Socialism: Rearing its Ugly Head Again - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Skid Row Joe · #1 11-27-2010, 04:43 PM

Socialism: Rearing its Ugly Head Again

By Gerri Willis
Published November 08, 2010
| FOXBusiness

Email
Share

Socialism is rearing its ugly head again, this time in the form of energy costs!

According to the Wall Street Journal, we may all have to start paying for wind or solar energy - even if we don't use it!
Get to know this acronym: FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

According to the paper, the commission has a plan to spread out the costs for the transmission lines to bring wind and solar projects to the national grid. A price tag that is likely to top $160 billion!

Residents in states such as California, Oregon, New York and Michigan will have to pay billions of dollars more in utility bills and they won't ever see such lines!

In fact, Michigan will to pay for 20% of the $16 billion projects outside their state!

Governors in a handful of states are opposed to the plan calling it, "inappropriate to assess the cost of transmission build-out to customers that cannot make use of the facilities, or who elect not to because they can access more cost effective options."
This is beyond maddening.

Since the start of electric companies--users would pay for the service-- not everyone paying for somebody else's service.

To make matters worse: these companies are already getting handouts left and right from the federal government.

The Department of Energy reports wind and solar companies already get 20 times more subsidies than traditional power companies and more than $ 3 billion were set aside in the stimulus package for green technology.

These companies have become addicted to gifts... as most do who get them.

We're already paying for them to exist, we absolutely should not have to pay more to not use them!

LandYaghtLover · #2 11-27-2010, 04:50 PM

Odd. This already happens. FOX needs to get caught up to 2010. In my state we needed transmission line upgrades to Michigan so we could supply THEM with nuclear energy. Or something like that, I forget the details.

So what. This is like complaining that I pay state and federal taxes for a highway on the other side of the state that I will NEVER use. Or that I pay federal taxes which are spent on guns I never get to play with.

Once again, FOX abuses "journalism".

kknudson · #3 11-27-2010, 05:47 PM

Well I didn't read the details, but agree with LandYaght much of it is old news.

More importantly we do need to upgrade the core grid infrastructure. Much of it is old and aging, but more importantly doesn't really connect areas that need connecting.

This means many time an area will need extra power and have to fire up dirty, expensive coal or ?? power plants, where sometimes as little as 50 or 100 miles away there are Nuc's or whatever with excess capacity but no way to deliver where it's needed.

Pooka · #4 11-27-2010, 05:53 PM

Fox is just now hearing of FERC? FERC was created in 1977, but its' roots go back to 1920.

FERC, among other things, regulates power sales on the wholesale level between power companies. A bit of Bush ear deregulation removed some of FERC's power to do this and as a result ENRON reaped hugh profits by starving California of power so that electricity rates there would go through the roof. Since California had to pay 'emergency rates' for power, which are about 100 times more than the FERC controlled rates, there were rolling blackouts and several people died as a result of power outages.

But back to the story at hand... The nation needs a power grid and it is to all of our good for this to take place. One person who understand this is Boone Pickins, since he has been pushing for just this very thing for the last five years. Google 'The Pickins Plan' for further details.

elchivito · #5 11-27-2010, 06:30 PM

So...if you don't want to help pay for it, it's SOCIALISM, right? For example: my road got paved recently. The county made the property owners on the road a smoking offer. They said it'd cost 70K to pave it to it's end at our main artery. They'd charge us 35K and maintain it in perpetuity without it affecting our property taxes. ONE owner didn't want to pay his share, and so the rest of us shared his portion. That owner would be you wouldn't it? Crying "Socialism!! They want us all to SHARE!!"

Pooka · #6 11-27-2010, 06:42 PM

In Texas such road paving contracts were, at one time, a common thing.

If you decided not to pay there was no problem. A lien was placed on the property and when it was sold the lien was satisfied. You had to pay for the paving in front of your house if it was an east to west street and if you did not it was left dirt until the house sold and then money was pulled from the sale for the paving of the road.

But the north to south streets were still dirt, so a bond election was held to pay for paving them. It passed and the streets were paved.

elchivito · #7 11-27-2010, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka

In Texas such road paving contracts were, at one time, a common thing.

If you decided not to pay there was no problem. A lien was placed on the property and when it was sold the lien was satisfied. You had to pay for the paving in front of your house if it was an east to west street and if you did not it was left dirt until the house sold and then money was pulled from the sale for the paving of the road.

But the north to south streets were still dirt, so a bond election was held to pay for paving them. It passed and the streets were paved.

I don't believe we have the liens working here. The ANTI-Socialists who didn't want to share in the cost of paving the road got a paved road for free. Us pinkos carried their water for them.

Kuan · #8 11-27-2010, 08:52 PM

Before you start pointing fingers take a look and see where you fall in Federal dollars spent per capita. DC was highest followed by Vermont and Alaska.

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/census_states.aspx#state2

#9 11-27-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

Before you start pointing fingers take a look and see where you fall in Federal dollars spent per capita. DC was highest followed by Vermont and Alaska.

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/census_states.aspx#state2

Wow, it looks like we are #49.

This power line fight has been going on for at least a decade, I remember hearing about it when I was at one of the WI nuke plants in the late 90s.

buffa98 · #10 11-27-2010, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kknudson

Well I didn't read the details, but agree with LandYaght much of it is old news.

More importantly we do need to upgrade the core grid infrastructure. Much of it is old and aging, but more importantly doesn't really connect areas that need connecting.

This means many time an area will need extra power and have to fire up dirty, expensive coal or ?? power plants, where sometimes as little as 50 or 100 miles away there are Nuc's or whatever with excess capacity but no way to deliver where it's needed.

I agree with the upgrading part, however Coal fired plants are the cheapest to operate as far as fuel cost.(as far as air emissions) The "extra power" an area needs in normally provided by peaking stations. Coal plants are nor peaking stations. They take roughly 12-14 hours to start up from "cold".

Also with the latest emissions req out there now coal plants are cleaner that most others(other than nukes).

A simple gas turbine plane just north of me is a peaker. They can go from cold iron to full load in about 45 min.

Nuc plants are mostly base load stations- they come on line and go to full load for years on end, therefore they get paid the least....about $8 a megawatt. But they have 650-2200 MW 24/7/365.

This concludes todays lesson in power generation.

#11 11-27-2010, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffa98

Nuc plants are mostly base load stations- they come on line and go to full load for years on end, therefore they get paid the least....about $8 a megawatt. But they have 650-2200 MW 24/7/365.

Just a couple of nits; US (light water) nuke plants refuel every 18-24 months, shutting down for 20-30 days. Unlike naval reactors, they use low enrichment fuel and need to refuel more frequently.

Revenue of $0.008 per kW-hr sounds very low to me, but the revenue varies significantly between parts of the US. It also depends if we are talking about a deregulated state.

The largest single nuke units in the US are around 1200MWe.

MTUpower · #12 11-27-2010, 09:55 PM

If the USA spent half the money it sends to power plants and sent it in grants to individual homeowners to give them solar or wind generation to get off the grid we'd be free of the majority of power plants long ago. Pretty much shows that lobbying controls our money and lives in ways that are not good for us.

#13 11-27-2010, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

If the USA spent half the money it sends to power plants and sent it in grants to individual homeowners to give them solar or wind generation to get off the grid we'd be free of the majority of power plants long ago. Pretty much shows that lobbying controls our money and lives in ways that are not good for us.

Actually, not; but it's a nice thought.

Kuan · #14 11-28-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Wow, it looks like we are #49.

This power line fight has been going on for at least a decade, I remember hearing about it when I was at one of the WI nuke plants in the late 90s.

DC is #1 per cap.

What does that tell you?

LUVMBDiesels · #15 11-28-2010, 12:09 PM

Virginia is #50! WOO HOO!