|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
grassman 
Group: Members
Posts: 3858
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
 |
Posted on: Nov. 29 2010,6:09 am |
|
   |
Wind power surplus blamed for spike in rural Minn. electricity costs
By Minnesota Public Radio News
The cost of electricity is up sharply for many rural Minnesota customers, and one of the reasons is that utilities are losing money on electricity generated from wind.
Prodded by the state’s renewable energy standard, utilities have signed contracts to purchase electricity from wind farms. But because wind sometimes generates more electricity than those utilities need, they are forced to sell on the open market, which in a slow economy like this, is a money-losing proposition.
The circumstance hits rural providers harder than others because costs are typically spread over less dense service areas, utility officials say.
Grand Forks-based Minnkota Power Cooperative, which typically sells to rural electric cooperatives across northwestern Minnesota and eastern North Dakota, is a case in point. Although the Minnesota standard says utilities have to get 25 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2025, Minnkota is ahead of the game. It already gets 35 percent of its electricity from wind.
But when the wind is generating more than it can use, it sells on the open market, and there are few buyers, said Dave Loer, Minnkota president and chief executive officer.
If this is the case, why does my power supplier say that their cost goes up because they have to purchase more power? I think a little smoke and mirrors are going on here. 
--------------
git er done!
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2010,12:31 pm |
|
 |
From the MPR piece QUOTE Minnkota President and CEO Dave Loer said with a soft economy, there are few buyers. The company is buying energy at an average price of $.045 from wind developers and selling to the surplus energy market at about $.02, Loer said.
"That translates for us into about a $20 million loss," Loer said.
That loss was covered by a surcharge added to electric bills. The surcharge will be collected through 2011. Minnkota is considering a rate increase of as much as 17 percent early next year.
Power companies are mandated to buy the "renewable" power at high rates whether they need it or not. These mandates are needed to prop up the whole house of cards on wind energy--kind of like the ethanol mandate was necessary to prop up the gasahol project.
As taxpayers, we subsidize the creation of wind farms with tax credits.
As electric consumers, we pay more for electricity from wind power than we do from conventional generating sources.
As electric consumers, we pay more for electricity for power generators constructing "peaking " plants for when the wind DOESN'T blow--a high capital cost that must be passed on to the consumer, and a high cost of generating electricity compared to large-scale plants. These plants often use gas turbines.
As natural gas consumers, we pay AGAIN--the "peaking plants" often use natural gas. The plant just north of Faribault is served by a 36" line. By comparison, the line that serves Alden, Albert Lea, Clarks Grove, Hayward, and Austin is only a 19" line. A 36" line is MORE than twice the volume of a 19" line.
This whole "windpower is free" shell game is a scam. If it REALLY made any sense, don't you suppose that the companies that are in the business of generating electricity for a profit would have invested in it YEARS ago? 
It's yet another example of "do-good"--"feel-good" government mandates interfering with the marketplace. The Socialists and Communists have tried their control schemes for over a hundred years now--but they never beat the market when it comes to delivering a product the customer wants--and at the best price.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
irisheyes
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2010,1:29 pm |
|
|
(jimhanson @ Nov. 29 2010,12:31 pm)
QUOTE The Socialists and Communists have tried their control schemes for over a hundred years now--but they never beat the market when it comes to delivering a product the customer wants--and at the best price.
You mean like this?
QUOTE Before passage of the deregulation law, there had been only one Stage 3 rolling blackout declared. Following passage, California had a total of 38 blackouts defined as Stage 3 rolling blackouts, until federal regulators intervened in June 2001. These blackouts occurred mainly as a result of a poorly designed market system that was manipulated by traders and marketers. Enron traders were revealed as intentionally encouraging the removal of power from the market during California's energy crisis by encouraging suppliers to shut down plants to perform unnecessary maintenance, as documented in recordings made at the time.[14][15] These acts contributed to the need for rolling blackouts, which adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers. This scattered supply raised the price exponentially, and Enron traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20x its normal peak value.
I wonder why Enron didn't deliver the best product at the best possible price? 
--------------
You know it's going to be a bad day when you cross thread the cap on the toothpaste.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2010,2:43 pm |
|
|
Irish--once again, you've failed to identify the source of your quote.
Do you suppose it might have had SOMETHING to do with the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitude of the California Greenie Weenies?
Do you suppose it might have SOMETHING to do with the fact that there were no new plants permitted in California in years?
Why do you suppose that neighboring states didn't have the same blackout problems? Do you suppose it MIGHT have something to do with the fact that they DIDN'T BLOCK THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PLANTS? 
Free market, you say? Hardly. From the very same Wikipedia piece QUOTE State lawmakers expected the price of electricity to decrease due to the resulting competition; hence they capped the price of electricity at the pre-deregulation level. Since they also saw it as imperative that the supply of electricity remain uninterrupted, utility companies were required by law to buy electricity from spot markets at uncapped prices when faced with imminent power shortages.
When the electricity demand in California rose, utilities had no financial incentive to expand production, as long term prices were capped.
That's hardly a "free market", is it?
Free markets only work when they are indeed FREE. Once government intrudes, the market system no longer works. The problem here is government artificially setting market caps--you can't control PART of the market. It is similar to "rent controlled housing" in New York--with controls on rent, there is no profit incentive for owners, and they let the buildings fall into disrepair and eventually go back for back taxes--creating yet more slums.
Wage/Price controls didn't work too well for Carter or Nixon, did they? We ended up with both high gas prices, shortages--record inflation, AND stagnation.
Yet they still teach "government knows best" in our schools--turning out yet ANOTHER GENERATION of economic illiterates. 
Now, to go back to the original question--would you care to defend the efficiency of windmills? 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2010,9:58 pm |
|
|
No matter how anyone puts it, wind turbines aren't as efficient as what the green government or the companies involved with them lead people to believe.
Physics are fact. According to Betz' Law, no wind turbine can generate more than 59.3% of the kinetic energy of wind and the average turbine only runs 30% of the time. If a turbine generated power at its maximum the 30% it does run, that translates into less than 18% efficiency.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 29 2010,10:40 pm |
|
|
That would make sense if we were generating the wind that the windmill was using. 
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 30 2010,7:44 am |
|
|
Has anyone else noticed the CO2 emission usage on their plane ticket?
American Airline printed the amount of CO2 emissions it took to fly my fat arse, right next to the cost of the ticket. Lame.
Next thing will be a gov't mandate to include CO2 emissions on a package of hamburger do to bovine flatulation...just to make you feel guilty everytime your fat arse takes a bite out of a sandwich.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
ICU812
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3244
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 30 2010,8:06 am |
|
|
Too bad we will never see a sign hanging on a tree that let's us know how much CO2 it is "eating".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 30 2010,10:36 am |
|
|
CC-- QUOTE Has anyone else noticed the CO2 emission usage on their plane ticket?
American Airline printed the amount of CO2 emissions it took to fly my fat arse, right next to the cost of the ticket. Lame.
CC--you are closer to the point than you realize. The Euroweenies have already enacted a "carbon tax" on aviation--but not on trains, trucks, or autos. I guess those don't emit "carbon."
Rather than just collect the tax on fuel (easy to calculate and collect), the Euroweenies have bureaucrats in Belgium assigning a "carbon footprint" to each aircraft type and variant, no matter how big or small the aircraft. There are perhaps 30 different variants of the 737, for example. Each manufacturer has to flight check each model to provide the data for the "carbon footprint."
Eurocontrol now requires flight plans for every airplane--even pleasure flights on nice days. Eurocrats then calculate a "carbon tax" for each flight, and send the registered owner of the aircraft a bill.
Just when you think it can't get any stranger--the Euroweenies have enacted legislation that would apply their tax to THE ENTIRE FLIGHT--even from international destinations. Flying from San Francisco to London? The entire flight is taxed--not just the portion in Euro airspace. When the airlines protested, the response fromt he Euroweenies was "The carbon ends up here anyway." 
As usual, the regulation is having its unintended consequences. Private pilots are flying less--and many are flying gliders or "trike" parasails--unregistered aircraft that burn auto gas.
The consequences for the airlines--higher ticket prices (passed on to consumers) and fewer long haul nonstops. Beginning next June, there will be fewer non-stops from the West Coast--they will make intermediate stops on the East coast to reduce the carbon tax. The result? INCREASED fuel consumption and emissions--MORE congestion--HIGHER fares--and a big bureaucracy, as well.
And people wonder why there are so few liberals in aviation!
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
