By Steve Goreham
Originally published in Communities Digital News.
Americans take electricity for granted. Electricity powers our lights, our computers, our offices, and our industries. But misguided environmental policies are eroding the reliability of our power system.
Last winter, bitterly cold weather placed massive stress on the US electrical system―and the system almost broke. On January 7 in the midst of the polar vortex, PJM Interconnection, the Regional Transmission Organization serving the heart of America from New Jersey to Illinois, experienced a new all-time peak winter load of almost 142,000 megawatts.
Eight of the top ten of PJM’s all-time winter peaks occurred in January 2014. Heroic efforts by grid operators saved large parts of the nation’s heartland from blackouts during record-cold temperature days. Nicholas Akins, CEO of American Electric Power, stated in Congressional testimony, “This country did not just dodge a bullet―we dodged a cannon ball.”
Environmental policies established by Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are moving us toward electrical grid failure. The capacity reserve margin for hot or cold weather events is shrinking in many regions. According to Philip Moeller, Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “…the experience of this past winter indicates that the power grid is now already at the limit.”
EPA policies, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Section 316 Cooling Water Rule, are forcing the closure of many coal-fired plants, which provided 39 percent of US electricity last year. American Electric Power, a provider of about ten percent of the electricity to eastern states, will close almost one-quarter of the firm’s coal-fired generating plants in the next fourteen months. Eighty-nine percent of the power scheduled for closure was needed to meet electricity demand in January. Not all of this capacity has replacement plans.
In addition to shrinking reserve margin, electricity prices are becoming less stable. Natural gas-fired plants are replacing many of the closing coal-fired facilities. Gas powered 27 percent of US electricity in 2013, up from 18 percent a decade earlier. When natural gas is plentiful, its price is competitive with that of coal fuel.
But natural gas is not stored on plant sites like coal. When electrical and heating demand spiked in January, gas was in short supply. Gas prices soared by a factor of twenty, from $5 per million BTU to over $100 per million BTU. Consumers were subsequently shocked by utility bills several times higher than in previous winters.
On top of existing regulations, the EPA is pushing for carbon dioxide emissions standards for power plants, as part of the “fight” against human-caused climate change. If enacted, these new regulations will force coal-fired plants to either close or add expensive carbon capture and storage technology. This EPA crusade against global warming continues even though last winter was the coldest US winter since 1911-1912.
Nuclear generating facilities are also under attack. Many of the 100 nuclear power plants that provided 20 percent of US electricity for decades can no longer be operated profitably. Exelon’s six nuclear power plants in Illinois have operated at a loss for the last six years and are now candidates for closure.
What industry pays customers to take its product? The answer is the US wind industry. Wind-generated electricity is typically bid in electrical wholesale markets at negative prices. But how can wind systems operate at negative prices?
The answer is that the vast majority of US wind systems receive a federal production tax credit (PTC) of up to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for produced electricity. Some states add an addition credit, such as Iowa, which provides a corporate tax credit of 1.5 cents per kw-hr. So wind operators can supply electricity at a pre-tax price of a negative 3 or 4 cents per kw-hr and still make an after-tax profit from subsidies, courtesy of the taxpayer.
As wind-generated electricity has grown, the frequency of negative electricity pricing has grown. When demand is low, such as in the morning, wholesale electricity prices sometimes move negative. In the past, negative market prices have provided a signal to generating systems to reduce output.
But wind systems ignore the signal and continue to generate electricity to earn the PTC, distorting wholesale electricity markets. Negative pricing by wind operators and low natural gas prices have pushed nuclear plants into operating losses. Yet, Congress is currently considering whether to again extend the destructive PTC subsidy.
Capacity shortages are beginning to appear. A reserve margin deficit of two gigawatts is projected for the summer of 2016 for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), serving the Northern Plains states. Reserve shortages are also projected for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) by as early as this summer.
The United States has the finest electricity system in the world, with prices one-half those of Europe. But this system is under attack from foolish energy policies. Coal-fired power plants are closing, unable to meet EPA environmental guidelines. Nuclear plants are aging and beset by mounting losses, driven by negative pricing from subsidized wind systems. Without a return to sensible energy policies, prepare for higher prices and electrical grid failures.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Roger Sowell says:
April 24, 2014 at 5:41 pm
@ur momisugly Mario Lento on April 24, 2014 at 4:17 pm
+++++++
I am not interested in reading more drivel, which has nothing to do with my post to you. In that post, I attempted to help you understand your confusion with regard to your post @ur momisugly (Roger Sowell says:
April 23, 2014 at 7:11 pm).
You seem incapable of cogent interchange.
dbstealey says:
April 24, 2014 at 5:47 pm
Roger Sowell says:
…your statement that “Wind turbines are being paid tax money for often doing nothing at all” looks pretty silly.
Give Mario some leeway, Roger. The way I read that is that much of the time, no power is being generated by windmills. And if I recall, English is Mario’s second language.
That said, what are your thoughts about nuclear power?
+++++++++
Hey dbstealey: Sure it may seem that English is my second language, but it is my primary language 🙂
Yes – windmills are paid in many ways, which increase cost to tax payers.
Nuclear plants receive about 2 dollars per MWh subsidy. Mostly R&D not direct payments to operators. Wind receives 22 dollars per MWh just from the tax subsidy.
To Roger Sowell: If you don’t admit that more wind turbine installed won’t lead to more blackouts and power shortages, then your level of dishonesty is all the more apparent.
@ur momisugly Doug Badgero on April 24, 2014 at 4:33 pm
Wow, are you serious? So much falsehood in this comment, I don’t know where to begin.
“Mr Sowell says just enough to support his argument while leaving out important facts.”
No, the argument is clear. Nuclear is losing. Wind is winning.
“Wind has essentially zero variable operating costs”
No, their variable costs are between 1 and 2 cents per kWh.
“, they cost no more to operate than to not operate without subsidies.”
No, they have fixed costs to pay even when they do not operate.
“ With subsidies they actually have negative operating costs.”
No, they have around 11 cents per kWh levelized operating costs, without any subsidies. Subsidies amount to around 2 to 6 cents per kWh. Buffett reports receiving 2.2 cents per kWh.
“Of course, their capital cost, a fixed cost, is very high, and no one would build them absent those cash subsidies.”
I suppose Warren Buffett is “nobody” then. The capital costs of wind turbines is dropping dramatically, year upon year, and is the reason Buffett invested $1 billion late in 2013 for many more turbines.
“ They beat nearly every source of power on cost after they are built.”
Ok, you got one thing right. Congratulations. The only thing with lower variable operating cost is hydroelectric.
“Most are not selling into the market though they are selling at above market rates on contract to meet renewable mandates.”
This makes no sense. If they are not selling into the market, then to where are they selling?
“ They are subsidized by both taxpayers via direct cash subsidies and consumers via regulated rates…..what a racket.”
Nonsense. They get one or the other, but not both. I refer you to my answer just above to Mario Lento.
“ In short, they can’t compete with anything without subsidies and nothing can compete with them with subsidies.”
Wrong again. Actually, even without subsidies, wind energy can compete quite well with everything except geothermal, hydroelectric, and solar. See California Energy Commission “COMPARATIVE COSTS OF CALIFORNIA CENTRAL STATION ELECTRICITY GENERATION” from 2009, then note that wind turbine capital costs have dropped dramatically in the past 5 years. (see Buffett reference above).
@ur momisugly Mario Lento on April 24, 2014 at 6:10 pm
“To Roger Sowell: If you don’t admit that more wind turbine installed won’t lead to more blackouts and power shortages, then your level of dishonesty is all the more apparent.”
Is that a backhand way of calling me a liar? Come right out and say it, then.
What level of wind energy leads to more blackouts and power shortages, Mario? Is Iowa’s level too much? In 2012, wind provided a bit more than 25 percent of all Iowa power. In 2013, that percent increased to just over 27 percent. It will increase even more this year. Yet, Iowa has a stable grid, few (if any) blackouts or power shortages attributable to wind. There are the usual weather-related events.
And, Iowa has some of the lowest power prices in the nation. Even with 25 percent and greater wind energy into the grid.
South Dakota also obtains 26 percent of its electricity from wind turbines.
Get your facts straight, whichever language you choose to use.
Otherwise, your level of dishonesty is all the more apparent.
@ur momisugly ralfellis says:
“What utter bollo. You do come out with some tripe sometimes, Rog.
French power costs are only subsidised if they fall bellow the reasonable cost of production and a small margin of profit.”
Well, then, you should run over to the EU Commission and give them an earful. That Commission investigated and found France has been subsidizing electric power prices for decades. I’m sure you can correct them on this, though.
Report back here, when you have corrected their grievous error.
Roger you do not know what you are talking about. The variable operating cost of any power source is dominated by fuel costs. Wind costs nothing. The only variable operating costs of a wind turbine is the difference between maintenance costs for an operating turbine versus a non operating turbine. This isn’t much. 1 to 2 cents per kWh is very low for variable operating costs. Nuclear is about 2 or slightly more and coal or gas are much more because fuel is expensive. Gas can easily be 4 cents or more depending on heat rate.
Wind turbines usually get tax production credits and above market rates via contracts because utilities are forced by state regulators to get x percent of their power from renewables. This cost is passed on to consumers in regulated rate recovery. It’s as simple as that. They do not sell into the spot market they sell under contract. Contracts that are above market because of the renewable mandates.
And I am pretty sure Buffett took the subsidies.
Roger Sowell says:
April 24, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Wrong again. Actually, even without subsidies, wind energy can compete quite well with everything except geothermal, hydroelectric, and solar. See California Energy Commission “COMPARATIVE COSTS OF CALIFORNIA CENTRAL STATION ELECTRICITY GENERATION” from 2009, then note that wind turbine capital costs have dropped dramatically in the past 5 years
====================
“Capital costs have dropped” is a dodge. Say wind turbine capital costs are low. If you can.
Wind turbine electrical generation is supplemental. Wind turbine capital costs, for a viable electric supply system, must include the fixed cost for the backup electrical generation. BWTM . . . the more reliable the wind turbine supply becomes, the less economically viable backup generation facilities become.
“The more reliable wind turbine generation becomes, the more likely blackouts become.” – GC
@ur momisugly Doug Badgero, you do not know what you are talking about.
Variable operating costs are not dominated by fuel costs for wind, solar, geothermal, or hydroelectric, ocean current, ocean wave, river run, or ocean tides. Those variable costs are strictly for operating labor and maintenance. The ones that are dominated by fuel costs are coal, gas, oil, and nuclear.
Buffett reported to the Federal government (penalties are huge for false statements) that his wind turbines received 2.2 cents per kWh produced. You could look it up. Or call me a liar. Your choice.
The USBank statements that I quoted above will give you a quick primer into wind power and the renewable energy tax credits available for such systems. Or, you could call USBank a liar, too. Your choice.
There are things known as PPA’s, production power agreements, that typically provide from 2 to 6 cents per kWh for the sale of wind-generated electricity to a utility. Such power is far less than what other generating plants receive, because wind is not dispatchable due to the variable nature of wind.
While utilities must pay wind energy producers the 2 to 6 cents for power, they are saving the 4 to 8 cents for power backed out, as you wrote above, the variable operating costs for power not produced in a gas-fired power plant. So, who is the big loser here? Customers get power whether the wind is blowing or not, utilities pay 3 cents to the wind power owner, save 5 cents on their own plants, for a gain of 2 cents per kWh. See how this works now?
RACook wrote;
“To both of you: You do understand that, in the event of an electric blackout, your home gas-fired heater “might” be available (if the local natural gas system keeps the pressure up through in-line gas-burning turbines to keep their pipelines pressurized!) … Or if your off-grid propane tank is filled.”
Well…. there are “microvolt” thermostatic controls that use a small thermopile in the pilot burner to generate enough voltage/current to safely control the main gas flow. I have an LP powered stove, it looks like a wood stove but is sealed from the interior air with a double walled combustion/exhaust vent pipe. It is fueled from an off grid LP tank (500 gallons) and it will function perfectly well with no AC power from the electric utility. The thermopile safely controls the main gas flow and I can control it with a simple low voltage thermostat (a bimetallic coil with a magnet that controls a “reed switch” which is just a low voltage set of contacts). Yes, it needs AC power for the fan (which moves the warm air around to make things more uniform/comfortable), but it will generate lots of heat with or without the fan (about 30k btu).
Yes, a modern furnace will not light the main burner without AC main voltage present, but that is because the heat exchanger is designed to maximize efficiency and needs the fan working to move the heat away quickly enough so it does not melt. But there is no fundamental reason that a gas powered stove/furnace has to have AC main power available to generate heat, distribute the heat yes, generate it, no.
Just a little nitpicking. Kevin
A ratepayor subsidy would not be disclosed. It is simply part of revenues under GAAP. Revenues that are above market rates because of the mandates.
6 cents is well above market rates for wholesale power. Above wholesale prices for coal, nuclear, and many gas plants. Depending of course on gas prices.
Variable operating costs are low for nuclear although a significant portion is fuel. Nuclear costs, especially new nuclear, is dominated by levelized capitol cost…..a fixed cost.
And non of our discussions have considered the non dispatchable nature of wind which comes with its own unique integration costs. As the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study demonstrated.
Your list of low operating cost sources are conspicuously dominated by pie in the sky sources like wave and ocean current. The only significant source on that list is hydro. I agree they all have low operating cost they just don’t produce much power.
Badgero, do you want me to cut and paste, and give the link, to Warren Buffett’s disclosure of his 2.2 cents per kWh? Seriously? Do you think I just make this stuff up? Facts are facts. Verifiable, published and on the internet for all to see.
The NREL’s Western Wind and Solar Integration Study concluded that integration costs are manageable, very small, and overwhelmed by the huge savings in fuel not burned. In short, there is no problem up to 33 percent wind on the grid.
Badgero, what do you mean they don’t produce much power. Hydroelectric produces almost 16 percent of the world’s power, compared to just 11.7 percent for nuclear, in 2011 per the IEA.
I believe you are an educated man so I can only assume you are obfuscating what you know to be true. Subsidy from ratepayers based on above market contract rates would not be disclosed as a government subsidy since it would simply show up as above market revenues for the power produced.
Most countries don’t have nuclear so a world wide claim is misleading. What about the US? And as I said hydro is the only significant source on your list.
Integration costs are small only when compared to total costs associated with the transition. They are zero if wind and solar are not included. While it is technically feasible to get to about 30 percent it comes at significant cost in both additional capital cost and integration costs. Integration solutions that are fundamentally an elegant solution to a problem that should never exist in the first place. 30 percent scenario in the east costs 60 billion annually (Figure 3) and that is compared to the base case which still includes some wind. About 6 percent I believe.
Roger Sowell says:
April 24, 2014 at 6:24 pm
@ur momisugly Mario Lento on April 24, 2014 at 6:10 pm
++++++++++
touche’
I won’t address this comment to Mr Sowell, as he has made it clear that his discussion with me is closed. It’s unfortunate, but certainly not unique in my experience, that debates sometimes get “closed” when uncomfortable questions get asked, or evidence is requested to support assertions made.
Mr Sowell (erroneously) labels me a “nuclear advocate” and a defender of the “French model”. At least he said I was amusing. That’s something, I suppose.
For the record: I am not a “nuclear advocate”, and am certainly NOT a fan of the “French model”, being philosophically opposed to subsidies in the main. What I AM a fan of is the truth, and civil, evidence based argument.
It was that which led me to instinctively question Mr Sowell’s reference to French energy being fully subsidized. It seemed inherently unlikely that the French populace were receiving free electricity, so I simply asked him for evidence to support his assertion. Again and again.
In order to maintain civil and rigorous debate, I do of course have to quickly acknowledge and correct my own errors. I apologize to Mr Sowell, because I said that he had not provided a link or quote for an EU investigation. The blog article to which he linked clearly had it listed (I simply missed it – no excuses).
Moving on, I believe Mr Sowell has committed a monumental howler and, as he says, closes the discussion, when he states that “a fully nationalized industry is considered fully subsidized”.
it my be considered to the case by Mr Sowell, but it is certainly not universal. ‘Fully nationalized’ is an indication of ownership or control by the State – nothing more. I’m confident that Mr Sowell would be aware that it implies absolutely nothing about pricing policy or subsidization.
As a case in point, I refer the reader to the Hilmer reforms and National Competition Policy* which Australia pursued in the 1990s. This policy was specifically designed to ensure pricing by nationalized industries and businesses was NOT subsidized by their State ownership – the concept of ‘competitive neutrality’ was employed.
Indeed, the EU investigation quote Mr Sowell uses on his own blog invalidates his assertion:
“it found that these regulated tariffs were financed AT LEAST IN PART through state resources.” (my capitals for emphasis)
– the clear implication being that the tariffs were financed – at least in part – through other means. One presumes this would have included the consumer’s wallets. Even in Mr Sowell’s ‘French model’, fully nationalized does NOT equal fully subsidized.
Given that this is Mr Sowell’s own hand-picked quote, I would have significant difficulty believing that he did not understand it in full. It seems that the sophistry is continuing.
As I have said earlier in this blog, it seems increasingly likely that Mr Sowell does not want to engage on points that do not suit him (even points he made himself), and his comments should be weighed accordingly.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Competition_Policy_(Australia) . I know, Thruthipedia is an atrocious citation, but I was in a hurry, and it’s all I could think of for an overview.
***
Roger Sowell says:
April 24, 2014 at 7:45 pm
@ur momisugly Doug Badgero, you do not know what you are talking about.
***
Jeesh, how many feet can you stuff in your mouth? Who are we gonna believe regarding power-generation systems, a senior engineer working w/a nuclear plant at a major utility, or a single-issue-fanatic lawyer?
How does the energy-density produced by fission compare to 19th century wind power? How do the footprints compare? Any competent engineer knows this and is appalled by the miniscule production capabilities and massive footprints of pinwheels compared to nuclear power.
Tom Murphy says:
April 24, 2014 at 12:37 pm
“I’m surprised at the seven day outage due to a power transformer failure,”
————-
You’re surprised, …. me was too.
Almost a week without my TV or internet and nothing else to do ….. made me an unhappy camper.
=============
“More than likely, the breaker on the affected circuit would open (trip) due to the fault. After a visual patrol of the circuit and inspection of the breaker/associated power transformer, the breaker would be closed and transformer energized. At most, there would be be 1-3 hours of interruption based mostly on the circuit length requiring patrol.”
————-
Do not those breakers have to “trip” for the 3rd time before they remain “off”?
Thus a “short” caused by magnetic recording tape probably wouldn’t even cause the lights to “blink”.
Doug Badgero says:
April 24, 2014 at 8:37 pm
“Subsidy from ratepayers based on above market contract rates would not be disclosed as a government subsidy since it would simply show up as above market revenues for the power produced.”
—————
Right, ….. in the US the state’s Public Service Commission, a government entity, has the authority to “set the rate” that power generating companies can charge their customers. And in WV the PSC can change said “rate” for bout any reason they want to ….. be it a request from the power producer or to subsidize the “power costs” of a private company that requires humongous amounts of electrical power.
Either way, it is a subsidy from the ratepayers that “simply shows up as market revenue for the power produced”
To wit:
“Corporate Giant Century Aluminum Holds West Virginia Retirees Hostage in Exchange for Cheap Power
After reaching the agreement, Century, with the help of the retirees, managed to negotiate new favorable tax legislation with West Virginia lawmakers, in addition to a deal with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia (PSC) that would potentially save the company over half a billion dollars in energy costs at the plant over the next decade. Even after receiving these discount rates from the PSC, Century walked away from the deal in October 2012 because it was unwilling to make up any shortfalls in the rate that may have occurred over the next ten years. The company is also threatening to close a smelter in Kentucky if it cannot get reduced electric rates. ”
http://truth-out.org/news/item/15108-corporate-giant-century-aluminum-holds-west-virginia-retirees-hostage-in-exchange-for-cheap-power
“Samuel C Cogar says:
“Do not those breakers have to ‘trip’ for the 3rd time before they remain ‘off’?
“Thus a short caused by magnetic recording tape probably wouldn’t even cause the lights to ‘blink’.”
That function is accomplished by a recloser and not the breaker or power transformer, although a recloser is technically a smart breaker. A recloser is installed on a distribution feeder to minimize the frequency of outages caused by line faults in a given area. And line faults occur more frequently on distribution feeders because of the surrounding vegetation, which also attracts birds and squirrels – other common, outage agents. Lightning is another fault source but tends to be managed via in-line arrestors – but I digress…
When a fault occurs, the recloser opens/closes (de-energizes/energizes) rapidly for a few cycles – usually three, as mentioned. For the customer, recloser operation manifests as a momentary dimming of the lights. This operation is intended to allow the cause of the (hopefully transient) fault to clear itself before an outage is realized (e.g., the branch burns and falls clear of the line); if the fault remains after the last close, then the recloser stops the cycle in the open (de-energized) position to protect the feeder and associated equipment; this results in a customer outage.
While distribution voltages vary across the states, as well as across the utilities, it’s typically <35 kilovolts (kV). The distribution feeder is what runs from the substation to the customer along the roadway. Officially, though, transmission voltages are 69 kV and higher, while everything below is distribution; however, many utilities regard 35 to 69 kV as sub-transmission voltage, but this is a safety distinction (the point at which protective gloves are no good) more so than an engineering distinction.
Transmission circuits are protected by a circuit breaker. If a fault occurs on these circuits (either phase to phase or phase to ground), the breaker opens immediately to protect the power transformer. A substation supplied by such a transmission circuit is also impacted immediately. Presuming the substation is supplied by only one transmission circuit, which is rarely the case but works for this discussion, then a fault will cause an immediate customer outage for all the distribution feeders exiting the substation – a recloser has no role with these faults.
The reason why reclosers aren’t installed on transmission circuits is the magnitude of the resulting fault current, which is significant. With transmission voltages, a separation of the switch contacts via a recloser does not always break the current flow because an electric arc forms between the contacts. While a transmission breaker can be used in conjunction with relay to form something like a recloser or an oil switch can be used in an attempt to quench the arc, the more definitive solution (from a power transformer risk/damage perspective) is to allow the breaker to function as is. As has been identified correctly in this thread, replacement of a power transformer (from scratch) takes an extended time period.
Kit Blanke says:
April 23, 2014 at 4:07 pm
Blackouts will be a good thing. Here’s why. A slow loss of generating capacity and rising costs of energy will roll back our economy. The people in California rose up and replace the Governor in 2003 after a series of blackouts due to mismanagement. The Recall was successful because enough people become uncomfortable too quickly. They couldn’t ignore the loss of power and pretend everything was rosy.
To digress: The elite mentality is, problems are only for the poor people who deserve them. When the elites are also inconvenienced, then there is action. Now of course, everyone living in a $1 million house actually worth about $90,000 in the Bay Area thinks they are part of the elite. They spend 90% of a 6 figure income on housing, utilities, food, and going to work and have maybe 10% left over to pay their credit card bills. They used to refi to buy their new Lexus. So now they are driving 6 year old Lexi. Oh, wait, mortgage lending is getting back to its old ways again…. Time to refi and get a new, Mercedes this time? Wow, isn’t Obama great?
Now back to our show: So if we do have blackouts, then there should be a strong reaction from the people. Based on the California experience, that will goad people into action. The alternative is a slow erosion of confidence in what we call free enterprise that isn’t such a thing anymore. The system is corrupt, bureaucratized, and gamed in favor of the existing power structure, those funding re-election campaigns, and going along with the party program. As the economy winds down, and people will become more desperate. More power will be asked for and given to further “fix” things. The reality is, problems will only get worse when government is involved, and freedom is lost progressively (word chosen on purpose).
If we are to take action, what should it be? A nationwide Bundy rebellion? I hope not. We could change it all overnight this year by electing anyone not an incumbent or bought and paid for by one of the major parties already. No corrupt union hacks either. And no one looking for payback for their supposed oppression. We need citizens to step up who would work for all of the people. And we need a clear plan they can get behind. This group could take a stab at a realistic energy policy which would be the basis of a profound economic turnaround. It all starts with energy, my friends.
Anyone demonizing CO2 is in league with the hopeful new wannabe slave masters.
“RS says:
April 23, 2014 at 5:33 pm
Buy a diesel whole house or business generator.
It’s what they do in the third world.”
Tell me more. The cost of propane for my house furnace here in the Canadian Rockies doubled in January to $1/L, that’s about a CD$1600 bill to fill a 500gal(US) tank. Or $15-$20 per day to heat a 3500sq. ft. house here for six months.
Diesel fuel for cars is running about $1.50/L at the pumps. So I’m having trouble imagining how running a generator on diesel could come out cheaper. Of course, Canadian diesel prices are higher than in the US because our oil has to be sent to US refineries (I’m told) to be turned into diesel, before being shipped back here. Does that make us a “fourth world” country?
At present, I’ve shut down my furnace awaiting a propane price drop predicted for April but postponed to May (for now). Normally I don’t turn it off until May. I use baseboard heaters to crank my bedroom temperature up to 14C at night. I haven’t done detailed calculations, but I’m pretty sure it’s cheaper, even at about 10cents/KwHr, than running the furnace and its 3/4HP fan.
Alan Robertson says:
May 6, 2014 at 5:42 am
Hello John,
“I was referring to the US electric grid, which was severely tested last winter. According to information in a recent WUWT article, . . .”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/23/americas-power-grid-at-the-limit-the-road-to-electrical-blackouts/
All very interesting. Thanks.