$700 million for 420 MW peak supply???
Last year I posted an article about a gas-fired, 640-megawatt peaking plant that only cost $250 million. (Power plant planned)
And another thread (Plant fuels jobs surge in Fayette) documents a 630-megawatt, natural gas-fired plant built for $300 million.
Combined, the two plants cost $150 million less than the windfarm and generate at least 3 times more electricity.
Goes to show what a crappy idea windmills are. Even in supposedly "ideal" locations.
But "alternative fuels" are just for the rest of us, Willie.
The liberal elite would like something a little more reliable for themselves. Not to mention cheaper...
Goes to show what a crappy idea windmills are. Even in supposedly "ideal" locations.
Did your "analysis" include operating and maintenance costs, or only construction costs? Is there a "break-even" point sometime down the road, or does it show that one approach is always more expensive than the other?
What is the fuel cost to generate the electricity for your two plants to generate electricity? The usual electrical plant income statement will show that fuel costs average 30%
The fuel cost for the windmill is ZERO!
Kilowatt per hour costs for the windmill and other fuel generating schemes are about the same.
Over the long run windmills far out perform conventional power plants.
When we do the national wind farm plan we can turn off all the gas and coal fired plants and use the nuclear fired plants for peaking and load management to meet other demands, we can then use the hydrocarbons, (coal oil, and gas) for plastic forks and picnic table forks.
BTW we can also thumb our noses at the Kyoto Kooks since we would surpass the CO2 emission standards and tell them to go to Hades!
The cost of natural gas is 5 cents per kwhr and rising, Einstein, wind is free. Especially from anti-wind freepers.