It actually depends of the size and location. Like there is no point of putting a 2 million machine in the desert if it doesn't do anything
because it is melemish Because it generates huge amounts of radioactive waste. Its not easy to get rid of radioactive waste. Uranium, a common byproduct of nuclear power, have quite a long half life.
Wave energy can be expensive to generate due to high initial installation costs. However, once operational, wave energy can provide a consistent and renewable source of power, potentially offsetting costs over time. Advances in technology and larger-scale installations may help make wave energy more cost-effective in the future.
Yes, power lines can make a buzzing or humming noise due to the electricity flowing through them.
There are federal and state government programs and mandates that provide enough of an incentive to make a certain amount of wind power development economically attractive. As the number of wind turbines being marketed has increased, the price of the generators has come down. Prices were high back in 2008, 2009 when there was a big increase in demand but production capacity was limited. Production capacity has since increased and the number of units being sold has leveled off, so prices have come down considerably in the last couple of years. Some portions of the cost are what I call 'accountant's money'. Money paid on interest to loans, and to some extent, money paid to the person who owns the land on which the turbines are built. If you own the land on which the turbine is placed, and you're not borrowing the money to build it, the cost of the electricity from wind drops dramatically and it is economical. Size also matters in this issue. Small home systems that produce several hundred watts can be as inexpensive as $600.00 to install. I have twin 400 Watt units on my home that supply power in parallel with 3000 watts of solar panels into non grid inverters. The payback of the wind systems is about 15 years, while the solar panels is over 25 years. The return on investment is not ideal, they provide very quiet backup power in areas were grid power is not consistent and backup is vital. If you are believing that this is a green power, you may become slightly disappointed when you look at all the power it takes to build and the energy used to maintain, but these systems do have their place.
Without more information about the source of electricity, it is difficult to make specific inferences. Different sources, like fossil fuels, nuclear power, or renewable energy, have varying environmental impacts, costs, and reliability. It's important to consider these factors when evaluating a source of electricity.
no.
no
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.
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.
The cost of certain technologies can indeed make them prohibitive for common use, particularly if they require expensive materials, specialized manufacturing processes, or extensive infrastructure. Additionally, ongoing maintenance and operational costs can further limit accessibility for average consumers. However, as technology advances and economies of scale are achieved, prices often decrease, making them more accessible over time. Ultimately, the balance between innovation, affordability, and consumer demand plays a crucial role in determining widespread adoption.
Cost prohibitive
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.
No. Worldwide, about 20% of electric power is hydro. In the 1940s and 1950s, the cost of fossil fuels was so cheap that hydro was not competitive, but since the 1970s, the costs of fossil fuels have risen, so hydro is economically attractive.Today, hydroelectric power is the single largest source of renewable energy. Of all renewable sources, hydro accounts for 97% of the energy produced, while wind, solar, geothermal and biomass combined are only 3%.The only problem is that hydro doesn't have much potential for growth. Most of the good large dam sites have already been developed.
The high upfront cost of installing a geothermal energy system, including drilling and equipment expenses, is a major barrier for widespread adoption in common use. While geothermal energy offers long-term cost savings through low operational and maintenance costs, the initial investment can be prohibitive for many households and businesses. Additionally, the availability of suitable geothermal resources varies geographically, further limiting its common use.
Yes, because you have to make a river come to the area to make a dam work with make hydro power.
You need to have status power which costs 400 xats. Then press $status=(message)
The power to legislate and make laws.