The short answer to this question is Recurring Monthly Revenues or RMR for short. With a set customer base one needs to expand income generated by some means. Increase kw cost or decrease production cost. In the utilities case increase kw cost, increase subsidies, and increase production cost everyone wins except the customer. Investors see revenues rise, governments see tax revenues rise, customers see rates rise isn't the free market great.
But in short where does saving fit into this equation?
Kevin Fooce fooce@hotmail.com 304-751-1448 work 304-675-6687 home 304-593-2875 cell
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:39:03 -0500 From: jkotcon@wvu.edu To: dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; lesleemac1@frontier.com; nicolegood.wv@gmail.com; fyoung@mountain.net; ec@osenergy.org; jkotcon@wvu.edu; jim_scon@yahoo.com; Mary@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [EC] nuclear, gas, or coal
This is a classic example of a false choice. By trying to make this a "black or white" issue, we neglect the possibility of green or red or blue. Nothing is more futile than knowing the answer to the wrong question, and to frame the issue as gas versus nuclear is to ask the wrong question.
Electricity from a new coal-fired power plant is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-10 cents per kilowatt hour generated (and that is before a carbon tax is added). Wind power is at 7 cents or less. A new nuclear power plant is at 16 cents and rising. Solar is at 16 cents and falling, with some installations under 12 cents.
Energy conservation can save that electricity at costs of 1-2 cents per kilowatt hour. Why would anyone in their right mind invest in anything other than conservation?
Jim Kotcon
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 1/28/2011 1:54 PM >>>
Energy can definitely get complicated! I've been rabidly and actively anti-nuke for more than 2 decades - helped get a waste transport ban in WV, campaigned against it in NH - but pressure is definitely building for nuclear. Unfortunately, most of the proponents neglect life-cycle issues, which are massive, from mining and mining waste to spent fuel rod disposal. It is true that the actual act of generating the electric power - barring meltdowns and other pesky safety concerns - is cleaner for nuclear than say coal. Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
From: Nicole Good nicolegood.wv@gmail.com To: Frank Young fyoung@mountain.net; jim_scon@yahoo.com; James Kotcon
jkotcon@wvu.edu; dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; Leslee McCarty lesleemac1@frontier.com; ec@osenergy.org; Mary@yahoo.com Sent: Fri, January 28, 2011 10:38:05 AM Subject: Re: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells greater thanpreviously reported.
So here's a debate I got into last night: would you prefer natural gas or nuclear?
From what I gather, if fugitive emissions were captured and all the best technology put in place, gas would be twice as clean as coal? It's just that that's currently not the case. I'm with Frank on the support for regulation.
*Nicole
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Frank Young fyoung@mountain.net wrote:
Solution: capture the would be fugitive emissions of methane! And after all, once captured, those too are marketable.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Sconyers To: James Kotcon ; dfvet@aol.com ; DSGJr@aol.com ;
jbc329@earthlink.net ; Leslee
McCarty ; Nicole Good ; ec@osenergy.org ; Mary@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells
greater
thanpreviously reported.
Makes one wondr about all the media stories that contain the
seemingly
obligatory reference that "natural gas is much cleaner than
coal."
Jim Sconyers jim_scon@yahoo.com 304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
From: James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu
To: dfvet@aol.com; DSGJr@aol.com; jbc329@earthlink.net; Leslee
McCarty
lesleemac1@frontier.com; Nicole Good nicolegood.wv@gmail.com;
ec@osenergy.org; Mary@yahoo.com Sent: Thu, January 27, 2011 12:26:24 PM Subject: [EC] EPA: Methane emissions from Marcellus wells greater
than
previously reported.
The initial press story I saw was Tuesday, but it appears the
story may
be a couple months old by now. It suggests that methane emissions
from
Marcellus wells may be 9000 times greater than previously
estimated.
Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated by Abrahm Lustgarten ProPublica, Jan. 25, 2011, 8:34 a.m.
The United States is poised to bet its energy future on natural
gas as
a clean, plentiful fuel that can supplant coal and oil. But new research by the Environmental Protection Agency—and a growing
understanding
of the pollution associated with the full “life cycle” of gas production—is casting doubt on the assumption that gas offers a quick and easy solution to climate change.
More available at: http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-doub...
The actual EPA report (Technical Support Document: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems) was apparently released in November and is available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart-W_TSD.pdf
In particular, Tables 1 and 2 (pages 8-10) describe the updates to
the
emissions factors. Those referencing "unconventional wells"
represent
some changes that are truly astronomical. If each Marcellus well
is, in
fact, leaking 177 tons of methane per well each time they
hydro-frack,
then that makes them significant sources of emissions.
Finally, the story is explained in more lay terms in the blog at
the
site below: http://theenergycollective.com/david-lewis/48209/epa-confirms-high-natural-g...
I recommend reading all three of these, as I think this is a game changer for the natural gas industry. It certainly changes the
game on
the Wetzel air permit appeal.
Jim Kotcon
EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec