• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States

dmcowen674

No Lifer
10-17-2014

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...y-prices-soaring-in-top-10-wind-power-states/

Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States



Electricity prices are soaring in states generating the most wind power, U.S. Energy Information Administration data show. Although U.S. electricity prices rose less than 3 percent from 2008-2013, the 10 states with the highest percentage of wind power generation experienced average electricity price increases of more than 20 percent.


Iowa – 16%
South Dakota – 25 Kansas – 26
Idaho – 34
Minnesota – 22
North Dakota – 23
Colorado – 14 Oregon – 16
Wyoming – 33


With the sole exception of Oklahoma, every one of the top 10 wind power states saw its electricity prices rise at least 14 percent. For each of these states, electricity prices rose at least five times faster than the national average.

Higher electricity prices in states producing the most wind power are taking a devastating toll on disposable incomes and the overall economy.

The wind power industry’s fallback position is wind power benefits state economies, despite rapidly rising electricity costs, because the switch from conventional power to wind power generates jobs within the wind power industry.



This argument, however, amounts to nothing more than a misleading head-fake.



Shifting electricity production from conventional power to wind power does not create any net new jobs – it merely shifts jobs from one sector (conventional power) to another sector (wind power). Jobs created in the wind power industry come at the price of eliminating jobs in the conventional power industry.

Worse yet, the jobs shifted to the wind power industry fail to equal the number of jobs eliminated in other sectors of the economy for two important reasons.

First, wind power employs very few workers.

After the tremendous start-up costs necessary to build wind turbines and place them in industrial wind farms, operational wind power facilities employ few workers.

Second, higher electricity prices caused by wind power kill jobs throughout the entire state and national economy.

For example, when the average household in Kansas spends an extra $636 on electricity each year due to unnecessarily high electricity prices, that means the average Kansas household spends $636 less on other goods and services.

The aggregate effect of such reduced spending in the Kansas economy (equaling $700 million in Kansas economy-wide reduced spending in 2013) eliminates thousands of jobs that would otherwise be created or sustained throughout all segments of the Kansas economy with higher consumer spending.

Any way you cut it, wind power is needlessly raising living costs, reducing living standards, and destroying American jobs.

Fortunately, states can easily rectify the problem by repealing renewable power mandates and taxpayer subsidies that perpetuate higher electricity costs and widespread job destruction.
 
Fortunately, states can easily rectify the problem by repealing renewable power mandates and taxpayer subsidies that perpetuate higher electricity costs and widespread job destruction.
========================================

That will never happen because the Corporate Thugs own both the local and Federal Government.

The good part about this is it affects both the Left and Right.

Unfortunately it affects the working stiffs the most, the rich are of course shielded from this.
 
That will never happen because the Corporate Thugs own both the local and Federal Government.

The good part about this is it affects both the Left and Right.

Unfortunately it affects the working stiffs the most, the rich are of course shielded from this.

Oh the ironing.

The guy who wrote that piece (which really twists the interpretation of the data) is employed by the Heartland Institute. Guess who funds the Heartland Institute....large energy companies. Their office is three blocks from mine in Chicago.

You just endorsed the "corporate thugs" you like to rant about.
 
Oh the ironing.

The guy who wrote that piece (which really twists the interpretation of the data) is employed by the Heartland Institute. Guess who funds the Heartland Institute....large energy companies. Their office is three blocks from mine in Chicago.

You just endorsed the "corporate thugs" you like to rant about.
😀

Barrack said that under his plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, so I don't think this is unexpected. On the plus side, we get much less environmental impact and possibly lower ongoing maintenance costs compared to coal plants, which might help reduce future increases.

Still looks like a pretty good deal to me - a cleaner environment ain't free and it's certainly not without worth.
 
😀

Barrack said that under his plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, so I don't think this is unexpected. On the plus side, we get much less environmental impact and possibly lower ongoing maintenance costs compared to coal plants, which might help reduce future increases.

Still looks like a pretty good deal to me - a cleaner environment ain't free and it's certainly not without worth.

The author pretty much ignores the impact of things like weather. I seem to recall that 2013 was a bit nippy particularly during that thing called winter. 1/3rd of the country used a hell of a lot more power than usual and a bunch of it came from less cost effective sources (older plants, peaking units, etc).

What a lot of people don't understand is that utilities externalized the real cost of that cheap coal power onto the public and environment. Even just the direct impacts run into the many billions of dollars annually.
 
The author pretty much ignores the impact of things like weather. I seem to recall that 2013 was a bit nippy particularly during that thing called winter. 1/3rd of the country used a hell of a lot more power than usual and a bunch of it came from less cost effective sources (older plants, peaking units, etc).

What a lot of people don't understand is that utilities externalized the real cost of that cheap coal power onto the public and environment. Even just the direct impacts run into the many billions of dollars annually.

Do you really think you are going to change the mind of any of these people?

http://stateimpact.npr.org/idaho/20...e-citing-droughts-effect-on-hydro-generation/

http://m.trib.com/business/energy/w...5767-8a4e-d689701db2a8.html?mobile_touch=true
 
Last edited:
The author pretty much ignores the impact of things like weather. I seem to recall that 2013 was a bit nippy particularly during that thing called winter. 1/3rd of the country used a hell of a lot more power than usual and a bunch of it came from less cost effective sources (older plants, peaking units, etc).

What a lot of people don't understand is that utilities externalized the real cost of that cheap coal power onto the public and environment. Even just the direct impacts run into the many billions of dollars annually.
That's a good point too. When we run deep into peak load generation, the utility takes it in the shorts, which means ultimately that the consumer takes it in the shorts.
 
liberal tears are so sweet.

A similar thing is going to hit CA next year thanks to our global warming solutions act. lol They're going to add $0.10 to $0.20 per gallon gas. I'm tired of bitching and moaning to deaf ears. It won't really hit my household in the pocketbook as we're in the top 10%, but the bottom 90% in my state, who the majority are liberals can suck it, and enjoy paying their $4.00+ gasoline as they willingly vote in these democrat tards in year after year.
 
A similar thing is going to hit CA next year thanks to our global warming solutions act. lol They're going to add $0.10 to $0.20 per gallon gas. I'm tired of bitching and moaning to deaf ears. It won't really hit my household in the pocketbook as we're in the top 10%, but the bottom 90% in my state, who the majority are liberals can suck it, and enjoy paying their $4.00+ gasoline as they willingly vote in these democrat tards in year after year.

I don't think it's a huge stunner that democrats generally vote for democratic candidates on the basis that their governance will provide more service even at the cost of some increased taxs. :hmm:
 
I don't think it's a huge stunner that democrats generally vote for democratic candidates on the basis that their governance will provide more service even at the cost of some increased taxs. :hmm:

If you feel offshoring electricity generation and the associated jobs to other states is a "service," more power to you. I can see where reduced emissions is a benefit but it does leave you at the mercy of other states/suppliers and susceptible to events like what happened in 2000-2001.
 
Dear Dave,

I must be the 1%, because if you take the TOP percentage increase and put it against my electric bill, I end up paying a whopping $35 a month more than I do now.

Holy SHIT. I don't know how I'd survive if my bill went up 35 a month.
 
If you feel offshoring electricity generation and the associated jobs to other states is a "service," more power to you. I can see where reduced emissions is a benefit but it does leave you at the mercy of other states/suppliers and susceptible to events like what happened in 2000-2001.

I'm not sure how that is related? California had blackouts due to privatizing the market and letting a corrupt company do what it wanted in the quest for more profit. California was never in trouble energy wise.

So unless you are saying we need to watch out for corrupt businesses, I don't get your point.
 
Those are mainly conservative states.

Hey, whether you meant to or not, you just brought new meaning to the acronym to those suffering from CBD. It can either mean what it originally meant or it can now mean Certifiably Brain Dead. j/k

Apologies Mike, I couldn't resist posting that. 😉
 
I'm not sure how that is related? California had blackouts due to privatizing the market and letting a corrupt company do what it wanted in the quest for more profit. California was never in trouble energy wise.

So unless you are saying we need to watch out for corrupt businesses, I don't get your point.

The rolling blackouts were a result of the partial deregulation of the marketplace. The market was never fully deregulated as you had contract limitations that prevented long term contracts and forced market players to buy in the spot market at a much higher cost. Along with an overall price ceiling/cap that prevented any power company from raising prices to reflect the true cost of providing energy to CA (much of which comes from out of state producers) and prevented these same companies from passing on the cost of the stupidity of long term contract limitations which forced them to buy on the spot market at a much higher cost.

In essence there was no actual full deregulation of the energy market in California but there was only enough deregulation that allowed for bad actors to run amuck without the consumer having any real choice in place to turn to in order to avoid the shenanigans that ensued.

Yet the outcome of going back to the old system of a government back set of 2 monopolies is not any better. Prices for energy are still raising as PG&E and Southern Cal have nothing to stop them from raising prices over the long term, just as they have no incentive to lower prices for the consumer at all. Then you the very real and well known corrupt relationship between the state backed monopolies like PG&E and Southern Edison and CPUC.

Of which has been exposed and documented with the investigations and lawsuits for the San Bruno PG&E gas line explosion. In which PG&E and the California Public Utilities Commission worked together to help PG&E judge shop, and reduce its liability in the matter where PG&E's faulty gas line inspections caused an entire neighborhood to literally burst into a fiery explosion killing several people.



http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Federal-prosecutors-probing-PG-E-CPUC-e-mails-5804757.php

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/E-mails-show-CPUC-president-cutting-deals-5807802.php
 
Last edited:
The rolling blackouts were a result of the partial deregulation of the marketplace. The market was never fully deregulated as you had contract limitations that prevented long term contracts and forced market players to buy in the spot market at a much higher cost. Along with an overall price ceiling/cap that prevented any power company from raising prices to reflect the true cost of providing energy to CA (much of which is comes from out of state producers) and prevented these same companies from passing on the cost of the stupidity of long term contract limitations which forced them to buy on the spot market at a much higher cost.

In essence there was no actual full deregulation of the energy market in California but there was only enough deregulation that allowed for bad actors to run amuck without the consumer having any real choice in place to turn to in order to avoid the shenanigans that ensued.

Yet the outcome of going back to the old system of a government back set of 2 monopolies is not any better. Prices for energy are still raising as PG&E and Southern Cal have nothing to stop them from raising prices over the long term, just as they have no incentive to lower prices for the consumer at all. Then you the very real and well known corrupt relationship between the state backed monopolies like PG&E and Southern Edison and CPUC.

Of which has been exposed and documented with the investigations and lawsuits for the San Bruno PG&E gas line explosion. In which PG&E and the California Public Utilities Commission worked together to help PG&E judge shop, and reduce its liability in the matter where PG&E's faulty gas line inspections caused an entire neighborhood to literally burst into a fiery explosion killing several people.



http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Federal-prosecutors-probing-PG-E-CPUC-e-mails-5804757.php

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/E-mails-show-CPUC-president-cutting-deals-5807802.php

All true but my point was that I didn't understand his point😉
 
you voted for this..you wanted reckless eco-KOOKS and their alarmist cooling / warming hoax to influence public policy. you voted for this..twice.
 
We should be going nuclear. And a lot more solar.

Wind seems like a complete crock. From what I've seen, wind turbines require enormous amounts of electricity from other sources, and fossil fuels expended on maintenance. Plus the damn things kill birds, cause flicker-annoyance for anyone living near them, and can cause huge fire hazards in storms. All this for *increased* electric costs?!
 
What happened to the other % signs DMCowen?

Ah forget it.

I agree that wind power sucks....

They decay so quickly and it takes way too many clicks to keep replacing them as they wear out. I'm like, forget this I'm building a fusion reactor with a loan. How else am I supposed to get astronomical land values, low pollution, and still have room for parks? Plus if they catch on fire and you cut the fire department budget too much it sets you back like 150 years.
 
We should be going nuclear. And a lot more solar.

Wind seems like a complete crock. From what I've seen, wind turbines require enormous amounts of electricity from other sources, and fossil fuels expended on maintenance. Plus the damn things kill birds, cause flicker-annoyance for anyone living near them, and can cause huge fire hazards in storms. All this for *increased* electric costs?!

..also turning into a maintenance nightmare. the generators / clutch / control electronics have high failure rates. the ones in my area are mostly "off line" and static for aforementioned reasons.
 
For example, when the average household in Kansas spends an extra $636 on electricity each year due to unnecessarily high electricity prices, that means the average Kansas household spends $636 less on other goods and services.

The aggregate effect of such reduced spending in the Kansas economy (equaling $700 million in Kansas economy-wide reduced spending in 2013) eliminates thousands of jobs that would otherwise be created or sustained throughout all segments of the Kansas economy with higher consumer spending.
.

Uh whatever, BTW we had this argument in Kansas already. Our find douche bag corporate tool governor wanted to kick the renewable mandate to the curb. Even the very conservative legislature wouldn't go along with it. For some reason even in Kansas we still care about the environment.

Ironic that your supporting a hit piece in support of the very corporate tools that you claim to despise. Do you feel like a used condom yet?
 
Back
Top