Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumA Complaint About Renewable Power That You'll Never Hear About Nuclear Power
By New York Times | 27 Jul, 2013, 07.01PM
For years, power companies have watched warily as solar panels have sprouted across the nation's rooftops. Now, in almost panicked tones, they are fighting hard to slow the spread.
Alarmed by what they say has become an existential threat to their business, utility companies are moving to roll back government incentives aimed at promoting solar energy and other renewable sources of power. At stake, the companies say, is nothing less than the future of the U.S. electricity industry.
According to the Energy Information Administration, rooftop solar electricity - the economics of which often depend on government incentives and mandates - accounts for less than a quarter of 1 percent of the nation's power generation. And yet, to hear executives tell it, such power sources could ultimately threaten traditional utilities' ability to maintain the nation's grid.
"We did not get in front of this disruption," Clark Gellings, a fellow at the Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit arm of the industry, said during a panel discussion at the annual utility convention last month. "It may be too late."
Advocates of renewable energy...
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/energy/power/solar-energy-threatening-the-future-of-us-electricity-industry/articleshow/21397279.cms
It's the utilities that are so fond of coal, not the public.
Renewables threaten the utilities by forcing a change in the way their model energy generation and delivery business works.
Nuclear power preserves the current business model and allows them to continue business as usual - including their ability to profit by burning fossil fuels.
See also:
Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time
Open Access article available in full at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)If they had an ounce of sense, they woul have invested in renewables years ago. Same goes for the oil jerks. But noooo, the greedy bastards just couldn't give up a penny of their profits to invest in the future. So screw 'em, I say.
msongs
(67,193 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)are cheaper over the long haul.
The utility companies just HAVE to rip people off, on top of messing with the environment...
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)PG & E. And Di Feinstein made sure the utility would not be found culpable.
MADem
(135,425 posts)ENRON was a thing that was happening at a number of levels.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)But if she was truly a progressive Dem, she could have used her power to see to it that rte payers were reimbursed.
As far as her being a queen, your remark reminds me of how my husband wrote a song about my being
"A Queen of Manipulation."
It would make an equally interesting song if it was "She is queen of corruption and manipulation."
Here is one very interesting interview with a reporter, a Mr Byrnes, who writes for "The Bohemian." (This is an indie newspaper available in Northern SF Bay Area.) Very worth while, if you want to understand that this woman has re-written the US Senate Ethics Code, so that a Senator can no longer be indicted for "Conflict of Interest" unless the sole reason for a Senator's vote is for their financial enhancement. So as a result, that vote that Di Fi cast for the Iraq War Resolution, since it also was a vote that took the nation to war, she could let her husband go on to participate in some 750 millions of dollars worth of war contracts, and the couple pocketed over 37 million.
Full interview:
http://blip.tv/laborvideo/feinstein-blum-corruption-the-cover-up-an-interview-with-peter-byrne-1971016
MADem
(135,425 posts)Senator Vitter didn't even get a "Naughty boy" for his patronage of prostitutes.
The focus on "Di" is just silly. It's vendetta-ish. If I were the type to see sexism behind every attack on the few women politicians in our party, I'd wonder about that too, but I won't go there.
I'd say the portfolios of every sitting Senator need to be examined before we put her--or her husband--at the Head of the Class.
Singling her out seems lazy and gratuitously "Dem bashing" (a popular sport on this board) --particularly on an issue as ancient as Enron or the Iraq War; there surely are others who have profiteered much more egregiously if we're going to go back in time--Hello, Doctor Frist!
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Byrne compares her to Dick Cheney. And quite rightly.
I mean, this is not a vendetta on her because of her gender. It has to do with her getting her husband contracts through her position in the US Senate. Her finger is in everything from the casino in Rohnert Park, to her husband swindling and wheeling and dealing and taking over a bank in Korea. The bank acquisition was in large part due to how Di Fi helped get de-regulations of the banking industry, so that banks overseas would fail, and then her husband sweeps in and cleans up.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It's been a few years since we made a case study of Enron in one of the Electric Policy and Planning classes I took, but as I remember it the national level rules for energy trading had recently been rewritten and there was a loophole that Enron traders found and exploited.
By law the utilities couldn't do anything other than what they did. If you want more details I'd have to do some research.
Finishline42
(1,091 posts)PSC allows them to set rates based on the cost plus a reasonable profit margin. Reducing cost doesn't fit. Our local utility has been bought and sold 3 times since 2000. Each of those transactions add cost to the rate structure.
My question is - in 2010 PPL buys LG&E which was over 80% coal fired plants. Do they get to depreciate those old plant as if new? I believe so. Their business model has them stuck in the past. The economics of their recent purchase requires them to be able to depreciate over what time period? 30 yrs? They are fighting for their life (corporations are people too...)
PV on users roofs reduces cost and reduces the need for new peak capacity - the cherry on top of their business.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Depreciation of an asset begins when it is purchased and is based on the purchase price AFAIK.I don't think that is going to be a negative for us around this particular issue. Any corporate entity faced with having a stranded asset is still going to get to write off the value of that asset.
But your point is a good one as it relates to the value of these coal plants to their owners and potential owners; tax benefits add value and can make the difference in an otherwise marginal investment.
SunSeeker
(51,369 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Interesting verb choice. Combines the imagery of being fully covered along with a degree of threat.
Me like.
SunSeeker
(51,369 posts)I love watching my meter spin backwards.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)that inflict injury on predators.
Perfect metaphor.