Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Reading my Sunday paper today, I find the following:
Customers Can Sell Back Solar Power.
The Los Angeles District of Water and Power will allow customers to sell back excess solar energy created on their own equipment.
Described as the largest urban rooftop solar program of its kind in the nation, the so-called feed-in-tariff program would pay customers 17 cents per kilowatt hour for energy produced on their own equipment. The DWP has already accepted more than a dozen applicants and will be taking dozens more as it accepts contracts for up to 100 megawatts of solar power through 2016.
My prediction is that this whole thing is going to turn into what we used to call a “righteous goat-rope” when I worked in Alaska. The problems with the proposal were spelled out before the vote by the Ratepayers Advocate, Fred Pickel. According to reports, he “told commissioners that 17 cents per kilowatt hour was above market rates and could force significant rate increases on DWP customers. Higher DWP bills could drive jobs away.”
Well yeah, duh. The Commissioners knew that, so they were careful to give Fred a fair trial before they executed him and voted for their proposal instead. This shows that it’s good for the LA DWP to have a “ratepayers advocate”, it gives the Commissioners someone to ignore, which is always fun, and that way they can say that they considered all sides of the question.
Figure 1. Retail electricity rates, in US cents, for 2010. SOURCE
What is wrong with the moronomic math of the Commissioners of the Los Angeles District of Water and Power? Figure 1 suggests some of the answers.
The problem is that in order to break even, the Los Angeles District of Water and Power (DWP) has to sell the power at more than it cost the DWP to buy it, transport it, buffer it with adequate backup, and deliver it to the eventual customer. As a result, their sale price will be more than seventeen cents per hour.
How much more? Well, that’s kind of difficult to calculate. But we can look at some of the issues and make some first-cut estimates.
First, getting the power from the rooftops. Certainly for some installations the DWP will have to install interconnects to their main backbones. And even for residential installations, a sunny day can put a huge load on a local distribution network. Remember, that network was never designed to handle excessive amounts of power, particularly heading upstream. In addition, DWP will have to install a variety of wireless reporting instrumentation for the control of the intelligent network, to keep it from going off the rails. I’d guess the cost to upgrade local networks and provide intelligent interconnects and controls would be on the order of a cent per kWh.
Then we have to look at the question of backup. Solar is notoriously variable. When the clouds come over, output drops massively and pretty instantaneously. That power needs to be replaced, immediately, from some other source. That means that you will have to both purchase and install peaking power that is equivalent to the amount of solar that you are adding to your system. This need for immediate response is often met these days by huge diesels, which can respond much faster than gas turbines to power variations. But whether the backup is gas or diesel, it is going to be two things—inefficient and expensive. It has to be inefficient because you have to keep it running, at minimum load and in an inefficient range for the engine/turbine, all the time. Engines are designed to run at maximum efficiency under full load conditions, and elsewhere in the range they are much less efficient. You can’t shut the backup off, and to make it worse, most of the time you’re running at maybe 10% of the nameplate capacity. No bueno.
I discuss the levelized cost of various generation systems in “The Dark Future of Solar Electricity“. I’ll use the costs of conventional combined cycle gas as an example for the backup of the solar. The capital costs for CCG are about two cents per kWh, and the running costs are given as five cents per kWh. It won’t be running all the time, though, so we’ll take running costs at two cents per kWh. That’s a combined cost of four cents per kWh for the backup.
Finally, the electricity has to be delivered to the ultimate customer. The price of operating this transmission network is usually referred to as a “wheeling cost”. I would expect the wheeling cost to be on the order of a cent or two per kWh.
So we have seventeen cents for the power purchase. We have a penny for the intelligent network upgrade to handle the power, about four cents capital plus running costs for the backup generator, and we’ll call it another penny for wheeling costs to be conservative, although if their network is old the wheeling cost may be higher.
That gives a total out-of-pocket power cost to the DWP of about twenty-three cents per kWh of power delivered to the ultimate customer … but wait, it gets worse. The DWP still needs to both cover their administration costs, and to have funds to re-invest in upgrading plant and equipment as the years go by. So they’ll need maybe 20% above the raw costs to cover overheads and investments, which puts the sale price for the power on the order of twenty-seven, twenty-eight cents per kilowatt hour … might be a bit more, might be a bit less, this is an estimate, but that’s the range.
Of course, they likely won’t ask any single customer to pay that much. Instead, they’ll quietly spread the expense over all of their customers near and far, and it will be reflected in a price increase across the board.
Unfortunately, as you can see by the colors in Figure 1, California already has the most expensive electric power with the exception of the New England states, and this will only make it worse. Power in CA is far more costly than in any of its western neighbors. This is a result of California’s colossally foolish policy of requiring a certain percentage of renewables … plus an even more idiotic policy of not counting hydroelectric power as a renewable.
But wait, it gets worse. We used to have the “20% renewable by 2020” goal for our electricity, which is why the California power cost is already up to fourteen cents per kWh as shown in Fig. 1, and part of why people were fleeing the state even then.
But when Jerry Brown assumed the imperial governorship, he decided by fiat that the new policy should be:
20% renewable by December 31, 2013
25% renewable by December 31, 2016
33% renewable by December 31, 2020
And that, dear friends, that means that you can stick a fork in California, we’re done. By the time that the 33% renewable policy is implemented statewide, all Californians will be paying the twenty-five cent per kilowatt-hour price that the LA folks are test-marketing right now. And meanwhile, the neighboring states are ending up with the businesses that are fleeing California like cockroaches from the light, in part because electricity and fuel costs are so high that a business can no longer afford to run a factory in California.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, expensive energy is always a bad idea. It turns out that in California, it’s a lethal idea, it will both kill businesses dead and be very hard on the poor.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is a happy map with state-by-state coloring indicating where solar PV reaches price parity, depending on year and amounts of subsidies. The site that created the map explains that states where solar PV is at cost parity today are the ones where electricity rates *ARE SUFFICIENTLY HIGH*.
Good news that…
http://www.ilsr.org/projects/solarparitymap/
Good analysis.
Here in AZ, my solar generated during peak hours offsets peak hours @ur momisugly 0.24/kWh. That generated during off peak hours offsets off peak @ur momisugly0.009/kWh. The power company purchases any excess power I generate at the end of the year (no carry-over). The purchase price is the off-peak price (I think – it may be even lower).
Unique to AZ and So Cal is when the clouds come out during the day, electricity demand will drop almost as quickly as the solar output as ACs run less hard. I wonder where the redistribution of excess solar is managed? I hope it is at the local substation with all of the excess consumed within a few hundred meters of where it was generated.
We have yet to mention the costs paid by the taxpayers/ratepayers for the subsidies
for solar power from both the Feds and California. Last tine I looked, the subsidies
from the Feds basically paid for up to 6 KW of solar panels. The panels basically cost nothing.
What’s left are installation costs, which are very little in terms of materials, except for the
inverter. I see where Italy recently slashed feed in tariffs and forbid any new rooftop
installations, since their utilities are on the verge of bankruptcy. Seventeen cents
per kwhr makes no economic sense – solar power isn’t worth anywhere near that much,
mostly due to its unreliability. Wind power has the same negative characteristic, as does any uncontrollable power source.
I also saw a survey of 30 cost analyses of the various methods of power generation as well
as their carbon emissions.: solar power generated more than twice the carbon emissions of hydro and in some studies came close to matching the emissions of closed loop gas turbines.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
There is a MATH problem in Los Angeles. Why are they overpaying for energy they are buying back? Remember, too, that most of the solar generator units were likely to have been subsidized. It seems like “double dipping” at the public trough. Doesn’t it?
Quite some time ago and in a discussion far far away, I read the account of a Southern California homeowner that prevailed in his suit against his neighbor for the neighbor’s preexisting trees shading the plaintiff’s $100,000 PV installation. IIRC the cost was presented as not exceptional.
A. Scott says:
January 15, 2013 at 2:03 am
I fear that has already been figured in. The problem is not that solar is available at SOME peak times. It is that it is not available at others (evening peak) and it is unreliable.
A. Scott, virtually every grid system using solar has had to limit the installed amount. People upstream have discussed this. It’s because of the instability in the system caused by the intermittent nature of the power.
So you can stand there and claim that such instability is not “quite as bad as I note”, but the real-world experience people discuss above shows that you are just making things up to impress the rubes.
Please, please do your homework. You clearly don’t understand the grid and how it works. It doesn’t matter if you are calling it electricity to “supplement existing capacity”, all intermittent power needs backup. It doesn’t stop needing backup just because you give it a fancy name.
In addition, you obviously know nothing about the efficiency of power plants. If you “run a larger number of facilities at reduced, partial power” you are running large facilities very inefficiently. They are not designed to run at reduced partial power, and that action will cost your customers through the nose. In addition to increased fuel costs, it increases maintenance costs as well. All your brilliant plan does is cost lots more money from inefficient generation.
I don’t understand this. You say I’m overlooking the capital costs, but then you note correctly that “buying from consumers means no capital costs for the generation itself.” I’ve included interconnect costs, and the customers are paying for the racks and panels and their installation, so which capital costs are you referring to?
Regards,
w.
chris y says:
January 15, 2013 at 7:34 am
“Where did the other money come from to pay for this?
“MMA Renewable Ventures, LLC has financed and will own and operate the landmark solar energy system, selling power to Nellis Air Force Base at a guaranteed rate for the next 20 years, as well as selling Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to Nevada Power.”
”
Nice trick to obfuscate the real cost per kWh. You gotta give the solar people one thing, they are world class propagandists.
TimTheToolMan says:
January 15, 2013 at 4:10 am
Sometimes, Tim, your credulity, combined with your unending mad desire to prove me wrong, does you serious damage.
Look up “wheeling cost”, there’s dozens and dozens of technical papers on it. Do you think I make these things up? If so, sorry to disappoint you.
I have been involved personally in negotiating Power Purchase Agreements with the utilities, have you? I assure you that they know that wheeling cost is real.
In fact, wheeling cost refers to the real, actual cost to “wheel” the power around the network. It may surprise you to find this out, Tim, but running a power distribution network costs money, and the more power you have to wheel the more it costs.
Accordingly, the wheeling costs are added to the other costs (generation, depreciated capital costs, etc.) to determine the total cost of delivered power.
Do your homework first before uncapping your electronic pen, Tim. You’ll look a lot less foolish.
w.
I think we should stop refering to the heavy lifters in the production of electricity as ‘back up’ for renewables. Renewables don’t front up and often don’t even turn up. Renewables are unreliables. Renewables are a mere sacrifice to the gods, a ruinous gesture, an ugly and expensive ornament, memorials to the bogus virtue of genuinely deluded politicians.
P Solar
“In reality this will never (at least in our lifetimes) out-produce the local consumption , so it will simple reduce the load on the distribution system not overload it. ”
I wish that was true.
The IEA has a task force investigating countermeasures which need to be taken to assure grid stability with high density installations.
http://www.iea-pvps-task10.org/IMG/pdf/rep10_06.pdf
harrywr2 at 10:29
From page 5 of the report you cited:
P. Solar says:
January 15, 2013 at 5:15 am
Look up the difference between “solar power as a fraction of total power produced in America” and “solar power produced in a particular location”.
If a solar system is designed to supply the entire load for a house plus some (as these solar systems often are) it is most assuredly possible to have more power flowing upstream from the house than ever flows downstream to the house. All you need is a sunny day and nobody in the house. This is a particular problem where the feed-in tariff is very high. In that situation, people put in huge systems to make money … and when they do, your claim that the upstream power will never exceed the downstream power goes right in the trash can.
Overall, you seem to be arguing that the feed-in-tariff type of distributed solar network can be put into place without any upgrade to either the capacity or the intelligence of the network—for free, in other words. Unfortunately, the real world is never that nice. Here’s a quote for you to consider:
You see that part about the “utility-side network upgrade costs”? That’s the penny per kWh in the costing. You can claim that is too little or too much. But your claim that there will be no utility-side network upgrade costs is nonsene.
Cool … so your claim is that renewable energy doesn’t need backup? Good luck with that one.
Since you haven’t provided anything to back up that whole paragraph but your mouth, you’ll excuse me if I ignore it entirely. Come back with some cites, we can have a discussion. Until then, that kind of apocryphal story is meaningless, and given that you are the author, doubtful. Might be true, but your record in the past isn’t all that good.
Say what? How did politics rear its ugly head? P. Solar, while it’s nice to see you have opinions about politics, what on earth makes you think that they are desirable here?
First off, who are you calling the “political right”? I certainly hope it’s not me, because if you think I’m a right-winger, you couldn’t be more wrong. I know that’s not an unusual position for you, but still … rather than just splattering feces on the wall, how about some details about who among the “political right” you are discussing, and what you think they might have done wrong.
While the prices are down to an “affordable” level, in almost all situations there is no solar without subsidy. And since you say that you are not taking a subsidy, I’d be interested in the economics of your installation, which I notice you haven’t provided … I say this because I’ve known folks to put up solar just to impress the neighbors.
Second, we have been subsidizing solar for well over a quarter century now, when are you folks going to give up nursing at the government teat? If the aim of subsidy is to get people off of the subsidy, why is LA today, as spelled out in the head post, subsidizing solar? If “stupidly expensive prices” are now affordable, then tell us, P. …
WHY ON EARTH IS LA STILL TODAY SUBSIDIZING THE SOLAR YOU CLAIM IS “AFFORDABLE”?
You decry nuclear subsidies, which provide baseload power. But you seem to be fine with solar subsidies, which provide us with nothing of value …
A man who thinks we should judge nuclear and solar by the same set of values, as you obviously do, has not considered the full implications of the words “dispersed and intermittent”. Nuclear provides baseload 24/7 power.
Solar provides nothing of the sort.
So why on earth would we want to judge them with the same measurements? That’s why they have a separate Olympics for disabled folks … because it is not fair to use the same values to judge everyone.
Overall, P. Solar, my question is, just what is your point here? My point is that for LA to buy expensive solar is a mistake because it is both subsidized and priced way over market … what is your point? I ask because it is assuredly not obvious from your post, which seems very concerned with finding me in error but which glosses over whatever point you were trying to make.
w.
Don’t know if somebody already said it …
about “Solar produces power at peak times” : YES. ALL OF THEM PANELS AT THE SAME TIME.
Oversupply is the consequence; the price at the electricity exchange drops to zero and into negative.
The owners of the panels don’t care, they get guaranteed payments. If you would force them to take the market prices, they wouldn’t make any money as they all produce at the same time, competing against each other.
Maybe this would result in a concentration process and economies of scale as only the biggest producers would survive under this competition. But it is of course not allowed to happen; tariffs paid to the producers are mandated.
So, there is no drive to become more efficient on the side of the solar panel operators.
Furthermore, if one would pay them market prices, they would have an incentive to store their electricity and sell it during times of high demand. Again, this doesn’t happen.
The renewable energy development concentrates not on developing technological solutions but on developing better lobbying, better buying of politicians and of laws.
To many do seem to hooked on moronomics.
Someone mentioned the airforce base that spent $100 million to install solar stuff to save $1 million a year. That sounded dumb when I first heard it. Now I find out it isn’t even a savings by reducing electricity used off the grid but what amounts to a subsidy.
(sarc on) But isn’t it worth it if it makes somebody feel good? (sarc off)
FYI: One of, if not the world’s largest feed-in-tariff is in Washington State. It goes like this:
Renewables = $0.15 kWh
System with locally made inverters = $0.18 kWh
System with locally made panels and inverters = $0.56 kWh
Community owned, local solar projects = $1.08 a kWh
Each address/owner is allowed up to $5,000 annually, and the FIT is good through 2020. It’s been around since 2006, and hasn’t been a financial problem for the State – especially considering we have one of the cheapest rates of electricity in the nation.
Willis – I assure you I am not, nor am I interested in as you claim, “just making things up to impress the rubes.”
I offered my quick initial thoughts and insights, backed up with some data – in as non-controversial a way as I could – most of which you seemingly ignored. And when you did respond it was – as is all too often when someone disagrees in any way with you – with insults, derision and denigration.
I enjoy your writing – but am tired of the constant insults and condescension against those you disagree with.
I’ll repeat my earlier comments. First, lets start with a link to the story you quoted:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/12/local/la-me-solar-rooftop-20130112
You challenged the cost effectiveness of buying power from residential producers at $0.17 cents, when that number is higher than residential customers pay. The article noted this was for initially 100 megawatts of solar energy – planned to be increased to a total of 150 megawatts.
You left out this important part “The DWP is offering a tiered-pricing schedule that drops to 13 cents per kilowatt hour as energy contracts are reserved,”
You also left out this VERY important and relevant part – which would appear to refute your entire premise:
Once again, at least the impression is that you cherry picked the article – only presented the points that supported your position, while leaving out other important, relevant, parts – such as that the plan adds a whopping 4 cents to an average residential electric bill.
I don’t know about you Willis, but even as generally an opponent of solar, I would be more than happy to pay 4 cents a month to see 34,000 homes as the story noted powered by solar.
I’d also note the story points out the $500 million in economic activity it would generate.
I acknowledge they do not say how much it might cost an average consumer in the long run – but its pretty easy to get an idea. LADWP received approval in 2011 for a rate increase that will see average rate increase from 12.69 to 14.1 cents per kWh by July 2013 – an appx 11% increase.
This rate increase is so LADWP can;
a.) meet or exceed the state goal of 10% energy reduction by 2020,
b.) pursue a viable, cost-effective plan for meeting the new state target of 33% renewable by 2020
c.) modernize its older generating units to be more fuel efficient and better integrate renewable energy
d.) meet the strict compliance deadlines to replace “once-through” ocean cooling systems at its coastal power plants
e.) rebuild for reliability – an urgent need to ramp up replacement and upgrade of aging infrastructure – power poles, transformers and distribution equipment, as well as transmission and generation facilities – including the need to integrate new, intermittent renewable energy resources such as wind and solar power.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/LADWP-2013rates
The Rate Payer Advocate confirmed, after LADWP made several key changes to its original rate plan to incorporate several RPA recommendations, that the proposed rate increases are necessary and warranted to comply with legal mandates and invest in basic reliability.
Projects like the sell-back solar tariff are clearly included in and part of the costs built in to the recent rate increase. So we generally CAN KNOW the cost, as the utilities are required to disclose in detail their justification for the spending.
And LADWP is required to disclose that cost as well … for a standard, base residential customer, their bill would increase from $65.79 in 2011 to $69.44 in 2013.
To accomplish all of the projects and improvements listed above – INCLUDING the renewable energy projects – the average standard residential customer will pay $3.65 per month more – in LA – one of the highest electric cost markets in the country.
Had we simply read the entire article, and done the smallest of research – a quick visit to the LADWP rates page – we could have known the answers. And known that the costs are not exorbitant nor unreasonable.
A.Scott, you are missing the point when you say:
“I don’t know about you Willis, but even as generally an opponent of solar, I would be more than happy to pay 4 cents a month to see 34,000 homes as the story noted powered by solar.”
That’s nice for you, so how about volunteering to pay the 4 cents a month for every consumer who doesn’t give a rat’s about 34,000 lucky homeowners getting money for nothing?
The notion that it is OK to extort money from consumers because the amount involved per household is small is typical of the casuistry that infests the ‘green’ energy lobby. It’s like running a protection racket and justifying it on the grounds that you only charge $10 a week.
I will repeat – I am no large scale supporter of solar, especially hugely subsidized solar – but this program by all appearances is a good thing. The tariff agreed to be paid – 17 cents to as low as 13 cents – surely does appear to be a respectable deal when the LADWP average energy cost in 2013 is 14.1 cents per kWh.
Especially considering it is generated by the customers equipment – that LADWP does not have to pay for.
Add that this energy is generated at the PEAK use time – during sunny days when AC and electric demand is at highest – and its all the better deal. During those peak times there is a huge amount of high volume and industrial users paying as much as 30 cents and more per kWh. The AVERAGE electricity cost at the PEAK times is MUCH HIGHER than the 14.1 cents year round average.
Buying electricity at these peak demand times – whenever it is available – at 17 cents sure looks to me like a great deal. Not to mention it provides standby capacity at peak times that could help avoid rolling blackouts and the like.
Further – there is plenty of back up generation available. LADWP has 7,200 megawatts generating capacity vs. peak demand of 6,165 megawatts. That math shows more than 1,000 megawatts of excess generating capacity available. This solar plan is for 150 megawatts total – a fraction of the excess generation currently available.
The LADWP Castaic Power Plant alone provides 1,600 megawatts capacity – 22% of the entire system. It is a pumped storage plant – electricity is generated by stored water passed from one reservoir to a lower one during the day when demand (and electric billed rates) is highest, and the water is pumped back to top tank at night when rates lowest.
They SELL the electricity at peak demand rates during the day – 20 to 30+ cents per kWh, and then use off peak nite electricity – that costs them 10 cents or so to pump the water back at nite.
It would seem there would be no significant difference whether that hydro plant works at 5% or 100% from a cost standpoint – it is gravity and water thru a turbine.
It certainly appears, when you start researching the actual full data and information, that the 17 cents per kWh tariff for solar energy fed to the system is a pretty good deal in the end.
And I think it is a MUCH better idea than using crop land as you exposed in a recent story.
What are you talking about? Those 34,000 homeowners do NOT receive money for anything. They PAY their NORMAL energy costs just like everyone else.
Whether you like it or not LADWP MUST meet state (and federal) standard. For renewable energy AND things like eliminating “once thru” ocean cooling plants.
They also have huge infrastructure costs to replace 60+ year old highly inefficient, failure prone, ugly and expensive power poles and distribution network. Those costs are huge but will lead to significant LONG TERM SAVINGS for customers.
ALL of those things and more were included in the latest rate hike – which adds $3.65 to the base residential customers bill.
The 4 cents a month to implement this solar does provide benefits to all customers as well. Not the least being it frees up 150 megawatts of their excess capacity – which could minimize or eliminate rolling brown and/or blackouts in the next big heat wave – just as ONE example.
.
Turns out Willis and I are both right on power plants … you have “base load” plants that operate as Willis notes – running constantly providing a base amount of energy. These include nuclear and coal – which do not change output based on demand.
There are base load plants that have multiple generators – that can be cycled with demand – so when operating each generator runs at continuous capacity. Some coal plants are also “cycled” daily to meet demand.
Then you have peak load plants – which can and do routinely manage loads based on demand. These plants – natural gas for example, can react quickly to changing demand.
The pumped storage plants I noted above are one of the best methods of peak load demand plants.
WillR says:
January 15, 2013 at 8:23 am
No, the correct ‘battery’ is H2 made from H2O. Throw the O2 away, since you can get that anywhere. LH2 fuel cells could do the trick. I recall work has been done on fuel cells using materials that can replace Pt. Yep, just checked, and here’s a link for fuel cells without Pt.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hydrogen-Fuel-Cells-Can-Be-Produced-Without-Platinum-196449.shtml
Naturally, it makes no sense to burn hydrocarbons to make H2. You need nuclear to make enough LH2 to begin to compete with gasoline and LNG. I suppose some wind or solar might be used, but generally speaking, PV is a terrible misuse of land. If you have nuclear, you can afford the losses in making, storing, and transporting LH2. LH2 would even be good for making a superconducting power distribution system. Deliver both hydrogen and power. It also would address the need for an EMP resistant power grid.
A. Scott says:
January 15, 2013 at 3:30 pm
As far as I know, I answered all of your point in my post upstream. If I missed one, I’m glad to answer it, but you’ll have to point it out, vague wimpering and whining about how I’m being mean to you won’t help. Give me chapter and verse if you want action.
My comment was directed towards your foolish claim that no backup was necessary for these particular renewables. This is a stupid, laughable claim, and you seem like a smart man, so the only assumption left for me is that you were making things up. If it is merely a sign of your lack of comprehension, then you certainly have my apologies for saying you were making it up.
Fine. Then go away and bitch to someone else about what you are “tired of”, because I couldn’t care less what you are tired of..
Seriously. I’m not gonna change because you don’t like my style, A, I’m too old for that, so you’ll have to decide if you can stand it. I will guarantee that if you go, I won’t miss you a bit.
If you took a look, you would find that I condescend to those people that treat me like a fool, and I insult those who come in to do nothing but harangue me. People who come in to learn or to teach, them I’m more than happy to discuss things with. People like you who come in full of bluster, and claim that these renewables don’t need backup, and that theres no problem with running industrial power plants at partial capacity?
At that point, you get exactly what that kind of nonsense deserves.
w.
Willis writes “In fact, wheeling cost refers to the real, actual cost to “wheel” the power around the network. It may surprise you to find this out, Tim, but running a power distribution network costs money”
…in response to my comment “This cost is not an additional cost and you’re adding it to bolster your short sighted argument.”
Hilarious Willis. Now how is the distribution network an extra cost when you add distributed solar PV to it as opposed to sticking with centralised supply? Distributing the load around the distribution network decreases the load on it Willis. That should lengthen the time before upgrades are needed. Maintenance is maintenance and is always going to be needed. How is that more expensive? Administratively maybe, is that your argument?
But the funniest thing you said was “Do your homework first before uncapping your electronic pen, Tim. You’ll look a lot less foolish.”
Because I am quite certain that I know more about the energy industry and its drivers than you’ll ever know. IT in Utiilities has been the vast majority of my working life. Right now I’m contracted to a power utility and we’re replacing its trading system. You telling me how the energy industry works would be like me telling you how to build a .
A. Scott says:
January 15, 2013 at 4:37 pm (Edit)
A. Scott, I begin to despair. I have shown that natural gas powered plants cost around 6 cents a kilowatt hour, that coal is about 8 cents, gas advanced turbine is 11 cents … and now you are impressed because after charging 17 cents for a while, they plan to drop it down to 13 cents …
Mr. Scott, before I accused you of not being all that smart. Your response is to come back and claim that 13 cent per kilowatt hour power makes everything alright … what planet do you live on? That is double the cost of cheap power.
Heck, if you don’t mind that, A. Scott, how about this plan. Every person in the US gives me 4 cents per month …
What’s that? You don’t think that the people of the US should have to subsidize my sorry ass, even if it only costs four cents per month?
Well, I feel the same way about subsidized electricity. I don’t care if the subsidy is small, all that means is that you’ve spread it out widely, not that it suddenly becomes fair because more people are baying for it.
“It would generate”? Damn, you are a credulous person. Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper, or just this particular article? Expensive power, 17 cent per kWh power, isn’t going to generate much “economic activity” at all, not everyone is as foolish as the author of the article.
w.
w.