Because it’s run by idiots:
Having required state utilities to generate 20 percent of their electricity from more expensive wind sources (a similar program in Denmark has driven power rates to 30 cents per kWh compared with Michigan’s current 8.5 cents), Democrats now may require the same utilities to cut their bills by 20 percent.
You heard that right: Granholm will require utilities to provide costlier energy — and cap the prices customers pay for it. Does anyone in the Michigan Democratic party know basic economics? They plan to artificially prop up demand at the same time as they artificially restrict supply: the only way to square that circle is to ration the product.
California, here we come! Can you say “rolling blackouts?”
Of course, it will continue until Michigan voters stop reelecting such creatures.
I find it telling that the president thinks that she’s “one of the best governors in the country.” Because he’s an economic ignoramus as well.
That’s what I love: the majority has elected teh fools who’ve trashed California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, and Michigan… becasue they promised to ‘fix what’s wrong’ with America’s economy.
Evidently, that only is true if “what’s wrong” includes solvency, success, and wealth.
Poverty: What You Get for Electing Democrats!
LBJ has a “War on Poverty”. President Obama and the Democratic Party now have a “War on Prosperity”.
Well, no. They’ll run the power companies into bankruptcy and then nationalize them so any gaps between revenue and expenses will be covered out of the general fund.
That is the problem when you steal TRILLIONS (I still can’t believe the numbers) any lack in economic wisdom can be papered over til the next election as long as you have enough stupid voters.
Cap and Trade: coming to your state soon!
I’m starting to feel like the tree of liberty needs a good watering.
Hey it worked in CA er…wait. But it’s green power!!!
Uh, Rand, everything is expensive in Denmark. They are known as one of the most highly taxed countries in all of Europe. That should be telling you something. Besides, most of the electricity in Denmark does not come from wind, but coal, despite the hype. Did I mention they have oil & gas deposits as well?
I do not see what is the issue with wind power here. Wind power is an economically viable competitor to gas and nuclear per kWh. Up to a point. This assumes you are exploiting areas with high wind resources.
Of course it makes no sense to cut prices prior to making a major infrastructure investment. That would happen using any energy generating technology.
I do not see what is the issue with wind power here. Wind power is an economically viable competitor to gas and nuclear per kWh. Up to a point.
Yes, up to a point. It is economically insane to mandate that an arbitrary percentage of power come from it, particularly when you also demand that the price be low.
PS: To see what I am talking about regarding energy prices in the EU, take a look at this:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-080/EN/KS-SF-07-080-EN.PDF
Page 3, Graph 3. Notice which one has the most taxes of them all…
Democrats in a nutshell: Claim religous certainty that the climate is changing day by day; then demand the use of an energy resource that… depends on a stable climate.
Hey, and did they mention that they were going to make the rest of America as safe as Washington D.C; as prosperous as Los Angeles; and as racially-tolerant as Detroit?
Godzilla,
Wind is competitive with nuclear and gas (in cost per kwh) only if we make two assumptions:
1) The area we are generating the power in has a sufficiency of wind resources
2) The wind keeps blowing constantly
While (1) can be finessed (there are a sufficiency of wind-rich areas, though we might argue about transport costs), (2) is not so easily ignored. Only nuclear and fossil fuels (at this time) make useful baseload generators, while wind and solar remain relegated to the boutique power niche.
As a minor point, the material costs for wind generators can actually exceed those for fossil fuels (and some nuclear designs), and the environmental impact is considerable.
In short, your proposal is full of wind…
The environmental impact is considerable for any meaningful energy generation scheme. Besides, nothing can be worse than coal regarding environmental impact, which is what is used most of the time, in most places, anyway. Coal has one virtue. It is cheap.
Solar can be a baseload generator. Working prototypes were made (by Boeing of all people) using molten salts for thermal energy storage. With a global grid, the Sun is always shining somewhere. Or you can do like in Nevada Solar One and have a hybrid system where you use solar when possible and have gas as a backup the rest of the time. You can use the same turbines so it comes out cheap.
I just discovered this blogsite. It and its denizens seem somewhat bizarre, quirky, and contrarian. I feel right at home.
Anyhoo, the real place for solar is not the massive, multi square miles complexes of collectors that yoou see here and there in the Southwest, and that The One wants more of. If the gummint really wanted to kick-start solar, they would offer a direct tax credit for every individual homeowner and business that installed a system utilizing thin-film solar panels or shingles. If a substantial percentage of individual homes and businesses could cut their energy consumption by just 10 or 15 percent as a result, think of how much less fossil fuels would need to be used as a result. This result would dwarf any potential savings from all the gigantic wind and solar farms they envision.
George, decentralized energy production is always a preferred objective — but of course no one in government has ever been able to find “decentralize” in their dictionaries.
Godzilla…
We agree that coal is a terrible choice, but there is one that is worse…wishful thinking. Solar, wind, etc. simply do not have the potential of providing any significant amount of electrical power in the short- to mid-term, and the options for the long-term are speculative at best. I have seen the molten-salts approach for storing energy (compressed air, pumping water, and several other innovative ideas have been proposed as well), but these are serious constricted at best (none of them offer particularly high efficiencies, which translates into a serious loss rate and thus the need for substantial redundant capacity), and all depend upon very high capital investment. The notion of a global grid (to make use of solar generation wherever it is shining) is yet another example of wishful thinking at its worst. Solar can possibly be a useful niche contributor, but what solar is not, and by definition cannot be, is a baseload generator, no matter how much moonshine you offer up.
I am a supporter of nuclear (any number of options) to replace coal and nat gas in the mid-term, hopefully with advanced technologies for the long-term. These are expensive, require substantial commitment over time, and yes, do have significant environmental impact. With that said, it is better than fossil fuels…