Comments on: Note to Exelon: You Can’t Have It Both Ways

By: Matthew Rose

Matthew Rose — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 06:39:00 +0000

Fossil fuel industries also can diversify into alternative energy to take benefit from subsidies. These companies complaining is political BS.

By: Edward Kerr

Edward Kerr — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:48:00 +0000

I saw some data that indicates about 20/gal but, regardless,your point is well taken.

By: Edward Kerr

Edward Kerr — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:39:00 +0000

What I find to be most disturbing is the fact that the cost of the substitutes that allow Nuclear plants to be built are at the expense of the public. The profits that are derived from the sale of that electricity go into private pockets and the liabilities (think Fukashima) are, of course, another public expense. Sweet deal for Exelon.

To resist the PTC for wind is simply another example of corporate greed and irresponsibility.

By: MrEnergyCzar

MrEnergyCzar — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 04:01:00 +0000

Thanks for that info….

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 01:44:00 +0000

The EIA is projecting the cost of wind to drop about 2 cents per kWh over the next few years. Take away the PTC and the cost of wind would stay about stable.

There’s nothing projected to be cheaper than wind.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:57:00 +0000

The hidden cost of coal is close to $1 billion per day. Probably over a half billion dollars per day for health costs alone.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/full

By: MrEnergyCzar

MrEnergyCzar — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:12:00 +0000

Gasoline would be $14 per gallon if the oil companies had to pay their share of the military costs for the protection etc….

MrEnergyCzar

By: MrEnergyCzar

MrEnergyCzar — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:11:00 +0000

wind will rise without the subsidy….it will just take longer…

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 23:31:00 +0000

And Jack I’m not sure you really mean what you are saying. What about the $0.5 Billion in health cost each for coal and oil that they don’t pay, external “supported” by our government not requiring they pay. And that is just the tip of the ice. Read the last post, nuclear gets $0.07 a kwh and that doesn’t count the implied “insurance” from the government if there is a big break down.

But yes I agree lets first in first out them.
1) End all coal, oil, nuclear, this is hard there are a lot hidden in the tax code.
2) Charge the coal and oil each $0.75 billion/year for health cost.
3) Charge oil for 1/2 military budget (including VA and retirement benefits) since that is what we used them for the last 30 years.
4) Raise insurance cost to nuclear to cover risk of a big failure.

Funds raise by 1-4, fed tax refund. Split even to each full dependent.

So the youngest, nuclear start in 1947, that is 65 years ago. Winds has been on/off agin let us call it 10 years. But lets only give them 1/2 as long. So PTC on shore get 23 more years, off shore 33 more years, PV 20 years.

geothermal, enhance geothermal, OTEC, KinFlow, wave are all somewhere in the 15-33 year range.

Now that would be a level field. But it is unlikely we will get even past (1).

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 20:47:00 +0000

I can get behind that. Let’s use a ‘first in, first out’ system for eliminating subsidies.

Oil and coal have been getting subsidies for, what, 100 years? Cut them off.

Nuclear has been getting subsidies for 60 years? Cut them off.

When wind and solar have gotten 50% of what fossil fuels and nuclear received then cut them off. That seems overly fair to oil, coal and nuclear to me.

By: Cactus Jack

Cactus Jack — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 20:28:00 +0000

Tell you what. Let’s get rid of ALL subsidies, put every power source on one level playing field, and see what holds up. No power source should become part of the US portfolio if it survives only at the public trough. Not wind, nuclear, coal, hydro or any other electricity source. I think wind would do fine on its own, and should certainly be able to after 20 years of living on the dole (I am not including loan guarantees, which are not true subsidies, and I do think government has a primary role in energy R&D). The problem with the 2.2 cents/kwh PTC for wind is it is so lucrative that wind operators can actually pay others to take their power and STILL MAKE A PROFIT. Think about that for a minute — and us beleaguered taxpayers are paying the tab. The only honest argument for retaining the wind production tax credit is that wind can’t survive without it, and I don’t believe that to be true.