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-doubt
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>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-gas-leakage-rates
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>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