Electricity again

[chuckChuck]

Excellent news, so I can presume that you must have some evidence that North Dakotan's are now enjoying lower(relative) power bills than the backwards hicks elsewhere who have refused to embrace this cheaper technology?


I will get you started in case you are having trouble finding sources of info:
For the U.S. as a whole, electricity prices rose 7 percent while electricity from solar and wind grew from two to eight percent from 2009 to 2017
In North Dakota, electricity prices rose 40 percent while electricity from solar and wind grew from nine to 27 percent between 2009 and 2017

From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/25/yes-solar-and-wind-really-do-increase-electricity-prices-and-for-inherently-physical-reasons/#50b4da1017e8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/25/yes-solar-and-wind-really-do-increase-electricity-prices-and-for-inherently-physical-reasons/#50b4da1017e8

Sorry for getting involved, bus it is difficult to ignore when someone with an agenda presents half of the story, and avoids all facts that run counter to their biases.

As we have discussed before generation is only a portion of the cost of providing electricity to consumers. There is a whole lot of infrastructure in the grid. Generation costs could go down and grid expansion and maintenance costs could go up, still causing an increase in electricity prices.

In response to your question where is the evidence for lower costs? The evidence is in the hundreds of windmills already built in North Dakota and Saskatchewan and the plan for more.

Utilities obviously do their own analysis and make decisions based on their own situation. If Sask power and several North Dakota Utilities in Conservative run jurisdictions are heavily investing in wind, then there must be s strong business case for wind energy. That is all the evidence that anyone should need, unless you consider yourself smarter than the utilities?

[Braveheart]

As we have discussed before generation is only a portion of the cost of providing electricity to consumers. There is a whole lot of infrastructure in the grid. Generation costs could go down and grid expansion and maintenance costs could go up, still causing an increase in electricity prices.

In response to your question where is the evidence for lower costs? The evidence is in the hundreds of windmills already built in North Dakota and Saskatchewan and the plan for more.

Utilities obviously do their own analysis and make decisions based on their own situation. If Sask power and several North Dakota Utilities in Conservative run jurisdictions are heavily investing in wind, then there must be s strong business case for wind energy. That is all the evidence that anyone should need, unless you consider yourself smarter than the utilities?

As someone who had the opportunity once to "peek behind the curtain", I can tell you that the wind projects in North Dakota have been driven primarily by the desire to get the carbon credits that go with the projects. Heavy emitters would rather buy the credits than throttle emissions.

Nice. Unless, you have to farm around them like my neighbours do, or have to stare at ugly windmills like I do, or you're a migrating songbird.

[burnt]

There is zero evidence that commercial wind and solar are affordable, more sustainable, or cheaper than conventional generation.

There is plenty of support, though, that they are not only more costly, but completely unaffordable and unsustainable.

This is proven by the fact that not one person who has invested in solar or wind generation would do it to supply their own needs, unless there were other mitigating factors, such as accessibility to grid, that were in effect.

Commercial wind and solar electrical production are purely politically and ideologically driven.

When there is someone who is constantly beating the "renewables" drum, there can be only a couple of reasons - they are making money from the pain and loss of others, or they are abjectly, profoundly, irredeemably stupid, and likely ineducable.

[chuckChuck]

As someone who had the opportunity once to "peek behind the curtain", I can tell you that the wind projects in North Dakota have been driven primarily by the desire to get the carbon credits that go with the projects. Heavy emitters would rather buy the credits than throttle emissions.

Nice. Unless, you have to farm around them like my neighbours do, or have to stare at ugly windmills like I do, or you're a migrating songbird.

Glad to hear you are concerned about song birds. Do you have cats, windows, powers lines, drive much, spray pesticides, clear bush, breakup grass land, because they all affect the song bird population.

Yes and many farmers farm around ugly oil wells and in some cases the companies stop paying for the lease.

If you look at the costs of wind and solar in many jurisdictions the costs have come way down and are now cheaper than new coal and competitive with gas. We still need base load hydro and fossil sources to run intermittent renewables.

Saskatchewan is trying geo-thermal.

[bucket]

Glad to hear you are concerned about song birds. Do you have cats, windows, powers lines, drive much, spray pesticides, clear bush, breakup grass land, because they all affect the song bird population.

Yes and many farmers farm around ugly oil wells and in some cases the companies stop paying for the lease.

If you look at the costs of wind and solar in many jurisdictions the costs have come way down and are now cheaper than new coal and competitive with gas. We still need base load hydro and fossil sources to run intermittent renewables.

Saskatchewan is trying geo-thermal.

The government is trying geo thermal.....Trudeau announced 26 million for that project....taxpayers money...

And yet they have trouble finding dollars for Seed research into the future?????

Which do think is more sustainable????

[chuckChuck]

Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation
Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2018

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

[chuckChuck]

The government is trying geo thermal.....Trudeau announced 26 million for that project....taxpayers money...

And yet they have trouble finding dollars for Seed research into the future?????

Which do think is more sustainable????

Not to mention $4.5 Billion into Transmountain! And Brad Wall put 1.5 billion into Carbon capture and Storage at Boundary so we can burn coal.

By all means invest more in public plant breeding.

[bucket]

Not to mention $4.5 Billion into Transmountain! And Brad Wall put 1.5 billion into Carbon capture and Storage at Boundary so we can burn coal.

By all means invest more in public plant breeding.

You have to admit shutting down our base power coal power plants isn't going to make a lot of difference to the world....and we will look pretty stupid if in a few years there is technology available to make them cleaner.....

[burnt]

You have to admit shutting down our base power coal power plants isn't going to make a lot of difference to the world....and we will look pretty stupid if in a few years there is technology available to make them cleaner.....

It already exists but was dismissed because the image is more important than the reality.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

As we have discussed before generation is only a portion of the cost of providing electricity to consumers. There is a whole lot of infrastructure in the grid. Generation costs could go down and grid expansion and maintenance costs could go up, still causing an increase in electricity prices.

And, can you think of anything that would have recently destabilized the grid and required considerable capital costs into infrastructure improvements and expansion, a hint is that it happened at the same time as renewables share increased.

In response to your question where is the evidence for lower costs? The evidence is in the hundreds of windmills already built in North Dakota and Saskatchewan and the plan for more.

This is what makes arguing anything with you as so frustratingly easy, you conflate the physical existence of something as evidence that it is therefore economic. And as the article which I've no doubt you ignored points out, in every example, they can be economical so long as the utility passes the drastic increases in costs onto the consumers, and are generously subsidised and mandated to do so. By your logic, you really need to seed your entire imaginary farm to pineapples this year, since the existence of the pineapple plants obviously guarantees their feasibility in your climate.

Utilities obviously do their own analysis and make decisions based on their own situation. If Sask power and several North Dakota Utilities in Conservative run jurisdictions are heavily investing in wind, then there must be s strong business case for wind energy. That is all the evidence that anyone should need, unless you consider yourself smarter than the utilities?

Is Warren Buffett a smart guy? Or at least a very good crony capitalist? He is heavily invested in renewables, for all the right reasons though, right?:

“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett

How about Spudco, it must have been a spectacular success considering the money invested in it, partially by a public utility no less.


I will now go back to ignoring you until you are able to present a jurisdiction enjoying cheaper energy thanks to installing renewables, rather than continually deflecting the question and presenting the existence of subsidies and mandates as evidence.