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.
it appears that Cape Wind will supply about 2% of the electricity for the utilities in the area. If the cost of the current plant that provides this 2% is grater than 18.7c/kWh, it will work out cheaper for the consumer.
What the hell are they replacing that costs 18 cents to operate? LOL
Quote:
You're refering to an average wholesale price of 4c/kWh.
The 4 to 5 cents is would be average cost all costs inclusive in today's dollars for newer plants. That's the cost of the plant, the fuel and any other costs... .
Quote:
1) Cape Wind will reduce the clearing price for electricity in the New England spot market by reducing operations of the regions most expensive power plants, this will reduce electricity prices in New England by 25 million dollars per year.
Again I'm going to ask what cost more than 18 cents? If it's fossil fuel plant whether it's coal or natural gas I don't blame them for replacing it but it could be be replaced by new NG or coal plant for far lower cost than 18 cents.
Quote:
2) Cape Wind will reduce the implementation costs of the Renewable Portfolio Standard to Massachusetts electricity consumers by increasing the supply of renewable energy certificates.
Do you even know what this means? This is smoke and mirrors because it's a mandate that must be met by the power distributor. This is similar to the Cap and Tax scheme because it's a legislated cost that increases the cost of electricity to consumers by forcing power distributors to either buy expensive energy produced through renewable resources, purchase credits or face fines. It's mandated by the government a certain percentage has to be produced through renewable energy, without this legislation producers like Cape Wind Energy would have no customers.
Let me give you an example of how this might work in PA because I'm very familiar with it. Me the homewoner has $60K to invest in solar panels, the federal government will pick up 30% of the tab and the state picks up another 20% through tax rebates. It's already half paid for by the taxpayer.
For every 1000 kWh that my solar panels produce they will issue me a renewable energy credit. A power distributor in PA has to certify that X percentage of the electricity they are distributing came from renewable resources, to meet this mandate they can buy my renewable energy credit. The cost of this of this is passed onto the ratepayer.
Me the owner of the solar panels who has the $60K to invest will pay nothing for electric over their lifetime and even make money off the backs of the taxpayer and ratepayer. The poor guy just getting by that has kids and a wife to support is now paying for my electric through his taxes and the increased cost of electric.
Quote:
3) Cape Wind will pursue long-term power contract(s) that will lock-in a fixed price for electricity for a term of ten or more years. This would provide electricity consumers purchasing Cape Wind energy with far greater electric price stability and price certainty than is typically available.
It's certainy alright, a certainty that it will go up considerably. They locked in a 15 year contract that starts at 18 cents and increase at a rate of 3.5% a year. In 15 years it will cost 52% more or about 30 cents kWh...... ROFL.
This is why it's important to know and understand your topic , I'm quite familiar with the EIA report they are citing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboblocke
The U.S. Federal Government provides subsides
for electricity and mining activities, and these have
been tallied by both the EIA and the Environmental
Law Institute.2,127,128 The EIA estimate is $3.17
billion of subsidies in 2007, or 0.16¢/kWh, and the
Environmental Law Institute estimate is $5.37 billion
for 2007, or 0.27¢/kWh.
Here's a basic breakdown directly form the EIA report they are citing:
Quote:
Table ES5
Coal
Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 1,946
Subsidization : $854 million Cost per megawatthour of generation $0.44
Refined Coal
Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 72
Subsidization : $2,156 million
Cost per megawatthour of generation: $29.81
Nuclear
Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 794
Subsidization : $1,267 million
Cost per meggwatthour of generation: $1.59
Solar
Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 1
Subsidization : $14 million
Cost per meggwatthour of generation: $24.34
Wind
Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 31
Subsidization : $724 million
Cost per megawatthour of generation: $23.37
The correct number excluding the refined coal category is $0.00044/kWh , that's a bit different than 0.16¢/kWh($0.0016) isn't it? Just to add your average person is not going to realize they are citing fractions of penny which is why they use 0.16¢/kWh. You thought it meant 16 cents?
Now if you want to talk about real money the wind subsidy is $0.023/kWh.
In case you're wondering the subsidy for the refined coal if my understanding is correct has been eliminated, it's not mentioned in the EIA document but I believe it was a subsidy for coal to liquid fuels. It's irrelevant to electric generation and even if we combine both the coal and refined coal category the increase per kWh is negligible since the generation in the coal category is so much.
Another interesting fact if you care to look at the EIA document is that most of the $854 million that went to coal was for R&D. In the renewable sector it goes to production.
As far as the numbers cited from the Environmental Law Institute that's a joke too, their inflated figures comes from what they consider a subsidy most of which is related to the "black lung" tax that mine operators pay for every ton of coal mined. The beneficiaries of these funds do not pay tax on these benefits, in other words there is no tax on the tax so they consider it a subsidy.
Last edited by thecoalman; 10-15-2011 at 03:55 AM..
The Chinese government is putting 15 billion into wind. Guess some are happy with 2nd class status for the US. We lost solar panels to them, and it looks like wind next. We still have batteries, but with the one track mind of some, that will go too.
The Chinese have no choice and neither does most other countries, they do not have the domestic fossil fuel resources. The US and Russia are the only two countries with vast fossil fuel resources with relatively low populations and strictly speaking from economic stand point this has many countries worried about how they will power their economies in the future.
If you look at known coal reserves of countries the US has something like 27% of the worlds supply, this is by far the large source of fossil fuel energy possessed by any country without even considering population. The next two on the list are China and Russia about equally split and combined have the about the same amount as the US. We burn about 1 billion tons of coal a year which leaves us with a supply of about 175 years. The Chinese burn about 5 billion a year, within the last decade they have increased their consumption 1 billion tons or as much as we use in total. If their consumption were to stabilize right now which isn't going to happen they will exhaust their reserves within the next 2 to 3 decades. The fact is they will have nothing left to energize their economy in a very short time.
Wind is simply not feasible, as my employer found out after becoming one of the largest investors in the industry. We've lost a fortune, even with government subsidies. It is far too expensive, at the very least 7 times as expensive as current power sources. It is incredibly unreliable, and for years at a time the winds that were typical in an area can simply go away--this particular fact cost my company billions. Yes, billions.
Wind turbines are maintenance nightmares, and are out of service more often than they are in. Costs further skyrocket the longer the down time. From a public standpoint, the industry employs almost NO workers. And environmentally, they are not only an eyesore in the only natural areas we have left, but they are devastating on birds like bald eagles.
The only reason they are built at all is due to government subsidies--in other words, because the TAXPAYER is picking up the tab for all the extra money it costs to produce power. With wind far over 7 times as expensive, the taxpayer (you) has to pay a minimum 600% mark-up on every unit of power.
Check your electric bill--can you afford to have it go up 600% now and for the rest of your life? Actually, much worse than that, since by going through government you have to add the overhead of government on top of the extra cost. So multiply your electric bill by 20, instead of just 6. Still think wind is such a great idea?
GE was awarded 44 contracts totaling over $46,000,000 and 44 grants totaling more than $79,000,000 from the Obama-Pelosi $757 billion dollar stimulus package.
Millions of dollars in stimulus funds were used by GE in green energy projects.
Today GE announced that it was going to gut its offshore wind-power plans.
That $79 million is chicken feed compared to what GE is getting from taxpayers today, try $16 billion on for size:
Quote:
The U.S. Department of Energy said Thursday it has approved a partial $1.3 billion loan guarantee for an 845-megawatt Oregon wind farm being developed by Caithness Energy LLC and a unit of General Electric Co. (GE).
The DOE has issued loan guarantees or offered conditional commitments for loan guarantees to support 16 clean energy projects totaling nearly $16.5 billion. Together, the 16 projects will produce enough renewable energy to serve more than 3.3 million homes, the agency said.
Wind is simply not feasible, as my employer found out after becoming one of the largest investors in the industry. We've lost a fortune, even with government subsidies. It is far too expensive, at the very least 7 times as expensive as current power sources. It is incredibly unreliable, and for years at a time the winds that were typical in an area can simply go away--this particular fact cost my company billions. Yes, billions.
Wind turbines are maintenance nightmares, and are out of service more often than they are in. Costs further skyrocket the longer the down time. From a public standpoint, the industry employs almost NO workers. And environmentally, they are not only an eyesore in the only natural areas we have left, but they are devastating on birds like bald eagles.
The only reason they are built at all is due to government subsidies--in other words, because the TAXPAYER is picking up the tab for all the extra money it costs to produce power. With wind far over 7 times as expensive, the taxpayer (you) has to pay a minimum 600% mark-up on every unit of power.
Check your electric bill--can you afford to have it go up 600% now and for the rest of your life? Actually, much worse than that, since by going through government you have to add the overhead of government on top of the extra cost. So multiply your electric bill by 20, instead of just 6. Still think wind is such a great idea?
The phrase "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"
This is why it's important to know and understand your topic , I'm quite familiar with the EIA report they are citing.
Thanks for dealing with the penny ante amounts: what's your case for the indirect subsidies, the externalities, which amount to about 5 times the added value of coal?
NOW does anyone believe me that large corporations, especially defense contractors, are the WORST when it comes to sucking on the government teat? You think this is bad, look for what Boeing did onstead of delviering a high-tech fence on the Mexican border.
And the CEOs and employees of corporations like these are the first to run their mouths about corporate taxes, not changing healthcare, small government, how government should be more "effiicient" like big business etc.
Disgusting. Didn't someone say they though being CEO of a large corporation was a reasonable qualification to be POTUS?
NOW does anyone believe me that large corporations, especially defense contractors, are the WORST when it comes to sucking on the government teat? You think this is bad, look for what Boeing did onstead of delviering a high-tech fence on the Mexican border.
And the CEOs and employees of corporations like these are the first to run their mouths about corporate taxes, not changing healthcare, small government, how government should be more "effiicient" like big business etc.
Disgusting. Didn't someone say they though being CEO of a large corporation was a reasonable qualification to be POTUS?
So you don't like corporations to maximise their profits? That's a bit of a communist perspective isn't it?
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.
