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.
Utilities report widely varying costs of renewable generation Minnkota said the cost of complying with Minnesota’s RES was $28 million,
[roughly 13.5 percent of its revenue requirements. The costs increased its wholesale power rate by 15.81 percent.
Quote:
Looking at 2009 through September of 2011, SMMPA said it has incurred costs of about $31 million above the market value of the energy. With current market conditions, and the consideration of capacity and Renewable Energy Credit (REC) value, the projecthas an annual cost to SMMPA members, and ultimately their customers, of approximately $10 to $11 million. This cost represents approximately 5 percent of SMMPA’s annual revenue from its members
So the cost of incorporating wind power into the grid is fifteen percent higher than relying solely on coal and nukes. Is that what you are saying?
That's what he's saying. While wind generation and other forms of renewable power may arguably have some advantages over fossil fuels and nuclear, cost is not among of them.
I'm not quite sure what the point of this post is. Are we supposed to be angry that overhead exists? It exists in every single sector, not just energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield
That's what he's saying. While wind generation and other forms of renewable power may arguably have some advantages over fossil fuels and nuclear, cost is not among of them.
Are we really using the Heritage Foundation as a source? I'd hardly call them unbiased. It seems their solution is to keep on burning coal...and after all, who doesn't like dirty air and lungs?
I'm personally of the thought that we should have a diversified energy portfolio, but that we need to move away from coal and gas as much as possible. That means solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and--yes--nuclear. I'm more than willing to pay a bit extra if it means a transition away from dirtier sources.
I'm not quite sure what the point of this post is. Are we supposed to be angry that overhead exists? It exists in every single sector, not just energy.
Are we really using the Heritage Foundation as a source? I'd hardly call them unbiased. It seems their solution is to keep on burning coal...and after all, who doesn't like dirty air and lungs?
I'm personally of the thought that we should have a diversified energy portfolio, but that we need to move away from coal and gas as much as possible. That means solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and--yes--nuclear. I'm more than willing to pay a bit extra if it means a transition away from dirtier sources.
No one is without bias, as you have so effectively demonstrated. I was simply answering the question as to whether incorporating wind power into the existing sources of electricity would raise costs. No need to fly off the handle about dirty lungs and all that nonsense, because we all know that coal generation hasn't changed a bit in the last 70 years. And, yes, it's reasonable to be peeved if our bills have gone up because of what we view as a needless and pointless triumph of political correctness over common sense.
If you prefer the US government at as a source, note how they equalize the projected costs between coal andnwind by assuming them adoption of a CO2 tax.... that isn't in effect. So you can MAKE wind power cost competitive through jury rigging the tax structure, but on a straight up basis, it costs more. Not to mention the environmental toll taken on migratory birds. But no one knows how to put a cost on that, so it's ignored.
I'm not quite sure what the point of this post is. Are we supposed to be angry that overhead exists? It exists in every single sector, not just energy.
Are we really using the Heritage Foundation as a source? I'd hardly call them unbiased. It seems their solution is to keep on burning coal...and after all, who doesn't like dirty air and lungs?
I'm personally of the thought that we should have a diversified energy portfolio, but that we need to move away from coal and gas as much as possible. That means solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and--yes--nuclear. I'm more than willing to pay a bit extra if it means a transition away from dirtier sources.
Did you even read the first link? It's from a industry newspaper. If you worked for a company that lost a million dollars a month how long would it be before you saw drastic cuts there? Why are utilities forced to invest in technology that loses them money or results in unneeded rate increases to the customer base? As for your lambasting of the coal industry you are being quite hypocritical as your electricity comes predominately from coal powered plants (if you live in MN) If you don't...Mind you own business wherever you do live....
Did you even read the first link? It's from a industry newspaper. If you worked for a company that lost a million dollars a month how long would it be before you saw drastic cuts there? Why are utilities forced to invest in technology that loses them money or results in unneeded rate increases to the customer base? As for your lambasting of the coal industry you are being quite hypocritical as your electricity comes predominately from coal powered plants (if you live in MN) If you don't...Mind you own business wherever you do live....
Yes, I flipped through it and saw that it wasn't credible, was poorly organized, and not journalistically sound. Also, an "industry newspaper" is also not another unbiased source. It's a bit like reading a newsletter from the DFL Party and expecting it give an unbiased view of the GOP...sorry, not gonna happen.
I have little sympathy for public utilities. They are, after all, given a monopoly of a region. When me and some others moved in to our rental house last year, we didn't get to choose which electricity company we would buy from...we had to sign up for Xcel. To heat the house, we had to sign up for Centerpoint. Likewise, the city of Minneapolis controls our water and garbage and Comcast is the only cable provider (obviously you can get other things like DirecTV, but I'm speaking of cable here). Now for the logistical reasons, I understand why we have these monopolies. It wouldn't make sense to have a city with three different companies competing to get THEIR power lines hooked up to your house. Or their gas line. It would be a mess. However, by getting a monopoly on our choice of services, they have to meet certain standards...and yes, that may mean that they have to invest in cleaner energy if told to do so. If they don't want to deal with the regulations, they can pack up and somebody else will come in who is more than willing to have control over a vast amount of people who have no choice but to pay for your product.
As to your comment about "losing millions of dollars a month", you make it seem like they aren't profitable. They have revenue in the billions and a net income in the hundreds of millions. Sorry I don't have sympathy for a multibillion dollar company needing to invest a bit in clean energy?
I'm also not being "hypocritical" by advocating for cleaner energy while living in a state that use coal power. You might want to look the definition up. Being a hypocrite would be if I controlled Xcel Energy and made a promise to adopt clean energy, but really actually had no such plans and just kept on burning coal. I, on the other hand, simply live in this state and can't help it that they burn coal. I certainly wouldn't advocate for it. But here's something else: I understand that it's going to be a while before we're weaned off coal and other dirty sources. I know that this won't turn around tomorrow and that until then, yes, we need to continue using coal (and in the cleanest way possible). But you aren't going to get me advocating for "clean coal" and I don't see why we should focus on what we have when developing new technologies might yield better fruit in the future. It's being shortsighted to focus on coal for forever.
I'm completely minding my own business since, you know, Minnesota is my state as much as anyone else's. Though with your ability to either label someone as a hypocrite or that they just need to not speak, I'm sure you're a real winner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield
No one is without bias, as you have so effectively demonstrated. I was simply answering the question as to whether incorporating wind power into the existing sources of electricity would raise costs. No need to fly off the handle about dirty lungs and all that nonsense, because we all know that coal generation hasn't changed a bit in the last 70 years. And, yes, it's reasonable to be peeved if our bills have gone up because of what we view as a needless and pointless triumph of political correctness over common sense.
Nope, I am not without bias. I support clean energy. I am not some crazy green hippie. I use electricity. I understand some of it comes from coal. Instead I just conserve by turning off lights, killing the AC when nobody needs it, and other little savers. I'm sure a lot of people do it. So really, I'm pretty normal. But I realize we can't burn coal forever. And you might disagree (and you certainly are of a different mind than I am). And that's fine. But I'm going to call anyone out who uses sources as biased as the Heritage Foundation. When you post government stats, that's fine. But you'd be skeptical if someone was arguing from the opposite side and was posting links from the Nature Conservancy.
I'm most certainly not flying off the handle. I was being a little dramatic with the comment on the lungs, even if it's true. If coal miners get ill from being around it, why would we want to burn it and release it into the air? But let's not pretend that all these innovations in coal that have made it cleaner are all some perky industry thing that they just decided to do because they wanted a cleaner world. Government pressure and threats to innovate have helped make coal cleaner. If we just let it be, coal would still be burning the same way it did 70 years ago or even further back.
You can certainly be peeved by your bill going up, though as a public utility, they're ultimately responsible to you and, if I recall, must make requests and justify rate hikes (at least this is what Minnesota Power has to do when it wants to jack up rates in NE Minnesota). This doesn't have anything to do with political correctness, however, nor have you proven that your point is "common sense".
I was only asking what exactly the point of the post was. It seemed a bit--to borrow your words--"flying off the handle" as it's a link to an industry newsletter filled with propaganda (whether or not you agree) and has two quotes. It doesn't really ask any question, it doesn't try to prove any point. It's just throwing a quote out there without giving direction even on how to respond.
Your rant shows a clear misunderstanding of the structure of a Municipal Utility in the State of Minnesota. They are by law prohibited from making a "profit" They are allowed and required to make enough to maintain x amount of emergency funds based on a percentage of annual sales but they are not for profit organizations in the truest sence.... They are not allowed to automatically increase rates but have to apply to the PUC for permission to do so after having the increase approved by the people they serve. As for your opinion on the story itself..Well you know what opinions are like right? as for propaganda... it's all public information do your own homework if you don't trust the story and I'll make sure to show the editor the next time I see him.....As for me being a winner?????I'd like to think so! Actually I'm featured prominently in another story in the same paper......And finely I'll give you the same challenge I give to many of your ilk....If you don't like the power your paying for now go build your own power plant..If your want that power on all the time don't make it a wind plant.....
@xandrex. Ok, dramatic it is then. Look into Xcel's "windsource" program. You can choose to pay more yourself to subsidize this source of energy. What about the birds, though? I hear it's a major problem. In California, the wind turbines are threatening the Condors and eagles with extinction.
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.
And, yes, it's reasonable to be peeved if our bills have gone up because of what we view as a needless and pointless triumph of political correctness over common sense.
