Electrical prices and renewable energy in the USA

[SHOZ]

Does Renewable Energy Raise Electricity Prices?

The average increase in prices between the 20 states that had the most investment in renewable energy was 4.3 percent, when comparing the average from 2010 to 2015 with the average over the last 18 months. However, for the 20 states that had the least investment in renewable energy, the average increase was 4.6 percent.**

Therefore, the impact of renewable energy on the price of power appears to be statistically insignificant. Sticking with fossil fuels has not been a pathway to lower energy prices. And this result challenges critics’ assertions that renewable energy is simply too expensive, while fossil fuels will maintain reliable, inexpensive electricity prices.

 

[Al]

I know where this is headed.

 

[Rand]

Electricity is complicated to categorize by state when sometimes its generated in one state and consumed in another.

And the whole apples to oranges thing..

For example I pay only 7.8cents per kwh but there are additional fees/charges/taxes/etc

so my "out the door" price is closer to 15cents/kwh

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Rand
Electricity is complicated to categorize by state when sometimes its generated in one state and consumed in another.

And the whole apples to oranges thing..

For example I pay only 7.8cents per kwh but there are additional fees/charges/taxes/etc

so my "out the door" price is closer to 15cents/kwh
That was explained in the article. All electricity is sold through a wholesale market in the US. What your retailer sells it to you for is another matter. I too am just under $0.15 a kwh when all cost are figured in and the wholesale rate my COOP pays is 3.7 cents per kwh. But then again my rate has not changed except for the restructuring of charges in nearly 8 years.

Illinois isn't even in the discussion yet has a very large wind base compared to other states. And Illinois is a huge exporter of power.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Al

I know where this is headed.
The other thread was locked for some reason.

 

[HerrStig]

The "renewable" power we are REQUIRED to buy in this state is sold to the distribution company at THREE TIMES the rate it can be purchased from gas. oil and nuke plants, The more the distribution company must buy, the higher the price to the consumer will be. If it's not having much effect on prices now it's because there isn't much qualifying "renewable" power available. The distribution company would have NO reason to buy this power at three times the price but for the LAW requiring it. So much for the free market.

 

[3800Series]

Still don't know why we don't just build more nuclear power plants. I understand the fear behind them and there has been some stupid errors but the technology has progressed a lot since the 70's. It produces far less waste and has become much safer. Most incidences with nuclear power have been threw misuse or failing to monitor with the exception of Russia which was pure ignorance. We have Japans incident but that was a WORST case of the worst case scenarios. From every incident we have learned a lot. It's still a very viable source of power.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The other thread was locked for some reason.


Probably because some people post (and continue to post) topics just to promote a political or societal agenda.

That's usually the reason.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
The "renewable" power we are REQUIRED to buy in this state is sold to the distribution company at THREE TIMES the rate it can be purchased from gas. oil and nuke plants, The more the distribution company must buy, the higher the price to the consumer will be. If it's not having much effect on prices now it's because there isn't much qualifying "renewable" power available. The distribution company would have NO reason to buy this power at three times the price but for the LAW requiring it. So much for the free market.
Politics aside, that is not the case everywhere in the US. That is an example of what corruption due to politics distorts the market rather than the technology.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: 3800Series
Still don't know why we don't just build more nuclear power plants. I understand the fear behind them and there has been some stupid errors but the technology has progressed a lot since the 70's. It produces far less waste and has become much safer. Most incidences with nuclear power have been threw misuse or failing to monitor with the exception of Russia which was pure ignorance. We have Japans incident but that was a WORST case of the worst case scenarios. From every incident we have learned a lot. It's still a very viable source of power.
Unfortunately nuclear power is just not competitive at this time due to cheap natural gas.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: 3800Series
Still don't know why we don't just build more nuclear power plants. .

As mentioned..cost factor is too high.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
I focused on generation rather than consumption


25% of California's power comes from out of State. If they had to generate all of the power they consume, their prices would be higher.

There is no mention of how subsidies affect these prices as well. Such things are intentionally left "invisible" in this "study".

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Rand
Electricity is complicated to categorize by state when sometimes its generated in one state and consumed in another.

And the whole apples to oranges thing..

For example I pay only 7.8cents per kwh but there are additional fees/charges/taxes/etc

so my "out the door" price is closer to 15cents/kwh


This is what I've been saying in previous discussions. The actual cost to produce the power is about a third of the bill. The distribution costs are big. The lines keep getting knocked down by weather.

A 50% rise in power production costs is much muted in the overall bill. That's why I say people will pay extra for green power. Its just not that big a deal.

 

[Nate1979]

I think the author farmed out the article to a Kindergartner class. The level of investigation and rigorousness was childish.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/energy-subsidies-study/

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/energy-subsidies-study/
Much of coal, oil and nuclear energy enjoys hidden subsidies. The Arch Coal bankruptcy left the taxpayers with billions in clean up cost. They had a 1/2 million self bonded bond that won't cover but a fraction. Same with nuclear waste. Sooner or later taxpayer money will have to be spent above and beyond their self funded bonds.
Natural Gas is still cheaper than wind even with tat $23/MGw support.

 

[Tempest]

This is what our elected morons think is "good" for our State:

Quote:
“Looking at Nevada specifically,” Considine writes, “the net cost of renewable standards are striking:

“— Energy prices are expected to climb by nearly 15 percent in 2016.

“— Employment growth will be reduced by more than 11,000 jobs in 2016 due to higher energy costs.

“— Economic growth will be reduced by more than $1.7 billion in 2016.

“The impact of such renewable standards is clearly dramatic — draining vitality out of Nevadans’ efforts to fully recover from years of sluggish economic growth.”

http://mcindependentnews.com/2016/06/nevada-drop-renewable-energy-mandate/

 

[SHOZ]

And Nevada is working against consumers and with the utilities as far as net metering rules.

 

[PandaBear]

It really depends. For an area that sits on a coal mine or natural gas well not so much, but for remote area that has to import energy to generate electricity renewable may be cheaper, and of course you have to define what is renewable (hydro and geothermal are renewable if you look at it that way).

Also you need to look at capital cost. SOFC is super expensive despite being slightly more efficient than combine cycle turbine, while both running natural gas.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
I focused on generation rather than consumption


25% of California's power comes from out of State. If they had to generate all of the power they consume, their prices would be higher.

There is no mention of how subsidies affect these prices as well. Such things are intentionally left "invisible" in this "study".


It depends, just finding a place with not too many people complaining would be expensive, and the lawsuits that will be popping up too.

Sometimes it is just easier to buy if your neighbors are already selling cheap energy than to generate your own.