Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 11 2012,17:28)|
|What alternatives? I'd like to see some numbers and time lines. There are costs associated with manufacturing the alternatives.|
And there are costs with building coal and fossil plants... one of the largest of which is pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Look at the links in my blog. One of them includes lifetime costs of multiple generation systems.
Here, I've done the research for you... or at least found it.
According to the above, the levelized cost for wind is already better than coal.
In fact, wind and hydro are both better than all fossil fuels except combined cycle natural gas.
Yeah solar isn't there yet. Still, companies are building solar panels and solar thermal plants.
The costs above don't include things like pollution clean up and defense against sea-level rise. I also see no mention of subsidies in any form in the above.
As far as timelines, again wind is available now. I could live with nuclear, but there's no new nuclear plants being built. It doesn't look like there's any chance of a new one being built. It's not money (well, it is a little), it's politics. Anyone suggesting nuclear plants right now is dead meat.
A wind farm can be put up in months to a year. Plus it can start generating electricity as soon as the first turbine goes up. Only solar and wind can do that. All the others have to be completely built first.
Anyway, there's a lot to support it. Cost, no pollution, no fuel, etc. OK, there's some pollution during manufacturing, but there's some pollution when building an iphone too, no one is complaining about that. At least one company claims to have designed a more efficient turbine with permanent magnets, but I haven't seen test data for it, so I wouldn't put money either way.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.