[Watchdogs] Note the "Cost Factor": "Local solar farm gets powered up" [S...
TEXAS66 at aol.com
TEXAS66 at aol.com
Mon Nov 22 19:46:48 CST 2010
Merle: I don't think I thought enough about my comment. Upon reflection,
it isn't an "ism" - instead it's a "gritch". My gritch is somebody else
taking my money and spending it on something I don't support which is beyond
the scope of the job I paid my money to accomplish. I can't put that into
a definitive category, unless it's theft. I cannot and should not argue
the relative merits of capitalism versus any of the other "isms" here, and I
think you're observation that socialism doesn't fit here is correct.
Thanks for your observation,
Ken Rigsbee
In a message dated 11/22/2010 7:08:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mlmoden at gmail.com writes:
Ken:
The basic definition of socialism is government ownership of the means of
production and distribution. Are you implying that there must be socialism
to ensure responsible behavior by business? Are capitalists allowed to
harm public health by poisoning the air, land, and water (read annual
deposition of millions of tons of methyl mercury, sulfur dioxide, oxides of
nitrogen, etc.) in order the provide cheap power? Each year, there are thousands
of premature deaths and many thousands more who suffer from power plant
pollution. I prefer responsible capitalism, you know, where you do your
thing without causing harm to others. I do not see where socialism fits into
this discussion.
Merle
On 11/11/2010 10:16 AM, _TEXAS66 at aol.com_ (mailto:TEXAS66 at aol.com)
wrote:
Well, I certainly didn’t intend to be intellectually dishonest and morally
scurrilous. I simply looked at the quoted 16 cents/Kwh (per the San
Antonio Express article) and compared it with the also quoted 2 cents/Kwh.
That seems to me to be eight-times as much.
I’m not into “hidden costs”, and I respectfully don’t think the PEC
should be, either.
Seems to me that no plant I ever had anything to do with was ever fully
depreciated. Seems to me that the capital investments required for the
necessary enhanced environmental protections often approached the total capital
investment for the original plants, and the relative economics were often
pretty much unchanged over time per unit of output.
I always thought the “social responsibility” of a cooperative related to
their task of providing electricity to their members at the lowest cost
possible. I know community responsibility also spreads over to supporting
the community activities of the Co Op’s members.
Maybe I’m just not enlightened enough to recognize all of the implied and
imposed social responsibilities of a business. I guess that illustrates
the difference between capitalism and socialism.
Ken Rigsbee
In a message dated 11/11/2010 1:41:00 A.M. Central Standard Time,
_andy.citizen at gmail.com_ (mailto:andy.citizen at gmail.com) writes:
8 times the cost? You're comparing apples and oranges: new generation
to plants that are already paid off. They're completely different animals
and it's intellectually dishonest and morally scurrilous to conflate the
two. If you want to make a real comparison, then you're comparing cost
estimates for Sun Edison (16 cents) to cost estimates for new coal, such as
Spruce II, at 12-14 cents. There, the difference IS marginal. And with the
responses to RFP's I saw promising to deliver solar for 12-14 cents, the cost
is THE SAME.
But you're right-- what is the job and mission of PEC? According to the
principles of co-operatives, it is not only to provide power for lowest
possible cost but also to consider the sustainable development of the
communities whom they serve. _http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html_
(http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html)
And so I ask, at what price "lowest cost"? In fact, lowest cost is a
misnomer: by some calculations, the hidden costs of coal due to health impacts
alone would increase its price 3-5 cents / kWh. So should we buy more of
our power from a coal plant like Fayette, which, while cheap on paper now,
faces major cost increases in the next 1-3 years, and has been linked to
increased asthma in our communities, the Fayette plant alone being linked to
over 60 early deaths annually by Physicians for Social Responsibility:
_http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12794&page=1_
(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12794&page=1)
_http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html_
(http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.ht
ml) So coal is not only rife with hidden costs, ts actual costs are too
high.
And natural gas is no picnic either, with our friends who live up over the
Barnett Shale being able to light their tap water on fire, and emissions
being linked to not only asthma, but also a cancer cluster. All of these
hidden costs add up, some of which are born by us directly, and others which
affect our neighbors.
A few weeks back, someone was preaching about how "immoral" it was to
burden a future generation with debt. How much more immoral is it to ask not
only our own co-op members but our neighbors around the state to bear these
huge hidden costs, all in the name of "cheap" electric bills?
So what is the job and mission of PEC? Co-ops can differ from
profit-driven utilities in being more socially responsible, based on a democratic vote
of our members, which is what we will have once we have a proposal from the
board and a free and fair vote in public. We have a different business
model from an investor owned utility, and far from being "a research
facility", we can learn from other co-ops that have adopted wildly successful
programs and merely do the same. I support that as an owner-member, as do most
of my neighbors, which is what we voted for when we voted for these current
board members.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:53 PM, <_TEXAS66 at aol.com_
(mailto:TEXAS66 at aol.com) > wrote:
Thank you Andy. I don't consider eight-times the cost to be "marginal".
Nonetheless, the issue here is what is the job and mission of the PEC?
Frankly, I really don't care what political spin is on anybody's mind, the PEC
which we own to whom we pay for electricity is supposed to deliver (not
generate) electricity to us members for the lowest-possible cost. The PEC is
not a research facility. The PEC can't do job 1 efficiently now. Unless
and until they can, don't count on my support or endorsement of so-called
renewables.
-- Ken Rigsbee
In a message dated 11/10/2010 11:09:39 P.M. Central Standard Time,
_andy.citizen at gmail.com_ (mailto:andy.citizen at gmail.com) writes:
Just FYI, we did a series of TPIA requests on the responses to this RFP--
CPS paid a premium and there were SEVERAL companies that came in with much
lower bids. And if you want to listen to what the guys at TAM have to say
about how to run our co-op, those are the exact same guys in bed with TEC,
Feulberg, etc. Their spin does not have the actual best interests of co-op
members in mind.
Yes, renewables are marginally more expensive-- for now.
As I've previously said, the costs of coal are going up. Even without a
price on carbon, new standards for smog and acid rain will cause coal to
become more expensive. I've previously said prices for natural gas are going
up-- let me correct myself: the price for NG now are at almost historical
lows. While they are not going up now, they have no place to go BUT up.
And given the volatility NG prices showed, say, in 2008, it is not
something we want to build the fiscal soundness of the co-op on. Continuing to
back only coal and gas for our electrical production may mean low rates for
you today but serious problems for rates in the future.
Renewables provide a hedge against rising prices, volatility, and future
regulation. We can look at the market forecasts and see that renewable
energy is the future. Even Barry Smitherman, conservative chair of the PUC,
has said he doesn't want to be a coal plant in East Texas when the CREZ
transmission lines are finished in the next two years. Why? Because wind is
already cost-competitive with standard generation and solar has just become
competitive with nuclear. This is why Golden Spread Co-op just purchased a
portion of wind farm outside Amarillo:
_http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2010-10-02/co-op-buys-wind-project_
(http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2010-10-02/co-op-buys-wind-project)
The purchase and construction come at a good time, said Hornaday.
"There's a lull in the industry, so they got good terms," he said. "It's a
smart move in the long run to do this now."
The Golden Spread facility will complement the 168 megawatt Antelope
Station natural gas project the company is building near Abernathy. The
generators at that plant will provide power much of the time, but will also be able
to start in less than 10 minutes, are energy efficient and use virtually
no water, providing a supplement to the intermittent generation from the
wind ranch, Schwirtz said.
Besides providing renewable energy, the wind farm should benefit Golden
Spread members by hedging against potentially high natural gas costs and
future carbon and renewable energy legislation and regulation, according to a
news release.
And if you would all bother to read the stuff Mike Sloan writes rather
than just reference it, you would know that renewables and efficiency have
been the downward cost drivers in Austin while coal and traditional generation
have been the things busting their budgets.
Rather than engaging in meaningless speculation, let's wait and see what
the proposals are for efficiency and renewables program so we can discuss
those actual proposals rather than the straw man of what is going on in other
places, like, say, Virginia, where they have neither the wind nor sun
resources that we do. That's comparing apples and oranges.
~~Andy Wilson
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Milton Hawkins
<_milton.hawkins at gmail.com_ (mailto:milton.hawkins at gmail.com) > wrote:
_Local solar farm gets powered up_
(http://www.mysanantonio.com/livinggreensa/local_solar_farm_gets_powered_up_107014183.html?showFullArticle=y)
>From the article:
The cost factor
Electricity generated by solar-photovoltaic technology today costs five
times as much to produce as coal-fired energy, according to Bloomberg New
Energy Finance.
While CPS won't release the price it will pay for Blue Wing power, sources
say the utility will pay about 16 cents per kilowatt hour under the deal
with SunEdison. Coal power costs the utility 1 to 2 cents per kilowatt hour
for plants that are paid off; that jumps to between 7 and 11 cents if the
cost of the plant is included.
Solar is costly even compared with other renewable sources, especially
wind, which is narrowing the price gap with fossil fuels. The Energy
Information Administration predicts that by 2016, photovoltaic power on average will
remain more than twice as expensive as wind-generated. . . .
Some still wary
The Texas Association of Manufacturers, which opposed another 2009 bill to
establish minimum levels of energy from renewable sources, says it
supports “properly structured incentives.” But the group remains wary.
“We have concerns with energy projects that are based on government
mandates and are ultimately funded by captive ratepayers,” executive director
Luke Bellsnyder said in a statement. “Projects that are only financially
possible because the costs will be passed on to customers — through above-market
rates — are not a good deal for consumers and businesses.”
- Sent using Google Toolbar
_______________________________________________
Watchdogs mailing list
_Watchdogs at pec4u.org_ (mailto:Watchdogs at pec4u.org)
_http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs_
(http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs)
_______________________________________________
Watchdogs mailing list
_Watchdogs at pec4u.org_ (mailto:Watchdogs at pec4u.org)
_http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs_
(http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs)
_______________________________________________
Watchdogs mailing list
_Watchdogs at pec4u.org_ (mailto:Watchdogs at pec4u.org)
_http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs_
(http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs)
--
Mr. Merle L. Moden
1111 Thompson Ranch Road
Wimberley, Texas 78676-6129
512 847-1335
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20101122/5f0e5658/attachment.html>
More information about the Watchdogs
mailing list