SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (36548)8/26/2009 2:53:20 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Re: "because cost per kilowatt hour is the main concern."

Of course.

But make sure that is the cost per kilowatt hour DELIVERED TO THE CUSTOMER.

Obviously, if the generating asset is a very long way from the customer, and especially if the grid connecting producer and consumer is inadequate (or even 'nonexistent'<g>) then we have big problems from a utilitarian point of view, and from an economic point of view.

The same (economic) conditions apply when we turn to considerations of the fuel supply, for example when siting coal generation assets the delivery cost of coal is a primary factor to evaluate --- though *obviously* that plays out a bit differently between wind and coal, (where we do not pay for 'delivery' of wind/fuel) <GGG>.

The grid considerations are the same in either case though.... (For example: one of the few things holding up what would be otherwise very logical siting of big coal-burning generators right on top of the massive and cheap coal supplies in the Powder River Basin, where fuel costs would be far lower then elsewhere, is that the requisite grid to carry the generated electricity to consumers is mostly nonexistent thus far....)

Same is true for much of the Great Basin's high wind belt....
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext