re: ngsa report 'flawed': awea
10 sep 1997
> "the ngsa has claimed that a national rps (a minimum
>renewable energy content requirement on electricity generators)
>would significantly raise the cost of electricity...
i seem to recall a recent pv project in which a utility was able to
hornswoggle people into paying $8 per peak watt for electricity, vs $1 (?)
per continuous watt for conventional power, in sunny michigan :-)
now i may be wrong, but it seems to me that continuous watts are worth a
lot more than peak watts, because the sun doesn't shine at night, and
you can usually turn continuous watts on and off to match loads.
>"however, none of these assertions stands up to even minimal scrutiny."
> the centerpiece of ngsa's may news release, which was widely
>distributed on capitol hill, was a contention that a national rps of
>10% would raise household electricity bills by 12%. a federal laboratory
>analyst determined that this conclusion was based in part on a simple
>arithmetical error, and in july, ngsa acknowledged that its cost estimate
>should have been 8%.
who says 12% is a significant rise, but 8% is not? is this an increase over
today's prices, or does it include the fact the us cost/kwh is now going
down under deregulation? it seems likely to keep dropping, with more
small-scale gas cogeneration, for one thing.
>...ngsa failed to address an additional critical issue--the fact that
>its estimate applied only to the cost of electricity generation,
>which makes up only a portion of the average household bill.
and such a tiny part of the national debt :-) such agglomeration seems
a useful rhetorical ploy. people seldom complain about the price of a
$1,200 radio if it's part of a $35,000 new car.
> with this correction, rader said, the cost of the rps, using
>ngsa's own numbers, drops to "only a dollar or two [per month]--a cost
>that most americans consistently say they are willing to pay for renewables."
why force the rest of us to pay extra for renewables?
> commented awea executive director randall swisher, "the tellus
>institute has carried out a much more sophisticated analysis of the costs
>of a 10% rps in the year 2010, and has found them to be approximately
>$1.30 per month for the average household.
so stealing $1.30 per month from the average household is ok, in the name of
"green power," because it will be such a small part of its income by 2010?