Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (36556)	8/26/2009 3:29:43 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 71588

Re: "Good point that transmission costs also have to be included" That is why the vast majority of all of our generating assets are located close to big population centers --- where their customers are. This reduces what would otherwise be crippling line losses that affect deliverability of electricity supply... (and we really don't have anything like a 'national grid' at all. What we actually have is a series of mostly antiquated regional or State power grids that are but loosely interconnected on the national level.) The complementary point I made was that delivery costs of fuel (especially with coal, a bulky and weighty energy source) also factor into plants siting. This is one logical reason why coal-produced electricity costs more in Florida (a State with no indigenous supply of coal, and a fairly expensive railroad-way from the closest coal fields in Appalachia, or by barge or dry freighter from overseas or from Wyoming supply) then it does in Kentucky or Illinois or Wyoming or Ohio or New York or Pennsylvania where they are very close to coal fields and cheaper supply.... Ambient sunlight's average year-round intensity, and wind's average availability, also vary WIDELY across our States....