Not making enough profit is very different that not making any money. And greedflation is everywhere now - because any possible (((reason))) a company can use to raise more money will always be used - take the plandemic and the planned supply chain disruption, and the prices are still just as high...
The question at hand here is whether the wind turbines actually pay for themselves. If wind turbines did not make any money, that would be evident over the last 30+ years of power company investments.
Most power companies are regulated monopolies - for good or (mostly) bad. This means these companies have to submit all costs and projections to (((governments))) to get rate increases. This isn't universal of course, but the regulators that do have this control look at the capital expenditures and the projected power production and planning.
If these regulators are in any way non-retarded (a huge ask!) they would see a wind turbine that would never pay for itself and ask why the customers should have to pay for a non-usable device.
On the flip side, if it did take more electricity to make a wind turbine that it would produce, the wind turbine building company would never be able to stay in business.
This is the same economic principle as solar power in the far north climes. Adjusted for clouds, etc, the capacity factor of solar anywhere above 40 degrees latitude can be 10 to 15% or even lower. Meaning that it will produce 10% of rated output on average.
An made up economic analysis of this would show that an 8kw solar install at $35,000, estimated to last 20 years would cost $5 per day in capital investment, and on average would produce about 20kwh per day. The electricity cost would have to be greater than 25 cents per kwh to make the investment worth it.
The average capacity factor for solar in Canada is 6% - which would make that solar install produce about 10kwh per day - and now the electrical cost needs to be 50 cents per kwh to make it worth it.
And the kwh "cost" applies to both a power company or a single home user. No regulator would (or should) sign off on a solar farm that required a $0.50/kwh price to make a profit. Power companies have to justify all this to get any project approved for a rate increase - and all capital projects (installs AND decomissionings) are paid for by rate increases and need to go through regulators.
Long story short (too late!) the cost of a wind turbine is actually very low, and each one will make a profit over its design life, otherwise it would never be installed.
The communications example is a good one that could be examined in greater detail in a separate post.
localsal 0 points 1.4 years ago
Not making enough profit is very different that not making any money. And greedflation is everywhere now - because any possible (((reason))) a company can use to raise more money will always be used - take the plandemic and the planned supply chain disruption, and the prices are still just as high...
The question at hand here is whether the wind turbines actually pay for themselves. If wind turbines did not make any money, that would be evident over the last 30+ years of power company investments.
Most power companies are regulated monopolies - for good or (mostly) bad. This means these companies have to submit all costs and projections to (((governments))) to get rate increases. This isn't universal of course, but the regulators that do have this control look at the capital expenditures and the projected power production and planning.
If these regulators are in any way non-retarded (a huge ask!) they would see a wind turbine that would never pay for itself and ask why the customers should have to pay for a non-usable device.
On the flip side, if it did take more electricity to make a wind turbine that it would produce, the wind turbine building company would never be able to stay in business.
This is the same economic principle as solar power in the far north climes. Adjusted for clouds, etc, the capacity factor of solar anywhere above 40 degrees latitude can be 10 to 15% or even lower. Meaning that it will produce 10% of rated output on average.
An made up economic analysis of this would show that an 8kw solar install at $35,000, estimated to last 20 years would cost $5 per day in capital investment, and on average would produce about 20kwh per day. The electricity cost would have to be greater than 25 cents per kwh to make the investment worth it.
The average capacity factor for solar in Canada is 6% - which would make that solar install produce about 10kwh per day - and now the electrical cost needs to be 50 cents per kwh to make it worth it.
And the kwh "cost" applies to both a power company or a single home user. No regulator would (or should) sign off on a solar farm that required a $0.50/kwh price to make a profit. Power companies have to justify all this to get any project approved for a rate increase - and all capital projects (installs AND decomissionings) are paid for by rate increases and need to go through regulators.
Long story short (too late!) the cost of a wind turbine is actually very low, and each one will make a profit over its design life, otherwise it would never be installed.
The communications example is a good one that could be examined in greater detail in a separate post.