fuel companies need to realise they are a dying breed of business so they need to stop taking profits out to buy yachts and lambos and instead use their dying business models profits to re0invent their business and actually invest that money into "US built" wind farms

however when they get free government grants ontop of their fossil fuel profits. and they get tax deductible policies, they just take out more profits

heck its 2023 and last year there were cries about not having the fuel due to russia/ukraine. and instead of investing more into renewable to have less reliance on other countries. instead of not claiming profits and sidelining funds for investments.. they instead took more profits last year than in previous years

A decade ago, back in 2013 I had a chance to interact with a few people who were involved in wind turbine installation. Back then, they were quite bullish about the prospects of wind energy. The cost of production was comparable with that of solar energy, and it was considered as an option that is suitable for a wide range of regions (not just regions with high solar radiation). One decade has passed, and the situation has changed completely. Solar production cost has come down considerable, while wind power has become more expensive. No one talks about new projects nowadays.

I guess the profitability problems with wind power which involve supply chain, manufacturing, vendor, and other issues have nothing to do with it being a way to grow less dependent on fossil fuel. Surely, there must be a lot of scams and exaggerations and hypocrisy and propaganda involved in this climate change movement, but if only we call spade a spade, harnessing wind power for energy is a good thing. The room for improvement in terms of efficient technologies to produce this renewable energy cheaply is significantly big, though. And, of course, wind energy could only be viable in select spots where the wind is expected to be strong all year round.

I think it is incorrect to characterize the green environmental movement as a large-scale ruse to raise budget dollars for an originally economically unviable proposal. Renewable energy production is a critical step in lowering greenhouse gas emissions and achieving a more sustainable future. True, renewable energy, especially wind power, confronts severe economic hurdles that must be solved.

Furthermore, it is critical to recognize that transitioning to a sustainable future necessitates a collaborative effort from all stakeholders, including governments, industry, and individuals.

Diversifying to renewable energy is a capital-intensive task but it is no doubt beneficial to the environment. It is glaring that there is a need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases but the economic condition of the US is fragile and more attention needs to be paid to the banking and the entire financial sector. Giving these wind power equipment producers subventions or grants might be the best option but considering the financial standing of the US, the drive for green energy should be reduced for now until the economy recovers. Even the UK government had to open up some of its abandoned coal mines because of the problems caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In times of emergency, some drastic decisions need to be taken.

Yes, This shows that there are structural issues within the industry that need to be addressed and it remains to be seen if these issues can be resolved and wind power can become a viable alternative to fossil fuels. I think that corporate collaborations between wind power and other renewable energy technologies, such as battery storage or solar power, can also help create more reliable and cost-effective renewable energy systems.

I think it's also good that enterprise collaborations between wind power and other renewable energy technologies, such as battery storage or solar power, can also help create more reliable and cost-effective renewable energy systems.

What I noticed is that the government have scaled back subsidies for renewable energy developers to make them more competitive which caused a decrease in turbine prices and frustrated some manufacturers.

Despite many manufacturers developing bigger turbines to capture more winds, the inventories became more costly to introduce. Energy storage banks for the wind-turbines can help make it a more sustainable alternative to fossil fuels due to the greater damage caused by fossil fuels to the ozone layer depletion.



You see, in the end, I believe that many independent manufacturers and wind power giants in the United States and other European countries will need to fall back on Bitcoin technologies to maintain some level of market control in the face of the government's controlled market.

For OEMs and other developers, adoption of the Bitcoin trade could at the very least mitigate the effects of market product value loss, among other deficits caused by the market crisis.

It's funny and ironic that citizens are supposed to pay the price for pretty much everything regarding the environment, whether it is a green tax on single-use plastics, car emissions, or electricity. I'm all in to preserving the environment, but I'm also careful myself and try not to waste resources or be ignorant and throw trash around.

I always recycle, try not to use my car as often, and walk around, whenever possible. However, everything that is environmentally friendly is expensive, from disposable bags to paper straws to other kinds of packaging that isn't plastic. Why must these eco-friendly products be more expensive than the regular ones? Why am I supposed to pay the incentive of being thoughtful about the environment when large corporations are doing what they please, not caring at all, when they're the ones creating the issue in the first place?

It's very funny to see a business run without thinking about the losses from their operations, even without shame they still ask for donations from the government for their vision for environmentally friendly renewable energy. Even though it's not only wind, there are still other renewable energy sources that offer better energy output at a much cheaper cost compared to what is offered by wind turbines. The dream of renewable energy seems to be a great business to exploit and businesses in the wind energy industry see it as an opportunity and are not wasting it

Honestly I have no idea why someone would choose to build an electric generator that relies on wind. The only thing that comes to mind is a business that need constant power flow both during day and night so they add these generators to increase nighttime production, but then, why not just add more solar panels and more batteries to accumulate a greater amount during the day? The difference in cost must be marginal and wind generators require much more maintenance.

Wind power generators are expensive to build, prone to failure due to mechanical parts, can destroy themselves completely if the breaking system fails during strong wind, are hard to maintain and fix because all important components are located very high and you have to climb a ladder to get there. The cost of these things is so high that ROI is much worse than with solar panels.

In this 21st century, I don't think the idea of Wind power is something people should consider when there are the best alternatives like solar power not to mention the drawback of the noise pollution that the wind turbines will generate noise which raises concern for residents living close to the turbines another is the wind speeds will also vary at some point.

Must acknowledge the potential drawbacks of any energy source, including wind power, and ensure that we are taking a comprehensive and balanced approach to energy production and consumption. Wind power is limited to regions with suitable wind conditions, and its performance can be affected by changes in weather patterns and other factors. Additionally, wind power alone may not be able to meet all of our energy needs, and a mix of different renewable energy sources may be necessary to achieve a sustainable energy future.

That's true that these business probably have anticipated their potential loss already before they continue after having that analysis that they might experience losses and not even close to break-even. But with their noble business as they say as it's helping the environment, that's what they're capitalizing as business and have to offer to the people. It's like having that psychological conscious buying for their customers as strategy.

What you've said are facts, it's actually a great business that these have foresee it before they go into actual business. But the respond of the market, for their target customers didn't go well as of now.

Maybe soon when all of these crises are nearing to its end or showing signs of recovery, they'll get up again and their sales will bump.

You are correct  that wind energy is echo friendly and sustainable source of energy. However, its profitability a a project is a challenge due to specific requirement for wind pressure and maintenance issue that arise during the operation. Despite these challenges, I remain optimistic that as the technological development advances with continued government funding for research based projects, wind energy  will become viable source of green energy in future.

Nevertheless, science does not stand still and the design of wind turbines is constantly being improved. The School of Technical and Industrial Engineering of the University of Oregon made a comparative analysis of the payback of air installations. And at the moment, the result is amazing, it's only 7 months! The main thing is just to find a good place for wind turbines.
Therefore, everything is not as bad as OP wrote.

I am no expert on green energy, but I looked into solar energy for my dad who thought about putting some panels on our roof. The main problem with green energy is that it all depends on the location where you put them. In our case it just didn't make sense to put down solar panels because they wouldn't profitable long term, the amount of sun we are getting is not enough and once the government substitutions run out it wouldn't make sense anymore. In wind energy it's very similar, the wind turbine need to be placed in areas with the most wind. The best place for them is actually in the ocean, as there can be much bigger turbines than on land. The problem is that most people don't live near an ocean. The best would be if we can transfer energy over large areas without any loss, unfortunately technology is not ready yet to store large quantities of electricity. 

They also kill birds.

More or less it's the same situation we have with electric cars, where they aren't cheap, efficient, have inadequate range, aren't easy to make or fix, are actually more combustible and prone to failure than traditional cars, yet we are told that they're somehow better.
Wind power sucks because it's completely unpredictable, unless you use VAWT generators, but these are even bigger and slower moving. They can work with very weak winds, but their efficiency doesn't go up much in strong winds.

Lot's of morons in here. Wind is a shit source of energy. You can't schedule it and it's often produced when unneeded and the power has to be dumped. Sure it seems cool when your using other peoples money.

Solar, problem is it's unavailable during peek demand.

If someone says batteries they get a throat punch.

Nuclear power is the only way. 24/7/365 100%

While it is true that some wind power companies in the US have faced financial difficulties, it is also important to consider the long-term benefits of renewable energy sources in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

Additionally, the economic viability of wind energy may vary depending on factors such as location, government policies, and technological advancements.
It is also important to note that subsidies for fossil fuels have been a longstanding practice in many countries, which can skew the market in favor of non-renewable energy sources. Ultimately, the question of whether wind energy is economically viable depends on a range of factors and can be subject to debate.

No energy source is perfect, not even nuclear power. The benefits of economic activity may be good, but the harm is no less than an exploding nuclear bomb. For example, in the earthquake and tsunami that caused a serious nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, the amount of damage was estimated at several hundred billion dollars, not including the loss of life or the way to overcome it. Besides, if you leave it in the war, maybe one fine day a rocket will launch directly there, and the end will be known. So compared to the above two sources of energy, at least in terms of limitations, it is still better than nuclear energy.

Enough wind yes, enough equipment to get around and actually make it sustainable? No.

Which is also why it's a failing industry as we speak. Demand is so unrealistically low despite the fact that it's one of the most safest and most efficient energy resource out there by space covered alone. Sure you could argue that solar energy is more efficient and I would say it is but compared to wind energy it is far more underdeveloped for some reason. Feels like someone is actively undermining the progress to capitalize on the profit that fossil fuels and other non-renewable sources of energy provides, but I digress.

There has to be some way we could efficiently rally the use of more renewable choices over their more dangerous counterparts. We're running on borrowed time and if things don't get better until 2030-2050 we're fucked royally.

Profitability of green energy and wind energy in particular depends on many factors: like location for example. In some places if can be profitable in other not so much. Flat or almost flat countries with access to the sea/ocean have more chances in becoming profitable in wind energy. 

It is also possible, that wind park operators are heavily investing in new wind turbines which are known to be ridiculously expensive. So, if you're running a wind energy park of say 100 turbines and buy/install 10 more you're suffering losses and in most countries you don't have to pay taxes but it doesn't mean your business in not profitable.

for the maintenance costs incurred, hydro energy is said to have a greater cost than wind energy but there is something even cheaper, that is solar energy;


[1] https://www.rocketsolar.com/learn/energy-efficiency/how-cost-solar-panels-has-fallen

is still a complicated issue, why does the U.S. Govt focus on ^(renewable) wind energy whereas based on data and facts, it will only make them pay more than other renewable energy developments. 

Governments are doing absolutely the right thing by betting on alternative energy sources that do not pollute the environment and do not pose a serious danger to others. It should be taken into account that we are at the stage of dramatic climate change, which will be accompanied by large and powerful natural disasters, which is very dangerous for Nuclear Power Plants. We can see this in the example of the accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant "Fukushima-1". Each nuclear power plant is, in fact, a nuclear bomb inside the country, which, for various reasons, can be activated.
In my opinion, it is better to pay more attention to solar panels, which continue to improve and become cheaper.

I think the green movement is also not much different from green energy which used to be quite popular but none of them really made it to the success of making bitcoin energy efficient or environmentally friendly. it's all just bullshit voiced only they want to take advantage of people's investment in projects with bullshit. forget it, even now there are no projects with "green energy".