Re: "When the wind don't blow, the power won't flow"
- From: frank87 <frank87@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Feb 2008 18:56:39 GMT
On 2008-02-10, nada <dwaltersMIA@xxxxxxxxx> expressed:
Frank, Karl reminded me of something in his last post. Indeed...60
years is now *minimum* for 20th Century 2nd generation plants. You
stated, and I agreed, that selling wind turbines is more profitable
than almost any thing else. This is true for the big Fortune 500
manufacturers. No argument from me. But what's not arguable either is
that most nuclear plants MAKE far more profits than almost any wind
farm precisely because nuclear power plants have run for so long, are
mostly paid off and are *gold mines* for any utility that owns one.
That's because the ops costs are so low and keep on tick'n for 6
decades.
Nuclear power can go broke.
A big reason, no nuclear plants are build is the cost too
much. They start earning money in 20 years. No invester want's to take
the risc (even with the predicted raise in energy prices).
I know investors are spoiled. Most of them want their money back in 5
years.
By the way, why isn't nuclear waste used to produce energe? (I
understand it is done in spaceships)
Greetings,
Frank
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Methods of Improving Boiler Efficiency
- Next by Date: nuclear fuel against fossil fuel
- Previous by thread: Re: "When the wind don't blow, the power won't flow"
- Next by thread: Re: "When the wind don't blow, the power won't flow"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
