4 ms·
Nope. The article explains that the wind central was, since its construction, planned to have a given life span. It is incorrect to say that they are replacing
by cauch 4y ago
Nope. The article explains that the wind central was, since its construction, planned to have a given life span.
It is incorrect to say that they are replacing wind by coal. What they are doing is closing wind that reached its end of life, and profiting from the empty space to expend coal.
In fact, this article shows even the opposite of what you say: for years, the wind central was used despite blocking exploiting the coal: the fact that they are expending the coal only when the wind central has to be closed anyway shows that the wind central was more profitable than the coal.
- perrygeo 4y ago"The wind farm was planned to have a given life span and now that it's over, no one is willing to reinvest in it. So it's become a coal mine because coal is more profitable. So that proves why wind is more profitable." I'm literally confused.
- pencilguin 4y agoMaybe look up "capex" and "opex". People mining coal get paid for the coal. People buying power buy it where they can. It must be clear to the coal miners that this might be their last chance to get a profit from their coal.
- cauch 4y agoWhy do you say "no one is willing to reinvest in it"? They are investing right now in other sites, so, basically, what is happening is equivalent to "this wind central just profited that it needed a recycle to move in another site". Again, this was the deal from the start: we will build a wind central there, even if it blocks the coal, because wind is more profitable, and when we have to recycle, maybe we will move, why not. That's really a non-event.