Gigawatt said:
I think he was saying that if the US spent the equivalent of the cost of
four Nuclear Power Plants on utilizing wind energy instead, then the US
could have solved all its future energy problem, and the power wind energy
produced would be not only be clean, but would cost very little.... maybe
to little to bill.....
LOL 'maybe to little to bill....' translates to "too cheap to meter".
Now, were have we heard that before??? And please note that the price for
four nucs doesn't begin to scratch the surface. It may build wind energy
plants with the same *capacity*, but those wind plants won't produce the
same *energy*. There is a difference between *capacity* and *production*.
Average wind plant only operates at ~25% capacity factor. So you need four
times the capacity to get the same *energy*. Then you need a few $B to get
it from producer to consumer.
this low cost made it difficult for government to tax
the cheaply produced wind energy, so government decided to back the
construction of Nuclear Power Plants, instead....
The idea that the government would conspire to block cheap electricity just
so it can tax it is ridiculous. The gov't can easily tax by the kWhr,
always have. The underlying cost of electricity has little to do with the
government's ability to tax it (or anything else for that matter).
Cigarettes in NY is a perfect example. The taxes are more than twice the
actual cost of the product.
But the OP *DOES* make a good point about not paying 25% more for renewables
from a utility. Better to save the difference and invest it yourself in
energy conservation and self-reliance. Another good investment for those
concerned about the environment is *education*. If more folks knew the
difference between kW and kWhr, capacity and capacity factor, and energy in
general, we would all be better off.
daestrom
