SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (36470)8/21/2009 5:16:34 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Just as the exact same condition would apply to *any* energy producing technology

No, not "just as", since the limitations on fossil fuel plant placement are not nearly as great.

But that has nothing to do with the cost-per-kilowatt (exclusive of subsidies).

1 - Cost per kilowatt was not the issue in terms of what I called false.

You said "made no attempt to quantify subsidy costs for various energy technologies by any common denominator that would allow for them to be compared to each other"

You did not say "made no attempt to quantify subsidy costs for various energy technologies by any common denominator that would allow for them to be compared to each other on the basis of cost per kilowatt".

2 - Cost per kilowatt isn't an important issue. Cost per kilowatt hour is far more important. Wind plants have a higher ration of kilowatts of capacity to kilowatt/hours of actual production, since their up time is lower, and their average percentage of full production when they are up is also lower. Wind does ok on cost per kilowatt, but not as well on cost per kilowatt/hour, or in terms of subsidies per kilowatt hour.

3 - The lower average utilization also means that you need backup non-wind capacity to be maintained. The cost of doing so has to be considered.

4 - "On a per unit basis, the traditional sources, received a subsidy of $0.00038 per kWh, while wind received a subsidy of $0.0234 per kWh."

masterresource.org

Message 25882706

Edit - I'd add that if I'm wrong and wind power really is generally competitive on an unsubsidized basis, great, then we don't need subsidizes to make it competitive so we should drop them (or perhaps it can get $0.00038 per kWh, if we can't also drop the smaller subsidies for traditional sources)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News