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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (36467)	8/21/2009 4:45:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

properly sited Which is a limitation on it. Site considerations are far more important than with conventional power plants, and many of the best spaces are far away from the areas that need the most electricity, or from distribution infrastructure. wind is not* 'more expensive'* Per peak capacity no, its not, in fact now its gotten to the point where it can often be less expensive. Per actual kwh produced? On the whole it is. The TOTAL amount of subsidies going into any particular energy technology says NOTHING about what the true cost to produce electricity with that technology would be. The information I provided was no the total amount of subsidies but rather the percentage of total spending in each area represented by subsidies. Its a measure of how subsidized different forms of energy are. Also what I said was false was not "what the true cost to produce electricity with that technology would be", but rather what you said and I quoted - "article 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". The percentage that spending on each is subsidized IS a common denominator to compare them to each other.