Your average nuclear power plant produces 2200 megawatts.
So in theory using these off the shelf wind turbines it would take $6,966,666,666 to replace one nuclear power plant.
Yes $7 billion dollars. Oh and if you only get half the rated power because the wind doesn't blow then the cost is almost 14 billion dollars.
And that doesn't include the cost of the towers, ,construction, running power lines or the land required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

$7 Billion - you're not dissuading anyone except the people who haven't looked up how much a single nuke plant will cost. Hint - A single (decent) nuclear plant will be much more than $7 billion, likely more like $10-20 billion, and that's not including decommissioning and waste costs. Not to mention, wind might not be reliable, but nuclear isn't good for dynamic power requirements.

The powers lines and land are needed for either technology. No savings there.

Wind pros over nuclear - lots of redundancy. Dispersion over large areas (hard to take out), no waste, no radiation, safer. No one source. I really like having eggs in many baskets! A single nuke plant is billions of dollars, has major health/safety/terrorist risks associated, and currently no reprocessing or good waste disposal. And I suspect using land for nuclear plant is a one-way deal.

I'm not against nuclear plants (nuclear is a great base-load tech, and shows some great potential with new designs), but your cost argument sucks.

My opinion: Stop arguing about stupid stuff. Why not do both? They cover different needs. Neither is ideal.

The least the company can do is provide a good reason, and a real justification, for the fee. All the decent potential justification I see is written by slashdot commenters, not the company. Bad sign.

I'd buy it as a line free or an infrastructure fee, if they were splitting the bill. But this is an additional fee, and the the PR wording of what *should* be a simple statement raises all sorts of alarm bells, in my opinion.

The PR flack states the company absorbs the cost already. In normal-speak, they have a single fee covering delivery and power. So splitting out the delivery cost should NOT be an 'extra' fee, and *should* be very easy to explain.

Instead of a simple explanation, it gets worse. Initially the fee is only a penalty fee for not using enough electricity from the company.

... some solar customers who used a sufficient amount of electrical energy each month would never have to pay the connectivity fee.

And to be clear, the company is making a profit reselling the solar generated electricity, in additional to the peak use benefits. It rings of greed and an excuse to slip in another fee.

Sort of true, but not entirely accurate.

Is the on-demand response slow? Stats lie. Stats mislead. Stats are only stats. The systems I'm monitoring would use more I/O if they could. Those basic read/write graphs are just the start. How's the latency? Any errors? Pathing setup good? Are the systems queuing i/o requests while waiting for i/o service response?

And traffic is almost always bursty unless the link is maxed - you're checking out a nice graph of the maximums too, I hope? That average looks mighty deceiving when long periods are compressed. At an extreme over months or years, data points can be days. Overnight + workday could = 50%. No big deal on the average.

I have a similiar usage situation on many systems, but the limits are generally still storage dependent issues like i/o latency (apps make a limited number of requests before requests start queuing), poorly grown storage (a few luns there, a few here, everything is suddenly slowing down due to striping in one over-subscribed drawer), and sometimes unexpected network latency on the SAN (switch bottlenecks on the path to the storage).

Those graphs of i/o may look pitiful, but perhaps that's only because the poor servers can't get the data any faster.

Older enterprise SAN units (even just 4 or 5 years ago) kinda suck performance wise. The specs are lies in the real world. A newer unit, newer drives, newer connects and just like a server, you'll be shocked. What'cha know, those 4Gb cards are good for 4Gb after all!

Every year, there's a few changes and growth, just like in every other tech sector.