</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08)
Both of those are too expensive to impliment. "Pays for itself in the long run" is an easy phrase to say. Ponying up the dough to build them is the tough part.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
My grandparents own a small family farm in Minnesota. They built a windmills 4 years ago that cost around 30 thousand dollars. Guess what? It paid for itself in 3 and a half years. When I said "pays for itself in the long run" I guess I sounded to conservative.. gave you the wrong idea. Now they are making good money off of the windmill and they don't have to lift a finger.
"Today, according to the Danish electrical power companies, the energy cost to society (the social cost) per kilowatt-hour of electricity from wind is the same as for new coal-fired power stations fitted with smoke scrubbing equipment, i.e. around 0.04 USD per kWh for an average European site.
R&D studies in Europe and the US point to a further fall in energy costs from wind of some 10 to 20 per cent between now and the year 2005."
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
Everybody seems so eager to discredit a viable, economical source of clean energy.. do you guys work for the oil companies or something? :)
Back to the topic of this thread.. renewable sources of energy should be what we use to produce the hydrogen for the cars of the future NOT nuclear or coal.