Slashdot Mirror
2015's Electricity Retirements: 80 Percent Coal Plants (arstechnica.com)
AmiMoJo writes: In the US, electricity demand is growing very slowly, which means that capacity additions don't have to exceed retirements by much in order to keep the grid functioning. Tracking the comings and goings from the electric grid can help provide a picture of the country's changing energy mix. The Energy Information Administration, which provides data on the US' electric grid, says 18GW of capacity were retired this past year, more than 80 percent of it coal-fired. More than 27GW of utility-scale projects will replace that this year. Note that much of the new generating hardware is wind and solar, but the plants being replaced often had low capacity factors due to their age and high pollutant output.
You elected the environmental wackos and dope smokers that run your state. Now live with it.
Welcome to the concept of INFLATION. Compare your bill today to that from 1988 to one from today. It should have doubled. If it costs more than twice as much today (2016) than it did in 1988, then prices have gone up, relative to inflation. If it costs less than twice as much today as it did in 1988, then the cost has gone down. See this page infatlation calculator as my source.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Get solar! If you own your roof it will lower your bill no matter how you do it (pay cash, lease, solar installer becomes your power company). We get a ton of sun in CO so you're almost certainly a prime candidate for solar. My total energy bill (gas + elec) hasn't gone above $70 in the 2 years I've had solar. Summer months I have negative bills. If you own your house you will absolutely save money on energy and your rates will never increase!
Get solar! If you own your roof it will lower your bill no matter how you do it
> If you own your roof it will lower your bill no matter how you do it
I'm in favor of solar -- I might be getting some for my property this year -- but despise this kind of willfully ignorant rah-rah-ing. There are plenty of reasons why solar might not lower your bill:
What if:
You don't own your own roof.
The roof is inadequate.
Your location on the globe is inadequate.
The tax-breaks and subsidies are taken away from you because there is no cheap alternative and everyone jumps onto solar?
"Rates will never increase" is a dubious assertion too, maybe if you have a direct system but not if you're counting anything like pushing back to the grid (negative bill would suggest that).
And not everyone has the ability to do one massive outlay now to save energy for the next 10 years (if the gear lasts that long and you get totally free servicing and replacements in the cost of your system throughout that time - what if the company goes bankrupt, maybe because they relied on subsidies or didn't account for product returns, or they just get priced out of the market?).
It's honestly not as simple as "get solar".
Hell, in my country, solar is just laughed at. An installation capable of running an ordinary house costs more than a house extension or a brand new car, and only "saves" while it's being subsidised.
And just the extra legal cost of who technically owns it if you move house has caused people an awful lot of people to have a lot of unexpected bills (you're leasing? Then you sell the house? And the next guy doesn't agree with the transfer of that lease? Now you have an unsaleable house, or have to buy out the lease, or legal costs to argue the toss, and you can't really remove the system in the meantime, and mortgage companies don't want to touch it as you've effectively rented out your roof to the solar company).
Nothing is that clear-cut when it comes to that amount of money in a system.
I think it's more the fact that the current Republicans would rather see things go down in flames than cooperate with Obama
People don't count 2 to 3 trillion and 4000 lives lost fighting over oil as a "subsidy" but it is.
People don't count toxic site clean up of fossil fuel sites as a subsidy but it is.
People don't count free right of way land as a subsidy but it is.
I'd still like to see the source for your $5 trillion figure. That's pretty high.
Solar power is reaching a point where a subsidy isn't needed.
However- the network effect of power companies is being lost and they will be forced to charge higher rates as their fixed costs will be spread over fewer customers. One way they are adapting is recognizing the fixed costs and charging them as a base to all customers including solar customers who don't use much electricity.
Likewise, explicit subsidies for solar and net metering are both being aggressively lobbied out of existence.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.