Below are a few letters received at EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
Letters from Readers - January 07, 2010
Thanks for publishing my opinion even though you may not agree with it. If we can have real discussions and open research on issues, the truth wins. Science never has been about consensus, it has been about proof. Let's open the discussions!
Thomas George Peschke
Nuclear's Next Round - January 11, 2010
I truly wish that there could be an objective scientific evaluation of global warming where politics, funding, etc. were put aside to address whether it is truly as serious as some would like us to believe or if it is not. This involves answering the question whether global warming truly exists and if it is, is it man-made? If it is man-made can we realistically do anything to make a difference and most importantly at what cost?
That aside I have been a proponent of nuclear power for over 40 years and if it takes global warming -- whether man-made or not -- to finally open the door for more nuclear power plants then so be it!
People need to stop fooling themselves if they think that we can ever produce enough energy to replace coal, oil and natural gas with wind, sun, geothermal and biofuels. It just won't happen and we couldn't afford to pay for the systems to get the power to the users if we could. They say "We need action faster than that." Regarding nuclear power plants -- well people are kidding themselves if they think this can be done faster with wind, sun, geothermal and biofuels.
There is no quick fix other than the "politically" correct fix of this crazy notion of "green energy" -- without CO2, which they want to control now, the green plants won't survive!
Bruce Mitchell
I can well understand why Japan and maybe even France would opt for nuclear power. Japan has few resources of its own, but a nation like the United States has many resources very much safer and less expensive than nuclear. When we know what to do with the waste, when we can reduce the potential risk and when it becomes less expensive to build nuclear power generation perhaps then it would be prudent to build nuclear plants, until then we have probably more than 1,000 years supply of coal. Let's figure out what to do with coal first.
Joe Langenberg
I had hoped that you would, after the many discussions we've had over the years, have included at least some analysis of the likely cost of new nuclear plants in your recent piece instead of simply citing nuclear industry propaganda.
I urge you to write a piece on the findings of the Keystone Fact Finding report and the MIT Future of Nuclear report, as well as review the news literature regarding the actual cost of new nuclear plants and associated delays. The Finnish Olkiluoto plant, one of the furthest along of the new round of plants, is years behind schedule and billions of euros over budget. The Wall Street Journal reported in May of 2008 that estimates of the cost of new nuclear plants were as high as $12 billion, double to quadruple what initial estimates had been.
MidAmerican canceled a planned Idaho merchant nuclear power plant because it realized the economics simply don't work.
And this even after the federal government offers a production tax credit for ten years (better than wind power gets), Price-Anderson risk insurance, $18.5 billion in loan guarantees and who knows what other subsidies.
When will we realize that nuclear power simply can't stand on its own two feet and that energy efficiency and baseload renewables are a far better investment option and target for government support (if there is to be government support)?
Tam Hunt, J.D.
Community Renewable Solutions, LLC
Reconsidering Restructuring - January 13, 2010
You make good points. However, I do not believe you should focus only on large states. Montana attempted to deregulate its market in 1997. While suppliers arrived to serve large customers, small commercial and residential customers had no alternative to what was then called default supply. In 2007, Montana reversed course, eliminated choice for those who had not chosen an alternative supplier, and authorized rate-based generation. A review of what has happened in Montana and other states should also inform the discussion about electricity deregulation.
Al Brogan
Can someone explain how deregulation and renewable mandates work together? If Pittsburg has 14 retailers and had a renewable mandate, would each of the 14 retailers be required to meet the mandate individually? If not and renewables are more expensive, how is the extra cost distributed among the 14?
David Dixon
Energy Commentator
While we agree with the central point in your recent opinion piece (Reconsidering Restructuring, Jan. 13, 2010) that restructuring the electric market has not been at the forefront of the national energy debate, there are several important facts about the competitive electric market in Texas that help show how customers benefit.
Texas' competitive electric market was designed to establish efficient pricing for electricity service. In addition, it has successfully given customers more choices in the market, maintained electric reliability and spurred investment in needed generation.
Consumers in Texas' competitive electric market can choose from a variety of price plans and other options that fit their needs, including offers as low as 8.3 cents/kilowatt-hour. This is much lower than the average price of 10.6 cents/kilowatt-hour these same Texans paid prior to the start of competitive choice in December 2001. Texans in competitive areas can choose lower electric prices today even though natural gas prices have more than doubled over the same time.
At the same time, many states without competitive markets struggle to attract investment to replace older power plants. And, regardless of market model, consumers in states that rely more heavily on cheaper coal power, such as Oklahoma and New Mexico, have tended to have relatively low electric prices.
We believe that giving consumers choice and control to choose a plan and provider is one of the most important consumer protections around -- and one of the major benefits of the competitive electric market.
John Fainter
President and CEO
Association of Electric Companies of Texas
I was very glad to see this topic discussed. I believe it is far more significant than commonly realized and, by the way, is a much broader topic than was treated here.
In your discussion of electricity prices as affected by competition or its lack, you mentioned electricity storage in passing. It's probably true that because electricity cannot be stored, its marketers have more power to "massage prices," and so it's worth going deeper and seeing how much restructuring is still needed for grid-scale storage to get started.
As an individual investor who has decided to focus on opportunities in the grid (since no matter which renewable generation technologies succeed, grid innovations will be needed) I am repeatedly frustrated by shovel-ready storage projects that are tariff-unready. Frequency regulation, the first killer app of grid-scale storage is a perfect example, and Beacon Power Corp, the incredibly innovative flywheel maker, has virtually lost its first-mover advantage due to years of delays at the DOE and lack of real progress at the regulatory level, despite years of lip service. The problem seems to be that, notwithstanding FERC's now (in)famous Order 890, mandating years ago that grid operators open themselves to "non-generation resources," they're still resisting and playing dumb when it comes to integrating storage on the grid.
Please visit restructuring (in this broad sense) again and again, as it's a policy issue of the highest importance. Storage is likely to be more critical both to renewable generation and to lower retail electricity prices, but the balkanized grid industry needs active federal pressure to make it happen.
John L. Burch
China's Leap - January 15, 2010
Unfortunately this administration is so in bed with special interest groups and unions that we may never be able to compete with China. We just lost thousands of jobs building solar panels here in the U.S. due to the expense of creation. Those jobs have been moved to China. What we are doing today in America is absolutely phenomenal for other countries that are looking to surpass the U.S. I am not saying it started with this new group in Washington, but it is at an accelerated pace. All I am saying is, the jobs that move from the U.S. to China will inhibit our growth. Growth is increased revenue in tax dollars that could be used to support even more green energy production.
Jess Briggs
I was very interested to hear how well China is doing with wind energy. However, I think it is necessary to put it in perspective. A recent article in Power Magazine stated that Germany is the leader in wind power and it has 20 percent of its total installed generating capacity in wind energy. However, according to the article the output of Germany's wind industry is about 6 percent of total output. This would be reasonable as the average capacity factor of wind farms is 30-35 percent.
It is important to remember that what we are installing and what we can expect to get in renewable energy is very different. Just because we have installed 15-20 percent wind or solar capacity it is important to remember that if we get 6-7 percent of our actual generated power from renewables we will be very lucky. Let's learn from the rest of the world and not be surprised by the great difference between installed capacity and generated capacity from renewable sources.
Philip T. Flowers, P.E.
Fast Tracking Green Projects - January 18, 2010
First let me clearly state that I question that "the nation has clearly stated that growing its green energy portfolio is a priority". Personally, I think most of it is a bunch of politically correct bull perpetuated by the hoax of man-made global warming. I don't think any public electric utility would even consider any of these "green" projects based solely on a return-on-investment analysis.
Specifically, I question the viability of wind farms. I have tried to find an actual return-on-investment analysis of any of these without success. I have labored through detailed reports of maintenance issues and reliability problems, neighbor noise complaints, and aesthetic concerns. But, I have not found a straight forward return-on-investment analysis. I have seen vendor projections (for what they're worth).
My suspicion is that these projects are not cost effective, that if it were not for government subsidies they (wind farms) wouldn't exist. I'm convinced that when all of the dust clears and the subsidies end, the electric consumer will be left with a much more expensive, less reliable kilowatt.
If you can straighten me out on this, I would certainly appreciate it.
W.C. Metzner
Applied Principles
Good questions here and it depends on whom you approach and their methods. Many utilities do consider green investments good ones, although they are subsidized. But then again, so are other forms of energy. It is not an easy question. But the point is: green energy is a national priority, which is why there is such a push to build more of it, albeit with federal subsidies. -Ken
Respond to the editor.