Line up and get your free tax subsidies here!
http://www.strata.org/wp-content/upl...t-of-Wind1.pdf
Line up and get your free tax subsidies here!
http://www.strata.org/wp-content/upl...t-of-Wind1.pdf
I found no good comparison as to how much wind power cost as compared to carbon fueled power. If I missed it please point it out as I scanned it. I can certainly see where it appears to be more than initially estimated. IF it's a long term viable alternative, those are infrastructure costs that are one time fees akin to a pipeline.
The document isn't a cost comparison between wind and carbon based energy.
It's an analysis of what the actual costs are for wind energy.
This is the way it is intended to work the way I understand it. New technologies believed to be in the best interest of society are subsidized to get them off the ground earlier than the private sector would do it. People will certainly disagree on how much a particular technology is worth or how far ahead it should be subsidized, but that is the intent. I certainly agree that in strategic areas that need to be addressed a decade or more ahead of time it is worthwhile. The private sector just can't look ahead that far or they will have problems staying in business in the meantime. There are bound to be misses where a technology doesn't pan out (can you say corn ethanol?), but I think it is worth trying. The biggest downside is that politics and corruption creep in (can you say corn ethanol?) and the cost of disappointing technology becomes much higher than it should be.
I'm not trying to be critical or obtuse, but, until you know how even the high priced wind energy compares to our current energy methodologies you don't know if wind energy is worth it or not in the future. I'll say that I have no idea. A quick google hunt indicates that wind is cheaper but not by as much as a good liberal would expect.Originally Posted by dwarthog
The answer to that question isn't possible if you don't accurately assess the true costs of wind energy. That was the point of the study, to get an assessment of all the costs that are required to produce wind energy.
More than a few folks believe you just put up some wind turbine and then you can shutter a coal plant. Problem solved, but as the study points out that is far from being true. Wind energy is unreliable and power plants have to go into a mode called baseload cycling to fill in the gaps when the wind doesn't blow. This is a cost of wind energy, it's not self sustaining.
The study indicates the true costs are underestimated by some 50%.
Battery Technology would be a better investment than power sources. With good batteries, it opens up a lot of options for other types of energy.
Yeah, I didn't read the link, but I agree with this. It can obviously get misused, but it's a good idea. If it's not profitable, but we need it, then we can either make it more profitable for private business, or the government can use that tax money to try to solve that problem by itself. I'm betting on the private businesses.
I'm sure we are doing that too, at least at the academic research level (I know Stanford has grants for battery research). Tesla has leveraged many government programs to advance both battery and electric car technology. I believe that alone has accelerated electric and alternate fuel cars by a decade. Tesla's venture into large scale grid storage is an interesting twist. In addition to opening up various types of energy generation as you mention, it also allows the power grid to be more distributed and less vulnerable to sabotage.
North Texas put up three wind turbines when they built their new, imitation football stadium. The cost was $ 4 million, $2 million of which came from a federal subsidy.
As of today, they have saved $63,420 in electricity costs - http://northernpower.kiosk-view.com/unt. The turbines became functional in February. So, they are averaging a "savings" of $1,585.50 a month.
At that rate, it will only take 2,482 more months - or, 206.9 years - for the project to pay for itself.
(This, of course, assumes that there are zero maintenance costs involved in the wind turbines.)
Last edited by Tear Down This Wall; 7/7/2015 at 03:36 PM.
"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
President Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987
Baby steps....
---Why don't all you good Liberals put your 401K in these projects----Come on ---lean forward----make a difference
Yeah. The government only subsidizes 106 years of it.
"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
President Ronald Reagan at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987
---N0----Just another Gov't Boondoggle
Look at all the trees that they saved. Can you put a price on that?
Ask Old Boone how much he pocketed!
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
----Boone took a bath on his project
Really? Or is that what he wants the Public to think?
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Just a Little diggin and it appears he did indeed lose his as* on em
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
We all are and thanks for your contribution.
Posting Permissions
