Green energy production has faced a long, uphill climb to becoming accepted as the logical choice in many countries that are currently entrenched in the extraction industry. Coal, oil and wood have long been the standard with regard to production of electricity, even though they have been proven to be damaging to the environment, dirty and expensive. Quite simply, burning a fuel source to produce electricity has consequences, and the debate over the reduction of these methods to produce electricity in favor of more modern ideas is rooted in cost and availability. The supporters of the extraction industry as the primary source of power of a country or region will argue that the damage that is produced by their methods is minimal, and is legitimized by the lower cost. The supporters of green energy will argue that the unseen costs of environmental damage outweigh the monetary costs that consumers pay, and that we should be willing to pay a higher price to reduce damage and pollution. The basic problem is that it is difficult to get most populations to accept personally paying more for something that can be produced cheaper, when the added consequences are not visible to them immediately. Even though few people would argue that they do not want to damage the environment for future generations, most will still choose to pay less today in the hopes that the damage caused will not be too great.
The costs of green energy production are not based on the purchase of a fuel source, as wind and sun are free. The costs that must be covered through the charges that are paid by consumers are found in the equipment that is necessary to produce electricity using these methods. With regard to wind power, the costs lie in the windmills, turbines, blades and electronic equipment that is connected to these components. If once these components were installed then maintenance or replacement was minimal, then power generated using wind technology would essentially be free, as there is no need to purchase the fuel that powers the turbines. The issue is that these components are continually being damaged in the field, predominately due to lightning strikes and storm activities damaging the blades, and the resulting electrical surges damaging the computer equipment attached.
Reductions to the amounts of damage sustained on a regular basis by these occurrences provides the ability to charge less for the product produced and still maintain good profit margins. By technologically advancing components that protect the equipment from surge damage, the costs of production can be dramatically reduced, making wind an obviously logical choice over fossil fuels. If the production method is not only cleaner but is also cheaper then there is no reason to debate the superiority of one method over another. If the improvements to the surge protection devices can also keep the wind power systems online and producing for longer periods when the wind is blowing, then the superiority of wind over fossil fuels is undeniable. Raycap is making this a reality with their specialized surge protection devices for windpower systems, and continues to play a crucial role in the advancing of the industry as a whole.