alt.energy.renewable

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:XCXIj.22052$rd2.7259@pd7urf3no...

>> The capital cost of the machine is irrelevant. The cost is the energy to
>> operate the machine is the point. The cost of water to turn the turbines
>> is nil.
>
> On the basis of your argument, nuclear and fossil fuels also provide
> "free" energy- the cost of extraction and conversion being "irrelevant"

That is nonsense. There is a cost to the energy used: nuclear and fossil.
Fossil fule is not renewable. You could live over a gas field and run
machines for free. When the fossil fuel depletes no machines turn. Unless
nature makes a major turn, rain will always fill reservoir. Run machine
that do not deplete the reservoir and the energy is free.

> as the fuel is already there-free for the taker. If, by "free" you mean
> "renewable", say so.

Renewable energy does not always = "free". Nuclear is an example. It is
not free to get.