no.
The cost of hydropower can be high due to the significant upfront investment required for infrastructure, such as dams and turbines. However, once operational, hydropower plants typically have low ongoing operational costs and provide a stable and reliable energy source. In many regions, the long-term benefits and lower costs compared to fossil fuels can make hydropower a viable option for common use. Nevertheless, the feasibility often depends on local geographic and economic conditions.
Yes, it is, but recovery costs are prohibitive.
The costs of biomass can be prohibitive for common use due to factors such as collection, transportation, and processing, which can vary significantly based on location and availability of feedstock. Additionally, the infrastructure required for biomass energy production can involve substantial investment, making it less competitive compared to other energy sources like natural gas or renewables. However, advancements in technology and economies of scale may reduce these costs over time, potentially increasing its accessibility.
"Prohibitive" means restraining. Examples include:The prohibitive costs barred many lower-income families from participatingProhibitive measures were put in place to discourage vandals from spray painting the new building
Hydropower is generally considered a cost-effective renewable energy source, especially once the initial infrastructure, such as dams and turbines, is built. While the upfront capital costs can be high, the operational and maintenance costs tend to be low, and the generation of electricity is often cheaper compared to fossil fuels over time. Additionally, hydropower plants have long lifespans, which can further spread out costs. Overall, while the initial investment can be significant, the long-term benefits and lower operating costs make hydropower economically viable.
Well it is in common use, amounting to nearly 20% in the US. These are old plants though, the costs under present day economic conditions may prevent more plants being built.
"Prohibitive" means restraining. Examples include:The prohibitive costs barred many lower-income families from participatingProhibitive measures were put in place to discourage vandals from spray painting the new building
The cost of hydropower can vary significantly based on factors such as location, project size, and technology used. On average, the levelized cost of hydropower ranges from $30 to $60 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Initial capital costs for building a hydropower plant can be high, typically ranging from $3,000 to $5,000 per installed kilowatt, but operational costs are generally low, making it a competitive renewable energy source over time.
Hydropower has high initial costs (meaning that dams are expensive to build), however their opperating cost is very low, since they don't require the purchase of fuel (like coal does or nuclear does).
The prohibitive costs relates more to the father not preparing properly before ever talking to an attorney, than interviewing several before hiring one. see links below.
Hydropower is generally considered cheaper than fossil fuels in terms of long-term operational costs, as it relies on a renewable resource and has lower fuel costs. While the initial capital investment for hydropower plants can be high, their ability to generate electricity without ongoing fuel expenses often makes them more cost-effective over time. Additionally, hydropower benefits from lower greenhouse gas emissions, which can offset costs related to environmental impact. However, prices can vary based on location, technology, and market conditions.
Hydropower can be significantly cheaper than oil power, with estimates suggesting that hydropower is often 2 to 5 times less expensive than oil-based electricity generation, depending on the region and specific circumstances. The cost advantage of hydropower stems from its low operational costs and the long lifespan of hydroelectric plants compared to the volatile prices associated with oil. Additionally, hydropower benefits from being a renewable energy source, which can further reduce long-term costs associated with carbon emissions and fuel supply disruptions.