22 Oct
Will you get angry when your electric bill triples when we stop building coal power plants for 'green power'?
Wind and solar power is a lot more expensive than good old coal. Are you willing to pay 3x as much for electricity to shut down coal plants and switch to ‘green’ power sources to help with ‘global warming’ , even though man made global warming is NOT a proven fact? And please, I know a lot of scientists claim it is, but a lot also claim it’s a farce. So until we have near unaniminity from the scientific community (not Al Gore) it isn’t a fact.
Sorry Fishboy, but I don’t believe everything a website called ‘gristmill’ prints either. BTW, as I live in Vegas and I wish we could all afford at least a 3KW solar generating system on the roof of every house. Imagine doing that here and phoenix and tying them all into the grid with ‘net metering’, how much power could be generated. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for green power. I know even ‘clean coal’ pollutes. I just can’t afford 0/mo when I’m paying 300+ now. A major problem with wind is the wind farms are far away from transmission lines. And environmentalists oppose building those lines. And building them costs lots of money, which the ratepayers end up paying. There is no free lunch.
Posted by kcguy6935 on 22.10.09 at 11:58 am
First of all your pretty sure your facts are no where near being facts but seeing as how anyone who gets a power meter can see for a fact that cfl’s use a fourth the energy incandescents do (a 23 watt cfl is equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent) even if the costs did triple with energy savings your bill will probably stay about the same if you make even a half hearted attempt and we will have less coal fired power plants spewing their pollutants.
Posted by Fran W on 22.10.09 at 11:58 am
I’m going to start making my own candles for light, saving my cut trees for heat, and preserving all my garden produce for when we go green.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Posted by Fishboy on 22.10.09 at 11:58 am
Green power is not and will not be 3x more expensive than coal. There are a slew of rumors and half truths on climate change. Educate yourself here http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics If you wait for a compleate consensus from the scientific community, you are wasting your time. Part of science is to question and chalenge ideas and thoughts. Less than 1% of published, respected scientists think climate change is a farce as you put it.
Posted by eccentricgreen on 22.10.09 at 11:58 am
No. Unlike you I am preparing for the Green future of clean fuel on my own - I don’t need to wait for anyone to tell me how.
Near unanimity? You’re funny!
Posted by racer123 on 22.10.09 at 11:58 am
The game now is to fall for ’smart-grid tech’. It simply states that we must give up control,of our home energy usage, in the name of the greater good. This is another ploy, by the republican lobby, to strip the individual further, of any rights to a free and unfettered choice of lifestyle. This ‘push’ is simply to continue a redirection of monetary resources, from the many-to the few. Wall street knows no morals. They only see how to suck-away every form of life, from those who earn some portion, of their twisted system of capitalism. Every state has the option to put in a valid/sacred monetary system, one that is fully independent of U.S. law. Now is the time to begin a full contridiction, to washington,D.C. mandates. These asses of moral degradation must be shown that they will never more be tended to.
Posted by haans42 on 22.10.09 at 11:58 am
No.
First my bill will not triple. Current cost to the consumer for coal generated electricity is about 5.6 cents/kwh from an existing plant. From a new plant the estimate is 6.8 to 7 cents/kwh.
Here in Ohio we are studying offshore wind farms on Lake Erie. The estimated cost is 6.6 to 7.2 cents/kwh
At the high end that works out to a 29% increase, not a 300% increase.
Also keep in mind coal generated electricity is highly subsidized. Coal mining and generation do not pay the true costs of those activities. These subsidies have been in place for 75 years, so we tend to ignore them when comparing costs.
If we subsidize wind, solar,and nuclear in the same way, the costs of these alternatives would be close to current consumer costs.
Finally if we were to modernize the electric grid there would be huge savings in transmission costs and increased transmission efficiency which would result in an overall savings in electric costs.
Posted by John W on 22.10.09 at 11:58 am
The expense of a "green" system is the initial capital costs. The operating costs are actually much lower than traditional coal based power plants as there’s no fuel to purchase and maintenance is much simpler. In the long run it will cost less, however that’s not to say that the electric companies might not use the excuse to hike up the rates and never reduce them even after the original investment has been offset. It will be up to our politicians to come up with something to somehow make the capital costs affordable either through regulations that spread the cost recovery out over a period of time or subsidizing private installations. Germany has had marvelous progress by just guaranteeing that the net metering will be bought back at a premium for a certain number of years hence guaranteeing a return on investment for any solar panels installed on private property. People in Germany are actually renting space on their neighbours roofs to install solar panels if they have the means to install them but their neighbours didn’t and the banks were willing to finance such home improvement projects because they knew they would get their money back (of course that might’ve changed given today’s economic environment).
Like with the tobacco industry, there will always by some scientists who will hold the opposite view often arranged via PR firms like Apco who arranged the tobacco proponents and were contracted by the Bush administration and Exxon to intentionally cast doubt on Global Warming theories. I’m willing to believe that the Bush administration and Exxon did get their money’s worth out of that PR project.
Posted by Nata T on 22.10.09 at 11:58 am
all greenies should be required to look at electric cost across the earth. Denmark has the highest energy costs and they are rising faster than in the US. Denmark is 50% renewable and is going to even more. So, I don’t want to follow in Belgiums foot steps. Belgium has no industry and 60% of the people that work, work for the state. They have the hihest taxes and they live on money made in the 1700’s.
Scotland has studied off shore wind turbine ans the operating and maintenance expence on those are higher than coal, including the cost of the coal. Scotland is hopeing that the new underwater turbines will have lower costs, but they also know that the loss of fish life will be high.
here’s the psycology being used in the EU. If everyone has to pay tripple the cost, then it’s equal and therfore it shouldn’t matter. No one person, group, ethanicity, relgion, sex is being picked on so everyone should love it.
Hey racer123, it is the democrates pushing smart grid and taking over of our lives. You need to read better.
Posted by you're on 22.10.09 at 11:58 am
No, I love my kids and grandkids more than my money.
Posted by kentuckylemon on 22.10.09 at 11:58 am
When does coal power pay for itself? period, i just won the arguement.