Cheaper Than What Exactly?
For the past decade, Austin's ambition to become the world's clean-energy capital has been best exemplified by one effort: GreenChoice, a program that sells electricity generated entirely from renewable sources such as wind.
Now the nationally renowned program is struggling to find buyers — the latest allotment is 99 percent unsold after seven months on the market — and Austin Energy is looking for ways to bring down the rising costs...Austin Energy officials say that times have changed and that the nation's most successful (by volume of sales) green-energy program, which offers the renewable energy only to those who select it, might no longer be the best way to carry out the city's goals. It now costs almost three times more than the standard electricity rate.
Hmmm and yet I was just told today that wind and solar were the "cheapest"....what is causing these increases? In part the cost of building the wind farms....
Steel, concrete, copper and labor have all gotten more expensive, in turn making wind-farm construction more costly.and in part the cost of getting the power from the wind farm to the city that needs the energy...
Texas doesn't have enough transmission lines to carry all the electricity generated in West Texas to the state's big cities. This in turn means Austin has to pay more to get its wind energy here.
One of the reason that there are not enough transmission lines is the fact that environmentalists are fighting the construction of the transmission lines that are necessary to getting the power out of the wind farms.
“We want smaller-scale projects closer to where load is and where there would be less harmful impacts,” Citizens Energy Task Force attorney Paula Maccabee told Greenwire on December 1.
The problem with that (as I was told by a Public Utilities specialist in Minnesota) is that the quality of the wind in the urban areas is not good enough to provide the needed power!
All of this helps belie the talking points of the "green" movement. Their concern is not providing energy - it is taking energy options OFF OF THE TABLE in order to drive the economy further down. It is a dirty little secret that the clean energy crew hopes we never figure out.
Labels: Cap And Trade, Environmentalists
posted by The Lady Logician at
10:35 PM
16 Comments:
The combination of Cap and Trade, and the expectation of wind or solar producing enough power at a market competitive rate becoming unrealistic does leave an interesting opening for nuclear power. Nuclear power can easily supply our energy needs for the next 700+ years, it also solves the CO2 and air pollution problems of coal.
Really the best solution would be to support wind/solar in the 3 or so locations that it might make sense, slow the growth of coal power but don't stop or reverse it alot of jobs are filled by the coal power industry and it produces power cheaply, phase nuclear in as coal plants reach their end of useful life.
By
RD, at 1:15 AM
Read and learn: NRDC fact sheet on wind power.
By 2012, the cost of wind power will be down to 3 cents per kilowatt hour. Yet utility companies insist on charging a premium for wind-generated electricity.
In Utah, Rocky Mountain Power charges extra for wind power. This helps create the false impression that it's an expensive luxury.
By
rmwarnick, at 1:08 PM
These corporations are smart, they will figure a way to do business even with all the restrictions and guess who will be paying. . . the American public!
By
Aaron, at 2:51 PM
3cents per kilowatt hour, thats lower then coal power by more then half, try finding a link from a reliable source and not just a liberal lobbying group trying to manipulate political outcomes.
By
RD, at 3:27 PM
Richard - If I posted documentation to back up one of my arguments that came from a right wing anti-cap and trade lobbying group would you accept that information as anything less than biased? I think not!
My information comes from someone with a background in public utilities regulations. Not a special interest group. He was out of town last night but will get me the back up documentation to show where you (and the NRDC) are all wrong on this.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 4:26 PM
OK, how about The Wall Street Journal? Just another "liberal lobbying group"?
The New Math of Alternative Energy
By
rmwarnick, at 4:29 PM
Except that is not a link TO the Wall Street Journal and the Journal has the story hidden behind a subscription, but I do believe that I have a link to the whole thing in my email at home. If I do I will post it - FROM THE SOURCE - for you Richard.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 4:43 PM
Here is some US Department of Energy stats on nuclear versus coal, natural gas and hydro electric. Nuclear is cheaper than coal or natural gas but not as cheap as hydro-electric.....
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
I'll have to look for comparisons to wind and solar when I get home from work.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 5:27 PM
I haven't got time to look, but I'll assume that the DOE did not factor in the cost of high-level nuclear waste disposal (approx. $60 billion) or the subsidies already paid to the nuclear industry (more than $10 billion).
In general, the cost of capital renders nuclear power plants economically unfeasible. That's why they don't build them anymore.
By
rmwarnick, at 5:37 PM
Their are new nuclear plants planned in texas, their have been talks of nuclear plants in other states as well including utah.
The coal plant in Magna consumes 1billion gallons of water, 120,000~ tons of lime, and plenty of coal(not sure of quantity) each year.
You have to handle the coal ash waste, and the waste lime from the plants scrubbers, both of which contain trace amounts of radioactive material.
The economics are very quickly moving in favor of nuclear power. The carbon tax will cause this movement to happen faster not slower.
Also take into account that the NRC has given extensions to nuclear plants to run past the 50year expected life due to plants still being in perfect running order, This has also improved the economics of nuclear power.
By
RD, at 6:10 PM
The nuclear power project proposed for Green River, Utah would take 53,600 acre feet of water per day. Just not feasible.
By
rmwarnick, at 10:12 AM
Even T. Boone Pickens is backing off his big wind farm plan.
Nuclear is the only practical alternative to coal.
Of course, if you believe in Man-made global warming bullshit, come on up to Minnesota. Middle of July and the temp is in the 60s.
By
Kermit, at 10:27 AM
Here's a crazy idea: How about we just let every type of energy compete to be the cheapest and most available? If somebody can deliver wind power to me for 3 cents and nuclear costs me 6 cents and coal costs me 9 cents, guess which I'm going to buy? Heck, I could put solar cells on my roof right now, but it would be 60 years before I got my money back, and the cells aren't going to last that long.
The most foolish thing we could do is worry about the environmental cost beyond a few sensible regulations. Fly ash can be used for paving projects, it's vastly superior to sand. Nuclear waste can be recycled to increase our stock of nuclear fuel by 100 times and bringing the cost down 10-fold. Wind power, except in a few cases, is too dilute and distant to be generally used. To produce 20% of US power (1/3 of the time) would require covering the entire state of Minnesota with windmills. No towns, no nothing but giant eggbeaters waiting for the wind to exceed 9 mph.
J. Ewing
By
Anonymous, at 10:29 AM
J. - there you go THINKING again. When are you going to quit that bad habit ;-)
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 1:26 PM
the green river project will have 2 1500mwatt reactors your water number is somewhere around 1.7billion gallons, the magna coal plant is a 175mwatt plant at 1billion gallons. The number's clearly show the nuclear plant is better power producer per gallon.
By
RD, at 1:31 PM
RD-- The problem I was alluding to is, all this water isn't available at Green River, Utah. Where is it supposed to come from? Not to mention the money isn't available either. It's an insane proposal.
By
rmwarnick, at 1:54 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home