I have to update my understanding of Eva Creek. At the recent Rural Energy Conference and the GVEA annual meeting, we were informed that the Eva Creek wind project is only expected to be 30% efficient, thus getting only an average of 8 mw instead of the rated 24 mw. That's a big difference in payback and deserves another look. Particularly with federal and state grant opportunities, I think there needs to be a more considered look at it. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of renewable energy, but it needs to be done intelligently, just like I think we need to not invest in the 50 mw Healy 2 coal plant coincidentally for about the same $95 million. Wonder what the efficiency of this plant would be?
A recent thought about using coal as a fuel source made me think of fast food. You know it's unhealthy for you in the long term, but it's cheap and tastes good (metaphorically speaking). Even when we send coal away to east Asia, it comes back to us in the form of arctic haze and pollution.
