Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: businessprofessor
As indicated in the linked article, the cost of this two point connection, which Texas PUC chose to go with, was $5 billion, which equates to a $4 dollar per month cost to the Texas rate payer.

The single point connection was $3 billion and the three point connection(with Houston being the third point) was $7 billion.

As for the cost of the windmills, those are the cost of the generator and are paid for/amoritized in his selling price.

I'm not sure what you mean by controls except to say that these would be included in the cost attributed to the wind farm operator, the transmission line builders, or the local provider, which, in the case of the two point connection, was Oncor.

25 posted on 08/06/2009 7:14:09 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Ben Ficklin

I would like to see a comparison of system costs with and without wind capacity. Wind power incurs substantial incremental costs for transmission and backup capacity. In addition, wind power has very low reliability especially for peak demand.

If not for massive mandates and subsidies, investors would not touch wind power in most situations. I have no problem with investors building any type of energy production as long as they bear the consequences for poor decisions. Political control of energy production means that politicians can spend taxpayer money on favored energy production without any consequences except perhaps losing elections.


30 posted on 08/06/2009 9:11:52 AM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson