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.
I am looking for a site requiring large electricity source possible few hundreds of KW and looking for a cheaper rate. here in california it is as much as 20c/kw up. I see areas with large renew energy tend to be lower: few places looked up: manitoba has large hydro plant and offers 4c/kw rate. In LV, I see about 10c/kw where there is a ivanpah solar plant. is that a coincidence? I also rather the project I am planning is largely from renewable rather than fossil. Thanks!
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,117,303 times
Reputation: 57755
We are hydro from local river power plants, and at about 10 cents. The farther the power has to go, and the more competition for it the higher the cost. In our case the hydro is cheap, but the demand in the Seattle Metro area brings it back up some. Where we lived in the SF Bay Area the current PG&E rate is now about 16 cents.
I am looking for a site requiring large electricity source possible few hundreds of KW and looking for a cheaper rate...!
In doing your research, don't confuse the stated charge per kW-hr with the actual cost to you. By the time they get done adding in the line charges, delivery costs, undercoating & dealer preparation fees and TAXES, it winds up being considerably more.
My bill states 8c/kW-hr, but my bill divided by usage makes it closer to 18c per.
Sometimes businesses pay more than residential, and sometimes you get a break for bulk usage. Location location location.
Renewables have received huge subsidies from the govt to keep them competitive, but that may be going away and your bill would probably skyrocket suddenly if you picked your location based on that. Life's a gamble.Good luck.
I would think the answer would be generally no. Renewables make more economic sense when the cost of traditional energy source is higher; the cost isn't just economical. Having recently buying a 4.8kW solar array for my house in southern California, I've found that energy pricing seems to be more related to policy and target revenues than the actual input cost of traditional energy.
Listed prices may not reflect actual prices for large users. You will need to actually talk with the individual companies to get a full understanding of rate structure.
An easy example is that if you use off-peak or peak monitoring or load shedding you may get a substantial reduction in costs.
Listed prices may not reflect actual prices for large users. You will need to actually talk with the individual companies to get a full understanding of rate structure.
An easy example is that if you use off-peak or peak monitoring or load shedding you may get a substantial reduction in costs.
Solar and wind prices may go up as federal subsidies expire, but hydroelectric should stay the same. Most of the cost is from construction, maintenance costs very little unless there is a major failure. We have hydro in my town, and it does help stabilize the rate. Our bill at the end of the year shows a pie chart of how much the dam impacts our bill.
^^
On that site there's an interesting little map showing the 9 ISOs in NA. It looks like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore and DC are all on the same grid. Smart? One grenade will get 'em all.
gotta compete with countries with low electricity cost but in an innovative ways!
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.