Quote:
|
With respect to the GridWorks link, you fail to mention that the 5600 distributed energy sites accounted for a mere 6% of US power generation, which is negligible. And I didn't assume the power plants used solely fossil fuels (it wasn't even my stat; it was the DoE's).:
|
that 6% distributed figure is way back in 2001. also at 66-90 efficency, it bumps up the overall efficiency significantly. Also, they are talking about "thermal efficency" and not comparing the source of the power source. A geothermal plant can have horrible thermal efficiency but still be more desirable compared to imported oil at say 50% efficiency in overall impact. You are also comparing cost of new technology that will get cheaper as its adopted to long established tech.
Quote:
|
Did you read the spec sheet on that turbine? I almost fell out of my chair when I did. Here it is: http://www.helixwind.com/download/fa...faqs041009.pdf It produces less than 1000 kWh/year with an average wind speed of 11 mph! Oh, and the kicker, it can be ALL YOURS for $11659+ depending on the height of the tower you need (HiWindPower Product 1).
|
again, this is brand new product that hasn't reach high volume production.
Its not using exotic materials or exotic technology, all it takes is high volume to get the cost down. once this is deployed, the reoccurring costs are minimal, while conventional power plants are subject to fluctuations in supply and prices.
I posted the link to show that not all wind turbines are noisy and dangerous. thats it.
Seriously, what do you have against renewable technology? is there any of them you like? you seem to focus only on short term costs and your cost comparisons between mass market developed tech and low volume leading edge technology makes me wonder about your motivation.
is the status quo your only answer? do we keep buying fuel from the Arabs and the crazy guy Hugo? what do you propose we do?