Part of the problem is that we have been brainwashed by the corporate influences to think that something given basically for free (after startup costs for construction) such as wind and photovoltaic power, can not be THAT useful for our busy, important lives. As ijustam and others mentioned, if one looks more closely, the windfarm may be large but the land for the towers is minimal, and the remaining land can be used for other purposes, such as farming.
This is the discussion we need, so politicians can not make baseless claims and fool the people with nuclear and coal, for example.
Someone mentioned $90 million for the wind farm - but what would a new, equivalent coal plant cost? What would be the total cost comparison for both over, say, a 20 year period? As the "RiotingPacifist" said, ignoring the contradiction in her/his name, coal plants are not only expensive to build, but the cost of the fuel is increasing, as is the environmental cost. According to http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/air/coalplants/, a 1 gigiwatt coal plant costs 1.3 BILLION dollars to construct - and that is without the new regulations and standards that need to be met.
The goal these days is to calculate total cost to the country and to the world. Cleanups from coal, health effects, damage to natural resources, and so on, are large costs that have typically been hidden because they were paid by taxes and never connected back to the cost of the product (coal).
Now people are starting to look at the real economics as it affects our lives as a society, and I believe solar in all forms is pulling well ahead of the "traditional" sources of power, economically as well as in terms of preservation of beauty and respect for the planet. There are currently several power storage methods in use, and they are gradually being improved on, and will make the solar answer even more advantageous as they improve.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the problem is that we have been brainwashed by the corporate influences to think that something given basically for free (after startup costs for construction) such as wind and photovoltaic power, can not be THAT useful for our busy, important lives. As ijustam and others mentioned, if one looks more closely, the windfarm may be large but the land for the towers is minimal, and the remaining land can be used for other purposes, such as farming.
This is the discussion we need, so politicians can not make baseless claims and fool the people with nuclear and coal, for example.
Someone mentioned $90 million for the wind farm - but what would a new, equivalent coal plant cost? What would be the total cost comparison for both over, say, a 20 year period? As the "RiotingPacifist" said, ignoring the contradiction in her/his name, coal plants are not only expensive to build, but the cost of the fuel is increasing, as is the environmental cost. According to http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/air/coalplants/, a 1 gigiwatt coal plant costs 1.3 BILLION dollars to construct - and that is without the new regulations and standards that need to be met.
The goal these days is to calculate total cost to the country and to the world. Cleanups from coal, health effects, damage to natural resources, and so on, are large costs that have typically been hidden because they were paid by taxes and never connected back to the cost of the product (coal).
Now people are starting to look at the real economics as it affects our lives as a society, and I believe solar in all forms is pulling well ahead of the "traditional" sources of power, economically as well as in terms of preservation of beauty and respect for the planet. There are currently several power storage methods in use, and they are gradually being improved on, and will make the solar answer even more advantageous as they improve.