Replies

As to my supposed simplistic approach, and your guessing at doubling the cost, I can only comment that I have actually performed cost analysis for a major western utility.

What drives cost is the production of new power plants. This would be driven by item number four in several areas until such plants were constructed. Power plants have a long life cycle and can begin to charge for electricity as soon as production has started.

It would also have the net effect of extending the life of the long haul power lines as less power would need to be moved long distances. It would further have a savings in the elimination of power loss that happens when you try to push power long distances. In case you have not noticed, I'm an advocate of smaller power plants but more in number.

So other than the increase in power production facilities the only real capital investment would be the creation of redundant grids at the local level. This is a long term capital improvement and has a working lifespan of about 25 years.

The net of this by taking a look across three different locations is that the price of electricity for the consumer would go up about 20% in most areas. Less in some areas (Texas comes to mind) more, perhaps 30% to 35% in other areas (LA and NY).

Of course I would be willing to listen to your cost analysis methodology.

Sorry, but I'm not going to play this simple little game -

- I don't think you have ANY concept of how much reliabilty we have in the current 'systems' around the country -

- nor do you have any idea of the plethora of CIRCUMSTANCES that arise to 'take down a system' as has heppened in past years; in both the east coast and the he west coast grids; proposing SOLUTIONS without knowing the specific PROBLEMS (both human/machine and the combo of the two) is simply unfocused conjecture and a total waste of my time ...

The net of this by taking a look across three different locations is that the price of electricity for the consumer would go up about 20% in most areas. Less in some areas (Texas comes to mind) more, perhaps 30% to 35% in other areas (LA and NY).

Why, exactly, would Texas want in on this plan? Texas is already self sufficient and doesn't want or need fedeal regs