Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 16 · Next

Author	Message
Es99 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 7339 Credit: 211,594 RAC: 247	Message 1338521 - Posted: 15 Feb 2013, 16:55:31 UTC - in response to Message 1338519.
	More from the Guardian on funding to campaign against wind farms in the USA. Media campaign against windfarms funded by anonymous conservatives Secretive funding network channelled millions to stop state governments moving towards renewable energy Disgusting. ____________ In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
	ID: 1338521 · Reply Quote

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,521,346 RAC: 7,682	Message 1338578 - Posted: 15 Feb 2013, 19:06:36 UTC - in response to Message 1338464.
	One of my great ideas. Now get the cost down--including the entire installation so that it will pay off in 5 years vis-a-vis 10 cents/KWH from the power company. Getting the costs down is always desirable, but the fact is it would pay for itself in well under 5 years at my current $.33 rate by reducing my usage. The amount the utility pays is simply on the surplus.. over generation. And as long as it pays for itself over the life of the roof it is a valid and economic investment. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1338578 · Reply Quote

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10333 Credit: 5,111,470 RAC: 6,720	Message 1338744 - Posted: 16 Feb 2013, 4:24:47 UTC - in response to Message 1338578. Last modified: 16 Feb 2013, 4:25:03 UTC
	One of my great ideas. Now get the cost down--including the entire installation so that it will pay off in 5 years vis-a-vis 10 cents/KWH from the power company. Getting the costs down is always desirable, but the fact is it would pay for itself in well under 5 years at my current $.33 rate by reducing my usage. The amount the utility pays is simply on the surplus.. over generation. And as long as it pays for itself over the life of the roof it is a valid and economic investment. Curious why you are paying $0.33 kwh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricingNational average USA is between $0.08 and $0.17. Did you ask for green power and they are billing you at the green power rate? Are you paying huge taxes in your rate? ____________
	ID: 1338744 · Reply Quote

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,521,346 RAC: 7,682	Message 1338766 - Posted: 16 Feb 2013, 5:13:07 UTC - in response to Message 1338744.
	http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/ResElecCurrent.xls Base rate is $.13. It goes WAY up after that. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1338766 · Reply Quote

WinterKnight Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6829 Credit: 17,170,082 RAC: 25,316	Message 1339434 - Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 21:02:41 UTC
	More on the rich funding biased "research" from the Guardian. The educational charities that do PR for the rightwing ultra-rich Some details of the organisations it funds, including some in the UK. With some criticism of the BBC, for allowing these groups to be interviewed without explaining their background and funding.
	ID: 1339434 · Reply Quote

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10333 Credit: 5,111,470 RAC: 6,720	Message 1339446 - Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 21:40:12 UTC - in response to Message 1338766.
	http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/ResElecCurrent.xls Base rate is $.13. It goes WAY up after that. Interesting. I wonder how much of that is the cost of the energy and how much is the cost of the distribution system? If we are talking about replacing the generation, the distribution system costs should not be part of the equation unless they change due to the site of the generation. I'm sure everyone agrees we do need a fair apples to apples comparison to make social policy. ____________
	ID: 1339446 · Reply Quote

William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 2126 Credit: 1,088,132 RAC: 145	Message 1339501 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 1:15:31 UTC - in response to Message 1339446. Last modified: 20 Feb 2013, 1:46:35 UTC
	If someone is actually paying 33 cents for a kilowatt hour then something is drastically wrong or you are very much mistaken.
	ID: 1339501 · Reply Quote

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,521,346 RAC: 7,682	Message 1339540 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 3:43:33 UTC - in response to Message 1339501.
	The spreadsheet from PG&E shows the residential tiers. It does not take much to exceed the baseline. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1339540 · Reply Quote

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10333 Credit: 5,111,470 RAC: 6,720	Message 1339567 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 5:33:27 UTC - in response to Message 1339540.
	The spreadsheet from PG&E shows the residential tiers. It does not take much to exceed the baseline. 1 watt hour would be enough. Not on the spreadsheet is what the baseline is. Nor if it is baseline per residential meter or some political tripe about how many people live at a meter or SFR vs. apartments. ____________
	ID: 1339567 · Reply Quote

Terror Australis Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1420 Credit: 182,281,140 RAC: 161,765	Message 1339570 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 5:41:50 UTC - in response to Message 1335874. Last modified: 20 Feb 2013, 5:47:41 UTC
	Back to some real-world positivity: Wind now cheaper than coal in Oz: Bloomberg........ From the linked article "While those figures include the impact of the Australian government’s carbon price(my emphasis), the analysis suggests “wind energy is 14% cheaper than new coal and 18% cheaper than new gas”. Which suggests that the only reason Wind is cheaper is because the price of power from coal fired stations is being artificially jacked up by the carbon tax. By the way, the coal generators have been given "carbon credits" to reduce the politically sensitive price of electricity to the consumer. This is afterall an election year. T.A.
	ID: 1339570 · Reply Quote

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,521,346 RAC: 7,682	Message 1339571 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 5:44:24 UTC - in response to Message 1339567.
	The spreadsheet from PG&E shows the residential tiers. It does not take much to exceed the baseline. 1 watt hour would be enough. Not on the spreadsheet is what the baseline is. Nor if it is baseline per residential meter or some political tripe about how many people live at a meter or SFR vs. apartments. I suggest looking at your own bill. Any solar/wind/etc generated on site is going to reduce the highest rate you pay first, then lower rates, and finally to buyback rates. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1339571 · Reply Quote

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10333 Credit: 5,111,470 RAC: 6,720	Message 1339577 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 5:54:42 UTC - in response to Message 1339571.
	I suggest looking at your own bill. Any solar/wind/etc generated on site is going to reduce the highest rate you pay first, then lower rates, and finally to buyback rates. Only for the very short term. Long term the utility will have to jack rates to cover the fixed distribution cost to have power available at all at your meter. This is why it is vital to know the cost of energy part of your bill and the cost of distribution part of your bill. The fixed distribution costs aren't going away and will not offset your own local generation. ____________
	ID: 1339577 · Reply Quote

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,521,346 RAC: 7,682	Message 1339604 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 6:54:17 UTC - in response to Message 1339577.
	I suggest looking at your own bill. Any solar/wind/etc generated on site is going to reduce the highest rate you pay first, then lower rates, and finally to buyback rates. Only for the very short term. Long term the utility will have to jack rates to cover the fixed distribution cost to have power available at all at your meter. This is why it is vital to know the cost of energy part of your bill and the cost of distribution part of your bill. The fixed distribution costs aren't going away and will not offset your own local generation. That is the bonus, unless you think utility rates are going to go down. Alternative energy installations are fixed cost. The fixed distribution costs are steady, but generating your own electricity certainly will not increase them. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1339604 · Reply Quote

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10333 Credit: 5,111,470 RAC: 6,720	Message 1339620 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 7:37:07 UTC - in response to Message 1339604.
	I suggest looking at your own bill. Any solar/wind/etc generated on site is going to reduce the highest rate you pay first, then lower rates, and finally to buyback rates. Only for the very short term. Long term the utility will have to jack rates to cover the fixed distribution cost to have power available at all at your meter. This is why it is vital to know the cost of energy part of your bill and the cost of distribution part of your bill. The fixed distribution costs aren't going away and will not offset your own local generation. That is the bonus, unless you think utility rates are going to go down. It can only be a bonus if you cut the cable completely. Alternative energy installations are fixed cost. The fixed distribution costs are steady, but generating your own electricity certainly will not increase them. You can't say that unless you cut the cable completely. I know you haven't done a study and are engaging in wishful arm waving. They can go up as cables at the local level may have to be upgraded to carry more power away from residential areas and into industrial areas especially considering time of day demand. They can go up as they have to install new cable from the wind farm. That would increase the fixed cost to the utility. You also do not know if the utility is billing in such a manner that the energy portion of the bill is subsidizing the distribution costs, I can assure you they are, and with less power being used the utility would be forced to raise rates or separately charge for the distribution system. (The reason I'm sure they are is the cost goes up with more use. This is because they need a fatter wire the more you use. After all the price of coal likely goes down the more you buy so their cost to generate should also go down, not up.) Let me give an example of why you can't make your statement without more data, such as what part of your bill is energy cost and what part is distribution cost. Example your $100 bill is made up of $20 energy cost and $80 distribution cost. You start generating power. The utility will pay you the same as it costs them to get power from their coal fired plant for your excess. You generate enough to drop your energy charge to zero. This doesn't change your distribution bill of $80 because you need power when the sun isn't shining. However you now have a fixed cost to generate your own power but are only saving $20. Are you making money or losing money? This example shows why a straight apples to apples comparison is needed and you aren't citing the data needed for that comparison. ____________
	ID: 1339620 · Reply Quote

James Sotherden Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 16 May 99 Posts: 6051 Credit: 14,705,418 RAC: 17,386	Message 1339670 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 14:18:05 UTC Last modified: 20 Feb 2013, 14:20:24 UTC
	I can give you an example of cost of electricity versus distrabution. My power company is National Grid. From 20 Dec. 2012 to Jan 24 2013,I used 1284 kWh. They charged me .05587 cents, for total of $71.74 My delivery charge was at .05263 per 1284 kWh = $67.57. Now thats just the rate, But when you add taxes and other ripoff charges my total cost for the power I used was $82.53. The total delivery charges are $93.20. As you can see my delivery charges are more then the power is use. Edit- And no I dont pay more for Green energy. I opted out of that. Who the hell wants to pay more. ____________
	ID: 1339670 · Reply Quote

ML1 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 7141 Credit: 3,687,310 RAC: 965	Message 1339676 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 14:26:17 UTC
	To avoid the turgidness... Simply: Source fuel costs and pollution costs are only ever going to continue to increase in cost. The costs for renewables will stay steady for just the cost of the infrastructure and maintenance. Note those maintenance costs can be less than that for old power machinery. This looks like a question of how long the old fossils in the fossil fuels industries can linger on. Unfortunately, their expensive lobbying can keep things lingering for a long time. Is that all too long to avoid polluting our planet to hell? All on our only one planet, Martin ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)
	ID: 1339676 · Reply Quote

Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 10333 Credit: 5,111,470 RAC: 6,720	Message 1339687 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 15:01:52 UTC
	Thanks for some real world numbers James. I'm sure National Grid has some profit built into the .05587 cents, so to be competitive PV Solar must over its lifetime produce power for less or it will not be used. ____________
	ID: 1339687 · Reply Quote

James Sotherden Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 16 May 99 Posts: 6051 Credit: 14,705,418 RAC: 17,386	Message 1339739 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 18:02:45 UTC - in response to Message 1339687.
	Thanks for some real world numbers James. I'm sure National Grid has some profit built into the .05587 cents, so to be competitive PV Solar must over its lifetime produce power for less or it will not be used. I dont know if the profit is in the charge for use or the delivery. Ive yet to see the electricity truck pull in my driveway and unload the volts:) We here in NY state have a public service commission that kisses the arse of any utility that wants a rate increase. ____________
	ID: 1339739 · Reply Quote

soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,521,346 RAC: 7,682	Message 1339764 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 19:02:33 UTC
	The subject was home installations, generating on site. I see we have changed the flow in order to generate more confusion. Distribution costs are in reality fixed, although they are charged on a per KWH DELIVERED basis. What you generate on site is not delivered. ____________ Janice
	ID: 1339764 · Reply Quote

rob smith Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 5466 Credit: 21,155,782 RAC: 134,227	Message 1339807 - Posted: 20 Feb 2013, 20:34:10 UTC
	soft has outlined an advantage of small, local generation systems - you aren't distributing energy over great distances. This is actually a two fold saving, one you don't have the transmission losses and two you don't have the capital cost of building the distribution network. ____________ Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
	ID: 1339807 · Reply Quote

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 16 · Next
Post to thread

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions