Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !
From: Alex Terrell (alexterrell_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/19/04
- Next message: eleaticus: "SR consistency is crap."
- Previous message: eleaticus: "Re: final proof Einstein 1905 is crap."
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- Next in thread: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- Reply: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 19 Nov 2004 02:10:04 -0800
greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0411181559.11017b5f@posting.google.com>...
> > One of the problems in the US is Congress' so-called privitazation.
> > What they did was split generation biz from the distribution biz
> > plus making it illegal for the two to communicate directly with
> > each other.
>
> The govt here in its wisdom (joke) privatised the state own generation
> and billing (supply), but not the distribution network. This was in
> order to "reduce electricity prices to the consumer, by encouraging
> competition between producers." Result; an increase of 100% or so, and
> still with the threats of more. Every now and then, a price hike is
> "justified" by the price of the gas which runs the turbines, going up.
> But guess who owns the gas?
The Government here (UK) did something like that before most others.
As a result, intense competition in the retail sector has pushed
prices down, improved choice, pushed cost savings through the supply
chain, freed the market from some state control (it is still
regulated) and provided outside investment. Virtually no down side -
though perhaps, allegedly, some increased risk of power cuts due to
reduced standby capacity, and more regulation needed to boost
renewables.
California tried something similar, but prevented price rises reaching
the consumer. So when demand and cost increased, no one was
incentivised to provide new capacity. Retailers were forced to sell
electricity more cheaply than they could buy it, so balckouts actually
helped them in some respect.
> Meanwhile, even with a line passing within a few hundred meters, the
> price of electricity connection in the country makes rural building
> horrendously expensive- sometimes the value of the building!
I guess in your case, there is simply no one around anymore to
subsidise rural connections. But in any case, rural connections
shouldn't be subsidised by power companies. If at all, that is the
role of Government as part of their rural policy.
(I remember my first visit to Cape Tribulation. At midnight, the
generator would switch off, and then it was flashlights and fires
only. Last time I went it had been really spoilt by grid connections,
and even worse, paved roads bringing in busloads of package tourists).
- Next message: eleaticus: "SR consistency is crap."
- Previous message: eleaticus: "Re: final proof Einstein 1905 is crap."
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- Next in thread: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- Reply: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Wind energy a boon for farmers - tenfold returns !"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|