Renewables Articles
Net-metering Swindle, June 28, 2009
Renewable Energy Status. September 2, 2007
Net metering requires utilities to pay retail rates
to those who install home generation equipment, such as solar or wind,
and who sell electricity back to the utility. This is accomplished by
running the meter backward.
An even worse economic proposal is Feed-in Tariffs.
Under net-metering, required by approximately 30 states, the utility pays more for the electricity than it would otherwise have cost to generate it. Typically the utility pays around $0.11 per kWh for electricity it could have generated for $0.045 per kWh
In
effect, those who don’t own a small generating facility will pay higher
rates for their electricity and subsidize their neighbor’s home
generating system.
One rational for requiring
net-metering is that
home
generating systems allow electric utilities to delay building new power
plants; but this line of rationalization is flawed because a home system
is several times more expensive per kilowatt, than is a central power
plant.
Proponents of net-metering also assert that home
systems prevent the building of transmission lines at a cost of $10
million per mile. Such an assertion is misleading. The cost of new
transmission lines can’t be included in the evaluation of net-metering
because it’s necessary to know the details of why a new transmission
line is being built.
Is a new line being built to carry electricity from
a wind power plant in Montana? Or is a new line required because of load
growth? How many homes will a transmission line serve (which might be
the basis for amortization of costs)? And so forth.
Proponents also point to transmission line losses
that some claim are as high as 10%. Supposedly, net-metering would
foster a distributed electrical system that would eliminate line losses:
I.e., get rid of central power plants and get rid of transmission lines,
ergo no more line losses. But common sense tells us that replacing a
centralized system with a far more costly distributed system to improve
efficiency, is an illusion.
While net-metering is unfair to those who don’t own
a home generation system, Feed-in Tariffs are much worse.
Feed-in Tariffs as used in Germany, for example,
guarantee a much higher price (four times the retail rate) for the
electricity a home owner sells to the utility; and the rate is
guaranteed for 20 years.
The Feed-in Tariff is paid for by a surcharge on
everyone’s electric bill, so, once again, neighbors are subsidizing
those who own a home generating system.
This has resulted in the installation of extremely
costly roof top systems, at a cost per kilowatt far in excess of the
cost of a central power station.
Net-metering and Feed-in Tariffs supposedly promote
renewable energy. But what sense is there in making our economy less
efficient and our electricity more costly?
Shouldn’t renewables make our economy more energy
efficient?
TSAugust
June 28, 2009
Renewable Energy Status
The EIA has just issued its status report for renewable energy for 2006.
Net generation in KiloWattHours (kWh) is the most accurate measurement for determining the contribution made by renewables. Other measures, such as BTU consumption, require conversions that distort the basic information.
The results for 2006 are shown below.
Hydro-electric continues to provide 75% of all renewable energy produced in the United States.
Wind has increased significantly, but still provides less than 1% of U.S. electricity.
Other renewable sources have remained essentially unchanged since 2002, except for solar that declined by 10% in 2006 from earlier levels.
|
2006 |
||
|
Thousand kWh |
% Total |
|
| Total Renewables |
385,009,378 |
9.50% |
|
Biomass |
55,574,081 |
1.37% |
|
Waste |
16,165,384 |
0.40% |
|
Landfill Gas |
5,509,189 |
0.14% |
|
MSW Biogenic |
8,652,039 |
0.21% |
|
Other Biomass |
2,004,157 |
0.05% |
|
Wood and Derived Fuels |
39,408,697 |
0.97% |
|
Geothermal |
14,842,067 |
0.37% |
|
Hydro Conventional |
288,306,061 |
7.11% |
|
Solar/ PV |
505,415 |
0.01% |
| Wind |
25,781,754 |
0.64% |
| Total US Net Generation |
4,052,968,000 |
100% |
Source: U. S. Energy Information Agency
September 2, 2007
TSAugust
EU Ok’s Nuclear as Renewable Energy.
The European Union has pledged that 20% of its energy will come from renewable sources by 2020.
Simultaneously it has agreed Nuclear Energy can be included as a renewable energy source.
Renewable energy targets will be determined on a country by country basis which will result in political negotiations, but countries can include nuclear when calculating the amount of energy that comes from renewable sources. This has been especially important to France and Czechoslovakia.
Poland’s President, Kaczynski said; "no country will be forced to adopt measures in this field without its consent." Poland currently obtains only 5.5% of its energy from renewable sources.
In commenting on the EU agreement, Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said; "We have grown up since the days of communism when we were given five year plans. We don't want to go back to that situation."
Many states in the U.S. have made commitments, in the form of renewable portfolio standards, as to the percentage of electricity that must come from renewable sources. The intent has been to force utilities to adopt wind or solar power.
If states also adopt nuclear as a renewable energy source, it will reduce the cost to consumers of renewable portfolio standards and result in base load power with no CO2 emissions.
March 18, 2007
Renewable Portfolio Standards.
Fourteen
other stateshave
enacted some form of RPS legislation. Voluntary Green energy
programs have been in place in many states but consumers have
generally not been willing to pay the higher cost associated
with Green energy.In
Mandated programs force the issue since the added cost of renewable energy will be included in all consumers’ monthly energy bills.
Renewables
typically cost more than traditionally generated power but a
group in Colorado claims that RPS will result in a 31
cent per month savings in the typical consumer energy bill. This
study is very optimistic for the following reasons.
-
It assumes that windpower will displace natural gas and that natural gas prices will remain very high. (Most electricity in
-
The study also assumes that windpower capital costs will decline by over 35% from today's level to reach $750/kW by 2023 with advances in wind turbine technology. This is highly unlikely in that most of the technology used in windpower is old technology that has been cost reduced over the past 100 years. The rotors and controls represent the best opportunity for cost improvements but they represent a small portion of total cost. Lower capital costs can only occur by using larger units but the largest production unit today is 2.5MW and larger prototype units are slated for ocean installations. Terrain frequently dictates the size of the units.
-
If the expired production tax credit is not extended, the savings from the study evaporate.
-
The study assumes a capacity factor of 35% and increasing to 40% but the best capacity factor achieved thus far at Colorado’s two wind farms is 26%: In other words, the units will produce much less electricity than assumed in the study.
If
renewables were indeed less expensive than conventional
alternatives, why mandate their purchase and set a minimum
market share? The PUC could eliminate the 2.5c/kWh premium for
green energy and see whether consumers would opt for green power
over traditional power.
The
map shows the states that have adopted some form of
RPS.
February 22, 2004
Copyright © 2002 - 2012 TSAugust