3 ms·
If they have managed anywhere even close to their claimed cost reductions then this is very cool. Wind is already on par with oil in terms of EROEI.
by lotsofmangos 11y ago
If they have managed anywhere even close to their claimed cost reductions then this is very cool. Wind is already on par with oil in terms of EROEI.
- ci5er 11y agoIf oil were the primary fuel for electricity generation, you'd have a solid point. Assuming that we were to compare it to natural gas, for which you may have used oil as a proxy, this provides some substantiation to your claim: - http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1863 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1863 But the calculations here don't reflect that peak power generation doesn't reflect peak demand. So, we've looking at adding in battery's costs too. At the end of the day, if a greedy capitalist can make a bigger buck (with or without government subsidies) with wind than they can with coal or natural gas, they will. Given that the efforts to bring new capacity on-line fluctuate (dramatically!) with the comings and goings of government subsidies, my guess is that they aren't quite the competitive economic wonder, at this point, that they are touted to be. YMMV.