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.
The people who originally signed up for the Austin program were also locked in and enjoyed good rates, not anymore. Regardless of what happened in Austin to derail their program when you're paying the full costs without subsidies you may have a point about your electric rates but until then it's laughable.
Say it with us again class S-U-B-S-I-D-Y.
LOL you don't even understand the Austin program. You really should do some homework and not just regurgitate the Peabody corporate line.
And learn to live with subsidies. That's what the government does on the business side it changes the equation to favor one energy source over another. Coal has had that for many years. Renewables get some now too. Tough *****, learn to live with it.
LOL you don't even understand the Austin program. You really should do some homework and not just regurgitate the Peabody corporate line.
I'm regurgitating what the article says. When the program started the rates were slightly higher than standard rate, the consumers were able to buy a contract like you and while energy prices rose they enjoyed a good rate because other energy went up so much. Now the contracts have expired and the rate they need to charge is 3X because of avariety od reasons and they can't sell it. That about cover it?
Quote:
And learn to live with subsidies. That's what the government does on the business side it changes the equation to favor one energy source over another. Coal has had that for many years. Renewables get some now too. Tough *****, learn to live with it.
That all fine and good but you're not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes when you say its cheaper.
I'm regurgitating what the article says. When the program started the rates were slightly higher than standard rate, the consumers were able to buy a contract like you and while energy prices rose they enjoyed a good rate because other energy went up so much. Now the contracts have expired and the rate they need to charge is 3X because of avariety od reasons and they can't sell it. That about cover it?
Actually the article says that Austin is having trouble with one of many energy programs. This one is a solar energy purchase, which has ended up a little too expensive to sell on its own. They will blend it with other energy in their portfolio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
That all fine and good but you're not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes when you say its cheaper.
All forms of energy in this country have subsidies. Coal's subsidy is the forgiveness of the damage that pollution from coal does to the environment. That's going to change soon. Enjoy your $50/Ton extra cost. LOL
You say that if it's going to effect me personally when it will effect me, you and every other American if passes. Persoanlly I will enjoy it as I have much to gain financially by the passage of this tax on energy as people will be coming in droves to my site to help alleviate the expense. Ca-ching.
LOL <---- as the saying goes he who laughs last laughs best.
As far as I'm concerned drop all subsidies, the coal and petroleum industry certainly don't need them. I'll be glad to pay 1/2 cent extra on liquid fuels or have half a dollar added to my electric bill each month to make up for the federal subsidies. Then I'll pull out my deck chair and bag of popcorn and watch ethanol, wind and solar sink faster than the Titanic.
That's only because coal & petroleum have received so many hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, over so many decades, that they already have their infrastructure in place.
When coal-powered generating plants, and all power lines, have already been paid for - and that by subsidy monies - coal-generated electricity can be amazingly inexpensive.
So... Are you willing to allow Wind Power to receive the same amount of subsidies that have already been received by the Coal Industry - then call it good?
Last edited by Omaha Rocks; 09-28-2009 at 10:46 AM..
The point is this: All your ranting about wind power being subsidized is a moot point.
But their not even close, if we go by the figures in 2007 it's about 30% of the retail cost and that's not even a good indicator because you really need to go back to what the wholesale cost is so now it's up above 50%. That's a significant amount.
I like to point out the solar plant they want to build near here, the estimated cost last year was about 65 million and they expect it to service up to 1500 homes. Assuming the average household uses $1k of elctric each year it will take 43 years just to pay for the plant. It mght not even be there in 43 years. Still need to add in maintenance and the all important profit for the investors.
But their not even close, if we go by the figures in 2007 it's about 30% of the retail cost and that's not even a good indicator because you really need to go back to what the wholesale cost is so now it's up above 50%. That's a significant amount.
I like to point out the solar plant they want to build near here, the estimated cost last year was about 65 million and they expect it to service up to 1500 homes. Assuming the average household uses $1k of elctric each year it will take 43 years just to pay for the plant. It mght not even be there in 43 years. Still need to add in maintenance and the all important profit for the investors.
Does that sound like a good plan to you?
Let me remind you that your coal-fired plants would NEVER have been built without hundreds of billions of dollars of government subsidies.
NOW you want to talk about ending subsidies, but that's only because you already have yours.
You're just like the farmer, who inherited 5000 acres of farmland, criticizing the guy who has to go to the bank and take a loan to buy land.
The worst aspect of this pro coal diatribe is the glaring lack of understand among "Republicans" of how prices are set in commodity markets. In places like PA, where coalman lives the cost of a coal plant is irrelevant. The price of electricity is set by a combination of the production costs of the most expensive unit to operate -- usually a simple cycle natural gas plant -- and the Locational Marginal Price of transmission in the area.
Take Economics 101 before you start acting like you have any idea about what sets prices.
The other silly assertion is that anthracite coal makes any difference what-so-ever. It's an asterisk in any national energy table.
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.
