Opinions vary @texases.
http://www.americaspower.org/sites/default/files/Energy_Cost_Impacts_2012_FINAL.pdf
and working families in Texas suffer just like they do in the rest of the country
http://balancedenergyfortexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/TexasEnergyAnalysis-2010.pdf
@dagosa: “I am a believer in local power generation, public owned and non profit.”
Having lived both in locations where the utilities are handled by a municipal authority and a private company, I prefer the private company.
When I lived in Jacksonville, FL, where power is handled by the Jacksonville (municipal) Energy Authority (JEA), I saw rates go up when the city needed more revenue for things not related to utilities. My economics professor called this “a hidden tax,” and it’s actually pretty common. Jacksonville is a conservative military town, so raising taxes would have been a very unpopular decision. However, raising utility rates rankles people slightly less, so it becomes the attractive alternative.
When I lived in South Florida, and where I live now in Stuart, FL, the power is handled by Florida Power and Light (FP&L), a private company. They have much less overhead in terms of employee benefits and you don’t encounter a bureaucratic mentality when dealing with FP&L.
@dagosa: “When ‘for profits’ are the norm, the larger, the more invasive, but the most profitable for these entities is the plan.”
Generally, I’m not a big fan of privatizing government functions, especially prisons, but I think power generation is one area that is better off in the hands of private industry. JEA has no interest in being efficient. In fact, being efficient would mean they might get budgeted less money for operating expenses next year. A private company, however, can hire and fire people easily, and can reward people for improvements in efficiency without having to justify a bonus to taxpayers. That means they can create incentives for their employees that JEA can’t.
@RK - Read the reports you posted, they confirm my facts (not ‘opinions’). The first combines transportation (gasoline) and residential (electricity and heating) costs, gasoline has gone up and is the majority of the costs, electricity hasn’t. The second also confirms my facts: “As shown in Chart 1, the price of residential electricity in Texas has declined by 3% in real, inflation-adjusted terms since 1990.”
Gasoline costs have gone up. Electricity and natural gas costs have not.
As for public vs. private utilities, I (and anyone who wants to) am paying about 8 cents/kw-hr. It’s simple to find the lowest rate, and to switch. I’ve done it twice in the last year.
I guess that gasoline prices aren’t worth mentioning, right @texases. Of course, for a few in Texas those high oil/gasoline prices are a gravy train. but to the vast majority in Texas the cost of gasoline is taking the bread out of their mouths. There isn’t much public transportation in the state.
Actually, whenever I travel to Texas, I am shocked at how low the gasoline prices are there. Urban sprawl is probably a larger factor than the price of fuel in terms of transportation costs in Texas.
I’m pretty sure Dallas’ light rail mass transit system is doing a pretty good job of serving most communities. You have my father to partially thank for that. He pushed for light rail over the alternatives due to its advantages in noise, cleanliness, and cost when he was the city’s coordinator working with DART (Dallas Area Rapid Traisit).
The price of gasoline doubled from 2001 'til now. Did average wages in Texas double, @Whitey?
@RK - sure gasoline prices are a problem. I just thought a discussion on electricity and wind power had enough issues to deal with…
@Rod: “The price of gasoline doubled from 2001 'til now. Did average wages in Texas double, @Whitey?”
No, but since fuel costs make up a lower percentage of income in Texas, they would have to have a lower impact than where fuel costs are a higher percentage of income. In addition, Texas fared pretty well in the recession compared to other states, so they had a lower unemployment rate and better wages.
Also, having the opportunity to use mass transit in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex probably makes a difference for people who live there and have the option to park-and-ride.
@texases That graph says it all. When windmills are runing they can genrate power at about 10+cents per kwhr. But at only 20% capacity that costs rises to 5x10 cents+50 cents per kwhr.
Hydro plants run all the time and are the cheapest overall. Solar (photo-voltaic) cost 15 cents per kwhr, but only work half the time at best, requiring 30 cents or more as a feed in tariff.
A gas-fired power plant runs continuously and generates reliable power for 6 cents per kwhr.
We have an energy problem, @texases. And wind has put a twinkle in the eyes of the environmentalists. They seem to think that continuing to throw money into the effort could result in a “walk on the moon” success. Personally I doubt that will happen. But if throwing some money to them ensures that they will strongly oppose a Republican it’s worth it. Better to throw away cash on wind mills than on nuclear bombs and wars.
Honestly, I believe that coal would be our best source for electric power. But that would require spending money on CO2 and fly ash and the oil companies politicians have gone to bed with the mid west farmers’ politicians to keep coal the “dirty” energy source in the eye of the public.
Why coal better than natural gas for electricity?
There is more technology available to use coal in an environmentally responsible manner than the public is aware of and we have an abundance of the fuel. The doubling down to politically and emotionally crush coal by the oil industry is indicative of their fear of competing with it. Why is oil so afraid of coal, @texases?
Afraid? Aside from the mercury emissions and the mountain top removal, no problem!
I don’t see a problem with straight up competition, that’s going on now, with coal use dropping. Natural gas has lower emissions of proven nasty stuff, and less CO2, for those concerned about that. And we also have lots of it. What are the advantages for coal?
Coal would be the WORSE environmentally. Even with Scrubbers.
You are likely more up to date with the relative advantages of coal than me, @texases.
How costly is the changeover from coal to natural gas?
What would the country pay to support the idled mine workers in Wyoming, W Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania? It would be wise to anticipate that cost.
True, but the reverse is also happening, major hiring of thousands of people in the various ‘shale reservoir’ areas.
But how secure are the deep pockets who have money invested in shale? Like most such ventures those who initiate the effort play the investment out as a pyramid scheme and make their greatest profit on the spiking price of the stocks involved with the initial effort. They throw in millions at a dollar a share and when the public sees the “big boys” jump in they follow and pour in their nest eggs that accumulates to billion$ at $100 a share. At that point the deep pockets ease out with their sacks full and leave the possible failure to hit nest eggs of teachers and owners of quicki car washes. The 49er atmosphere around the Bakken fields will result in a lot of poor homeless people struggling to find a new start as they leave the boom towns whenever the boom goes bust or the infrastructure to get the oil and gas is completed. Those oil field jobs don’t offer lifetime pensions or even lucrative wages. Prostitutes and slum lords will see great profits along with initial investors but laborers will leave and wonder why they ever thought it was worth it to come.
@texases Coal is a difficult fuel to use except in large boilers with emission controls. It is also the cheapest fuel per BTU. Unfortunately, it needs a lot of air pollution control equipment on the boilers, and generates twice as much CO2 per kilowatt hour. Coal is used worldwide for cost reasons. Jimmy Carter tried to get the US to use more coal and switch power generation away from gas and oil. Oil was very expensive then and there was a shortage of gas forecast.
Luckily, we’ve found lots of gas in the US and Canada, and it’s cheap, so for environmental reasons gas is now the preferred fuel. However Rod Knox is right; you can’t run your car on coal, and going back to a coal stove in the kitchen is not what most Americans want. Just rent the movie Mary Poppins, and look at all the diry smokestacks in London. The great fog of 1951, aggravated by coal smoke, killed 1500 people in London.
Coals emissions are best controlled in large utility boilers, so that’s the natural use for it.
Utilities won’t switch to methane unless there is a cost advantage. They will continue to use coal until the plant needs to be replaced, then decide what makes the best cost sense. New power plants are likely to be methane powered for the foreeable future. Another advantage of methane plants is that they are much easier to start and stop. They are excellent secondary power plants to wind and solar systems. When wind and solar ower aren’t available, turn on the NG plant.
The problem with using nat. gas and oil for everything is that it’ll run out sooner.
Transportation requires a fairly “high-quality” fuel (liquid or possibly gaseous hydrocarbons) and is fairly resistant to alternatives. A power station, OTOH, can be set up to use anything that’ll boil water.
A sensible energy plan…one that’d stretch our finite reserves as far into the future as possible…would look something like this:
Priority 1: Transportation/aviation
Priority 2: Transportation/ground
Priority 3: Transportation/maritime
…
Priority [a bunch]: Fuel for boilers to generate electrical power.