Posted on 02/21/2011 3:35:30 PM PST by Nachum
Plus, what is the cost of pollution or the benefit of reducing pollution? What is the benefit of reducing NOx or ozone?
I know how that breaks out.
Some will say there is no benefit. Some will say there is a benefit but they will disagree as to what the exact benefit is.
But they will sit down at the table and negotiate a compromise. And unfortunately, those who said there is no benefit from reducing pollution won't have a seat at the negotiating table.
Your attempted line of reasoning has the same tenor as the smarmy “settled science” crowd and brings me much amusement. I’ll bet you’ve still got that rotting solar panel on your roof from the Jimmy Carter era.
Exactly!
They know exactly what they're doing! They milk the taxpayer subsidies for all they're worth, as well as the outrageous price they receive (4 time the normal price,) for the energy they produce (never when most needed) until the bennies begin to expire, then they leave town
Here in Altamont Pass, California, they have 4900 freaking windmills, only about 5% of which are actually working on any given day (personal eyeball, not hearsay.)
Here's how a liberal looks at this equation:
By denying the private sector the ability to produce 5 new workers not dependent on liberal social programs, we created one new job entirely dependent on liberal social programs, plus two-point-two new unemployed, also dependent on liberal social programs! It's a win-win-win! We're in heaven here!
Excellent analysis.
Isn't that just a little pat?
Especially, when some things are subsidized to a much greater degree (e.g., windmills) than others (e.g., natural gas).
I believe we'd agree that, were it not for heavy subsidies, windmills wouldn't be a measurable part of our national power generation.
If their economics were favorable, windmills would have a place in the spectrum. But they aren't...and taxpayers have to pay twice for them -- in capital subsidies and in mandates that make all energy more expensive.
Plus, what is the cost of pollution or the benefit of reducing pollution?
There is a point at which the cost of lessening pollution far outweighs the benefit.
For example, when President Clinton reduced the allowable amount of arsenic in city water supplies, he forced many small communities to spend millions for new or upgraded facilities. Yet, the old levels had produced absolutely no identifiable health risks.
If somebody wants to have a windmill, I'm fine with that. Just don't ask me to help pay for your windmill, though.
If you burn fossil fuel you create pollution. Less with gas and more with coal. Either way we externalize the cost, we socialize the cost.
As for the subsidies, both wind and and gas are subsidized and you try to exaggerate the subsidies on wind. Certainly the tax credit/subsidy for unconventional natural gas has been in the Texas news recently because of the budget problems.
Most subsidies tend to be hidden or obscured so it is hard to know exactly what they are but generally we all acknowledge that windpower is subsidiized more that gaspower.
And, if you could remove all subsidies, how would wind ever compete gas in generating electricity.
That depends almost entirely on the cost of natural gas and their is no fuel cost with wind. So what is the cost of natural gas or what will be the cost of natural gas.
We have to turn to traditional wisdom or the conventional wisdom that has been in place for a very long time.
Simply stated, though the US domestic supply of natural gas was more than adequate to supply the traditional uses of gas, as the US used more and more gas to generate electricity, we would eventually out use our supply and would have to import LNG to supply our needs. And, that would raise the price gas and windpower would compete gas power.
What happened in the real world? How did the conventional wisdom play out?
We encountered our first ever natural gas shortage in 2000-2001. Gas prices went from $2.50/MCF to $17.00/MCF. The California electricity market descended into chaos. The dem governor was replaced with a republican, Enron crashed, and Texas Senator Phil Gramm had to get out of politics.
The shortages lasted only a year but they served as the notice that we had reached the point that the domestic supply was inadequate. And much natural gas activity took place in 2002
Numerous LNG projects were kicked of, most notably Exxon/Qatar. The development of the Bergos gas field in Mexico began, and Congress began working on the Alaska Gas Pipeline which eventually passed in 2004. Like wise, Devon Energy bought out Mitchell Energy's shale gas holdings and technology in the Barnett Shale.
Then Katrina took out a lot of the natural gas infrastructure in the Gulf and prices went up into the double digits again and stayed there for a long time. They gradually began falling and got down into the $7.00 range but by that time, crude prices were escalating and natural gas prices turned around and started following crude up, reaching double digits again. Rate payers in Texas were bleeding badly.
How did all this effect Texas?
When Texas deregulated they converted a lot of coal to natural gas and produce more electricity from gas than coal. And, based on the traditional wisdom, they implemented their first renewable standards in 99. Because of the price of natural gas windmills exploded because they were able to produce electricity cheaper than gas. Texas achieved their renewable standards way, way ahead of schedule and had to stop putting up windmills because they have exceeded the capacity of the transmission lines, and won't have the additional capacity until 2013.
Likewise with shale gas. Pre 2001, there were just a few drillers in the Barnett shale and they were developing their technology. After gas prices went up more and more drillers piled into the Barnett and drilling spilled over into AR , LA, and eventually the northeastern states.
Eventually shale gas output kicked in and the economy collapsed and natural gas prices fell. But those natural gas prices have not fallen to pre-Katrina prices. They will eventually work thru it. The intrastate transmission lines will get built. The interstate DC transmission lines and Tres Amigas will get built. Texas is going to export natural gas and windpower. In the coming years and decades the nation will convert more coal to gas and utilize more renewables.
So what does the price of natural gas have to be for wind to compete? I'm not an expert so don't rely on this but at $5.50/MCF, wind will compete. And if gas is at $7.50, wind will boom.
As they are, windmills, bio-fuels, ethanol, et al are all artificial creations, driven not by economic efficiency, but by enviromental hysteria and its associated politics. That's my opinion, anyway.
Nothing against any of them...when, as and if they make good economic sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.