U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-27-2016, 05:57 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 51,280,422 times
Reputation: 24611

Advertisements

Ouch! I though the 16c/kw-hr we pay in New Hampshire is excessive. Our utilities have mostly separated themselves, or been divested by regulation, for their own generation facilities. For instance Public Service of New Hampshire now owns only the old hydroelectric facilities on some of the rivers. It had to sell off its share in the Seabrook Nuclear plant and the stream plant at Bow.

The negative effect of this is the utility has to buy electricity at spot prices controlled by the Natural Gas cartel fueling the NG co-generation plants. This has greatly increased the price of energy in the Northeast. It has also greatly benefitted Hydro Quebec as their price is tied to our cost. This is a good deal for everyone but the New England consumer.

I think that Utility Electrical supply should be a government owned monopoly required to sell at cost to the consumer. I see what the prices charged by the TVA, BPA and other government owned power suppliers and an really distressed. I believe that without this government subsidy these areas would not have been able to take the industries form the North and create our "rust belt".

There is a major NG pipeline being built through New England to a liquification and shipping facility in Eastern Maine. It does not have ANY pressure reduction stations for distribution to any of the New England distribution systems. This is to protect the existing monopoly in NG.

If I had any say in the matter I would encourage the line to be built but then forbid any export of the Liquefied Natural Gas. That would force the companies to sell the gas in New England and break the existing monopoly. That would be good for us and reduce the formor monopolists profits if not existence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-27-2016, 09:52 AM
509
 
2,930 posts, read 4,057,193 times
Reputation: 3471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
Yeah, you have Grand Coulee Dam, which since the Concrete and Construction Costs have been long since covered, and there is no "Investors" to pay . . . may just be the lowest cost generation in the world.
YOU as an American own Grand Coulee Dam. Those rates and operating practices are set by a Bonneville Power Authority.

Both Chelan and Douglas Counties have their OWN dams on the Columbia. They built and paid for the dams without any Federal involvement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2016, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Minnysoda
8,592 posts, read 8,506,762 times
Reputation: 5161
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Ouch! I though the 16c/kw-hr we pay in New Hampshire is excessive. Our utilities have mostly separated themselves, or been divested by regulation, for their own generation facilities. For instance Public Service of New Hampshire now owns only the old hydroelectric facilities on some of the rivers. It had to sell off its share in the Seabrook Nuclear plant and the stream plant at Bow.

The negative effect of this is the utility has to buy electricity at spot prices controlled by the Natural Gas cartel fueling the NG co-generation plants. This has greatly increased the price of energy in the Northeast. It has also greatly benefitted Hydro Quebec as their price is tied to our cost. This is a good deal for everyone but the New England consumer.

I think that Utility Electrical supply should be a government owned monopoly required to sell at cost to the consumer. I see what the prices charged by the TVA, BPA and other government owned power suppliers and an really distressed. I believe that without this government subsidy these areas would not have been able to take the industries form the North and create our "rust belt".

There is a major NG pipeline being built through New England to a liquification and shipping facility in Eastern Maine. It does not have ANY pressure reduction stations for distribution to any of the New England distribution systems. This is to protect the existing monopoly in NG.

If I had any say in the matter I would encourage the line to be built but then forbid any export of the Liquefied Natural Gas. That would force the companies to sell the gas in New England and break the existing monopoly. That would be good for us and reduce the formor monopolists profits if not existence.
Utilities must build new generation assets if they want to keep cost to customer in check. I work for a an admittedly smaller sized Public Power Agency and we have been on a NG fired building kick for @ 8 yrs. Small >50 Mw plants are going up all over the midwest. The Majority using the latest technology spark fired NG recip engines available....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2016, 03:05 AM
 
11,256 posts, read 43,268,721 times
Reputation: 14911
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact...olds-pay-power

That 6 cents is almost as much as the retail cost in some states like Wyoming.
Not anymore ....

with the requirement that 25% of the KWH delivered in WY be produced by renewable sources,
wholesale cost per KWH of electricity delivered here now is significantly higher than that. Tri-State Generation has created a new cost structure to the T&D companies with substantial increases in demand energy pricing. Tri-State said our electricity cost would go up approx 13% this year and forecast similar increases for each of the next two years.

For my 3ph 480v energy for my irrigation use, I was given a choice this season of 25 cents per KWH during high demand hours (3-10pm) daily and off-peak billing of 8 cents/KWH, or a $14 per KW monthly demand charge with 7 cents/KWH for all hours. With a 40HP irrigation pump and the energy to run the pivot, that's $560 per month just for the privilege of having the power at the lower rate. Those costs on top of the $50/month "access charge" ... for which I'm paying to have the service to the meter if I use any energy each month. IOW, my first KWH of use can cost me $50 + $560 + 7 cents. Given that I've had some months where my pivot was used only to relocate it for field work (typically, 10-15 minutes of non-pumping time) or for a few hours for a fertigation application, my billed energy cost could easily reach $5.00 per KWH! Yes, that scenario has happened at least one month out of each farming season for the last 12 years when demand billing and seasonal "access" fees came into the billing rather than the prior KWH consumption only billing.

Please note that my T&D company is a consumer owned non-profit utility company. The raises they've passed on to us users are strictly that ... wholesale energy KWH and Demand charge time of use costs passed on to consumers. They don't need to go to a rate control authority to get permission, they get to pass on the increases in their wholesale costs.

My 220v single phase 200amp service for domestic use costs have reached over 13 cents per KWH with a monthly "access" fee for the first KWH of use each month, too. They are now in the planning stages for installing residential smart meters for time of demand consumption billing on this ... with reduced rates and restrictions on energy use if you'll agree to not use your higher demand consumers during the 3-10 pm time frame, or a higher penalty cost per all KWH if you don't agree to limit consumption during those high demand hours. We can adjust our use of clothes washing/drying, dishwashing and such and don't have household A/C (we use one little window mount A/C unit in a bedroom if an evening is a bit warm for comfort ... typically only a dozen nights per year). We've already converted our lighting to LED's. The problem for us is that we're a working farm/ranch operation and cannot curtail energy use for such things as pumping water for livestock, or stock tank heaters keeping them ice free during cold weather ... and yes, we've changed over from the older 1,500 watt stock tanks to newer energy efficient highly insulated stock tanks using only 500 watts to keep clear in most of the winter. There are times, however, when extended sub-zero temps require using additional 1,500 watt heaters to keep the tanks from freezing up. Here again, Tri-State passed on a 13% increase per KWH and demand charges to High West Energy and forecast a similar rate increase for each of the next two years.

Inexpensive electricity produced from coal fired plants has been regionally forced out due to EPA requirements for emissions and the federal mandate that 25% of the KWH delivered here be generated by renewables (ie, solar or wind) energy sources. Tri-West advises that they've been told the renewable energy component % may be increased soon to 30% and that they're hearing talk of 50% being required in just a few years. In view of that, they are forecasting yet another round of substantial retail rate increases here in Wyoming.

Coal fired plants in this area are being taken off-line these days; unlikely to return to service even if newer emissions technology emerges which can bring them back into EPA compliance ... that game has been played out repeatedly by the EPA. Every time the coal generation industry comes up with a means to comply with their emissions requirements, the EPA moves the goalposts to even lower emissions. The utility companies and engineering outfits can't put capital investment into compliance (as in just one power plant I knew of that had over $300,000,000 spent on engineering alone that would have brought the plant into compliance ... and then the EPA determined that they wanted even lower emissions. $300 mil and years of work just flushed by the EPA ... where does the utility company get the revenue to offset such expenses? and that was just one project that Utility engineering had going on).

Last edited by sunsprit; 04-28-2016 at 03:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2016, 06:29 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,776 posts, read 1,043,846 times
Reputation: 5965
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit View Post

. Every time the coal generation industry comes up with a means to comply with their emissions requirements, the EPA moves the goalposts to even lower emissions. .

And the real pisser is that the EPA just pulls these numbers out of their bureaucratic asses. There is ZERO
science to back up the effectiveness of the new standards on health or environmental outcomes.

It's all about CONTROL. BigBrother is watching.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2016, 06:46 AM
 
Location: DC
6,512 posts, read 6,437,191 times
Reputation: 3114
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
YOU as an American own Grand Coulee Dam. Those rates and operating practices are set by a Bonneville Power Authority.

Both Chelan and Douglas Counties have their OWN dams on the Columbia. They built and paid for the dams without any Federal involvement.
The United States Bureau of Reclamation owns Grand Coulee. They control the price of electricity from the dam.

Chelan and Douglas Country used tax free bonds to finance the cost of the dams. The also get use of the water for free. There is plenty of federal participation, which isn't bad, but not your narrative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2016, 06:49 AM
 
Location: DC
6,512 posts, read 6,437,191 times
Reputation: 3114
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
And the real pisser is that the EPA just pulls these numbers out of their bureaucratic asses. There is ZERO
science to back up the effectiveness of the new standards on health or environmental outcomes.

It's all about CONTROL. BigBrother is watching.
That is just a flat lie. The EPA has extensive epidemiological studies that demonstrate the positive health effects of their work. Here is one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2016, 07:20 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,776 posts, read 1,043,846 times
Reputation: 5965
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
That is just a flat lie. The EPA has extensive epidemiological studies that demonstrate the positive health effects of their work. Here is one.
That site merely states a wish-fulfillment dream about what they want to prove. It presents no data.

As a physician, I regularly monitor all the major medical journals and treat them analytically-- I don't read their abstracts but go right to their methods and data. I draw my own conclusions after analysis. Let me assure you, there is no quantitative data proving ANY numerical standard set by the EPA regarding air quality has any basis in reproducible research, nor have any clinically significant benefits accrued since their regulations have gone into effect.

Eg: COPD is virtually unheard of in a non-smoker (Alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, a genetic disorder, being a notable exception) and rates have been going down commensurately with rates of smoking. The rate of asthma has actually been going up over the lifetime of the EPA (It's not their fault- there's better awareness/recognition of the problem over the last 30 yrs. The true rate probably hasn't changed.)

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 04-29-2016 at 07:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2016, 10:43 AM
 
Location: DC
6,512 posts, read 6,437,191 times
Reputation: 3114
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
That site merely states a wish-fulfillment dream about what they want to prove. It presents no data.

As a physician, I regularly monitor all the major medical journals and treat them analytically-- I don't read their abstracts but go right to their methods and data. I draw my own conclusions after analysis. Let me assure you, there is no quantitative data proving ANY numerical standard set by the EPA regarding air quality has any basis in reproducible research, nor have any clinically significant benefits accrued since their regulations have gone into effect.

Eg: COPD is virtually unheard of in a non-smoker (Alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, a genetic disorder, being a notable exception) and rates have been going down commensurately with rates of smoking. The rate of asthma has actually been going up over the lifetime of the EPA (It's not their fault- there's better awareness/recognition of the problem over the last 30 yrs. The true rate probably hasn't changed.)
This is just a lie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2016, 05:26 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,776 posts, read 1,043,846 times
Reputation: 5965
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
This is just a lie.

Prove it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top