--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Deborah Harrell wrote: <snip>
> > I think what he was trying to do was show why wind > >can't supply a > > large part of the US' energy needs, starting with > >what *does* work, then giving the "bad news." > > I agree. But the problem is that his first major > claim was wrong. He > could have, and should have, opened with something > like, "wind power has > been decreasing in price per kWh (give a cost here > in, say, 1993 and now > in 2003) and with recently developed turbine > technology is approaching > the cost of coal power per kWh (give cost here) in > certain special circumstances." That would have been more accurate. Yet, as someone who does not 'follow' the actual math, at the end of that article I gathered that despite recent gains, there are just too many problems for wind to be a major source of energy for the US. Debbi Hey, We Mathematically-Challenged Want To Understand Things Too Maru :) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l