Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (8261)	5/15/2009 1:00:34 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86355

Wind is free too, just like fossil fuels. Windmills aren't. Nor is the land you build the windmills on. Ditto tranmission lines, ..... We have to be fair Brumar. Wind and solar are not YET credible alternatives for many other reasons, but they DO have the advantage of not requiring fuel to generate capacity. They build them, hook them up, and the "fuel" (sun and wind) are essentially free thereafter. Their real problem is lack of baseload capacity, or the requirement for additional generation capacity to charge any kinds of storage systems to provide "lull" power during night or lack of wind. If they can find a location where the wind blows 24 hours a day, they are certainly feasible (given available transmission capacity). I just think the current designs for wind turbines are prone to mechanical failure and short term lifespans and we're not going to see the ROI that was being purported. I hope that I'm wrong. Solar is just screwed for baseload capacity without cheap generation and storage solutions. Solar Thermal might be one of the best prospects, but upfront installation costs are double the cost of coal/NG. But again, they have no ongoing costs for fueling. Hawk