Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
DCforever - yep, I agree. If everyone wanted to see the real cost then ALL subsidies across the board for everything should end. In addition, you should remove price regulations too for true capitalistic "free market" competition. However, I don't think that you would like to pay the new cost of power as it most areas it would monopolistic.
Where I am, the power company cannot raise my rates without going through a state board/commission, which is part of the public service commission's duties that you referred to in your post. (I am sure you know this, but other's may not). FPL has tried several times to significantly raise rates and the PSC has refused or the raise has been a lot more modest. Power generation and probably more importantly distribution, at the present cannot effectively enter the free market.
I was going to go into more detail - but I doubt anyone would appreciate it. And those that would appreciate it, already know how it works...
thecoalman- I get that different areas can take advantage of different renewable energy sources and they should. Some areas have "cheaper" ways to generate energy as well, and they should leverage those too. I am for the what works for the area. However, all legacy power generation plants and "fuels" should continue to be cleaned up and replaced with non polluting, renewable energy as the technology allows it. Coal may be cleaner than it was years ago, but it still isn't clean. And the amount of coal on the planet is certainly finite. (albeit there is a lot of it left) Besides, it is easier to disrupt the entire country if we only used one way to generate electricity. Use your coal - but I would also hope that your power company is looking at alternatives. I don't have mountains, wind on land, or volcano's either. But we do have enough Sun for PV. And the ocean is being looked at for wind and hydro power generation. And of course we use nuclear power, because we have enough "salt" water to cool down the reactors. And those two tailed, giant lobsters that congregate near the plant are delicious. (just kidding)
DCforever - yep, I agree. If everyone wanted to see the real cost then ALL subsidies across the board for everything should end.
Realize when you say that you might see your electric bill go up half a buck at most.
The renewable energy sector on the other hand would collapse without mandates for their use.
Quote:
And the amount of coal on the planet is certainly finite. (albeit there is a lot of it left)
As practical matter the amount of coal in the US has is an infinite amount, the supply is so vast it couldn't possibly be depleted before we move onto more sustainable ways to produce electric as they become feasible.
Quote:
Besides, it is easier to disrupt the entire country if we only used one way to generate electricity.
Consider what we are doing now, at a time when natgas that can finally compete with coal arrives on the market the government is moving to phase coal out. Let them duke it out on the market, it can only be beneficial to the consumer to have two plentiful fossil fuels competing for dominance.
The renewable energy sector on the other hand would collapse without mandates for their use.
Because it is in the very early days of renewable energy technology. Coal on the other hand... why should it get ANY subsidies whatsoever? Obviously it should not.
Quote:
As practical matter the amount of coal in the US has is an infinite amount, the supply is so vast it couldn't possibly be depleted before we move onto more sustainable ways to produce electric as they become feasible.
As a theoretical matter matter the coal supply might seem infinite, but when we factor in the ecological damage caused by the mining of coal, and the burning of coal, the practical supply we can reasonably expect to use shrinks very quickly. You can't claim the supply is infinite when it's already clear that a lot of it will have to be left in the ground forever.
Quote:
Consider what we are doing now, at a time when natgas that can finally compete with coal arrives on the market the government is moving to phase coal out. Let them duke it out on the market, it can only be beneficial to the consumer to have two plentiful fossil fuels competing for dominance.
Plentiful, but damaging to the environment compared to all the renewable alternatives. We can't keep thinking in terms of the lowest possible cash price when our grandchildren's grandchildren's futures are at risk right now due to fossil fuel polluting the air and water and land!
Because it is in the very early days of renewable energy technology.
We've been subsidizing solar since the Carter administration.
Quote:
Coal on the other hand... why should it get ANY subsidies whatsoever? Obviously it should not.
Most of those subsidies are actually for R&D ironically. The point is the subsidy isn't there to make it a viable resource and when you look at the subsidy per unit it's miniscule amount. For example it's fractions of a penny per gallon of fuel. I often laugh when I hear people complaining about the tax breaks given to the oil industry, the total amount is the revenue of Exxon in a few days. The only thing removal of those subsidies will accomplish is to make Exxon stronger because they can easily absorb those costs.
Quote:
lowest possible cash price when our grandchildren's grandchildren's futures are at risk right now
Our Grandchildren's Grandchildren's future is at risk if we don't have a economically viable source of energy.
When you are basically subsidizing Chinese manufacturers to make solar panels to sell to us who are in the meantime building a new coal plant every few weeks you need to take step back and rethink how we're doing this.
Coal subsidies are the right to pollute. Monetize that and coal in very expensive. The supply of coal is a red herring. We didn't move out of the stone age because we ran short of rocks.
All I can say is that I am grateful the coal fired electric plant by me is gone. The nasty smells along with the polluted water near the old plant are also gone. They have been removing all of them, statewide, and putting in natural gas burning plants in their place, as well as, upgrading the nuclear reactors.
So if the subsidies are so little, why do the O & G companies spend millions lobbying to keep them in place? If it was meaningless those subsidies would be gone.
Solar is finally starting to get feasible on a global scale and we are seeing yearly improvements in efficiency, design, and capacity. Panels are getting lighter, stronger, easier to work with, more watts per square inch. Even see thru solar panels to replace windows are getting cheaper. The main problem I see right now is power storage or battery tech. Solar doesn't work well at night or when it is cloudy out.
Solar is finally starting to get feasible on a global scale and we are seeing yearly improvements in efficiency, design, and capacity. Panels are getting lighter, stronger, easier to work with, more watts per square inch. Even see thru solar panels to replace windows are getting cheaper. The main problem I see right now is power storage or battery tech. Solar doesn't work well at night or when it is cloudy out.
Solar's role in mainstream society is grid connected and meeting the daily peak. There is more than enough capacity to keep the lights on at night. BTW wind energy is predominantly available at night so it and solar complement each other nicely. Batteries would be nice, but really not necessary for solar's success.
All I can say is that I am grateful the coal fired electric plant by me is gone. The nasty smells along with the polluted water near the old plant are also gone. They have been removing all of them, statewide, and putting in natural gas burning plants in their place,
Hold onto your wallet....
Quote:
So if the subsidies are so little, why do the O & G companies spend millions lobbying to keep them in place? If it was meaningless those subsidies would be gone.
If millions get you billions why not? The point I'm trying to make is it's irrelevant to the market. The oil subsidies are something like 4 or 5 billion and when divide that into all the gallons of fuel sold it's fractions of a penny per gallon. The coal subsidy is something like 1 billion and that would add like 40 cents to your electric bill each month. Those are just some rough numbers...
Quote:
Even see thru solar panels to replace windows are getting cheaper. The main problem I see right now is power storage or battery tech.
The only way these systems will ever be feasible in the near future is if they are connected to the grid which means they will be reliant on base power, forget storage. You're piling a huge expense on top of something that is already expensive.
Oil subsidies include the hundreds of Billions spent every year on the Defense Department to maintain a presence in the Middle East. They also include below market leases on federal oil & gas properties.
Oil subsidies include the hundreds of Billions spent every year on the Defense Department to maintain a presence in the Middle East.
Oil or no oil the military is not leaving the Middle East as the Suez canal is far too important economically.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
