3 ms·
I don't think this is relevant honestly. ( I'm assuming you want to compare the costs with other energy sources ) This reminds the question about How much ener
by mariopt 11y ago
I don't think this is relevant honestly. ( I'm assuming you want to compare the costs with other energy sources )
This reminds the question about How much energy are we spending today to build an electric/hybrid card versus a petrol one? (By comparing the factory emissions for example) Currently petrol cars are cheaper to produce because of the decades of investment, usually no one has in consideration in the equation, but on the long run eco tech wins the race. We should also expect new discoveries in Material Engineering that would help to reduce the cost and/or improve the efficiency.
I don't think it's a fair to compare the cost of producing versus the cost of petrol solutions until the planet's crust isn't a source of energy.
- ytdht 11y agoit is probably relevant if you include the maintenance costs, which are probably very low for a wind turbine.
- bottled_poe 11y agoDepending on the answer to my question, it is totally relevant. > but on the long run eco tech wins the race Fine, but if some cleaner alternative is developed over the carbon repayment period, we could in fact be better off sticking with the current technology until then.
- gonvaled 11y agoYou can not make the switch in a hurry.
- hueving 11y agoThe comparison to cars isn't relevant because cars aren't expected to produce energy. If a wind turbine couldn't cover it's own energy costs, the entire thing would have been a complete loss. It would mean they are just an inefficient way to convert fossil fuels into energy.