[HuFlungDung]

I'm not sure that rating the viability of various energy collection schemes based on economic cost is the correct approach. Sooner or later, every scheme becomes economically feasible as the prior scheme is exhausted or depleted.

In some ways, the most economic, popular method is simply the result of mass production/mass consumption patterns, and has little correlation to the real costs in terms of side effects. Witness the decline of our western economy as the automotive industry is being strangled. It had to happen sooner or later, whether caused by recession or by limited supply of oil.

Now the wonderful western civilization built on oil maybe doesn't look so smart. The infrastructure built with oil, to maintain oil consumption appears to have decay at its roots. So was it smart to build a society this way? Is it reasonable to place the blame for the economic costs of changing over, on the newer tech, when in fact the previous (oil) scheme was not paying for all of its own costs? The initial cheapness of oil subsidized the growth of an economic system below cost, and now we cannot afford the system we built.

Some guys want to put up a wind charger. Others say, heck you'll never get your money back (based on today's electricity rates). But is it always a matter of dollars? Is that all that matters?