NationStates Jolt Archive

In previous posts I mentioned that nuclear power was cheaper than wind power. But recently I've been looking at information put out by the International Energy Agency which seems more reliable than the source I used before and they say that wind is a cheaper power source than nuclear. According to them, once capital costs and financing are taken into account, nuclear energy costs about 4.7 cents per kilowatt-hour while wind costs about 4.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. Coal is only slightly cheaper and costs about 3.8 cents while gas costs about 3.6 cents.

Since sequestering CO2 from coal plants will increase the cost of coal power by perhaps 25% or more it appears that clean coal probably cannot compete with wind or nuclear as a cost effective source of low emission energy. However there may be areas where coal is plentiful which will make it cost effective to use.

Wind power is variable which causes more difficulties the more you use. A typical national grid can get 10% of it's power from wind without difficulty and up to 20% with little additional cost.

These figures lead me to believe that in order to keep atmospheric emissions low, most countries should be looking to get 20% of their energy or more from wind power with the bulk of their power coming from nuclear energy and with contributions from hydroelectric power, clean coal and thermal solar for hot water. If other forms of low emision energy come down in cost then they could also contribute. Does eveyone agree with the International Energy Agency's figures and my conclusions?

The problem is, one wind turbine makes fk all power. You need a shit load of them to get enough power so many countries simply wont have the space. The US should have loads of empty hills that would be perfect for wind farms though..

The problem is, one wind turbine makes fk all power. You need a shit load of them to get enough power so many countries simply wont have the space. The US should have loads of empty hills that would be perfect for wind farms though..
We have some nice ones here. Went to have a look at them for geography last year.
I quite like the idea of wind power and I definatly prefer it to nuclear power. Personally, I'm not at all surprised that it's cheaper.

The problem is, one wind turbine makes fk all power.

Thats not really true. There is a prototype wind farm to the south of me (well it about 3 hours away but I've been there). There are only 5 or 6 turbines and they power 20,000 or so houses.

Having said that, expected all countries to put turbines up is insane. It depends on the geographical location, wind strength, etc etc. It works for some, and those that can, should.

The problem is, one wind turbine makes fk all power. You need a shit load of them to get enough power so many countries simply wont have the space. The US should have loads of empty hills that would be perfect for wind farms though..

They can be built on farmland. They only take up 1% of the ground space. The other 99% can still be used for farming and grazing. There is also the option of putting them offshore.

Having said that, expected all countries to put turbines up is insane. It depends on the geographical location, wind strength, etc etc. It works for some, and those that can, should.

Of course wind power can only be used where there is wind, but power grids can be quite large these days and can extend across several countries so I think there would be very few grids outside of the equatorial doldrums that wouldn't have suitable spots for wind power. Even in the doldrums seabreezes along the coasts of large landmasses could provide a steady source of wind.

Thats not really true. There is a prototype wind farm to the south of me (well it about 3 hours away but I've been there). There are only 5 or 6 turbines and they power 20,000 or so houses.

Having said that, expected all countries to put turbines up is insane. It depends on the geographical location, wind strength, etc etc. It works for some, and those that can, should.
Ohhh... *thinks about all the gigawatts of power during a hurricane.*

Ohhh... *thinks about all the gigawatts of power during a hurricane.*

Don't get too excited. They actually turn the blades to slow or stop them during huricanes to prevent damage. Although it is interesting to speculate what might happen when wind turbines are porducing plenty of power. In some places they are experimenting with charging for power by the minute. When there is plenty of wind you power costs may actually fall to next to nothing or even nothing. Your house could be rigged up so that your air conditioner, hot water system, fridge, heaters, etc. automatically work the most when power is the cheapest.

A combination of wind and solar along with coal and nuclear as load stabilizers is going to be the path for energy development. Biomass, hydroelectric, and geothermal will also be critical components in the regions they are developed in. Wave power will also

Here's an amazing fact: wind power was the second largest source of installed megawatts worldwide last year, and it's growing even faster this year. The rise of distributed generation makes it a reality that in a few years natural gas plants will no longer be needed as load stabilizers.

Another cool idea is the plan for a pan-European electricity grid, which would enable plants across Europe to feed in to each nation on the grid, enabling wind and solar plants in Spain or France or anywhere hooked to the grid to make up for calm weather at wind turbines in the Netherlands or cloudy weather at solar plants in Germany or problems anywhere in the grid. This is the future of electricity generation, and a massive boon to alternative energy because it reduces and even eliminates the need for backup gas/coal/nuclear plants.

...... According to them, once capital costs and financing are taken into account, nuclear energy costs about 4.7 cents per kilowatt-hour while wind costs about 4.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. ....
Does that include cost of storing nuclear waste forever? And possible cost in case of mistakes, either at plant or sometime during the near-eternity of storage?

....Wave power will also.........
And tidal currents. That is pretty stable.

Inasmuch as we need LOTS of extra power soon, all sources are quite nice.
But some of 'em are nicer than others.

Your house could be rigged up so that your air conditioner, hot water system, fridge, heaters, etc. automatically work the most when power is the cheapest.
Yeah, but those are the kinds of things you want running all the time, regardless of the costs. It's much like those road charging systems they're proposing, where they charge more if you go at rush hour on peak routes. It doesn't take an genius to work out that it's just a way to rip people off - people aren't going at rush hour along peak routes because they like traffic jams, they're going then because they have to. Charging more for powering things you need to power is the same warped sense of 'fairness'.

Yeah, but those are the kinds of things you want running all the time, regardless of the costs. It's much like those road charging systems they're proposing, where they charge more if you go at rush hour on peak routes. It doesn't take an genius to work out that it's just a way to rip people off - people aren't going at rush hour along peak routes because they like traffic jams, they're going then because they have to. Charging more for powering things you need to power is the same warped sense of 'fairness'.

I don't quite get you. If you listen to a fridge or air conditioner etc. you soon realize that they run intermittently. If you are charged electricity by the minute then it would be possible for them to operate more when power is cheap than when it is expensive. For example, if power is cheap your air conditioning could cool your room down to 20 degrees celcius. If power is expensive it might only cool it down to 25 degrees. A fridge or freezer could operate in a similar way and electric hot water systems can usually store hot water for a long and already they are often hooked up to operate on off peak power. If the wind is blowing strong and the price isn't lowered then people will have no incentive to use more and extra power will just go to waste. It has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with the fact that the sometimes the wind blows a lot and sometimes it doesn't.

I don't quite get you. If you listen to a fridge or air conditioner etc. you soon realize that they run intermittently. If you are charged electricity by the minute then it would be possible for them to operate more when power is cheap than when it is expensive. For example, if power is cheap your air conditioning could cool your room down to 20 degrees celcius. If power is expensive it might only cool it down to 25 degrees. A fridge or freezer could operate in a similar way and electric hot water systems can usually store hot water for a long and already they are often hooked up to operate on off peak power. If the wind is blowing strong and the price isn't lowered then people will have no incentive to use more and extra power will just go to waste. It has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with the fact that the sometimes the wind blows a lot and sometimes it doesn't.
Well, I don't have an air conditioner (this is England!) so I can't comment, but I certainly don't want my fridge to only come on when power is cheap - that sounds like a recipe for a lot of spoilt food. But, presuming it had an override function that meant it operated if it was essential, even if it was peak time, I would have no problem with your idea.

But I think wind farms are ugly, noisy things that should go at sea if we have to have them.

Does that include cost of storing nuclear waste forever? And possible cost in case of mistakes, either at plant or sometime during the near-eternity of storage?

I have no idea. But accountants can allow for the cost of storing things for ever if they have to. For the sake of this example lets say it costs a million dollars a year to store the waste. If you can get a 7% return on invested money then it would cost 14.3 million dollars in invested money to generate one million dollars return each year to pay for the storage. And I guess the accountants would include the risk of accidents in the cost of insurance, both private and that assumed by governments.

Well, I don't have an air conditioner (this is England!) so I can't comment, but I certainly don't want my fridge to only come on when power is cheap - that sounds like a recipe for a lot of spoilt food. But, presuming it had an override function that meant it operated if it was essential, even if it was peak time, I would have no problem with your idea.

It would definitely operate even a peak times. The idea is to make you life easier by saving you a little money, not give you food poisoning.

But I think wind farms are ugly, noisy things that should go at sea if we have to have them.

Well, wether or not they are ugly is a personal issue that isn't really up for debate, but modern ones are not noisy. Here I get more noise from the traffic on the road outside than I would get from a large modern windturbine in my backyard.

wind turbines are not energy efficient as they require large concrete bases to anchor them. They take ages to ever reach a point where they have generated more energy than it took to manufacture them.

Ohhh... *thinks about all the gigawatts of power during a hurricane.*

Or thunderstorm

Or tornado (hard to get, but it's there)

wind turbines are not energy efficient as they require large concrete bases to anchor them. They take ages to ever reach a point where they have generated more energy than it took to manufacture them.

The other salient issue to acknowledge in efficiency surveying is that wind turbines are only viable in a select geographic cross-section. Nuclear plants are viable at nearly any location where construction is viable, and pay for themselves much more quickly. On the other hand, i would advocate cleaner means of nuclear power, such as helium-3 fusion. While H3 fusion would not be immediately inexpensive, it would be incredibly cheap with even the smallest mining operations on the moon, as H3 is relatively plentiful in regolith, but don't ask a power company to look that far ahead... :(

Or thunderstorm

Or tornado (hard to get, but it's there)

Most forms of extreme weather tend to wreck turbines. Remember that modern wind turbines represent are lightyears ahead of the old-fashioned clockwork windmills of the middle ages. They include innumerable bearings, spindles, calibrating circuits, dynamos... any one of which is easily damaged by extreme conditions. Another pro for nuclear power: The fortifications created by housing a reactor also protect the inner workings from the outside elements.

man... does anyone else get this feeling that as soon as they post a reply on these boards, it just kills the thread instantly? Seriously, every single time. i feel like the Holly Stake of NS...

I want a nuclear power plant with windmill turbines on the roof.

And yes, I do want it in my back yard.

I want a nuclear power plant with windmill turbines on the roof.

And yes, I do want it in my back yard.

Damn. You must put up TONS of christmas lights...

And yes, I do want it in my back yard.

With solar panel covered cooling towers...I'd want one just because they look so cool, as do wind turbines and solar panels.

I live only a few miles from the Perry nuclear plant and I couldn't agree more. Generally, the people opposing nuclear power seem to not live anywhere near a power plant...curious.

wind turbines are not energy efficient as they require large concrete bases to anchor them.

How is the turbines energy efficiency affected by the amount of energy it takes to install them?


They take ages to ever reach a point where they have generated more energy than it took to manufacture them.

Show me.

First off, we've had what? Two accidents the entire time we have been using nuclear energy? Only Chernobyl was actually that bad, and that was only because the Russians were cutting corners in the safety in an attempt to catch up to the US.
Secondly, if I understand right, there is a new design for nuclear reactor that will actually let them run off of what we formerly considered nuclear waste. I'm not sure whether that is being used anywhere yet, but it solves part of the waste problem.
Besides, we should be able to bury the waste on another planet or launch into the sun or something within a few decades. Until then, is the stuff we're putting in the ground really all that more dangerous than when we took it out of the ground in the first place? I mean, we bury it in huge amounts of cement, deep underground, away from any water supply, in a geologically sound area.
Feel free to explain to me why any of this is in error, but actually explain. Don't just go saying you're wrong and giving no reason why. I hate that.

wind turbines are not energy efficient as they require large concrete bases to anchor them. They take ages to ever reach a point where they have generated more energy than it took to manufacture them.

No, it takes at most two to five years, and that is falling dramatically with each year. Wind turbines can get an EROEI of 50, with around 20-25 on average and that is improving with each generation of new technology. Oil currently gets around 5-10, and coal gets 10-30 The turbines last for years with minimal maintenace/replacment costs and require only a small amount of land for the physical turbines. Plus, EROEI is relative; if the cost of the energy put in is less than the value of the energy produced, then that amount put in doesn't matter. Even better, renewable energy is limitless and requires almost no additional input once it is installed.

As an additional benefit, alternative energy facilities can power themselves with their wind or solar plants creating a circular manufacturing model with no nonrenewable input...add in some biodiesel/ethanol/hybrid vehicles to transport and install them and it's well nigh totally renewable. Wind is one of the cheapest, cleanest, and most efficient alternative energy sources around. It's the second biggest source of installed MW capacity behind natural gas and is growing exponentially...it's driven by economics.

The only remaining barrier is distributed generation to smooth out volatility, and that's being resolved right now...but nuclear, biomass, hydroelectric or geothermal along with flow batteries and pumped storage could resolve that problem now with little additional fossil fuel power. Or you could do what European companies are planning and create a pan-European grid to smooth out alternative energy's volatility.

First off, we've had what? Two accidents the entire time we have been using nuclear energy? Only Chernobyl was actually that bad, and that was only because the Russians were cutting corners in the safety in an attempt to catch up to the US.

Well considering that the accident at Chernobyl only released 5% of what was inside.... the planet escaped lightly. It only needs one accident to seriously fuck life on this planet up.

Besides, we should be able to bury the waste on another planet or launch into the sun or something within a few decades.
Of course. We'll use a sled of winged luminous pink ponies to transport it.

Until then, is the stuff we're putting in the ground really all that more dangerous than when we took it out of the ground in the first place?
.....
...
Words fail me.. they really do.

First off, we've had what? Two accidents the entire time we have been using nuclear energy? Only Chernobyl was actually that bad, and that was only because the Russians were cutting corners in the safety in an attempt to catch up to the US.

The Chernobyl reactor was so poorly designed that it can't even compare to early Western reactors from the 1940's or 1950's. The technology today is many, many times better than it was in 1979 and is much more efficient and has more safeguards. Even so, Three Mile Island released an amount of radiation equal to smoking only two packs of cigarettes.

And I don't even want to get in to the amount of carcinogens produced intentionally or unintentionally by fossil fuel refining, processing, and production. Hydrogen is best, but nuclear is great for now.

Secondly, if I understand right, there is a new design for nuclear reactor that will actually let them run off of what we formerly considered nuclear waste. I'm not sure whether that is being used anywhere yet, but it solves part of the waste problem.

I recall that two; I'll see if I can find the article.

Besides, we should be able to bury the waste on another planet or launch into the sun or something within a few decades. Until then, is the stuff we're putting in the ground really all that more dangerous than when we took it out of the ground in the first place? I mean, we bury it in huge amounts of cement, deep underground, away from any water supply, in a geologically sound area.

The sheer amount of improvement in reprocessing technology can take care of a lot of the waste and make it in to useful fuel. The rest has reduced radioactivity and a shorter half life (some as low as 100 years), which means less risk and less to dispose of. The economics are competitive, and are getting progressively better...you're hitting the nail right on the head.

20 years from now, who knows how far we'll be? I mean, advances in computer processing power and memory today are equal to pretty much all of the gains from the 1940's to the early 1990's...and that's only one sector.

As an additional benefit, alternative energy facilities can power themselves with their wind or solar plants creating a circular manufacturing model with no nonrenewable input...

Like strapping a cat with a piece of buttered toast on it's back to a crankshaft? You might need a review of the basic principles of entropy...

is the stuff we're putting in the ground really all that more dangerous than when we took it out of the ground in the first place?
Yeah, but not after 15,000 years.

All we have to do is build geological containment for 15,000 years. Sorted.

These figures lead me to believe that in order to keep atmospheric emissions low, most countries should be looking to get 20% of their energy or more from wind power with the bulk of their power coming from nuclear energy and with contributions from hydroelectric power, clean coal and thermal solar for hot water. If other forms of low emision energy come down in cost then they could also contribute. Does eveyone agree with the International Energy Agency's figures and my conclusions?

*HUMOR ON*
Yeah, but what will happen to our wind supply?
*HUMOR OFF*

Like strapping a cat with a piece of buttered toast on it's back to a crankshaft? You might need a review of the basic principles of entropy...

Almost all of what we use fossil fuels for now can be replaced; the only reason why we still use them is because they are cheap...it sure as hell isn't their EROEI.

To reduce or even eliminate fossil fuels upon completion of the plant and initial production, put in wind turbines/solar panels at the plant and use them to power it, with backup power in the form of natural gas or on site biomass and if you go biomass grow it with alternative fuel powered machinery and fertilizers made from landfill methane.

The fossil fuel input is minimal at best, and diminishes as time passes. The same is true with solar or any other renewable technology.

are you really trying to convince me that the most efficient way of powering a Nuclear Power Plant is to build ANOTHER power plant nearby? Because yeah... not like there's any other way to get power to a power plant...

are you really trying to convince me that the most efficient way of powering a Nuclear Power Plant is to build ANOTHER power plant nearby? Because yeah... not like there's any other way to get power to a power plant...

No, I'm talking about alternative energy; the manufacturing facilities could be 100% powered and supplied by alternative fuels, but the only impediment is the cheap price of oil.

Even so, the amount of energy used in building a nuclear plant is outstripped on the order of 20 to 30 times the amount produced by it; almost all of the significant energy consumed occurs during construction and initial operation anyways. You wouldn't need another plant once it's completed.

No, I'm talking about alternative energy; the manufacturing facilities could be 100% powered and supplied by alternative fuels, but the only impediment is the cheap price of oil.

Even so, the amount of energy used in building a nuclear plant is outstripped on the order of 20 to 30 times the amount produced by it; almost all of the significant energy consumed occurs during construction and initial operation anyways. You wouldn't need another plant once it's completed.
True because we have infinate land and water to grow the huge amounts of biomass necessary. Also, we already have in place the vast "alternative" energy powered mining and transportation infrastructure necessary to provide the raw materials needed to build these power plants.

Since they keep getting mentioned...

Breeder Reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor)

No, I'm talking about alternative energy; the manufacturing facilities could be 100% powered and supplied by alternative fuels, but the only impediment is the cheap price of oil.

Even so, the amount of energy used in building a nuclear plant is outstripped on the order of 20 to 30 times the amount produced by it; almost all of the significant energy consumed occurs during construction and initial operation anyways. You wouldn't need another plant once it's completed.


Waitwaitwaitwaitwait... the energy in BUILDING a nuclear power plant, or in OPERATING a nuclear power plant? Because if you want to build a power plant just to power the CONSTRUCTION of a power plant, you might as well build a power plant to power the construction of your supplementary power plant, and now that i mention it, you might be interested in powering THAT construction too. While we're discussing slippery slopes, did i mention reviewing the basic principles of entropy?

I'm all for wind power and other renewable sources. The idea that wind power takes ages to pay itself off is preposterous. When I lived in Wisconsin, my local power company built a small wind farm in central WI (WI is not a high wind state so they used modern low-wind turbines). Acrding to their annual report on renewables, the turbines had paid for themselves within three years of activation. Hardly a long time.

I also was reading an article a few months ago, I think it was in scientific american but I can't really remember (my brain is going, I must be getting old) about plans to build wind turbines on top of existing buildings in major cities. The power generated would help power the building and any excess would be stored in battery storage systems to help power (and stabilize) the grid during off-peak production times.

Sounds like a total winning situation to me.

True because we have infinate land and water to grow the huge amounts of biomass necessary. Also, we already have in place the vast "alternative" energy powered mining and transportation infrastructure necessary to provide the raw materials needed to build these power plants.

You wouldn't need it; the energy intensity and shipping demands just aren't as large as other industries. Even so, this isn't an overnight type of system; a company willing to do it would incur a lot of extra cost, but the point is that it is possible and at least parts of it will become economical soon.

Also, biomass doesn't require a lot of land to grow the grasses necessary to power it especially on the small scale of a manufacturing plant; it could also use farm waste or waste products from the logging/paper industry or anything that produces organic, nontoxic burnable waste.

Ethanol and biodiesel can be produced on site, or produced locally and purchased wholesale. A lot of wind manufacturers produce their products in rural areas and the turbines are built in them; close proximity to farmers would provide fuel with minimal infrastructure required, and if they use the newly invented biodiesel reactors they or the farmers could produce it on site almost instantly. Plus, biodiesel from sewage is another possibility for fuel in a few years.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait... the energy in BUILDING a nuclear power plant, or in OPERATING a nuclear power plant? Because if you want to build a power plant just to power the CONSTRUCTION of a power plant, you might as well build a power plant to power the construction of your supplementary power plant, and now that i mention it, you might be interested in powering THAT construction too. While we're discussing slippery slopes, did i mention reviewing the basic principles of entropy?

You do need initial inputs of energy from other sources to build and start the plant's production, but once it is complete a power plant can be built on site to produce power and alternative fuels can supply the vehicles. You the gradually reduce the power consumed from other sources as the plant's facilities are brought on line until you no longer need it or, even better, are feeding in to the grid.

From there, the power plants on site produce the power necessary to run the facility as well as supply the expansion of the plant's power supply when needed.

That might be the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard out of someone who claims to be trying to save resources. Let me say it a third time:

ENTROPY!

E-N-T-R-O-P-Y-!

That might be the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard out of someone who claims to be trying to save resources. Let me say it a third time:

ENTROPY!

E-N-T-R-O-P-Y-!

Okay, you seem to understand it rather well. Why don't you explain it?

That might be the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard out of someone who claims to be trying to save resources. Let me say it a third time:

ENTROPY! E-N-T-R-O-P-Y-!

Why does it matter? We're talking about return on investment, not zero point or over-unity energy.

However, we're talking about return on investment, which means the amount of energy produced over the life of the project compared to the amount put in to obtaining it. Over the life of a wind turbine, you can produce many times the amount initally invested because there is no additional energy input by humans required. The wind is converted by the turbine automatically in to power for the manufacturing plant which makes more turbines to produce more power and so on.

Energy input is pretty much meaningless if the cost of the energy used is less than the revenue generated by using it. A wind turbine manufacturer could install their turbines on site to power the plant to produce more turbines, and that's all I'm saying. On site power is used all of the time to run plants, and more and more of them are using alternative energy to do so. It's not the amount of energy consumed that matters, it's how efficiently it is consumed, how it is produced, and how much it costs that matters.

Okay, you seem to understand it rather well. Why don't you explain it?

Entropy is the amount of energy in a given closed system that cannot be manipulated to do thermodynamic work. In any process, a given amount of energy is lost in sound, vibration, heat, magnetic fields, and any number of other outlets. Now, the more processes you put into said closed system, the more entropy within it, inversely proportionate to the efficiency of the given processes. Is that clear, or do i need to use little words?

Why does it matter?

Energy input is pretty much meaningless if the cost of the energy used is less than the revenue generated by using it. A wind turbine manufacturer could install their turbines on site to power the plant to produce more turbines, and that's all I'm saying. On site power is used all of the time to run plants, and more and more of them are using alternative energy to do so.

It's not the amount of energy consumed that matters, it's how efficiently it is consumed, how it is produced, and how much it costs that matters.

You don't seem to have any idea how the sequential process of energy production works. If energy plants were constructed and run on the shallow basis you put forth, we wouldn't have had an industrial world since the nineteenth century. What measures a power plant's efficiency is the sum of the cost of the power it requires to construct and operate, opposed by the sum of the revenue generated by the power it generates over the ENTIRE life span of the plant. That's how even the lowest efficiency power plants, like coal and oil plants manage to be enormously successful, despite statistically abysmal efficiency ratings. You might as well compare it to the Human Organism, which is deplorably inefficient, by machine standards, and yet remains popular to this day.

Thats not really true. There is a prototype wind farm to the south of me (well it about 3 hours away but I've been there). There are only 5 or 6 turbines and they power 20,000 or so houses.

Having said that, expected all countries to put turbines up is insane. It depends on the geographical location, wind strength, etc etc. It works for some, and those that can, should.

You could of course have selling. Central and South America, particularly the west side, have a lot of places where wind would work.

If you think about it, it would be nice to design heavy duty turbines to install in such places as the himalayas. Put in a couple thousand and we'll be talking.

. What measures a power plant's efficiency is the sum of the cost of the power it requires to construct and operate, opposed by the sum of the revenue generated by the power it generates over the ENTIRE life span of the plant.

That's what I've been saying; power plants would b e built on site to lower the costs of a company by providing cheaper power than what it would cost to buy it from a utility. And that's why companies are building alternative energy plants on site, to reduce the cost of power in the long run for a short term investment. If the cost of putting in wind turbines or solar panels is less than the savings generated by reduced energy costs then a company will do it.


That's how even the lowest efficiency power plants, like coal and oil plants manage to be enormously successful, despite statistically abysmal efficiency ratings. You might as well compare it to the Human Organism, which is deplorably inefficient, by machine standards, and yet remains popular to this day.

Yes, and wind is much cheaper than oil or natural gas. The only thing that
competes with wind on a cost level is coal, followed by solar and other alternatives. The reason why people install wind and other energy sources is because the cost of building them is less than the revenue saved or even income generated by not having to buy it from a utility.

That's what I've been saying; power plants would b e built on site to lower the costs of a company by providing cheaper power than what it would cost to buy it from a utility. And that's why companies are building alternative energy plants on site, to reduce the cost of power in the long run for a short term investment. If the cost of putting in wind turbines or solar panels is less than the savings generated by reduced energy costs then a company will do it.




Yes, and wind is much cheaper than oil or natural gas. The only thing that
competes with wind on a cost level is coal, followed by solar and other alternatives. The reason why people install wind and other energy sources is because the cost of building them is less than the revenue saved or even income generated by not having to buy it from a utility.

Your ignorance is still showing. There's a point at which outsourcing costs you more in fiscal expendatures by way of both resources and entropy than it would cost simply to save the liquid funds and build the structure on pure capital. You don't seem to grasp that concept, so i'm obviously not being clear on it: what is it about this idea that you don't understand?