Temperatures Soar - And So Does the Cost of Electricity

[sintax]

Here is the proportion of fuels used to generate electricity in New York:

Natural gas 50 percent

Hydro 15 percent

Nuclear 14 percent

Coal 10 percent

Oil 10 percent

Other (including wind, solar and biomass): 1 percent


Temperatures soar - and so does cost of electricity

By JAY GALLAGHER
Gannett News Service

ALBANY — As the hot weather has driven the demand for — and the cost of — electricity higher, critics are wondering why deregulation of the power industry hasn't led to lower prices, as was promised when regulations were loosened a decade ago.

Some consumer groups as well as at least one energy company want the state to rethink its decision to put the state's supply of electricity into the hands of the private companies.

<snip>

Helping to give the energy grid enough juice to meet the demand of 31,741 megawatts (a megawatt is enough power to supply 1,000 homes) were some generators that came on line at the time of peak demand. While when the prices were set by the state Public Service Commission before the late ‘90s there was no difference in the price producers got for power, no matter how great the demand.

But under the open-market system that has been in effect since 1999, the “peak” providers supplying energy on Long Island and in New York City got as much as $1,000 a megawatt hour, or more than 166 times the average price, for a short period of time.

http://www.ithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050723/NEWS01/507230318/1002

[mike_c]

1. because "deregulation" was a scam....

...critics are wondering why deregulation of the power industry hasn't led to lower prices, as was promised when regulations were loosened a decade ago.

I mean, the industry drooled over deregulation. Did anyone in their right minds really think that energy corporations-- and their shareholders-- would have wet dreams over a scheme to LOWER their profits? WHEN will people ever learn? :rofl:

[Cocoa]

5. I think deregulation is much simpler than the media makes it out to be

I think in essence what it is is consumers pay more money, and that extra money goes to higher profits for the energy companies, except for a fraction that goes to campaign contributions for the legislators.

[Deja Q]

7. As long as continue to blindly believe what they are told, they will NEVER

learn.

[DanCa]

2. Tin Foil hat time

Deny global warming and get rich quick! Our good christian king, who is supposed to be a steward of the earth would never do something so heinous now would he? Or is it tin foil hat time.

[JDPriestly]

3. Solar energy is the answer in the summer.

Even New York City has enough summer sunshine to keep itself cool through solar energy. We need national subsidies to fund retrofits on our roofs.

[kestrel91316]

4. Solar power doesn't need direct sunshine to work ...............

the panels still generate power with a cloud cover, but with some loss of efficiency. It is worthwhile EVERYWHERE the sun shines.

[Trillo]

6. I looked into this about 5 years ago, in California, where subsidies

were granted at the time for grid tie systems. First, I found that the sales people designed a system that wasn't enough to completely power a residence, meaning there'd still be a net draw from the grid, even though they'd lie and swear on a bible that it was. It was undersized by about 2/3 of what it needed to be. Second, even with the assumption that all subsidies that one was eligible for would be approved, which at the time came close to 50% of retail purchase cost, a system large enough to have a net outflow to the grid was over $30,000.

I concluded (just a guess), at the time, that the price of solar cells (the major part of the expense) was being artificially inflated so that there was no real competition with the existing energy conglomerate. If you're not rich, you can't afford the system even with a 50% subsidy.

Had the same larger system cost $10,000 instead, I would have borrowed the money and had it installed.

Today, I couldn't make the decision to borrow, back then, I could.

Something needs to be done to massively reduce the retail costs of the PVcells. Their manufacturing costs were vastly reduced by an advancement about 15-20 years ago utilizing lasers. That manufacturing cost reduction was NOT passed on to consumers with lower retail prices in any significant way.

[cliss]

8. Thanks for the info, Simple.

I'm in Portland, and I've been wanting to build a solar house. Friends have told me, "forget it. You'll never be able to go solar in Oregon. It's too rainy, too wet, and it's too expensive.".

I never gave up that dream. I'll start seriously looking into this.

[fasttense]

9. We had the same experience back in 2000 when we built our house.

We had full intentions of fitting it with solar panels for electricity but then we started looking at the prices. Way over our heads. Even systems that would provide about 50% of our power needs were more than we would spend in 10 years on electricity and gas.

[Sgent]

10. I've been recently sizing

A solar powered system for a house in Jamaica.

Quick figures show that after installation and transport, with no subsidies, you can do it for about $0.15/kwh. Since residential power in Jamaica costs $0.20-0.25/kwh (or more dep on energy cost), this makes since. Also the country is notiously poor in power delivery.

The home in question will not produce enought to power itself completely, but about 60% of their needs, and use the grid for th rest. The system provides two items -- its less expensive, and with a couple of batterys it substitutes for a generator for long power outages (2-3 days aren't unheard of).

For comparison purposes, power in my state is $0.065/kwh, and in CA averages $0.09/kwh last I heard.